Patch Preview Questions.

[DUEL Apple]

Apology accepted. I was in a rush adding them to the main post since a player asked for clarification and edited "anyone" to "a Warlord" but forgot to add Renegade Barons. The change to the main post wouldn't have changed the fact that both Warlords and Renegades can be used as stated by G's updated later in the thread. It was just an error in wording and not a complete removal from the rules.

I'm sorry for any confusion.

[Artemus Kurgen]

Apology accepted. I was in a rush adding them to the main post since a player asked for clarification and edited "anyone" to "a Warlord" but forgot to add Renegade Barons. The change to the main post wouldn't have changed the fact that both Warlords and Renegades can be used as stated by G's updated later in the thread. It was just an error in wording and not a complete removal from the rules.

I'm sorry for any confusion.

Why was "anyone" changed to only Baron and Warlord? That really reduces the ability for challenges to be interesting. No out of left field Champions.

[G]

Apology accepted. I was in a rush adding them to the main post since a player asked for clarification and edited "anyone" to "a Warlord" but forgot to add Renegade Barons. The change to the main post wouldn't have changed the fact that both Warlords and Renegades can be used as stated by G's updated later in the thread. It was just an error in wording and not a complete removal from the rules.

I'm sorry for any confusion.

Why was "anyone" changed to only Baron and Warlord? That really reduces the ability for challenges to be interesting. No out of left field Champions.

Question 7: * When Challenging the Overlord, The Overlord has the right to appoint anyone as champion to test the challenger provided they appear on the current standings.
* Renegade Barons have the ability to defend a Warlords right to challenge Barons or Overlord.
* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint anyone as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.
* Warlords are unable to appoint a champion for any tests.

Historically, only the Overlord could choose anyone of any rank. Challenging Barons could only choose a Warlord as their champion. I believe that should remain unchanged. Overlord anyone. Challenging Baron a Warlord.

This is an acceptable point. We will be changing it to limit the Baron's choices to Warlord only. Also, see response to Question 2.

I had, at one point, allowed a Warlord and Renegade Baron be allowed to choose anyone to be their champion. But in a discussion with one of those questions it was ultimately decides that for Overlord benefit, only they get to choose anyone and Renegade Barons only are allowed to choose Warlords to champion them in a challenge and Warlords are limited to Renegade Barons only. Ultimately, there had to be unique benefits to being Overlord. If everyone has the same powers, the top title isn't worth anything.

The Overlord still has the ability to choose anyone as champion, providing they appear on the standings. For Renegade Barons, the original rule was written as follows: ""Right of Challenge": Renegades may appoint only a warlord champion IF the Overlord elects to use the "Test of Worthiness" against them. The appointed champion may decline."

Thus, the Renegade Baron had only ever been allowed to choose a Warlord to champion them. Warlords did not have that right. So ultimately, the rule remains unchanged. Overlord can choose anyone on the standings, Renegades can choose only another Renegade baron or Warlord, and a Warlord can choose no one, but a Renegade Baron can step in for them if tested.

[Jake]

Thus, the Renegade Baron had only ever been allowed to choose a Warlord to champion them. Warlords did not have that right. So ultimately, the rule remains unchanged. Overlord can choose anyone on the standings, Renegades can choose only another Renegade baron or Warlord, and a Warlord can choose no one, but a Renegade Baron can step in for them if tested.

This.

Edit for clarity: This is accurate to my understanding as well.

[PrlUnicorn]

Thus, the Renegade Baron had only ever been allowed to choose a Warlord to champion them. Warlords did not have that right. So ultimately, the rule remains unchanged. Overlord can choose anyone on the standings, Renegades can choose only another Renegade baron or Warlord, and a Warlord can choose no one, but a Renegade Baron can step in for them if tested.

This.

Yes, this is phrase being questioned since I quoted in my own unedited post:

* When Challenging the Overlord, The Overlord has the right to appoint anyone as champion to test the challenger provided they appear on the current standings.
* Renegade Barons have the ability to defend a Warlords right to challenge Barons or Overlord.
* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint anyone as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.
* Warlords are unable to appoint a champion for any tests.

Emphasis mine.



