From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 15 Oct 1998 19:03:15 EDT
Duelists,
Some of you shall find interest in this, others not. Please do not feel compelled to read forward if you care nothing for the thoughts of one baron as he considers the issue before the council.
Since the institution of the Barons Council, something I was very much involved in, it has been my belief that the proceedings should be held in full view of the public. I cannot force this belief on my fellow barons, nor would I feel comfortable relating their words to you without permission. As such, the option that remains is that I share with you those letters which I submit to the council.
I fear that it will not be a complete record of the proceedings unless other Barons join in, but do hope that some of you find interest.
~Kalamere Ar'Din..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fellow members of the council,
To begin, I must say that I do not plan to abide by Baron AJ's request that the council proceedings be kept among the council. I shall not place your thoughts, word for word, upon the posting board, but I shall place my own there, as I believe it the duty of the council to keep the duelists informed. If I address a point that one of you make, it shall be for the public's viewing. I would encourage the rest of you to do the same.
Moving on then. I'll not rehash last nights events, since I have no doubt we all know them well. At the heart of our discussions, I believe the match between Jeff and Huma is paramount.
There are two ways the match can be seen.
(1) Loyalist Intercession. Loyal Barons have the right to intercede on any challenge to the Overlord. This right is restricted only by the Overlord's right to have his own champion or to refuse the intercession of the Baron. It is well known that Dalamar planned an intercession in this match and there is no requirement in the standards that the Overlord be present for it. As such, it would not be wholly unreasonable to view the match between
warlord challenger, Huma, and Loyal Baron Oakenshield in this light. Those who agree with this should vote to remove Huma's peer wins and right to challenge for the remainder of the cycle, and also that Dalamar be permitted to retain the crown without penalty of any kind. The same result as if Huma had been bested in an official intercession.
(2) A Duel of Honor. Seen simply for what it was at the time, the match was a duel of honor. If we were to decide to enforce the duel of honor at its terms, then Huma's challenge is withdrawn. That leaves several other questions though: (a) Does he keep his peer wins, (b) does he retain the right to challenge again this cycle, (c) What penalty, if any, should Dalamar receive. Since the withdrawal of challenge comes after the time at which the
Overlord was to meet the challenger, there remains the issue of possible censure.
There are other options available, of course. My preference, however, is to hold Huma to his word, even if he now seeks to revoke the agreement, as such I believe there should be no re-match.
These are my initial thoughts. Once I have considered the facts a bit more closely I shall write again with how I plan to vote in regard to the various questions posed.
Respectfully,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
One Baron's thoughts
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xjaycyndax@aol.com (XJaycyndaX)
Date: 15 Oct 1998 19:18:32 EDT
Patrons of the DoS Community,
I find myself in agreement in the matter of keeping the public "in the know," and so I add the thoughts I have expressed earlier today as well...
-= Jaycy
Esteemed members of the Baronial Council and DoS Officials,
Please forgive this missive, as I am not completely aware the of the proper procedures in regard to matters brought before the Council, I feel I must ask for a clarification. While it is general policy for a challenge match to be deemed forfeit in the event of the abcense of one of the involved parties; if the official ( Nycholas De Gyrlington ) had prior
knowledge the Test of Worthiness would be used, the selected champion, and the champion was in fact present, why could the Test of Worthiness not proceed? It states in the Challenge Rules, under the section regarding Overlord Rights that:
2. [ The Overlord ] Has the right to select any duelist, with the exception of a Renegade
Baron, as champion to test any challenger the Overlord deems unfit
to a "Test of Worthiness". This may be done only once per challenge.
The selected champion may refuse.
4. If the challenger is successful in the test then the challenge to the
Overlord seat will proceed within two weeks.
If Nycholas had prior knowledge there was to tbe the ToW, and that Jeff Oakenshield would in fact be the one to administer the Test, why couldn't the Test have commenced? It
seems to me number 4 under the Overlord Rights could possibly be interpreted that the Overlord did not in fact need to be there at said Test, but merely need to know the results of the Test.
I am curious as to the necessity of an acceptance of a challenge by the challenged at the time of the match, and why the required written response is not enough. It states in the Universal Terms of Challenge:
A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered an
abdication. The place picked *must* be one of the FFGF sponsored rooms.
The challenge was in fact answered, and the intended Test of Worthiness duel could have, in fact, been dueled last night, as long as Nycholas had prior knowledge of the intended Test. At which point, had the duel continued, and Huma won, Dalamar would have had two weeks in which to face Huma for the Overlordship.
