About the Overlord's forfeit

[Luna Eva]

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.

If it hasn't been clear from what I've been saying throughout the thread, I disagree with the concept of using shame and embarrassment as the motivator to elicit the behavior you want in a game. A penalty, absolutely. But in my opinion, there is nothing positive gained from shaming human error. I have a feeling you don't actually want to use 'shame' as a tool. Maybe Kal is right and it's just the wrong word. But it is a word that the two players we are discussing in this thread themselves used, so we should at least acknowledge that 'shame' is in play under the current system.

I have no problem with penalties with teeth to help encourage people to follow the rules. I don't think you need to whip a horse to the point of bloodiness to get it to move though.

I also think it's worth noting that I don't think we need to penalize "human error" in order to penalize bad behavior. Those are actually two different things. If you have a rule that occasionally penalizes honest mistakes along with intentional misdeeds, and it is too complicated or impossible to amend the rule so that it only captures or applies to intentional misdeeds, then I would suggest an appropriate response is to calibrate the penalty to acknowledge that occasional human error will be penalized. I don't think this penalty does that.

What's a little bit more troubling to me is that in the context of DoS right now, especially in light of much of the discussion we've had here, I'm not sure what it means to "make sure everything is on the up and up." I'm not sure this sport's own rules do either, let alone the people who enforce them. An individual cannot be expected to conform to rules that are selectively enforced or not enforced as they are written. Simply put, I find that confusing.

I reiterate my belief that title forfeiture is overly harsh as the first and final step in this penalty regime. I hope you take this into consideration as you have your private conversations about whether adjustments are appropriate.

[Sylus Kurgen]

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?

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.

I used "shamed" and "embarrassed" because that is the language expressed by both Matt and Hope, much like Kalamere said as well. In their positions I would feel the same.

To answer your question though? Yes. I am okay with this rule remaining as it is. Is it going to? Not likely.

In reviewing the acceptance rules, by technicality not a single one of the last string of challenges, including yours against Hope, should have gone forward. Kalamere validated it on the 27th, there wasn't a post about a date/time for the challenge until the 7th. It's required that 7 days after validation there needs to be a post with a time and date. You posted one 10 days after.

Had Kalamere and myself been paying closer attention to the dates, a whole lot of other people besides Hope would have been penalized, yourself included. If it wasn't for a member of the community pointing out the missed deadline, it is likely none of this would have happened.

I, and my team, now have a lot of work ahead of us.

Harsh punishments NEED to remain on the table as a deterrent, but that doesn't mean we can't look into alternatives. DoS in particular has a history of 3rd strike mentalities getting abused.

I absolutely believe that if players CAN abuse the rules, they WILL.

[Sabine]

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?----

Broke the quote and on my phone.


I think that is a reasonable alternative. I wouldn't mind the other but I think this works too

[DemiBob]

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?

Yes. We're all adults here. We can put on our big people pants and handle our mistakes with dignity.

re; Community, getting more people to play doesn't require us to change the rules to be more .. attractive to outsiders, or to keep new people involved. I remain attached to the idea that we need actual new blood on RDI and RoH to grow either community, ie advertise, bring new friends in, etc.

[Andrea Anderson]

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?

If you do that it should hopefully make things crystal clear and would take heat off you and Sylus as coordinators. That's always a plus.. Until another loop hole is found >__>. It'd get rid of the whole confusion of renegade queue as well ( maybe ) since it clearly states what has to be done.

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?

Yeah. Not everything can be a happiness and sunshine. Title holders literally have seven days to respond to a challenge. Honestly, adding the no-strip clause to the rules for first offense might not even change much if we're looking at how these issues are cropping up: either by skirting the timelimit and getting stripped, or completely forgetting and not understanding the renegade queue system. The first is a player issue, the second is a player issue as well though can be cleared up easily by how Kalamere's example shows for validation going on from here on. If the no-stripping clause was 24 or even 48 hours all that would do is add on 2 more days for anyone to skirt if they don't care about format, on top of a whole original week for someone to respond. It seems like a bandage that is put up just to appease the masses and for everyone to pat themselves on the back and act like they did a good job trying to change something.

All embarrassment and shame can be averted by these active players we're talking about, since they *are* around. They should see the forum posts, they should set up a phone notification or even accept the challenge then and there instead of letting it drag out. Some responsibility has to be given to the person, not the coordinating team.

If embarrassment and shame is the price to pay to keep people from dragging out their challenges, then so be it. Because there seems to be a forgotten person in this whole conversation: and that's the challenger. Who is sitting there, twiddling their thumbs, having to wait for these players to accept a challenge they followed the rules to create.

[Sylus Kurgen]

Yes. We're all adults here. We can put on our big people pants and handle our mistakes with dignity.