In rereading the clarifications posted 02 Sep 2014 20:09 I found this:

Question 2: Renegade Barons have the ability to defend a Warlords right to challenge Barons or Overlord.
* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint anyone as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.

Does this overwrite the current rule that says a renegade has precedence over another renegade's champion?
"Renegade intercession takes priority over a Renegade Baron's champion. The first Renegade Baron to state intention to intercede shall have precedence. Though not a requirement, the time and date of the sending of a letter delivered to the Standings Keeper declaring the Baron's intention to intercede shall be the only proof accepted on this issue."

It does.


Renegade Barons may only choose a Warlord or another Renegade Baron as a champion in a test from the Overlord. Warlords do not get to choose a champion, but a Renegade Baron may step in on their behalf.

I do have to question this since I read the rules changes when they went into effect and did not notice that the rule regarding a Renegade having the right to appoint anyone had changed. I also find it a bit odd that Jake, who generally keeps careful track of these discussions, also seems to be questioning this. I would appreciate his input there since I'm not a mindreader and won't presume to speak for him.

I do find it interesting that time was found to update that particular rule point regarding Renegades, yet, as of today the changes regarding the Barons Council which should be updated to read:

Overlord and Baron Challenges and the Council

* A Barons Council will no longer be required to provide votes / judgment on challenge issues.
* There is a 30 Minute leeway given to duelists in a challenge to arrive after the scheduled time. (I.E. Challenge is scheduled at 8pm, you have until 8:30 before the following rules commence)
* If an Overlord, Baron, or Challenger fail to arrive to at the scheduled challenge time, they are given 7 days to complete the challenge. No extensions beyond this will be given. Should one fail to show at the second appointed time, the missing party or parties will be stripped of their title/grant.
* If the Overlord is stripped while under challenge, the Senior most Baron will defend it.
If defended, the title will go to a Baron's Tournament. This is the only tournament allowed to decide the Overlord.
* If a Baron is stripped while under challenge, the Senior most Baron will defend it.
If defended, the title will go to a Tournament decided by the Administrative Staff.

Have not:

Click the image to enlarge.

Surely, I can't be the only one that finds the careful pointing out of rule regarding a Renegade's champion timely, since such a challenge will be taking place this week, yet there is a failure to have updated other rules in this patch notice. Why just edit and point out one? Why not do them all? Players have been reading we'll get around to it for some time now. Someone got around to one, why not the rest? Something smells wrong about it.

[Jake]

I do have to question this since I read the rules changes when they went into effect and did not notice that the rule regarding a Renegade having the right to appoint anyone had changed. I also find it a bit odd that Jake, who generally keeps careful track of these discussions, also seems to be questioning this. I would appreciate his input there since I'm not a mindreader and won't presume to speak for him.

I'm not questioning it...now. I did when it was originally posted. I reminded G (via IM) that Renegades had always been limited to selecting Warlords as their champion. Being able to select a champion of any rank was an Overlord thing (one of the few the Overlord gets just for themselves). I believe G agreed (or just trusted my memory), so, the rule revisions got corrected to reflect that.

The rules language being "simplified" (to refer to everything as a Test) does remove a possible interaction.

Previously:

A Renegade Baron could challenge the Overlord.
Overlord had the choice of naming a champion, of any rank, to apply the Test of Worthiness.
If the Overlord applied the Test, then the Renegade Baron could name a Warlord champion of their own.
Parallel to that, another Renegade Baron could Intercede on their behalf.
A Renegade Baron interceding took precedence, so, even if a challenging Baron named a Warlord champion, another Renegade Baron could preempt them.

The current rule revision more or less states that a challenging Baron can name a Warlord OR a fellow Renegade Baron as their champion.

It's a small semantic difference, for a scenario that I believe has only happened once.

(Tangentially, a Warlord challenging the Overlord was never able to name a champion, but a Renegade Baron could intervene on their behalf. That hasn't changed with the rules revision.)

The only other real difference is the requirement that the champion be active on the standings. This may have always been the *intent* of the champion rule, but since it was not explicitly spelled out this is what allowed Anubis to name Deathlord as his champion. (Deathlord had only ever fought in TDL, and had no rank in DoS.)

