From: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:20:36 EDT
Morgan,
True that what happened to Dal's father was out of his control, but a simple missive to Huma and Helix could have told them of what had happened and asked Huma for a postponement. I don't think anyone...save Jesse...would be heartless enough to say no to something as grave as that.
Cletus
Confused
Guardian of Polaris
Humble Warlord of DoS
Member of The Rising Stars (TDL)
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: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:32:23 EDT
Barons,
Precedent has been brought up several times. Let me use a prior incident that I know of from personal experience.
When I challenged for the Third, Darkness did not reply within the required time of one week. Barons had been stripped of their titles several times for this same offense, but instead the Council called for the match to be rescheduled. When he did face me, it was without any form of censure. He was not stripped of a fancy, his right to have Dalamar test me, or some other ridiculous punishment; he faced me with all the privileges he had earned by
being a Baron.
I personally feel that stripping Dal of the rights he earned due to this one challenge is preposterous. He has, challenge in and challenge out, always been exactly on time, and this, the one and only time he's been late, has a very valid reason, the death of his Father.
To strip Dalamar of certain privileges in future challenges is ridiculous, as it would give Warlords advantages they normally would not have and would, as I previously stated, have people chomping at the bit to challenge him.
Also, taking away Dalamar's right to test any future challenger, Baron or Warlord, is not something which I feel should be the choice of anyone but Dalamar, as it is his right to choose whether or not to test a challenger.
For now, I withhold my vote to hear your opinions on these things I mention.
~S
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:32:23 EDT
Barons,
Precedent has been brought up several times. Let me use a prior incident that I know of from personal experience.
When I challenged for the Third, Darkness did not reply within the required time of one week. Barons had been stripped of their titles several times for this same offense, but instead the Council called for the match to be rescheduled. When he did face me, it was without any form of censure. He was not stripped of a fancy, his right to have Dalamar test me, or some other ridiculous punishment; he faced me with all the privileges he had earned by
being a Baron.
I personally feel that stripping Dal of the rights he earned due to this one challenge is preposterous. He has, challenge in and challenge out, always been exactly on time, and this, the one and only time he's been late, has a very valid reason, the death of his Father.
To strip Dalamar of certain privileges in future challenges is ridiculous, as it would give Warlords advantages they normally would not have and would, as I previously stated, have people chomping at the bit to challenge him.
Also, taking away Dalamar's right to test any future challenger, Baron or Warlord, is not something which I feel should be the choice of anyone but Dalamar, as it is his right to choose whether or not to test a challenger.
For now, I withhold my vote to hear your opinions on these things I mention.
~S
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:37:47 EDT
Gnort,
From what I read, I thought they were referring to the honor match. Maybe I misunderstood, but that is what I gathered.
No matter which way they meant, those were my reasons for not stepping up.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:37:47 EDT
Gnort,
From what I read, I thought they were referring to the honor match. Maybe I misunderstood, but that is what I gathered.
No matter which way they meant, those were my reasons for not stepping up.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:47:21 EDT
Barons,
The main reason I haven't voted to reschedule is this: Huma and Jeffrey would've been the match in the Test, and I'm fairly certain that Huma would've declined Magnus's offer to step in on his behalf, as he's the sort of person who wants to stand alone. Due to this, the way I look at the Duel of Honor is more along the lines of the Test of Worthiness match, one in which Huma was defeated soundly.
For that reason, my votes have been in favor of declaring Dalamar Overlord and stripping Huma of his PW's.
Sartan
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:47:21 EDT
Barons,
The main reason I haven't voted to reschedule is this: Huma and Jeffrey would've been the match in the Test, and I'm fairly certain that Huma would've declined Magnus's offer to step in on his behalf, as he's the sort of person who wants to stand alone. Due to this, the way I look at the Duel of Honor is more along the lines of the Test of Worthiness match, one in which Huma was defeated soundly.
For that reason, my votes have been in favor of declaring Dalamar Overlord and stripping Huma of his PW's.
Sartan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gimmzak@aol.com (Gimmzak)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:48:17 EDT
Morgan,
I will echo what Gnort said, that was so well said and so what I was trying to put into words, but could not. Thank you...
Gim
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:48:17 EDT
Morgan,
I will echo what Gnort said, that was so well said and so what I was trying to put into words, but could not. Thank you...
Gim
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:51:55 EDT
My response to Morgan, asking why I abstained. However, the first letter is what broght forth Morgan directing the question at me, and I thought her stating those who can't accept the responsibilities should step down.
