Banishment before declaration

Out of Character message board for the Duel of Swords

Moderator: Staff

User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Banishment before declaration

Post by Kalamere »

So, the banishment of undeclared barons to renegade is something of a new topic and one Sylus should be deciding on sometime soon I believe. I'm not sure what that decision is going to be (though I have an idea) nor if the whole idea needs full out public discourse. I do know I've been asked about it by a few people on both sides what I thought or how I'd rule on it and it's been implied that the whole Halloween event was part of a conspiracy with Jewell to go along with this and screw over team Dirty. It's sorta blowing up and I figure maybe I throw this out there for consideration.. and also maybe so I only need to write it once.

My tl;dr take on things is that the Overlord should be able to align an undeclared baron to renegade at any time, but at the expense of said baron being treated as if they were loyal if done within their seven day grace period. Meaning the baron gets the immediate right to challenge.

My caveat to this in regard to the current situation pertaining to King and Claire, since it is the first impression, is that it would be fair to have the renegade stance not in place for the Monday event challenges. If we really think the interest of fairness says waiting a week, I'm fine with that as well. In all cases in the future, however, I think it should be an immediate banishment to renegade.

So, the long winded why of this has several pieces.

The first rule, and the whole reason this is an issue, is the Overlord banishment clause:
. Can, at anytime, switch the alignment of a Loyal Baron with reason given in writing on the Public Notice Board provided a WoL record of 15 is maintained.
*emphasis mine.

Having the word "loyal" in there makes the clause questionable. I believe that, as written, the rule simply doesn't contemplate the undeclared state and sees the world in the general black and white, with me or against me, loyal or renegade state of affairs. To me however, and I'll come back to this at the end, it doesn't make a lot of sense to treat undeclared any differently from loyals here. If, as the Overlord, I can take away a baron's right to be loyal then it only makes sense that I should similarly be able to withhold the rights of an undeclared baron from becoming loyal in the first place.

The next rule, which is being relied upon by some, but I believe in a misguided manner is from the baron's section:
4. When an Overlord is dethroned all Barons must declare alignment within one week(7 days), to the Standings Keeper, or their alignment shall be set by the new Overlord.
Here's the thing I see with this rule (and the similar one in re: new barons) and it is going to be an area of dispute between people, but I do not read this as the right of the baron to take a week to declare. It is a subtle difference to be sure, but the way I read it is the obligation of the Overlord to declare for them after a week has passed. What's pertinent in my view is that the statement saying a baron must declare alignment within a week, is not mutually exclusive with saying the Overlord may also declare for them in the same one week.

The test really is this: Look at the Overlord's rule in the previous section and change it so instead it says something like "May banish a loyal or undecided baron to renegade alignment ..." and then look back to these baron section clauses. Do they need to change at all to continue making sense? No, they do not. It remains that if a baron doesn't declare within a week, the Overlord is obligated to do so for them.

Hence, in my mind, this is not a one week right given to the baron to be free of Overlord intervention. It is a one week mandatory thing that if they do not do then lose the right to the OL to do for them, but which does nothing to exclude the Overlord stepping in during that time. The end bit about the Overlord's setting alignment is the punishment of the baron not doing their job, not a restriction for what else the Overlord might be able to do.

Ok, so those are my takes on the rules clauses. What I think is really the biggest factor here though is that waiting for the undeclared baron to make a declaration at this point buys us absolutely nothing (as long as we give them the loyal right of retribution)*. It is undisputed that the Overlord can turn a loyal to renegade. So, the end result here, is that we wait 1-6 more days for a couple barons to make a statement which holds absolutely zero relevance to what alignment they are actually going to be. Waiting for a meaningless statement seems entirely nonsensical to me.

We can do this just for the future or we can say in this instance, in the interest of fairness for being a previously unexplored option, we not allow for the queuing of challenges until the week has passed (or they declare alignment themselves) - for going forward I think it only makes sense to allow this option to the OL in the first week and give both loyals and those undeclared barons banished to renegade the immediate challenge right.

So.. that was really long, sorry about that. Hopefully that explains what I'm thinking and why and salves any thoughts I might hold the opinion simply due to who the parties involved are. Doing it this way just makes the most sense to me.

~Kal
User avatar
King
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Not Your Prince Charming

Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:59 am
Location: At home or working.

Re: Banishment before declaration

Post by King »

Kalamere wrote:it's been implied that the whole Halloween event was part of a conspiracy with Jewell to go along with this and screw over team Dirty.
Loyal's losing their ability to ask for a test if a Warlord challenged should have signaled it's an even spread.

Just goes to show how childish this place continues to be.

