In regards to ending duels prematurely

[Neo Eternity]

Hi.

I'm looking to start a conversation on the current ruleset we have regarding ending duels before their natural completion. The current ruleset is, "unless there is something wrong OOC, don't." I feel this ruleset is restrictive on our ability to write stories for our characters, and I want to find out why it is the way that it is, and if we can't achieve the same objectives in a different way.

Here is way too much exposition on why I am even running into this issue in the first place.

A while back, when Ellie and Mira's relationship was still burgeoning, they fought a duel, and Mira's behavior in the duel deeply disturbed Ellie. They worked it out, but they thought it was most responsible to not continue the duel. After all, there was traumatization in play, and it's not a real fight. Any sensible person would not continue a duel with someone they care about in this state. We didn't think it would be a problem. I hit the ?forfeit in the Nexus bot, and we wrote our story.

We were both contacted by DoM staff about the forfeiture and told, in more words than this, that we were not allowed to end duels for IC reasons. It only became acceptable when Mira implied that there was any amount of OOC weight behind that scene. We both walked away from that interaction with staff feeling very weird about things. Why is that what it took for it to be okay?

Later, Ellie got into a duel with an opponent who had a very savage and brutal methodology regarding dueling. She learned a very harsh lesson that day that she needed to pick her opponents better, but she also remembered that sometimes opponents start out fine, and then go completely off the rails. And she needs to be able to get out of there when that happens.

Having remembered the conversation with DoM staff about the Ellie vs. Mira duel, I took to the green room to ask about this, and... well, the conversation went very, very bad. Issues of consent were brought up, issues of potential cheating, etc etc. Feelings ran very, *very* hot.

I was asked why I could not simply "write my way out of these situations." At the time, I felt that implied that my character has to have a degree of omnipotence or some sort of macguffin in order to escape uncomfortable situations. Ellie is a regular mortal human. That's part of what makes writing her fun. I already have a character who can just anime macguffin his way out of trouble, and he's not as fun to write.

But the staff and community did not budge. Forfeiture for IC reasons remained unacceptable, and if I wanted to continue using a character with mortality and regular-human limitations and sensibilities for regular dueling, I would need to come up with a macguffin or three. I left that conversation with an extremely sour taste in my mouth, and it kept me away from dueling for a while.

While I was able to come up with personal macguffins for Ellie, the unease from the status quo stuck with me. If you are not allowed to resign or end duels for IC reasons, that effectively means that IC wise, duels must be seen through to the end no matter what happens in the ring. Any sensible person realizing that duels are not allowed to be ended would find that really messed up. Neo might be crazy strong, but he is sensible, and he would wonder how in the world he didn't realize and fix this during his time as coordinator. How could we, as players, possibly explain what is effectively a restriction imposed from OOC upon how IC events must play out?

Well, I'll get to that. Because now I have to get to what happened last night.

It does unfortunately seem like poor Ellie is a magnet for traumatic duels. None of this is on purpose, but it just keeps shaking out this way. Her duel with Lillian last night took an unfortunate turn when a water spell caused Lillian to relive some drowning-related trauma. Like a sensible and compassionate person, Ellie stopped what she was doing to help Lillian through her episode. And because Ellie is extremely compassionate and sensitive, she couldn't continue dueling after having put Lillian through that. Lillian offered to continue, but how could she in good conscience?

And here we reach the big conundrum of the night; this duel could not continue, but unfortunately, I have had it expressed to me from a multitude of angles, both official and unofficial, that ending duels for IC reasons is explicitly disallowed and heavily frowned upon. The only sensible IC course of action is to end the duel, but due to OOC viewpoints, that is not allowed. So what are our characters to do? Do you see the sort of narrative bind that the current stance on ending duels creates?

Well, Ellie does have her own proxies. She had to in order to be able to continue dueling. She has her spriggan summons and a pseudo-invulnerability spell that uses the ward. After all, if my character is mortal and concerned for her safety, making sure she can safely duel falls squarely on me. But this duel more resembled the Ellie vs Mira duel where there was a retraumatization rather than a thing of "I'm not safe, this person definitely wants to super duper hurt me." Ellie had her proxy ready, but she didn't know if Lillian would have one, or be able to use it. She was not trying to end the duel for just herself, but for Lillian too. How could we get both of them out at the same time?

So that brings me back to Neo discovering what is, again, a restriction that is imposed from OOC upon our characters' actions IC, and finding it super messed up. When I talked about the forfeiture issue with a site administrator, they were sympathetic to the viewpoint that if every duel is expected to go to completion, the duels themselves should provide means to ensure a duel's completion if the characters in the duel can't guarantee their participation. So I brainstormed ways that Neo could submit a ward modification that would generate proxies on the fly if one or both duelists were to leave the ring during a duel. The use of proxies is heavily accepted for a wide variety of great reasons. Why can't the rings themselves provide proxies?

I never followed through with any of that because a change to just my character takes way less time, energy, and effort than a change to the setting, especially when I'm not staff anymore. I may be a strong duelist, but I RP and write very casually, with a smaller portion of my free time. I didn't have the spoons to drag myself through what could be a lengthy, and potentially unpleasant, experience. But the brainstorming was useful in this situation where both characters could not continue dueling, so I improvised, re-awakened that old idea, and decided to start rolling with that. Because this improvisation required taking liberties with the setting--Neo ran an experiment on official rings--I felt that I should at least stop in the green room and deliver an implicit apology for so doing (I did a bad job of that, TBH). But it ended up reawakening the heated topic of forfeiture, and it didn't seem like that improvisation was actually received kindly anyways.

While I was busy cooking up the concoction that would macguffin both of our characters out of the ring so that the duel could continue, Lillian's player realized that the IC PTSD episode had affected her much more heavily than she anticipated, and she actually couldn't continue writing. While the topic of IC forefeiture is heated and controversial, there is at least no disagreement that when players are affected adversely, duels are allowed to end. And so we ended the duel.

What is the IC explanation for the OOC restriction on ending duels? If we are to continue running with things as they are now, we have to come up with one. After the duel ended, Ellie observed the scoreboard powering down and made a remark--though entirely in her thoughts--regarding the ward's thirst for competition and general inability to feel compassion.

I was advised in the green room not to make references to this OOC construct IC. I responded to that with hostility, and I must apologize again for having done so. I was personally wound up from having to navigate rules that I have a great deal of strong feelings towards in order to write a subject that required sensitivity, while also taking care of another player who was actually in duress. The advisory felt like a inappropriately placed jab in a very vulnerable moment, but I am sorry for my reaction to that.

We can't just not have an IC explanation for this if we are going to leave this ruleset as-is, and I feel that my explanation at least bridges some gaps. The ward heals people. In exchange, it has an insatiable thirst for competition, and that's why characters aren't allowed to end duels regardless of what happens in the rings. Are we supposed to pretend that there is no restriction on forfeiture IC even though there is one imposed externally? Because that's ridiculous; I'm not going to bend over backwards writing to accommodate this inflexibility. There has to be a corresponding IC explanation.

