New Rule Discussion

[Sabine]

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.

I REFUSE TO BE CIVIL. Poo poo head.

-flee-

Also, Claire, YEEEES. LOL. Perfect example.

[G]

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.

And when it does happen, it's good to have something in place that was foreseen so that it can be dealt with decisively instead of scrambling around wondering "What should we do?"

Steve Austin needs his pay. And that's the bottom line, 'cause Stone Cold said so.

[PrlUnicorn]

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.

I'm not going to quote everyone, but I want to start with this. A retired or forfeited title doesn't necessarily have to wait until there's a WLT to decide who gets it. It's just easier for the staff, IMO, to not have the hassle of setting up a separate tournament, etc. for the vacated ring.

In reference to the current situation with Battlefield Park, I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised to see a challenge issued and validated during what's often the busiest week of the year for some families. However, deadlines are part of the rules of the game and those that are title holders have to deal with them.

I don't see giving up a title as a retirement. If someone is going to give up a title and continue dueling; that's an abdication not a retirement. I think those two things should be treated differently. Anyone announcing a retirement should be required to actually have that character take time off from the duels. Anyone abdicating probably shouldn't be allowed to challenge or take part in the WLT for that cycle.

If someone is going to give up a title due to actual life issues, they would likely be retiring their character(s) from active play. As I said, there's difference between abdicating a title and retiring from dueling.

TL;DR
No penalties for first time forfeit. (Forfeit - losing a title due to a missed deadline)
Retirement should be actual retirements; i.e. character not dueling for X amount of time.
Duelists that abdicate a title (Purposefully giving up a title, but not their participation ) should have a cool down time (say 30 days) before they can challenge again and not be allowed to participate in the next WLT.

[Kalamere]

I have a couple things I wanted to add and a question or two to ask people who have already responded. Once I get that out of the way I'll add what I see as the current tally of opinions.

Has it been an issue for... oh say the last 10 years? Or have things changed so much that it can't really be said how it's had an impact?

There are a couple reasons this has never really been an issue before.

(a) Peer wins and/or Show of Activity: Throughout most, though admittedly not all, of our history there has been a need to accumulate some number of duels before being eligible to challenge. The number of duels needed, especially under a PW system, are generally beyond what one person does in a given week. So those rules by themselves sort of put in a re-challenge barrier all by themselves.

(b) The Baron's Council: I want to say the council came into being about 2 years after the creation of the Baron titles, so would have been in play the vast majority of these cases historically as well. All matters of forfeit were subject to a council verdict, who could decide the outcome for both parties involved. While the body could rule anything from stripping the now ex-baron from re-challenging for a cycle to allowing the challenge to go forward anyway (just as a pair of examples) they were a risk and something of a deterrent.

The combination of the two rules made this really not a thing. Since both were summarily scrapped last year, however, we're in a situation that feels like it needs a rule around it.

Let me dive into a quick side tangent to address the "case by case" approach. Subjectively, case by case sounds like a good idea - we know every incident is probably going to have somewhat divergent facts and this allows for a judgement more fair to the given situation. I assure you that allowing for case by case administrative decisions on these things leads to more problems than it solves. Yes, the saving clause is there and it will be used from time to time when we haven't anticipated something, but for my take that needs to be minimized as much as possible. Between the DoS coord / now assistant coord, running TDL, IFL and a couple other one shot games in the past, I've had more than my share of experience in this realm. Case by case decisions call the administrations objectivity into question nearly every time. We have to not only judge the facts, but judge whether or not we believe the facts as stated; which immediately and reliably brings forth claims of bias, which is not only very difficult to counter but can be damaging credibility wise.

In a lot of ways, that was one of the nice aspects of having the council. Despite other flaws, perceived or legitimate, the council was empowered to look at everything on a case by case basis and tailor a decision to whatever was before them. Because it was a larger and rotating body, it's more difficult to assert that everyone on it had the same bias and, even if such a claim looked legitimate, it kindly left the admin team off the hook for it.

Anyway.. this shouldn't be taken as an argument for bringing back the Barons Council to deal with things. I'm simply pointing out why rules around title forfeiture weren't seen as lacking until recently, while also putting forth why I don't think relying on the saving clause is a way I would like to go. If it comes to dealing with a given player, rather than a single character, then that one I don't think we get around - it has to be taken up administratively. Dealing with a single character though and something that does seem to happen periodically, I think a black letter rule can and should be created to deal with it. Something that in itself is a compromise between an 'honest mistake, no harm no foul' slap on the wrist and a 'wow, dick move' egregious action on the title holders part that would call for heavy handedness; to deal with as many scenarios as possible.

I, personally, want to see the titles held by people who are active, preferably ICly, but seeing them participating OOCly is good, too. IC actions, however, should carry IC consequences, too.