While I understand Helix has the right to make a ruling in any situation not clearly defined in the DoS Guidelines, I am merely asking for clarification as to why the Test of Worthiness was not allowed to continue in this case.
Respectfully,
Jaycynda Ashleana
Jaycynda Ashleana
Holder of the Third Baronial Ring
Date: 15 Oct 1998 19:18:32 EDT
Patrons of the DoS Community,
I find myself in agreement in the matter of keeping the public "in the know," and so I add the thoughts I have expressed earlier today as well...
-= Jaycy
Esteemed members of the Baronial Council and DoS Officials,
Please forgive this missive, as I am not completely aware the of the proper procedures in regard to matters brought before the Council, I feel I must ask for a clarification. While it is general policy for a challenge match to be deemed forfeit in the event of the abcense of one of the involved parties; if the official ( Nycholas De Gyrlington ) had prior
knowledge the Test of Worthiness would be used, the selected champion, and the champion was in fact present, why could the Test of Worthiness not proceed? It states in the Challenge Rules, under the section regarding Overlord Rights that:
2. [ The Overlord ] Has the right to select any duelist, with the exception of a Renegade
Baron, as champion to test any challenger the Overlord deems unfit
to a "Test of Worthiness". This may be done only once per challenge.
The selected champion may refuse.
4. If the challenger is successful in the test then the challenge to the
Overlord seat will proceed within two weeks.
If Nycholas had prior knowledge there was to tbe the ToW, and that Jeff Oakenshield would in fact be the one to administer the Test, why couldn't the Test have commenced? It
seems to me number 4 under the Overlord Rights could possibly be interpreted that the Overlord did not in fact need to be there at said Test, but merely need to know the results of the Test.
I am curious as to the necessity of an acceptance of a challenge by the challenged at the time of the match, and why the required written response is not enough. It states in the Universal Terms of Challenge:
A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered an
abdication. The place picked *must* be one of the FFGF sponsored rooms.
The challenge was in fact answered, and the intended Test of Worthiness duel could have, in fact, been dueled last night, as long as Nycholas had prior knowledge of the intended Test. At which point, had the duel continued, and Huma won, Dalamar would have had two weeks in which to face Huma for the Overlordship.
While I understand Helix has the right to make a ruling in any situation not clearly defined in the DoS Guidelines, I am merely asking for clarification as to why the Test of Worthiness was not allowed to continue in this case.
Respectfully,
Jaycynda Ashleana
Jaycynda Ashleana
Holder of the Third Baronial Ring
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 15 Oct 1998 19:18:44 EDT
Kal,
I have read your thoughts and find them interesting. Had not Helix already given an official ruling on the matter which is her right I would be inclined to agree with the Loyal intercession, however, not even Dalamar has the right to overrule her final decision.
Collie
Date: 15 Oct 1998 19:18:44 EDT
Kal,
I have read your thoughts and find them interesting. Had not Helix already given an official ruling on the matter which is her right I would be inclined to agree with the Loyal intercession, however, not even Dalamar has the right to overrule her final decision.
Collie
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xgnortx@aol.com (X Gnort X)
Date: 15 Oct 1998 20:42:15 EDT
In the footsteps of others, I, too, shall reveal my thoughts on this, and what I responded to the other Baron/Baroness's with.
*G*
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Council,
I am of the same mindset as Sartan is. I saw the match between Jeff and Huma, I heard Huma's offer and Jeffs acceptance. Whether Huma threw the match or not is no matter. Huma offered the duel to be "Jeff loses and retires the ring, Huma loses, he rescinds". Huma lost, and therefore I considered the matter settled.
So, as far as I'm concerned. I am friends with both men, and am basically nuetral in this matter. But due to the duel between Jeff and Huma, and the results of said match, I consider there to be No Overlord Challenge.
However, Since Huma did make the challenge on time and Dal was unable to attend, one might consider that he does not lose his peer wins.
Keep that in mind.
*G*
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
"When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master"
Date: 15 Oct 1998 20:42:15 EDT
In the footsteps of others, I, too, shall reveal my thoughts on this, and what I responded to the other Baron/Baroness's with.
*G*
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Council,
I am of the same mindset as Sartan is. I saw the match between Jeff and Huma, I heard Huma's offer and Jeffs acceptance. Whether Huma threw the match or not is no matter. Huma offered the duel to be "Jeff loses and retires the ring, Huma loses, he rescinds". Huma lost, and therefore I considered the matter settled.
