Alignment and the Standings

[Mairead Harker]

We cannot anticipate every single thing that might come up in challenges or right the rules around them, nor can we write the rules to cover every scenario, or we''ll have a rulebook that would be overly long and impenetrable. Likewise, updating the rules is not often an immediate process, as we do our best to ensure that one change does not mean something else needs to be changed, and so on and so forth.

You cannot anticipate everything, this is true. However, the ruling on Ettyn was well over a month ago. It doesn't take that long to make a change log entry addition and what amounts to a line item change in the rules. I believe the rules were changed from HTML pages to board format, probably in G'nort's time as coordinator, to make them easier to update. The team created/interpreted a rule as going against the spirit of the rule and failed to follow through with process of actually putting in the rules. The people that came forward to express their opinions seem to agree on one thing, if the team makes a rule, they need to add the rule to the published list.

The last updates note in the change log were 30 Jun 2021. The ruling on Ettyn not being allowed to change alignments was 14 June 2021 as per Anya's report on the challenge. Why was the change on alignments being locked not added then?

[Hope]

I think everyone in this thread shares the passion about the sport. I think there's still more to be shared in this thread from everyone but I think now might not be the worst time to just let it sit for the night. This has been a highly active thread with A LOT of text.

[Hope]

Having taken some time to consider this thread there are a few thoughts I've had. Mostly that I did not know this was as much of a pain point as it is. Personally, I don't see an issue with how the rules are written. They make compete sense to me and I don't see a contradiction anywhere. But I empathize with everyone who is posting because that is a belief that resonates with players.

It's important to temper this though with the fact that none of us speak for the entire dos community. Yes there are strong feelings about this especially after the recent challenge. There are players who haven't even probably logged into the forums since this thread was at page one. Let's give people some time to read, digest and formulate their opinions. More time, more perspectives and more players can't hurt the discussion.

[Tippletoe]

Hello DoS Community!

I haven't been active on this thread due to some IRL stuff that has taken me away from the forums for the past 36 hours, but I'm all caught up now! Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to comment and share thoughts and opinions. I appreciate your openness and willingness to have courageous conversations.

The DoS Rules: Behind the Scenes!
The DoS rules set is complex and has a long rich history. Our team often has extensive discussions and scenarios we play out to try to understand the boundaries of the rules. While we try our best, we don’t always anticipate or address all of those potential scenarios.

Whenever we're approached with a rules question, we first look to see if the rules themselves provide an answer. If they don't directly answer the situation we're facing, or we feel that there is ambiguity or conflict in the rules, we then consider what has been done in the past and what we think is the overall intent and logic of the rules. Sometimes we discover that following one rule to the letter would lead to an unintended outcome and we would not allow the action.

Rules decisions are almost never made individually. They are usually discussed between at least two staff members. Even when there is an urgent question with respect to a challenge in progress we try to have at least some consultation while trying not to hold the challenge too long.

I am, personally, incredibly grateful to Cajsa and Conner for their hard work and their perspective. They work diligently to be impartial, consistent, and fair. As a team, we try to give due consideration to the full consequences and precedent that could be set by our interpretation of the rules. We appreciate your patience and forgiveness when our decisions don’t meet your expectations.

The Case of June: Ettyn & Sal

The last updates note in the change log were 30 Jun 2021. The ruling on Ettyn not being allowed to change alignments was 14 June 2021 as per Anya's report on the challenge. Why was the change on alignments being locked not added then?

Until now, it wasn't even on our radar that we should/needed to change the rules or update them to reflect that decision. The brief discussion in the green room earlier this week was the first time we recall hearing any concerns or complaints. As uncomfortable as it can be sometimes, we appreciate it when people bring us questions or concerns, either directly or through a public forum discussion. We hope that members of our community will continue to talk with us if there is a question or concern about the rules.

As for the decision itself, we hear your frustrations and opinions. Even when you disagree with us, we hope you have faith in our good intentions and that we are trying our best to make this sport fun and enjoyable for everyone. Once again, we appreciate the feedback and that the community was willing to discuss this situation.

