Yes. It's been ruled on. But the conversation sparked from the at the time recent title forfeiture, which had been Melanie. As did this conversation spark from the events of Matt. It is why I wondered if this conversation would even be had if, let's say, Xeric had been Overlord instead - to use G's example. [Edit: This doesn't really need to be put on since I saw your edit after posting, but I wont delete it since it'll seem like I was covering it up. But thank you for your response.]Kalamere wrote:[The cases are similar, but different in what they're hoping to accomplish. Also note that in both cases the discussion is being held outside of the personalities that might have triggered it. Meaning specifically that it was stated up front in the case you've linked to that nothing discussed there would apply to Melanie and as well in this case I said that this is nothing more than my own curiosity, so would obviously have no impact on Matt.
What would an alternative be? Give them a free pass and seven more days while *hoping* no one will abuse this?In another, the question is posed as to whether a forfeit should be the ruling at all.
To strip the title-holder from their ability to choose a format and being unable to use a test?
I've seen yes and no's but there's been no real talk of what an alternative would be outside of Sabine's suggestion of a one time use pass, or allowing the challenger to choose from the Barons to take up the mantle of proxy should there be a title forfeit.