-------------------------------------------
Morgan,
I was going to vote, but I chose to abstain for a few reasons.
Now, claiming I am choosing to abstain because I am irresponsible and that I don't get my way is equally insulting. I have been fairly calm, as you may see, and I have not started bickering stating why you chose choice A.
I have been quite honest with my ideas, and my reasoning. In fact, I don't think I've questioned one baron's integrity because of their voting. I have stated disappointment in the attacks, and my reasoning for the votes. I have stated my position, when questioned.
I will state my position, again.
I feel that if Jeff went back on his word of honor that night, his ring would not be taken away. Thus, I don't think Huma's challenge to Dal should be taken away. My honor was questioned by two barons because this was how I handled the situation. I felt that by viewing it hypothetically, there would be a fair judgement. The other barons vote not for the rematch, but for Dal to keep his crown. That's their decision, and I have been quite
fair with them, I think. In fact, when I realized there was a majority vote, wasn't I one of the people whom made note, in assistance to AJ?
Phase 2... The same option applied. Kal said how it was so honorless to vote for it, yet he remained it an option by this round. I believe my honor was insulted, then insulted again with this option, so I chose not to vote.
Additively, I stated I was glad we could settle this, to end the debate. I was saddened by my question of honor, and I stated how I disagreed with the decision. But no, not once did I question one baron's decision. I did not attack the barons, but I said why I disagreed, and why I acted how I acted.
You guys are back at square one, with my honor questioned, as well. No, I choose not to take part in it when my judgement was based on what I thought was fair, is insulted with attacks of lacking honor.
That's where I stand. Now I'm not going to go back on my word and vote just to appease the council. I'd be compromising my own honor.
>We are among peers. We are all equal and we all vote on the issues we, in the majority, agreed upon. You may not think you are voting on a decision, but by not joining in the decision-making process you are giving up your right and your responsibility to your peers, your community, and yourself; a very clear casting of preference, a vote, to the wind. <
Perhaps, then, if we are, as you say "peers", maybe insults should be stopped, and a reasonable voting system is made. Not one where an already voted out option is in the next series of options, and the one leading it starts attacking those who have DIFFERING opinions.
My exercising of my baronial rights has been established. I will act fair and honorable as a baron. Responsibilities lie in what's best for the community, and not who one wants to be overlord. I want Dal to be overlord, but I didn't want to abuse my power unjustly. I thought my decision was fair, but that's just me.
I believe I have shown my capabilities as a baron, because I am not unjustly compromising myself or this community to fulfill personal aspirations. Am I saying anyone else is? No. I'm talking about myself.
If you choose to attack me some more, that's fine. I'll be a broken record and state my position again and again, if I have to.
Sincerely,
Var Medici-Giovanni
Letter 2, in response:
------------------------------------------
Morgan
<< Remember there are TWO of you abstaining. Did you say anything along the lines of "since my suggestions were ignored I am going to abstain?" No, you did not. Obviously, that particular comment was not geared toward you and instead geared toward the baron that said something most similar to that - to be direct, that would be Walker.
I do not think you are abstaining because you did not get your way, and I apologize for implying that. I do think you would be irresponsible to abstain from voting. As I said earlier, you are a Baron and you have a responsibility to the title. Part of that responsibility is to serve on the Barons' Council. You are not serving on the council if you do not vote. If you do not follow through on your responsibility, then you are the opposite of
responsible (irresponsible). >>
I apologize for the misunderstanding. With a lot of issues directed at me, I felt this one was directed at me too, as I am one of those abstaining (when I say there are a lot of issues directed at me, I am not complaining, if I may state. I just feel there have been more issues directed at me by the council).
But I will state why I am abstaining. I feel my honor was insulted, yet my basis of honor was again an option when it was already voted out. The council is back at square one, and I do not feel that by going backwards, we are helping the community. That's the responsibilities of this council, deciding for the community through justice.
It's not that I lack compassion for Dalamar's loss, nor do I feel great about helping Huma's dishonor. However, as a council, we are supposed to make decisions based on the rules in these circumstances, to make a fair judgement. I would rather be fair, than compromise the rules.
Not to fall off the reason for abstaining, I do not find the options of voting to be helping. After insults, after deciding that choice A is the best, we're still debating whether or not Huma can challenge Dal again?
I don't appreciate the method. It is simply not helping anyone at all.
