More rules discussions.

[Spell]

As I have made super clear (and y'all are sick of hearing it, I am sure), I think the responsibility falls with the Challenger. I don't think it is a bad thing for players, or staff, to offer reminders if they run across a problem...I just don't think that should be in lieu of Challenger responsibility. I don't *think* that is what Nappy was saying, though. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

I didn't say it wouldn't fall under the challengers responsibility? Because it could easily be the challenger asking that question to the community as well. I just wanted to know if the idea that was being tossed around would be a return to that way of asking for a caller and nothing more.

Though if it's a bother to ask then I'm sorry.

Edit: and I would have to agree with Napoleon.

To put it fully on the challengers shoulders might not rest well for the title holder if it's a caller they may not wish for. Unless the rule is meant to say that after discussion it is up to the challenger to reach out to the chosen caller and ask if they would be willing to officiate the match.

Edit 2: If it were put on both challenger and title keepers shoulders, then an all together rule of "If both challenger and title keeper are unable to find a caller for their set date and time of challenge, then the challenge will be seen as a no-show should it exceed over 30 minutes of set time without a caller found." Or something of the sort, because I'm terrible with grammar and ****. Then they must follow the 7 day rule of re-doing the date with, hopefully, a caller ready and willing to take the match.

If there's issues from that point on then, having it be a case by case basis with Coordinators making a final ruling can then come into play.

[DUEL Gabby]

As I have made super clear (and y'all are sick of hearing it, I am sure), I think the responsibility falls with the Challenger. I don't think it is a bad thing for players, or staff, to offer reminders if they run across a problem...I just don't think that should be in lieu of Challenger responsibility. I don't *think* that is what Nappy was saying, though. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

I didn't say it wouldn't fall under the challengers responsibility? Because it could easily be the challenger asking that question to the community as well. I just wanted to know if the idea that was being tossed around would be a return to that way of asking for a caller and nothing more.

Though if it's a bother to ask then I'm sorry.

I...wasn't being snarky or hateful at all. No bother and no need to be sorry. I was just commenting generally on what you had said about them not having a caller when it was challenge time.

Edit: and I would have to agree with Napoleon.

To put it fully on the challengers shoulders might not rest well for the title holder if it's a caller they may not wish for. Unless the rule is meant to say that after discussion it is up to the challenger to reach out to the chosen caller and ask if they would be willing to officiate the match.

I didn't write the original rule about it being all the Challenger's responsibility. That was already in effect before I became AC.

[Spell]

I didn't write the original rule about it being all the Challenger's responsibility. That was already in effect before I became AC.

Yes, that rule has been there even well before I started I think.

This is a rules discussion so there's the option of changing that rule to make it more mutually held between title holder and challenger. Right now it's the challenger who can be punished if they are unable to find a caller, but what if a title-holder does not want the callers the challenger offers to use? That's why I added an idea with my second edit.

Edit 2: If it were put on both challenger and title keepers shoulders, then an all together rule of "If both challenger and title keeper are unable to find a caller for their set date and time of challenge, then the challenge will be seen as a no-show should it exceed over 30 minutes of set time without a caller found." Or something of the sort, because I'm terrible with grammar and ****. Then they must follow the 7 day rule of re-doing the date with, hopefully, a caller ready and willing to take the match.

If there's issues from that point on then, having it be a case by case basis with Coordinators making a final ruling can then come into play.

[Sabine]

So, as a newer dueler (And new to challenges... YAY!) and a new caller, here are my opinions.

The rule is a good one so that there are not last minute scrambles for callers, that's basically the only real benefit I see to it.

Do I *need* Gabby holding my hand? No, not really. There are these awesome things posted all over regarding rules and how do I? I've read them. I've asked a bajillionty questions to experienced duelers and callers.

For my recent challenge I secured a caller AND even had a back up caller on standby since there were multiple challenges that night.