So, as far as I'm concerned. I am friends with both men, and am basically nuetral in this matter. But due to the duel between Jeff and Huma, and the results of said match, I consider there to be No Overlord Challenge.
However, Since Huma did make the challenge on time and Dal was unable to attend, one might consider that he does not lose his peer wins.
Keep that in mind.
*G*
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
"When I left you, I was but the learner, now I am the master"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 15 Oct 1998 20:47:20 EDT
Gentles,
Methinks previous Supervisors of the Duels dinna seek to impose such unilateral decisions upon the community, nor, in this matter that the "Saving Clause" should or was meant to be applied.
To whit: Challenges have in past indeed been rescinded, there have been numerous instances of just such actions.
The question now remains;
Does the Supervisor of the Duels indeed mean to deny the individual the right to so act?
Jona.
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.
Date: 15 Oct 1998 20:47:20 EDT
Gentles,
Methinks previous Supervisors of the Duels dinna seek to impose such unilateral decisions upon the community, nor, in this matter that the "Saving Clause" should or was meant to be applied.
To whit: Challenges have in past indeed been rescinded, there have been numerous instances of just such actions.
The question now remains;
Does the Supervisor of the Duels indeed mean to deny the individual the right to so act?
Jona.
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 15 Oct 1998 20:56:45 EDT
::tacks up a copy of his letter to the Council::
Fellow Barons and Baronesses,
My feeling on this matter is simple. Huma and Jeffrey agreed to a duel of Honor, with Jeff putting his Ring upon the line, Huma putting his challenge on the line. Huma was defeated, soundly. However, Huma now says he will not rescind his challenge, even after being defeated soundly, 5-1 in 5 rounds.
Huma is a close friend of mine and is also the closest thing to a teacher I ever possessed. Dalamar is also one of my closest a friends, so, what I wrote now, I attempt to write in all fairness.
Huma lost in the duel of Honor, a non-binding duel, true. However, he proposed the idea to Baron Oakenshield, and, if I know Jeff, he would've retired his Ring on the spot. Unfortunately, Huma now says he will not rescind his challnege, no matter what the Council's decision.
Due to Huma's inconsistency, and also due to the fact that Jeffrey was to have tested Huma anyway, I must cast my vote in favor of stripping Huma of his Peer Wins and returning the title of Overlord to Dalamar.
Sartan
Date: 15 Oct 1998 20:56:45 EDT
::tacks up a copy of his letter to the Council::
Fellow Barons and Baronesses,
My feeling on this matter is simple. Huma and Jeffrey agreed to a duel of Honor, with Jeff putting his Ring upon the line, Huma putting his challenge on the line. Huma was defeated, soundly. However, Huma now says he will not rescind his challenge, even after being defeated soundly, 5-1 in 5 rounds.
Huma is a close friend of mine and is also the closest thing to a teacher I ever possessed. Dalamar is also one of my closest a friends, so, what I wrote now, I attempt to write in all fairness.
Huma lost in the duel of Honor, a non-binding duel, true. However, he proposed the idea to Baron Oakenshield, and, if I know Jeff, he would've retired his Ring on the spot. Unfortunately, Huma now says he will not rescind his challnege, no matter what the Council's decision.
Due to Huma's inconsistency, and also due to the fact that Jeffrey was to have tested Huma anyway, I must cast my vote in favor of stripping Huma of his Peer Wins and returning the title of Overlord to Dalamar.
Sartan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 15 Oct 1998 21:34:36 EDT
My friends,
I shall hope that AJ does not feel I am out of line suggesting this, but I believe at this point it may be to our benefit to settle one segment of the issue before us. It is from this one question, and the choices that go directly with it, that all else will settle upon. That question is this:
1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would
be Walker's suggestion of the tournament.
Once this question is answered, it limits the other matters which must be discussed and decided. For example, there is no need to discuss censures to Dalamar, if we first chose to strip him of the title.
Of course, that said, I will now go on to ignore my own advice and relate my feelings on the relevant matters.
First, as to the question I posed in my previous missive, I would find Huma and Jeff's duel to be a Duel of Honor, rather than a Loyalist Intercession. It is a difficult matter to decide, but I believe the turning point on my thoughts is that there was no possibility of Renegade intervention in this duel. Without this counterbalance, I cannot deem it a fair use of the Loyalists' rights.
In answer to who is to be the Overlord, I believe that person should be Dalamar. Official or unofficial, Huma wagered his right to challenge and lost. This council is an equitable body, not bound to only the reading of the rules. As such we have the right to enforce the outcome of that match and futhermore, I believe, the duty to do so.
