Ignoring the challenge is declining it. Ignoring the character is something else 
"challenge" command suggestions
Ignoring the challenge is declining it. Ignoring the character is something else
Sure, you get one decline - but you can ignore a character as soon as you see them and they can't keep screwing with your record. 
L-A
PS - don't forget to issue a Deathmark either - after all, they want their 'challenge'
Ignoring the challenge is declining it. Ignoring the character is something else
If you want to fight them, what stops you?
Or you want something else...?
If you want to fight them' date=' what stops you?[/quote']
That's just it - they don't really want to 'fight.' They just want to put conditions on a Warmaster in an attempt to get a cheap kill.
Attacking the Titan is always an option...
L-A
Sure, you get one decline - but you can ignore a character as soon as you see them and they can't keep screwing with your record.
L-A
PS - don't forget to issue a Deathmark either - after all, they want their 'challenge'
I'm not talking about BEING a WM...I'm talking about the WMs who get challenged and then just ignore it and don't respond so they don't have to fight you and then continue to run around avoiding you for the next 30 minutes while picking fights with weaker people.
That's just it - they don't really want to 'fight.' They just want to put conditions on a Warmaster in an attempt to get a cheap kill.
Attacking the Titan is always an option...
L-A
That's a generalization and isn't always true however.
That's a generalization and isn't always true however.
Same goes for this:
I'm talking about the WMs who get challenged and then just ignore it and don't respond so they don't have to fight you and then continue to run around avoiding you for the next 30 minutes while picking fights with weaker people.
Be Civil -Elro
I'm saying you can't use one circumstance to offset the other to try and defeat the premise of the argument.
Just because SOMETIMES people really can't fight a challenge doesn't mean there should be a loophole to avoid challenges altogether against anyone.
Right, but what about when you can run and hide from said Warmaster, but they are expected to fight every single time they are challenged? Really? Circumstances vary.
Using the challenge command to force a Warmaster to fight is cheap and stupid. If you condone it, then well...
[edited]
I'm saying you can't use one circumstance to offset the other to try and defeat the premise of the argument.
Just because SOMETIMES people really can't fight a challenge doesn't mean there should be a loophole to avoid challenges altogether against anyone.
I don't understand why you think that a warmaster should leave whatever he is doing just to chase someone all over aabahran and fight on unfair terms in order to feed his malform, and if he actually chooses not to, he should be punished for that :confused:
I don't run from the area during challenges as a WM or non-WM, so I can't speak to that. I think as a WM, when you go to join WM, you are entering a cabal that you know you have challenges to fight. If you can't accept that part of the cabal, then don't join it.
I don't necessarily agree that WMs have to fight locked down, single area, dice roll, etc type challenges. But then, that's not what this is about. It's about the loophole given to WMs to be able to decline any challenge that might be an uphill fight for them without it showing on their record.
A decline mark on your record is not a punishment. If your ego is too high that you can't live with a decline mark on your record for a fight you are declining to engage in...then don't play a WM.
I'm not debating the ins and outs of the actual challenge, just the challenge system itself.
First of all, nothing states that a challenge is about rolling dice, staying in an area, not using certain skills, or ANY rules really. People ASSUME there are going to be those rules, so they don't change it. I've played WMs that attack on sight and leave the area.
A challenge is agreeing to fight one another. Now, the stipulations there after are up for debate, but in no means set in stone. What IS annoying is the fact that people challenge WMs to keep them from logging off or just to be *******s and negatively affect their record.
Another pet peeve is the term cowardice. Anything the non-WM doesn't like that the WM does is INSTANTLY cowardice. Again, not the case. There are too many "assumed" styles of challenges.
Already stated I agree with that even if it has nothing to do with WM being able to decline challenges without actually declining them. Might as well get rid of decline altogether and change it to forfeit.
The thing is that you are going to have refusals on your record. When you do and people look at it, they will think you punked out and quit. Which sucks. Like you said, if you don't care what others think, and you shouldn't, then it doesn't matter. But, lets be honest, it does.
So what about the people who do punk out? Should they not have consequences? SavantA logs in and challdnges decked WMa who is scared so he ignores the challenge and then logs off. Why does the WM deserve to not show a declined challenge in that fight?
Yeah, I would agree it would be foolish to force WMs to fight in unfavorable situations--when this kind of thing is a problem, it usually a very stacked fight for the WM. If there is a consistent problem with a WM avoiding a fight they should be fighting, treat it just like an Avatar who avoids evils or any cabal member who avoids the fights they should be having--through logs and the staff.
I think what is really being pushed here is the ability to destroy a record if a WM doesn't want to be malform/whatever skill fodder--which is pretty silly.
Edit: As for the punking out--other cabals don't have a mechanism for showing this. How many times did certain DKs who wanted to fight WM inductees punk out from Anamus---when those DKs were in my opposite cabal?
What would be interesting, however, is that whenever the WM stuns or kills an opponent (or the reverse) it is automatically added to the record.
All I'm saying here is that there's a reason why the decline function exists. If we don't care about it then get ridof it or change it. WMs who dnot cower from fights deserve to have more distinguished records than someone who ignores challenges and picks/chooses easier battles.
What would be interesting, however, is that whenever the WM stuns or kills an opponent (or the reverse) it is automatically added to the record.
Why can't more of you think like this? All that beating around the bush and Celerity gets right to the point.
+1.