New Rule Discussion

[DUEL Rayvinn]

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.

Annnnyway...

Barons have a 7 day wait before they are eligible to challenge once they lose a title. Warlords have 14. We wonder if, in the case of a forfeiture, the wait time should be extended? Our thoughts are that it should be a minimum of three weeks to a calendar month.

We'd like your input.

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.

[Andrea Anderson]

14 days, on par with a Warlord losing a challenge. It only seems right. 7 Days for "losing" the barony, by the current baron rules, and 7 days tacked on as a punishment of sorts. Honestly, I would like to see a 30 day waiting period as a punishment, but some most likely wouldn't agree. But retiring a title or forfieting it should be seen as a wrong, and not something that should be done frivolously. If you do the act, you do the time. It's why I, personally, would like to see thirty days. As someone who has retired titles in the past, I see no issue with being punished the same way should I do it again.

This would cover all forfeits and retirements, right? Be it either done due to not answering a challenge or forfeiting a title of your own free will.

[DUEL Rayvinn]

This would cover all forfeits and retirements, right? Be it either done due to not answering a challenge or forfeiting a title of your own free will.

Yes, absolutely.

[G]

There were numerous reasons we had, when creating those time-frames, for waiting to allow certain duelists to be eligible to challenge again.

If a forfeiture happens, intentional or not, I think the character should be held accountable for not doing something as simple as responding to a challenge. I would consider 30 days to be fair, to be honest. If they're not able to pay attention while they're holding a title, then they should have somewhat harsher "penalties" for when they forfeit due to no response or laziness or not paying attention.

We strip Baronies for inactivity over a cycle. Usually that ends up self policing. The character gets their duel in or they don't. Either way, they have to wait to be able to challenge again. A Baron forfeits for whatever reason, no response or missing their challenge, maybe they should get more than a slap on the wrist so it reminds them to not do it again.

If it's done intentionally, it'll only be able to be proven once before the person who does it realizes who they can tell. Then it will be hard to prove at all so would solve nothing. I think anything less than a 30 day wait to be able to challenge again would be getting off easy.

[Andrea Anderson]

This would cover all forfeits and retirements, right? Be it either done due to not answering a challenge or forfeiting a title of your own free will.

Yes, absolutely.

And would this cover only the single name that the forfeit happened on or throughout all known alts?

[G]

But retiring a title or forfieting it should be seen as a wrong, and not something that should be done frivolously. If you do the act, you do the time.

Absolutely agreed. I sometimes feel that it's too easy to challenge because there's no risk in just not caring about it.

[DUEL Rayvinn]

This would cover all forfeits and retirements, right? Be it either done due to not answering a challenge or forfeiting a title of your own free will.

Yes, absolutely.

And would this cover only the single name that the forfeit happened on or throughout all known alts?

I think it only fair to cover the character UNLESS that is being abused and then we would need to take it case by case.

[Andrea Anderson]

But retiring a title or forfieting it should be seen as a wrong, and not something that should be done frivolously. If you do the act, you do the time.

Absolutely agreed. I sometimes feel that it's too easy to challenge because there's no risk in just not caring about it.

Ditto, but that's another discussion.. cough since I actually liked SoA.. cough.

I think it only fair to cover the character UNLESS that is being abused and then we would need to take it case by case.

Agreed. Unless someone abused the system by constantly winning titles and retiring them, then there would be no need to cover all characters of a player. Case by case is good, thanks for answering.

[G]

Yes, absolutely.

And would this cover only the single name that the forfeit happened on or throughout all known alts?

I think it only fair to cover the character UNLESS that is being abused and then we would need to take it case by case.

I find this to be a fair judgment. And I would seriously NOT want to be the person that gets investigated for abusing something like this. I would want the book thrown at them and the key tossed once the tarring and feathering was completed.

[G]

Since I was kinda sorta given permission to be a war-monger..

I would want forfeits, removal for inactivity and retirements recorded on a yearly basis. If any of the above happens twice, they're not allow to challenge for any title for the remainder of the current cycle and the cycle following.

Retirements don't sound like they should be dealt with harshly, but they should if they're done more than once. One retirement can be for a bunch of logical reasons. You retire twice, then by that point, you shouldn't be after a title. A non-title holder can just go through two cycles without retiring before being taken off for inactivity, but if you're retiring intentionally, then something else is going on there and they shouldn't have access to a title that someone who might be around more could be interested in.

Keeping in mind that I could very well fall victim to some of these punishments on my own and I would be okay with being punished for doing these things. I wouldn't recommend consequences that I would be unwilling to see happen to myself.

You can't be bothered to maintain a title, you shouldn't have one, and it should, SHOULD be more difficult for you to regain a title.

[Andrea Anderson]

Would your plan be stuck to one character or would it be linked with all? If I were to retire on one character, then the other later in the year, would that be considered two?

As for a single character stance. I would agree with the idea, but put a hard timelimit instead of a cycle. Two cycles seems a little too much, even more if it's at the beginning of one, and also seems a little less of a punishment should someone retire twice toward the end of a cycle. A hard time limit would make sure any person guilty of the act would have to deal with the same time limit in any and all cases.

[Sabine]

Here is my take on it.

We want the duels to be welcoming, yes? Some may say "Well how hard is it to sign in and look at XYZ and do this and that."

For some, quite hard actually.

For instance, I work suck ass hours and hardly get to duel anymore. I'm on AIM a lot (usually away) and I sometimes get to check the boards during the day if I am not busy. Sometimes during my "free" moments there are other things I need to tend to. Granted, I am able to keep up fairly well most of the time.