Quoting G because I think that's a stance we have taken as a community around our expectations on title holders. It is a response to the "Who are we to judge ..." line of questioning.

We've had a good number long debates around expectations of title holders in the past and the simple outcome is that we want more out of them. That's already evident in some of the rules around even challenging to get a title in the first place and various activity clauses.

We do want the duels to be welcoming and we want the games to foster positive involvement. The titles, however, are not the end-all be-all of these things. Nobody is talking about banning someone from the game as a whole. Maybe I'm in a minority that feels title play isn't all there is to this.

That said, though there is more to the game than holding them, the titles are the pinnacle of the sport and we've built several expectations around them. I've always held sort of a benefit of the doubt stance when it comes to gaining a title - eg: feeling that someone inactive be allowed to join the WLT under the assumption they will become active should they win a title in it. This is, on the other hand, a case of someone failing to meet expectations in some way (be it a title holder going inactive, or simply not following the rules of engagement for challenges).

Failing to meet expectations deserves, in my mind at least, more than the currently stated wait periods for having done the right thing and lost. (7 days for title holders, 14 for warlords).

Ok, so as usual this is a whole lot of writing and I should probably move on to my take on what the rule should be framed as.

I'd like to see a 1 month (because it's easier to track than 30 days) hold down on challenging. This would include being ineligible to join any event that would award a title or title challenge if it falls during that month (eg: WLT, ToW champion, etc.). This to be increased by an additional month per infraction in the last year.

I was going to write up the tally of other opinions at this point, but have changed my mind on that and will come back to it later. I do have an additional query for Collie though.

No penalties for first time forfeit. (Forfeit - losing a title due to a missed deadline)
Retirement should be actual retirements; i.e. character not dueling for X amount of time.
Duelists that abdicate a title (Purposefully giving up a title, but not their participation ) should have a cool down time (say 30 days) before they can challenge again and not be allowed to participate in the next WLT.

A couple things actually.
* Are you advocating a ban from the game for some amount of time if someone retires? I know we've all rolled our eyes in the past over some sport retirements knowing the person will come back before too long... but even still, I tend to think it serves us better to encourage people to come back as soon as possible as opposed to forcing them to stay away.

* I have some issue I think with the line you draw between forfeit and abdication. The way you've drawn it out encourages someone who does not care to defend to say nothing and allow their title to be lost that way, rather than to state it upfront. I'd rather see the reverse. Have the courtesy to tell us immediately and let things get moving so we can hold the champion fight or otherwise re-assign the title.

I get that the forfeit due to missed deadlines sounds more innocent, but that relies entirely upon believing it was really the case.

I still like the idea of 1 free pass.

Sabine, what do you mean exactly by free pass here? Sorry, but things have gone back and forth a few times and I just want to make sure I'm following. Are you saying that it should be left at the same 7 day wait period that a lost challenge creates on the ex-title holder?

As to "Abusers get a harsher punishment." What would you suggest there? I figure we're all here and talking about it, we might as well try to flush that out as well.

[G]

I'd like to see a 1 month (because it's easier to track than 30 days) hold down on challenging. This would include being ineligible to join any event that would award a title or title challenge if it falls during that month (eg: WLT, ToW champion, etc.). This to be increased by an additional month per infraction in the last year.

Agree on all the ineligibility restrictions, don't precisely agree on the 1 month being easier to track than 30 days.

30 days is 30 days from X time to X time, which is super easy now that we've got that clock. One month is.. from when to when? February is 28 days, December is 31 days. What if the restrictions begin on February 17th? Does it go through the remainder of February and block them out of all of March, as well?

Would the suggestion actually be(And this makes more sense now that I think about it, I just woke up. lol) like February 17th to March 17th? Using the clock to calculate the time there. I, personally, like the idea of X mount of time(30 days e.g.) because that gives you a flat rate and ability to calculate an exact number, rather than "which part of the month" sort of things. But I'd consider something like 17th to 17th to be alright.

I think, that either way, whatever is decided it will probably be easy enough to track.

[Kalamere]

I just think that it is easier to look at a post date or in the title histories and see something happened on the 29th of December and automatically know that if it is only the 27th of January, then the proper amount of time hasn't passed yet, vs finding the day calculator plugging in a date and checking what gets spit back (or having Raye or I need to do the calculation and add it to the post we make stating the forfeiture, as we're doing currently with challenge validations.. 'cause, honestly, it's a little bit of a pain).

On the other hand, I can concede that end of month dates and February can make it messier.

Personal preference would be to say month and if it happens on a day that doesn't exist in the following month (eg: Jan 30th) then just going straight to the 1st of the month that follows. I'm not going to fight it if Raye or others would rather use a flat 30 days, it just isn't what I consider to be easier.

