More rules discussions.

[DUEL Gabby]

Okay, I have had three different people ask me to review this rule. So, I am going to toss it out here for y'all to have open season on it

THE RULE:
The Challenger is responsible for acquiring the services of a caller, and if one is not found and posted to the forum by midnight the night prior to the challenge, the challenger will be held in forfeit and lose that challenge right.

Give us your opinions on it. If you want to get rid of the rule, please give suggestions to alleviate the problem of bugging and/or guilting the callers into calling a challenge at the last minute.

[Claire Gallows]

On paper it's great. In practice, there is the potential for trouble but I guess that could be said for any rule.

What about times when a date/time is posted up by one party and that time is within the next day? What if a challenger and title holder decide to fight the same day that they discuss? What if a caller has been secured but someone forgets to post it? There are a number of circumstances where a lil bit of understanding can go a long way.

It's incredibly well meaning and ultimately comes down to having respect for the volunteer callers that make having those challenges possible but is having forfeiture in the rules as a punishment the best route? I'm not wholly sure. It's pretty harsh. Alternatives that come to mind are warnings before jumping straight to forfeiture or decreasing the time constraint to like 2-3 hours before match start with an exception for duels scheduled same day or something.

[DUEL Gabby]

That actually came up tonight where the person told me they had a caller but didn't post it. They weren't forfeited, but encouraged to post that they had a caller. So I get what you saying there.

[Goldglo]

I suspect this rule came in place in order to protect callers from being asked last-minute.

All players should, in my opinion, respect when a caller declines to call a challenge match, no matter when they are asked. Callers should not be guilted into, slighted for or suffer repercussions for not wanting to call a challenge.

I really think stuff like this should fall under the prevue of sport-admin decisions; if there are problem-children or people who constantly try and acquire callers at the last second (and/or give callers crap for not agreeing), then those folks should be dealt with on an individual basis. Auto-forefitting someone for not posting, even if they did acquire a caller, seems overkill.

I strongly dislike this rule but I understand why it's in play. I think a little more respect for callers would eliminate the need for this rule; essentially forcing people to do what they should be doing in the first place just makes me sad all around.

--Matt

[DUEL Gabby]

That is why it was put into play, Matt, you are correct. As well as the amount of scrambling around, dropping everything to fix this one situation (more than one person had to), and general irritation.

I admit to us being heavy handed with the rule but as Claire said, it looked great on paper but is less so in practice. We realized not long after the rule was posted that there would likely be some issues with it but opted to wait until those issues cropped up, like they recently have, before we addressed it. It was created to help stop problems like we encountered that night but like any rule, if it isn't helping a situation and is instead hindering it, it should be reviewed. So we are.

[Aaliyah]

Maybe the line:

Exemptions will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

This gives people a bit of leeway.

Granted the whole bugging callers can be helped by looking at the list too. See who is open to calling on short notice. I can be, depending on the situation so there really is no excuse other than personal preferences.

[Spell]

I just want more IHOP gift cards for calling a challenge on 10 minutes notice.

[Napoleon Bonarat]

I suggest management (or even our peers) be a little more proactive in these cases. Rather than make a rule that punishes people after the fact, maybe take a moment to ask "did you find a caller for this yet? here's a link to the current list of callers you can choose from."

Maybe some might think this is hand holding, but stepping in beforehand to make sure all the ducks are in a row is better than handling this at the last minute/after the fact--which creates more of a mess and sometimes hard feelings. Think of it as a training exercise or opportunity to gently remind people to be considerate.

Encourage the behavior you want before punishing the behavior you don't want.

[DUEL Gabby]

I suggest management (or even our peers) be a little more proactive in these cases. Rather than make a rule that punishes people after the fact, maybe take a moment to ask "did you find a caller for this yet? here's a link to the current list of callers you can choose from."

Maybe some might think this is hand holding, but stepping in beforehand to make sure all the ducks are in a row is better than handling this at the last minute/after the fact--which creates more of a mess and sometimes hard feelings. Think of it as a training exercise or opportunity to gently remind people to be considerate.

Encourage the behavior you want before punishing the behavior you don't want.

When I validated the challenges to every barony and the OL title this past couple of weeks, I included a list of callers as well as a friendly OOC reminder that they needed to find a caller. We're on the same page.

[Napoleon Bonarat]

I'd even take it farther. We see that the challenger or titleholder has posted an agreed-upon date and time, but hasn't mentioned a caller (or hasn't updated since saying "caller pending"). Someone can easily ask, hey, who's calling. Do this beforehand and it's a gentle reminder to follow all the steps. Preferable if supervisors or assistants keep on this, but peers can remind too.

ETA for clarifications:

Like if they asked Claire, but forgot to post it, Claire could post, "FYI, I'll be calling this!"

Or, another caller can ask, "hey, do you need a caller? I'm available!"

So if leadership does it, it's showing that y'all are on the ball and keeping track of things in order to keep things running smoothly. One or the other might say, "no one seems available" or you know that no one wants to call a duel for one of the people, and so as leaders, one of you has to step up and call the match.

If the community does it in conjunction, it's having each other's backs.

[DUEL Gabby]

I'd even take it farther. We see that the challenger or titleholder has posted an agreagreed - upon date and time, but hasn't mentioned a caller (or hasn't updated since saying "caller pending"). Someone can easily ask, hey, who's calling. Do this beforehand and it's a gentle reminder to follow all the steps. Preferable if supervisors or assistants keep on this, but peers can remind too.