And in response to Sartan, if you use your challenge to Rand a comparison, where Rand fought a rematch... why didn't you vote for C?
Rand had to face the consequences somehow, someway, and he fought a rematch. If it was justice that you fought a rematch with him, why didn't you vote for a rematch?
Make note: This is the first time I've questioned a baron's decision, mainly because I am confused with how he justified it.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
---------------------------------------------------
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:51:55 EDT
My response to Morgan, asking why I abstained. However, the first letter is what broght forth Morgan directing the question at me, and I thought her stating those who can't accept the responsibilities should step down.
-------------------------------------------
Morgan,
I was going to vote, but I chose to abstain for a few reasons.
Now, claiming I am choosing to abstain because I am irresponsible and that I don't get my way is equally insulting. I have been fairly calm, as you may see, and I have not started bickering stating why you chose choice A.
I have been quite honest with my ideas, and my reasoning. In fact, I don't think I've questioned one baron's integrity because of their voting. I have stated disappointment in the attacks, and my reasoning for the votes. I have stated my position, when questioned.
I will state my position, again.
I feel that if Jeff went back on his word of honor that night, his ring would not be taken away. Thus, I don't think Huma's challenge to Dal should be taken away. My honor was questioned by two barons because this was how I handled the situation. I felt that by viewing it hypothetically, there would be a fair judgement. The other barons vote not for the rematch, but for Dal to keep his crown. That's their decision, and I have been quite
fair with them, I think. In fact, when I realized there was a majority vote, wasn't I one of the people whom made note, in assistance to AJ?
Phase 2... The same option applied. Kal said how it was so honorless to vote for it, yet he remained it an option by this round. I believe my honor was insulted, then insulted again with this option, so I chose not to vote.
Additively, I stated I was glad we could settle this, to end the debate. I was saddened by my question of honor, and I stated how I disagreed with the decision. But no, not once did I question one baron's decision. I did not attack the barons, but I said why I disagreed, and why I acted how I acted.
You guys are back at square one, with my honor questioned, as well. No, I choose not to take part in it when my judgement was based on what I thought was fair, is insulted with attacks of lacking honor.
That's where I stand. Now I'm not going to go back on my word and vote just to appease the council. I'd be compromising my own honor.
>We are among peers. We are all equal and we all vote on the issues we, in the majority, agreed upon. You may not think you are voting on a decision, but by not joining in the decision-making process you are giving up your right and your responsibility to your peers, your community, and yourself; a very clear casting of preference, a vote, to the wind. <
Perhaps, then, if we are, as you say "peers", maybe insults should be stopped, and a reasonable voting system is made. Not one where an already voted out option is in the next series of options, and the one leading it starts attacking those who have DIFFERING opinions.
My exercising of my baronial rights has been established. I will act fair and honorable as a baron. Responsibilities lie in what's best for the community, and not who one wants to be overlord. I want Dal to be overlord, but I didn't want to abuse my power unjustly. I thought my decision was fair, but that's just me.
I believe I have shown my capabilities as a baron, because I am not unjustly compromising myself or this community to fulfill personal aspirations. Am I saying anyone else is? No. I'm talking about myself.
If you choose to attack me some more, that's fine. I'll be a broken record and state my position again and again, if I have to.
Sincerely,
Var Medici-Giovanni
Letter 2, in response:
------------------------------------------
Morgan
<< Remember there are TWO of you abstaining. Did you say anything along the lines of "since my suggestions were ignored I am going to abstain?" No, you did not. Obviously, that particular comment was not geared toward you and instead geared toward the baron that said something most similar to that - to be direct, that would be Walker.
I do not think you are abstaining because you did not get your way, and I apologize for implying that. I do think you would be irresponsible to abstain from voting. As I said earlier, you are a Baron and you have a responsibility to the title. Part of that responsibility is to serve on the Barons' Council. You are not serving on the council if you do not vote. If you do not follow through on your responsibility, then you are the opposite of
responsible (irresponsible). >>
I apologize for the misunderstanding. With a lot of issues directed at me, I felt this one was directed at me too, as I am one of those abstaining (when I say there are a lot of issues directed at me, I am not complaining, if I may state. I just feel there have been more issues directed at me by the council).
But I will state why I am abstaining. I feel my honor was insulted, yet my basis of honor was again an option when it was already voted out. The council is back at square one, and I do not feel that by going backwards, we are helping the community. That's the responsibilities of this council, deciding for the community through justice.