What's Next?
The DoS team will be changing the rules documentation for clarity based on the feedback we have received. We promise to keep everyone updated as we consider the following options for the rules:

1. Outgoing barons get the benefits of their rank and alignment as it was when they lost the challenge until the standings are updated to reflect the change in the barony.
2. Outgoing barons get the benefits of their rank and alignment, including the ability to change alignment, until the standings are updated to reflect the change in the barony.
3. Incoming barons, once they have chosen to be loyal or renegade, get the benefits of that alignment immediately including interceding on challenges.

This discussion is still open if you would like to see other options considered, or if you want to advocate further for one choice over another. Community members can also reach out to me privately via PM or DM on Discord at Anne Ellis#0253.

[Mairead Harker]

The Case of June: Ettyn & Sal

The last updates note in the change log were 30 Jun 2021. The ruling on Ettyn not being allowed to change alignments was 14 June 2021 as per Anya's report on the challenge. Why was the change on alignments being locked not added then?

Until now, it wasn't even on our radar that we should/needed to change the rules or update them to reflect that decision. The brief discussion in the green room earlier this week was the first time we recall hearing any concerns or complaints. As uncomfortable as it can be sometimes, we appreciate it when people bring us questions or concerns, either directly or through a public forum discussion. We hope that members of our community will continue to talk with us if there is a question or concern about the rules.

As for the decision itself, we hear your frustrations and opinions. Even when you disagree with us, we hope you have faith in our good intentions and that we are trying our best to make this sport fun and enjoyable for everyone. Once again, we appreciate the feedback and that the community was willing to discuss this situation.

I understand that these decisions take time. I'm good with that. I am not adverse to rules changes that benefit the community in the long run.

The subject may not have been on the radar until now because there was a reasonable expectation, based on the ruling, that a written change would soon be coming to support and clarify the decision made at the time. As I said, previously, putting it in writing avoids the need for yet another here we go again discussion down the road.

You are not really hearing my frustrations. I've done my best to stick to discussing rules and keep my Irish temper in check during this discussion. On that note, peace out.

[Bailey Raptis]

As someone looking at this from a remove, having not been active for several months in the duels (and you can weight your consideration of my opinion accordingly based on that), here's what I think:

I prefer the "Outgoing barons get the benefits of their rank and alignment as it was when they lost the challenge until the standings are updated to reflect the change in the barony" over "Outgoing barons get the benefits of their rank and alignment, including the ability to change alignment, until the standings are updated to reflect the change in the barony". I think the thing pointed out earlier, that a switch from Loyal to Renegade when a Baron is already on the way out, doesn't make sense since the "open to all and immediate challenges" is a moot point with a Baron who's losing their title within the next week. It's a bummer that it might potentially block interesting IC play like the Amaris/Ettyn situation, but I think there's always trade-offs when you're applying OOC rules and game mechanics to IC RP stuff.

I don't think that "Incoming barons, once they have chosen to be loyal or renegade, get the benefits of that alignment immediately including interceding on challenges" should be a thing. To me, that sort of violates the idea that a title change/title loss/move-up in rank isn't effective until the standings reflect it. I think if you wanted to do this, you would have to change the rules to immediately strip title losers of their titles and the benefits of their rank in order to be fair, and I don't really like that idea. I actually liked the lame duck OL testing that Lilith did last year.; I don't think lame duck reigns are a problem, even if there may have been a situation with it recently. I don't really want to see a situation where an incoming Baron, who should have to fight at WL rank because by our rules they don't get that Baron benefit, tests or intercedes when they're not technically a Baron just yet.

It should probably be the case that even if a Baron immediately after winning a Barony declares loyalty or renegade status, that that doesn't have an impact on anything related to the Overlord until the standings are official.

[Kalamere]

I don't think that "Incoming barons, once they have chosen to be loyal or renegade, get the benefits of that alignment immediately including interceding on challenges" should be a thing. To me, that sort of violates the idea that a title change/title loss/move-up in rank isn't effective until the standings reflect it. I think if you wanted to do this, you would have to change the rules to immediately strip title losers of their titles and the benefits of their rank in order to be fair, and I don't really like that idea.

