New Rule Discussion

[Sabine]

Personally I'm only for G's idea because it covers a rare, rare, RARE, issue that most likely will never come up. >_> I like rules for stuff that might never happen, simply to have them, but at times it might not be best to clog up everything and leave it to coords and their saving clause.

And I guess that's why it just feels icky to me. It *COULD* happen so let's make an example of someone right now? Let's put up this rule that we probably will never need, make things seem MORE restrictive, put in more rules that newbs (and let's face it, some longer time duelist. eh em (me) )won't read/forget about/need reminded of, etc...

Rules are nice. I like rules. I like rules that have a purpose. But at what point does it just seem redundant? Does it seem restrictive? Does it seem like there is no room for error?

This just doesn't seem like something to me, given that it's not really an issue, that needs to be made into one at this point.

[G]

Personal opinion:

Someone doesn't respond to a challenge in time, forfeiture, or other such action, in an age where access is as easy as unlocking your phone, first offense they can't challenge for 30 days.

There's no excuse when you have 7 full days after a challenge is valid to not respond. I get antsy every time I see someone deciding to let it go the full 7 days as it is. And feel that they should be actioned once that time limit expires. They have plenty of time and there are plenty of ways to respond to a challenge. There's really very few reasons that are excusable for a first case scenario let alone the chances of multiples.

[G]

I wouldn't really call this a loophole... care to elaborate on what's being loopholed here? There isn't anything really being circumvented except some notion of justice/punishment. Per the rules, the punishment for not answering a challenge, etc is to forfeit your title.

Loophole to me is "Oh, I don't feel like answering this challenge, so I'll let it go to forfeit and it doesn't matter one little bit because in 7 days after that, I can challenge again. No big deal at all. I'll do something inconsiderate because I can just go after another title easily."

That, to me, is a loophole.

[G]

Personally I'm only for G's idea because it covers a rare, rare, RARE, issue that most likely will never come up. >_> I like rules for stuff that might never happen, simply to have them, but at times it might not be best to clog up everything and leave it to coords and their saving clause.

And I guess that's why it just feels icky to me. It *COULD* happen so let's make an example of someone right now?

No. In the initial post to this thread, it was stated that nothing decided here was going to affect the reason this was brought up. So, no punishments will be enacted to anyone doing something prior to any rule being made up. If it's decided a 30 day wait should happen, nobody will be made to wait those 30 days if they did it before that rule was implemented.

[Sabine]

Personal opinion:

Someone doesn't respond to a challenge in time, forfeiture, or other such action, in an age where access is as easy as unlocking your phone, first offense they can't challenge for 30 days.

There's no excuse when you have 7 full days after a challenge is valid to not respond. I get antsy every time I see someone deciding to let it go the full 7 days as it is. And feel that they should be actioned once that time limit expires. They have plenty of time and there are plenty of ways to respond to a challenge. There's really very few reasons that are excusable for a first case scenario let alone the chances of multiples.

But again, who are YOU (general .. b/c others may think this as well.) To decide what happened in that person's life that week that they missed it? 7 days goes heck fast, especially when you're working and it's the holidays for example.

If you or anyone notices, oh gee HAY that person hasn't responded and it's getting close. Why not reach out and be like in IM "hey friend, did you notice you had a challenge?"

That seems like the way nicer thing to do. And nice is just.. well it's nice dammit.

Not that any of us need to hand hold one another, but if we're going to be policing, then we're already putting the same amount of energy into anyway. Why do something negative when you could make it a positive experience?

I still like the idea of 1 free pass. Or a minimal additional wait period... if anything at all.

Abusers are a different story entirely.

[Sabine]

Personally I'm only for G's idea because it covers a rare, rare, RARE, issue that most likely will never come up. >_> I like rules for stuff that might never happen, simply to have them, but at times it might not be best to clog up everything and leave it to coords and their saving clause.

And I guess that's why it just feels icky to me. It *COULD* happen so let's make an example of someone right now?

No. In the initial post to this thread, it was stated that nothing decided here was going to affect the reason this was brought up. So, no punishments will be enacted to anyone doing something prior to any rule being made up. If it's decided a 30 day wait should happen, nobody will be made to wait those 30 days if they did it before that rule was implemented.

Yes I read it. I understand no action will take place on anyone who already did this.

My point is, what was the catalyst for this post?

And if there was not one, well then, my bad.

[Hope]

There's a lot of text in this thread and I think it'd be easier for me to just say what I think would be an appropriate policy for this.

First retirement - warning, 14 day waiting period.

The next forfeit/retire costs 1 Challenge Rite. Each consecutive one costs +1. If the character in question has no rites remaining in the cycle, deduct them from the next cycle(s).

I don't think there needs to be an elaborate system but just something to deter it from happening. The punishment doesn't have to be complex but effective. Things happen, life happens. One-two forfeitures should be the slap on the wrist. Anything past that becomes a lesson learned.

[Andrea Anderson]

Personal opinion:

Someone doesn't respond to a challenge in time, forfeiture, or other such action, in an age where access is as easy as unlocking your phone, first offense they can't challenge for 30 days.

