Stories from RhyDin & The Rings

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.

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.]

In another, the question is posed as to whether a forfeit should be the ruling at all.

What would an alternative be? Give them a free pass and seven more days while *hoping* no one will abuse this?

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.

Apple wrote:It is why I wondered if this conversation would even be had if, let's say, Xeric had been Overlord instead

Yes, it would. It's due to the timing of Matt's post and the differences between the last time we had this happen with an Overlord vs now. It's got nothing to do with the personalities.

Apple wrote: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.

There's nothing on the table. That would sorta be the point of having a discussion.

So if I've read through the thread correctly.

Kalamere, your idea is that maybe a Barons tournament should take place *before* a challenge match for a forfeit title in a situation like this.

Sabine's is to have a one time free pass, or to allow the the challenger to choose out of the Barons so that it feels more challengey.

Mine would be, in place of stripping for the first offense, to instead strip the title-holders right to format and the ability to call for an Overlords test, or do a test themselves if they are Overlord.

Were there any others?

Thanks for coming back to answer, Kal.

In the original Mel thread (and then again here), I said I would like to see an option that fosters more RP rather than puts a damper on it.

Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to accomplish that. It could be interesting if there were options for the challenger to pick from:
1) Fight the original person challenged with removing the right to choose format and no intercession perhaps
2) Fight an appointed representative
3) Fight the winner of a baron tournament

There is an obvious problem with this way though because then the challenger gets to decide if the person is stripped of their title or not sooo it doesn't really work.

JewellRavenlock wrote:There is an obvious problem with this way though because then the challenger gets to decide if the person is stripped of their title or not sooo it doesn't really work.

Exactly. Giving a choice means that some players who are less than desirable to a clique or other group of the community may come out with a different verdict compared to someone else. Players can claim their characters are not them OOC so allegiances to friends will not happen, but unless we're all psychic and can make sure 100%, then there's always a way for bias to rear it's ugly head. That's why I personally like the black and white rule in place, though if it were tweaked so that a Barons Tournament would take place *before* a challenger fought for the title, and this was meant as an umbrella rule for all, then it's no big deal. Hopefully when these events happen in the future, the Barons Tournament will be put together as quick as it had been for this case. Waiting 3+ Weeks or more for your shot to challenge for a title when it should have been over and done with would be a pain.

Though it'd be nice if the challenger had the option to recall their challenge to the Overlord should a stripping happened and a Barons Tournament were to take place. It is not the challengers fault that the title holder could not complete their responsibility in a timely manner.

The rules as they are currently written worked in this situation. Hope was able to complete her challenge against a Senior Baron champion. Had she won, she would have been Overlord and there would not have been need of a Barons' tournament. I don't think her challenge or anyone else's should have to wait because a title holder allowed a time deadline to pass or for someone else to be made Overlord before that challenge can be completed.

Rayvinn had been posting the deadline dates/times on the verification posts. It worked out rather well and it might be a good idea to revive that practice. Sometimes, we get distracted and think we have a bit more time, but we don't.

Apple wrote: Though it'd be nice if the challenger had the option to recall their challenge to the Overlord should a stripping happened and a Barons Tournament were to take place. It is not the challengers fault that the title holder could not complete their responsibility in a timely manner.

I agree with you; this should be an option.

JewellRavenlock wrote:In the original Mel thread (and then again here), I said I would like to see an option that fosters more RP rather than puts a damper on it.

Unfortunately, I'm not really sure how to accomplish that. It could be interesting if there were options for the challenger to pick from:
1) Fight the original person challenged with removing the right to choose format and no intercession perhaps
2) Fight an appointed representative
3) Fight the winner of a baron tournament

There is an obvious problem with this way though because then the challenger gets to decide if the person is stripped of their title or not sooo it doesn't really work.

A title holder that defaults on a deadline pretty much made their choice by delaying too long to respond or ignoring a challenge notice. #2 or 3 would not be the Challenger deciding whether or not someone is stripped of their title by the current rules, they would already have been stripped and #1 would effectively be the Challenger granting leniency to the one that abdicated and the possibility of regaining the title.

One of my characters was once stripped for being 7min late and the people celebrated. Rules must be held equal for everyone or they're not rules at all.

... wasn't that long ago that one of my characters was given the option of remaining in a challenge that was ignored by the title holder or forfeiting his challenge right sooooo... what's all this about changing that ruling for another player's character? I'd love to hear a public explanation of that little detail

Xavior Mues wrote:... wasn't that long ago that one of my characters was given the option of remaining in a challenge that was ignored by the title holder or forfeiting his challenge right sooooo... what's all this about changing that ruling for another player's character? I'd love to hear a public explanation of that little detail

What is it you believe was done differently?

Done differently? Public explanation of that detail as in "It's more player friendly to allow a person to detach themselves from a frustrating situation that happened without their consent" etc etc

I wasn 't asking what you believe should be done differently going forward. I'm asking what you believe was done differently that has you posting this to begin with.

You seem to believe we've recently treated a challenger differently than you had been and I'm hoping you might elaborate on that, as it is a situation not immediately coming to mind for me.

A miscommunication. Maybe my words weren't clear. Maybe you jumped to conclusions. Maybe a bit of both.

Appreciate your clearing that up.

What is it you are asking then? One part is cleared away, but I'm still not entirely sure what 'little detail' you are hoping to receive a public explanation for.