So now that I have made it through my stream of consciousness spew of events and emotions, I want to try and bring some structure back by asking some specific questions that can serve as potential directions for conversation going forward through this topic. I already have one of the questions and have already vomited my thoughts on it extensively: What is the IC explanation to correspond with this OOC rule? Here's some more.

Why does the rule against forfeiture for IC reasons exist? What is it meant to prevent? Is it actually effective in so doing? What are alternate means we can use to prevent those outcomes? Are those outcomes significant enough to merit the effort spent to prevent them?

What was reiterated to me repeatedly by multiple parties is that this rule exists to prevent people from cheating and/or buffering their records. I was a coordinator when we did actively have cheaters in our midst, and I play other games that are affected by cheaters. I am sympathetic to the cause of preventing cheating, but I have to ask: Is it really as much of a problem as it is made out to be?

Back when we had wins-over-losses as our ranking system, there was definitely motive to cheat. Because you could go down in rank, which would affect access to your modifiers, or the ability to hold on to a title. Now that we have flat wins as our ranking metric, where is the motive to cheat? You can't go down in rank, which means that once you have the ability to gain a title, you can't end up in a state where you would lose it. Gaining the requisite wins to enter the title game does not take much time. Tournaments regularly take place that dole out wins. The threshold to challenge is low in Magic, and in Swords, there are an abundance of grant opportunities. (I can't speak for Fists.)

Without motive to cheat, where is the cheating problem except for hypothetical? Does a hypothetical problem require safeguards that create a disproportionate degree of obstacle to our writing? And is this safeguard--frowning on forfeiture of duels--actually worth anything? If someone wants to buffer their record with the help of a friend, stopping forfeiture has absolutely no effectiveness. There are a million ways to throw a duel, some of which would be obvious, and some of which are not so much. All forfeitures have to be reviewed--that in and of itself is one thing--but is it not a waste of the limited time and energy that staff have to give to the sport to talk to people about forfeitures that occur for IC reasons? Besides, forfeiture should generally result in just throwing a duel out. If throwing a duel out can be used to cheat, just how much benefit can actually be gained that is worth the effort spent trying to prevent it?

Why, collectively, do we care if duels end prematurely for IC reasons? I have heard some state that it is a waste of players' time. Whose time? The two players who are writing a story that necessitates cancellation of a duel? In what way is that a "waste" of anyone's time? I think this point would look very differently if regulation duels were still called manually. Because a caller's time and energy are precious and finite.

And I also think this point also looks different when there is asymmetry in the matter. For example, if I get Ellie into a fight she can't handle, I do agree that it is disrespectful to the other player's time if I try to get out of it by ending the duel prematurely and the other player isn't okay with whatever story thread is trying to be written there. Most people who agree to duel aren't so much agreeing to write "stories" together, they're more agreeing to play a slow fighting game where the game itself is competitive but their narration of it is collaborative. Does this distinction merit clarification and separation into its own matter? Is this specific subset of cases what made the previous discussion of forfeiture so heated, and is it different when there is more overt collaboration in the story being written?

To end this off... why did it take Lillian's player ending up in a traumatic episode to give legitimacy to ending a duel where the characters were already trying to address trauma together? I have to admit that I feel some guilt here. I was scrambling to figure out how I could get Ellie and Lillian out of the ring so that they could take care of themselves, with the community stance on forfeiture hanging over my head. I admit that I fear that my scrambling to handle this in a way that I thought would be acceptable for the community could have led to that episode, and I am very sorry for that.

But it keeps playing over and over in my head: if we could have just stopped the duel without it being a federal issue, none of this would have been as bad as it ended up being.

So let's talk about this. For real, for real.

[Serenity Silverhand]

New here. Just my personal opinion as someone new (but old! AOL Fam Represent!) who doesn't quite understand.

Forfeiting, as it is, does not appear to affect anything under the current systems being run. I could totally understand it if the system counted Wins, Losses, and Forfeits - but it doesn't. It only counts your victories.

While the ban on doing it for IC reasons clearly had reason to exist in the past - unless there is some shadowy plan to bring more complexity to combat by have W/L/F all counted - it is something that needs addressing because it's a rule that perhaps doesn't need to exist anymore.

In real, historical duels you can forfeit. It makes no sense why we can't ICly forfeit when there doesn't appear to be any underlying reason anymore why they would be banned due to OOC reasons. Does it break the bot? Mess up a spreadsheet somewhere? Cause the server to catch on fire? I'm just confused as to why an archaic rule is still being held in place when it doesn't appear to have any negative effects on anything.

[Max Lager]

Original Post: viewtopic.php?p=207027#p207027

I'm looking to start a conversation on the current ruleset we have regarding ending duels before their natural completion. The current ruleset is, "unless there is something wrong OOC, don't." I feel this ruleset is restrictive on our ability to write stories for our characters, and I want to find out why it is the way that it is, and if we can't achieve the same objectives in a different way.

When this subject came up previously, we have both addressed why it is the way it is as well as offered alternatives for achieving the “same objectives in a different way”. To rehash them before we break things down further;

Reasons we do not permit IC forfeitures without valid OOC reasons include increased work for our volunteer standings keeper, potential for abuse, record padding, and griefing of other players, and out of respect for the time of those involved on all sides.

Ways to achieve the same objective in a different way include using magical implements to finish the duel, create proxies, etc, as well as writing through uncomfortable situations, using roleplay to de-escalate situations (i.e. Sending HC as a move but the RP reads Character A recognizes Character B is stressed by the exchange and lowers their fists to instead offer a hug), or finishing the duel in the bot without continuing the RP (the method suggested for years at this point when dealing with RP or a player that makes you uncomfortable). Lastly, the practice duel function is available (and was pointed out at the point of the original issue) as an option to have the dueling calls and flare without the impact to standings.

Since the main post is incredibly long, we will address it in sections to the best of our ability before answering any follow up posts. This post serves only as a response from the Duel of Magic staff and may not be representative of the other sports or staff members’ views.

Here is way too much exposition on why I am even running into this issue in the first place.

A while back, when Ellie and Mira's relationship was still burgeoning, they fought a duel, and Mira's behavior in the duel deeply disturbed Ellie. They worked it out, but they thought it was most responsible to not continue the duel. After all, there was traumatization in play, and it's not a real fight. Any sensible person would not continue a duel with someone they care about in this state. We didn't think it would be a problem. I hit the ?forfeit in the Nexus bot, and we wrote our story.

We were both contacted by DoM staff about the forfeiture and told, in more words than this, that we were not allowed to end duels for IC reasons. It only became acceptable when Mira implied that there was any amount of OOC weight behind that scene. We both walked away from that interaction with staff feeling very weird about things. Why is that what it took for it to be okay?

The difference between In Character and Out of Character should be an obvious line that we avoid crossing. If a player is being negatively impacted by a situation, lenience is given for forfeits, thus why forfeits are allowed for things like internet issues, personal emergencies, and yes, sudden changes in emotional state. In Character, duels are a collaborative effort and in a bid to maintain the integrity of the dueling process, we encourage players to continue duels for all of the reasons previously listed. While we understand the importance of story and character continuity, the OOC and meta aspects of the dueling process by design complicate this matter and must also be considered when balancing RP.