It's really not a huge issue and by asking G, Gabby or any other mods to sort of handhold through the process, I think it's these sorts of things that can easily lead to burnout of our volunteers. Someone might make a mistakes occasionally, they happen. But the majority of people here are seasoned duelers and know how things go. If someone is a newer dueler, I would suspect by the time they get challenging rights, they will have a trusted friend to turn to for any questions they have. I think when Gabby says "OK HERE IS MY CUPCAKE APPROVAL" that is the ONE and only time she needs to remind the challenger to get a caller. I don't know about anyone else, but I read and reread my challenge post like daily and checked my PMs with Myria just to make sure I had all my ducks in a row.


Since finding callers (even though there are many of them) can be a problem, especially during busy season or multi-challenge nights. Here is what I propose.

The rule stands. Challengers must secure the caller by the night before the duel. HOWEVER, the existing title holder may only VETO a caller 1 time, as not to be a pain in the ass/draw things out/etc. (make that sound nicer.) If a caller has not been posted by x-amount of time by the challenger, the Title Holder has the right to secure and post the caller.

There could be exceptions for challenges scheduled last minute. IE: Challenger and Title Holder are super busy OOC, realize they both have Sunday at 8pm available at noon on Sunday. They secure a caller. A-OK.

Not Okay: Challengers sits on his thumb and spins around for 7 days and then another... 10 and 5 minutes before the duel is scrambling to find a caller. BUT, I also don't think it's okay for the Title Holder to be sitting there all "hur hur, I know we need a caller, but I'm not saying anything."

And I'm bad at explaining things, so I hope something there makes sense.

[G]

I can't get through all of this right now to directly respond(Though Gabby has done a fantastic job and we are seeing eye to eye on this and are in agreement)

It's kind of an unwritten rule that while it's the Challengers responsibility to obtain a caller, both duelists have to agree on that caller.

Like if I have personal/ooc problems with DUEL JimmyBobRhubarb, and Challenger Davy Jones(The Pirate, not the Monkee) says "JimmyBobRhubarb is calling", it should be within my right to say "Um, no, he still owes me money and stole my car once. I refuse him. Can we get someone else?"

That is a caveat we should probably add into the rules as far as obtaining the callers go. That both duelists must agree on the caller.

[Shadowlord]

The rule stands. Challengers must secure the caller by the night before the duel. HOWEVER, the existing title holder may only VETO a caller 1 time, as not to be a pain in the ass/draw things out/etc. (make that sound nicer.) If a caller has not been posted by x-amount of time by the challenger, the Title Holder has the right to secure and post the caller.

I see merit in this. Now, my understanding is the rule is designed so that the challenger, the person who initiated the whole process, does the work of securing the caller. But what if the challenger and title holder simply cannot agree on a caller in time? That's a worst-case scenario, of course, but it could happen. How to address it? I don't think anyone should have any caller *forced* upon them, is where I'm going with this.

ETA: I see G responded while I was responding. So what happens when caller agreement can't be reached?

[Kalamere]

Like if I have personal/ooc problems with DUEL JimmyBobRhubarb, and Challenger Davy Jones(The Pirate, not the Monkee) says "JimmyBobRhubarb is calling", it should be within my right to say "Um, no, he still owes me money and stole my car once. I refuse him. Can we get someone else?"

I don't know that it's the type of thing that deserves codification, but if you're going to shoot down a suggestion I think courtesy implies you ought to offer alternatives. "JimmyBobRhubarb stole my car once and doesn't work for me. My three favorites would be A,B and C if you're cool with that and one is available, but otherwise I'd really just like to avoid Jimmy and Ralph."

It's just good form that if you're going to be difficult in one sense, you ought to be helpful in another.

[Awkward]

So, I am a fan of this rules intentions. That being that I think it is to remind challengers and duelists in general that as callers we are volunteers. I am taking time out of my day / night to do a favor for you guys, and I don’t gain a title or defense. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy calling, but if there is continuous scrambling to obtain last minute caller’s for challenges, I find that uncool. Just because I am online does not mean that I am available to call!