Alignments are simply stated. We get 7 days to choose, the OL can twiddle their thumbs and wait. Barons have the right, by the rules, to assess their options and choose the best route for them. Taking this way from Barons is one less thing the title can do, and one more thing the Overlord has power over. Unaligned barons cannot use the test, they cannot be queued, they are in limbo -- but only for 7 days.

We've been told to wait on challenges/ranks/squireships/etc due to late standing updates.

I'd assume Overlords can be inconvenienced for 7 days in the same turn.

This situation in a nutshell:

The Overlord overstepped their power during the time period of an event which meant that a Baron, if dropped from Unaligned to Renegade (which is against the rules), could be forced into a queue. It's easy to see why some would put staff in an unfavorable light, and thankfully Sylus made the right call by the rules (as they are written) - or else there could have been more damage.

But see? That's why it's good to have black and white rules that are followed. Now no one can claim favoritism. As for a change in wording. I'm neither for or against. I only cared about the situation that has already passed. But whatever is written should lead to no doubts of its intended purpose.
User avatar
Hope
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Beast Mode

Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:13 am
Location: New Haven
Contact:

Post by Hope »

Kalamere wrote:So, the end result here, is that we wait 1-6 more days for a couple barons to make a statement which holds absolutely zero relevance to what alignment they are actually going to be. Waiting for a meaningless statement seems entirely nonsensical to me.
I have a serious issue with this because this is the entire doctrine DoS revolves around. If you have Barons on the fence who aren't fiercely going to go Renegade the instant they get a chance or gungho behind the Overlord to go Loyal right off the bat- isn't this a prime opportunity for some politicking? Why is this "waiting for a meaningless statement" and not "an opportunity for epitome play"?

I remember waiting for the Baron's Council to rule a decision on a pending OL challenge and it wasn't "waiting for a meaningless statement" even though there was obviously a majority ruling which could have been determined in a matter of minutes and not *days*.
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Post by Kalamere »

King wrote:As for a change in wording. I'm neither for or against. I only cared about the situation that has already passed.
Which I think is entirely fair and I would have left as is, not having the banished barons subject to queue challenges on Monday as a matter of fairness. I'm trying to divorce the current ruling from the current situation.
Queen wrote:Why is this "waiting for a meaningless statement" and not "an opportunity for epitome play"?
It's meaningless because if the Overlord states you will be renegade, then it makes no difference what alignment you take. Sure, maybe you go loyal anyway and have 5 seconds worth of controversy just to get the retribution challenge, but I wouldn't classify that as the epitome of roleplay. We're not talking about someone on the fence here. We're talking about a decision being made and simply being forced to wait it out for really no good reason.

The only thing I think the decision here does is point out the incentive to wait as long as possible before declaring renegade, so as to forestall the possible challenge queuing.
User avatar
JewellRavenlock
Legendary Adventurer
Legendary Adventurer
The Empress

Posts: 2473
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:26 pm
Location: Little Elfhame, Old Market
Contact:

Re: Banishment before declaration

Post by JewellRavenlock »

King wrote: The Overlord overstepped their power during the time period of an event which meant that a Baron, if dropped from Unaligned to Renegade (which is against the rules), could be forced into a queue. It's easy to see why some would put staff in an unfavorable light, and thankfully Sylus made the right call by the rules (as they are written) - or else there could have been more damage.
I feel like I should just mention that since it is against the rules (which is something I mistakenly did not realize at the time I posted), I'm glad Sylus made the call he did in this situation.

As to changing the rule going forward? I don't have my thoughts on that together at the moment!
User avatar
Hope
Expert Adventurer
Expert Adventurer
Beast Mode

Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:13 am
Location: New Haven
Contact:

Post by Hope »

Sure I can agree with you there. It isn't some pinnacle of play nor should it be treated as such. So while Claire was Overlord and we had a Baron unaligned for her entire tenure, as brief as it was, that was also over a week long but only now that some ridiculous event is going on is it actually worth talking about? I think you made the argument yourself why it should remain. If they are going to be under challenge and in a queue, then why shouldn't a week be allowed as a stop gap? Why is it actually a bad thing? If you were holding the title and the Overlord announced you would be forced Renegade, is it still being forced to wait it out for really no good reason? Or is it you trying to hold your title for story purposes, for your own selfish greed, or for any other reason?

I understand what's being said. I don't know why it's a pressing matter now.
User avatar
Jake
Top Thug
Top Thug
Warlord of the Boards

Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Red Orc Brewery, a dueling venue, or the taverns of Badside
Contact:

Post by Jake »

I'm not intimately familiar with the current circumstance, so I'm not going to delve into that.