With this choice in mind, there are other questions that must be asked. I list them below, in conjunction with how I would answer them.
(1) Should Huma lose his right to challenge for the cycle and/or his peer wins.
~ To this I answer that Huma should lose the right to challenge. I do not see this as a punishment, which is why I will vote in favor of allowing him to retain the peer wins. Removal of the right to challenge, however, is consistent with the spirit of the duel fought with Jeff. Without removing this right, Huma may then issue challenge once again the day after this council makes an it's decision. This would be no better than choosing the option
of rescheduling.
(2) Should Dalamar be censured in some form. (general yes or no, not how)
~ Yes. I am not unsympathetic to the lose of a family member and the Overlord most assuredly has my condolences. However, a simple letter sent off to the challenger and official, informing them of the situation and asking for a new date, is not an unreasonable thing to have expected. Certainly it would have kept many of these unfortunate events from happening in the first place. I do not believe it grievous enough to strip him of the crown, but
it should not go unanswered.
(3) In what manner should the Overlord be censured. (to be answered only if there is a yes to #2)
~ This is a difficult matter. Again, in deciding this issue, I would remind the council that we are not bound by the standards of the sport, nor are be bound by precedent. The objective is fairness. What is fair, however, is not an easy question. I would propose the following.
(a) A fine of 10,000 gold crowns. Half to be contributed to the Children's Dueling Association and the other half to the Elderly Duelists Retirement Home.... and
(b) In the next challenge, regardless of who said challenger is, the Overlord shall not have the right to employ the Test of Worthiness.
Perhaps this sounds a bit extreme, but many duelists have been stripped of their titles for similar offenses. I believe the above to be fair when that is considered.
Lastly, before any of you begin to debate my reasons and proposals, please go back to the top and answer that one question. I truly believe it shall save us quite a bit of time to answer that question first.
Respectfully,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 15 Oct 1998 21:34:36 EDT
My friends,
I shall hope that AJ does not feel I am out of line suggesting this, but I believe at this point it may be to our benefit to settle one segment of the issue before us. It is from this one question, and the choices that go directly with it, that all else will settle upon. That question is this:
1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would
be Walker's suggestion of the tournament.
Once this question is answered, it limits the other matters which must be discussed and decided. For example, there is no need to discuss censures to Dalamar, if we first chose to strip him of the title.
Of course, that said, I will now go on to ignore my own advice and relate my feelings on the relevant matters.
First, as to the question I posed in my previous missive, I would find Huma and Jeff's duel to be a Duel of Honor, rather than a Loyalist Intercession. It is a difficult matter to decide, but I believe the turning point on my thoughts is that there was no possibility of Renegade intervention in this duel. Without this counterbalance, I cannot deem it a fair use of the Loyalists' rights.
In answer to who is to be the Overlord, I believe that person should be Dalamar. Official or unofficial, Huma wagered his right to challenge and lost. This council is an equitable body, not bound to only the reading of the rules. As such we have the right to enforce the outcome of that match and futhermore, I believe, the duty to do so.
With this choice in mind, there are other questions that must be asked. I list them below, in conjunction with how I would answer them.
(1) Should Huma lose his right to challenge for the cycle and/or his peer wins.
~ To this I answer that Huma should lose the right to challenge. I do not see this as a punishment, which is why I will vote in favor of allowing him to retain the peer wins. Removal of the right to challenge, however, is consistent with the spirit of the duel fought with Jeff. Without removing this right, Huma may then issue challenge once again the day after this council makes an it's decision. This would be no better than choosing the option
of rescheduling.
(2) Should Dalamar be censured in some form. (general yes or no, not how)
~ Yes. I am not unsympathetic to the lose of a family member and the Overlord most assuredly has my condolences. However, a simple letter sent off to the challenger and official, informing them of the situation and asking for a new date, is not an unreasonable thing to have expected. Certainly it would have kept many of these unfortunate events from happening in the first place. I do not believe it grievous enough to strip him of the crown, but
it should not go unanswered.
(3) In what manner should the Overlord be censured. (to be answered only if there is a yes to #2)
~ This is a difficult matter. Again, in deciding this issue, I would remind the council that we are not bound by the standards of the sport, nor are be bound by precedent. The objective is fairness. What is fair, however, is not an easy question. I would propose the following.
(a) A fine of 10,000 gold crowns. Half to be contributed to the Children's Dueling Association and the other half to the Elderly Duelists Retirement Home.... and
(b) In the next challenge, regardless of who said challenger is, the Overlord shall not have the right to employ the Test of Worthiness.