This will always be my view as well, Bob.

re; Community, getting more people to play doesn't require us to change the rules to be more .. attractive to outsiders, or to keep new people involved. I remain attached to the idea that we need actual new blood on RDI and RoH to grow either community, ie advertise, bring new friends in, etc.

Once again, agreed. RDI/RoH's symbiotic/parasitic relationship to each other has pretty much exhausted itself. Both communities are shrinking continuously. However this discussion is for another thread and worth exploring.

[Andrea Anderson]

In reviewing the acceptance rules, by technicality not a single one of the last string of challenges, including yours against Hope, should have gone forward. Kalamere validated it on the 27th, there wasn't a post about a date/time for the challenge until the 7th. It's required that 7 days after validation there needs to be a post with a time and date. You posted one 10 days after.

Had Kalamere and myself been paying closer attention to the dates, a whole lot of other people besides Hope would have been penalized, yourself included. If it wasn't for a member of the community pointing out the missed deadline, it is likely none of this would have happened.

What's looking at being changed? Is the idea of keeping the rule on table and just making it more of a focus by pointing it out via validation, or is there some plans to change it?

[Kalamere]

Had Kalamere and myself been paying closer attention to the dates, a whole lot of other people besides Hope would have been penalized, yourself included. If it wasn't for a member of the community pointing out the missed deadline, it is likely none of this would have happened.

For what it's worth this was not an oversight or a case of not paying attention. This is a case of past precedent. That portion of the rules has never been enforced that I know of. I'd actually say that the rule Apple quoted earlier regarding the challengers need to make contact about scheduling within a week of validation is nearly in direct opposition to it and calls into question whose job any of this is (have I mentioned I don't care for that rule?).

It is sloppy and is something we should look at re-drafting in hopes to clean up. It isn't a case of not paying attention though.

[Sylus Kurgen]

In reviewing the acceptance rules, by technicality not a single one of the last string of challenges, including yours against Hope, should have gone forward. Kalamere validated it on the 27th, there wasn't a post about a date/time for the challenge until the 7th. It's required that 7 days after validation there needs to be a post with a time and date. You posted one 10 days after.

Had Kalamere and myself been paying closer attention to the dates, a whole lot of other people besides Hope would have been penalized, yourself included. If it wasn't for a member of the community pointing out the missed deadline, it is likely none of this would have happened.

What's looking at being changed? Is the idea of keeping the rule on table and just making it more of a focus by pointing it out via validation, or is there some plans to change it?

That's something he and I need to discuss in depth. The validation example he put up is one step, another is to give Renegade Queue's its own fully explained block section.

Holding challenger's accountable for reaching out to the Barons/OL beyond the one announcement post is more difficult to track, especially if protecting player anonymity is involved because many use the same e-mail for several characters.

[Andrea Anderson]

In reviewing the acceptance rules, by technicality not a single one of the last string of challenges, including yours against Hope, should have gone forward. Kalamere validated it on the 27th, there wasn't a post about a date/time for the challenge until the 7th. It's required that 7 days after validation there needs to be a post with a time and date. You posted one 10 days after.

Had Kalamere and myself been paying closer attention to the dates, a whole lot of other people besides Hope would have been penalized, yourself included. If it wasn't for a member of the community pointing out the missed deadline, it is likely none of this would have happened.

What's looking at being changed? Is the idea of keeping the rule on table and just making it more of a focus by pointing it out via validation, or is there some plans to change it?

That's something he and I need to discuss in depth. The validation example he put up is one step, another is to give Renegade Queue's its own fully explained block section.

Holding challenger's accountable for reaching out to the Barons/OL beyond the one announcement post is more difficult to track, especially if protecting player anonymity is involved because many use the same e-mail for several characters.

Yeah that'd be difficult. The only way I could see it work is if challengers are made to post publicly on the forums for first contact with possible dates and their choice of callers. I'm of the mind that, as long as the challenge gets done in the 2 week period, then it doesn't matter how it gets done. But I'd just personally like to see some accountability put on challengers for not dragging their own heels in finding callers and contacting the ones who challenge them.

[Sylus Kurgen]

Had Kalamere and myself been paying closer attention to the dates, a whole lot of other people besides Hope would have been penalized, yourself included. If it wasn't for a member of the community pointing out the missed deadline, it is likely none of this would have happened.

For what it's worth this was not an oversight or a case of not paying attention. This is a case of past precedent. That portion of the rules has never been enforced that I know of. I'd actually say that the rule Apple quoted earlier regarding the challengers need to make contact about scheduling within a week of validation is nearly in direct opposition to it and calls into question whose job any of this is (have I mentioned I don't care for that rule?).

It is sloppy and is something we should look at re-drafting in hopes to clean up. It isn't a case of not paying attention though.

We've got our work cut out for us, don't we Old Bean? I thought much of this was an oversight. Agreed that's a section that needs cleaned up with more than Spackle.

