About the Overlord's forfeit

[Andrea Anderson]

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.

I don't see the issue in abusers or any player using the rules as written. If a rule is meant for all, it should be meant for all one way or another. If an abuser is found out and punished for a rule compared to a player who forgot to accept a challenge within a 7 day limit, it then brings up ideas of favoritism and bias. That's why whatever rule is made should not differentiate between the two.

As it's been said before. A lot of this trouble talked about in this thread could be averted by the community itself. If you, any of you, see a challenge about to lapse -- all you have to do is post on the forums as a reminder or reach out to the player in IMs or in-chat PMs. I understand that Hope's situation was different, multiple people were unsure of the rule, and it's being looked into right now. But Matt's case and any case like it can be solved with just a friendly reminder from someone close to them.

[Kalamere]

Quick question just to get a feel what y'all would think. I'm not positive I even like it, but it was a thought I figured worth taking temperature on.

What if the slap on the wrist for the 24hour miss was the loss of a fancy? So a Baron would have to fight a warlord with warlord level fancies (4).

It has some ic/ooc crossover issues. For the IC side we could simply call it a sanction filed against the title holder. Maybe it impacts the number of home team spectators allowed in to view the match. I dunno, we could think on a creative IC justification / impact.

OOC wise it makes more sense, fancies seems like a game mechanic we can toy with if/when necessary.

Thoughts?

[Andrea Anderson]

Quick question just to get a feel what y'all would think. I'm not positive I even like it, but it was a thought I figured worth taking temperature on.

What if the slap on the wrist for the 24hour miss was the loss of a fancy? So a Baron would have to fight a warlord with warlord level fancies (4).

It has some ic/ooc crossover issues. For the IC side we could simply call it a sanction filed against the title holder. Maybe it impacts the number of home team spectators allowed in to view the match. I dunno, we could think on a creative IC justification / impact.

OOC wise it makes more sense, fancies seems like a game mechanic we can toy with if/when necessary.

Thoughts?

And they are stripped after that 24 hour period? Is this going to be rolling with every challenge or once per reign / year?

The fancy seems not much.. It's not really harsh. They still gain all the benefits of format and title and an extra day to accept a challenge at the loss of a single fancy.

[Sabine]

If a rule is meant for all, it should be meant for all one way or another. If an abuser is found out and punished for a rule compared to a player who forgot to accept a challenge within a 7 day limit, it then brings up ideas of favoritism and bias. That's why whatever rule is made should not differentiate between the two.

I can agree with that. I think that's where a lot of the "struggle" is. IF things are changed, how is it going to be applied fairly? We all know people love to cry favortism. Is it worth the potential headaches that the coords would deal with? I don't know. As a volunteer, this load can be very heavy, I know.

Quick question just to get a feel what y'all would think. I'm not positive I even like it, but it was a thought I figured worth taking temperature on.

What if the slap on the wrist for the 24hour miss was the loss of a fancy? So a Baron would have to fight a warlord with warlord level fancies (4).

It has some ic/ooc crossover issues. For the IC side we could simply call it a sanction filed against the title holder. Maybe it impacts the number of home team spectators allowed in to view the match. I dunno, we could think on a creative IC justification / impact.

OOC wise it makes more sense, fancies seems like a game mechanic we can toy with if/when necessary.

Thoughts?

I think it's a fairly minor "slap" but I think that it's *something* and could appease those of us who would like to see a bit of leniency and allow for that 24 hour grace. The questions of abusers still comes up. Is there something in place to counteract those who would shrug and say "meh who cares" and do it again?

Sorry to add so many questions to your plate!

Also the things Apple brought up. Good questions.

There were other things brought up before like, not being able to have a warlord step in for a baron on a OL Test.

I have no shame in admiting I DO NOT yet (Still) understand the game mechanics well enough to know what would work or not work. But, I like talking about them here because you guys all have great insights.

[Andrea Anderson]

The questions of abusers still comes up. Is there something in place to counteract those who would shrug and say "meh who cares" and do it again?

It's just 24 hours, so it's not much to be abused if someone is already dragging it out in the first place.

[JewellRavenlock]

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.

Coming back to this because I don't want you to think I was just ignoring your posts!

I don't necessarily disagree with this.

