An open letter

[Kalamere]

What's interesting to me here is that I would consider both of you (Sal and Sabine) more than active enough to satisfy my view of the "obligation" of holding a title and being around. Even Aya, though she didn't duel a ton and hadn't been challenged, was around periodically as a face seen in the rooms. Watching Aya and Taneth play off each other always makes me laugh... though I guess that's a non sequitur.

It's not just dueling. I mean, yes, I'd like to see title holders do more than their 1 duel per cycle - just because I think they become the targets of lower ranked duelists who want a shot at them. This was actually the impetus for the first time Kal challenged for OL. But it's also not the must have thing. The key is just continuing to be around being in play from time to time. Being around as a caller or a story writer or just playing in the rooms is all contributing to the environment, and that's really all I hope to see from people.

[Sabine]

What's interesting to me here is that I would consider both of you (Sal and Sabine) more than active enough to satisfy my view of the "obligation" of holding a title and being around.

The key is just continuing to be around being in play from time to time. Being around as a caller or a story writer or just playing in the rooms is all contributing to the environment, and that's really all I hope to see from people.

Thank you for your viewpoint. I know not everyone feels that way. There are some who do think (and have expressed) that unless you are logging duels every week, it's not good enough.

It's hard... if you grind, well you get what for because you are grinding mindlessly just to have all high ranked characters or -insert whatever other reasons here- and if you don't grind then you are not active enough and shouldn't hold titles.

[Spell]

It's hard... if you grind, well you get what for because you are grinding mindlessly just to have all high ranked characters or -insert whatever other reasons here- and if you don't grind then you are not active enough and shouldn't hold titles.

Can't win to lose. You're either a power duelist who might be seen as preying on low ranks or new players if you come around constantly as an active title holder and duel, or you get seen as not doing much if you busy yourself with other things.

It's a hard road to travel.

[Sylus Kurgen]

It's hard... if you grind, well you get what for because you are grinding mindlessly just to have all high ranked characters or -insert whatever other reasons here- and if you don't grind then you are not active enough and shouldn't hold titles.

Can't win to lose. You're either a power duelist who might be seen as preying on low ranks or new players if you come around constantly as an active title holder and duel, or you get seen as not doing much if you busy yourself with other things.

It's a hard road to travel.

Some of all that, I think stems from what the Arena, the Titles, and much of the histories has been built on over the years. IC backstabbing, vitriol, wheeling and dealing in a game of Cut-Throat King of the Hill. Play by the rules to get what you want, but be wary about completely body checking someone and risk the penalty box to keep on top of the hill.

This way of things breeds constant drama, both IC and OOC. When the drama is OOC player vs player, the entire setting becomes unwelcoming and people just stop having fun.

I love IC drama...as long as it stays IC. There are legitimate strategies to stay in power and hold on to titles. Some of them involve completely screwing over someone else. And that leads to hurt feelings and more of the same. DoS is a game built ON drama between characters. But the drama Between players kills it.

[Delahada]

I love IC drama...as long as it stays IC. There are legitimate strategies to stay in power and hold on to titles. Some of them involve completely screwing over someone else. And that leads to hurt feelings and more of the same. DoS is a game built ON drama between characters. But the drama Between players kills it.

Truth.

[Mason]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I think the majority of the community would love to see title holders more active. But you can't force people to roleplay.

Sal mentioned something about a penalty for giving up a title if that is true (sorry, not familiar with the rules at the top) then maybe that should be a better focus than forcing someone to play.

I think titles are meant to be held but things like the Talon or PC are things to be used. If it hasn't been used for half the cycle maybe it should be passed on to the second place finisher. Whomever won gets the achievement but the item has a better chance of being used to help someone rank up.

Those achievements seem popular. So use that. Want title holders to show up? Make an achievement for hosting a public event while holding a title.

[Kalamere]

Sal mentioned something about a penalty for giving up a title if that is true (sorry, not familiar with the rules at the top) then maybe that should be a better focus than forcing someone to play.

The penalty in DoS is just that if you walk away from a title, you may not challenge for another one for a month. It's pretty tame and realistically would have no impact on someone having reasons like Sal stated (ie: likely wouldn't plan to challenge again anyway).

[Delahada]

Sal mentioned something about a penalty for giving up a title if that is true (sorry, not familiar with the rules at the top) then maybe that should be a better focus than forcing someone to play.

The penalty in DoS is just that if you walk away from a title, you may not challenge for another one for a month. It's pretty tame and realistically would have no impact on someone having reasons like Sal stated (ie: likely wouldn't plan to challenge again anyway).

I remember there being discussion about it, and saw it put in the rules. I think I also recall some discussion about "repeat offenders," which to be perfectly honest if I were playing Sal true to his character, and if I manage to gain high enough rank to do it, is something I would certainly become. Sal has no interest in keeping the titles, only earning them. Like Sabine, he has an ambition to have earned every barony at least once, and eventually the Overlord title too. If it weren't punishable, I would absolutely have him give up the title as soon as he won it every single time. "I won it but I don't want it" is entirely true to his character. Very recently he won some money in the PC (I think) for coming in third (I think). ICly, I had him turn right around and give it to Cane. I almost had him not even accept it. But... reasons.