It's not that I lack compassion for Dalamar's loss, nor do I feel great about helping Huma's dishonor. However, as a council, we are supposed to make decisions based on the rules in these circumstances, to make a fair judgement. I would rather be fair, than compromise the rules.
Not to fall off the reason for abstaining, I do not find the options of voting to be helping. After insults, after deciding that choice A is the best, we're still debating whether or not Huma can challenge Dal again?
I don't appreciate the method. It is simply not helping anyone at all.
And in response to Sartan, if you use your challenge to Rand a comparison, where Rand fought a rematch... why didn't you vote for C?
Rand had to face the consequences somehow, someway, and he fought a rematch. If it was justice that you fought a rematch with him, why didn't you vote for a rematch?
Make note: This is the first time I've questioned a baron's decision, mainly because I am confused with how he justified it.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
---------------------------------------------------
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: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:56:31 EDT
The following is a copy of a letter sent to the Council, further clarifying the reasoning behind my vote.
Magnus,
Let me repeat why I look at this match as being similar to the Test. In Huma's Test, he would have faced Jeffrey. As I said in my last letter, Huma would have asked you not to defend him if you had wished to step in on his behalf.
Therefore, even though the Duel of Honor was not actually a Test of Worthiness as per the rules of the sport, it was indeed the exact same match that would have taken place. It was complete with both the competitors who would have fought and the exact same caller who would have called; and the Overlord's champion was victorious. If that had been the case in the actual challenge, Huma would lose his Peer Wins and his right to challenge for the Cycle.
This is why I continue to be in favor of this ruling.
~S
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:56:31 EDT
The following is a copy of a letter sent to the Council, further clarifying the reasoning behind my vote.
Magnus,
Let me repeat why I look at this match as being similar to the Test. In Huma's Test, he would have faced Jeffrey. As I said in my last letter, Huma would have asked you not to defend him if you had wished to step in on his behalf.
Therefore, even though the Duel of Honor was not actually a Test of Worthiness as per the rules of the sport, it was indeed the exact same match that would have taken place. It was complete with both the competitors who would have fought and the exact same caller who would have called; and the Overlord's champion was victorious. If that had been the case in the actual challenge, Huma would lose his Peer Wins and his right to challenge for the Cycle.
This is why I continue to be in favor of this ruling.
~S
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qxz137@aol.com (QXZ137)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 19:05:45 EDT
::Copying a few words of Sartan's post::
You said: <<I personally feel that stripping Dal of the rights he earned due to this one challenge is preposterous. He has, challenge in and challenge out, always been exactly on time, and this, the one and only time he's been late, has a very valid reason, the death of his Father. >>
I suppose you are also the type that thinks that it is unfail to strip someone of their rights just because they LOST a challenge is unfair, right?
Not appearing = Forfeiture.
Forfeiture = Loss.
At least, that's what you would say (AND THEY HAVE!! REMEMBER "CLUTCH?") if the challenger didn't appear.
--Quizxs Xysar Zzaasdp
Common Guy, 3-4-0
Once Swordsman
The Slasher of all Antislashers.
Anti-Antislasher?
Finally traded the pen for a pencil.
Date: 17 Oct 1998 19:05:45 EDT
::Copying a few words of Sartan's post::
You said: <<I personally feel that stripping Dal of the rights he earned due to this one challenge is preposterous. He has, challenge in and challenge out, always been exactly on time, and this, the one and only time he's been late, has a very valid reason, the death of his Father. >>
I suppose you are also the type that thinks that it is unfail to strip someone of their rights just because they LOST a challenge is unfair, right?
Not appearing = Forfeiture.
Forfeiture = Loss.
At least, that's what you would say (AND THEY HAVE!! REMEMBER "CLUTCH?") if the challenger didn't appear.
--Quizxs Xysar Zzaasdp
Common Guy, 3-4-0
Once Swordsman
The Slasher of all Antislashers.
Anti-Antislasher?
Finally traded the pen for a pencil.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 19:19:23 EDT
Thanks for telling me what I'd say, friend. It always helps to know in advance.
~S
Date: 17 Oct 1998 19:19:23 EDT
Thanks for telling me what I'd say, friend. It always helps to know in advance.
~S
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 22:58:28 EDT
"Let it be made clear that I chose the vote that Dalamar retains his crown. Do not make the mistake of assuming I want Huma to be punished, or that Dalamar does not have to face repercussions. It would be falsely dichotomous to say that if my opinion is that Dalamar should retain his crown then Huma should be stripped of his peer wins (or any other form of personal punishment applied). "
::he leans wearily against the corkboard::
"By Saint Michael, someone on the council has stated what I have been arguing for all along."