I 100% agree that it needs to be a caller that both parties are comfortable with. I asked my opponents in challenges and in IFL who they preferred or if I needed to acquire a caller or line one up. I realize neither one of these are DoS –but I think the same standard should apply. Unspoken rule? Simple and obvious politeness? Am I being naïve?

Like Kalamere points out, if you’re going to shoot something down, please offer suggestions or just clarify who you would want to avoid. I’m still pretty new to the dueling scene so if I make a ‘blunder’ and suggest someone’s mortal enemy, I don’t want to make the other party uncomfortable simply because of my own ignorance.

I don’t think I can get behind the whole 1 Veto idea though. I do certainly agree with the idea that Sabine was saying it in order to avoid a challenger / defender from dragging the process out too long, but I think that if the process is being dragged out, then someone else at a higher level (here’s looking at you Coordinators!) needs to be informed of this issue and have a hand in it.

I think setting a standard of posting on the forum the date, time and caller for the challenge should most certainly be done. And more so, I don’t think it should be the Caller’s responsibility to post either. I’m inclined to suggest that it should be the Challenger’s responsibility to post the information, but that is only because I am under the assumption that the Challenger is the more eager of the two parties because they would like their hands on the title.

I don’t have a suggestion for what type of punishment should be in order for not following through with this, but if there are people taking advantage of callers –then yes I would like something in place. I apologize for not having a recommendation for that.

[Sabine]

I can't get through all of this right now to directly respond(Though Gabby has done a fantastic job and we are seeing eye to eye on this and are in agreement)

It's kind of an unwritten rule that while it's the Challengers responsibility to obtain a caller, both duelists have to agree on that caller.

Like if I have personal/ooc problems with DUEL JimmyBobRhubarb, and Challenger Davy Jones(The Pirate, not the Monkee) says "JimmyBobRhubarb is calling", it should be within my right to say "Um, no, he still owes me money and stole my car once. I refuse him. Can we get someone else?"

That is a caveat we should probably add into the rules as far as obtaining the callers go. That both duelists must agree on the caller.

I can find it understandable that if there were some major OOC/IC issue perhaps declining one caller might happen.

But at the same time, what if someone is just being a ****? I mean, sometimes people are. I think finding a balance would be okay, either by presenting a choice of callers like Kalamere said or only getting x number of vetos.

Is this a problem often? (Disagreements on callers.)

And my whole 1 veto suggestion wasn't to(Edit to add: was not MAINLY suggested) avoid dragging the process out (some people will do that regardless for various reasons.) but more so to avoid the challenger going through the work of going to...Dris, setting up times and everything and then the Title Holder saying "No, find someone else." and then the challenger having to go back to Dris and say "'Oh uh... never mind." and then start the process over. While I understand that the challenger needs to find the caller, there just should be something in place that protects them from a title holder being a P.I.T.A.

[Claire Gallows]

It alllllllllllllllll comes down to communication. Do we really have to mandate rules on communication? I've only been here two years, had a ton of challenges and not once had trouble *agreeing* on a caller. Have there been times that it's been hard to get a caller at our preferred time? Yeah, definitely, but not for lack of trying.

"Hey when works for you? Any preference on callers?"
"X, Y, and Z work and I'm cool with anyone other than G because he likes hockey."
"Cool with me, I'll see who we can get."
FAST FORWARD 80's montage style while perusing the caller's list
"We're fighting such and such time and non-G-caller is calling."

TA DA, you've got yourselves a challenge.


I'm not contributing anything useful here, I don't think. I just think being proactive adults about things solves a lot. Have a problem player with repeated issues? Then you throw them a blanket party, but no need to bog down already extensive rules with something that should be common sense.

[Spell]

It alllllllllllllllll comes down to communication. Do we really have to mandate rules on communication? I've only been here two years, had a ton of challenges and not once had trouble *agreeing* on a caller. Have there been times that it's been hard to get a caller at our preferred time? Yeah, definitely, but not for lack of trying.

