Hit Call Rule Edit

This is simply a petition to see if there is any interest in changing the edit rules to the ones that were approved on Neo-Gladius. The edit rule changes would be as follows:

-Conflict Resolution can be called anytime during a fight
-The caller has to express their case to the defender and tell them why they should edit, resulting in a 48 hr extension for editing purposes per round.
-The caller has to tell the defender to edit at least once, but can be as many times as they desire as long as everyone in the thread consents.
-The defender can compromise/edit, or take it up to staff
-If staff agrees with the caller, the hit goes through. The defender has 48 hours to edit their post taking damage otherwise the attacker gets to connect their hits.
-If staff agrees with the defender, combat resumes as normal

Consistently making bad calls in a fight can result in a penalty deemed by staff. Bad calls are defined by illogical arguments and otherwise abuse of the system.




As of right now people must be given an infinite number of chances to edit their post per round so long as they have some chance of response or escape when under threat of attack. This is a problem because it forces the attacker to spoon feed their opponents ways to get out of their attacks rather than the person figuring it out on their own. I don't believe its a good experience for either party on account of the tedium associated with having to constantly rewrite your posts. These new rules make it so that everyone gets a single chance to edit their post per round, which is more than enough to correct a few mistakes. Of course, if a person wants to give someone more chances to edit they are free to do so so long as everyone in the thread consents.

In general the point of this change would be to make it slightly riskier but also more worthwhile to engage in combat on the forum along with providing more lasting changes on the power structures of the forum.

(Only votes that are accompanied with a post will be considered valid when attempting to leverage them in discussion with staff)

My name is Tamwyn, and I devoutly support this message.

I am unsure why the rules did revert back to the old rules despite when many folks saw them as flawed. I was not around to hear any reasoning or discussions, so most of my support is just from what I can recall. The primary reason the rules were changed to the Neo version was its abuse resulting in infinite edits, as explained in the first post. Although I was never a fan of combat done by targeting a player's writing and comprehension skills, the Neo rules I feel gave enough leeway to compensate for the occasional slip up without the combatant constantly nannying their opponent's writing.

I understand the motivation on a moral scale, but functionally it is flawed in its current state. In fact, these difficult hitcall rules I feel encourages more BMing than the Neo rules. The current rules makes most characters exceptionally more challenging, if not impossible, to kill. This will encourage members to make more 48 hr connections and generally exhaustive arguments to try and squeeze off a checkmate move. Fights become less about attrition and more about autistically calculating "no-escape" moves and lining up a fatal blow.

I'm ambivalent on them. As long as we have stable clear rules on the matter, I am fine with either configuration. The only reason it was changed was because I didn't have time to find the exact wording of the Neo-Gladius rule and transplant them onto this site's and of course with such a major rule like that we would probably want to discuss it first before adopting it. Rather than risk confusion before that process was complete it was simply easier to repeal it until it could be discussed in detail.

But I'm fine with it personally and if that's what everyone wants I'd be in favor of adopting it.

I always found the hit calls system to be a bit odd, I can understand giving players a chance to fix honest mistakes, but it shouldn't be a way to make writers pay for the incompetence of others... which has happened one or two times on the site already, but I won't name any names.

Passive aggressiveness aside, I give this a resounding yes.

I'm Nozomi, and I support this message.

This suggestion was adopted and will therefore be moved to completed suggestions.