Alignment and the Standings

[Mairead Harker]

Having it as 6. Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board. and not specifying Loyals has the rule reading/implying Renegades can also automatically change alignment. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with that proposed wording.

This is already covered by:

5. Renegades may petition for Loyal alignment pending approval of the Overlord. The Overlord may refuse the realignment for any given reason. This is not the same as a banishment.

This can be also simplified with 5 being erased all together and folded into 6 (which then gets renamed 5).

I realize that I'm nit picking on this. However, since Loyals and Renegades are addressed separately in the rules that one word specification might avoid another discussion like this in the future. Unfortunately, sometimes, rules are skimmed and fine details are missed or misunderstood.

[PC]

Having it as 6. Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board. and not specifying Loyals has the rule reading/implying Renegades can also automatically change alignment. Otherwise, I'm in agreement with that proposed wording.

This is already covered by:

5. Renegades may petition for Loyal alignment pending approval of the Overlord. The Overlord may refuse the realignment for any given reason. This is not the same as a banishment.

This can be also simplified with 5 being erased all together and folded into 6 (which then gets renamed 5).

I realize that I'm nit picking on this. However, since Loyals and Renegades are addressed separately in the rules that one word specification might avoid another discussion like this in the future. Unfortunately, sometimes, rules are skimmed and fine details are missed or misunderstood.

Sorry, you replied while I was editing my original post. Here's the added part,

5. Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board.
a. This alignment change becomes official immediately and is not restricted to the standings being official.
b. A Loyal Baron who switches their alignment to Renegade in this way is unable to petition for Loyalty for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Renegade alignment) are considered official.
c. Renegades may petition for Loyal alignment pending approval of the Overlord. The Overlord may refuse the realignment for any given reason. This is not the same as a banishment. A Renegade Baron who switches their alignment to Loyal in this way is unable to change their alignment to Renegade for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Loyal alignment) are considered official.
d. When a Baron is defeated in a challenge they are unable to change their alignment before the official standings update.

It just depends on how bloated the rule wants to look or not. B and C could be simplified into one post, though two show a clear difference. One being free choice while the other is through petition.

[Cajsa Storm]

I think you are being very short sighted with your example of in RP response since some RP rivalries, etc. have being going on for a very long time as the saying goes, since Tass was there to see Lupton father dirt. Ettyn gained a few friends/allies and possibly the reverse for being willing to act on Amaris's behalf. Those things have long term effects on RP and on more than who has what title and when.

My example was not an example of an RP response.

Hope was able to express my thoughts in a much clearer way, but my entire post was about in-game mechanics.

The DoS endgame is about politics and checks and balances and consequences for political actions taken. If someone can take an action without any in-game response available, then I don't think it fits into the spirit of the game.

RP rivalries exist outside the rules, and rules don't govern RP. The rules cover in-game mechanics.

Switching your alignment carries the potential consequence in-game of being immediately challenged by someone who feels wronged by that switch. If this consequence does not exist, there are no checks or balances for the action, and it makes it something that is unfair and against the spirit of the rules. Like Hope said, if a Renegade Baron can't be immediately challenged, then they get all of the perks and carry none of the risks - which again, I believe is unfair because it is absolutely giving that person an advantage that others cannot obtain.

There's no guarantee Ettyn will ever challenge again, or hold a title, or even duel in the sport again. So there might be some RP consequences and characters may be upset at her or happy with her, but as far as the rules are concerned, Ettyn would have gotten off with no immediate in-game answer for her act.

This is why my discussion and focus is completely about how the rules can act as checks and balances to gameplay elements. When you have a title, you should be aware that each of your actions could have a potential in-game consequence.

[Mairead Harker]

Sorry, you replied while I was editing my original post. Here's the added part,

5. Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board.
a. This alignment change becomes official immediately and is not restricted to the standings being official.
b. A Loyal Baron who switches their alignment to Renegade in this way is unable to petition for Loyalty for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Renegade alignment) are considered official.
c. Renegades may petition for Loyal alignment pending approval of the Overlord. The Overlord may refuse the realignment for any given reason. This is not the same as a banishment. A Renegade Baron who switches their alignment to Loyal in this way is unable to change their alignment to Renegade for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Loyal alignment) are considered official.
d. When a Baron is defeated in a challenge they are unable to change their alignment before the official standings update.

It just depends on how bloated the rule wants to look or not. B and C could be simplified into one post, though two show a clear difference. One being free choice while the other is through petition.