Now we have people who work even weirder hours than me, are military, have kids/families, etc. Some people have to give up titles because of REAL LIFE issues (deaths, depression, heartbreak, travel, job, etc). These issues may last a while or may resolve within a few days/weeks. At the time someone gives up a title, their situation may seem hopeless... maybe they no intention of going after another title but then lo and behold, life looks up and they CAN duel or challenge.

Why make it even harder for these people do be involved? It's already hard enough to retain good players. To me this feels like and additional rule that adds even more things to keep track of to an already bloated listed.

Frankly, it also doesn't seem welcoming and also feels like "Oh well real life happened? SORRYNOTSORRY!"

So...

Here is what I propose IF a rule were to made regarding the forfeitures or retirements.

You may only forfeit or retire ONCE during a cycle with no penalty. Any more than that and then you will have to wait to challenge again or fill in the blank with something that fits.

This allows for real life to happen. IF we notice suddenly that every cycle Apple for instance (because she's a good sport, so I'll use her) is retiring/forfeiting and seems to be abusing it, then further action may be taken.

An occasional retirement or forfeiture just doesn't seem like something that needs to be actioned.

Did I follow this thread right? I hope so.

[G]

Would your plan be stuck to one character or would it be linked with all? If I were to retire on one character, then the other later in the year, would that be considered two?

As for a single character stance. I would agree with the idea, but put a hard timelimit instead of a cycle. Two cycles seems a little too much, even more if it's at the beginning of one, and also seems a little less of a punishment should someone retire twice toward the end of a cycle. A hard time limit would make sure any person guilty of the act would have to deal with the same time limit in any and all cases.

120 days, then, for a single character scenario. That would placate me. Remember, I've wanted to do some extreme things in the past, but held off for whatever reason.

Characters have been suspended from dueling for repeated retirements of titles just after winning them. With that sort of precedence, it makes sense that something similar could come into play.

If it were a PLAYER doing it, I suppose it would come in under another "case by case" basis, which I, again, would not want to be the player caught abusing those rules. I would consider punishing them harsher.

[G]

Here is my take on it.

We want the duels to be welcoming, yes? Some may say "Well how hard is it to sign in and look at XYZ and do this and that."

For some, quite hard actually.

For instance, I work suck ass hours and hardly get to duel anymore. I'm on AIM a lot (usually away) and I sometimes get to check the boards during the day if I am not busy. Sometimes during my "free" moments there are other things I need to tend to. Granted, I am able to keep up fairly well most of the time.

Now we have people who work even weirder hours than me, are military, have kids/families, etc. Some people have to give up titles because of REAL LIFE issues (deaths, depression, heartbreak, travel, job, etc). These issues may last a while or may resolve within a few days/weeks. At the time someone gives up a title, their situation may seem hopeless... maybe they no intention of going after another title but then lo and behold, life looks up and they CAN duel or challenge.

Why make it even harder for these people do be involved? It's already hard enough to retain good players. To me this feels like and additional rule that adds even more things to keep track of to an already bloated listed.

Frankly, it also doesn't seem welcoming and also feels like "Oh well real life happened? SORRYNOTSORRY!"

So...

Here is what I propose IF a rule were to made regarding the forfeitures or retirements.

You may only forfeit or retire ONCE during a cycle with no penalty. Any more than that and then you will have to wait to challenge again or fill in the blank with something that fits.

This allows for real life to happen. IF we notice suddenly that every cycle Apple for instance (because he's a good sport, so I'll use him) is retiring/forfeiting and seems to be abusing it, then further action may be taken.

An occasional retirement or forfeiture just doesn't seem like something that needs to be actioned.

Did I follow this thread right? I hope so.

All "You's" shall be generic unless otherwise indicated.

"Real life happens" is an excuse only so far. There's people who have two jobs or work 60+ hours a week and take care of numerous children who still find time to take a look on the board and see they've been challenged and can respond.

They have a title? Okay, good. Maintain that title and keep track of you being challenged and handle it responsibly. If you cannot, you can retire *ONCE* no problem.

It happens again? You know what your life is like better than anyone else, so if you know you're going to be busy and cannot do something simple like make time to accept a challenge and fight a challenge, then you should NOT hold a title.

If you CAN make time, even in a busy schedule like you(Sabine) have, then okay. I've seen you make your challenges, respond to your challenges and be RESPONSIBLE with your challenges. At no point did you appear to look like you're going to retire it. If you had, the first time I woulda been like "Okay no big deal" but if you did it a second time, and the same thing happened, I would have been quite annoyed by it. You've not done that. You've been responsible. (End specifying Sabine.)

Someone who gets a title, does nothing and loses it due to inactivity, repeated retirement, etc. Should *NOT* have an easy path to go after a title again. They should have a HARDER path because of their previous behavior patterns.

Too busy means you're too busy to hold a title. Busy means you're pretty busy, but can still make time to participate in challenges. I kinda consider them to be a bit different, if that makes sense.

[Andrea Anderson]

@Sabine

I don't want to sound like a dick, so I apologize if I come off that way. I'm just trying to play the other side of this. If someone had a death in the family, depression, etc, then challenging / defending might be the last thing on their mind. If a waiting period of 30 days due to retirement, then I don't believe it would be too much to ask for - for a person to wait. Things may be outside of their power, but a period of 30 days shouldn't be considered a long enough punishment to detour anyone from challenging again. If they can't find the time to use their title, then the punishment should be a non-issue; as 30 days is really only a month and it would be limited to the single character ( unless a pattern arises with multiple owned by the same person ).

@G

180 days might be a lot.. What if bumping it from 2 retirements / forfeit / stripping to 3? 2 throughout the year, which is rare, might happen due to maybe holidays or other issues. 3 seems a little more to the point of someone trying to screw things up.