DoS Reinstatement Discussion

[PrlUnicorn]

Given that rule regarding purging inactivity, specifically with regard stripping Barons of their titles, was brought up not that long ago I'm not surprised that Norah has decided to enforce it.

As for a little more warning, I agree that a little more warning could have been given before a purge. However, the rules state:

Any Warlord who is inactive for more than one complete cycle is subject to removal from the Standings with record archived by the Standings Keeper. This is not considered a retirement. Any other dueler who is inactive over the duration of a complete cycle is subject to removal from the Standings. To be reinstated, a letter to the Standings Keeper is required.

That is the warning right there. That people have chosen to not adhere to it for their own reasons doesn't mean it's not there. While the inactivity rule holds true for all ranks, Warlords are the only ones with a written guarantee that their records will be archived so that they might be restored at a later date. That rule should have been encouraging people to come out and duel to keep their record open. It's not new, it has been in the rules for years. It just wasn't regularly enforced, so I don't understand why people are suddenly up in arms like they were blindsided by the announcement.

G opted to allow people to go a little longer than the rules state, that was his personal choice and I respect it. I also respect that Norah's trying to back to the rulebook and stick to it.

They're talking about purging people that haven't dueled since June 2012, that's six months. The wording states before July 2012, which makes June the reality of things. Six months, people, wasn't it discussed not that long ago that six months (2 cycles) should be plenty of time to get in not 1 but 10 duels for an Show of Activity requirement?

As for needing one duel before reinstatement, I do see the concern with not being able to return to dueling at the previous rank. Cor addressed this and I like his idea:

"You must log one duel during active dueling hours during the first week of being reinstated, or be removed from the Standings."

That does not, however, change things for players that come by once in a blue moon or dust off a particular character for certain events.

G implemented the policy where Warlords had to be reinstated and duel once during regular hours before being allowed entry to a tournament. It's a good one.

One quote in regard to standings purges was from Lem:

I stop in for a few DoS duels a year, and there have been a few times where I shouldn't have been on the standings. It's very likely that I wouldn't have dueled at all if I would have needed to take the time to get reinstated.

Are you talking about the same Lem who tells Mur he needs to duel or get kicked off as keeper of water?

Are you talking about the same Lem who tells Mur he needs to duel or get kicked off as keeper of water?

Are you confusing ranking with holding a title? I believe I already mentioned there should be a distinction there.

Keepers ( noted as separate title in the Magic rules) retain their WoL ranking in the standings where Overlords and Barons do not. The principle is the same. Besides, the DoS rules cover this:

Any other dueler who is inactive over the duration of a complete cycle is subject to removal from the Standings. Overlord and Baron ranks are covered by "Any other dueler."

As for people not reading these boards to get the info, the primary reason I have come across for people not ready is difficulty with the color scheme. I suppose that is a subject best directed to the Admins.

[Billy]

With so few names on the standings as it is, and a much more casual player base than it's had at any point in it's history, it seem silly to still remove names at all from the standings. It's an outdated "rule".

[G]

With so few names on the standings as it is, and a much more casual player base than it's had at any point in it's history, it seem silly to still remove names at all from the standings. It's an outdated "rule".

Well, with the Parade of Warlords being accessible, we could always just add them all back and leave them there, all the way back to Gondar.

[PrlUnicorn]

With so few names on the standings as it is, and a much more casual player base than it's had at any point in it's history, it seem silly to still remove names at all from the standings. It's an outdated "rule".

I seem to recall the issue of casual players being partly shot down with SoA duels being given an expiration date (unlike peer wins which were zeroed when used) as it didn't allow for the once in a blue moon players to build up enough of them to challenge before they expired. That eventually leads to the question of ... who wants a Baron/Overlord that wasn't actively playing and would gaining a title encourage them to play more?

If it's not hard to get 10 duels in, as previously decided, during the same time period, then surely one and only one in six months to keep one's dueling record(s) active should be easy.

I'd suggest a reminder notice be posted on the boards a few weeks from a purge, but if people aren't interested enough to be reading the boards from time to time, it's rather pointless.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

I, personally, would love to see the the "Old Duelist Home" list.. but that's more from a personal perspective to see those who have retired but randomly come around.

Of course, my wish doesn't really have any bearing on reinstatement's. Of course.. could always have a "Old Duelist" standings for us old folks who break out of the home now again and do want to duel for a night at our old ranks

[Morgan le Fay]

<3 <3 for Tass.

[Jake]

I, personally, would love to see the the "Old Duelist Home" list.. but that's more from a personal perspective to see those who have retired but randomly come around.

Of course, my wish doesn't really have any bearing on reinstatement's. Of course.. could always have a "Old Duelist" standings for us old folks who break out of the home now again and do want to duel for a night at our old ranks

If we beat them up, do we get to send them back to the Old Duelist Home? I would totally hunt down Slothy if I could do that.