Later, Ellie got into a duel with an opponent who had a very savage and brutal methodology regarding dueling. She learned a very harsh lesson that day that she needed to pick her opponents better, but she also remembered that sometimes opponents start out fine, and then go completely off the rails. And she needs to be able to get out of there when that happens.

As has been the case with duels since they were formed, they are, at base level, an exercise in violence. This is an inherent risk that all participants acknowledge by accepting a duel. While having a pacifist character that doesn’t like to engage in excessive violence is admirable and fun to write, characters should be adapting to the structure of the sport rather than the other way around.

Having remembered the conversation with DoM staff about the Ellie vs. Mira duel, I took to the green room to ask about this, and... well, the conversation went very, very bad. Issues of consent were brought up, issues of potential cheating, etc etc. Feelings ran very, *very* hot.

I was asked why I could not simply "write my way out of these situations." At the time, I felt that implied that my character has to have a degree of omnipotence or some sort of macguffin in order to escape uncomfortable situations. Ellie is a regular mortal human. That's part of what makes writing her fun. I already have a character who can just anime macguffin his way out of trouble, and he's not as fun to write.

Saying that you were only told to write your way out of the situation is disingenuous and a misrepresentation of the situation that occurred. Along with the mention of writing around the situation, which is a valid recommendation, especially for tenured roleplayers with over a decade of experience as you have, suggestions were also bandied about for things like magical implements that can be used to complete the duel. At the time, the other player involved in the match hadn’t even been contacted OOCly about the issue and only found out it was an issue after the conversation was initiated in the Green Room. This left another player in a lurch and incredibly upset because they felt that they were being blamed and not being given an opportunity to correct the IC play.

First and foremost, dueling and roleplaying are cooperative endeavors, and when it comes to issues, we encourage communication with the player(s) involved as a first avenue of resolution. While we can’t speak for everyone, we think it is a safe bet that no one within the community is a mind reader and as such, if something isn’t sitting right with us, it is on us to speak up and inform those involved so that action can take place. Jumping immediately to forfeiture is an absolute last option for resolution of conflicts IC and OOC.

But the staff and community did not budge. Forfeiture for IC reasons remained unacceptable, and if I wanted to continue using a character with mortality and regular-human limitations and sensibilities for regular dueling, I would need to come up with a macguffin or three. I left that conversation with an extremely sour taste in my mouth, and it kept me away from dueling for a while.

Over the course of dueling, there have been a number of regular human mortal sorts that have participated in duels both violent and non-violent. It does not require a “macguffin” of any sort, when steps have been taken to provide ways for non magical participants to get involved with Duel of Magic. This includes, but is not limited to, the magical implements rack, the wards on the ring, alternative and creative formats for matches etc. All of these contribute to allowing normal non-magical beings to participate in whatever capacity they wish. The sky and our imaginations are quite literally the limit.

While I was able to come up with personal macguffins for Ellie, the unease from the status quo stuck with me. If you are not allowed to resign or end duels for IC reasons, that effectively means that IC wise, duels must be seen through to the end no matter what happens in the ring. Any sensible person realizing that duels are not allowed to be ended would find that really messed up. Neo might be crazy strong, but he is sensible, and he would wonder how in the world he didn't realize and fix this during his time as coordinator. How could we, as players, possibly explain what is effectively a restriction imposed from OOC upon how IC events must play out?

It is unfair to classify this as something a “sensible” person would find messed up, as that implies that everyone involved isn’t sensible. That’s an unfair ad hominem at best and an unfortunate gaslighting at worst. That said, to address it, we have had a number of instances over the years where a duel has gone to completion with exactly zero roleplay to show for it. We have seen a number of creative methods for resolving duels without violence or even without physical interactions. Neo’s time as coordinator occurred approximately a decade ago. We would assume the problems then are not the problems now. As such, we have tailored the sport to the community and problems we see now rather than those of ten years ago. That said, all of the forfeiture requests and issues currently seem to circle around a single character/player which indicates it is a niche issue rather than a widespread one. If it means putting a rule into the official rules to cover this, then we suppose that is what it would take, despite Duel of Magic being a fairly laid back sport rules-wise. A number of rules are OOC constructs/restrictions but are still respected ICly.

Well, I'll get to that. Because now I have to get to what happened last night.

It does unfortunately seem like poor Ellie is a magnet for traumatic duels. None of this is on purpose, but it just keeps shaking out this way. Her duel with Lillian last night took an unfortunate turn when a water spell caused Lillian to relive some drowning-related trauma. Like a sensible and compassionate person, Ellie stopped what she was doing to help Lillian through her episode. And because Ellie is extremely compassionate and sensitive, she couldn't continue dueling after having put Lillian through that. Lillian offered to continue, but how could she in good conscience?

To touch on the scene in character, the other character involved indicated a willingness to continue so long as water based spells were no longer used. It wasn’t until an issue was raised in the green room and Ellie pushed the subject ICly that it became an “issue”. The ensuing conflict assuredly escalated out of character emotions for another player which is unfair to those involved. Again, the “sensible” thing is being brought up, which is, again, an unfair assessment and is an unwelcome attempt at painting those in disagreement in a poor light. Sensibility is subjective and what you or your character may see as “sensible” varies from what another player or character does.

And here we reach the big conundrum of the night; this duel could not continue, but unfortunately, I have had it expressed to me from a multitude of angles, both official and unofficial, that ending duels for IC reasons is explicitly disallowed and heavily frowned upon. The only sensible IC course of action is to end the duel, but due to OOC viewpoints, that is not allowed. So what are our characters to do? Do you see the sort of narrative bind that the current stance on ending duels creates?

We would posit the question of “How has everyone else dealt with the subject for years and why is this only becoming a frequent issue now?”

Well, Ellie does have her own proxies. She had to in order to be able to continue dueling. She has her spriggan summons and a pseudo-invulnerability spell that uses the ward. After all, if my character is mortal and concerned for her safety, making sure she can safely duel falls squarely on me. But this duel more resembled the Ellie vs Mira duel where there was a retraumatization rather than a thing of "I'm not safe, this person definitely wants to super duper hurt me." Ellie had her proxy ready, but she didn't know if Lillian would have one, or be able to use it. She was not trying to end the duel for just herself, but for Lillian too. How could we get both of them out at the same time?

So that brings me back to Neo discovering what is, again, a restriction that is imposed from OOC upon our characters' actions IC, and finding it super messed up. When I talked about the forfeiture issue with a site administrator, they were sympathetic to the viewpoint that if every duel is expected to go to completion, the duels themselves should provide means to ensure a duel's completion if the characters in the duel can't guarantee their participation. So I brainstormed ways that Neo could submit a ward modification that would generate proxies on the fly if one or both duelists were to leave the ring during a duel. The use of proxies is heavily accepted for a wide variety of great reasons. Why can't the rings themselves provide proxies?

