Mentor Mod Rule

[Rakeesh]

During can mean from start to finish. During can mean for two seconds. During can mean for the round in which the mod is used. During can mean as soon as the mentor sees from an alt that 'oh crap, my mentee is dueling, gotta run in'.

I hate to be "that guy" (or girl), but by its very definition,

dur·ing
preposition
1.
throughout the duration, continuance, or existence of
2.
at some time or point in the course of


1 supports where I'm coming from. For the duration.
2 supports some of you others. At any time.

When it's split like that, I'd say clarification is needed so that nobody gets butthurt or confused.

I'll give you another example of where things get vague, here.

I'm a Jade, dueling, and my mentor is present. I begin a duel with 3 mods.

In Round 1, I FDO.

In Round 2, I Jumpkick. In Round 2, my mentor gets punted.

In Round 3, do I have 2 mods left? Or 1 mod left? If I'd PMed the Caller in R1 to specify "(Mentor)FDO", would I have 2 mods left still after my mentor got punted? Do you need to specify mentor mods?

---

It's not as clear-cut as you're saying it is. Like many other rules that have been changed, or further specified, this could use specification for a number of reasons. For one, none of the above technicalities are broached in the brief rule.

And while we're looking at it, I just happen to want to advocate making the mod pool static and not fluctuating, to steal Harris' verbiage. IMO, it's more fair to everyone involved. You can still require active coaching, and if someone is being a shady mentor and dropping a lot after R1 and never coming back, you can point the administrators to chat logs and they can warn/strip that player of the ability to be a mentor.

But static mod pools just seem ... much more fair, to everyone, and easier to regulate from a caller's perspective.

[Hope]

During can mean from start to finish. During can mean for two seconds. During can mean for the round in which the mod is used. During can mean as soon as the mentor sees from an alt that 'oh crap, my mentee is dueling, gotta run in'.

I hate to be "that guy" (or girl), but by its very definition,

dur·ing
preposition
1.
throughout the duration, continuance, or existence of
2.
at some time or point in the course of


1 supports where I'm coming from. For the duration.
2 supports some of you others. At any time.

When it's split like that, I'd say clarification is needed so that nobody gets butthurt or confused.

So let's operate under the pretenses that everyone here has read the rules and agreed that this is a case of ambiguity within the semantic ruling of the above term. Why wasn't anyone involved actively pursuing an answer before the duel? Why wasn't anyone involved, aside from the caller, actively asking Matt about this? Why hasn't a topic arisen about this in any foreseeable time prior to the match which instigated this? This is a result of ignorance of the rules. It's happened to me, I get that it can suck, but I moved on. Don't play it off for what it's not. If it were definition 1, it would read: during the entire duel*. If I had to guess I'd say the ruling is how it is so that a mentor can be present, give intentional aid to a mentee and is flexible for an occurrence like a punt without fault coming to anyone involved.


TLDR: Go talk to Matt. I'm not Matt. This could have been solved in 3 seconds if instead of making a post someone took the time to IM someone, instead of this.

[King]

I'll give you another example of where things get vague, here.

I'm a Jade, dueling, and my mentor is present. I begin a duel with 3 mods.

In Round 1, I FDO.

In Round 2, I Jumpkick. In Round 2, my mentor gets punted.

In Round 3, do I have 2 mods left? Or 1 mod left? If I'd PMed the Caller in R1 to specify "(Mentor)FDO", would I have 2 mods left still after my mentor got punted? Do you need to specify mentor mods?

You wouldn't have a mentor mod if your mentor is punted.

In the rules it states,

the Mentee will receive an in-game benefit of 1 more modifier than their current rank allows. Thus, Glass would get 1 mod, Jade 3 mods, and Rubies 4 mods.

Above their current rank. The extra mod comes after any mods the player originally has, or that is what Matt told me during Hydra when I asked. In the end, all you have to do is go and ask the coordinator. So if a punting happened? No mentor mod since it is considered a third, extra mod for the jade. Their first two which had been used were their jade mods. And yes, I've always been asked to add (Mentor) before a fancy when either a glass and have mentor status or use a mentor fancy for a third. It allows the Callers to know what you're doing.

Also, Claire. The rule has been touched on already. The match that happened tonight had the ruling shown right there. Correct me if I'm wrong. The caller asked if the Mod is usable due to the mentor being outside of the duel and now coaching. The ruling was that yes, the mod could then be used.