I just don't care for a rule (the stripping rule) that is touted as being in place to prevent abuse but the people it really stings are people who are making mistakes.

People who purposely abuse the rules? I feel like they're smart and savvy enough to abuse the rules while avoiding the penalties. So the ones suffering the penalties are not the people the rule was even intended for but people just making (sometimes stupid and completely avoidable) mistakes.

It seems like what the stripping rule is really doing is shaming and embarrassing people who are making mistakes. It's not shaming the potential rule-abusers it was created for.

Which is why I'm glad it's being looked at and ideas are being discussed even if nothing does change (though I clearly think it should :) )

[Andrea Anderson]

It seems like what the stripping rule is really doing is shaming and embarrassing people who are making mistakes. It's not shaming the potential rule-abusers it was created for.

That would imply that the rule was made to punish abusers. From my take, the rule is there to make sure challenges aren't dragged on and to ensure a speedy challenge process.

Let's look at the current rule change being brought up. A 24 hour grace period and a penalty. Mistakes will still happen with this system, someone will still be stripped -- active or not. Will this conversation then be revisited? Will the 24 hour grace not be enough? In a way, they should just make the acceptance period 8 days instead of 7 instead of adding more rules; if all it takes is 24 hours to be the deciding factor of a mistake.

[Sabine]

The questions of abusers still comes up. Is there something in place to counteract those who would shrug and say "meh who cares" and do it again?

It's just 24 hours, so it's not much to be abused if someone is already dragging it out in the first place.

Oh sorry, should have clarified. By abuse, I meant, what will stop someone from using the 24 hours/slap on the wrist grafe period *Every* challenge?

Like, what would go along with that? Is it a 1 time thing? Applies to any and all challenges forever for a player? Etc...

Using you as an example. Let's say Andrea is a Warlord and goes for a Barony or OL title 4 times in 1 year.... is it acceptable for you to drag all 4 of those challenges out the extended 24 hours? Or is that abusive?

Am I getting too far ahead of myself?

[JewellRavenlock]

It seems like what the stripping rule is really doing is shaming and embarrassing people who are making mistakes. It's not shaming the potential rule-abusers it was created for.

That would imply that the rule was made to punish abusers. From my take, the rule is there to make sure challenges aren't dragged on and to ensure a speedy challenge process.

True! I don't really want to drag out the challenge process either? I'm also aware that I may be asking for the moon here.

I don't know that it really matters what the rule was intended for at its inception. I am concerned about who the application of the rule actually shames and if that's all it does.

It's not really all it does if it also (normally) ensures that the challenge process isn't dragged out. I wonder if there's a better way to make that happen though without the shaming part!

[Andrea Anderson]

The questions of abusers still comes up. Is there something in place to counteract those who would shrug and say "meh who cares" and do it again?

It's just 24 hours, so it's not much to be abused if someone is already dragging it out in the first place.

Oh sorry, should have clarified. By abuse, I meant, what will stop someone from using the 24 hours/slap on the wrist grafe period *Every* challenge?

Like, what would go along with that? Is it a 1 time thing? Applies to any and all challenges forever for a player? Etc...

Using you as an example. Let's say Andrea is a Warlord and goes for a Barony or OL title 4 times in 1 year.... is it acceptable for you to drag all 4 of those challenges out the extended 24 hours? Or is that abusive?

Am I getting too far ahead of myself?

If Andrea was a Warlord and challenged a Baron who dragged things out until he 24 hour period and they suffered a fancy loss.. I wouldn't personally care. At least they decided to game the system and respond instead of being forgetful about it. The gaming the system isn't an issue for me to deal with. I'm going to wait anyway, what's an extra 24 hours?

The 24 hour grace isn't a very big wait period. It's pretty much a Barony having 8 days to respond now.

If I were the Baron, I usually wait until day 6 if I intended to drag it out. I mark my calendar to make sure I know to come in and respond. It's a personal obligation that coordinators should not be nagging me to look into.

If I did want to game the system, I'd go loyal, wait the 8 days, suffer the penalty, then have the OL step into my challenge if they are willing. But that's not really gaming the system, it's just strategy. All I do is suffer 1 fancy penalty and still hold the rest of my benefits.

