Kalamere wrote:The 13 week ruling wasn't so much a rule change as it was a rule clarification. As Queen wrote, the initial version of the rule was vague
Queen wrote:the rule wrote:* You are required to duel -ONCE- every cycle to continue to gain these rights.
That is how the rule previously read which could be interpreted two ways: once in a cycle's length (aka x weeks) or once *per* cycle meaning if you get a duel in Week 12 of this cycle, starting Week 1 of the next you have not met your requirements for Challenge Rights. This is no doubt why the change was made and I think it makes perfect sense, less questions.
Clearing up an obvious ambiguity, even if that involves a moderate reworking to make the most sense, isn't the same as a new rule and by necessity should be handled differently than a sweeping change like the October rules patch. In essence, it needed to be done "instantly" because it was a needed clarification.
The rule change, IMO because I helped put it forward, was *supposed* to be like DoM's currently is. Which is that you only need to duel once a cycle to stay active, and to stay active on the standings meant you continued to gain your challenge rights per cycle.
An example being...
Duelist duels 1 duel in Week 1 of Fall Cycle. They gain their challenge rights throughout Fall Cycle *and* Winter Cycle. Thought hey are required to get ANOTHER duel in Winter cycle should they wish to continue to stay active on the standings, this duel duel could be done at latest during week 13 of Winter -- then this duel would not only keep them active on the standings, but would also continue the activity needed to gain challenge rights in Spring cycle.
It's was supposed to be like how DoM Title Holders are able to Duel week 1 of one cycle, then not have to duel again until week 8 of the following cycle to keep their "One duel per cycle" clause.
It seems to have struck up confusion though, but the rule was meant to be like that. As is seen by Myria Grazianos challenge this winter cycle after her last duel was gained during the fall cycle of week 12; her challenge was issued during week 1 of the Winter cycle.
So, the rule as it was before the 13 week one, was basically the proposed Pay it forward plan that was posted at the start of this thread. Though it must have fallen under confusion with wording...
Either way, the two month rule cracks down on the easiness of the pay it forward style which the 13 day rule fixed. It just means there should, in theory, be more duels from people who want titles. Unless they throw out two challenges in the time after one duel is done. I like it better than the pay it forward method. Kalamere's one month doesn't even seem that bad either, but the two month seems a good compromise.