...

I can't help but reflect back to Mad Mad Max's days, and think of the Old Dueler's Retirement home as his own personal retirement fund. Which makes me picture an idyllic brochure for the home, which is really an old abandoned warehouse somewhere (perhaps with old duelers hanging around like homeless people) while Max is off cavorting on some tropical island he purchased with the funds he siphoned away from the home's accounts.

[Eregor]

3) It will mean I won't duel because it feels like a slap in the face when you put it as it's written -- perhaps you don't mean it that way but that's the way it's coming off.

According to the list of purged names that Apple posted, you haven't dueled in over seven months. So you're not dueling now, but as a result of this new policy, you... won't duel. *blink, blink* I'm sorry, how is the after any different from the before?

Speaking as someone who has nothing to gain or lose from this change to the rules, I think it's fair. The alterations inspired by Cor's suggestion make it even more reasonable.

Now I'll go back to the bleachers and watch y'all debate some more. It's fun!

[Britania Grey]

3) It will mean I won't duel because it feels like a slap in the face when you put it as it's written -- perhaps you don't mean it that way but that's the way it's coming off.

According to the list of purged names that Apple posted, you haven't dueled in over seven months. So you're not dueling now, but as a result of this new policy, you... won't duel. *blink, blink* I'm sorry, how is the after any different from the before?

Speaking as someone who has nothing to gain or lose from this change to the rules, I think it's fair. The alterations inspired by Cor's suggestion make it even more reasonable.

Now I'll go back to the bleachers and watch y'all debate some more. It's fun!

That makes the assumption I haven't been dueling on other characters. A very incorrect assumption. And your post just really drives home the whole screw you vibe I'm getting...thanks for making that decision to leave that much easier.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

3) It will mean I won't duel because it feels like a slap in the face when you put it as it's written -- perhaps you don't mean it that way but that's the way it's coming off.

According to the list of purged names that Apple posted, you haven't dueled in over seven months. So you're not dueling now, but as a result of this new policy, you... won't duel. *blink, blink* I'm sorry, how is the after any different from the before?

Speaking as someone who has nothing to gain or lose from this change to the rules, I think it's fair. The alterations inspired by Cor's suggestion make it even more reasonable.

Now I'll go back to the bleachers and watch y'all debate some more. It's fun!

That makes the assumption I haven't been dueling on other characters. A very incorrect assumption. And your post just really drives home the whole screw you vibe I'm getting...thanks for making that decision to leave that much easier.

This, to me, leads back to the statement of "just because you do not see one of my names active does not mean that I am not active".

There are reasons why we choose not to play one char for a while. It may be a part of a SL, or we feel we want to develop another character more. Does that mean that those chars which we have shelved (for a lack of a better term) should be seen as useless? What of the callers then? While they (I'd say we, but I haven't called in a bit.. which I'm working on) may not duel, does that then mean that their chars are then to be removed from the standings? It is not because they are not active.. it is that they are not dueling.

I'm still for the Old Duelist Home list, even more so now.

[PrlUnicorn]

3) It will mean I won't duel because it feels like a slap in the face when you put it as it's written -- perhaps you don't mean it that way but that's the way it's coming off.

According to the list of purged names that Apple posted, you haven't dueled in over seven months. So you're not dueling now, but as a result of this new policy, you... won't duel. *blink, blink* I'm sorry, how is the after any different from the before?

Speaking as someone who has nothing to gain or lose from this change to the rules, I think it's fair. The alterations inspired by Cor's suggestion make it even more reasonable.

Now I'll go back to the bleachers and watch y'all debate some more. It's fun!

That makes the assumption I haven't been dueling on other characters. A very incorrect assumption. And your post just really drives home the whole screw you vibe I'm getting...thanks for making that decision to leave that much easier.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying there is you were dueling on alts and couldn't find the time in 7 months to duel just once to keep Ellisa's record active? I'd like to find some sympathy for you there, but in light of that, I really can't. You had time, you were actively playing, but you chose not to duel with her.

On the screw you front, that is precisely how I was made to feel when I posted saying that I would be away until a certain date ( roughly two weeks) and requested that anyone that wished to press challenge to Old Temple please wait until I returned to do so. Someone challenged while I was gone and the timing was done in such a way that had I been later than expected instead of early things could have gotten awkward.

While it's a player courtesy to respect that kind of request, the rules have no real provision for it. So, I put it down to them's the breaks and drove onward.

[Morgan le Fay]

I think the biggest shock for some is that it was done without more warning. It doesn't matter what the rules say, people aren't used to being dropped in general. Giving folks a heads up: "hey, we're gonna start enforcing this, fair warning you have two weeks to get a duel in to remain on the standings."

We are spoiled in that for many, many years we got handwaved in without necessarily following the procedure or remained on the standings despite inactivity because either the caller, coordinator, or the standings keeper knew us/our characters.

