Archer

I'm willing to accept you as a mediator. Unbiased One? I'm not sure how I feel about that...

Welcome @DarthTheKid! If you had to be in a marching band with a cosmere character, who would you choose?

I'm starting to see where limiting number of action etc. might make it too structured. We should put together a list of progressively more structured rules for combat, and then at the start of the duel, people list off the ones they'll use. For example. 1. No cheese. 2. No cheese with poison. 3. No cheese with poison and spikes. 4. No running with scissors. "Let's use up to rule 2." "Okay, but let's also include a rule against using butter."

Can we call them Obligators?

I'd personally prefer a name that's even more different than moderators - I keep mistyping mediators as moderators. It's confusing.

All this is basically D&D but without the character sheets. As an avid D&D player, I like it!

How about if both sides agree, then they can limit the moderator's influence (make it so they're only there to witness and settle arguments). This would be agreed to at the start of the fight. I agree with the non cannon scenarios statement as well.

I stand by my view that the most valuable (dueling-wise) thing that can come of this is the mediators who can choose the effect of offensive actions. That way it elevates combat from 'I drop a bomb and it kills you' to 'I drop a bomb' 'upon reflection and analysis of the victim's defences, the bomb is disrupted by the sheild'. Much fairer that way, and funner.

Yes, although I have my doubts as to the quantity of volunteers who will put themselves forward. Hopefully I'm wrong. We'll see. What do you think about the oversight system Mac proposed?

Let's wait until we have a full job description for them so they know what they're signing up for. But eventually one will be needed, yes.

Yes. There is. Me and Mac have been brainstorming, those ideas should be considered. Also, structurally you should start numbering different sections. And I'm against the entire DEATH section. Basically, a lot of revisions are needed.

I think the agreement should mostly focus on violent aspects of interactions. Normal interactions should remain unregulated for the reasons stated above.

^ Agreed. Some cases would be easy to rule on. Eg. Ghostblood assassination attempt in restricted area. This is in clear violation of the agreement to not assassinate in said area. Ghostblood is reprimanded. (the rulings would need to have teeth to them, the best sentence being that they can't assassinate for a time period, and any attempts to do so would be nullified.) This is where having a clearly stated purpose would be helpful. Needs an emphasis on maintaining the quality of the 17S, quality of duels, fairness, keeping the peace etc. Assuming we use a western justice system, precedent from cases can come into play later on. The tougher cases, which are the ones that would result in allegations of bias, would be more contraversal, but as long as the rulings are accompanied by a writeup of the judges reasons for their decision, they should be accepted. If we pick the right folks, who have the respect of the populace, we can make this work. That said, there should be a final failsafe. A clause that allows for the removal of an official, or the voiding of a ruling, or the rewriting of the agreement (whatever radical thing you want to do) upon a unanimous favourable vote from the guilds or 90% of guild members (who take the opportunity to cast their vote in the allotted time frame, minimum of x number of votes. You get the idea, if the people unite against one person, then the person can be overruled no matter their position of power.) Overall, I think it's a good idea having a central body in charge, but the more passive they are the better. My goal is to have a system where we can go about our business and interact knowing that if we need it, there's a way to resolve our disputes. The obligators, I mean mediators, should be the only people that the average member going about their daily business ever talks to, if they need mediation. The rest is just a backup. Edit: one more thing. I'm against have a 17S moderator involved. This would drain on their valuable time. Plus, moderators have a different kind of authority on this site that needs to be respected. Edit 2: To prevent abuse of the rep system, stipulate guilds are defined by minimum number of unique members (members can only claim to be part of one guild officially, so if Jim, John and James are in the J Club, the three can't go and spam a bunch of new groups. If Jim and Jake and Jerry are in the X Club, then they officially only have 2 members since Jim doesn't count, for purposes of representation)

Perhaps non-combatant status could be automatically granted to any non-signatory guild members. The moderation guild has merit. Random thoughts on it: Sounds like the US government. Mind you, the US gov has the cool feature where the 3 branches are of equal power, and the other 2 can reign in the 3rd if it gets out of line. We should consider something like that as a safeguard. Would these be permanent positions? What are the requirements to join (certain amount of experience needed)? The House sounds like just a place to air grievances, and the Unbiased just a final say if things get testy. Is the House necessary?