::writes::
Bless you Morgan.
All I wanted to see from any member of the council is this exact statment.
I have argued so hard because I believe this matter is well vested in one pair of hands.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
Date: 17 Oct 1998 22:58:28 EDT
"Let it be made clear that I chose the vote that Dalamar retains his crown. Do not make the mistake of assuming I want Huma to be punished, or that Dalamar does not have to face repercussions. It would be falsely dichotomous to say that if my opinion is that Dalamar should retain his crown then Huma should be stripped of his peer wins (or any other form of personal punishment applied). "
::he leans wearily against the corkboard::
"By Saint Michael, someone on the council has stated what I have been arguing for all along."
::writes::
Bless you Morgan.
All I wanted to see from any member of the council is this exact statment.
I have argued so hard because I believe this matter is well vested in one pair of hands.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gimmzak@aol.com (Gimmzak)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:00:59 EDT
Why do you all keep using Clutch and Darkness...This is a totaly different situation.
We are making rule on this now. Not what happened before. Everyone is trying to use that as a guideline. How can you...
1) Darkness...he just didn't seem to care
2) Clutch...couldn't tell time.
I don't see how this is the same. Yes I know they all didn't show up, but stop and look. Darkness did this once before, and Clutch, well he just didn't tell time right. Dalamar though, the man lost his FATHER......has he ever missed a challenge before?
I also agree that some type of punishment should be levied to him as no one man is above the law. I am not a *loyal lap dog* as the term goes. I am stating fact, plain and simple. COndem me or insult me as you will, but I see us here as setting the law for something like this that may happen in the future as well as what happened now. Not what happened to Darkness and CLutch
Gimzak
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:00:59 EDT
Why do you all keep using Clutch and Darkness...This is a totaly different situation.
We are making rule on this now. Not what happened before. Everyone is trying to use that as a guideline. How can you...
1) Darkness...he just didn't seem to care
2) Clutch...couldn't tell time.
I don't see how this is the same. Yes I know they all didn't show up, but stop and look. Darkness did this once before, and Clutch, well he just didn't tell time right. Dalamar though, the man lost his FATHER......has he ever missed a challenge before?
I also agree that some type of punishment should be levied to him as no one man is above the law. I am not a *loyal lap dog* as the term goes. I am stating fact, plain and simple. COndem me or insult me as you will, but I see us here as setting the law for something like this that may happen in the future as well as what happened now. Not what happened to Darkness and CLutch
Gimzak
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:51:41 EDT
How was this different?
Lets compare Clutch and Dal together.
They both didnt show for a duel in a time which they agreed upon. One happens to be a warlord challenging a Loyal. He is stripped of his challenge and peers. The other is the overlord. His challenger is stripped of his challenge and peers. This doesn't seem like the right outcome to me.
Yes, I know that outcome is not decided yet, but its the way it is going.
Also, I know there reasons were different, but that doesn't matter. I am sympothetic for Dal's loss of a father, but during the Clutch matter, I was told not to listen to the reason he gave for not showing.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:51:41 EDT
How was this different?
Lets compare Clutch and Dal together.
They both didnt show for a duel in a time which they agreed upon. One happens to be a warlord challenging a Loyal. He is stripped of his challenge and peers. The other is the overlord. His challenger is stripped of his challenge and peers. This doesn't seem like the right outcome to me.
Yes, I know that outcome is not decided yet, but its the way it is going.
Also, I know there reasons were different, but that doesn't matter. I am sympothetic for Dal's loss of a father, but during the Clutch matter, I was told not to listen to the reason he gave for not showing.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 04:34:50 EDT
One Shade 9 lost his ring by forfeit after his parents died. It was only by pure generosity he received a rematch. Of course, things differed then.
::the paper remains an unclaimed tidbit::
Date: 18 Oct 1998 04:34:50 EDT
One Shade 9 lost his ring by forfeit after his parents died. It was only by pure generosity he received a rematch. Of course, things differed then.
::the paper remains an unclaimed tidbit::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 11:39:19 EDT
Friends,
The council is a body of equity, which is to say its duty is to seek a fair resolution independent of strict rules and precedent. Without contemplating all of the surrounding issues, it is not possible to reach such a resolution.
Since we have seen an abundance of analogies, I shall add one as well.
