Stories from RhyDin & The Rings

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:19 pm**

Mason wrote:
Apple wrote: On another subject though. I'd also like to point This post out.. This rule was made but it was never added to the official DoS rules, which reads:

2. It is the responsibility of the challenger to secure an official for the agreed-upon date. The caller chosen must be agreed upon by all parties directly involved in the challenge.
By this rule, my challenge with Myu should not be valid because a caller was not posted by midnight the day before the challenge. As well as any other challenges where a caller was never posted within the challenge thread since the ruling was made. Is this rule going to be added or has it been phased out? If it hasn't then I will accept my punishment.
Scroll down in that thread a few posts and it is changed to no penalty for not getting a caller.

Then it makes it even more odd why the challenger gets a pass for something that's their responsibility compared to a title holder.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:22 pm**

Apple wrote:
Mason wrote:
Apple wrote: On another subject though. I'd also like to point This post out.. This rule was made but it was never added to the official DoS rules, which reads:
By this rule, my challenge with Myu should not be valid because a caller was not posted by midnight the day before the challenge. As well as any other challenges where a caller was never posted within the challenge thread since the ruling was made. Is this rule going to be added or has it been phased out? If it hasn't then I will accept my punishment.

Scroll down in that thread a few posts and it is changed to no penalty for not getting a caller.
Then it makes it even more odd why the challenger gets a pass for something that's their responsibility compared to a title holder.
Yeah I thought so too.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:31 pm**

I feel really bad about doing this, but given that a lot of this discussion has come down to what is actually written in the rules, I think it's worth pointing this out.

This is cut and paste from the Universal Terms of Challenge section:

3. A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. Standings are considered official at 6 pm EST on Thursdays. Where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the date and time the validation notice is sent out) and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered a forfeit. (See Title Forfeiture below )

As you can see, the language that attaches the title forfeit penalty to failing to respond to a challenge actually requires more than an acceptance. It requires "setting a time and place." The word "accept" is never used in the rules (that I could find) in this context. So, I'm sort of wondering now if the penalty has just been applied selectively to only the first portion of the rule and not the second portion of the rule, since I know many people simply accept the challenge and then make sure to schedule the time and place within the 2 week time period mentioned the sentence before.

Any one have thoughts on this?

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:04 pm**

Apple wrote:But this also raises another question. Why is it just title holders who are put on this pedistal? Why not challengers who take no effort in contacting the title holder they challenge? In the past it has happened, and the only suggestion I've been given / seen is "Well go ahead and contact them. The challenge needs to get done."
...
If it's the title holders obligation to accept a challenge or to get stripped, then some accountability needs to be put on the challenger when it comes to contacting and finding a caller. No more expecting the title holder to drag their challenger to do their job.

Not really a fan of that rule to be honest, at least not the way it is phrased, and I don't have an immediate recollection of where it came from. At the very lest it should be changed to say that the challenger must contact the Baron to make arrangements after the challenge has been accepted, rather than, as currently stated, after validation. That order of things doesn't make sense to me. I think the title holder is obligated to acknowledge the challenge has been issued, at the very least, before the challenger should then be back on the hook for anything.

As to the general premise of holding the challenger accountable as well, I wouldn't be opposed to something that says if the challenger hasn't made contact within a week of acceptance, then the challenge is void and the challenge right lost. We do go down the path of further complicating things, but if the title holder has the risk of being stripped for not doing their part, this would seem only fair towards the challenger.

Sabine wrote:5: Sylus or Kal, can we please have dates/time stamps added to challenges like Rayvinn did? Those were great!

I guess since you are now standings keeper, you are free to do this =) Personally though, no, I stopped doing it because I found it to be a pain. You're all adults and know how to read a calendar or use google to find a site that does calendar math for you. I try to stay up on a lot of different things around here and help where I can. This, however, is an area that I really think everyone is very well able to help themselves. I also felt like it just made it easier to push the dates forward, knowing exactly how long I can delay the thing before I got in trouble. Now, I will say, you made a post earlier in this thread that made a lot of sense to me around the 7 days acceptance and it being a good thing for IC reasons. Something I admit I really hadn't been considering. So, maybe I find a little less angst with the people that push the dates time and again and try to be open to that. I still don't really think I (or you or Sylus) need to take this on.

Queen wrote:There's been a lot of discussion and I think it's positive. Sylus have you read and acknowledged my last post and do either you or Kalamere plan on addressing it?

Have a little patience. It's a work day and now is the first I've been back to the thread.