I think we're on the same page, but not quite the same paragraph, yet. What about:
5. Barons may change their alignment under the following conditions:

a. Loyal Barons may change their alignment at any time, in writing on the Public Notice Board. This alignment change becomes official immediately and is not restricted to the standings being official. A Loyal Baron who switches their alignment to Renegade in this way is unable to petition for Loyalty for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Renegade alignment) are considered official.

b. Renegade Barons may petition for Loyal alignment pending approval of the Overlord. The Overlord may refuse the realignment for any given reason. This is not the same as a banishment. If accepted, this alignment change becomes official immediately and is not restricted to the standings being official. A Renegade Baron who switches their alignment to Loyal in this way is unable to change their alignment to Renegade for a minimum of two weeks (14 days) after the standings (with their Loyal alignment) are considered official.

c. When a Baron is defeated in a challenge they are unable to change their alignment.

It seems a bit redundant to have d. When a Baron is defeated in a challenge they are unable to change their alignment before the official standings update when there is no need to be concerned about an alignment once the standings are updated.

[PC]

Yeah, we're on the same page. I think that looks nice. Cuts bloat and makes it more simple, which is what the most important thing should be in the end.

[Arthour]

If its not too bold of me to say, as someone whos not active in the duels, I feel like there should be a poll to decide if this rule is amended, or if the rule as written is abided by.

[Mairead Harker]

Switching your alignment carries the potential consequence in-game of being immediately challenged by someone who feels wronged by that switch. If this consequence does not exist, there are no checks or balances for the action, and it makes it something that is unfair and against the spirit of the rules. Like Hope said, if a Renegade Baron can't be immediately challenged, then they get all of the perks and carry none of the risks - which again, I believe is unfair because it is absolutely giving that person an advantage that others cannot obtain.

Regardless of one's beliefs, the rules as written currently allow for the quick alignment change at any time from Loyal to Renegade. It may feel unfair to you and that's fine. However, it is also unfair to those that wish to use that part of the rules as written to their advantage. I'm fine with the written rules being changed. I am not fine with the possibility, down the road, of the written rules not being updated to reflect any and all changes that meet with the DoS team's ideas of what is right and fair as far as game mechanics go and dealing with this again. We need to all be on the same page.

Before it comes up, the saving clause was put in place to address things not specifically covered in the rules. It doesn't say or mean that the team should be reinterpreting clearly written items like at any time. Personal feelings should not come into play when making decisions on what is best for the community as a whole.

[PC]

Switching your alignment carries the potential consequence in-game of being immediately challenged by someone who feels wronged by that switch. If this consequence does not exist, there are no checks or balances for the action, and it makes it something that is unfair and against the spirit of the rules. Like Hope said, if a Renegade Baron can't be immediately challenged, then they get all of the perks and carry none of the risks - which again, I believe is unfair because it is absolutely giving that person an advantage that others cannot obtain.

Regardless of one's beliefs, the rules as written currently allow for the quick alignment change at any time from Loyal to Renegade. It may feel unfair to you and that's fine. However, it is also unfair to those that wish to use that part of the rules as written to their advantage. I'm fine with the written rules being changed. I am not fine with the possibility, down the road, of the written rules not being updated to reflect any and all changes that meet with the DoS team's ideas of what is right and fair as far as game mechanics go and dealing with this again. We need to all be on the same page.

Before it comes up, the saving clause was put in place to address things not specifically covered in the rules. It doesn't say or mean that the team should be reinterpreting clearly written items like at any time. Personal feelings should not come into play when making decisions on what is best for the community as a whole.

Clarification updates are important. The 2015 ruling that Renegades can instantly align as Loyal after accepted petition should have been added to the rules at the time. If we look at the rule updated posted to the forum by G, it does not have that update, nor was the update in my reposting of the rules later on. The rules then had a different section for Loyal and Renegade Barons, with the Renegade Baron portion completely being void of any rule about an instantaneous switch after petitioning the Overlord. When Tippletoe did the DoS rule update to strip bloat and make things more readable (and better formatted), this saw the Renegade and Loyal portions of the rules squashed together into one.

While in a way this came a little closer to how the rule should be after the 2015 ruling, it of course did not cover it RAW. This was something I overlooked when I was DoS head coordinator, and I am sure was not on the radar with the current DoS team until it came up recently.

It's because of things like this that rule fixes and changelog posts regarding them are important to the health of the sport.

[Cajsa Storm]

Switching your alignment carries the potential consequence in-game of being immediately challenged by someone who feels wronged by that switch. If this consequence does not exist, there are no checks or balances for the action, and it makes it something that is unfair and against the spirit of the rules. Like Hope said, if a Renegade Baron can't be immediately challenged, then they get all of the perks and carry none of the risks - which again, I believe is unfair because it is absolutely giving that person an advantage that others cannot obtain.

Regardless of one's beliefs, the rules as written currently allow for the quick alignment change at any time from Loyal to Renegade. It may feel unfair to you and that's fine. However, it is also unfair to those that wish to use that part of the rules as written to their advantage. I'm fine with the written rules being changed. I am not fine with the possibility, down the road, of the written rules not being updated to reflect any and all changes that meet with the DoS team's ideas of what is right and fair as far as game mechanics go and dealing with this again. We need to all be on the same page.