[Andrea Anderson]

It's not really all it does if it also (normally) ensures that the challenge process isn't dragged out. I wonder if there's a better way to make that happen though without the shaming part!

Shame is a part of life. If you screw up and don't feel shame, then that's a problem. Coordinators can only do so much and players need to put their responsibilities on their own shoulders.

Kalamere's posting of a time/date site and a straight forward acceptance process in his validation would already do a lot, some might even call it hand holding. Sabine going a step forward and posting the dates up without asking the duelists to use the site, once more, helps give more clarity. That would be doing much to ensure that players properly go through the challenge process. If the title holder then make a mistake, it is on them, and if they feel shame for it then that's good -- because maybe they won't do it again.

Because shame is not always bad. If you tell a child not to touch a stove and they do it anyway, then they finally understand why they shouldn't touch the stove. Maybe next time they will listen to their parents.

[Mason]

Shame and embarrassment is not an effective motivation to follow any rule.

You cannot make someone feel embarrassed or ashamed. Hope and Matt felt those things because of their own personal sense of what is right and wrong. Not because Sylus thinks the rule should make them feel that way.

There have been/still are/will be people on this site that feel no shame or embarrassment. No rule designed to shame them will make them follow it.

If you tell a child not to touch the stove and they do and get burned they learn not to do it because it hurts, not because of shame.

I'm curious though, why doesn't the challenger have a say in any of this. Why aren't they asked if they want to go through with it anyway? Could make for some good roleplay. Hope says "Sorry, I messed up. Can we still do this?" Andu says "Sure, if you wear a duck costume during the fight."

[Kalamere]

I'm curious though, why doesn't the challenger have a say in any of this. Why aren't they asked if they want to go through with it anyway? Could make for some good roleplay. Hope says "Sorry, I messed up. Can we still do this?" Andu says "Sure, if you wear a duck costume during the fight."

Two primary reasons.

First so that all violations of the rule are treated the same. That was sort of a driving force to get rid of the barons council, for better or worse. If I get to go forward with my fight because I challenged Hope who is cool with it, while you get a forfeit ruling because Apple kinda thinks your an ass (even though she was fine with going forward against Matt last cycle!) - then we're put back into an uneven enforcement situation that allows for that kind of favoritism.

Second is pressure on the challenger to always accept it. This I saw in the the dueling leagues. People began to get really pissy with anyone who asked for the forfeit and it became the expectation that nobody would. There's a sense of peer pressure I guess is the best or closest term. I don't want the challenger being held out as the bad guy in these situations. I don't think that is fair to them when they've done nothing wrong.

[Hope]

First so that all violations of the rule are treated the same. That was sort of a driving force to get rid of the barons council, for better or worse.

This one really resonated with me. I think a Barons Council is a really cool idea and I'm wondering did the Overlord have the power to veto a decision on the Council? Going back to the original post, I feel the Coordinators did unless I'm remembering that wrong. It still just really would suck to be that guy who's left out to dry for any reason while someone else gets their shot.

Personally I think the prospect of abuse is always worth considering but I don't think it's ever a reason not to move forward. Let's be real: when it comes to abuse there's only one real route. Someone J-Walking and losing their driver's license over it isn't abuse. Someone who institutes new rules to be put in is an abuser of past rules. No past case of abuse has ever not been rectified with new rules(or with a player-specific sanction). Not all of them are complicated either. I don't see why it would get in the way now when it will crop up in the future and it'll be handled in future.

On a different thought I have a question for Kalamere and Sylus.

4. Warlords are unable to challenge the same Barony twice in a row. (I.E. Seaside, and then Seaside again.)

For hypothetical reasons, New Haven was the last Barony that Hope challenged for. Is it the case that should Hope want to return at some point in the future and go for New Haven again, would she be allowed to? If not- could it be a case where in future strippings an amendment be made to allow it as long as it's within the time frame allowed? I ask this because traditionally in sports when someone misses a fight say from a training injury there is still a title fight that goes through. The winner is an interim champion and eventually the title holder will get a shot at them. I'm not saying these two scenarios are the same- they're not, I'm wondering if we could generate some good stories for these scenarios to make them less awkward for characters in the future. That and I legitimately don't know the answer to this question