Say I borrow money from G'nort and promise to pay it back on Monday. Once Monday rolls around I have not yet paid and G'nort takes the matter to court. Court is not a quick process and he knows that it will take at least a week to get his money back. On Tuesday, G'nort meets with Jaycy and asks if she won't front the money for me. If Jaycy gives G'nort the money, his court case against me will fail, as he's already been paid.
Now, there are some glaring differences between this analogy and the case at hand, but I use it to put forth two things:
(1) The court, in order to rule fairly, *must* consider the fact that Jaycy has already paid the money. G'nort's claim has been settled out of court and he does not deserve twice the money. It is a side fact that I get the boon of not having to pay him even though I was wrong. If Jaycy further decides that I don't have to pay her back, then I've gotten off completely free and it's still the end of the matter.
(2) The court will not force a penalty against either G'nort or Jaycy simply because they made an out of court decision. I mention this because some feel Huma and Jeff were in the wrong for "circumventing" the council. My experience with court systems is that such dealings are looked upon favorably, rather than things to be punished. It is the very reason there are so many settlements.
Seamus has asked us to remove our blinders, but what he is truly asking is that we put them on. There are a million facts that could be considered by the council, going as far back as recalling that Huma was involved with Questrion during the time rumor says they wanted to take over the council. It is up to each individual to consider what he or she believes is relevant.
I believe that Jeff covered Dal's debt to Huma and the warlord does not deserve to be paid again.
~Kalamere...
Date: 18 Oct 1998 11:39:19 EDT
Friends,
The council is a body of equity, which is to say its duty is to seek a fair resolution independent of strict rules and precedent. Without contemplating all of the surrounding issues, it is not possible to reach such a resolution.
Since we have seen an abundance of analogies, I shall add one as well.
Say I borrow money from G'nort and promise to pay it back on Monday. Once Monday rolls around I have not yet paid and G'nort takes the matter to court. Court is not a quick process and he knows that it will take at least a week to get his money back. On Tuesday, G'nort meets with Jaycy and asks if she won't front the money for me. If Jaycy gives G'nort the money, his court case against me will fail, as he's already been paid.
Now, there are some glaring differences between this analogy and the case at hand, but I use it to put forth two things:
(1) The court, in order to rule fairly, *must* consider the fact that Jaycy has already paid the money. G'nort's claim has been settled out of court and he does not deserve twice the money. It is a side fact that I get the boon of not having to pay him even though I was wrong. If Jaycy further decides that I don't have to pay her back, then I've gotten off completely free and it's still the end of the matter.
(2) The court will not force a penalty against either G'nort or Jaycy simply because they made an out of court decision. I mention this because some feel Huma and Jeff were in the wrong for "circumventing" the council. My experience with court systems is that such dealings are looked upon favorably, rather than things to be punished. It is the very reason there are so many settlements.
Seamus has asked us to remove our blinders, but what he is truly asking is that we put them on. There are a million facts that could be considered by the council, going as far back as recalling that Huma was involved with Questrion during the time rumor says they wanted to take over the council. It is up to each individual to consider what he or she believes is relevant.
I believe that Jeff covered Dal's debt to Huma and the warlord does not deserve to be paid again.
~Kalamere...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cygnetsera@aol.com (CygnetSera)
Date: 18 Oct 1998 12:04:31 EDT
>I believe that Jeff covered Dal's debt to Huma and the warlord does not
>deserve to be paid again.
Good Kalamere,
I'm wondering what equity is found when the Overlord forfeits, and Lord Dragonbane is "paid" with a worthless honor match against a loyal baron.
The sum of an Overlord challenge match forfeited, which is the real issue, and the sum of a duel agreed upon in the heat of controversy and high emotions, with a baiting Baron does not a "debt paid" make.
Where I respect your opinion, I believe the warlord has been cheated.
I remain in Grace,
Cygnet Seraphin
Date: 18 Oct 1998 12:04:31 EDT
>I believe that Jeff covered Dal's debt to Huma and the warlord does not
>deserve to be paid again.
Good Kalamere,
I'm wondering what equity is found when the Overlord forfeits, and Lord Dragonbane is "paid" with a worthless honor match against a loyal baron.
The sum of an Overlord challenge match forfeited, which is the real issue, and the sum of a duel agreed upon in the heat of controversy and high emotions, with a baiting Baron does not a "debt paid" make.
Where I respect your opinion, I believe the warlord has been cheated.
I remain in Grace,
Cygnet Seraphin