I largely disagree with you though, for a couple reasons.
* As addressed to Apple above, I think the rule you're quoting is flawed. I would also mention that contact on the forums, in that same thread you I guess missed?, is considered to qualify as making contact. As an admin I actually PREFER that method of contact because then I have publically visible evidence and don't have to rely on someone's forwarded email or PMs, and risk getting into a he said / she said debate when one tries to say they never got it. Title holders have an obligation to watch the folder for their sport and look for things addressed to them about challenges.

* How you want to deal with the accepting and so forth is up to you. If you are just going to say "accepted" and table it, then so be it. I said that I feel the rules as is encourages both parties to keep it in mind and discuss it. Encourage does not mean force and it does not mean it is going to be the case every time. Sometimes it will. There have been cases there queues of challenge have been exhausted in a single weekend or even a single night. Everyone will handle this in their own way.

I just don't see a compelling reason to change that part of the rules. It bit you and I'm sorry to have seen it. I'd still prefer to leave it as a requirement that a challenge be responded to within seven days, no matter how deep the queue might be.

Apple wrote:(A) Loyal: Lose the ability to call for a test. Lose the right to choose format. The challenger gains the right to choose format.
(B) Renegade: Lose the right to choose format, and lose the ability to call for a test should they become loyal within the time frame of the challenge. The challenger gains the right to choose format.

It is probably the way to go, though I do kinda hate to impact the rights of the Overlord in testing. I'm not sure I see a clear or easy way around it though.

I also agree that if after the day's grace it isn't fixed, then it becomes a forfeit of title.

That's a lot for now and I want to gather my thoughts a bit better around other possible changes for this, so will likely post back again later.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:23 pm**

Kalamere wrote:It is probably the way to go, though I do kinda hate to impact the rights of the Overlord in testing. I'm not sure I see a clear or easy way around it though.

I also agree that if after the day's grace it isn't fixed, then it becomes a forfeit of title.

If further making the rules more complicated were on the table.. Then tweaking it to say that an Overlord *could* step in and, if they lose, the challenge is called as a win to the challenger, could allow for tests to be done while at the same time putting in a penalty for the late party. All the Loyal Barons faith goes into the Overlord to get the job done in a single duel.. though that takes away from the challenger being able to choose format.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:30 pm**

Kalamere wrote:
Queen wrote:There's been a lot of discussion and I think it's positive. Sylus have you read and acknowledged my last post and do either you or Kalamere plan on addressing it?
Have a little patience. It's a work day and now is the first I've been back to the thread.

I read your response and just wanted to say that was directed at Sylus who had taken some time to respond to some posts after mine and I was just making sure it wasn't going to be entirely glossed over. There are rules I disagree with that are still rules. I'm not going to waste your time and butt heads with you on it but thank you and Sylus for taking the time to discuss these matters on the forums.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:43 pm**

Kalamere wrote:
Sabine wrote:5: Sylus or Kal, can we please have dates/time stamps added to challenges like Rayvinn did? Those were great!
I guess since you are now standings keeper, you are free to do this =) Personally though, no, I stopped doing it because I found it to be a pain. You're all adults and know how to read a calendar or use google to find a site that does calendar math for you. I try to stay up on a lot of different things around here and help where I can. This, however, is an area that I really think everyone is very well able to help themselves. I also felt like it just made it easier to push the dates forward, knowing exactly how long I can delay the thing before I got in trouble.

Now, I will say, you made a post earlier in this thread that made a lot of sense to me around the 7 days acceptance and it being a good thing for IC reasons. Something I admit I really hadn't been considering. So, maybe I find a little less angst with the people that push the dates time and again and try to be open to that. I still don't really think I (or you or Sylus) need to take this on.

If I can learn it, I wouldn't mind doing it.

I get confused with the time stamps on the forum being.... I don't know what they are, but they never appear right for me and then I don't know which day/time things were really posted.

Can someone tell me is that something that can be changed or what am I looking at? That way if I do take this on, I can do it right? Please and thanks!

Also thanks for being open to my thoughts on the 7 days. That's cool

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:55 pm**

Sabine wrote:
Kalamere wrote:
Sabine wrote:5: Sylus or Kal, can we please have dates/time stamps added to challenges like Rayvinn did? Those were great!
I guess since you are now standings keeper, you are free to do this =) Personally though, no, I stopped doing it because I found it to be a pain. You're all adults and know how to read a calendar or use google to find a site that does calendar math for you. I try to stay up on a lot of different things around here and help where I can. This, however, is an area that I really think everyone is very well able to help themselves. I also felt like it just made it easier to push the dates forward, knowing exactly how long I can delay the thing before I got in trouble.