Perhaps this sounds a bit extreme, but many duelists have been stripped of their titles for similar offenses. I believe the above to be fair when that is considered.
Lastly, before any of you begin to debate my reasons and proposals, please go back to the top and answer that one question. I truly believe it shall save us quite a bit of time to answer that question first.
Respectfully,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jakvaltrds@aol.com (Jakvaltrds)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:04:37 EDT
Kalamere m'friend
feel free to add my words to this thread as I ha'e nerra a thin to hide
Seamus,
Baron of the First
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:04:37 EDT
Kalamere m'friend
feel free to add my words to this thread as I ha'e nerra a thin to hide
Seamus,
Baron of the First
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xxlucianxx@aol.com (XxLucianxX)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:57:00 EDT
"This council is an equitable body, not bound to only the reading of the rules. As such we have the right to enforce the outcome of that match and futhermore, I believe, the duty to do so. "
As stated by the Baron Kalamere. To those of you who are thinking you must only act within the specific written guidelines, I ask of you : Why bother, when if the answer were to lie in the rules, the Council would not be needed? Your decision is not what rules to invoke, what rules were bent and broken, but what to *do*. Not to step upon any egos, but a decade from now no one will remember the
details of these happenings, only the outcome. These are but one Warlord's thought upon the matter.
-- Lucian
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:57:00 EDT
"This council is an equitable body, not bound to only the reading of the rules. As such we have the right to enforce the outcome of that match and futhermore, I believe, the duty to do so. "
As stated by the Baron Kalamere. To those of you who are thinking you must only act within the specific written guidelines, I ask of you : Why bother, when if the answer were to lie in the rules, the Council would not be needed? Your decision is not what rules to invoke, what rules were bent and broken, but what to *do*. Not to step upon any egos, but a decade from now no one will remember the
details of these happenings, only the outcome. These are but one Warlord's thought upon the matter.
-- Lucian
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:14:56 EDT
Lucian writes:
" To those of you who are thinking you
must only act within the specific written guidelines, I ask of you : Why
bother, when if the answer were to lie in the rules, the Council would not be
needed? Your decision is not what rules to invoke, what rules were bent and
broken, but what to *do*. Not to step upon any egos, but a decade from now
no one will remember the
details of these happenings, only the outcome. These are but one Warlord's
thought upon the matter."
Aye, Lucian, well asked and stated. I have always felt the same.
Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:14:56 EDT
Lucian writes:
" To those of you who are thinking you
must only act within the specific written guidelines, I ask of you : Why
bother, when if the answer were to lie in the rules, the Council would not be
needed? Your decision is not what rules to invoke, what rules were bent and
broken, but what to *do*. Not to step upon any egos, but a decade from now
no one will remember the
details of these happenings, only the outcome. These are but one Warlord's
thought upon the matter."
Aye, Lucian, well asked and stated. I have always felt the same.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 03:44:11 EDT
Personally,
Though I am a loyal baron to Dalamar, I plan on wielding this ring without manipulation of power just to make things the way that aren't in best interest of the Duel of Swords.
My vote was based on Dal not showing up for the challenge. I don't think the duel of Honor should be taken into account of this. There are many challenges with a challenger the majority of the people may not appreciate, but the baron's council, in my opinion, cannot take away their right to challenge. That's what intercessions are for; defending the title of the person you want to be overlord.
Dal's attendance to challenges and his success in them has prospered far too long to remove his crown for missing one challenge. Yet, it's the responsibility of the council to enforce the importance of attendance, so I don't believe Dalamar should continue without consequence.
Therefore, I voted for the rematch.
François Marie Arouet (Voltaire) once wrote:
"I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend with my life you're right to say it." I wish it were that easy, at times.
Either way, what I mean to say, is that as much as I don't like Huma's approach to the challenge, I can't take away the right to challenge. As stated before, someone can intercede for Dal and the Duel of Swords will be functioning in an organized manner, instead of whim.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 16 Oct 1998 03:44:11 EDT
Personally,
Though I am a loyal baron to Dalamar, I plan on wielding this ring without manipulation of power just to make things the way that aren't in best interest of the Duel of Swords.
My vote was based on Dal not showing up for the challenge. I don't think the duel of Honor should be taken into account of this. There are many challenges with a challenger the majority of the people may not appreciate, but the baron's council, in my opinion, cannot take away their right to challenge. That's what intercessions are for; defending the title of the person you want to be overlord.