I think that's a fair way to look at it.

The suggestion I made the other day was completely off the cuff. I always felt the retained intercession abilities of the title holders during the lame duck period was weird and a little too much like what happens when the president of the US is voted out in Nov, but not actually replaced until Jan. That thinking influenced the idea.

The idea, however, has a number of holes and creates new weirdness of its own. For example, I think it would be silly to apply it only to the barons. The OL should have the same ruleset there. But then that's really awkward. We have it determined that a baron is aligned to the person of the OL, not to the title itself (which, imo, is as it should be), so for the incoming OL who is loyal and renegade that they could step in for? Nobody really. We don't have a mechanism for tracking that. As a result ToW for a loyal baron couldn't really happen or would you have the ability to step in for a baron that is loyal to someone else? That seems off.

Probably not describing that terribly well. I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning and am blaming that.

The cleanest options are probably what Bailey said though: Use the alignment lock rule, or just do an immediate full swap of the title holder at the time the title is won.

The latter isn't undoable I don't think and maybe is worth talking about, but the alignment lock is a pretty clean/easy way to deal with a very edge case situation and leave the 20+ year or whatever precedent of keeping the title an extra 1-6 days in place.

[Jake]

The cleanest options are probably what Bailey said though: Use the alignment lock rule, or just do an immediate full swap of the title holder at the time the title is won.

The latter isn't undoable I don't think and maybe is worth talking about, but the alignment lock is a pretty clean/easy way to deal with a very edge case situation and leave the 20+ year or whatever precedent of keeping the title an extra 1-6 days in place.

The source of some of the clunkiness here goes way back to the update cycle. Which is that ranks are adjusted on a weekly basis with the update of the standings. Ranks only updated once a week, so if you had a loss that might cost you your rank that wouldn't *immediately* cost you that rank. Instead you had time to get in a win (or two) in order to try and preserve your rank.

The title updates originated with that same structure. Weekly updates to make things official.

Then, of course, Barons were added, and challenges, and intercessions and tests, etc. And so it got complicated.

*Ideally*, the effects of a challenge would be immediate. Lose the title, hand over the ring (or belt), and the new person gets the benefits of the rank. But then the standings would be out of sync. (Unless the standings were to start getting updated out of cycle to reflect title changes.)

(As a tangent to the Ettyn thing, if the alignment change had been allowed, after Ettyn had already lost the title, it means that alignment change would never have been recorded in the standings [unless it was noted in the news]. So that aspect of "history" would have been lost/harder to find in the official records.)

I agree with Kal's assessment. The ideal would be to have titles change immediately, but it comes with the possibility of some technical changes on how we handle standings, and then of course a re-write of the rules (that have already been re-written many times trying to make it less confusing).

The short term fix of adding an alignment lock rule seems like the easiest to implement at this time. Anything else would require more time and effort and consideration to execute.

[PC]

As someone looking at this from a remove, having not been active for several months in the duels (and you can weight your consideration of my opinion accordingly based on that), here's what I think:

I prefer the "Outgoing barons get the benefits of their rank and alignment as it was when they lost the challenge until the standings are updated to reflect the change in the barony" over "Outgoing barons get the benefits of their rank and alignment, including the ability to change alignment, until the standings are updated to reflect the change in the barony". I think the thing pointed out earlier, that a switch from Loyal to Renegade when a Baron is already on the way out, doesn't make sense since the "open to all and immediate challenges" is a moot point with a Baron who's losing their title within the next week. It's a bummer that it might potentially block interesting IC play like the Amaris/Ettyn situation, but I think there's always trade-offs when you're applying OOC rules and game mechanics to IC RP stuff.