I just wanted to expound upon that.

For the record, this is the rule, found in Baronial Challenge Terms (it's a LOT of reading, I know):

1. Any duelist to forfeit a title, either voluntarily via retirement or abdication, or involuntarily as a ruled forfeit, shall be ineligible to exercise warlord challenge rights for 1 month from the date of occernce. This supersedes the 14 day wait applied to duelists returning from inactivity should the 14 days fall within this one month period. Should a second title forfeiture occur within a calendar year the duelist shall also become ineligible to participate in any event that may award a title or challenge grant (eg: Warlord tournaments, Right to Challenge fights where the challenger is a baron, etc.)

[G]

Sal mentioned something about a penalty for giving up a title if that is true (sorry, not familiar with the rules at the top) then maybe that should be a better focus than forcing someone to play.

The penalty in DoS is just that if you walk away from a title, you may not challenge for another one for a month. It's pretty tame and realistically would have no impact on someone having reasons like Sal stated (ie: likely wouldn't plan to challenge again anyway).

I remember there being discussion about it, and saw it put in the rules. I think I also recall some discussion about "repeat offenders," which to be perfectly honest if I were playing Sal true to his character, and if I manage to gain high enough rank to do it, is something I would certainly become. Sal has no interest in keeping the titles, only earning them. Like Sabine, he has an ambition to have earned every barony at least once, and eventually the Overlord title too. If it weren't punishable, I would absolutely have him give up the title as soon as he won it every single time. "I won it but I don't want it" is entirely true to his character. Very recently he won some money in the PC (I think) for coming in third (I think). ICly, I had him turn right around and give it to Cane. I almost had him not even accept it. But... reasons.

I just wanted to expound upon that.

For the record, this is the rule, found in Baronial Challenge Terms (it's a LOT of reading, I know):

1. Any duelist to forfeit a title, either voluntarily via retirement or abdication, or involuntarily as a ruled forfeit, shall be ineligible to exercise warlord challenge rights for 1 month from the date of occernce. This supersedes the 14 day wait applied to duelists returning from inactivity should the 14 days fall within this one month period. Should a second title forfeiture occur within a calendar year the duelist shall also become ineligible to participate in any event that may award a title or challenge grant (eg: Warlord tournaments, Right to Challenge fights where the challenger is a baron, etc.)

This rule was put in place for the most part because certain players had complained about certain other players who would get a title and retire it fairly quickly after going through the motions of gaining said title. It's probably a rule that doesn't need to be kept any longer as I haven't seen immediate or even relatively quick retirements of titles taking place. Something should only be done if it's seen as an abuse or done a ridiculous amount of times. To be honest, I even forgot that that rule was in place.

I do say, however, that I don't really approve of gaining titles and then just dropping them. A single time incident, such as Sal doing it just to say he had a title, is kinda meh to me, but understandable and something I could shrug off. If he did it to every title, though, or kept doing it, then I'd have a much bigger problem with it. I'd have an even bigger problem with it if it were something that many of the duelists were doing. Not something I can get behind, yanno?

[Spell]

1 month is pretty wrist-slapish. Why I thought it would be a whole cycle if someone repeated it twice in a year span is beyond me.

I have a question though. There was a rule about players challenging and then dropping their own challenge before the fight was fought. A rule was put into place that if a player did this once during a cycle (or year), they would be given a warning, and if it were to be done again, they would lose the challenge right associated with the challenge.

Is this rule still in place or has it been taken out?

[G]

1 month is pretty wrist-slapish. Why I thought it would be a whole cycle if someone repeated it twice in a year span is beyond me.

I have a question though. There was a rule about players challenging and then dropping their own challenge before the fight was fought. A rule was put into place that if a player did this once during a cycle (or year), they would be given a warning, and if it were to be done again, they would lose the challenge right associated with the challenge.

Is this rule still in place or has it been taken out?

I remember that rule, the whole rescinding of challenges stuff. I don't think it was taken out.

[Spell]

1 month is pretty wrist-slapish. Why I thought it would be a whole cycle if someone repeated it twice in a year span is beyond me.

I have a question though. There was a rule about players challenging and then dropping their own challenge before the fight was fought. A rule was put into place that if a player did this once during a cycle (or year), they would be given a warning, and if it were to be done again, they would lose the challenge right associated with the challenge.

Is this rule still in place or has it been taken out?

I remember that rule, the whole rescinding of challenges stuff. I don't think it was taken out.

I remember enforcing it ( no one ever had a right taken away, but warnings were put out ) but it was never added to the main rule page. So it got pretty confusing.

[Xavior Mues]

New players? When? Where?