[Claire Gallows]

Despite all my caterwauling in previous posts, I still wouldn't mind seeing a longer waiting period after a forfeiture of a title. However long that is, I'm sure the DoS team can find a sweet spot.

That is all.

[Guaire Bryne]

Half a dozen people engaging in a conversation seems poor excuse for a rule change. If this change is for the community then why not put it to a vote? Otherwise rules are being changed to satisfy a minority.

My two cents

[DUEL Rayvinn]

@G and Kal:

It is always easier to go by the calendar month than use the date calculator. Agreed that the date calculator is a pain, but it became a necessary one. That doesn't mean we need to always revert to it if we can make something simpler.

Half a dozen people engaging in a conversation seems poor excuse for a rule change. If this change is for the community then why not put it to a vote? Otherwise rules are being changed to satisfy a minority.

My two cents

People having the opportunity to discuss the rules before they are changed is progress and how things should work. Technically, the rules could be changed to satisfy staff only but that isn't how we choose to operate.

There is nothing set to be voted on as of yet as we are still in the discussion phase and deciding what amount of time, if any, should be added for forfeiture. This isn't a simple "yes" or "no" question to be voted on, and as noted by my initial post we were asking for input, which means discussion. The community has a right to voice their opinions, whether that is half a dozen people taking the time to reply, fewer, or more.

Rules being changed to satisfy what minority? Who do you presume will vote if only a half dozen people actually took the time to post in the thread? Probably the same half dozen people.

The post has only been up since last night, so give it time for others to find it and respond. You may also feel free to contribute an opinion on this topic.

[Kalamere]

Half a dozen people engaging in a conversation seems poor excuse for a rule change. If this change is for the community then why not put it to a vote? Otherwise rules are being changed to satisfy a minority[

As Raye said, we're looking for input on something we feel should probably be changed.

Should I interpret your 2 cents as believing the rule should remain at 7 days?

[Kalamere]

Despite all my caterwauling in previous posts, I still wouldn't mind seeing a longer waiting period after a forfeiture of a title. However long that is, I'm sure the DoS team can find a sweet spot.

Appreciate the vote of confidence, but we DID ask for help =)

I believe you originally said 14 days. Does that count as the longer period, or did you have something else in mind?

[Guaire Bryne]

My opinion? Sure.

I find the actions of some distasteful and disrespectful, but I don't expect everyone to please me.
I find changing rules to discourage the behavior that some find distasteful and disrespectful incredibly dangerous. I think it's a slippery slope.

I'll be quiet now.

[Claire Gallows]

Despite all my caterwauling in previous posts, I still wouldn't mind seeing a longer waiting period after a forfeiture of a title. However long that is, I'm sure the DoS team can find a sweet spot.

Appreciate the vote of confidence, but we DID ask for help =)

I believe you originally said 14 days. Does that count as the longer period, or did you have something else in mind?

Pffffffffft help. You guys got this. XD

I mean... it depends on my mood lol. Part of me ends up feeling like G and would like to see stringent penalties levied for stuff like this (for reasons others have stated) but the rest of me doesn't think it'll do anything but cause sour grapes (for reasons I've stated).

So to come at it from my non-grump side, I'd say that I'd be more than supportive of a 14 or even 30 day cool off. If I understand correctly, the 7 day re-challenge benefit for a dethroned baron was supposed to be a benefit of losing the title naturally. Having it stripped shouldn't be afforded the same courtesy so the 14 day makes them equivalent to a Warlord that failed to win a challenge. 30 days impresses more of a "That's not okay to do" mentality when it comes to forfeiting.

Re-reading... this feels like a really non-committal answer. Sorry :\

[Kalamere]

I find the actions of some distasteful and disrespectful, but I don't expect everyone to please me.
I find changing rules to discourage the behavior that some find distasteful and disrespectful incredibly dangerous. I think it's a slippery slope.

Rules change for all sorts of reasons and not all of us in the discussion are proposing a change because we feel something distasteful or disreespectful went down, or may happen in the future.

Personally, I don't find this an issue of disrespect. I find it an issue of disparity. It feels wrong to me that someone follows the rules and expectations but loses a duel and they get a 7 to 14 day wait period before they can take another shot. Someone who fails to uphold the rules and expectations, on the other hand, has to wait only the 7 days.

You can consider this a rule change, as technically it is. But let's keep in mind that it is a rule that has existed for only around 15 months, was put into place with zero public discourse, and hasn't really been tested / vetted in the past... So in large part, this is an issue of first impression.

So, given the above, we'd like to know what people believe the ruling here should be. All I'm really getting from you at this point is that... we shouldn't even be talking about it? I'm actually not sure.

If you have no opinion on what the timeline here should be, then so be it. If you do though, we'd love to entertain your thoughts on it.

[Kalamere]

Re-reading... this feels like a really non-committal answer. Sorry :\

Putting you down for 21 days. =P