Dal's attendance to challenges and his success in them has prospered far too long to remove his crown for missing one challenge. Yet, it's the responsibility of the council to enforce the importance of attendance, so I don't believe Dalamar should continue without consequence.
Therefore, I voted for the rematch.
François Marie Arouet (Voltaire) once wrote:
"I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend with my life you're right to say it." I wish it were that easy, at times.
Either way, what I mean to say, is that as much as I don't like Huma's approach to the challenge, I can't take away the right to challenge. As stated before, someone can intercede for Dal and the Duel of Swords will be functioning in an organized manner, instead of whim.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 09:31:05 EDT
Council members,
I would like to make an amendment to my suggestions, and also to pose a question to you.
As to the amendment, it is in regard to my suggestion that Huma be stripped of the right to challenge. I would add that this should be specifically in regard to the Overlord and not to the Barons. My reason for suggesting it in the first place is to uphold the agreement forged between Huma and Jeff. Stripping the right to challenge Barons has no impact on that and, therefore, need not be done.
My question relates to the votes I have seen thus far. While the option of allowing Dalamar to retain the title without further challenge from Huma is the leading choice, there are a fair number of votes in favor of a rematch. I find this disturbing.
Var suggested that if the duel had gone the other way, the council would be unable to enforce the provision that Jeff retire his ring. Although I firmly believe that Jeff is honorable enough to have stood by his word, I will grant you that as correct. It does not mean, however, that the council would have been without some other means of vindication. Had the outcome been as such, we could have decided that Jeff is ineligible to participate in
intercession, or in fact that there be no intercession at all since it was to have been his job.
What disturbs me, however, is that I see several barons, representatives of the sport and of the duelists themselves, lining up to support a man who has broken an oath. Sending the word to the populace that honor means nothing. Is there no longer any respect for what is right and just? I am disheartened.
~Kalamere...
(side note: To those wishing Kal to post their letters to the boards, I must ask that you do this yourselves. Forum guidelines specify that I may not post email. Though my own letters might double as posts, I do not wish to have anything pulled for a forum violation... thanks)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 09:31:05 EDT
Council members,
I would like to make an amendment to my suggestions, and also to pose a question to you.
As to the amendment, it is in regard to my suggestion that Huma be stripped of the right to challenge. I would add that this should be specifically in regard to the Overlord and not to the Barons. My reason for suggesting it in the first place is to uphold the agreement forged between Huma and Jeff. Stripping the right to challenge Barons has no impact on that and, therefore, need not be done.
My question relates to the votes I have seen thus far. While the option of allowing Dalamar to retain the title without further challenge from Huma is the leading choice, there are a fair number of votes in favor of a rematch. I find this disturbing.
Var suggested that if the duel had gone the other way, the council would be unable to enforce the provision that Jeff retire his ring. Although I firmly believe that Jeff is honorable enough to have stood by his word, I will grant you that as correct. It does not mean, however, that the council would have been without some other means of vindication. Had the outcome been as such, we could have decided that Jeff is ineligible to participate in
intercession, or in fact that there be no intercession at all since it was to have been his job.
What disturbs me, however, is that I see several barons, representatives of the sport and of the duelists themselves, lining up to support a man who has broken an oath. Sending the word to the populace that honor means nothing. Is there no longer any respect for what is right and just? I am disheartened.
~Kalamere...
(side note: To those wishing Kal to post their letters to the boards, I must ask that you do this yourselves. Forum guidelines specify that I may not post email. Though my own letters might double as posts, I do not wish to have anything pulled for a forum violation... thanks)
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 10:50:16 EDT
>Var suggested that if the duel had gone the other way, the council would be
>unable to enforce the provision that Jeff retire his ring. Although I firmly
>believe that Jeff is honorable enough to have stood by his word, I will grant
>you that as correct. It does not mean, however, that the council would have
>been without some other means of vindication. Had the outcome been as such,
>we could have decided that Jeff is ineligible to participate in
>intercession, or in fact that there be no intercession at all since it was to
>have been his job.
Kalamere,
I am not as experienced as a baron as you, but I personally do not feel this is correct. Things that are void are primarily because of official challenges and intercessions. Dishonorable barons could intercede for or against Dal, and the council has no say regarding his honor.
>What disturbs me, however, is that I see several barons, representatives of
>the sport and of the duelists themselves, lining up to support a man who has
>broken an oath. Sending the word to the populace that honor means nothing.
>Is there no longer any respect for what is right and just? I am
>disheartened.