I never followed through with any of that because a change to just my character takes way less time, energy, and effort than a change to the setting, especially when I'm not staff anymore. I may be a strong duelist, but I RP and write very casually, with a smaller portion of my free time. I didn't have the spoons to drag myself through what could be a lengthy, and potentially unpleasant, experience. But the brainstorming was useful in this situation where both characters could not continue dueling, so I improvised, re-awakened that old idea, and decided to start rolling with that. Because this improvisation required taking liberties with the setting--Neo ran an experiment on official rings--I felt that I should at least stop in the green room and deliver an implicit apology for so doing (I did a bad job of that, TBH). But it ended up reawakening the heated topic of forfeiture, and it didn't seem like that improvisation was actually received kindly anyways.

Ward modification was mentioned last night and raised red flags for more than just Duel of Magic staff members, prompting us to have to field questions both publicly and privately about it. Modifications to the dueling rings and immediate venue fall under Duel of Magic staff discretion and as such, should not be made without the knowledge of staff. We have offered a number of methods and In Character implements that would allow someone to participate in a duel without being in the ring and even advertised them in the standings as a Twilight Market promotion. We are not closed to suggestions but we discourage taking action first without communication and discussion. We think most participants in the community can attest to our openness and willingness to work with players that want to Do Stuff in DoM spaces.

While I was busy cooking up the concoction that would macguffin both of our characters out of the ring so that the duel could continue, Lillian's player realized that the IC PTSD episode had affected her much more heavily than she anticipated, and she actually couldn't continue writing. While the topic of IC forefeiture is heated and controversial, there is at least no disagreement that when players are affected adversely, duels are allowed to end. And so we ended the duel.

What is the IC explanation for the OOC restriction on ending duels? If we are to continue running with things as they are now, we have to come up with one. After the duel ended, Ellie observed the scoreboard powering down and made a remark--though entirely in her thoughts--regarding the ward's thirst for competition and general inability to feel compassion.

I was advised in the green room not to make references to this OOC construct IC. I responded to that with hostility, and I must apologize again for having done so. I was personally wound up from having to navigate rules that I have a great deal of strong feelings towards in order to write a subject that required sensitivity, while also taking care of another player who was actually in duress. The advisory felt like a inappropriately placed jab in a very vulnerable moment, but I am sorry for my reaction to that.

We can't just not have an IC explanation for this if we are going to leave this ruleset as-is, and I feel that my explanation at least bridges some gaps. The ward heals people. In exchange, it has an insatiable thirst for competition, and that's why characters aren't allowed to end duels regardless of what happens in the rings. Are we supposed to pretend that there is no restriction on forfeiture IC even though there is one imposed externally? Because that's ridiculous; I'm not going to bend over backwards writing to accommodate this inflexibility. There has to be a corresponding IC explanation.

We are glad that you acknowledge a reasonable accommodation was made for the Out of Character elements affecting the situation. We’d like to also point out that it was done without any sort of negativity toward it, no discussion to indicate that it wasn’t going to be allowed, etc.

That said, what is our IC explanation for other OOC constructs or restrictions? How do we account for fancies and foci? How do we account for the moves not aligning with roleplay actions? Why do we need an IC explanation for all OOC aspects? By nature, dueling and roleplay have to balance IC and OOC with as minimal of bleed as possible and it is a balancing act that many of us have learned to walk in our time as roleplayers and duelists.

The request that an OOC forfeiture allowance not be moved to an IC forfeiture allowance was a reasonable one in the mindset of balancing IC and OOC bleed and the subsequent response was disproportionate and inappropriate. That said, we’re glad to see the request to post on the board about it for discussion was taken to heart. Now others can weigh in too.

That said, the Ward on the Isle is not the Ward of Gondar that was mentioned last night. It isn’t fed by blood in the sands like it is in the Arena and assigning any sort of pseudo-sentience to it is just as unrealistic as not having an explanation for the forfeiture at all. Asking others to write to that interpretation is unfair as well.

Some things simply don’t need an explanation. That is an unfortunate reality of this hobby and the balancing of IC with OOC. Somethings can’t and won’t have an exact matching in character explanation and there have been many instances of this occurring to support this stance. Come up with whatever makes sense for you and your character, but impressing the same explanation upon others is not something we are going to implement.

So now that I have made it through my stream of consciousness spew of events and emotions, I want to try and bring some structure back by asking some specific questions that can serve as potential directions for conversation going forward through this topic. I already have one of the questions and have already vomited my thoughts on it extensively: What is the IC explanation to correspond with this OOC rule? Here's some more.

See above.

Why does the rule against forfeiture for IC reasons exist? What is it meant to prevent? Is it actually effective in so doing? What are alternate means we can use to prevent those outcomes? Are those outcomes significant enough to merit the effort spent to prevent them?

What was reiterated to me repeatedly by multiple parties is that this rule exists to prevent people from cheating and/or buffering their records. I was a coordinator when we did actively have cheaters in our midst, and I play other games that are affected by cheaters. I am sympathetic to the cause of preventing cheating, but I have to ask: Is it really as much of a problem as it is made out to be?

This was previously touched on in this post as well as explained the first and second times this came up. It was also explained privately to the new person who was not in the know last night when the incident occurred. To sum it up;

-It prevents additional work for standings keepers
-It prevents rage quitting when losing
-It prevents record padding or other ill-intended manipulation of records
-It is unilateral and creates a single ruling so that individual situations do not have to be ruled on the fly
-It prevents accusations of impropriety or favoritism rising from cases where one person may be granted a forfeiture and another may not

Back when we had wins-over-losses as our ranking system, there was definitely motive to cheat. Because you could go down in rank, which would affect access to your modifiers, or the ability to hold on to a title. Now that we have flat wins as our ranking metric, where is the motive to cheat? You can't go down in rank, which means that once you have the ability to gain a title, you can't end up in a state where you would lose it. Gaining the requisite wins to enter the title game does not take much time. Tournaments regularly take place that dole out wins. The threshold to challenge is low in Magic, and in Swords, there are an abundance of grant opportunities. (I can't speak for Fists.)

You may not understand the motive to cheat but even after moving to a lossless structure, we have still fielded incidents that would fall under the cheating umbrella. Just because you are not privy to it in the public space does not mean it doesn’t occur. That said, motive to cheat is not the sole reason driving the decision, as seen above.

Without motive to cheat, where is the cheating problem except for hypothetical? Does a hypothetical problem require safeguards that create a disproportionate degree of obstacle to our writing? And is this safeguard--frowning on forfeiture of duels--actually worth anything? If someone wants to buffer their record with the help of a friend, stopping forfeiture has absolutely no effectiveness. There are a million ways to throw a duel, some of which would be obvious, and some of which are not so much. All forfeitures have to be reviewed--that in and of itself is one thing--but is it not a waste of the limited time and energy that staff have to give to the sport to talk to people about forfeitures that occur for IC reasons? Besides, forfeiture should generally result in just throwing a duel out. If throwing a duel out can be used to cheat, just how much benefit can actually be gained that is worth the effort spent trying to prevent it?