Mac, I'll work on it, just assume the LA exists in the meantime. I'll tag you when I get something together. Once again, everything centers on the neutrality aspect of it all, which is hard to create. And if it becomes corrupt, there needs to be a mechanism to dissolve it, but if there's too easy a way to get rid of it, then it won't have any authority. The only way to get accurate representation would be to have 100 or so rep seats. That way the DA could have 30 or so, the LA 10 etc. But we don't have the manpower for that. The complications do make a strong case against a central power of that sort. The solution I'm leaning towards right now is just have it so that anyone can become a mediator. Then we make a mediator page where people can request their services and whoever is best suited/available can volunteer. The reps system has flaws I agree. One rep per group leads to loopholes like Mac mentioned, and frankly, they're not really needed past the initial start-up phase. Side note: If we do come to an agreement, we need to make sure that every group signs on. Let's not create something like Canada's Night of Long Knives.

Welcome! What's your favourite cosmere book?

Thank you Mac. That's quite the offer. However, I'm not sure the 'death' is necessary. Perhaps if you agree to be impartial we could slot you in as a mod from non DA members duels. I think asking you to cut ties with your guild would be too much to ask of you. As for my membership, will you accept the word of an LA member to vouch for me?

The yellow thing is your rank. Based on the number of upvotes you get (yellow arrow and hearts to the right) it changes. The higher your reputation, the better your rank. Lowest is Chasmfiend Corpse, highest is God Beyond.

Hats off to Wayne! (Because he'd steal them if we didn't hold on to them)

Welcome! Elantris or Warbreaker would be my recommendations. They're both in the cosmere, and very well written. What's your favourite Sanderson book so far?

Like duel between members of the same group? The two schools of thought would be a) a moderator from said group, and b ) an impartial moderator from another group. I think either would work, but b ) would be fairer.

Welcome! There's a lot of debate about the best order to read the books in. There are lists and stuff somewhere around here... The Mistborn series is a bigger commitment than the standalone texts, but well worth your time. Reckoners is non-cosmere. If you're looking to start the cosmere, I recommend reading Elantris. That said, it really doesn't matter which series you read first because even though they are all connected, they can all be read without knowing what happens in the other books. Happy reading!

Perhaps have a single moderator per duel, but on the condition that they have no connection to the combatants? For example, a LA moderator for a DA vs Ghostblood duel.

The issue of course is bias, ideal moderators would need no connection to the guild of the combatants. But only guild members would be interested in moderating so we're back where we started.

Hi. LA representative here. I appreciate the idea of this topic, but I'm not agreeing to anything until I've gotten my two cents in. Here are my suggestions: The insertion of a preamble stating that the good of the 17S should be of foremost concern, and any actions taken should be made only after considering their effect on the 17S. The Shard does have site rules that should be adhered to. No one wants to see the Shard spammed with angry threads, particularly ones of no relevance to the topics and sections they are posted in. Which brings me to my second point. Clear boundaries need to be made. Areas outside of intro, social groups, pms, RPs and personal pages (although that one needs limitations set on it) should be out of bounds. We’ve seen how easily topics can be derailed (I’m thinking of the Sanderson Memes topic) which is an annoyance to uninvolved members. Unrelated bystanders should be able to opt out of all of this. I suggest a ‘non-combatant’ designation that members can adopt for themselves. Essentially, it would mean that they are off-limits for assassination. The catch to their immunity being of course that they can’t assassinate anyone either, it goes both ways. (Safeguards to prevent abuse of the system needed) Duels are great between consenting members. I’m not totally against them, but I do want restrictions in order to preserve the quality of the 17S. There should be a forfeit option. If someone challenges you, you should be able to forfeit or decline if you’re not interested. The long-term effects of death should be minimal. Lose your pride? Yes. Anything else? Nah. I’m against the of ‘returning’ members. I’m also against the idea of disbanding/ forcible takeovers of guilds if enough members are killed. It gives an unfair advantage to groups that are newer, more specialized, more passive etc. On the topic of the long-term implications, I support keeping a running total of those you’ve killed, maybe in your sig like SE does or like the DA does with spike counts. It provides an incentive. That said, I think that should be enough of an incentive. If we have fights ‘happen’ in a realm with no physical consequences that would be nice, and you could always try again if you want another go at it. (appropriately cosmere ideas welcome) We should have a no killing newcomers policy. No one want their first experience on 17S to be their assassination. We need a no cheap deaths policy. A single post saying, ‘a bomb explodes, you dead’ is effective, but doesn’t give a fair chance to fight back. Impartial moderators could effectively solve this issue, especially if the moderator gets to decide the effect of any offensive action.