I do think dueling in events (such as tourneys) should count as activity, if only to show that yes, there's been dueling activity, so please don't drop my character off the standings.

It would be really great if we could start working on automation again so it isn't such an administrative burden searching through old standings to find last activity. Being able to click a character's name to see the last time they were on the standings would be great, and I'm sure there's a whole lot more functionality that could be built into it.

On a side note, it was nice to see the achievements up to warlord on my profile. Whoever took the time to go through all the old timers who hadn't been very active, I really appreciate it.

[PrlUnicorn]

This, to me, leads back to the statement of "just because you do not see one of my names active does not mean that I am not active".

There are reasons why we choose not to play one char for a while. It may be a part of a SL, or we feel we want to develop another character more. Does that mean that those chars which we have shelved (for a lack of a better term) should be seen as useless? What of the callers then? While they (I'd say we, but I haven't called in a bit.. which I'm working on) may not duel, does that then mean that their chars are then to be removed from the standings? It is not because they are not active.. it is that they are not dueling.

I'm still for the Old Duelist Home list, even more so now.

This is very true, but ... one duel in six months to keep a record active is not a lot. The standings are not based on the overall activity of players, but on individual screen names and the participation of individual characters.

For instance:
Caller X also plays Characters A and B and spent so much time calling that they didn't have the time, etc. to duel. They need to address that with the management. It's not up to management to track all of the SNs or SLs that any given player might have.

Purging duels for inactivity was brought up here.

Most times, I only purge the standings like, twice a year. If I generally know OOCly that the player is around still, or that they'll likely be back, then I keep them on. Other times, I take them off and save their records in order to expect reinstatement. (E.G. Maria Graz, Kapri.)

Other times, I miss them. I'll notice someone hasn't dueled in ages, and then go through and just do a search on anyone who last dueled in that year. Like, 2010 for example. This means I might miss someone who hadn't dueled since January 2011. or in 2009.

Also, I've generally given leeway to the Title Holders cause Hey, players can DO something about it. They can challenge inactive Barons. That's how they used to be policed. Hell, they used to get on the case of a Baron who hadn't dueled in 3 weeks let alone a couple months. My line of thought is if you think the Baron is inactive, challenge. I kinda maintain that mindset. After all, it seems as though players do need some sort of incentive to challenge.

Also, Xeno noted in a subsequent post that names on the standings could be marked inactive.

So, right there, G said he purged the list about twice a year. G is no longer in charge. New management has taken over. This is something that must be accepted. The man was burned out and, no doubt, part of it was people that couldn't understand that no matter long they have known him or how good a friend he is to them that he had to separate that from his position as DoS Supervisor and expected him to give them leeway.

Frankly, this fussing over someone wanting to get things in line with the rules is good example of why supervisors suffer huge amounts of burn out. People often don't pay attention and don't like it when they feel singled out. When new management takes over any business or activity, there will be changes. How long ago was it posted that a new admin would be in charge? A month, two? That alone should have told us all that changes were coming and to prepare for them.

Generally purges are done at the end of the cycle when those characters with zeroed records are removed. Perhaps had a notice should been posted such as:

Beginning with the end of this cycle, the inactivity clause of the rules will be strictly enforced.

The question I have is ... how many people would still be bitching over it when it happened despite the warning?

[G]

This, to me, leads back to the statement of "just because you do not see one of my names active does not mean that I am not active".

There are reasons why we choose not to play one char for a while. It may be a part of a SL, or we feel we want to develop another character more. Does that mean that those chars which we have shelved (for a lack of a better term) should be seen as useless? What of the callers then? While they (I'd say we, but I haven't called in a bit.. which I'm working on) may not duel, does that then mean that their chars are then to be removed from the standings? It is not because they are not active.. it is that they are not dueling.

I'm still for the Old Duelist Home list, even more so now.

So, are you therefore advocating that the staff says to everyone on the standings "You need to tell us all your characters so we can know whether or not another character is active, and therefore, not remove you from the standings?" That's how I'm reading it. And I don't want to reveal all my characters, thank you.

[Tasslehofl Momus]

This is very true, but ... one duel in six months to keep a record active is not a lot.

Speaking for myself alone.. it was (and at this point, still is) the main (and really only) reason I retired. It is because I couldn't get the time to duel, and when I did, the duels were already closed. It was not for a lack of trying on my end, but the time constraints which I am in that prevented me from dueling.

I have always been of the belief that if you hold a title, you should be around and active. When I couldn't make the 2nd attempt for the challenge against me (I'm still sorry about that, My), I knew it was time for me to take a break and retire. Sure, I'd love to come around and duel now and again (again, my choice to retire and not just abandon the rank, but that isn't what Tass would have done...), but some nights, I just don't want to come in and be commoner again. I spent 5 years as one