>
I don't believe this is a fair statement, and am insulted by the question of my justice. If those voting for a rematch truly supported a man breaking an oath, then we would have (probably) voted to have Dal lose the crown.
The fact is, I do not think it is the council's jurisdiction to penalize someone for breaking an oath or lacking honor.
Example:
When I challenged Agrenish, I did not find it fair to be given only two and a half hours notice to the challenge. I made it to the challenge, but no further penalty towards Agrenish was made. If you found his actions dishonorable, then no actions were taken against him. The duel went on, and that's it. Would you find it fair that I questioned the council's honor for not penalizing Agrenish more?
I would expect, that if I did not make it to the challenge, there would be two choices: a) rematch, or b) victory to Agrenish by default
Dal should, in my opinion, face a consequence that is fair. Huma, who broke an oath, will probably not be favored. If you seek to make sure Huma does not get his chance to face Dal, maybe you want to intercede on Dal's behalf. The challenge will end with a victor, as most of us were hoping to see two evenings ago.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 16 Oct 1998 10:50:16 EDT
>Var suggested that if the duel had gone the other way, the council would be
>unable to enforce the provision that Jeff retire his ring. Although I firmly
>believe that Jeff is honorable enough to have stood by his word, I will grant
>you that as correct. It does not mean, however, that the council would have
>been without some other means of vindication. Had the outcome been as such,
>we could have decided that Jeff is ineligible to participate in
>intercession, or in fact that there be no intercession at all since it was to
>have been his job.
Kalamere,
I am not as experienced as a baron as you, but I personally do not feel this is correct. Things that are void are primarily because of official challenges and intercessions. Dishonorable barons could intercede for or against Dal, and the council has no say regarding his honor.
>What disturbs me, however, is that I see several barons, representatives of
>the sport and of the duelists themselves, lining up to support a man who has
>broken an oath. Sending the word to the populace that honor means nothing.
>Is there no longer any respect for what is right and just? I am
>disheartened.
>
I don't believe this is a fair statement, and am insulted by the question of my justice. If those voting for a rematch truly supported a man breaking an oath, then we would have (probably) voted to have Dal lose the crown.
The fact is, I do not think it is the council's jurisdiction to penalize someone for breaking an oath or lacking honor.
Example:
When I challenged Agrenish, I did not find it fair to be given only two and a half hours notice to the challenge. I made it to the challenge, but no further penalty towards Agrenish was made. If you found his actions dishonorable, then no actions were taken against him. The duel went on, and that's it. Would you find it fair that I questioned the council's honor for not penalizing Agrenish more?
I would expect, that if I did not make it to the challenge, there would be two choices: a) rematch, or b) victory to Agrenish by default
Dal should, in my opinion, face a consequence that is fair. Huma, who broke an oath, will probably not be favored. If you seek to make sure Huma does not get his chance to face Dal, maybe you want to intercede on Dal's behalf. The challenge will end with a victor, as most of us were hoping to see two evenings ago.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: silentcris@aol.com (SilentCris)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 11:23:26 EDT
From the desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaeology; Black Friday, Inc.
If I may be so bold as to add my non-Baron's opinion to this mess.
What Huma Dragonbane did was, indeed, honorless... however, if the Baron's Council were truly a Council of Justice, they would be unable to examine this particular incident in regards to the Overlord's failure to appear. To put it simply, Huma Dragonbane's honor is not on trial here, it is the Overlord's failure to appear. It has already been ruled by the Coordinator of this sport that the match of honor had no bearing on the match at hand and the
man could not rescind his challenge. To this effect, were the Council truly impartial (as they should be when deciding such things, at least in the beginning) then the match between the Baron and the Warlord should be inadmissable as evidence toward a decision.
Yes, Huma Dragonbane is honorless, that was established long before this event ever happened by my reckoning. However, the Overlord is the one on trial here, not Dragonbane. To punish the man for someone else's failure is, frankly, ridiculous. Should you wish to punish Dragonbane, establish an independent Council to examine only the incident involving the circumstances after the match was deemed forfeit... of course, if you do this, you will need
to form a Court to examine every single incidence of dishonor in the entire Arena... and that may be far more time than it's worth.
The truly disturbing thing here, in response to Kalamere's thoughts, is that the Council would even consider punishing a man that should not be standing trial on this particular incident. Huma Dragonbane is, indeed, an oathbreaker, but, in the eyes of impartiality, I commend the Barons which are standing up in favor of allowing the match to be rescheduled, for the breaking of his oath happened well after the match was deemed forfeit.