Before it comes up, the saving clause was put in place to address things not specifically covered in the rules. It doesn't say or mean that the team should be reinterpreting clearly written items like at any time. Personal feelings should not come into play when making decisions on what is best for the community as a whole.

To my knowledge, a Baron has not attempted to change alignment once in DoS history after losing their Barony. This was a first, and staff was consulted if this would be allowed. We made a determination that it is against the spirit of the rules because of all the reasons outlined, even if it was not written in. And as Hope pointed out, since Renegade Barons must be open to all and immediate challenges, and Ettyn would not have been eligible to be challenged, then by the rules she could not be a Renegade Baron. These two items in the rules at odds with each other are why there is a savings clause, so we as staff can make a determination on what we believe is in the spirit of the rules and what would be most fair. We determined it would be unfair to allow Ettyn to utilize the benefits of being a Renegade Baron while not having any of the downsides.

We cannot anticipate every single thing that might come up in challenges or right the rules around them, nor can we write the rules to cover every scenario, or we''ll have a rulebook that would be overly long and impenetrable. Likewise, updating the rules is not often an immediate process, as we do our best to ensure that one change does not mean something else needs to be changed, and so on and so forth.

[Claire Gallows]

So we have acknowledgement that it's against RAI, not RAW. That's what I was looking for. We acknowledge that the rules as they are written may allow for this but that isn't the spirit of it.

The Saving Clause is intended for instances that are not covered by the rules. This isn't an instance of it not being in the rules but rather how a written rule is being interpreted.

It absolutely should be addressed by way of a change to the rules. Not to try and cover every scenario but to adjust the "spirit" of the rules to match the "written" rules so that this isn't an issue in the future. If you want to support your decisions with the rules, they need to not contradict your rulings. As we've seen in this thread, there are at least two contradictions that can and should be addressed.

I honestly do not understand why there is so much heel digging on the concept of adjusting the rules to match the DoS staff's ruling.

Like... at this point many of the people who disagreed with the ruling have flat out said "Okay, fine, but if that's the call you want to make, can we change the rules to align with it". Why are we averse to this? I'm not trying to be a shit here, I'm really not. But this just seems like such an easy fix to satisfy concerns, align with DoS staff's call, and future proof instances where confusion may occur.

[Kalamere]

Conner wrote yesterday that:

We will likely be adding clarifying language addressing transitional alignment to remove any ambiguity moving forward.

I read that as the rules will see an update, but also allowing this conversation play out.

[Conner Reid]

As a member of staff, I try to be thoughtful and deliberate. I try to consult with other people when I make decisions, and make sure that I've heard as many perspectives as possible before I come to a conclusion.

I apologize if my silence has let anyone believe that we are digging in our heels, or somehow resisting or not acknowledging the discussion happening here. I work full-time, as do all of my team members. While I am unable to respond to every post, I am reading them thinking about them and taking it all into consideration. In my last post here, I did say that we were discussing changing the rules to expressly reflect our understanding. While Cajsa has elaborated further on our perspective, that was not meant to be the end of DoS response, just an attempt to clarify our thinking in response to some of the discussion that was ongoing.

I, and my team, have spent many hours over the last two days discussing the rules, reviewing our past decision, discussing Kal's suggestion. There's quite a lot of ground for us to cover.

Please be patient with me. I really would prefer if these board discussions would evolve more slowly. I simply cannot keep up, and I think it's reasonable for us to be taking our time and being thoughtful.

[Claire Gallows]

Conner wrote yesterday that:

We will likely be adding clarifying language addressing transitional alignment to remove any ambiguity moving forward.

I read that as the rules will see an update, but also allowing this conversation play out.

While I did see that, Cajsa's latest post had me wondering if that was still the case. I'm trying to phrase this to keep it productive because very little comes from making direct posts at people, but to be frank, the last two staff posts prior to Conner's post a few minutes ago came across as stonewalling the conversation and defensive. It's made it hard to not get confused and frustrated with what started as a solid discourse. Maybe that's my interpretation and I misinterpreted. Who knows.

As a member of staff, I try to be thoughtful and deliberate. I try to consult with other people when I make decisions, and make sure that I've heard as many perspectives as possible before I come to a conclusion.

I apologize if my silence has let anyone believe that we are digging in our heels, or somehow resisting or not acknowledging the discussion happening here. I work full-time, as do all of my team members. While I am unable to respond to every post, I am reading them thinking about them and taking it all into consideration. In my last post here, I did say that we were discussing changing the rules to expressly reflect our understanding. While Cajsa has elaborated further on our perspective, that was not meant to be the end of DoS response, just an attempt to clarify our thinking in response to some of the discussion that was ongoing.