I think from my perspective, the rules could probably use a little tweaking.

I think the intent was to establish a *courtesy* period, wherein the Overlord waited for the Barons (or perhaps more correctly, the players of the Barons) to chime in (read the boards) and declare a status with regard to the Overlord. After that courtesy period, any Baron who hadn't voiced a position (or whose player hadn't been on the boards for a while), would fall under the purview of the Overlord to decide.

That courtesy period wasn't intended to limit the Overlord from having an opinion from the outset.

Many, many, ...many... , years ago, I remember having this discussion with one of the other players at a get-together. It might have been the player of SlothShamn (I could be wrong on the who). I think he posited that if he ever won the title of Overlord that he'd immediately declare everyone Loyal (which course would not stop anyone from then immediately declaring Renegade). I commented (while thinking about what the reign of Jake would be like) that Jake would probably just declare everyone Renegade. The other player commented that would make Jake immediately subject to challenges. Which, from an RP perspective, seemed entirely appropriate.

I wanna say the discussion eventually traveled around to examples like Billy Ray, or Jesse Troyan, taking the Overlordship, and--being the bad-asses they were--immediately declaring everyone Renegade with the attitude "I'm the best, and if you don't agree, fine, come at me!"

Limiting the new Overlord from being able to pre-emptively declare barons Renegade seems out of the spirit of the game.

It more or less comes down to:

1. Both sides have to agree* for the alignment to be Loyal. (* With a no-response being accepted as agreement. So, if a baron declares Loyal, and the Overlord doesn't disagree, then the baron is Loyal. If the baron makes no decision, and the OL declares them as Loyal, then they're Loyal. Passive agreement is still agreement.)

2. Either side can (at pretty much any time), decide their relationship is Renegade.

Examples:

"I disagree with Overlord Buttercup's stance on cupcakes being superior to pie, therefore I am going Renegade."

"Baron Jerkface was mean to my dog, so I am declaring them Renegade."

There's no reason an Overlord *shouldn't* be able to have an opinion from the first moment of their reign that they will not accept Loyalty from anyone. Loyalty requires consensus (even passive consensus). Renegade does not require consensus.
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Post by Kalamere »

Yeah, I was convinced that we had an OL back in the early days that did just that - setting all the barons to renegade - and went searching for it before I made the post. Either I just couldn't find it, or I was mis-remembering, probably the latter. The closest I found was Nayun, but she did wait for someone to declare and only aligned those who were already loyal.

That's the answer to Queen's question of "why it's a pressing matter now" though. Because it appears to be the first time this has really come up to be ruled on. I think we have settled on a poor interpretation of both the wording and the intent of the baron rules, whereas it's really the Overlord rule that brings about the "problem" I see in the limitation of what barons can be forced to renegade when it's says "loyal". Again though, intent and spirit, and I think it was written that way just looking at the 2 basic alignments and saying you can flip one to the other but not the other way around.

I disagree with Jake a little bit, in that I don't think the OL should be able to forcibly align someone to loyal.. but, as he mentioned, that can be undone almost immediately, so I guess it wouldn't be a big deal. Not allowing an alignment from unaligned to renegade just doesn't sync up as making much sense though when it can be done the very second said baron declares loyal.
User avatar
Jake
Top Thug
Top Thug
Warlord of the Boards

Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Red Orc Brewery, a dueling venue, or the taverns of Badside
Contact:

Post by Jake »

Kalamere wrote:... I disagree with Jake a little bit, in that I don't think the OL should be able to forcibly align someone to loyal.. but, as he mentioned, that can be undone almost immediately, so I guess it wouldn't be a big deal. ...
Clarification. I meant an unaligned baron. Not one that previously had a status.

If someone's declared Renegade, the OL can't change them to Loyal on whim.

If Slothy won the title of Overlord, and then immediately declared everyone Loyal, by virtue of his overwhelming charisma and stunning loincloth, and no one then asserts differently (in the next 7 days), then he'd start with a retinue of Loyal barons. Of course, realistically that would only last 10 or 15 minutes (if that) on the boards before someone asserted they were in fact not Loyal.
User avatar
Jake
Top Thug
Top Thug
Warlord of the Boards

Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Red Orc Brewery, a dueling venue, or the taverns of Badside
Contact:

Post by Jake »

Kalamere wrote:Yeah, I was convinced that we had an OL back in the early days that did just that - setting all the barons to renegade - and went searching for it before I made the post. Either I just couldn't find it, or I was mis-remembering, probably the latter. The closest I found was Nayun, but she did wait for someone to declare and only aligned those who were already loyal.
I looked too, and also couldn't find it. I too thought it had happened. So, either we're both mis-remembering (possible), or the details have become lost in the mists of time.