I don't think that "Incoming barons, once they have chosen to be loyal or renegade, get the benefits of that alignment immediately including interceding on challenges" should be a thing. To me, that sort of violates the idea that a title change/title loss/move-up in rank isn't effective until the standings reflect it. I think if you wanted to do this, you would have to change the rules to immediately strip title losers of their titles and the benefits of their rank in order to be fair, and I don't really like that idea. I actually liked the lame duck OL testing that Lilith did last year.; I don't think lame duck reigns are a problem, even if there may have been a situation with it recently. I don't really want to see a situation where an incoming Baron, who should have to fight at WL rank because by our rules they don't get that Baron benefit, tests or intercedes when they're not technically a Baron just yet.

It should probably be the case that even if a Baron immediately after winning a Barony declares loyalty or renegade status, that that doesn't have an impact on anything related to the Overlord until the standings are official.

After thinking it over since the original idea was presented earlier in the thread I'd have to agree.

This is a very, very rare issue. Personally I don't see a reason to allow incoming title holders to step in before their reign officially begins. The option for challengers to reach out to Loyal Barons (in an attempt to sway them to turn Renegade) or to Renegade Barons (so that they will be present for the challenge) is already a solution to the issue. This gives the lame-duck Overlord and outgoing Barons who are locked into their alignment a chance for one last hoorah before being removed by a standings update.

[Rachael Blackthorne]

Hello. I am Rachael Blackthorne's player, and I am an active member of all of the dueling communities. Under Rachael, I have held a few titles in the Duel of Swords over time, and have engaged in various facets of the challenge process. This discussion is of great interest to me because I have considered having Rachael challenge for another title in DoS.

Since input from more members of the community on this topic was asked for, here we go.

Under the current Rules As Written (emphasis mine):

2. Title changes are not considered official until they are listed in the standings. This means should a challenge take place on a Friday, and the Baron or Overlord lose their defense, they still gain the benefits of that rank until the new standings are posted on Sunday. (Fancies, Grants, Testing, etc.)

Now under that RAW, an outgoing Overlord can do a good deal of damage in in-game mechanics without any in-game repercussions, including but not limited to:

1. Issue an Overlord Grant. This can do damage to whichever Barony the recipient decides to use it against.

2. Test in any challenges. This can do damage to the in-game mechanics should the Overlord be successful in the test.

3. Banish Loyal Barons to Renegade status. This can not only open said Barons to immediate challenge, but if a Loyal Baron is flipped to Renegade while the Loyal is under challenge, they lose the right to be championed by the Overlord. This can do damage to the in-game mechanics if the Loyal Baron is counting on the intercession. The outgoing Overlord also receives no in-game penalties from this action, since they cannot be challenged by the newly assigned Renegade Baron.

Under the RAW, the only benefit that applies to the outgoing Baron in terms of rank in this case is the ability to switch alliance from Loyal to Renegade, or vice versa. In terms of damage to in-game mechanics, this ability is not nearly as in-game breaking as what the Overlord can do during that limbo timeframe.

Locking the outgoing Baron's alignment is effectively penalizing that Baron, while there is no corresponding penalty to the outgoing Overlord in terms of their rights of rank.

The solution that I see is implementing in the RAW either one of the following:

1. Clarify in the RAW that the outgoing Baron/Overlord still retains all of their rights of rank, including in the Baron's case the ability to switch alignment, until the standings are posted. The benefits of the Overlord retaining their rights clearly outweighs the alleged in-game breaking rights of the Baron in this case.

2. Clarify in the RAW that the outgoing Baron/Overlord loses all of their rights of rank once the title is lost from the date of the challenge. This effectively penalizes both ranks inequally. For example, those challenges in the limbo timeframe from the lost Overlord challenge until the standings are posted are penalized by not having the possibility of Overlord intercession.

Teal Deer: Allowing outgoing Barons to flip alignment is not as game-breaking as claimed in comparison to what the outgoing Overlord can still do in the timeframe between the lost challenge and the next standings update. Either permit both outgoing Barons and Overlords to retain all of their title rights until the standings update or strip both titles of their rights of rank immediately on the date of the lost challenge.