[Sabine]

It is sloppy and is something we should look at re-drafting in hopes to clean up. It isn't a case of not paying attention though.

I'm liking this!

I am all for tying up loose ends and making things clear and concise.

As for Jewell's questions re: embarrassing players, etc. Are we for it?

Yes and no?

I do not like the terminology used, but I understand the need for a rule like the one in place.

I'm still agreeing with Eva (And my original thoughts) that a first time offense is either waived or has a less harsh punishment.

I keep seeing people saying "well people will abuse it" but then at the same time, we've dealt with this HOW many times in HOW many years? So it doesn't appear to be excessive, so can we allow for some leway?

That's not for me to determine. I'm a softy at heart and would prefer to always give the benefit of the doubt and work with people. But, I am not running the show here and I will admit I do not know the domino affect one rule change may have on other rules.

I was satisfied with the initial discussions RE: Matt. Didn't quite like but could be agreeable. With Hope's situation, I was more or less wanting to see some better clarification with the rengade queues, which I think is happening with the talk of time stamps coming back and questions having been answered.

I think we don't need kid gloves and we are all adults, but also think there is always room for improvement. Things shift from time to time and it opens up new areas of need. Maybe right now our community needs a little something different than before? I'm not for handing out freebies, participation trophies, etc.... but I am for looking and being open to improvements.

The terminology being used for the the rules seems to be more offensive than the actual rules to me. And reasonably, I can't get upset about that even if it rubs me the wrong way. Poh-tay-toh Pa-tah-toe... yanno?

[Andrea Anderson]

I keep seeing people saying "well people will abuse it" but then at the same time, we've dealt with this HOW many times in HOW many years? So it doesn't appear to be excessive, so can we allow for some leway?

It's going to be abused one way or another. The main issue of my complaint about possible abuse is not the abuse itself, but what would the slap on the wrist gain? We can't say one way or another until Sylus and Kalamere come out with their idea, everything right now is speculation on what they may choose. All I know is, without speculation, challengers have seven days to reply to a challenge. Some drag it out and are bit for it, or are confuseed - bit for it - and then spark a conversation like this which has seen results; Kalamere's post on changing validation format. Hope's main issue is fixed right there. Adding the time/date site date will give title holders (and challengers) the ability to check when they should respond. If you're going to validate, you said you'd take it a step more and post the exact date too -- so that issue is, hopefully, fixed. It's hand holding, but isn't that what's being asked for? There would be no need for extensions if set date/times are clearly stated and everyone knows what can happen if these are ignored.

Abuse itself isn't exactly a bad thing.. What some might view OOC as abuse can be easily explained IC anyway, an example was seen in this very thread about skirting the acceptance of a challenge. If your character is a dick, then abuse might be their thing.

I'm just happy to see that validations are going to be clearer. So I thank Kalamere and Sylus for that, and hope they don't get too bogged down with rewriting and revising.

[Sabine]

What would the slap on the wrist gain? We can't say one way or another until Sylus and Kalamere come out with their idea, everything right now is speculation on what they may choose.

Abuse itself isn't exactly a bad thing.. What some might view OOC as abuse can be easily explained IC anyway, an example was seen in this very thread about skirting the acceptance of a challenge. If your character is a dick, then abuse might be their thing.

I'm just happy to see that validations are going to be clearer. So I thank Kalamere and Sylus for that, and hope they don't get too bogged down with rewriting and revising.

It is just killer (in a bad way) to see people who have worked so hard stripped of titles. You know? Rule in place or not, it super sucks. Especially when they've worked their butts off for so long and given so much. I know we can't treat people differently, it has to be the same for all. But it does make it a hard pill to swallow. People who WANT to abuse a system will find a way to do it regardless. I think it's quite obvious that neither Matt nor Hope are looking to do that. I'd rather deal with abusers as they come than have such a harsh penalty for the occasional mistake. But... that's been covered. It's a dead horse. It's in the hands of the coords and I'll do my best to be supportive of whatever is decided.

You are right, it opens up some IC possibilities. Although I am sad about Hope's IC decision, I think it will make for some interesting stories and that's a pretty cool way to handle things.

And agree, I am happy to see validations are being talked about happening and that both Kal and Sylus have been present to discuss this with us. I can respect that.

[JewellRavenlock]

It is just killer (in a bad way) to see people who have worked so hard stripped of titles. You know? Rule in place or not, it super sucks. Especially when they've worked their butts off for so long and given so much. I know we can't treat people differently, it has to be the same for all. But it does make it a hard pill to swallow. People who WANT to abuse a system will find a way to do it regardless. I think it's quite obvious that neither Matt nor Hope are looking to do that. I'd rather deal with abusers as they come than have such a harsh penalty for the occasional mistake. But... that's been covered. It's a dead horse. It's in the hands of the coords and I'll do my best to be supportive of whatever is decided.

^all the words