Question of Curiosity

[Jake]

I'm not advocating any sort of additional rule or change, I'm simply stating that I don't think it's unreasonable to enforce the current dueling activity rules and would prefer it.

No specific disagreement. As long as we trust the keeper to do their job, and not harangue them for making exceptions.

Based on today's date, and going back 6 months...if we applied a 6 month cut-off (anyone who hasn't dueled in 6 months)...of approximately 186 duelers listed on the standings, we'd drop 75 (plus or minus). That's more than a third, and nearly a half of the listed duelers. Hence the reason I felt it useful to bring up the discretion point. Some of those names are people I know are active callers. Some of those names were certainly reinstatements. Still...a hardline cull right now would likely cut a third of our duelers off the standings.

Regardless of where this particular discussion goes, I think examining our numbers (and where we can get new players) again is useful if we want to keep RoH alive.

[Maria Graziano]

To answer the initial question, I don't challenge because there's nothing that intrigues me to challenge. I look for stories that look interesting or characters that mine could have rivalries with. I don't come a lot to the rooms so I look to the boards and I'm just not seeing a lot here. The boards seem to be used primarily to request Achievement Awards? I'm not even sure what these are.

I know I could create my own SL. I could create the drama for myself. But I enjoy the more interactive SLs. The people I used to do that with don't come around a lot anymore and I'm not really seeing a whole lot of possibilities. I'm a strong convert to the Harris theory of title holding -- if you challenge and win you owe it to the community to create IC drama.

If someone has a question about why someone is still on the standings, I think the first point of inquiry should be the standings keeper who can answer. e.g., "they requested reinstatement, and I was giving them a couple cycles to get started again" or "they've got some life issues going on, so I am giving them some leeway so they have one less thing to worry about" etc...

I have no objection to more aggressively purging the standings as per the guidelines, but I would always want to defer to the judgement of the standings keeper/coordinator to know who's around and who's not, and to make exceptions as they feel appropriate.

It's ok to ping "why's this person still on the standings?", but I think we should also give our standings keepers room to do what benefits the sport. Keeping a Kalamere or a Maria Graziano on the standings, even if they may not be super active, might be beneficial in the long run.

I believe I requested reinstatement a couple months ago. And, as Jake said, what's the point in shoving inactive warlords off the standings if the players are still around and the characters occasionally drop into the Arena? Because, yeah, one night when I have time I may realize I'm still on the standings and decide to get a duel or two in.

[Lem DeAngelo]

Keeping a Kalamere or a Maria Graziano on the standings, even if they may not be super active, might be beneficial in the long run.

I stop in for a few DoS duels a year, and there have been a few times where I shouldn't have been on the standings. It's very likely that I wouldn't have dueled at all if I would have needed to take the time to get reinstated. I can also empathize with players who are calling or working behind the scenes and don't have much time to actually duel. I can understand giving them some leeway on the standings.

The boards seem to be used primarily to request Achievement Awards? I'm not even sure what these are.

I'm a strong convert to the Harris theory of title holding -- if you challenge and win you owe it to the community to create IC drama.

I've never been very active in DoS, but I have always loved reading the DoS boards. I loved the rivalries that played out on the boards. There have been several times during the last year that I have been surprised to see that a month has passed without an update to the DoS forums. The IC drama of DoS was always the main appeal to me.

Regardless of where this particular discussion goes, I think examining our numbers (and where we can get new players) again is useful if we want to keep RoH alive.

Absolutely agree with this. The passion of new players is much needed. We could also benefit from trying to recruit some old players as well.

[MurOllavan]

My largest activity concern, which is why I feel the rules regarding them should be enforced, is that it sets a poor example in my opinion for any new duelists or "next gen" duelists we hope to gain or have. I believe we're all products of whenever we started dueling. I would say I'm prone to at least trying to follow the examples set by those who I respected that held titles when I first began dueling, and I would surmise some people would echo that sentiment.

+1 Like.

Even though showing up for only a single night of fists as the diam probably isn't a good recent example.

[Lem DeAngelo]

Or to put that another way...maybe the system isn't broken. Maybe we need to look at why our numbers have dropped (again). Are the attendance numbers down in the RDI from two years ago? Or is it just us? What's changed in the last couple of years? Are we still bleeding players who age out of the community? Are we replacing them? Where are the new duelers coming from?

2010 started off with the Tour de Rhydin. Do we have any data that shows what activity was like before and after the tour kicked off? Or any idea if any new players were recruited from TDR?

[Kalamere]

What harm is there in a Title-holder holding a title through a period of inactivity?

Opportunity cost.

I can't point at anything and specifically say that is what good comes from not allowing it. Maybe nothing at all. But, maybe that ring goes into a quick special rules tournament that 8 people join and we get a new baron that brings something to the table. Maybe Anubis wins it, or someone like him, and we get a little drama infused back into the community.

A title holder that is never around doesn't do anything for us. Even in a worst case scenario of a poorly attended tournament, at least a few folks are entertained for a night.

I also agree with a lot of what Harris wrote on the subject.

I stop in for a few DoS duels a year, and there have been a few times where I shouldn't have been on the standings. It's very likely that I wouldn't have dueled at all if I would have needed to take the time to get reinstated.