There's no excuse when you have 7 full days after a challenge is valid to not respond. I get antsy every time I see someone deciding to let it go the full 7 days as it is. And feel that they should be actioned once that time limit expires. They have plenty of time and there are plenty of ways to respond to a challenge. There's really very few reasons that are excusable for a first case scenario let alone the chances of multiples.

But again, who are YOU (general .. b/c others may think this as well.) To decide what happened in that person's life that week that they missed it? 7 days goes heck fast, especially when you're working and it's the holidays for example.

If you or anyone notices, oh gee HAY that person hasn't responded and it's getting close. Why not reach out and be like in IM "hey friend, did you notice you had a challenge?"

That seems like the way nicer thing to do. And nice is just.. well it's nice dammit.

Not that any of us need to hand hold one another, but if we're going to be policing, then we're already putting the same amount of energy into anyway. Why do something negative when you could make it a positive experience?

I still like the idea of 1 free pass. Or a minimal additional wait period... if anything at all.

Abusers are a different story entirely.

This should not be a requirement of the coordinators. But, if the community acted in this and reached out to people who may not have answered a challenge yet, then that is fine. Coordinators are doing enough as it is, to add another thing they must do seems a little off.

If you're a title holder, just check the site once a week and click the button on the right side of the forum screen and select "1 week" before pressing go. If you don't see a challenge for you, then it's okay. You hold the title, you should be responsible for it. Sure, things might happen in real life, they happen to all of us, but in the end that is on the person and not the community. If I were to get in a wreck and lose my title due to it, I'd hold up my hands and go "Well, I'll eat the 30 day wait -- I can't expect the game to stop on account of me." Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but that's just my own train of thought if I were the one being hit with the wait.

I choose to go after the title knowing there are requirements. I should be held accountable for anything that may happen that will prevent me from answering the call to another players challenge.

[G]

Yes I read it. I understand no action will take place on anyone who already did this.

My point is, what was the catalyst for this post?

And if there was not one, well then, my bad.

From the original post:

In light of a recent forfeiture of title, we have been pondering different scenarios that could occur. What I am going to share is in no way the DoS staff accusing any baron of intentionally forfeiting a title...it is us simply covering the bases for the future; this is how a lot of rules come into play.

And

I'd also like to point out that Melanie will not be subject to whatever is decided here but will have to wait 7 days as would a baron that had lost their challenge.

That's the catalyst.

[Sabine]

Yeah well, it sucks I didn't see the current challenge pending, I sure as hell would have alerted the duelist.

I only saw it sadly after it was bumped to the top by the coordinator and saw the forfeit that I IM'd the duelist and said "what does this mean?" that the person even realized what had happened and was like "oh crap!"

I'd do it for any one of you if I saw something like that was going to happen. I didn't ask the coordinators to do it. ANY one could do it if they notice.

Going back (cause lord a lot has been covered) I still don't see this as being an issue. It feels like a mountain being made out of a mole hill.

I have a case of the sads.

[G]

Also, "1 free pass" is okay by me. A single incident doesn't denote a negative pattern. If there is a pattern, however, something should be done.

I am also a fan or preemptive strikes to deal with potential abuse before it becomes an incident of something we have to discuss dealing with "after the fact". I'd much rather have a resolution in place ahead of time rather than trying to figure out what to do, what would be a sufficient punishment, dealing with people saying "Well, this happened before, but then so did this, and on this one occasion no punishment was given so why do something only now?"

Well, we're doing something now because we have rules in place to deal with what is happening now. That's my thought on it. Make a rule now and not deal with it later.

[Andrea Anderson]

Aight nerdlings. I've made my case for the thirty day thing, it was fun debating with all of you. STAY CIVIL AND HAVE FUN~

[G]

Aight nerdlings. I've made my case for the thirty day thing, it was fun debating with all of you. STAY CIVIL AND HAVE FUN~

I, for one, am very thankful for the civility that has been displayed thus far.

[Sabine]

So if it's to be made a rule. I feel like a middle ground would be reasonable.


If it's a rare occurrence then allowing for a free pass or a minimal punishment of 14 or 30 days seems like the correct way to respond.

Abusers get a harsher punishment.

I see the loophole, I'm just not sure I see many people jumping through it. Yanno?

[Claire Gallows]

It depends. There was once a player who was stripped of two Baronies in a single day due to not dueling once during the cycle. This caused two baronies to be *unable* to be challenged for, resulting in a smaller challenge pool for the duelists. A retired / forfeit title means the lack of said title from someone who may need it -- they are then required to wait until a Warlord tournament.

That was one *player* not one character and did said player/char get another title in that cycle or even that year? Newp. They didn't. I don't think they even challenged again for that matter. So we could logically infer that the stripping itself was enough of a punishment.

Anyways.

This rule applies to such a minuscule subsection of our already tiny community that it just feels like saying... if you eat pumpkin seeds on a full moon while wearing a lime green tea cozy and praising chthulu, then you must pay a fine to Steve Austin because vacuums don't need pants.