New Rule Discussion

[PrlUnicorn]

The OOC personal issues shouldn't come into play.

Again.

The OOC personal issues shouldn't come into play.

Shouldn't doesn't mean they won't. Time and time and time and again I have personally seen OOC personal issues come into play in judgments from a LOT of places, both official and not official.

Just because they shouldn't does not mean they won't. This is why absolute rules SHOULD come into play, because it eliminates the OOC Personal Issues. Just because YOU(generical) won't let OOC personal issues stay OOC, does not mean that OTHERS will not.

Agreed. I forget who originally said this but, "What is right is not always fair and what is fair is not always right." When things are spelled out, there's little or no wiggle room. It is an unfortunate, yet, simple rule of life that not everyone will always be happy with rules and decisions set down by any governing body.

Inconsiderate timing? Good tactics? Aren't OOC holidays OOC? Aren't challenges IC? Kal told me Guaire had to wait 14 days to challenge so I waited. Please, don't assume that I tried to slip an unnoticed challenge onto the public boards...that was seen 80+ times before the title holder was held forfeit

To be completely transparent I even asked if I could withdraw the challenge without losing the challenge right and was told no. I don't like this situation, but I'm stuck in it.

As Apple said, that wasn't said with malice. Some characters as well as their players do celebrate Christmas hence why I was giving the benefit of the doubt to Melanie's player on whether or not she had seen your post. Remember, the possible good tactics idea was coming from the standpoint of a character that's a nine year old Baroness, who was raised with certain ideas about the sport.

If you had withdrawn the challenge before Melanie was declared to be in forfeit, I believe you would have had your challenge right restored as if you had never made the challenge.

Section 3 of the UTC says:

3. A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. Standings are considered official at 6 pm EST on Thursdays. Where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the date and time the validation notice is sent out) and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered a forfeit. (See Title Forfeiture below )

Unlike a possible penalty phase, which is being discussed in this thread, there are already rules in place about Title Forfeiture in this post under a heading of the same name

1. If the Overlord is stripped while under challenge, the Senior most Baron will defend it.
a. If defended, the Overlord title will go to a Baron's Tournament. This is the only tournament allowed to decide the Overlord.

2. If a Baron is stripped while under challenge, the Senior most Baron will defend it.
a. If defended, the title will go to the next Warlord Tournament or a Tournament to be decided by the Administrative Staff, dependant on the length of time until next WLT.

If I remember correctly, those rules were added after Vinny's challenge to Vanion, Overlord at the time, was in forfeit due to Vanion's supposed death.

Please try not to think of it as being stuck. Try to look at it as Guaire still getting his shot at Battlefield Park. I realize that Guaire dueling with a kid or Maggie in general might not be your cup of tea or his. However, she's Senior Baron by virtue of holding onto her title and is stepping up to the responsibility of it.

[Kalamere]

My only issue with the Baron's Council was that it had been reliant on assuming all the Barons will choose the fair choice.

Interestingly, at least to me, is that while the Council had a greater opportunity to make a "fair" ruling much more so than any black letter law ever could; bias was also a very big part of its construction. It was a body of decision, but it was also intended to be an RP device. Control or befriend a larger number of the members and maybe your outcome will be more to your liking.

I always waited for the day when some group, say Wrecking Crew, controlled the majority of seats on the council + held the Overlordship and then they all just stopped answering challenges and pushing out decisions that said they had the right to.

That, of course, is why the saving clause is in place .. for when so blatant a violation of community standards happened that the staff needed to step in to make things right .. but as far as I know, it was never necessary. The play, however, around some groups looking to control the council for something like that was always a fun little bit of political intrigue to me.

Anyway though, while I'm happy to discuss the Baron's Council in all it's infamous glory, reinstating it isn't currently on the table. Down the road I'm sure there will be other more wide ranging rules discussions (Raye has already discussed planning out something like that in the future with me - though timing and scope are far from being locked down) where the topic might be more appropriate, but for now it is somewhat out of scope of what we're trying to decide here.

[Andrea Anderson]

My only issue with the Baron's Council was that it had been reliant on assuming all the Barons will choose the fair choice.

Interestingly, at least to me, is that while the Council had a greater opportunity to make a "fair" ruling much more so than any black letter law ever could; bias was also a very big part of its construction. It was a body of decision, but it was also intended to be an RP device. Control or befriend a larger number of the members and maybe your outcome will be more to your liking.

There's just two differing opinions, nothing wrong with it. I guess it's the differing opinion of by the book control and the other of playing politics and making alliances.

I look forward to seeing any new ideas for a possible return though in the future. I'll leave talk of the council stuff at that.

[Kalamere]

It's more non-sequitur information, but this exchange caught my attention and I wanted to add to it while it was in my mind.

To be completely transparent I even asked if I could withdraw the challenge without losing the challenge right and was told no. I don't like this situation, but I'm stuck in it.

If you had withdrawn the challenge before Melanie was declared to be in forfeit, I believe you would have had your challenge right restored as if you had never made the challenge.