"Hey when works for you? Any preference on callers?"
"X, Y, and Z work and I'm cool with anyone other than G because he likes hockey."
"Cool with me, I'll see who we can get."
FAST FORWARD 80's montage style while perusing the caller's list
"We're fighting such and such time and non-G-caller is calling."

TA DA, you've got yourselves a challenge.


I'm not contributing anything useful here, I don't think. I just think being proactive adults about things solves a lot. Have a problem player with repeated issues? Then you throw them a blanket party, but no need to bog down already extensive rules with something that should be common sense.

This.

The issue rarely comes up. The rule then wasn't even enforced when it happened in a newer challenge, so there's really no point in keeping it. Players can just communicate with each other and get a caller, if there's issues then they could possibly set up a date with a sports coordinator, someone who can't be denied due to their position by any member of the challenge party, and go from there.

[DUEL Gabby]

The issue rarely comes up. The rule then wasn't even enforced when it happened in a newer challenge, so there's really no point in keeping it. Players can just communicate with each other and get a caller, if there's issues then they could possibly set up a date with a sports coordinator, someone who can't be denied due to their position by any member of the challenge party, and go from there.

I believe it was mentioned early on in this thread that it wasn't enforced. That doesn't mean the situation wasn't handled. And from the IM you and I just had, the question of favoritism cropped up. Not necessarily you saying I am playing favorites but that the question could come up. So for the sake of transparency, I would like to continue the discussion on the forum. I have nothing to hide, at all.

You asked if it had been a problem player would the same decision have been made and I said yes. The situation was this: the player had the caller and forgot to post it until two hours past midnight (which was the cutoff in the stated rule). Having already discussed this rule with three other people prior to this situation even happening, I could see the POV where it was too heavy handed. So, I elected out of fairness, to issue a warning. Had it been a problem player, I would have done the same. As I stated in the IM, I think most people that actually know me and my integrity as a person realize that I do not play favoritism games. I then started the discussion thread to ask people what they thought of this rule and to ask for suggestions.

I think there is a point in having *something* in place in regards to this. I don't think it should be as harsh as the original rule that I wrote... as I also stated before, I am learning.

[Spell]

I appreciated the answer and willingness for transparency in the discussion of it. The idea that the thought could crop up in minds had been my reasoning, but I already discussed that with you in the IM.

I think the rule as it stands is a possible good one. If there was an added clause about how there is a warning first, then punishment, it would be a good rule.

This is not saying that a title holder can't choose to get the caller. I see this rule as mostly a way to make sure there's SOME sort of responsibility should no caller be chosen upon. There can still be open communication between challenger and title holder to discuss a possible caller, but at the end of the day and it gets to an hour before the challenge and nothing is chosen? Then it should fall on the challenger; and if there's issues with a title holder not willing to offer a list of callers they would approve of, or a title holder is unwilling to allow any of the callers the challenger listed? Then there are logs that can be provided to the DoS coordinators to help make a judgement.

[PrlUnicorn]

I think the rule as it stands is a possible good one. If there was an added clause about how there is a warning first, then punishment, it would be a good rule.

This is not saying that a title holder can't choose to get the caller. I see this rule as mostly a way to make sure there's SOME sort of responsibility should no caller be chosen upon. There can still be open communication between challenger and title holder to discuss a possible caller, but at the end of the day and it gets to an hour before the challenge and nothing is chosen? Then it should fall on the challenger; and if there's issues with a title holder not willing to offer a list of callers they would approve of, or a title holder is unwilling to allow any of the callers the challenger listed? Then there are logs that can be provided to the DoS coordinators to help make a judgement.

This. In general, when challenging, I send a PM with when I can be available and callers that I prefer.

When an agreed upon official's name is posted showing that they intend to be calling, that also should offer a protection of sorts to the challenger and title holder with regard to penalties should life interfere and a last minute replacement be needed.