About the Overlord's forfeit

[Kalamere]

Apple answered the question regarding the challenges. When Hope comes back around to challenge a barony, New Haven will be an available option.

Regarding the Baron's Council question - No, the Overlord was not a part of the council, though could be asked to step in in some instances. Certainly not with veto power though. Veto power was reserved for the coordinator and was to be used only when a decision by the council was so egregious that it threatened the stability of the game itself.

Something people always seem to forget about the barons council is that it was never meant to be "fair". It was also never meant to be OOC. The body was placed outside of both black and white rules and precedent and asked to decide things on an in character basis in whatever manner they saw fit. Did that mean an organization like Wrecking Crew, for example, could gain a majority of baronies and then start abusing rules as they saw fit because they held the controlling votes? Absolutely, that is exactly what it meant. It never happened really, but the ability was there.

It was meant to be authoritative and deciding body, absolutely - and in my experience they got it right, or at least never disastrously wrong, the vast majority of the time. But it was also meant to be another aspect to the in-character play here.

We just couldn't keep people from getting their out of character feelings hurt by the injustice of it all. We also have problems getting a couple coordinators to keep their fingers out of the pie and just let things go.

Please note I am still not advising that the BC be brought back. I don't believe we're in any better a place today to handle it. I'm just answering the question.

[Sylus Kurgen]

Something people always seem to forget about the barons council is that it was never meant to be "fair". It was also never meant to be OOC. The body was placed outside of both black and white rules and precedent and asked to decide things on an in character basis in whatever manner they saw fit. Did that mean an organization like Wrecking Crew, for example, could gain a majority of baronies and then start abusing rules as they saw fit because they held the controlling votes? Absolutely, that is exactly what it meant. It never happened really, but the ability was there.

It was meant to be authoritative and deciding body, absolutely - and in my experience they got it right, or at least never disastrously wrong, the vast majority of the time. But it was also meant to be another aspect to the in-character play here.

We just couldn't keep people from getting their out of character feelings hurt by the injustice of it all. We also have problems getting a couple coordinators to keep their fingers out of the pie and just let things go.

That really was the beauty of the BC, but like you said members of the community couldn't keep their OOC emotions in check to separate IC from OOC.

DoS, to me, is meant to be a game of CUTTHROAT. The rules having their ambiguous sections...there's elements to allow Characters screw each other over. But some players just can't operate in that environment.

[Andrea Anderson]

Since you guys are going into the rules to revise / rewrite some lines. Can the rules about barons being able to challenge for their lost barony after 7 days and the clear definition of the per cycle part of the "4. Warlords are unable to challenge the same Barony twice in a row. (I.E. Seaside, and then Seaside again.)" be edited? To make things less confusing so if the question crops up again in the future.

[Hope]

I said it to Sylus the other night but I can't know if it really hit home with him or not. This isn't a site where there are 100+ unique visitors on a daily basis. I have a lot of faith in your ability to be impartial when dealing with rules Kalamere. When people read things like:

We just couldn't keep people from getting their out of character feelings hurt by the injustice of it all.

Or

That really was the beauty of the BC, but like you said members of the community couldn't keep their OOC emotions in check to separate IC from OOC.

Who are you alienating with these statements? If you look at the DoS standings right now I don't want to assume but a majority have either dueled for under 5 years easily or have just recently had success in it. Your playerbase is new to this. For a lot of these players it's not just their characters going through the hoops but the players too for some of the first time. Sometimes it's a lot easier to compartmentalize things after you've done them for over 10 years. I just implore you both to find the balance between your feelings and your opinions on how this game is meant to be played, "cutthroat" or not with the people actively supporting it now.

[Andrea Anderson]

That really was the beauty of the BC, but like you said members of the community couldn't keep their OOC emotions in check to separate IC from OOC.

And the shoe can be put on the other foot too. Why some members of the community felt the need to question the IC outrage some characters had with BC decisions then chalk it up as "They must have had an issue with it OOC and it bled IC."

It's a whole other subject, but the notion of IC/OOC separation can only go so far when both sides of the debate come out and question intentions when a decision they dislike goes one way or another. This is not directed to a single side as well; since both do the same thing. Baron Council decisions, one way or another, will bring into question this IC/OOC notion; and no matter what anyone says, player and character intentions will be brought into question.

[JewellRavenlock]

Did the BC have set options of penalties to choose from?

I ask because it'd be interesting to see the BC exist and only able to pick from a set of penalties that were considered equal. Like, they couldn't pick from "strip the title" and "one mod removed for the challenge" but maybe "one mod removed" and "no choice of format". Maybe "strip the title" should be an option but only if the character has done something wrong previously.

Probably makes things a lot more complicated and still leaves it up to way too much bias.

And I didn't ask this because I strongly favor the BC coming back (although I do think it's a cool idea). I completely understand the rationale behind having a clear cut rule and penalty for a scenario over a series of options.

[Andrea Anderson]

I've been thinking on the subject of leniency toward first-time offenses when it comes to stripping. Hope, Sabine, and others feel that stripping for a first time offense is rather harsh, and Hope does raise many good points about both the current player base and dwindling numbers of the site.

If appeasing current players, attempting to draw in old with easier access, and having new players come in and feeling they are able to jump into the game is the goal, then maybe stepping back and looking at the site as a business is a good choice. Currently some players believe Administration are out of touch with what's going on, while on the other foot some believe that these players themselves are asking to be hand-held. There has to be a balance between the two that isn't just a matter of: These are how the rules are, I envision the sport as cut-throat, etc. And it's not to say that current Administration isn't listening to the pleas of those having issues with the current rules.

