[Haru]

Dear Staff,

Generally I tend just to be an observer with threads that I'm not an active part of. Partly because I do like to have an idea of what is going around in the site but also out of entertainment. And this includes the Chunin Exams which I have been enjoying and which deserve a tip of the hat towards Meep. 

That been said I have come preoccupation on the way some of the decisions have been handled in regards of battle moderation. As in, while I do believe that staff has the best interest of the participants in mind, there are some decisions that I don't fully understand nor that I believe are correct given the specific circumstances of the fights. 

In short, I believe that this is due a dissonance between what site members believe are the elements that may affect a battle, namely specializations, special abilities, techniques, rank of characters and out of character knowledge compared with what staff members considers that it may or may not affect, as in some occasions what it is written in the site doesn't necessarily correspond with calls made when battle moderation is required. 

I believe that this create confusion and in many ways discontent with how some decisions are being handled by staff, specially in an event like the Chunin Exams that is formative for characters and in many occasions can even result in the death of participant characters. 

In tabletop, wargaming, etc, the term rules as written is used to indicate that a game is played with the rules as they are, not as rules as they might be interpreted due bias, word of mouth or any other element. I want to reiterate that this is not me implying there are ulterior motives, but rather that there doesn't necessarily exist an unified criteria in case that disputes exist. While I do understand that this is a hobby and expecting complex rulings might not be possible,  a more transparent understanding of the rules in battle, a way to better understand of how specialization, be sole, primary, secondary or generalist a way to better understand of how specialization, be sole, primary, secondary, or generalist as well how rank and special abilities are quantified and measured against each other would beneficial and I believe it would dissipate arguments or discontent.

As well, I believe that it is necessary that if/when a clarified set of rules is provided, staff could be receptive of opinion on what could be adjusted, clarified and given context in case that there is an existing ambiguity and that the set of rules pertaining to battles is considered a living document that might be changed in a balanced and unbiased manner.

This, of course, are my opinions. 
 

[Yoshiko]

Hey Haru!

I'm unsure exactly which CE fight or battle mod review spurred this response, but if there is a specific instance. I'd love to consider the specific situation. That stated, if this is a broad, you need rules to combat. We've always been very clear we're not a stats based site. So they'll almost never be true combat rules, the reason for that is to allow the writers their individual freedom. We're story focused not game focused, so we'd rather their be less rules if possible.

Obviously we have rules and as things sometimes get out of hand, we add or expand upon those rules. However as a writer these rules are limitations and shouldn't be the thing you want. Ultimately the more 'clarified' it gets, the more so it turns into a stat system.

I understand the want for clarification and set rules to not feel betrayed in a fight, but the fact of the matter is systems like that just make it so people who know the system best can abuse it. Even in Warhammer, if not especially in Warhammer, they're optimal, sub-optimal and barely functional factions. That they're changing on a yearly basis to balance. We don't have the time or team to make those type of balances changes.

Another note I'd like to make and this has been stated a few times in the past. Staff debates as you know are already a long process and incredibly painful at times. One of the points in picking staff is to have a consistent site theme and purpose. So in a general sense and note to the "staff could be receptive of opinions", we simply can't have rules and staff decisions be open and conjoined with all members.

Not to dissuade anyone from sharing their opinions, as I am an open minded person and so is my staff. It's great when people bring up suggestions and/or point out things we might not of noticed. However everyone has an opinion and rarely do people agree on them across the board, so it's best for site consistency that those charged with review make the overarching site decisions. Even if it might be going against the grain of what majority at the time wants.

Finally to close this up I would like to remind everyone what battle moderation is about. A battle mod is called in the instance that two writers in a fight cannot come to an agreement. The sole purpose of that moderation is to keep the fight moving where it'd otherwise stopped. Many battle moderations have been made and another mods later stated they'd of ruled completely differently. They're not like a court case, where the result is evidence to future cases. Unlike rules on site, which we've sometimes had back and forth conversation over months or years. A battle is typically in the moment and tied to something time sensitive, so the battle moderator isn't even always even a global mod with access to all staff knowledge. The point is to have an unbias opinion in a debate not set rules in stone.

Thank you though for sharing your opinion though and let me know if there was a specific battle moderation you felt needed a specific rule. Perhaps you're aiming for something not as out of the scope as I think.