Now, I will say, you made a post earlier in this thread that made a lot of sense to me around the 7 days acceptance and it being a good thing for IC reasons. Something I admit I really hadn't been considering. So, maybe I find a little less angst with the people that push the dates time and again and try to be open to that. I still don't really think I (or you or Sylus) need to take this on.
If I can learn it, I wouldn't mind doing it.

I get confused with the time stamps on the forum being.... I don't know what they are, but they never appear right for me and then I don't know which day/time things were really posted.

Can someone tell me is that something that can be changed or what am I looking at? That way if I do take this on, I can do it right? Please and thanks!

Also thanks for being open to my thoughts on the 7 days. That's cool

Profile -> Timezone -> GMT -5:00

That should set you to EST, though it's only view able to you on the name you're signed in on. Outside of that the site will run on a 24 hour clock set to EST.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:54 pm**

Apple wrote:(A) Loyal: Lose the ability to call for a test. Lose the right to choose format. The challenger gains the right to choose format.
(B) Renegade: Lose the right to choose format, and lose the ability to call for a test should they become loyal within the time frame of the challenge. The challenger gains the right to choose format.

While reasonable in theory, the issue with this is that it only becomes a "punishment" roughly half the time. If the format chosen by the challenger aligns with the format the Baron was going to choose anyway, it really doesn't matter. They lose nothing for having violated the rules and stretched out the challenge process. It's actually less than a slap on the wrist, which is arguably going to the other extreme if stripping is on one end of the spectrum.

Kalamere wrote:It is probably the way to go, though I do kinda hate to impact the rights of the Overlord in testing. I'm not sure I see a clear or easy way around it though.

To Kalamere's point, the Overlord testing for a Loyal is an *Overlord* right. The Loyal doesn't call for the OL to Test for them, the OL simply has the right to step in for them and the Loyal *can't* refuse. So in reality you would be infringing on the Overlord's rights when they weren't responsible for any infraction.

"7. Overlord may test on behalf of challenged Loyal Barons without risk of any kind. If the Overlord is successful, the Challenger must concede defeat."

"6. Loyal Barons may not refuse a test from the Overlord against the Loyal Baron's challenger."

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:03 am**

Hope wrote:There's been a lot of discussion and I think it's positive. Sylus have you read and acknowledged my last post and do either you or Kalamere plan on addressing it?

I read your posts, Hope. Just couldn’t come up with a quick response in the time I had before work, whereas my other responses didn’t require much deep thought.

Hope wrote: From Sylus's own mouth this is the most harsh, severe punishment short of a total ban from a sport. Why is this the default punishment? A fighter gets pulled from a card if he doesn't make a press conference but to give up their title? How many challenges does it take for me not to slip once? Apparently not enough, we're only human.

I didn’t write that particular rule, and I’m not sure there’s any still around who do. Why is the default punishment the harshest? I can hazard a few guesses that it’s to ensure all title holders take every challenger seriously. I can presume it’s to discourage barons from waiting until the very last minute to accept the challenge and start the scheduling process.

My honest opinion why Stripping is the default? Why it was made that way?

Because anything else is a slap on the wrist and doesn't make anyone fear punishment. Any other punishment is potentially “lame” and the guilty party will always go "Oh well, no big deal", whereas losing the title makes them really try to keep track of everything.

That's probably not what anyone wants to read. It's been brought up that rewards and punishments should be structured to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. The harshest punishment that shames human error and embarrasses players...certainly provides incentive for players to make sure everything is on the up and up.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:02 am**

Luna Eva wrote:I feel really bad about doing this, but given that a lot of this discussion has come down to what is actually written in the rules, I think it's worth pointing this out.

This is cut and paste from the Universal Terms of Challenge section:

3. A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. Standings are considered official at 6 pm EST on Thursdays. Where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the date and time the validation notice is sent out) and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered a forfeit. (See Title Forfeiture below )
As you can see, the language that attaches the title forfeit penalty to failing to respond to a challenge actually requires more than an acceptance. It requires "setting a time and place." The word "accept" is never used in the rules (that I could find) in this context. So, I'm sort of wondering now if the penalty has just been applied selectively to only the first portion of the rule and not the second portion of the rule, since I know many people simply accept the challenge and then make sure to schedule the time and place within the 2 week time period mentioned the sentence before.

Any one have thoughts on this?

Sorry to have skipped over this yesterday. It IS a pretty big deal really as far as wording an enforcement goes and deserves to be addressed.

I think you're right so far as the "selective enforcement" of the rule and only applying things to the first part of 'answering'. I cannot tell you when that shifted of if the requirement of setting a time and place was *ever* actually enforced.