Take my two cents as you will,
Cristian de Oro
Date: 16 Oct 1998 11:23:26 EDT
From the desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaeology; Black Friday, Inc.
If I may be so bold as to add my non-Baron's opinion to this mess.
What Huma Dragonbane did was, indeed, honorless... however, if the Baron's Council were truly a Council of Justice, they would be unable to examine this particular incident in regards to the Overlord's failure to appear. To put it simply, Huma Dragonbane's honor is not on trial here, it is the Overlord's failure to appear. It has already been ruled by the Coordinator of this sport that the match of honor had no bearing on the match at hand and the
man could not rescind his challenge. To this effect, were the Council truly impartial (as they should be when deciding such things, at least in the beginning) then the match between the Baron and the Warlord should be inadmissable as evidence toward a decision.
Yes, Huma Dragonbane is honorless, that was established long before this event ever happened by my reckoning. However, the Overlord is the one on trial here, not Dragonbane. To punish the man for someone else's failure is, frankly, ridiculous. Should you wish to punish Dragonbane, establish an independent Council to examine only the incident involving the circumstances after the match was deemed forfeit... of course, if you do this, you will need
to form a Court to examine every single incidence of dishonor in the entire Arena... and that may be far more time than it's worth.
The truly disturbing thing here, in response to Kalamere's thoughts, is that the Council would even consider punishing a man that should not be standing trial on this particular incident. Huma Dragonbane is, indeed, an oathbreaker, but, in the eyes of impartiality, I commend the Barons which are standing up in favor of allowing the match to be rescheduled, for the breaking of his oath happened well after the match was deemed forfeit.
Take my two cents as you will,
Cristian de Oro
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 11:55:12 EDT
Var,
Your match against Agrenish was not contested, therefore the council had no jurisdiction at all. Had you not shown up, however, the council could well have decided to reschedule the match or even to sanction Agrenish in some manner. The council, however, cannot extend its hand to reach such a matter, rather it is up to the contestants to show enough nerve to send the matter before them.
It is a rare case when the council gets a say in something important. Nine times out of ten there are no extraordinary facts brought before us. This case is different though. The council has before it an opportunity to uphold honor; to influence the ideals of the sport. A rare chance, and one that should not be squandered.
As to what the council may and may not do, I fear you limit those powers far too much. If the case called for it, the council could remove both Dal and Huma from the running and chose two commoners to fight for the title. This, of course, is the type of extraordinary decision that would most likely be overturned by Helix and Thorn.. but it remains within our discretion.
It is not my experience as a Baron from which my knowledge comes. During the days I was Coordinator of the sport I had the privilege to oversee a council or two and it was my pen that created the council itself. It is from that experience that I claim the council to be a court of equity... one which is bound by fairness alone.
Lastly, in regard to my commentary on upholding this challenge, I do not feel I've misspoken. By allowing Huma to reschedule now, after rescinding on his word of honor, your tell the public that you have no care for honor. You put forth the idea that your own value of a man's word and honor is no more than his. At a time when the council has the opportunity to uphold a community standard, it is our duty to do so.
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 16 Oct 1998 11:55:12 EDT
Var,
Your match against Agrenish was not contested, therefore the council had no jurisdiction at all. Had you not shown up, however, the council could well have decided to reschedule the match or even to sanction Agrenish in some manner. The council, however, cannot extend its hand to reach such a matter, rather it is up to the contestants to show enough nerve to send the matter before them.
It is a rare case when the council gets a say in something important. Nine times out of ten there are no extraordinary facts brought before us. This case is different though. The council has before it an opportunity to uphold honor; to influence the ideals of the sport. A rare chance, and one that should not be squandered.
As to what the council may and may not do, I fear you limit those powers far too much. If the case called for it, the council could remove both Dal and Huma from the running and chose two commoners to fight for the title. This, of course, is the type of extraordinary decision that would most likely be overturned by Helix and Thorn.. but it remains within our discretion.
It is not my experience as a Baron from which my knowledge comes. During the days I was Coordinator of the sport I had the privilege to oversee a council or two and it was my pen that created the council itself. It is from that experience that I claim the council to be a court of equity... one which is bound by fairness alone.
Lastly, in regard to my commentary on upholding this challenge, I do not feel I've misspoken. By allowing Huma to reschedule now, after rescinding on his word of honor, your tell the public that you have no care for honor. You put forth the idea that your own value of a man's word and honor is no more than his. At a time when the council has the opportunity to uphold a community standard, it is our duty to do so.
~Kalamere Ar'Din...