I agree with this too. While I think title holders should meet some minimum activity level or lose the title, I think it could be detrimental to enforce the clause across all ranks. Removing non-titled duelists doesn't accomplish much aside from cleaning up the standings a little for reading. There's no actual harm, or lost opportunity, to keeping Xeno, Sartan or Maria, etc. on there. As Lem notes, removing them might actually discourage any future desire they have to swing by for a duel one night, so I'd be very hesitant to say that needs to be done.

[Jake]

Opportunity cost.

I can't point at anything and specifically say that is what good comes from not allowing it. Maybe nothing at all. But, maybe that ring goes into a quick special rules tournament that 8 people join and we get a new baron that brings something to the table. Maybe Anubis wins it, or someone like him, and we get a little drama infused back into the community.

A title holder that is never around doesn't do anything for us. Even in a worst case scenario of a poorly attended tournament, at least a few folks are entertained for a night.

I have no real disagreement with wanting to see the title-holders be active.

In this case, that might not even be an issue. All of the present title-holders have dueled within the last two months. Most within the month of April. The oldest "last dueled" date is 2012/03/04.

Addendum: If you skip back to just before Madness starts, all but two of the title-holders had dueled within the previous month.

...

The original thread question was "why aren't there as many challenges?"

Based on the dates of last duel (and the # that would be eliminated with a 6-month cut), and the lower challenge rate, and the lower story-telling rate (as noted by Maria), it sounds like the problem is less something like SOA (which most people seem to agree sounds fair) and (once more) like general activity drop-off.

[G]

I'll start keeping an eye on inactive duelists, including title holders.

Titleholders removed for inactivity will have their titles placed only in the next Warlord Tournament.

I'll revisit the Challenge ability against the Overlord.

SoA has no need to be altered in any way.

Have I missed anything important?

[Max Blue]

I'm asking this to gain some perspective over the specific viewpoint of SoA duels being wiped after a challenge.

What would be big problem between them being wiped or not being wiped after challenging?

Keeping the SoA at 10 duels in order to challenge, then having to start all over because you challenged and *participated* again seems a bit heavy.

10 duels over the course of two cycles that do not get cleaned out when someone challenges just seems to promote casual consistency instead of a pure grind each and every time.

[Roderick Douglas]

Were peer wins wiped after Baronial challenges in the days when it took ten of them?

Or could a warlord who failed to succeed challenge again?

[Jaycy Ashleana]

Were peer wins wiped after Baronial challenges in the days when it took ten of them?

Or could a warlord who failed to succeed challenge again?

They were wiped.

[Roderick Douglas]

SoA duels should probably follow the same guideline then. Just my thought.

Otherwise we go back to needing no SoA to challenge, which I feel is a bit on the lighter side.

[Max Blue]

The part I don't agree with is how much the SoA can be affected depending on dueling skill or pure luck.

Currently you need the 10 SoA duels in order to challenge, and then they're wiped.

But the rules give me two challenges per cycle?

So suppose I lost that first challenge, I get another one that cycle because the rules say so... as long as I make another SoA run. Because I'm suddenly inactive if I issue a challenge?

And that SoA is over the course of two cycles. That means if I want the full benefit that the rules allow me, my SoA is actually 40 duels, not 10.



So what is the purpose of SoA, then? Is it really just to show activity? Because everyone keeps talking about how the 10 duels is fine, but nobody's really considered that 20-30 is actually closer to what the average would be in order to gain a title through challenge. And you can't just show your activity and be good. It's a cost to challenge instead of a status to uphold.

[Roderick Douglas]

And that SoA is over the course of two cycles. That means if I want the full benefit that the rules allow me, my SoA is actually 40 duels, not 10.

So what is the purpose of SoA, then? Is it really just to show activity? Because everyone keeps talking about how the 10 duels is fine, but nobody's really considered that 20-30 is actually closer to what the average would be in order to gain a title through challenge. And you can't just show your activity and be good. It's a cost to challenge instead of a status to uphold.

I'm not seeing the math, I guess. Over the course of two cycles, what we're considering 6 months, you could concievably get up to 20 duels, each of which is an SoA. My understanding is that one of the two challenges effectively 'burns' 10 of those. So, you have 10 left with which to make your second challenge.

Could be way off on that one, but I think challenging invalidates the first 10 SoA duels, not all of them.

Perhaps G or Cor could clarify that.

Still, thing is, even *20* SoA duels is nothing compared to the requirements of the old Peer Wins. Another question I have about those, is their expiration date.

[Kalamere]

... but nobody's really considered that 20-30 is actually closer to what the average would be in order to gain a title through challenge.

I'm not sure I follow unless your assumption is that challenger will lose and then have to challenge again, or twice more, before gaining a title?

That said, I think what we have is a semantics problem. Max rightly points out that losing a challenge does not make a person any less active than they had been up to the point of challenge. Why then should they have to reprove their activity with another 10 duels?

Now, I personally feel that there should be some mandatory waiting period between challenges. So, even though it is semantically wrong, I like that aspect of the SoA. I do see the point being made though and could at least agree that a re-wording or substitute clause for the situation might be in order.