I think it was probably ignored because people were free to change and alter their arrangements as long as they stayed within the two week guideline. This could be satisfied by throwing out a completely random day/time that had never been discussed with the challenger and then just shifted up later; making it effectively pointless.

I cannot say with complete surety, but I think that was put in place so that when the title holder answered they also at least began the schedule process, so 'setting' is really 'suggesting'. Of course, that has since been turned around to be part of the challengers obligations (which I think should probably be reversed but that's neither here nor there).

Anyway! You bring up a good point, but yes we have significant precedent behind only enforcing the forfeit when there's been no answer at all and ignoring the time and place clause.

I think a lot of this needs cleaning up. The fun part is that any time there's a re-write, we just end up creating new loop holes!

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:30 am**

Sabine wrote:
Kalamere wrote:
Sabine wrote:5: Sylus or Kal, can we please have dates/time stamps added to challenges like Rayvinn did? Those were great!
I guess since you are now standings keeper, you are free to do this =) Personally though, no, I stopped doing it because I found it to be a pain. You're all adults and know how to read a calendar or use google to find a site that does calendar math for you. I try to stay up on a lot of different things around here and help where I can. This, however, is an area that I really think everyone is very well able to help themselves.
If I can learn it, I wouldn't mind doing it.

The other thing I would add to why I stopped doing this is that it requires more than just the validation post if you want to do it right.

There are 2 timelines (not including renegade queue rules). 1 for acceptance of the challenge and the 2nd for when the duel must be fought by. The thing is though that you don't know what #2 is until the acceptance comes down. So, if you want to do this accurately, you need to wait for that acceptance to be made, grab that timestamp and take it to your favorite date calculator just to make sure you don't screw up the math, punch in the numbers, copy down the result and then come back and post to the thread a 2nd reminder to people in how calendars work.

bleh.

What if, instead, validation just included a couple lines reminding people of the rules and included a link to a date checker.

eg:

- Title holder acceptance must be publically posted within 1 week of this validation.
- The challenge must be fought within 2 weeks of the title holders acceptance.
- This tool will assist in helping verify the required dates.

That get us closer?

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2016 9:53 am**

Sylus Kurgen wrote: My honest opinion why Stripping is the default? Why it was made that way?

Because anything else is a slap on the wrist and doesn't make anyone fear punishment. Any other punishment is potentially “lame” and the guilty party will always go "Oh well, no big deal", whereas losing the title makes them really try to keep track of everything.

That's probably not what anyone wants to read. It's been brought up that rewards and punishments should be structured to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. The harshest punishment that shames human error and embarrasses players...certainly provides incentive for players to make sure everything is on the up and up.

I just want to be crystal clear here.

You (I'm asking you directly here, Sylus) are okay with a rule remaining as is that you admit shames and embarrasses players in our community?

I'm also asking that of the rest of the community: are you okay with a rule that the DoS Coordinator admits shames and embarrasses our players?

I'm certainly not.

If we go back to the start of this thread, Nora wasn't either.

Our community is struggling, and we are going to cling to a rule (that's not even an old rule!) for the sake of discouraging potential bad behavior even when what that rule really does is discourage participation.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:03 am**

As an additional thought: I don't support a system that upholds harsh penalties for everyone just to catch the few people who may exploit the rules. In that system, it's the non-exploitative people who suffer.

If we want to shame anyone, why not shame the people who consistently abuse and exploit the not-so-harsh rules?

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:10 am**

Jewell wrote:You (I'm asking you directly here, Sylus) are okay with a rule remaining as is that you admit shames and embarrasses players in our community?

I'm also asking that of the rest of the community: are you okay with a rule that the DoS Coordinator admits shames and embarrasses our players?

Naturally Sylus will have to answer this for himself - but I would say, yes, this a thing that penalties do. The point of a penalty, be it in DoS or in the criminal justicie system, is not only to punish a transgression but also to discourage others from committing the same offense. The threat or possibility of public shame is an overall decent deterrent.

We have to be very careful how we use it of course and we probably do need to better consider alternatives for 'lesser offenses'. Let's also be clear that this isn't a tar and feathered, sent to walk down the streets while some nun rings a bell after them kinda thing either. It's a penalty that people want to avoid is all. Maybe 'shame' isn't really the right word for it, even though Matt and Hope have both mentioned feeling ashamed, I believe the context is perhaps different.

Anyway.. I think you have trouble finding impactful penalties unless you're willing to consider what you think Sylus should be taking off the table. For as many people who might complain when we are overly harsh, there are equal numbers who complain when we do nothing at all and allow some to flaunt the rules. Finding the right balance is a very difficult task, made more so by the fact that the target keeps moving.

Stories from RhyDin & The Rings

About the Overlord's forfeit