I have no grief with the requirement that a champion must appear on the standings in order to be chosen.

That help?

[G]

I do have to question this since I read the rules changes when they went into effect and did not notice that the rule regarding a Renegade having the right to appoint anyone had changed. I also find it a bit odd that Jake, who generally keeps careful track of these discussions, also seems to be questioning this. I would appreciate his input there since I'm not a mindreader and won't presume to speak for him.

I'm not questioning it...now. I did when it was originally posted. I reminded G (via IM) that Renegades had always been limited to selecting Warlords as their champion. Being able to select a champion of any rank was an Overlord thing (one of the few the Overlord gets just for themselves). I believe G agreed (or just trusted my memory), so, the rule revisions got corrected to reflect that.

I think it was actually over E-Mail, though we might have discussed it in IM as well. I do remember you brought it up and because of that, we fixed it to how it currently reads similar to what it always has. You were the one who said you believed the Overlord should have more perks than the Renegade in regards to champions and I agreed with you. It was a sensible solution.

The rules language being "simplified" (to refer to everything as a Test) does remove a possible interaction.

Previously:

A Renegade Baron could challenge the Overlord.
Overlord had the choice of naming a champion, of any rank, to apply the Test of Worthiness.
If the Overlord applied the Test, then the Renegade Baron could name a Warlord champion of their own.
Parallel to that, another Renegade Baron could Intercede on their behalf.
A Renegade Baron interceding took precedence, so, even if a challenging Baron named a Warlord champion, another Renegade Baron could preempt them.

The current rule revision more or less states that a challenging Baron can name a Warlord OR a fellow Renegade Baron as their champion.

It's a small semantic difference, for a scenario that I believe has only happened once.

(Tangentially, a Warlord challenging the Overlord was never able to name a champion, but a Renegade Baron could intervene on their behalf. That hasn't changed with the rules revision.)

Yes. The only difference is that the Renegade Baron may name another Renegade Baron as a champion. The effect on challenges is minimal, really.

The only other real difference is the requirement that the champion be active on the standings. This may have always been the *intent* of the champion rule, but since it was not explicitly spelled out this is what allowed Anubis to name Deathlord as his champion. (Deathlord had only ever fought in TDL, and had no rank in DoS.)

I have no grief with the requirement that a champion must appear on the standings in order to be chosen.

That help?

I hope it does!

Jake, thank you very much for your response. I appreciate that you got to it before I did, I didn't want to speak for you. Thanks again.

_______________________________

Apple Edit: Example of how I can edit a post and not cause a time-stamp change. This is the reason why I made a new post about the edit. That way players would know.

I can also turn off G's sig.

[PrlUnicorn]

Thanks, Jake!

I do understanding the reasoning behind it, but what I am questioning is the following:
The timing and this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

This a Google cached page of the first page of this thread. Despite the date of Nov 13, 2014 being on there, G's first post reads:

* When Challenging the Overlord, The Overlord has the right to appoint anyone as champion to test the challenger provided they appear on the current standings.
* Renegade Barons have the ability to defend a Warlords right to challenge Barons or Overlord.
* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint anyone as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.
* Warlords are unable to appoint a champion for any tests.
*A duelist must appear on the standings in order to issue a challenge. This includes any special grants issued including the Overlord Grant.

The current post is still marked with the notation of:
Last edited by G on Thu Sep 25, 2014 10:50 pm; edited 2 times in total

and reads:
* When Challenging the Overlord, The Overlord has the right to appoint anyone as champion to test the challenger provided they appear on the current standings.
* Renegade Barons have the ability to defend a Warlords right to challenge Barons or Overlord.
* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint a Warlord or another Renegade Baron as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.
* Warlords are unable to appoint a champion for any tests.
*A duelist must appear on the standings in order to issue a challenge. This includes any special grants issued including the Overlord Grant.

G did cover this change in the post dated September 2, 2014 with:

Question 2: Renegade Barons have the ability to defend a Warlords right to challenge Barons or Overlord.
* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint anyone as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.