[Andrea Anderson]

4. Warlords are unable to challenge the same Barony twice in a row. (I.E. Seaside, and then Seaside again.)

For hypothetical reasons, New Haven was the last Barony that Hope challenged for. Is it the case that should Hope want to return at some point in the future and go for New Haven again, would she be allowed to? If not- could it be a case where in future strippings an amendment be made to allow it as long as it's within the time frame allowed? I ask this because traditionally in sports when someone misses a fight say from a training injury there is still a title fight that goes through. The winner is an interim champion and eventually the title holder will get a shot at them. I'm not saying these two scenarios are the same- they're not, I'm wondering if we could generate some good stories for these scenarios to make them less awkward for characters in the future. That and I legitimately don't know the answer to this question

It's supposed to be once per cycle, the challenging a Barony twice in a row. A Baron can't challenge the same person back-to-back in a cycle. This was answered by Al in a rule discussion thread.

A Warlord will be unable to challenge for the same Barony twice in a row within the same cycle. ( ie: Challenge for Seaside once, lose, Challenge for Seaside again.) They could, conceivably, challenge for Seaside at the end of one cycle, lose, and challenge for Seaside at the beginning of the next. That scenario is alright, as they would not be able to challenge for that Barony again in the second cycle with exception to the following rare example:

End of Cycle A
Challenge Right used to challenge for Seaside
Beginning of Cycle B
Challenge Right used to challenge for Seaside
Second Challenge Right used to Challenge for New Haven
WLT Challenge Grant used to challenge for Seaside
All in the same cycle.

The main intention for this is to allow for the ability for others to challenge for that Barony instead of having it locked up by one character. In the example given of 10 Warlords for one player, this does cut it down to potentially 5. Right now the most characters under one player ranked Warlord is 3. So while that would allow three challenges, it can also be considered an unlikely scenario to be abused. However should it be abused, we can address it then. While I don't anticipate a rush on one individual Baron at this time, it is something I will closely watch. Especially as there are those who could have many Warlords taken off the inactivity list.

We also don't know everyone's alts. And while we do know quite a few and most people don't seem to keep it secret anymore, I don't want to be that intrusive. If they are known, then we can address that situation.

The post can be found here. The wording on the rule should probably be revised since it was confusing enough to prompt the question here but never really changed after being answered.

9. Titleholders (Barons/Overlord), should they fail to defend their challenge, must wait 7 days before they can issue a challenge.
*7 day count begins when the standings become official on Thursday at 6pm Eastern.

For some reason I keep thinking there was a clause or rule somewhere where Barons could re-challenge for their title after the 7 day cooldown period, if they so chose to, within the same cycle.. I'd have to dig into the rule discussion to see if it's there.

Edit: Found it.

Main post has been updated to read.

Renegade Barons may only choose a Warlord or another Renegade Baron as a champion in a test from the Overlord. Warlords do not get to choose a champion, but a Renegade Baron may step in on their behalf.

* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint a Warlord as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings.

First, it should be noted that the length of time is being changed to 7 days. Regarding the question, The victorious party in a challenge match does not receive a grace period. The Losing Baron would not be eligible to issue any challenges for 7 days after the standings reflecting the challenge results are posted. I.E. Aya loses her Barony on a Thursday the 7th. The standings reflecting this will be posted on Thursday the 14th. She would not be eligible to issue a challenge until Thursday the 21st. Loyal Barons can only be challenged once per calendar month(The new Baron would be able to be immediately challenged in the example above on the 14th) and Renegade Barons still will have a queue. The 7 days is only for the loser of the challenge.

* Barons, should they fail to defend their challenge, must wait 7 days before they can issue a challenge.
* Titleholders (Barons/Overlord) who lose their challenge are eligible to issue a challenge for that Title they failed to defend following the 7 day wait. (I.E. The Former Baron of Seaside may challenge to Seaside after 7 days)
* The 7/14 Day Recess period begins upon the updating of the Official Standings.

Edit: Edited to fix an error in "* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint a Warlord as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings." Now correctly reads "* Renegade Barons, when challenging the Overlord, have the right to appoint a Warlord or another Renegade Baron as champion when tested by the Overlord provided they appear on the current standings."

Can be found here.