Initiating:
Whenever a player is suitably provocated by another player, he may challenge them to a duel by declaring, "Sirrah/Madame, you have insulted my honor! I demand restitution!" It is accepted with, "Sir/Madame, I accept!"
'Provaction', as such, can vary, but generally takes the form of either direct insults or an actual, game-related argument.
If the provocation is over a rules dispute, and the duel is accepted, the game is paused. In such cases, there may be multiple distinct groups supporting such a rule. Both groups may bind together and select a 'Champion' to fight a duel for the collective.
A duel may also be demanded by the Judge in a Judgement.
The other player may accept or decline as he chooses, with no penalty if he declines.
A duel over an insult has no relation to any particular turn, and will continue until completed without interrupting normal play.
A duel over a rules dispute freezes play until it is resolved. If it is not resolved within 5 days, however, the duel is canceled, no duel can be initiated over this topic again, and play continues as normal.
Constitution:
A duel consists of whatever both players decide is appropriate; a game of chess, the first one to log on in the morning, or any contest where there will be a clear victor. In the event of a draw, the contest shall be replayed. If no suitable medium can be decided within a day of the duel being declared, rock/paper/scissors shall become the medium.
Adjudication:
Methods of adjudication will vary from duel to duel. The duelers must determine a method of adjudication that is fair and plausible. If they cannot, a player selected at random with use of a die roll shall attempt to determine a method. However this method is determined, once it is decided, it is locked in.
Unless specifically noted otherwise, a player in the role of adjudicating shall be known as the Adjudicator, and his decision is final once the duel has been played out.
Aftermath:
Firstly, whoever wins the duel gains 5 points, and whoever lost loses 5 points.
Secondly, whoever wins the duel is also considered to be the winner of the argument. Therefore, the loser can no longer even mention the argument or attempt to purport it. Instead, they must wallow in the dregs of defeat.
Wallowing in the Dregs of Defeat:
Anyone who loses a duel is considered 'Wallowing in the Dregs of Defeat'. As a result, they must be excessively humble to the winners in all correspondances until it is their turn again.
This means, instead of saying, perhaps, "Hail, Laboratory Rat!", one must say something along the lines of, "Hail, Great Laboratory Rat. I am constantly reminded of your stunning victory and your handsome face by your presence, and it is my fondest wish that you are successful in all endeavour."
Oh god, I love it...who needs a Judge when you can settle it via rock/paper/scissors! :lmao: This could be seriously fun... "Sirrah/Madame, you have insulted my honor! I demand restitution!" Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
*breathes*
Ok. I'm good. So, as far as method of duel, shall we follow tradition and allow the person challenged to the duel to choose the "weapon?" Or at least, make the suggestions, as the opponent may not be familiar with the initial weapon of choice.
I especially love this bit:
Quote from: "Carthrat"Wallowing in the Dregs of Defeat:
Anyone who loses a duel is considered 'Wallowing in the Dregs of Defeat'. As a result, they must be excessively humble to the winners in all correspondances until it is their turn again.
This means, instead of saying, perhaps, "Hail, Laboratory Rat!", one must say something along the lines of, "Hail, Great Laboratory Rat. I am constantly reminded of your stunning victory and your handsome face by your presence, and it is my fondest wish that you are successful in all endeavour."
It should probably be added as an official Player Status. :D
There are too many aspects of this rule that are private. The die roll to determine adjudicator for one. Also the duel itself needs to be publically accessable or at the very least witnessed by someone seperate from the issue.
I can see it now... pistols at dawn (via some online 3rd person shooter). This is awesome.
There are random number generators online that we can use; the two duelists should be able to work out something simple between them. If not we have a judge.
I like.
I'd like to avoid letting the challenged person determine the method, because there are so many potential methods and it would be dead easy to stack the odds in your favour.
QuoteThere are too many aspects of this rule that are private. The die roll to determine adjudicator for one. Also the duel itself needs to be publically accessable or at the very least witnessed by someone seperate from the issue.
The die roll can, as the Count says, be determined with a random number generator. If you really want, I can adjust the rule so more people have to be present to observe it.
I don't see why the duel needs to be publically accessable beyond the result, though. The idea behind adjudication is to provide a method of mutually acceptable verification.
Can we have a second? That would top it all off.