That happened with the challenge between Bile and E. However, I do think some responsibility falls on the challengers themselves. Especially when there are multiple challenges occurring at the same time (YAY!) as well as other events going on. Sure, if I am talking to someone (like I was talking to Bile's player), it is no big deal to remind them if I think of it. But what if I am up to my ears in real life issues, DoS issues, etc or G is...and we forget to ask them? The blame shouldn't be on our shoulders for that considering that we are not the ones challenging. I don't have a problem at all giving friendly reminders when I think of it, don't misunderstand. I just don't think it should be a "responsibility" of mine. If I know it is a new player or someone's first challenge, or even first few, I will automatically be more cued in because they may be more confused over challenge protocol. I would automatically be offering suggestions and assistance. For a seasoned player, however, I would be concerned that they are going to take that as nagging...but I also know they know how to challenge correctly.

I do understand what you are saying and I think it falls back on what G was talking about last night in regards to the community self policing. I realize that was in regards to barons and titles but it should extend to other things as well.

[DUEL Gabby]

So if leadership does it, it's showing that y'all are on the ball and keeping track of things in order to keep things running smoothly. One or the other might say, "no one seems available" or you know that no one wants to call a duel for one of the people, and so as leaders, one of you has to step up and call the match.

If the community does it in conjunction, it's having each other's backs.

I have no problem with doing that. Again, I am not positive that I am going to always have that at the front of my mind, though.

If the community does it in conjunction...yes, absolutely. I would just really hate for this to fall on my shoulders and then I mess it up is pretty much what I am getting at. I am ALL for having each other's backs. I want us ALL to enjoy playing here.

[Spell]

So would it be a return to the ways of players posting in the thread, "Is there anyone willing to call?" and still not having a caller by the time of their challenge? Or will challengers still be expected to use the caller list to find a suitable caller, while the community can then ( if there's no notice of caller ) prod them if they like in a reply asking if they need one.

If so, I hope challengers won't wait around and see if anyone will offer to call the challenge before going to the list and asking.

[DUEL Gabby]

So would it be a return to the ways of players posting in the thread, "Is there anyone willing to call?" and still not having a caller by the time of their challenge? Or will challengers still be expected to use the caller list to find a suitable caller, while the community can then ( if there's no notice of caller ) prod them if they like in a reply asking if they need one.

If so, I hope challengers won't wait around and see if anyone will offer to call the challenge before going to the list and asking.

As I have made super clear (and y'all are sick of hearing it, I am sure), I think the responsibility falls with the Challenger. I don't think it is a bad thing for players, or staff, to offer reminders if they run across a problem...I just don't think that should be in lieu of Challenger responsibility. I don't *think* that is what Nappy was saying, though. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

I think it should look like this:

Joe Blow decides he wants a super cool, shiny title! He checks his challenge eligibility (or better yet, he doesn't have to because he is ACTIVE). He follows protocol and posts it on the forum. (Preferably in a courteous manner but I cannot micro manage EVERYTHING! :p ) I check everything and validate it, while putting up a list of callers and reminding him that he is required to obtain the caller. He checks the caller list as soon as he has a date and time nailed down and immediately obtains a caller. He posts the caller. EVERYONE IS HAPPY BECAUSE...SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE. We all live happily ever after!

[Napoleon Bonarat]

I just don't think it should be a "responsibility" of mine. If I know it is a new player or someone's first challenge, or even first few, I will automatically be more cued in because they may be more confused over challenge protocol. I would automatically be offering suggestions and assistance. For a seasoned player, however, I would be concerned that they are going to take that as nagging...but I also know they know how to challenge correctly.

I do understand what you are saying and I think it falls back on what G was talking about last night in regards to the community self policing. I realize that was in regards to barons and titles but it should extend to other things as well.

Speaking in broad terms here, and not intending to personalize this, I do think, ultimately, the whole process being followed with as little unintended fireworks is very much the responsibility of leadership.

It's just a matter of whether you want your (any of you supes/assist. supes) responsibility to kick in before (and keep things on track) or after (after things have already headed downhill).

Since leadership has to make sure the rules are followed, wouldn't it be easier/friendlier/more useful to make sure ahead of time that all the steps were completed, rather than taking punitive action after the fact? I get that we all have other things to do than camp the message boards, but if the challenge falls apart, someone is going to have to deal with it sooner or later, right?

I guess I think the time for "heavy handedness" comes before the match rather than after/at the time of the match. I say that coming from an admin/captaining standpoint! I want to know beforehand if things are on track, not be hit with a surprise the next day or at 11 pm just as I'm ready for sleep.

And after saying all of that, I don't like this rule in the first place. I don't think the responsibility for finding a caller falls only to one side. I think it's a discussion for the two to agree upon, just as they have to agree upon a date and time. I would NOT agree to one person unilaterally picking the caller. It's nice if they make the offer or make suggestions, but this is something that should be negotiated ahead of time.

So... I fall on the side of this doesn't need to be a rule, but that someone should make sure all the steps are followed--and yes, I think that should ultimately be a supervisor/assistant supervisor if no one else steps up to mention it. A question from another dueler, an offer to call from a volunteer, a caller posting they've agreed to call, or one of the bosses posting "who's calling?"

Bottom line: keeping the communication open starts at the top,as it sets the example for the rest of us.

And to reiterate, this is no way me saying "Gabby is responsible for all the things." No! But if things fall apart, somewhere a line of communication was broken, either by someone not knowing the steps, someone deliberately being difficult to deal with, or someone not noticing that things are not very clear, and then taking the steps to clear up any confusion. Putting this particular issue all on the back of the challenger I think is the wrong way to look at it.

Anyway, I spent more time on this than I meant to. Thanks for listening!