[PC]

Locking the outgoing Baron's alignment is effectively penalizing that Baron, while there is no corresponding penalty to the outgoing Overlord in terms of their rights of rank.

Duel of Swords staff would have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I could assume that since alignments would be locked for an outgoing Baron, the same could be said for an outgoing Overlord and they would be unable to force Loyals to Renegade status. In a way both suffer from some form of lack of changing alignment in that case?

A locked Renegade Baron can still counter tests and locked Loyals can still test for their Overlord during the period before a standings update. So the penalty isn't much I think? Also if the Overlord was going to force a Loyal Baron to Renegade it can be more than assumed that they wouldn't be offering them a test of worthiness either; and when the new Overlord is crowned the following week the Baron would have a new alignment anyway.

[Arthour]

Locking the outgoing Baron's alignment is effectively penalizing that Baron, while there is no corresponding penalty to the outgoing Overlord in terms of their rights of rank.

Duel of Swords staff would have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I could assume that since alignments would be locked for an outgoing Baron, the same could be said for an outgoing Overlord and they would be unable to force Loyals to Renegade status. In a way both suffer from some form of lack of changing alignment in that case?

A locked Renegade Baron can still counter tests and locked Loyals can still test for their Overlord during the period before a standings update. So the penalty isn't much I think? Also if the Overlord was going to force a Loyal Baron to Renegade it can be more than assumed that they wouldn't be offering them a test of worthiness either; and when the new Overlord is crowned the following week the Baron would have a new alignment anyway.

I have a very vauge recollection that an outgoing Overlord *did* banish all the Barons once, and either the same one issued a Grant, or else another outgoing OL did. This would have been some years ago however and I dont recall the details, but I've been thinking more than once that an out going Overlord has at least once issued a Grant the week they were stepping down...Does anyone else recall this, or am I recalling a disucssion about an Overlord *wanting* to do these things and it was disallowed at the time?

[PC]

I can only recall one Overlord actually banishing all their Loyal Barons but it was not while they were outgoing.

A challenge queue was decided by the staff at the time, with first come first serve challenges to each of the banished Barons. The queue came to an end when Matt, the first of the Barons who issued their challenge, defeated the Overlord and became the new one.

You might be thinking of a hypothetical. One was posted earlier in the thread, but I do not think it has ever happened (In the case of an outgoing Overlord banishing a Loyal).

[Bailey Raptis]

Duel of Swords staff would have to correct me if I'm wrong, but I could assume that since alignments would be locked for an outgoing Baron, the same could be said for an outgoing Overlord and they would be unable to force Loyals to Renegade status. In a way both suffer from some form of lack of changing alignment in that case?

A locked Renegade Baron can still counter tests and locked Loyals can still test for their Overlord during the period before a standings update. So the penalty isn't much I think? Also if the Overlord was going to force a Loyal Baron to Renegade it can be more than assumed that they wouldn't be offering them a test of worthiness either; and when the new Overlord is crowned the following week the Baron would have a new alignment anyway.

That seems fair to me. Adding to this, a "locked" Overlord could still do a Test of Worthiness on behalf of a Baron that was Loyal to them, assuming the challenge happens before their loss of title becomes official on the standings. Which is what Lilith did last year, if memory serves me right.

I honestly don't see an issue with allowing an Overlord to hand out a Overlord grant on their way out of office, seeing as we've seen so few Overlord grants handed out in recent days. I don't think it's even as disruptive as outgoing Loyal Barons testing for the OL, outgoing Renegades countering tests, or outgoing Overlords interceding on challenges to Loyal Barons. And I'm fine with all of those things happening.

[Conner Reid]

Hey everyone,

Thanks again to everyone who weighed in on this subject and offered thoughts. After considering the opinions shared in this thread and our own perspectives, we've decided to amend the rule consistent with our initial interpretation. There are several areas of the rules that now need to be adjusted to smooth out some wrinkles that this discussion has brought up, but we're working on it now. We will have some rules updates very soon.

Thank you again to everyone who took the time to share their perspectives on this rule issue and helped us decide how to resolve it moving forward.