While there are still ways people may pad their record or skirt the rules, we have elected to implement this to cover several different and recurring instances in order to prevent future issues from arising in the moment that affect more than just cheating. Duel of Magic, by and large, is pretty lax with their rules. We do not have a set completion period for challenges (only acceptance) beyond “within a reasonable time period”, we allow challenges at a lower rank than the other sports, and we frequently create opportunities for people to participate in Twilight Isle offerings even without participating in duels. In turn, we feel implementation and enforcement of a rule that promotes the well being of the community at large as well as the staff involved in keeping the community running is reasonable and acceptable.

Why, collectively, do we care if duels end prematurely for IC reasons? I have heard some state that it is a waste of players' time. Whose time? The two players who are writing a story that necessitates cancellation of a duel? In what way is that a "waste" of anyone's time? I think this point would look very differently if regulation duels were still called manually. Because a caller's time and energy are precious and finite.

And I also think this point also looks different when there is asymmetry in the matter. For example, if I get Ellie into a fight she can't handle, I do agree that it is disrespectful to the other player's time if I try to get out of it by ending the duel prematurely and the other player isn't okay with whatever story thread is trying to be written there. Most people who agree to duel aren't so much agreeing to write "stories" together, they're more agreeing to play a slow fighting game where the game itself is competitive but their narration of it is collaborative. Does this distinction merit clarification and separation into its own matter? Is this specific subset of cases what made the previous discussion of forfeiture so heated, and is it different when there is more overt collaboration in the story being written?

We would like to point out that in more than one instance of forfeited duels in recent times, the opposing player was either not in the know about the situation or had their duel dragged out without their input while discussion occurred around the situation. Their time was wasted. Without their consent, cooperation, or input. Additionally, staff’s time is valuable and these situations create a drain on staff time when continued requests have to be fielded in the moment. If the situation can be addressed with a unilateral rule in order to decrease the amount of time spent on administrative rulings and increase the amount of time that these volunteers can enjoy their time in the server, then that is a step we are willing to take.

To end this off... why did it take Lillian's player ending up in a traumatic episode to give legitimacy to ending a duel where the characters were already trying to address trauma together? I have to admit that I feel some guilt here. I was scrambling to figure out how I could get Ellie and Lillian out of the ring so that they could take care of themselves, with the community stance on forfeiture hanging over my head. I admit that I fear that my scrambling to handle this in a way that I thought would be acceptable for the community could have led to that episode, and I am very sorry for that.

But it keeps playing over and over in my head: if we could have just stopped the duel without it being a federal issue, none of this would have been as bad as it ended up being.

So let's talk about this. For real, for real.

To reiterate, reviewing the in character and green room logs from the incident show that the other player was willing to continue with the duel ICly until it started being raised in the green room that forfeiture was some terrible awful taboo thing. Forfeiture wasn’t even on the radar until it was pushed OOCly, so our suggestion would be to take a beat in moments like that and look for collaborative opportunities with your (general your) dueling partners rather than it becoming an instant conflict point that requires some big work around. Instead of immediately jumping to “We must forfeit”, what are ways that can be found to create something from the moment?

Could it be taking the opponent from the ring and giving them something to summon a proxy? Could it be turning it into a non-fight duel with dancing or drinking or playing a game? Could it be completing the duel without roleplay? Could it be using words and actions to show that the situation is being de-escalated even as the OOC construct of the duel progresses? Could it be something else entirely? The options are limitless.

At the end of the day, dueling and roleplay are both collaborative efforts and opportunities for creativity. While dueling augments roleplay, it is still an independent entity requiring its own unique set of guidelines, requirements, and, yes, inflexibility at times.

As such, we are working on an addition to the rules to address the forfeiture ruling so that it isn’t simply covered by the Saving Clause. That will be posted here before long.

Thank you for your discussion post.

-DoM Staff (Max, Royal, Karma)

[Q. T. McTwo-Thumbs]

"Max Lager" post_id=207034 time=1654724144 user_id=22777
Original Post: viewtopic.php?p=207027#p207027

Reasons we do not permit IC forfeitures without valid OOC reasons include increased work for our volunteer standings keeper, potential for abuse, record padding, and griefing of other players, and out of respect for the time of those involved on all sides.

This was my primary question. If the duels have moved to a lossless format - why does forfeiture matter anymore? Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like despite the record of losses and forfeits no longer being included the system still generates them which means one more thing for the team to have to scrub?

Again, I'm "new" to the community and this new system. It doesn't seem like forfeits would be such a common thing that it should be too much of an issue. I'm of the mind, and please don't take it as being combative, that it's a rule that (based on my current understanding) doesn't serve much of a purpose now and could be relaxed in a probationary period. If abuse of it happens then the rule goes back and the abuse after allowing it becomes a precedent that can be used for any future discussion regarding it.

[Serenity Silverhand]

[That was me, forgot to switch over.]

[PrlUnicorn]

Max and the team have already said much of what was on my mind.

A couple of years back, for whatever reasons, players were writing a story together. They were found to be starting duels and continually forfeiting them. That is when the practice channel was added. I believe it was also at that time, that staff openly took the stance of constant forfeitures not being a good thing and putting the proverbial foot down.

In real, historical duels you can forfeit. It makes no sense why we can't ICly forfeit when there doesn't appear to be any underlying reason anymore why they would be banned due to OOC reasons. Does it break the bot? Mess up a spreadsheet somewhere? Cause the server to catch on fire? I'm just confused as to why an archaic rule is still being held in place when it doesn't appear to have any negative effects on anything.

When calculating/finding duels in the logs, it is the Standings Keeper's time that is valuable. Regardless of what part of that job is now automated, there is a person responsible for getting it done and gathering the information. Forfeitures make that job more difficult. So, effectively, it does mess up spreadsheets and adds to the workload of staff members.

Verified by Max here:

This was previously touched on in this post as well as explained the first and second times this came up. It was also explained privately to the new person who was not in the know last night when the incident occurred. To sum it up;

-It prevents additional work for standings keepers
-It prevents rage quitting when losing
-It prevents record padding or other ill-intended manipulation of records
-It is unilateral and creates a single ruling so that individual situations do not have to be ruled on the fly
-It prevents accusations of impropriety or favoritism rising from cases where one person may be granted a forfeiture and another may not

"Max Lager" post_id=207034 time=1654724144 user_id=22777
Original Post: viewtopic.php?p=207027#p207027

Reasons we do not permit IC forfeitures without valid OOC reasons include increased work for our volunteer standings keeper, potential for abuse, record padding, and griefing of other players, and out of respect for the time of those involved on all sides.

This was my primary question. If the duels have moved to a lossless format - why does forfeiture matter anymore? Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like despite the record of losses and forfeits no longer being included the system still generates them which means one more thing for the team to have to scrub?

Again, I'm "new" to the community and this new system. It doesn't seem like forfeits would be such a common thing that it should be too much of an issue. I'm of the mind, and please don't take it as being combative, that it's a rule that (based on my current understanding) doesn't serve much of a purpose now and could be relaxed in a probationary period. If abuse of it happens then the rule goes back and the abuse after allowing it becomes a precedent that can be used for any future discussion regarding it.