I, and my team, have spent many hours over the last two days discussing the rules, reviewing our past decision, discussing Kal's suggestion. There's quite a lot of ground for us to cover.

Please be patient with me. I really would prefer if these board discussions would evolve more slowly. I simply cannot keep up, and I think it's reasonable for us to be taking our time and being thoughtful.

I know with past discussions that staff has slowed their engagement for the sake of having meaningful, thoughtful posts when they do post, which I know is appreciated. I'd much rather have more sporadic posts than have additional ambiguity created by quicker, less aligned posts. So please, I genuinely would like you all to take the time needed, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that even if people add additional posts in the meantime. That's just the way these go when people have strong feelings about stuff, there's going to be a lot of back and forth. Still, take the time, come back to us when you're ready, you know?

[Cajsa Storm]

While I did see that, Cajsa's latest post had me wondering if that was still the case. I'm trying to phrase this to keep it productive because very little comes from making direct posts at people, but to be frank, the last two staff posts prior to Conner's post a few minutes ago came across as stonewalling the conversation and defensive. It's made it hard to not get confused and frustrated with what started as a solid discourse. Maybe that's my interpretation and I misinterpreted. Who knows.

I don't understand how you could interpret my post as "we will not make any rule changes" when I stated that changing the rules is not an immediate process.

Yes, we will update the rules. As a staff we haven't decided how to update them as we are listening to everyone's suggestions.

There is no stonewalling. There is no digging in heels. My posts have only been explaining my reasoning for why we did not allow Ettyn to change alignments after losing the barony. I am trying my best to do this in a clear and respectful way.

Feel free to speak with me directly if you feel as if I am being difficult.

[Claire Gallows]

While I did see that, Cajsa's latest post had me wondering if that was still the case. I'm trying to phrase this to keep it productive because very little comes from making direct posts at people, but to be frank, the last two staff posts prior to Conner's post a few minutes ago came across as stonewalling the conversation and defensive. It's made it hard to not get confused and frustrated with what started as a solid discourse. Maybe that's my interpretation and I misinterpreted. Who knows.

I don't understand how you could interpret my post as "we will not make any rule changes" when I stated that changing the rules is not an immediate process.

Yes, we will update the rules. As a staff we haven't decided how to update them as we are listening to everyone's suggestions.

There is no stonewalling. There is no digging in heels. My posts have only been explaining my reasoning for why we did not allow Ettyn to change alignments after losing the barony. I am trying my best to do this in a clear and respectful way.

Feel free to speak with me directly if you feel as if I am being difficult.

You know, I was content to leave it after my last post but alright, sure, let's go over that then. Difficult, no. Defensive, yes. Your earlier post where you repeatedly bolded "in game" six different times (after the conversation had shifted away from the ruling and into correcting the rules to match the ruling) felt defensive af and at least a small bit condescending (and not just to me, which I know that isn't productive to say, but it's a frank truth so that I can establish this isn't just Claire being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. If you felt this way too, I encourage you to speak up please.). It's clear from the discussion that people have differing ideas of what an in-game repercussion is, the structure of that post seemed like a bit much to do. Just because someone disagrees with a rule doesn't mean they don't understand it. Discussions can be had without it turning into that kind of stuff.

"We cannot anticipate every single thing that might come up in challenges or right the rules around them, nor can we write the rules to cover every scenario, or we''ll have a rulebook that would be overly long and impenetrable. Likewise, updating the rules is not often an immediate process, as we do our best to ensure that one change does not mean something else needs to be changed, and so on and so forth."

Bold emphasis mine. Saying you can't write the rules to cover every scenario nor write the rules around situations that come up in challenges. That is the stonewall, that is what I am referring to when I say heel digging.

Add in the following statement about updating rules not being an immediate process and it felt incredibly non-committal.

Nobody's asking for an instant fix, not a single person here has. But they are making suggestions that could help the process. You can take them or you can leave them and that y'all's right as the coordinator. The community trusts in you to do what's needed for the sport. But feedback is exactly that, feedback. And as the leaders of the sport (I'm speaking from experience here, I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass), sometimes feedback is stuff we don't want to hear, disagree with, etc, but we listen to it just the same, consider it, and make the call accordingly.

I was feeling pretty good about this discussion at the start considering the strong feelings that had been voiced about it. Y'all have always put a big emphasis on transparency and justifying decisions and I felt heard, I thought I presented my points in a diplomatic, thoughtful, manner. And now, I'm honestly regretting stepping into it. I was earnest and genuine when I said to mull the thread over and come back to us when y'all had your thoughts together and you were on the same page as a team, but my dude, when someone says your words are making them feel some kind of way, you don't get to say you didn't make them feel that way. I love DoS, I really do, but this kind of shit really kills my desire to even be a part of it.

Good luck, I'm think I'm outta here.