Does this overwrite the current rule that says a renegade has precedence over another renegade's champion?
"Renegade intercession takes priority over a Renegade Baron's champion. The first Renegade Baron to state intention to intercede shall have precedence. Though not a requirement, the time and date of the sending of a letter delivered to the Standings Keeper declaring the Baron's intention to intercede shall be the only proof accepted on this issue."

It does.

Renegade Barons may only choose a Warlord or another Renegade Baron as a champion in a test from the Overlord. Warlords do not get to choose a champion, but a Renegade Baron may step in on their behalf.

Today is 17 November, that cache was dated 13 November and reflects a change from the time of G's last edit. Please, someone explain why there is a change in the post's content, based on the cached page, but not an update on the edit marker. Thank you.

In case the cache updates in the meantime:

[G]

I have noticed that when admins make edits to threads, there usually isn't a time stamp saying "Last edit made..."

Like, if Jake were to go in and edit a thread of mine, there would be no mention of that change posted.

Alternatively, if I made an edit on a post I made, it will show the change.

In this case, Apple, who is a moderator of the DoS board, made an edit to a post I made, with my permission because it was an Incredibly Simple Fix to a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place, the adding of "And renegade barons." So, therefore, the edit wasn't listed at the bottom of having been edited. That's a board thing, not a person thing.

You can see an example of this in the below quoted sample from my post in response to Jake. This edit issue is why Apple or myself will make a following post saying "Edited to reflect..." and some such.

_______________________________

Apple Edit: Example of how I can edit a post and not cause a time-stamp change. This is the reason why I made a new post about the edit. That way players would know.

I can also turn off G's sig.

[PrlUnicorn]

I can see that editing info, folks, it still does not explain why that amended and rescinded change to the rules has just now been pointedly showcased in the main post with a few days before Art, a Renegade Baron's, challenge to the Overlord. It should have been done in G's previous update to the main post as that's where most players would and should have been looking for it. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation for that to have been done when the clarifications were made.

I believe Morgan's player brought up similar concerns regarding the need to have all the rules, that we are expected to adhere to, updated and in the same place rather than having bits and pieces in various places. That would include people that had been following the list in your primary post, edited after your clarification, not including the rule Apple just updated there, and accepting those things as changes. At the time, I believe the reasoning of time not being available, etc. was given as to why things were not done.

You mean other than the fact those changes were there from the get go in G's updated follow up post before this took effect? I'd say it was a matter of making sure the main post aligned with the updates. Just saying

I would have agreed with that, Claire, if updates were done on the rules page once they were finalized, but they were not. How much more time would it have taken Apple or the responsible party to update that page as opposed to the update post today?

By the way, who is responsible for making the updates on the DoS rules page?

[G]

I can see that editing info, folks, it still does not explain why that amended and rescinded change to the rules has just now been pointedly showcased in the main post with a few days before Art, a Renegade Baron's, challenge to the Overlord. It should have been done in G's previous update to the main post as that's where most players would and should have been looking for it. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation for that to have been done when the clarifications were made.

If you can see the edit, which you previously said you could not see a note saying there was an edit, and you read the thread in its entirety, you would know WHY there was a change, which was NOT a change, but a clarification. As to why it happened so close to Art's challenge, it's because That is when a Player, NOT involved in the challenge, brought it to OUR attention.

You seem to be trying to pick a fight where there is none. The DoS OOC page is where all the updates are currently occurring. The Rules Page is not the end all be all of the rules. If it were, there would be no need to post on the DoS OOC forum about rules changes, just "this is changed, go here!" And that would be it.

If I could wave my hand and just have the Rules Page updated, believe me I would. It's a lot of going through code, finding the right spots, and making changes and it is not an easy task. We also don't have access to FTP to the website directly to make the necessary changes. Add to that if you want to pay me a good bit of cash to make these updates, I'll get them done within a week or so, instead of doing other things on my time.

It's not difficult at all to look at the OOC page and see what the updates are. It's also easy to shoot me or Apple a PM and ask for clarifications on something if you're not sure.

If anyone has a question on the rules, or the rules update that you can check easily on the OOC forums that is posted in the top part of that folder, you can contact either me or Apple. If you don't trust us, Contact Jake or Amal.

Unless there is something else to respond to other than pointless nitpicking, such as further rules clarification, there is no more need for me to respond to this thread.