I believe part of the motivation is to prevent them from becoming a common thing. Once they started being allowed as the norm, there would be players that would take advantage. This is on effectively on par with recently implemented rules in DoS regarding penalties for title forfeitures including additional penalties for those that do it multiple times within a specific time frame. Simply put, to not allow them for IC purposes closes a loophole that is likely to be exploited ... again.

-------------------------

Getting back to Neo's original post:

I'm going to preface this by saying I don't recall having been there for Ellie and Mira's duel that preceded this one and if someone would like to provide a link, I would appreciate it. I still find it difficult to understand why a discussion was not held with the player involved in the duel that I saw as spurring as the original discussion on forfeits. We are a community that prides itself on being able communicate. Instead of discussing things in DMs or saying something in the GR to put a halt to what I saw as powergaming on Ellie, nothing was said. ( For the record, I'm talking about the character that bit Ellie.) I'm sure a couple of people read that and were pondering, "How did you know nothing was said in private?" If something had been said, the other player involved wouldn't have been so confused about the discussion that he walked in on in the Green Room. He was clearly upset that he had hurt someone. Had the step been taken to say, "Hey, powergaming is not allowed, please stop," that might have ended the need for a forfeit discussion that night.

We, as players, have to take personal responsibility for telling others they have invaded our space/sensibilities, etc. We might have to take the "Listen up you primitive screwhead" route when it comes to some players. This is where writing one's character out of any given situation comes into play. We, at all times, have control over our characters and are responsible for their destinies. Some players like the added element of chance via dice added in, I don't. We never have to accept the action imposed by others.

I have several character with empathic abilities as well as few that can feel out things directed at them. If I did not have the ability to write around those things, my characters would be forfeiting duels left and right. That's rather disrespectful to the other players involved; not just the other person in any given duel, but others that were waiting their turn as well. I am somewhat thick skinned and not easily offended by most things. Ponder this from the point of view of what's probably my most played character who is 16 years old and empathic. She's not bothered by people flirting in the ring. However, sometimes in the ring there's magic or other things at play in a duel that involve trying to heavily evoke sexual feelings in someone. If she dropped duels every time that happened in another ring, she would never duel. She was very young and just starting in the rings when Blue Mages (their specialty was sexual magic) were in vogue as characters. Picture the effect that would have on someone that is between 6 years and 12 years if they were not taught to guard against it. This is why when those shenanigans start, Maggie often hollers, "Just get a room already!" That often causes embarrassment to others because ZOMG, she felt that?

I want to address these things collectively:

But the staff and community did not budge. Forfeiture for IC reasons remained unacceptable, and if I wanted to continue using a character with mortality and regular-human limitations and sensibilities for regular dueling, I would need to come up with a macguffin or three. I left that conversation with an extremely sour taste in my mouth, and it kept me away from dueling for a while.

So that brings me back to Neo discovering what is, again, a restriction that is imposed from OOC upon our characters' actions IC, and finding it super messed up. When I talked about the forfeiture issue with a site administrator, they were sympathetic to the viewpoint that if every duel is expected to go to completion, the duels themselves should provide means to ensure a duel's completion if the characters in the duel can't guarantee their participation. So I brainstormed ways that Neo could submit a ward modification that would generate proxies on the fly if one or both duelists were to leave the ring during a duel. The use of proxies is heavily accepted for a wide variety of great reasons. Why can't the rings themselves provide proxies?

While I was able to come up with personal macguffins for Ellie, the unease from the status quo stuck with me. If you are not allowed to resign or end duels for IC reasons, that effectively means that IC wise, duels must be seen through to the end no matter what happens in the ring. Any sensible person realizing that duels are not allowed to be ended would find that really messed up. Neo might be crazy strong, but he is sensible, and he would wonder how in the world he didn't realize and fix this during his time as coordinator. How could we, as players, possibly explain what is effectively a restriction imposed from OOC upon how IC events must play out?

I can only speak for myself. Whenever someone includes "I was a past coordinator" in their discussion as part of the proverbial opening salvo regarding rules and policy issues, it immediately rubs me the wrong way. It comes off as that person wanting their opinion to carry more weight than other players that are not currently members of staff. One can enter rules and policies discussions without bringing up "Hey, do you know who I am/was?" I tend to keep what I used to do for historical discussions, job applications, and when people get in my face about things. There is no reason to bring that up in every discussion. Frankly, it comes off to me as rather arrogant in an I know better than you way.

In general, Neo is a sensible being. However, he often allows his need to be the hero in any given situation to overrule good sense.

Ward modification was mentioned last night and raised red flags for more than just Duel of Magic staff members, prompting us to have to field questions both publicly and privately about it. Modifications to the dueling rings and immediate venue fall under Duel of Magic staff discretion and as such, should not be made without the knowledge of staff. We have offered a number of methods and In Character implements that would allow someone to participate in a duel without being in the ring and even advertised them in the standings as a Twilight Market promotion. We are not closed to suggestions but we discourage taking action first without communication and discussion. We think most participants in the community can attest to our openness and willingness to work with players that want to Do Stuff in DoM spaces.

This and the mention of the Ward of Gondar (which historically has been part of the Arena and Arcade) on the Isle set off all kinds of red flags for me. To my knowledge, there's a rack of magical aids on the Isle like cards, wands, etc. to allow characters to take part that are not innately magical. There's no reason that magic protections and spell scrolls to call on summons/proxies can't be among them. To me, it is rude at best for anyone to presume that a modification to a ring was accepted and act on it in play without the consent of the current DoM team. To my knowledge, we are allowed to control what goes on within the ring for our own duels.

As for last night, from the IC standpoint, Lillian was in over her head, but she seemed to be willing to push past her fears and go onward. Realistically speaking, that's often the right way to handle it; getting back on the proverbial horse. Ellie in her well meaning way suggested Lillian leave the ring. Right there, Ellie had a similar moment to what Neo often does, when the need to be hero overrides sense.

OOC, the discussion turned to PTSD and that was when the forfeit was called. I'm ok with that part.

[Serenity Silverhand]

A couple of years back, for whatever reasons, players were writing a story together. They were found to be starting duels and continually forfeiting them. That is when the practice channel was added. I believe it was also at that time, that staff openly took the stance of constant forfeitures not being a good thing and putting the proverbial foot down.

When calculating/finding duels in the logs, it is the Standings Keeper's time that is valuable. Regardless of what part of that job is now automated, there is a person responsible for getting it done and gathering the information. Forfeitures make that job more difficult. So, effectively, it does mess up spreadsheets and adds to the workload of staff members.

I believe part of the motivation is to prevent them from becoming a common thing. Once they started being allowed as the norm, there would be players that would take advantage. This is on effectively on par with recently implemented rules in DoS regarding penalties for title forfeitures including additional penalties for those that do it multiple times within a specific time frame. Simply put, to not allow them for IC purposes closes a loophole that is likely to be exploited ... again.

That makes sense. I assumed it was an incredibly rare occurrence and pictured perhaps a storyline where Serenity gives a little too much in a duel and becomes incapacitated and unable to fight further and a forfeit would be the appropriate action.

[Kira Adia]

I’d like to weigh in just slightly. I won’t be responding to any specific points from any specific people, just adding my thoughts to the mix. I respect and have very close friends on both sides of the debate presented thus far.