The clarification is right there. It was allowed and is allowed.

[Goldglo]

This thread grew quickly; I had a response typed out, forgot to hit send, and now it's 3 pages later!

In DoF, mentor mods should only apply if the mentor is actively engaged in role-playing mentoring. It's not like DoM where the mod can be used if the mentor's SN is simply in the chatroom.

If the mentor is not actively coaching, the mod should not be allowed. For clarity, actively coaching is not sending ::watches duel::. There needs to be a meaningful level of interactivity and play going on.

The problem with that is 'meaningful' is a subjective term and callers often do not have the time to cross-check who's doing what in regards to IC mentoring & RP interaction. Mentoring should not be an added drain to or become a pain in the neck for callers to track.

The spirit behind the rule and indeed, the entire reason for creating the mentoring system in the first place was to serve as an impetus for more IC interaction (while also giving a small in-game bonus to the low-ranked character). However, I realize specific wording/ambiguity/room for multiple interpretations can often trump spirit as it seems to have in this case. That's not me saying Rakeesh's player is in any way wrong to have raised the question. It's me saying it bums me out a bit that there's contention over what should be a relatively simple system. That being said, it's my job and Kheldar's job to fix stuff if there's a potential problem and it seems here that there's a potential problem.

Kheldar's player and I will review the rules and the associated wording and revise (or not) as we deem necessary. What I can 99% promise won't change is the requirement for IC interaction. I'd honestly rather get rid of mentoring altogether than have a situation where a SN just needs to be lurking in a room to give another player a game-mechanics bonus.

--Matt

[Lem DeAngelo]

It's not like DoM where the mod can be used if the mentor's SN is simply in the chatroom.

Just wanted to clarify that in DoM the mentor must be present IC. OOC screen name login doesn't count. But as long as the mentor has entered the room at some point, the mentor mod is good to go.

Also, I've always assumed a mentee can use a mod at any time if their mentor shows up during the match. I have no preference as to what this rule is in DoF though, but that's what I always assumed. I made a point to note who my opponent's mentor was so that I could watch for the mentor to arrive in case I needed to adjust accordingly.

[Napoleon Bonarat]

I'm with King on this. And I would forgive a punt since that's an OOC problem. If the mentor was clearly coaching before, and we're not supposed to address punts in any IC manner, IC the mentor is still there and coaching.

It's about the spirit of the bonus. It's one mod. Going into all these details and what ifs seems to me as focusing on taking something away. The mentor program is for a little bonus for a low ranked character.

Everyone has access to the standings. Know going into your duel that your opponent might get to use an extra fancy if their mentor walks in and starts watching and coaching their mentee. It's playing smart and knowing your opponent's full potential.

[Claire Gallows]

During can mean from start to finish. During can mean for two seconds. During can mean for the round in which the mod is used. During can mean as soon as the mentor sees from an alt that 'oh crap, my mentee is dueling, gotta run in'.

I hate to be "that guy" (or girl), but by its very definition,

dur·ing
preposition
1.
throughout the duration, continuance, or existence of
2.
at some time or point in the course of


1 supports where I'm coming from. For the duration.
2 supports some of you others. At any time.

When it's split like that, I'd say clarification is needed so that nobody gets butthurt or confused.

So let's operate under the pretenses that everyone here has read the rules and agreed that this is a case of ambiguity within the semantic ruling of the above term. Why wasn't anyone involved actively pursuing an answer before the duel? Why wasn't anyone involved, aside from the caller, actively asking Matt about this? Why hasn't a topic arisen about this in any foreseeable time prior to the match which instigated this? This is a result of ignorance of the rules. It's happened to me, I get that it can suck, but I moved on. Don't play it off for what it's not. If it were definition 1, it would read: during the entire duel*. If I had to guess I'd say the ruling is how it is so that a mentor can be present, give intentional aid to a mentee and is flexible for an occurrence like a punt without fault coming to anyone involved.


TLDR: Go talk to Matt. I'm not Matt. This could have been solved in 3 seconds if instead of making a post someone took the time to IM someone, instead of this.

Beeeeeeeeecause, I have really bad A.D.D.

When I questioned a caller on it (you know...the official in the room at the time midmatch, the one you should be able to go to about things like this), I guess Matt was asked about it and I was told that it hadn't been asked about before but that if I disagreed with it, I should post. I didn't. That's my bad.

