MacThorstenson

Yeah, that is a flaw. You would have to start again from the ground up, but honestly, for most people it would be a formality before they assumed leadership for their guild again. If you died, I'm sure that TFA would put you in charge again, or if you don't think that that would be the case, just edit the OP, saying that only characters controled by you can be the leader. It would be something that you would put into the succession part of your guild. Sorry, turns out it was in this thread.

What still needs to be done. this is a list that I have, if anyone else has a similar list, I recommend that we compare notes. Not in any order of priority. Finalize Mediator guild, including choosing reps, unbiased and a few mediators maybe polishing up responsibilities and power Finalize a system of combat, This includes a system of punishments/consequences for dying. How fights will be monitored. Get all the guilds to agree to @Archer's contract that he posted in another thread. On the topic of consequences for dying, what if we attempted a permanent death system. If you are killed, that character is dead. (Maybe for dead characters we have an RP thread, like a formal place where you can see the dead character's souls, and RP with them from time to time if you want.) If you want to rejoin the RP, you will need to make another character.

Thank you!

Is there an up to date list of all the site staff and moderators of the different sub forums?

On an unrelated note, let’s avoid posting anymore threads until the final product of rules, groups and or statutes are completed and agreed upon. We can’t delete threads, so let’s not post something that we may want to revise later.

I like it. I would request one thing to avoid abuse of a non combatant. Spying, while legal, forfeits any non-combatant protection if it is discovered.

Or just adapt a confidentiality policy. Let the MG (mediator guild) know when you get the contract, or when you start to plan, that you are going to kill this fellow. They can assign someone to keep their eyes on the situation.

granted, but after the perfect rule set comes to your mind, the mods decide to shut down the community section of the forums, saying that RP is pointless and theories are the most important part of the site. I wish for the Lord Beaver to be a thing. (See: http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/60653-hemalurgic-beaver/?page=1)

Then we have a conundrum. The point of the mediators was to have people who could judge third party conflicts. I am or was involved with the majority of the active guilds. I used to be a member of tCoC, then I left, but only because they chose to ally themselves with the LA, so I don't think I'm neutral regarding that guild, or a third party. I am a member of the DA and a head of the Division of Counter intelligence. In addition I am a leader of the Ghostbloods. We kept my involvement a secret. I could only mediate between duels between the liebrary and the LA. Wait sratch that. The liebrary and the DA are currently allied. also, anything that involves the LA succeeding would go against the DA's interests. I guess I could be the mediator that does nothing... But then why sign up?

If we are going to do that, why not just let people customize each duel to their preference? Also, could some guild please back my volunteering to be an unbiased one? This wont work unless the appointment of unbiased ones are supported by guilds.

I agree with TFA. Personally, I think that the actions aren't feasible. No body wants to have a grid and measure out how far everyone moves. In addition, many actions can be preformed simultaneously. Mental/magic can be preformed at the same time as a physical attack, with practice. If you practice, I don't find it impossible to use two hands for different things, while burning new metals. If this has to becomes structured like this, then I think that there should be special abilities based on guild. To provide some role to guilds besides RP.

Obligators feel too similar to inquisitors, and the DA.

I just have one question/suggestion. Lets make a decision to call these people mediators instead of moderators. The site has moderators, none of us are moderators. I am a mediator.

I would like to ask if people would be allowed to challenge others in a free form combat scenario. In the event that someone wants to have a more flowing fight, similar to a book.

Also moderators would have the final say in non cannon scenarios. Realmatic debates on fight threads are annoying.

I will volunteer to be a Unbiased. I will also repost a part of my post in the Rules of warfare thread outlining the big difference between the Unbiased ones and the regular mediators. The difference between the mediators and the Unbiased Ones, would be that the mediators have to be decided on before hand. If you want a mediator, they have to be notified before the thing starts so that they can prepare and make sure that they have time and so on. They couldn't break in on a conflict at any given moment, and issue decrees. Only the Unbiased ones are allowed to do that, even then when they don't abuse their power. I think that there are 5 or so active guild at the moment. The Ghostbloods, the Light alley, the Dark Alley, the Canton of Combat and the liebrary. 3 of those would need to accept an application to become an unbiased. As an unrelated note, I will most likely RP a lot during the judgments.

I like that. I designed it with the US Government in mind. The Mediators were the Justice branch, only able to mediate when things got brought to them. The house was congress and the Unbiased the executive. I just have a few problems with being able to be removed, and that is when the Unbiased have to make an unpopular decision or what counts as being biased. I was thinking that the house could have the ability to remove unbiased who aren't unbiased, but that raises the question, what constitutes being unbiased? If one guild is consistently in the wrong, is that being unbiased? There isn't a constitution about what is or isn't allowed. That would lead to Mistsprens concern of things becoming to rule bound they aren't fun. This is what I suggest, if an unbiased isn't upholding to the fun creating standards of the other Unbiased, they get a friendly chat, and are allowed to leave if they don't agree with those standards. IMO, everything should be conducted in the spirit of companionship. This can be suggested by the House, but needs to be conducted by the unbiased. The thing is, I trust someone who has really renounced all guilds, thus taking them out of the majority of guild RP, to make unbiased decisions. They care more about the fun, then they do about beating the other guilds. You could join or leave as you wish. Any of these positions. I would like to have seen someone have been around and active for a while before becoming unbiased, just so they are familiar with the guild dynamics before mediating.

10 days late, but HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!

I like that Idea, but I worry about corruption. In these last few minutes I came up with a half brained guild idea that could solve this. (in spoiler tag) Also, every group would have to sign on. Unless its obviously not part of the forum RP. (Knights of the Cosmere and HGC wouldn't need to sign on)

No. I am sorry, I need it on paper (figurative) Just a post outlining the new LA is all that I would require. I don't recognize the LA as currently existing. I feel like having a varied team of moderators wouldn't work in the sense that the UN isn't really working. There isn't anything enforcing the UN, similarly without actual moderation powers we can't enforce anything. I think that a new neutral guild would need to be formed. One whose members are only loyal to their guild. The democracy of the current proposal is, in my opinion, too heavily impacted based on whether or not your rep is active. If your rep goes inactive, everything swings against you. Also, you have the problem of coalitions of guilds and how representation is decided. If representation is by pure numbers, the DA wins everything. If its one guild one vote, suddenly the DA has many hemalurgic bakeries popping up. All of which agree with everything posted by the DA. I like the idea of having reps, but I don't think that inter guild democracy would work.

I never though I would say this, but I agree with @Archer. The good of the shard comes first. I still refuse to acknowledge his status as a representative until I see evidence of him being a member of this LA. How about this for moderation. I could be willing to 'die' in the figurative sense. Cut all public ties with any guilds I am a member of and be an impartial moderator between guilds. (Public, because I am a member of some role-playing guilds and I don't wish to leave those.) I would be unbiased, so long as no one is being a douche. In terms of a non combatant option, I would suggest that whatever impartial moderators get elected, form a guild of judges/impartial people/whatever you want to call them. These guys would be impartial, and unable to be harmed.

I am in a unique situation. I am leader of the Department of counter intelligence, for the DA. Are we allowed to nominate a representative? The creation of the Department was clearly stated in the DA thread,

Fine. I will accept the leadership restriction if I am killed. If you're not part of an official guild, then you don't get a representative on the moderation. Or someone to officially complain to. That is your punishment. The coalition can also deal with extreme targeting of attacks, or any official inter-guild business that needs to take place.

Mac sits back among the chaos in the pavilion. Stunned. It was like Lopen was God; Modifying his opponents actions without their consent. @Nohadon never stood a chance against that kind of power.