[Jake]

Question 2: Renegade Barons have the ability to defend a Warlords right to challenge Barons or Overlord.
* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint anyone as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.

Does this overwrite the current rule that says a renegade has precedence over another renegade's champion?
"Renegade intercession takes priority over a Renegade Baron's champion. The first Renegade Baron to state intention to intercede shall have precedence. Though not a requirement, the time and date of the sending of a letter delivered to the Standings Keeper declaring the Baron's intention to intercede shall be the only proof accepted on this issue."

It does.

Renegade Barons may only choose a Warlord or another Renegade Baron as a champion in a test from the Overlord. Warlords do not get to choose a champion, but a Renegade Baron may step in on their behalf.

Regardless of when the primary post was edited, G's clarification was posted back on Sep 2nd. Constructive notice of the correction has existed since then. (His A was basically a response to my email/IM Q).

Yes, the primary post probably should have been updated sooner, but it doesn't change the fact that G had already amended the rule in his Sep 2nd update. (ETA: If he hadn't addressed it, I would have been nagging him about it.)

The main rules page *should* be updated. At present, only Amal or Xeno can do that. However, the DOS OOC forum is the place where Apple and G can more proactively post updates and should be relied upon as the "most up to date info".

I am sure that when G is able to get the main rules page updated, a notice will be posted in the DoS OOC forum to that effect.

(ETA: G and I are talking about a possible solution for keeping the main rules more easily updated.)

[PrlUnicorn]

You seem to be trying to pick a fight where there is none. The DoS OOC page is where all the updates are currently occurring. The Rules Page is not the end all be all of the rules. If it were, there would be no need to post on the DoS OOC forum about rules changes, just "this is changed, go here!" And that would be it.

I'm not looking to pick a fight, I'm looking for straight answers. You've known me long enough to know that's how I am.

If I could wave my hand and just have the Rules Page updated, believe me I would. It's a lot of going through code, finding the right spots, and making changes and it is not an easy task. We also don't have access to FTP to the website directly to make the necessary changes. Add to that if you want to pay me a good bit of cash to make these updates, I'll get them done within a week or so, instead of doing other things on my time.

No FTP access is a reasonable answer. No cash, but I can make and send you couple of pounds of my famous/infamous homemade fudge for one full update!

Yes, the primary post probably should have been updated sooner, but it doesn't change the fact that G had already amended the rule in his Sep 2nd update. (ETA: If he hadn't addressed it, I would have been nagging him about it.)

The main rules page *should* be updated. At present, only Amal or Xeno can do that. However, the DOS OOC forum is the place where Apple and G can more proactively post updates and should be relied upon as the "most up to date info".

I am sure that when G is able to get the main rules page updated, a notice will be posted in the DoS OOC forum to that effect.

(ETA: G and I are talking about a possible solution for keeping the main rules more easily updated.)

Thank you, Jake. That's what I wanted to know.

Since the actual DoS rules page is difficult for DoS Staff to maintain without Amal and Xeno's assistance, I'd like to make the following suggestions:
1: Have a sticky/announcement post with the full list of rules listed in it. Have it locked so it is only accessible to DoS Staff for editing and noting amendments.
OR
2: Have an addendum thread for finalized rules, also locked and made a sticky/announcement thread, and have it linked from the existing rules page with the following on the main page: These rules were updated on MM/DD/YYYY, please see (thread link) for any recent changes.

[Jake]

Since the actual DoS rules page is difficult for DoS Staff to maintain without Amal and Xeno's assistance, I'd like to make the following suggestions:
1: Have a sticky/announcement post with the full list of rules listed in it. Have it locked so it is only accessible to DoS Staff for editing and noting amendments.
OR
2: Have an addendum thread for finalized rules, also locked and made a sticky/announcement thread, and have it linked from the existing rules page with the following on the main page: These rules were updated on MM/DD/YYYY, please see (thread link) for any recent changes.

Actually, that's pretty close to what I was discussing with G.

[The Dread Ship Lollipop]

I also suggest a change log posted with date/timestamps to show what was changed and for what reason (grammar, clarity, spelling, punctuation, whatever).