It's ultimately ambiguous semantics, but for the sake of a caller not getting slammed by arguments about it and people being upset and such, I feel that it needs to be cleared up. If that ends up being a clarification to say that it's "at any point in the duel" then so be it. I'm not campaigning for a change. I'm campaigning for clarification.

[Claire Gallows]

Also, Claire. The rule has been touched on already. The match that happened tonight had the ruling shown right there. Correct me if I'm wrong. The caller asked if the Mod is usable due to the mentor being outside of the duel and now coaching. The ruling was that yes, the mod could then be used.

The clarification is right there. It was allowed and is allowed.

I'm not referring to last night's duel. I wasn't actively engaged in the duels and therefore wasn't paying attention to the in the moment issue, but the thread afterwards did spark my interest because I've been in the same situation. It's not something that should have to be discussed every time it comes up. In the moment "clarification" can be avoided if it is set firmly in the rules ahead of time. That solves all of this.

[Claire Gallows]

Mmk, now that my attention span has got the better of me, I'm gonna leave this thread be now. It's going to be looked at, that's all I wanted.

I heart all of you though, just saying.

[Shadowlord]

This thread asploded like crazy!

Personally I agree with King - the wording of the rule has allowed a mentor to arrive after the duel's beginning and grant the one mod to the mentee. I don't personally recall whether it's happened in my case, but lacking a log of long-past duels and such, I cannot dispute that it has.

That said, Rakeesh and Harris' idea - for a rules *change* - has some merit. It's fair to have a set mod pool. Again, that would be a change from how it's been done before.

That's my one post on the matter!

[Hope]

It's been a pretty fun ride while it's lasted. Today I learned:

• people should always be reminded to check the rules!
• before you duel someone open the standings so there are no possible surprises!
• if you're a mentee/mentor and you're not clear on the rules when you can give a mod/can use a mod, I'm wondering why no one has asked prior to this thread! Shame on you!
• kittens are adorable
• i'm hungry

[Fourth]

You know what makes me the most confused about this? How absurdly pointless it all is. There's a really, really easy way to handle this. I'll try it right now.

Hey, Matt! There's something I don't understand about the rules, maybe the wording is vague? Do you think you could do me a favor and clarify or take a second look at them?

I bet Matt's answer would have been something like "Sure, I can do that. I'll get back to you when I get to it. Thanks for letting me know of the possible issue."


Not that I support the change, I think the rule is fine as it is, but that's moot. I'm just stunned that this has gone on for so long. Let's all be mature and let it be decided by, you know, the person who, you know, decides things.

[JewellRavenlock]

I'm confused.

Is it forbidden to have discussion about a rule for some reason?

If certain people don't feel the need to have a discussion about it.. then don't! Easy peasy. Don't participate.

To make it seem like people are being ridiculous for participating in a conversation like this, for admitting they're confused, or don't get it, or don't like it... that's ridiculous to me.

ETA: Okay, posting this thread really wasn't asking for clarification when I go back and look at it, but that still doesn't really change how I feel about it. Rakeesh is welcome to his opinion, as is everyone else.

Could it have been done in private? Sure. But has no one else ever had a question or thought about something and then thought: "Hm, I bet if I'm confused/concerned by this, maybe someone else is.. I should post it!"

Just because Matt and Kheld are the ones to make a decision in the end, doesn't mean other people can't weigh in with their thoughts on the topic. Hey! I think I'll do that right now:

I think the wording could be clearer.


--
"I'm just stunned that this has gone on for so long."

Mel, welcome to the community. I can't speak as much for these boards, but this is not a long conversation by any means when it comes to RP issues.

[Hope]

ETA: Okay, posting this thread really wasn't asking for clarification when I go back and look at it, but that still doesn't really change how I feel about it. Rakeesh is welcome to his opinion, as is everyone else.

I didn't have to fix it for you! Yay!

[JewellRavenlock]

:P

My point still stands!

I think the second we can't freely express or opinions on aspects of this GAME, I don't want to play.

Are we all going to agree? Nope!

Does everyone always have the best motives when they bring up problems they have? Nope! Can I magically tell what people's motives are? Nope! So I guess I'll just give people the benefit of the doubt, ignore trying to guess what their motives may be, and value the discussion regardless of why it was brought up.