Quote from: "Rezantis"There are random number generators online that we can use;
Aaaand we each have an official number now, so that makes that easier. :)
Quote from: "Carthrat"If you really want, I can adjust the rule so more people have to be present to observe it.
Quote from: "Rye Coal"Can we have a second? That would top it all off.
I think that seconds would provide a sufficient amount of extra observants, personally.
I have two problems with it:
1) Stopping the game for five days is a bit excessive. . .can we limit duels to two days?
2) The random choosing of adjudicator need be more specific. i.e. make sure that one of the duelists or their seconds cannot be adjudicating, and make the method explicit. For example, I could easily write a PHP script that generates a random number in a given range and sends it to everyone's email address so we can be sure that it was generated fairly.
Seconds are just another form of adjudication, which means that their use should be decided on a duel-by-duel basis rather than set in stone here.
Limiting duels to two days seems fair enough, as does adding that clause into the adjudication point which I forgot about. >_>
how about each player has a second to witness, that way there is some conformation of the results other then, "I won!" That's why I would like to see them somewhat public, so a dispute doesn't arise between the players stating who won and who lost.
And the adjudicator should be someone both players in the duel can agree to. Maybe if there is not an adjudicator agree to within a certain amount of time, no duel? and penalties for players who are challenged but refuse to agree on a judge?
Or how about this: The challengee suggests a judge, and then the challenger agrees or disagrees. If they disagree, then they choose someone, and if the challenger disagrees wtih that he suggests someone, etc. If the duel does not halt the game, then this should be fine. Give them unlimited time. But if the game is halted for the duel, make them decide within a certain amount of time, and penalties to each if they do not decide. If no adjudicator is decided, then no duel.
Hmm. I can see validity in having each player have representation as well as an overall judge of the proceeds.
How about this.
Adjuticating the Duel
Once the method of dueling has been decided on, there is no going back, and the duel cannot be abandoned without one player conceding.
Both duelists select a 'Second'; one who observes the duel as is practical. Each duel shall also have a method of adjudication as determined by the duelists. If, however, they cannot decide on a method, a player not already involved in the duel shall become the 'Adjudicator'. The challengee shall select a player, and if the challenger disagrees with this choice, he loses a point and may make his own. If the challenger disagrees with that choice, he loses a point and may choose another.
If all players have been chosen as adjudicators, but nobody has been agreed on, both players shall be shot.
I mean, the duel shall be considered forfeit and both duelists shall lose 10 points each. They will also be considered to be 'Wallowing in the Dregs of Defeat'- with regard to each and every player.
<->
The final clause may seem extreme. It is designed to prevent idiotic ally-mongering amongst duelists. I also intend to tweak the rules for Champions and such a little for smoother play.
so let me get this straight... the challenger makes the challenge, gets to suggest the method (without penalty), while the challengee gets to pick the aducator (with a penalty if the challenger doesnt like it). A little unbalanced infavor of the challenger if you ask me.
The biggist thing though is the fact that there is no penalty for turning down the challenge in the first place.
I don't think turning down the challenge is an option, at least, I don't think ti should be. And the decision of adjudicator goes back and forth until every other player is mentioned, at which point BOTH are penalized.
Curly Mullet: the challenger is penalized for not agreeing to the challengee's judge, not the challengee
As it stands there is no penalty for turning down the challenge. Chalengee is given the option to accept - nothing happens until they accept. Rather than force the challengee into the challenge give them an out - say loose five points and the status change takes effect for not stepping up. That way if there is an argument the challenger can't always circumvent the chalengee's argument by declaring the challenge. I like this as a method for settling the unsettleable but not as a method for circumventing logical process of argument (if you have a weaker case for instance).
Quote
The challengee shall select a player, and if the challenger disagrees with this choice, he loses a point and may make his own. If the challenger disagrees with that choice, he loses a point and may choose another.
ok my issue with this is that in the second sentance needs to be changed to ...
' If the challengee disagrees with the choice of the challenger, the challengee loses another point and may pick another player to be the adjucator.'
The pronoun 'he' really messes things up - makes it sould like the challenger will disagree with his own choice.
One more thing, should the point penalties actually make a player loose points if they have none to begin with? Thats kind of unfair to challenge a player with no points. Could we add a protection clause for players with no points? Add a trade off that you cant challenge if you have no points to prevent the reverse abuse.