What if the rule of stripping is treated like the currently in-place rule of missing a scheduled duel date. Currently, a Baron or Challenger can miss the first scheduled date of their challenge and be allowed 7 days to reschedule so that it's done. If a second missed date happens, then whoever is the no-show suffers a penalty. This can be done every-single-challenge, as there is currently no clause in the rule that makes it once per reign. There is also the rule where invalid challenges, after a slap on the wrist and a warning, can cause a challenger to be stripped of their challenge right. These are two examples of slap on the wrists and warnings, but title-holders are stripped the second they misstep once.

Why not use these examples toward the current issue with accepting? I'll say that it feels like the 24 hour with a loss of a single fancy feels more like a bandaid to the problem being brought up than a true solution, and even I liked the idea at first.

Why not for the first infraction, per CHARACTER. Not reign, not year, per CHARACTER. If said character misses their acceptance date, they are warned and given a slap on the wrist. They are then told they have 7 days more to accept. If they do not accept they are forfeit of their title and lose that warning for the remainder of their DOS career.

Can this be abused? Yes. But it can only be abused ONCE per character. Someone in the future may have to wait an extra 7 days due to a players abuse, but it might also make sure 2 or 3 other players aren't stripped the second they miss their validation by mistake.

[Kalamere]

It's not a duration thing. The BC came about I want to say around 1996 give or take a year and lasted until 2014. Pretty much everyone was new in '96, and certainly everyone (with one or two exceptions) is new since then. It's not compartmentalization due to having been playing longer. It is, I tend to believe, simply a different set of player attitudes and beliefs.

As I said, I wasn't pushing to see the council come back. I don't think it works with today's player base and don't expect that it ever will again.

[Kalamere]

Why not for the first infraction, per CHARACTER. Not reign, not year, per CHARACTER. If said character misses their acceptance date, they are warned and given a slap on the wrist. They are then told they have 7 days more to accept. If they do not accept they are forfeit of their title and lose that warning for the remainder of their DOS career.

I'm not opposed I guess. But the whole putting a thing on someone's permanent record like that seems counter to the overall goal of being more understanding and forgiving. It also becomes something we need to track somewhere. Presumably we don't want to track that publicly and turn it into the board for shame.

What I was thinking, was to just give that 24hour sanction, though I feel like that 24hours should be from the time that miss is found and noted by the staff, just like with the challenge validation. On the one hand that does open it up to a possible staff abuse, a window we've had the need to try and close - so that's undfortunate. On the other though, it doesn't seem right to just leave things hanging with no word from anyone and potentially no notice. I expect that a note from staff saying - challenger X is now sanctioned and has 24 hours remaining to formally accept the challenge or be ruled in forfeit, is also a nice little reminder for people who had it slip their mind or whatever.

The other thing I would like to see changed is the timeline around fighting the duel. Pushing acceptance off until the end of the week to gain more time I think is a primary reason for missing deadlines. It's also a big pet peeve / annoyance of mine (not that that's relevant). Let's get rid of the encouragement and just make it a blanket 3 weeks from challenge validation instead of 2 weeks from acceptance - just as if the title holder had waited as long as the rules allow, but without actually having to do so.

eg: From the time the challenge is validated:
(a) The challenger has 7 days to accept said challenge.
(b) The challenge duel must be fought within 21 days.

[Andrea Anderson]

The other thing I would like to see changed is the timeline around fighting the duel. Pushing acceptance off until the end of the week to gain more time I think is a primary reason for missing deadlines. It's also a big pet peeve / annoyance of mine (not that that's relevant). Let's get rid of the encouragement and just make it a blanket 3 weeks from challenge validation instead of 2 weeks from acceptance - just as if the title holder had waited as long as the rules allow, but without actually having to do so.

eg: From the time the challenge is validated:
(a) The challenger has 7 days to accept said challenge.
(b) The challenge duel must be fought within 21 days.

That would honestly nix the need to wait out the 7 days when title holder gains the same wait benefits from accepting 1 hour at validation compared to someone waiting 6 days, 12 hours, and 33 minutes. There would be zero strategic reason to wait the full period then.

Edit: Took out the second part of the post since it's counter-productive to the idea of no public shaming.

[Hope]

The other thing I would like to see changed is the timeline around fighting the duel. Pushing acceptance off until the end of the week to gain more time I think is a primary reason for missing deadlines. It's also a big pet peeve / annoyance of mine (not that that's relevant). Let's get rid of the encouragement and just make it a blanket 3 weeks from challenge validation instead of 2 weeks from acceptance - just as if the title holder had waited as long as the rules allow, but without actually having to do so.

eg: From the time the challenge is validated:
(a) The challenger has 7 days to accept said challenge.
(b) The challenge duel must be fought within 21 days.

I think it's pretty relevant, to me at least, because it's something I know you care about as someone who's in a position of influence in the sport. What's a courtesy window of 7 days is min-maxed by people and is borderline exploitative. I think we all appreciate seeing things like this which we can connect with, even if sometimes we don't agree we can see you care. I totally like this though and I hope it makes it through to live.

[Xavior Mues]

Well...guess I gotta wait 24 before I can blow my stack.



Back in a bit.

[Charlie Nine]

You waited 7 months, what's an extra day?

Why wait?

Your self-control, it astounds me.

[Xavior Mues]

The 24h? Well, that's none of your concern.

After the 24h I can't muster the give-a-damn to give a damn.

Carry on.

[DemiBob]

... what?