I’ve stated it before, but just to put my cards in the table: I’m a story writer first and foremost, and I duel as a side thing for fun. If dueling were ended, nothing would change for me, while if RP were ended, I’d probably leave quickly. Or just stick to the lobby, more likely. Anyway, that’s my premise on the table.

As much as duels are an excellent vehicle for creating and furthering story, they are, at the end of the day, a game we play using our characters but separate from the rest of what we do. Put in other terms, duels are the the characters pulled from the main map by a swirling screen and onto a JRPG style battle screen. I’ll say it here, if anyone points out JRPGs let you run from battles, you’re twisting my point. It’s illustrative.

I walk into a duel knowing that’s what I’m doing. I twist my narrative around that premise. I think of myself as a good enough writer that I’ve been able to make in character justifications for this separation. (Kira uses a separate move set and wards her weapons when in the rings.)

My suggestion is this: when someone enters a duel, they know they are making a OOC decision to participate in a sport and using IC narrative to explain what’s happening. Can triggering thing happen to our characters what hurt them in any number of ways? Yes. It has happened to Kira. What did I do? I finished the duel, and then went into the reaction to the trauma. All of this because of the OOC decision to participate in a sport that directly had an impact on how things flowed IC.

Is this entirely realistic? No. But I also write a Fae aristocrat who can turn into dirt and summon golems. I have the luxury of not following realistic rules of psychology. Triggers for an episode don’t have to have an immediate impact if I don’t want them to.

Now to address the other side of it. Is it reasonable to assume there may be times when someone will get into a fight they can’t win and need to retreat? Yes, and it’s a perfectly valid roleplaying thing to do. It’s also possible to have a character experience something mid fight that compromises their ability to finish the fight, whether it be a physical injury or a psychological event. I suggest we save the incidents for when we are not in a duel and a purely writing in character. As I said above, entering a duel is an OOC decision no matter how you cut it. You have to DM the bot and both parties have to agree. There’s no way around that.

In short, I feel like the IC repercussions of a duel can be held off until it’s conclusion. If that’s unavoidable, it can be worked around. I propose that, instead of looking at dueling rules as OOC being inflicted into IC, dueling should be viewed as IC being pulled into an OOC game.

As for the decisions to halt a duel as a result of OOC situations, I wholeheartedly agree with the decisions made so far. I have never seen a situation where a player spoke up about a bad situation coming up and the staff not granting the forfeit. This includes both technical issues and emotional ones.

[Arthour]

One solution could perhapes be that the players continue the duel, but ICly the duels ends when the character has 'forfeited'. The standings are unaffected, but ICly the effect remains the same? Dont know if thats already been said, just my two pence

[PrlUnicorn]

One solution could perhapes be that the players continue the duel, but ICly the duels ends when the character has 'forfeited'. The standings are unaffected, but ICly the effect remains the same? Dont know if thats already been said, just my two pence

I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say here. When a duel continues, it comes to a conclusion via victory for one duelist or a tie, it is by default recorded in the standings.

[Robert Infinity]

I have two things I want to talk about, and I'm going to put them both here. First, Neo said, "Back when we had wins-over-losses as our ranking system, there was definitely motive to cheat. Because you could go down in rank, which would affect access to your modifiers, or the ability to hold on to a title. Now that we have flat wins as our ranking metric,..." Huh?? In the Official Rules, in "Record Purges / Reinstatement" (viewtopic.php?p=183028#p183028) it says "Also at the end of each cycle, a record purge will occur. The losses will be subtracted from wins and removed. For example, if a duelist has 15 wins and 7 losses, they will have 8 wins and 0 losses at the start of the next cycle." So, which is right?



Secondly, if there is a legitimate IC reason to forfeit, I see no ground for prohibiting it, if both parties are in agreement. So long as there is not the original intent to forfeit, if either or both characters wish to end the match prematurely, I don't see it's anybody's business to say they can't, because of out-of-character reasons given by the person who wishes to prevent. That, to my mind, is someone trying to run my character.

I am not going to touch on every reason given for the ban, just those that stick in my mind.
If I enter a duel with the intention of completing it, not completing it does not increase the work of the standings keeper.
There would be no need for adjudicating IC forfeits if there was no total ban against it. Making a rule and then complaining about its extra work is, well...
Exactly what record(s) does a forfeit pad? If the DoM uses pure wins for ranks, the only thing I can see is if the "Cycle Rankings" lets someone get to 8+ (braket #1) with forfeits; if that's it, that needs to be fixed. I see no reason to let bracket level use forfeits at all.
Defending the ban by pointing to the line that should exist between IC and OOC, at best, completely misses the point--the objection is that for OOC reasons IC is being controlled. If it were a matter of offensiveness, harm (mental or emotional or physical), hatred, intolerance, etc., etc., then OOC reasons would be fine and dandy. But that does not apply to the reason(s) why.

I have more than complaints. I may have a way of dealing with this, or at least a suggestion that might, just possibly, move this discussion away from "I want to"/"You can't". I suggest that if there is an In-Character reason for a forfeit, that the player wishing to do so ask the other player, in #green-room, if it is OK - - - or, they can ask in DMs and the two can discuss matters in DMs and announce their agreement in #green-room. That way, there will be a public record of the agreement. The requestor then tells the Nexus Guide bot to forfeit the duel. Both then DM and/or PM on the forum the agreement to Max, or whoever she designates, that they agreed to the forfeit, and point to the #green-room. Any failure by the forfeiter to follow the procedure means the non-forfeiter gets a win; OTOH, if the non-forfeiter does not follow the procedure, find out if that's because of laziness or incomprehension or malice.

While complex, it makes it unnecessary to adjudicate a forfeit for IC reasons. Excessive use of this procedure can result in whatever punishments the DoM staff thinks appropriate, though I strongly suggest the guidelines that will be used be made public. Note, guidelines - - - I do not want the DoM staff to have no flexibility.

If somebody wants to suggest changes, go ahead. If someone wants to advance a different method, go ahead. But if someone goes "Nope!" and gives the same reasons as the "Nope!"s I've already seen here, don't expect me to respond.

[Strawberry]

I have two things I want to talk about, and I'm going to put them both here. First, Neo said, "Back when we had wins-over-losses as our ranking system, there was definitely motive to cheat. Because you could go down in rank, which would affect access to your modifiers, or the ability to hold on to a title. Now that we have flat wins as our ranking metric,..." Huh?? In the Official Rules, in "Record Purges / Reinstatement" (viewtopic.php?p=183028#p183028) it says "Also at the end of each cycle, a record purge will occur. The losses will be subtracted from wins and removed. For example, if a duelist has 15 wins and 7 losses, they will have 8 wins and 0 losses at the start of the next cycle." So, which is right?

It looks like the official lossless verbiage hasn't been added to the official rules yet. We'll get those added when we add the update for the forfeiture ruling.

I'd touch more on your other complaint but you've said that you won't be coming back to respond if the same "Nope" is given. I feel like you have a misunderstanding of some of the mechanics here but since it reiterates things we've already said, I'll refrain from going into it unless you request.

As the OP requested, this should be a discussion after all.

[BardGallant]

This was a lot to read, and when I finally got through it all my primary thought was covered nicely by PrlUnicorn above.

We, at all times, have control over our characters and are responsible for their destinies. ... We never have to accept the action imposed by others.

You can argue until you're blue in the face from being out of breath about this, but in the end I'm always going to stress this one point. I like the way C worded it so much that I'm going to make it really big and quote it again.

We never have to accept the action imposed by others.

First and foremost, you are in control of your characters' destinies. Absolutely nobody else but you gets to decide what happens to them. I have followed this rule for the 20+ years that I have been roleplaying. When someone else narrates their character doing something to mine that I don't approve of, I always counter narrate that "nope that didn't happen." Often and using different words.

And yes, I also write a very vulnerable, very human, very mortal character. It would be so easy for Dris to die in a duel. Hell, when he dueled Lillian and she threw some of her spells at him, many of them were absolutely lethal in design. Someone shoots a fireball in Dris' face, and without proper protection he's going to be incinerated. Let's be honest here. How do I work around that? By being creative. For one, I could have him easily dive out of the way so that it only singes him and doesn't impact him directly. Simple and effective. But also, thanks to his very magical boyfriend, he's covered in protection spells and wears shield bracelets and things.

Dris is also an empath, but I wrote it into his character from the beginning that his particular empathy is limited and short-range. A person has to be within 10 feet of him for him to actually feel their emotions. It's a good way to balance him so that he isn't being constantly bombarded by the world and going insane from his uncontrollable, untrained wild talent. Since being with Rhys, he's also always wearing a dampening charm that helps him sort his own feelings out from those of others. It was very easy for me to have him not notice what was going on in the ring the other night, because Rhys was in his immediate proximity, and if he was picking up on any emotions at that time they were coming first and foremost from him.

There was an incident I was stuck in during one of the DoM All Ranks Tournaments not too long ago in which another player was having their character be extraordinarily aggressive toward mine with their magic. I have not seen that character played since, but I recall how horrific it was having Dris being bullied by them and assaulted with magic that could have legitimately killed him, without any discussion about it from the other player whatsoever. This was a tournament. I wasn't about to forfeit. I did have Dris yell that he was not having a good time and make it very clear that he was stressed and afraid, but I had him finish the duel. I remembered that he was covered in shield bracelets and things, thanks to some helpful reminders from my other roleplaying friends. So I just had Dris cower and power through until that match was over, and move on. Even though the other player was narrating some very harmful actions, I did not allow more than I was comfortable with allowing, because in the end I remembered that only I get to decide what happens to my character. No one else.

Yes, you know what? ICly he was so shaken and traumatized after that, that I left play with him. ICly, that made sense. I was out of the tournament by that time, so it was perfectly acceptable. Another friend character was on the sidelines and took him directly home to decompress. OOCly, I stuck around to watch the tournament progress.

OOCly, I have been in plenty of situations where I was uncomfortable dueling someone, where I had to duel them to fulfill the obligations of the game. Only once have I ever resorted to not roleplaying any actions at all and just sending moves to the bot. All of these situations were for tournaments or challenges, though. Not regulation dueling. At least in regulation dueling I have a level of choice in the matter of who I duel. Even when a duel turns sideways and things happen that make me and my characters uncomfortable, I power through. I create story with it. It has never, in my 12-13 years worth of dueling, occurred to me to consider forfeiting a match that I agreed to in the first place.

ETA: Something else that came to mind.

Choosing to forfeit is, essentially, choosing to accept a loss, and therefore choosing to allow your opponent to win. This is why there is talk about padding wins for your friends. Anyone could come up with any number of "reasons" to forfeit a duel to make it valid, and it could be abused consistently if not kept in check with the current rule set. There are already penalties for this sort of thing in place concerning challenges. If someone you don't like challenges you for a title you hold, you have a choice. Forfeit the title and endure the penalties so that you don't have to fight them, forcing the staff to scramble to find a champion, or find a way to endure the challenge and potentially defend.

For example: remember that time Mira challenged Dris for Dragon's Gate? OOCly, I adore Mira. She's a great person. ICly, Dris is very wary of her because he has seen how violent she can be in duels. Also he's an empath and has sensed that inkling of how much she enjoys physical violence. Dris did not want to put himself in a position to have to feel that sadomasochistic enjoyment from her, let alone potentially be grievously physically injured. Despite her saying she'd go gentle with him, it was more than that. There were emotions involved that he'd have to expose himself to. So he had a choice. Forfeit to avoid the challenge altogether, ask the Overlord to Intercede on his behalf as a Loyal Baron, find a work around to protect himself that might have included the use of a proxy. He chose the second option and it worked out in his favor, but he and I were fully prepared to fight Mira ourselves if need be.

Ultimately, this comes back to choice. There is always more than one, but remember that choosing to forfeit is choosing to lose and choosing to allow your opponent to win. Some people might be okay with that, but also think of the extra work it puts on the volunteer sports coordinators. And always remember that you are in control of your character's destinies, as stated above.

[Robert Infinity]

One solution could perhapes be that the players continue the duel, but ICly the duels ends when the character has 'forfeited'. The standings are unaffected, but ICly the effect remains the same? Dont know if thats already been said, just my two pence

I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say here. When a duel continues, it comes to a conclusion via victory for one duelist or a tie, it is by default recorded in the standings.

I think they're saying the players can have their characters roleplay ending the duel, while continuing to send moves to the 'bot. The way standings are figured would not be affected.

If I have misunderstood, then please correct me, Arthour.

[Robert Infinity]

I have two things I want to talk about, and I'm going to put them both here. First, Neo said, "Back when we had wins-over-losses as our ranking system, there was definitely motive to cheat. Because you could go down in rank, which would affect access to your modifiers, or the ability to hold on to a title. Now that we have flat wins as our ranking metric,..." Huh?? In the Official Rules, in "Record Purges / Reinstatement" (viewtopic.php?p=183028#p183028) it says "Also at the end of each cycle, a record purge will occur. The losses will be subtracted from wins and removed. For example, if a duelist has 15 wins and 7 losses, they will have 8 wins and 0 losses at the start of the next cycle." So, which is right?

It looks like the official lossless verbiage hasn't been added to the official rules yet. We'll get those added when we add the update for the forfeiture ruling.

That is wonderful to know. Thank you.

I'd touch more on your other complaint but you've said that you won't be coming back to respond if the same "Nope" is given. I feel like you have a misunderstanding of some of the mechanics here but since it reiterates things we've already said, I'll refrain from going into it unless you request.

As the OP requested, this should be a discussion after all.

I do not think I have "a misunderstanding". I think the points made by those opposed to changing the current rule have been clear. While I see some reasons to opposed change, I see a great deal more reasons, more powerful reasons, to make a change. In short, I disagree with the overall reasoning. Unless there is some un-hashed-over reason, I don't see any point in continuing.

To assume a disagreement can only be caused by insufficient understanding is not a pleasant POV to face. I will say no more.