Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Proposal: Throwing down the gauntlet

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 24 Oct 2008 07:53:24 UTC

Repeal the Rule “Duels” if it exists.  Create a Rule “Duels” reading:

As a Daily Action, a Clansman who is not currently the Challenger of any Active Duel Post may issue a challenge to another Clansman by posting a blog entry whose title begins with “Duel:”, and which clearly indicates which other Clansman is being challenged, and which type of Duel is being made.  This post is known as a Duel Post, the Clansman who posted it is the post’s Challenger, and the other Clansman named by the Challenger is the post’s Defender.  The Defender of an Active Duel Post may either accept the challenge by making a comment to the post using the FOR voting icon, or refuse the challenge by making a comment to the post using the AGAINST voting icon (only the first such icon used by the Defender in all his comments to that post is considered for determining whether he accepted or refused).  Unless otherwise specified, the Challenger of an Active Duel Post may withdraw his challenge by making a comment to the post using the AGAINST voting icon.  Unless otherwise specified, a Duel Post is considered Active if and only if its Challenger has not withdrawn and its Defender has neither accepted nor refused.

The names of the valid choices for the type of duel are the names of subrules to this rule.  Each subrule to this rule should further specify the effects of that type of duel, possibly including, but not necessarily limited to:  consequences to the Challenger for making or withdrawing such a challenge; consequences to the Defender for refusing or taking a long time to accept; determination of a winner and/or loser of an accepted challenge; and consequences for any or all of the Challenger, Defender, winner, or loser of an accepted challenge.

Unless otherwise specified, a Dead Clansman may not issue a challenge, and no Clansman may name a Dead Clansman as a Defender in a Duel Post.

Unless otherwise specified, any Clansman who is about to go idle is assumed to have withdrawn in any Active Duel posts for which he is Challenger, and refused in any Active Duel posts for which he is Defender, just before going idle.  These withdrawals and refusals are assumed to occur in the same order in which their corresponding Duel Posts were made.


Hello Sailor:

10-22-2008 16:00:36 UTC

Of course, I have ideas for a few types of Duels to include as subrules, but the proposal was getting long enough trying to set out a procedure that is flexible enough to accommodate many different ideas.  Naturally, something similar to Kevan’s duel system could (and should) be implemented.

To give a specific example of something that might be done if no unfixable problems with this proposal are found: I think I’ll propose a simple “Practice Duel” that will have only minor effects (off the top of my head: no penalties for refusing or withdrawing, the winner of a simple stat-based die roll gets to lower a stat and raise a stat by 1, the loser is barred from issuing challenges for a short period).  And perhaps a Duel that’s actually capable of damaging the participants (Maybe: large Honor loss for picking on someone weaker than you, slight honor loss for refusal, assumed refusal after 48 hours, stat-based rolls to Damage, continue until one participant has been damaged twice, some little prize for the winner)


10-22-2008 19:05:18 UTC

imperial This does not mention any kind of mediator or the possibility of a mediator.

Clucky: HE/HIM

10-22-2008 22:01:59 UTC

against I like Kevan’s proposal.


10-23-2008 00:04:21 UTC

against I proposed this (more or less) last dynasty and didn’t work out that well (Bucky won the game on the very first battle).


10-23-2008 10:29:58 UTC


Kevan: HE/HIM

10-23-2008 13:44:11 UTC



10-24-2008 14:37:39 UTC


Kevan: HE/HIM

10-24-2008 14:39:03 UTC

against  against CoV now that “Duel Core” has passed, given that repealing the actual fight mechanic seems like too much of a step backwards.

Hello Sailor:

10-24-2008 14:47:10 UTC

against Self-kill