Collie is correct in this. We actually have a good amount of precedent around allowing someone to rescind a challenge and the re-issue it using the same grant. I say grant, because while it may have come up with the warlord challenge rights, I can't currently think of a case. It shares common traits with things like Overlord and Madness challenge grants, however, and we have allowed that in the past, provided the final challenge was still issued within the lifetime of the grant. Meaning, for the OL grant, that the duelist will lose the grant if they rescind after 7 days have passed because its challenge must be issued within a week's time, but may still re-issue if it has not. With Warlord challenge rights, I imagine the rule would be similar in that a challenge issued on a Fall cycle right could not be rescinded and re-issued once the Fall cycle has ended. It would instead cost a Winter cycle right at that point.

The case here though is different in that the challenge directly caused a change in the title. Without it, Melanie would still hold Battlefield Park because Raye would never have been forced to declare her in forfeit. It's the "you break it, you bought it" theory. Once an administrative action is triggered due to the challenge, then the right needs to be considered spent. I believe that had you rescinded prior to the forfeit ruling, or had Melanie retired ... err, abdicated ... the title prior to it, then it would be a different case and the right would be returned.

That said, new challenge rights with the Winter Cycle come out this week. If you're not keen to face the baby baron, the battlefield park challenge could be dropped and a new challenge using one of those rights could be issued in fairly close succession.

[Andrea Anderson]

The case here though is different in that the challenge directly caused a change in the title. Without it, Melanie would still hold Battlefield Park because Raye would never have been forced to declare her in forfeit. It's the "you break it, you bought it" theory. Once an administrative action is triggered due to the challenge, then the right needs to be considered spent. I believe that had you rescinded prior to the forfeit ruling, or had Melanie retired ... err, abdicated ... the title prior to it, then it would be a different case and the right would be returned.

Just wanted to comment to say that I really, really like the background behind this decision.

[Guaire Bryne]

Part of an amends I'm making is the promise to wait 24h before posting on something that upsets me so I'll have to come back to this ruling and the implications within it. For now I will merely say that it's Xeric that won't duel Maggie. Bleys dueled her not long ago and Guaire has in the past. Personally, I only see an opponent that won't blatantly stomp on my toes.

[Cael]

Shhhh. It's gonna be okay, bro. ::Hugs.:: Just go with it.

[Rayvinn]

Part of an amends I'm making is the promise to wait 24h before posting on something that upsets me so I'll have to come back to this ruling and the implications within it. For now I will merely say that it's Xeric that won't duel Maggie. Bleys dueled her not long ago and Guaire has in the past. Personally, I only see an opponent that won't blatantly stomp on my toes.

He made the comment about you possibly not being keen on facing Maggie because you stated you were stuck in this situation which implies you did not want to duel her.

There were no untoward implications in this ruling. There was nothing "against" you. It is all pretty cut and dry and we made this ruling to set a precedent for future rulings, not just for this particular case.

There is no boogey man in the closet here.

[PrlUnicorn]

Part of an amends I'm making is the promise to wait 24h before posting on something that upsets me so I'll have to come back to this ruling and the implications within it. For now I will merely say that it's Xeric that won't duel Maggie. Bleys dueled her not long ago and Guaire has in the past. Personally, I only see an opponent that won't blatantly stomp on my toes.

Somewhere along the line I had a brain spaz about Bleys being one of yours and I honestly didn't remembering Guaire dueling her, much like you spaced on Xeric having challenged Rhiannon Harker for Old Temple. We're human.

[Kalamere]

Part of an amends I'm making is the promise to wait 24h before posting on something that upsets me so I'll have to come back to this ruling and the implications within it.

I apologize if my phrasing caused offense.

I specifically avoided using the word "fault" in there, as that implies anything from malice to reckless disregard, which is not at all the case here. In an effort to keep it lighter, however, I probably implied it none the less. The issue, instead, is one of cause and effect. Without A, B never comes to pass. That doesn't mean A had any unseemly motive or did anything wrong, but was none-the-less the trigger for B. At their base, challenge rights give Warlord's the opportunity to impact the makeup of the titled ranks. An impact was made here. As such the right need be considered at least partially used.. and returning half a right doesn't make a lot of sense.

Shhhh. It's gonna be okay, bro. ::Hugs.:: Just go with it.

Please do not use this as a forum to troll.

Raye and I asked for help in formulating a rule. We should be able to do this with a reasonable level of maturity and without taking potshots or grinding axes.

[Andrea Anderson]

Will this be added to the rules page? The whole "If you challenge for a title and it goes to the point of administration setting in due to issues ( such as the forfiet of a title due to unresponsive nature of a challenged baron ), the challenger will not be given their challenge right back should they wish to not go through with the results." Or, well, something better worded than that because I'm **** at wording things.

I'm asking because majority of new players will check the rules and new Warlords might not know a rule like this is precedent if this should happen again.

[DUEL Rayvinn]

Just letting you know that we didn't forget about this; we are wrapping up making the decision and will post soonish.

[DUEL Rayvinn]

Here are the results of the discussion. Kal and I would like to thank those that participated in the discussion and rule making process.