Maybe we were both at the same gathering when it was discussed. Long Island Bash maybe.
Munchem
Junior Adventurer
Junior Adventurer
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:23 pm
Location: Outback

Post by Munchem »

I am pretty sure it was MadMadMax who declared everyone Renegade as soon as he won. "Y' na w'thy."
Last edited by Munchem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jake
Top Thug
Top Thug
Warlord of the Boards

Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Red Orc Brewery, a dueling venue, or the taverns of Badside
Contact:

Post by Jake »

Munchem wrote:I am pretty sure it was MadMadMax who declared everyone Renegade as soon as he won. "Y'u na w'thy."
It would certainly have been his sort of thing, however I checked the standings and he did have (many) Loyal Barons. In fact, it looks like he was the Overlord when the Barons were introduced!

Code: Select all

Duel of Swords Cycle for 2/3/95 - 4/30/95.

All Hail the first nine Barons of the Duel of Swords!!!

       ****  This is the Beginning of Cycle ****
All records have had their loses zeroed out. Records
of zero wins and Invalid IDs have been removed from the list.

         ****  Important NOTICE  ****
The new rules are now in effect.  Please review them at
keyword = RDI -> FFGF News and Info -> Game Center Info

Standings as of 95/02/09: (Please view in a monospaced font)

Rank             Duelist      W   L   T    Fancy  LastDueled

OVERLORD         MadMadMax    37:  0:  0     6     01/24/95

                -=-=-=-  The Nine Barons  -=-=-=-
Baron (L) Open   Aspendale    21:  2:  0     5     02/07/95
Baron (Renegade) Dark Axe     29:  2:  0     5     02/07/95
Baron (L) Open   E core 008   26:  9:  1     5     02/07/95
Baron (L) Open   GldenSword   21:  0:  0     5     01/02/95
Baron (Renegade) Grimjk       24:  0:  0     5     01/24/95
Baron (Renegade) HaIo         15:  0:  0     5     11/29/94
Baron (L) Open   Kalamere     17:  0:  0     5     01/17/95
Baron (L) Open   LordZephyr   20:  1:  0     5     02/07/95
Baron (L) Open   Siera Red    53:  0:  0     5     01/31/95
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Post by Kalamere »

Yeah, wasn't Max. He gave each of us who elected Loyal a black Caillac
User avatar
Kalamere
Black Wizard
Black Wizard
Devil's Advocate

Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Dragon's Gate
Contact:

Post by Kalamere »

I want to say it was Feadur, but the information around his reign is spotty at best. We actually don't even have a standings file from the time. My archives jump from July 30th, 1995 and Siera being OL straight to Sept. 3rd, 1995 and Gnimish having beaten Feadur (so no standings showing either Percival or Feadur as OL). The posts on the dueling archives site only go back to '97.. so I can't find anything there. Maybe something in an old Duely Noted issue would speak to it.

The only partial evidence that speaks to it is the 9/3/95 standings show Gnimish as OL but all 9 of the barons as Renegade. This is the first standings post Gnimish taking the title. The next standings, 9/19/95, still have Gnim as OL and 7 of 9 barons being Loyal.. so my assumption is the alignments display carry over from Feadur.

The other thing of note is having fought both Devon (WLT winner) and Gnimish (Baron of the 1st) in the same weekend. The no queueing rules have been in place since the baronies were created, so the only way I would think Gnimish would have been able to even issue a challenge to be fought in the same weekend like that would be from the retribution challenge rules.

None of that is proof of anything mind you, just semi-supportive of my recollection and a reason to try digging a bit more if I can.
User avatar
Jake
Top Thug
Top Thug
Warlord of the Boards

Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:25 am
Location: Red Orc Brewery, a dueling venue, or the taverns of Badside
Contact:

Post by Jake »

Kalamere wrote:I want to say it was Feadur, but the information around his reign is spotty at best. We actually don't even have a standings file from the time. My archives jump from July 30th, 1995 and Siera being OL straight to Sept. 3rd, 1995 and Gnimish having beaten Feadur (so no standings showing either Percival or Feadur as OL). The posts on the dueling archives site only go back to '97.. so I can't find anything there. Maybe something in an old Duely Noted issue would speak to it.
I think this predates Duely Noted. DoS/Dueling Today was still running.

Sadly, the old Duely Noted issues were never saved. So, I have no archive of them.
Post Reply

Return to “Duel of Swords (OOC)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest