From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 22:44:18 EDT
In considering the subjects lately brought up by the lack of a match between the Overlord and Huma, I have seen much discussion of the council including the honor match between Jeff and Huma in its decision. I began to wonder and will endeavor to be brief in my question to all 13 barons.
My question is simple:
Should the baron's council honestly be deciding what is and is not honorable and fit behavior and punish duelers for breaking this very personal basis of judgment.
Now let me state that I would not besmirch anyone who holds a ring as a duelist, but there are many who have had the ability to hold the ring, such as Jesse Tyron, that prove they lack decency. I feel however that the council ruling on such matters opens an entirely new set of circumstances. You will forgive me if I carry this through to a logical conclusion. In order to build this case let me quote from the great Billy Ray, "If you have the wins
you have the right to the title." This is to say that DoS is first and foremost a sport of skill and not morality. If the council is to vote on a duel of honor agreed on by Jeff and Huma *alone*, what prevents the baron's council on voting that Uziel is not worthy of being allowed to challenge for some perceived or real slight on honor to a sitting Baron? Will the council then meet and consider each challenge made to one of it's members to decide
if the duelist issuing the challenge is worthy?
Perhaps I offend some, but I believe my question to remain valid. When did the baron's council take the right to judge and enforce what is and is not moral behavior for the entire Duel of Swords? Would this same body strike Queen Luthien's name from the records for dueling a duel to the death? Or perhaps make rules that assassins are not worthy for a baron's ring because they take life for money? Maybe that non-humans are patently dishonorable
and therefore not allowed to win a ring? These steps are drastic, but are the logical continuation of a vote to punish Huma for not keeping his word to Jeff. I believe that the matter is between Jeff and Huma alone and should remain there and the council should avoid ruling on what is honor and what is not.
So therein is my question. Not if the council can vote on what it chooses, but should it punish someone that has broken no rules, only an unwritten moral code that some adhere to and some do not?
Concerned and Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
A Question to the Baron's Council and the Officals of DoS
-
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: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 23:41:36 EDT
Barons,
I may not know the whole story, since I heard it second hand, but I ask a question similar to this one. I don't see why Huma is the subject of your discussions. Huma did not violate any rules. He was there on time for his challenge....a right he had earned. Dalamar wasn't. I don't see why it is even being considered that Huma lose his peerwins and rights to challenge. Huma has done nothing wrong in this situation. He broke his word...which in
my eye he did lose respect for...but that is a matter the council should not even be addressing.
But, I would also not go as far as to say that Dalamar should lose his crown, for I feel that his record in the ring, as well as how long he has held the title should say that he is a great man in the ring and should keep his crown...but on the same token, some form of reprimand should come to him.
Now, the question I ask you is: Why is Huma the target of your scrutiny, and not the real matter that should be discussed?
But that's just what I think...
Cletus
Confused
Guardian of Polaris
Humble Warlord of DoS
Member of The Rising Stars (TDL)
Date: 16 Oct 1998 23:41:36 EDT
Barons,
I may not know the whole story, since I heard it second hand, but I ask a question similar to this one. I don't see why Huma is the subject of your discussions. Huma did not violate any rules. He was there on time for his challenge....a right he had earned. Dalamar wasn't. I don't see why it is even being considered that Huma lose his peerwins and rights to challenge. Huma has done nothing wrong in this situation. He broke his word...which in
my eye he did lose respect for...but that is a matter the council should not even be addressing.
But, I would also not go as far as to say that Dalamar should lose his crown, for I feel that his record in the ring, as well as how long he has held the title should say that he is a great man in the ring and should keep his crown...but on the same token, some form of reprimand should come to him.
Now, the question I ask you is: Why is Huma the target of your scrutiny, and not the real matter that should be discussed?
But that's just what I think...
Cletus
Confused
Guardian of Polaris
Humble Warlord of DoS
Member of The Rising Stars (TDL)
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xstevegx@aol.com (X SteveG X)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 00:28:01 EDT
Well, Brian, since the Loyal Barons as a group (although I know at least one Loyal is not) are absolutely concerned with keeping Dal pristine, clear of charges, and above all, in office, their only option in this case was to divert attention from Dal to Huma.
I find it disturbing that Barons, who are supposed to be those of highest honor and role-models to us, do the most self-serving things. Sure, Huma may have been dishonorable and gone back on his word, but I didn't think that Huma was on trial here....
I thought this match was just going to be rescheduled when I read about the tradegy of Dal's father coinicdentally dieing on the eve of challenge against the first person with guts to challenge him twice. Amazing that his most famous Loyal Baron antagonizes the challenger so much that, with the challenger already ticked off that Dal didn't show, the challenger proposes a duel of honor to slience him. Of course, the challenger has no hope of winning
in this state of mind (whether it was thrown by Huma or not is irrelevant). This means that the council can now somehow decide to strip away Huma's challenge. A pretty good plan, if I do say so myself.
By the way, Dal (if you manage to actually read this before its too late), or anyone else, I'd like to get directions that I may view Dal's father's body in state, or converse with other greiving relatives or the like. I really feel so bad for his loss. Really. And with such great...er....tragic timing.
::decides the sarcasm has ran out of his pen and stops this paragraph here::
Since the Loyals are so corrupt, self-serving, etc, I suggest that everyone that has a problem and is a Warlord challenge one of them soon. Otherwise, go whine to someone else.
In regards to I'm challenging, I guess I'll put it this way: I know I'll lose to Jeff and AJ. Gim, Jaycy, and Kalamere are taken. Var is actually using logic, not Loyalist rhetoic. Gnort and Sartan have fairly new rings. Seamus just recently defended. Morgan hasn't been all that vocal in this debate, and I wonder what exactly she thinks about it. Of course neither have I. Let a few days to a week pass, and my challenge should be issued.
If someone concerns themselves with what i have just written, that's nice. And I might even read something you write back! How about that.
-Steven Glowacki
NB: In no way, shape, or form, do I pretend to be Agrenish Preescot, Jesse Troyan, or Skyler Jackson Chamberland, or that person whose writing looks like Skyler's, but claims he isn't Skyler. I don't pretend to be a better dueler than you, and I don't pretend to think you are inferior if you aren't me. You are entitled to your opinion. And I hope it isn't the same as mine. That would be boring.
Date: 17 Oct 1998 00:28:01 EDT
Well, Brian, since the Loyal Barons as a group (although I know at least one Loyal is not) are absolutely concerned with keeping Dal pristine, clear of charges, and above all, in office, their only option in this case was to divert attention from Dal to Huma.
I find it disturbing that Barons, who are supposed to be those of highest honor and role-models to us, do the most self-serving things. Sure, Huma may have been dishonorable and gone back on his word, but I didn't think that Huma was on trial here....
I thought this match was just going to be rescheduled when I read about the tradegy of Dal's father coinicdentally dieing on the eve of challenge against the first person with guts to challenge him twice. Amazing that his most famous Loyal Baron antagonizes the challenger so much that, with the challenger already ticked off that Dal didn't show, the challenger proposes a duel of honor to slience him. Of course, the challenger has no hope of winning
in this state of mind (whether it was thrown by Huma or not is irrelevant). This means that the council can now somehow decide to strip away Huma's challenge. A pretty good plan, if I do say so myself.
By the way, Dal (if you manage to actually read this before its too late), or anyone else, I'd like to get directions that I may view Dal's father's body in state, or converse with other greiving relatives or the like. I really feel so bad for his loss. Really. And with such great...er....tragic timing.
::decides the sarcasm has ran out of his pen and stops this paragraph here::
Since the Loyals are so corrupt, self-serving, etc, I suggest that everyone that has a problem and is a Warlord challenge one of them soon. Otherwise, go whine to someone else.
In regards to I'm challenging, I guess I'll put it this way: I know I'll lose to Jeff and AJ. Gim, Jaycy, and Kalamere are taken. Var is actually using logic, not Loyalist rhetoic. Gnort and Sartan have fairly new rings. Seamus just recently defended. Morgan hasn't been all that vocal in this debate, and I wonder what exactly she thinks about it. Of course neither have I. Let a few days to a week pass, and my challenge should be issued.
If someone concerns themselves with what i have just written, that's nice. And I might even read something you write back! How about that.
-Steven Glowacki
NB: In no way, shape, or form, do I pretend to be Agrenish Preescot, Jesse Troyan, or Skyler Jackson Chamberland, or that person whose writing looks like Skyler's, but claims he isn't Skyler. I don't pretend to be a better dueler than you, and I don't pretend to think you are inferior if you aren't me. You are entitled to your opinion. And I hope it isn't the same as mine. That would be boring.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 01:20:38 EDT
>Morgan hasn't been all that vocal in this debate, and I wonder what exactly
>she thinks about it.
Perhaps it is because someone is either killing my messenger, tearing down my contributions, or my ink is not dark enough. I have posted several items in the past few days and I have seen only two show up here.
Date: 17 Oct 1998 01:20:38 EDT
>Morgan hasn't been all that vocal in this debate, and I wonder what exactly
>she thinks about it.
Perhaps it is because someone is either killing my messenger, tearing down my contributions, or my ink is not dark enough. I have posted several items in the past few days and I have seen only two show up here.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lordovdale@aol.com (LordovDale)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 01:48:39 EDT
::eyes flash angrily as he passes over part of Steven's post... he begins to pen a reply.. then just sighs, crumpling up the paper and turning.. thoughts of the arguments and the events running through his head, he summons the crown to his hand, sort of gazing at it for a moment and frowns.. then walks away::
Date: 17 Oct 1998 01:48:39 EDT
::eyes flash angrily as he passes over part of Steven's post... he begins to pen a reply.. then just sighs, crumpling up the paper and turning.. thoughts of the arguments and the events running through his head, he summons the crown to his hand, sort of gazing at it for a moment and frowns.. then walks away::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: guyysavage@aol.com (GuyySavage)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 02:04:22 EDT
::reads through the various missives and feels compelled to respond to Girvin's query::
Girvin asked, "Should the baron's council honestly be deciding what is and is not honorable and fit behavior and punish duelers for breaking this very personal basis of judgment."
He also writes, "If the council is to vote on a duel of honor agreed on by Jeff and Huma *alone*, what prevents the baron's council on voting that Uziel is not worthy of being allowed to challenge for some perceived or real slight on honor to a sitting Baron? Will the council then meet and consider each challenge made to one of it's members to decide
if the duelist issuing the challenge is worthy?"
Mr. Girvin,
I'd like to comment upon your query if I may. Concern about the extent of the Baronial Council's powers is a reasonable issue, however, there is already a control in place to protect the arena against abuse from the whims of that council. To be specific, the Baronial Council only has authority when a matter has been passed to them, by the DoS staff, for judgment.
Since the majority of challenges are not surrounded by controversy, there is no need for them to require a baronial council to deliberate a fair resolution. It is only in the exceptional circumstance that the baronial council finds itself called upon to serve.
We need not fear that the council will strike Queen Luthien from any record, or that they will outlaw assassins from baronies, by simple virtue that the council will not called upon to do so.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
Date: 17 Oct 1998 02:04:22 EDT
::reads through the various missives and feels compelled to respond to Girvin's query::
Girvin asked, "Should the baron's council honestly be deciding what is and is not honorable and fit behavior and punish duelers for breaking this very personal basis of judgment."
He also writes, "If the council is to vote on a duel of honor agreed on by Jeff and Huma *alone*, what prevents the baron's council on voting that Uziel is not worthy of being allowed to challenge for some perceived or real slight on honor to a sitting Baron? Will the council then meet and consider each challenge made to one of it's members to decide
if the duelist issuing the challenge is worthy?"
Mr. Girvin,
I'd like to comment upon your query if I may. Concern about the extent of the Baronial Council's powers is a reasonable issue, however, there is already a control in place to protect the arena against abuse from the whims of that council. To be specific, the Baronial Council only has authority when a matter has been passed to them, by the DoS staff, for judgment.
Since the majority of challenges are not surrounded by controversy, there is no need for them to require a baronial council to deliberate a fair resolution. It is only in the exceptional circumstance that the baronial council finds itself called upon to serve.
We need not fear that the council will strike Queen Luthien from any record, or that they will outlaw assassins from baronies, by simple virtue that the council will not called upon to do so.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: guyysavage@aol.com (GuyySavage)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 02:20:41 EDT
::reads the note posted by Mr. Glowacki and frowns to himself, concerned about the ramifications::
Mr Glowacki wrote, "Morgan hasn't been all that vocal in this debate, and I wonder what exactly she thinks about it. Of course neither have I."
Mr Glowacki,
Wherefor should your input be required for the baronial council to come to a resolution?
While it seems reasonable to ask or wonder what the views of any particular baron might be, we must all keep in mind that our views and opinions, as non-barons, should have no weight upon the how the baronial council decides.
I find Mr' Ar'Din's belief that the decision-making process should be held within the public eye an admirable one, and agree that the record of those deliberations adds to the rich history of the Arena. However, I also hope that the watchers of those deliberations recognize that their input into that discussion is irrelevant. I also hope that those barons participating in the council will refrain from allowing their decisions to be swayed by the
spectators to the deliberations.
We all have our opinions with regard to how we would rule in this situation, but since we cannot claim to be barons (or to put it in a different way, are not part of the jury) we should not attempt to sway their deliberations. If any of us feel the barons have ruled unfairly, there is a simple mechanism to obtain eligibility to be on a council... win a barony.
I for one would like to commend those barons who have chosen to publicly state their positions with regard to this issue, and I look forward to seeing fair resolution.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
Date: 17 Oct 1998 02:20:41 EDT
::reads the note posted by Mr. Glowacki and frowns to himself, concerned about the ramifications::
Mr Glowacki wrote, "Morgan hasn't been all that vocal in this debate, and I wonder what exactly she thinks about it. Of course neither have I."
Mr Glowacki,
Wherefor should your input be required for the baronial council to come to a resolution?
While it seems reasonable to ask or wonder what the views of any particular baron might be, we must all keep in mind that our views and opinions, as non-barons, should have no weight upon the how the baronial council decides.
I find Mr' Ar'Din's belief that the decision-making process should be held within the public eye an admirable one, and agree that the record of those deliberations adds to the rich history of the Arena. However, I also hope that the watchers of those deliberations recognize that their input into that discussion is irrelevant. I also hope that those barons participating in the council will refrain from allowing their decisions to be swayed by the
spectators to the deliberations.
We all have our opinions with regard to how we would rule in this situation, but since we cannot claim to be barons (or to put it in a different way, are not part of the jury) we should not attempt to sway their deliberations. If any of us feel the barons have ruled unfairly, there is a simple mechanism to obtain eligibility to be on a council... win a barony.
I for one would like to commend those barons who have chosen to publicly state their positions with regard to this issue, and I look forward to seeing fair resolution.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 03:09:46 EDT
"I for one would like to commend those barons who have chosen to publicly state their positions with regard to this issue, and I look forward to seeing fair resolution."
This is the only part of Messr. Savage's post that I will comment on. Why? Because it is the only part of this post I really find issue with. First, I wish to agree with the first half of his sentiment. I very heartily commend Kalamere for making the proceedings public, and very heartily commend all those Barons who made their personal thoughts public. I also wish to roundly chastise everyone who stuck their own opinion into the Baronial Council
proceedings who was not a bloody Baron! Shame on all of you! You bloody well know better! Or should!
However, I have no faith whatsoever that the Council will come to a fair or equitible, or evern INTELLIGENT decision. For all their talk about honour, the Council seems to be intent on righting one wrong with another. The Council has no power or right to punish Huma for being an arse. There is no rule that says an arse forfeits his right to press a challenge when he makes a bigger arse of himself than he ever did before. Any action taken against
Huma IS ILLEGAL AND NOT BINDING, because the purpose of the Council is to DECIDE THE FATE OF THE PARTY WHO VIOLATED THE RULES. To wit: Dalamar.
I will not say that Dalamar did not have a damned good excuse. He did. I will not say Huma should not have kept his word. He should have. However, DALAMAR WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES AND HUMA WAS NOT. I think it would be wrong to punish a dishonourable act with an even more dishonourable and ILLEGAL act on the part of the Council. I also think it would be wrong to strip Dalamar of his title.
This leaves only one option, legally. Reschedule the match. This is also the one option that the Council has done their best to prevent. Interesting how the rules only matter if they work in your favor, isn't it?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Member of House Dragoon-Talanador
Morally Outraged
Righteously Indignant
Date: 17 Oct 1998 03:09:46 EDT
"I for one would like to commend those barons who have chosen to publicly state their positions with regard to this issue, and I look forward to seeing fair resolution."
This is the only part of Messr. Savage's post that I will comment on. Why? Because it is the only part of this post I really find issue with. First, I wish to agree with the first half of his sentiment. I very heartily commend Kalamere for making the proceedings public, and very heartily commend all those Barons who made their personal thoughts public. I also wish to roundly chastise everyone who stuck their own opinion into the Baronial Council
proceedings who was not a bloody Baron! Shame on all of you! You bloody well know better! Or should!
However, I have no faith whatsoever that the Council will come to a fair or equitible, or evern INTELLIGENT decision. For all their talk about honour, the Council seems to be intent on righting one wrong with another. The Council has no power or right to punish Huma for being an arse. There is no rule that says an arse forfeits his right to press a challenge when he makes a bigger arse of himself than he ever did before. Any action taken against
Huma IS ILLEGAL AND NOT BINDING, because the purpose of the Council is to DECIDE THE FATE OF THE PARTY WHO VIOLATED THE RULES. To wit: Dalamar.
I will not say that Dalamar did not have a damned good excuse. He did. I will not say Huma should not have kept his word. He should have. However, DALAMAR WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES AND HUMA WAS NOT. I think it would be wrong to punish a dishonourable act with an even more dishonourable and ILLEGAL act on the part of the Council. I also think it would be wrong to strip Dalamar of his title.
This leaves only one option, legally. Reschedule the match. This is also the one option that the Council has done their best to prevent. Interesting how the rules only matter if they work in your favor, isn't it?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Member of House Dragoon-Talanador
Morally Outraged
Righteously Indignant
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rixfavre@aol.com (Rix Favre)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 03:47:51 EDT
>By the way, Dal (if you manage to actually read this before its too late), or
>anyone else, I'd like to get directions that I may view Dal's father's body
>in state, or converse with other greiving relatives or the like. I really
>feel so bad for his loss. Really. And with such great...er....tragic
>timing.
Steven,
The fact that you would question such an event brings emotions to me that I cannot properly put on paper. It disgusts me to no end. I am not even going to bother with needless threats or the like. You know what will happen if you manage to get a ring.
-Rix
Date: 17 Oct 1998 03:47:51 EDT
>By the way, Dal (if you manage to actually read this before its too late), or
>anyone else, I'd like to get directions that I may view Dal's father's body
>in state, or converse with other greiving relatives or the like. I really
>feel so bad for his loss. Really. And with such great...er....tragic
>timing.
Steven,
The fact that you would question such an event brings emotions to me that I cannot properly put on paper. It disgusts me to no end. I am not even going to bother with needless threats or the like. You know what will happen if you manage to get a ring.
-Rix
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 10:55:38 EDT
Guy writes: "Since the majority of challenges are not surrounded by controversy, there is no need for them to require a baronial council to deliberate a fair resolution. It is only in the exceptional circumstance that the baronial council finds itself called upon to serve."
But herein lies the conundrum, let us say that Jeff and Huma had dueled their "Honor Duel" a week beofre the challenge match was to have taken place. Would the council have then been in it's rights to judge Huma? No they would not. The fact remains that the "Honor Duel," while following Dalamar's very well excused absence, is not the matter taken before the council. The matter taken before the council was the forfieture, period. If Jeff and Huma
had fought the week before and Huma had welched on the bet then he would be a welcher, but that is not a crime. No one forced either Jeff or Huma to take part in this match. It was a choice each individual made and should remain scrictly between Jeff and Huma. Jeff behavior to Huma shows that he clearly has a bias against Huma and therefore should not be allowed to vote because he is clearly unable to be completely objective on any point
involving Huma. If you look at the scope of the council being allowed to forcibly take away Huma's right to challenge then they become the judges of character for everyone in DoS thus removing the *skill* and *luck* from each challenge to Baron and more espically Overlord and make the crown a Caste of which only they can choose who shall succeed whom. Huma violated no rules here, yet the council is going to forcibly hold him to his end of an
agreement that is really not their buisness. Would this same council have forced Jeff to throw down his ring? No they would not have, but yet they will hold Huma to a different set of standards than they would their own. This makes them the final judge of who is "worthy" to be overlord, the judges of all of DoS *rather* than the ring and the sword, which is what the sport is about, steel to steel, skill to skill, who is the better dueler at that
moment. I recall no sign above the Arena door stating that to achieve rank one must always keep all agreements. Have any the council *always* been totally honest? Kept all of their agreements? If not then they should leave their rings should they choose to force *their* code of honor on Huma. By stripping Huma of his right to challenge or of his peer wins the council is making a decision on who has the *right* to challenge for the crown. That,
good people is judging the fittness of a warlord's character and not his record as a duelist. That fellow duelers as a step away from the council convening to decide the fittenss of any challenger to be "worthy" of making a challenge.
A second point, this honor duel is a red herring. A device used to change the real point oif an argument. The "Honor Duel" is not a part of Dalamar's forfeiture. To start making decisions on an event between Jeff and Huma would be roughly simial to the council convening on a fight between Summer and Jeff. It is a personal matter and not an offical one.
A final thought, according to the rules the Baron's council was established to judge Baron's and the Overlord. No where in the rules do they have the *right* to judge Warlords or commoners. I have stayed silent about this far too long. The council punishing warlords makes it an oligarchy and therefore an oppressive body that will, by its nature, use any tool in its hands to keep its self intact. Some one read the rules and tell me where the
Baron's council is to be convened to judge a wardlord in any case. They meet regarding matters of their own (Barons and the Overlord), as it should be. I believe the council has no right stripping peer wins from *any* dueler who is not a baron or the overlord. If I am not mistaken Goldendust Evermeadow and Cloreiviere H'Darwtch and Helix Girvin are the officals who judge the "lesser" ranks and they do a fine job.
The fact is that justice in this matter is to let Dalamar and Huma duel, That, my friends, is the spirit of DoS. Who is the better dueler on any night, not who is the more worthy dueler. I can only hope that these words do reach some one the council and they recall reaching for the ring and how they would feel to be striken down because of *personal differences.*
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
Date: 17 Oct 1998 10:55:38 EDT
Guy writes: "Since the majority of challenges are not surrounded by controversy, there is no need for them to require a baronial council to deliberate a fair resolution. It is only in the exceptional circumstance that the baronial council finds itself called upon to serve."
But herein lies the conundrum, let us say that Jeff and Huma had dueled their "Honor Duel" a week beofre the challenge match was to have taken place. Would the council have then been in it's rights to judge Huma? No they would not. The fact remains that the "Honor Duel," while following Dalamar's very well excused absence, is not the matter taken before the council. The matter taken before the council was the forfieture, period. If Jeff and Huma
had fought the week before and Huma had welched on the bet then he would be a welcher, but that is not a crime. No one forced either Jeff or Huma to take part in this match. It was a choice each individual made and should remain scrictly between Jeff and Huma. Jeff behavior to Huma shows that he clearly has a bias against Huma and therefore should not be allowed to vote because he is clearly unable to be completely objective on any point
involving Huma. If you look at the scope of the council being allowed to forcibly take away Huma's right to challenge then they become the judges of character for everyone in DoS thus removing the *skill* and *luck* from each challenge to Baron and more espically Overlord and make the crown a Caste of which only they can choose who shall succeed whom. Huma violated no rules here, yet the council is going to forcibly hold him to his end of an
agreement that is really not their buisness. Would this same council have forced Jeff to throw down his ring? No they would not have, but yet they will hold Huma to a different set of standards than they would their own. This makes them the final judge of who is "worthy" to be overlord, the judges of all of DoS *rather* than the ring and the sword, which is what the sport is about, steel to steel, skill to skill, who is the better dueler at that
moment. I recall no sign above the Arena door stating that to achieve rank one must always keep all agreements. Have any the council *always* been totally honest? Kept all of their agreements? If not then they should leave their rings should they choose to force *their* code of honor on Huma. By stripping Huma of his right to challenge or of his peer wins the council is making a decision on who has the *right* to challenge for the crown. That,
good people is judging the fittness of a warlord's character and not his record as a duelist. That fellow duelers as a step away from the council convening to decide the fittenss of any challenger to be "worthy" of making a challenge.
A second point, this honor duel is a red herring. A device used to change the real point oif an argument. The "Honor Duel" is not a part of Dalamar's forfeiture. To start making decisions on an event between Jeff and Huma would be roughly simial to the council convening on a fight between Summer and Jeff. It is a personal matter and not an offical one.
A final thought, according to the rules the Baron's council was established to judge Baron's and the Overlord. No where in the rules do they have the *right* to judge Warlords or commoners. I have stayed silent about this far too long. The council punishing warlords makes it an oligarchy and therefore an oppressive body that will, by its nature, use any tool in its hands to keep its self intact. Some one read the rules and tell me where the
Baron's council is to be convened to judge a wardlord in any case. They meet regarding matters of their own (Barons and the Overlord), as it should be. I believe the council has no right stripping peer wins from *any* dueler who is not a baron or the overlord. If I am not mistaken Goldendust Evermeadow and Cloreiviere H'Darwtch and Helix Girvin are the officals who judge the "lesser" ranks and they do a fine job.
The fact is that justice in this matter is to let Dalamar and Huma duel, That, my friends, is the spirit of DoS. Who is the better dueler on any night, not who is the more worthy dueler. I can only hope that these words do reach some one the council and they recall reaching for the ring and how they would feel to be striken down because of *personal differences.*
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 12:27:41 EDT
Gentles,
Ast Master Guy Savage hast commented, nae need ta worry that in future an assassin may sit upon the council, the precedent hast been set, one already is. Ast well ast a pair of dwarves, a druid, folk of the fey, at one time or another a mercenary, a godling, noble and base have held rings. E'en Elijah managed the feat in life and as a wandering shade didst duel.
Jona.
Date: 17 Oct 1998 12:27:41 EDT
Gentles,
Ast Master Guy Savage hast commented, nae need ta worry that in future an assassin may sit upon the council, the precedent hast been set, one already is. Ast well ast a pair of dwarves, a druid, folk of the fey, at one time or another a mercenary, a godling, noble and base have held rings. E'en Elijah managed the feat in life and as a wandering shade didst duel.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 12:40:38 EDT
"A final thought, according to the rules the Baron's council was established to judge Baron's and the Overlord. No where in the rules do they have the *right* to judge Warlords or commoners. I have stayed silent about this far too long. The council punishing warlords makes it an oligarchy and therefore an oppressive body that will, by its nature, use any tool in its hands to keep its self intact. Some one read
the rules and tell me where the
Baron's council is to be convened to judge a wardlord in any case. "
Brian,
There is ONE instance in which a Barons' Council is empowered to make decisions regarding a Warlord. Specifically, when a Warlord makes challenge and is declared to be in forfeit. However, as Huma is not in forfeit, they have no jurisdiction over his duel with Jeff.
The White Duke
Date: 17 Oct 1998 12:40:38 EDT
"A final thought, according to the rules the Baron's council was established to judge Baron's and the Overlord. No where in the rules do they have the *right* to judge Warlords or commoners. I have stayed silent about this far too long. The council punishing warlords makes it an oligarchy and therefore an oppressive body that will, by its nature, use any tool in its hands to keep its self intact. Some one read
the rules and tell me where the
Baron's council is to be convened to judge a wardlord in any case. "
Brian,
There is ONE instance in which a Barons' Council is empowered to make decisions regarding a Warlord. Specifically, when a Warlord makes challenge and is declared to be in forfeit. However, as Huma is not in forfeit, they have no jurisdiction over his duel with Jeff.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 13:09:52 EDT
Master Girvin
Since in point of fact thee were nae at the dueling house upon that eve, thine comments ast to the behavior of either the Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield or the Warlord Huma Dragonbane Oathbreaker canst only be construed as being second hand knowledge as to the events as they took place and, of course, thine own opinion to which thee are certes entitled.
I should wish to point out that within the long history of the ancient cavern, more than one Duel of Honor has taken place e'en unto the forfeiture of the life of the loser though that ist a rare occurence. Thou doest nae frequent the basement and nae all that happens within is recorded upon the ancient corkboard.
Jona.
Date: 17 Oct 1998 13:09:52 EDT
Master Girvin
Since in point of fact thee were nae at the dueling house upon that eve, thine comments ast to the behavior of either the Baron Jeffrey Oakenshield or the Warlord Huma Dragonbane Oathbreaker canst only be construed as being second hand knowledge as to the events as they took place and, of course, thine own opinion to which thee are certes entitled.
I should wish to point out that within the long history of the ancient cavern, more than one Duel of Honor has taken place e'en unto the forfeiture of the life of the loser though that ist a rare occurence. Thou doest nae frequent the basement and nae all that happens within is recorded upon the ancient corkboard.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnimishrw@aol.com (Gnimish RW)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 14:04:22 EDT
::The more-or-less retired Gnimish Gnimoi wanders along the boards, stopping to chuckle at the newest happenings::
Lemme get this straight...Dalamar dosen't show up for a match, so people are actually talking about Huma losing his right to challenge? Is this some new form of the Fancy Disengage no one told me about? Helluva tactic, Dalamar....
Seriously, though...is this going to be some kind of precedent? Something that'll be put in the rules like, "The Overlord may, at his discretion, not show up for a scheduled match. Should this occur, the Challenger loses his right to challenge for the cycle."
And as for the honor match....where in the rules does it state: "Should the Overlord not be present for his scheduled match, some dwarf may duel the Challenger and that'll just make everything all right."
Pretty interesting concepts some of you are suggesting...I'm sure Lady Helix will take all of them into serious consideration. Really. Honest.......Right next to that rule that'll let the Barons Council vote on the worth of Commoners advancing to Swordsmen.
Since when did the ranking system of the Duel of Swords go from a matter of skill to a popularity contest? Hehe...
Date: 17 Oct 1998 14:04:22 EDT
::The more-or-less retired Gnimish Gnimoi wanders along the boards, stopping to chuckle at the newest happenings::
Lemme get this straight...Dalamar dosen't show up for a match, so people are actually talking about Huma losing his right to challenge? Is this some new form of the Fancy Disengage no one told me about? Helluva tactic, Dalamar....
Seriously, though...is this going to be some kind of precedent? Something that'll be put in the rules like, "The Overlord may, at his discretion, not show up for a scheduled match. Should this occur, the Challenger loses his right to challenge for the cycle."
And as for the honor match....where in the rules does it state: "Should the Overlord not be present for his scheduled match, some dwarf may duel the Challenger and that'll just make everything all right."
Pretty interesting concepts some of you are suggesting...I'm sure Lady Helix will take all of them into serious consideration. Really. Honest.......Right next to that rule that'll let the Barons Council vote on the worth of Commoners advancing to Swordsmen.
Since when did the ranking system of the Duel of Swords go from a matter of skill to a popularity contest? Hehe...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 14:32:36 EDT
There are a multitude of comments to be made here. I'll not address each author, as many names have escaped me at this point.. rather I address the issue and you might determine for yourself whether I refer to a point you made or not.
I. What, precisely, is the matter before the council.
~ The duty of the council is to decide the disposition of this challenge. It is not limited to only the Overlord, a Baron or a forfeiting warlord. The section being referred to is that which lists how a matter gets to the council. Overlords and Barons are listed specifically, because only they can not answer a challenge. Forfeit listed, because aside from not answering, it is the only other way the matter can get to the council. Once the matter
is there, however, the rights of both parties involved in the challenge come under review, for it is the challenge as a whole that must be examined.
Now, please.. before you respond to this, I ask that you couch your arguments in how the standard *should* be applied, or how you believe Helix should decide to change it. Kindly do not explain to me that I have read it incorrectly, because the words being interpreted here are my own. I realize that sounds arrogant, and I apologize for that.. but be so kind as to refrain from telling the author of the rule and creator of the council what he meant
at the time. I am not yet so senile.
II. Unbiased vs. Uninformed.
It has been argued that several council members are bias in their opinions because of the Honor Duel, and that it should play no part in our discussion. To this I would respond that you are asking the councilmembers to be uninformed, not unbiased. Here I can speak but for myself, but please be so kind as to hear me out. I feel that the duel between Jeff and Huma has an impact on the challenge to the Overlord. Certainly, at the time it was fought,
these two duelists intended it to. This is a fact that I cannot ignore and had Huma never changed his mind, the voting options would have remained the same. Would we now be holding this same discussion about what the council may and may not consider if Huma had kept his word? I somehow doubt it.
Now, the fact that Huma has broken that vow and seeks to challenge the Overlord anyway effects my impression of him. My personal opinion is that such an honorless cur should be banned from the duel of swords itself. My upbringing gives me very little sympathy when it comes to an Oathbreaker. That, however, is a bias opinion. I would never make such a statement to the council, because it is based wholly on my opinion of Huma and not the actual
occurrences that took place. The duel itself and the wager on it, however, is a fact that could effect the challenge to Dalamar and one that should be considered.
III. Justice and Punishment.
This, again, will be a matter of opinion. However, I do not believe that the council is inflicting punishment upon Huma. Personally, I think that it is a sad day when making a man adhere to his word of honor is called punishment. The council is seeking to do no more than he himself put on the line. This is called Justice, not punishment.
Where punishment comes into play is in regard to Dalamar. The man missed a duel because his father passed away. What punishment that should entail is still under discussion. I believe his reasons for missing the duel great enough to not force him to forfeit the crown. Perhaps he should be made to duel in order to keep it. This is an option I will consider, though I had not originally thought of it myself.
Had Huma defeated Jeff, my vote on this council would have been that Dalamar face Huma for the crown without the option of a test of worthiness. Since I find it a paramount breach of justice to return Huma's challenge to him, I had voiced the option that, instead, Dalamar would be without this right against whomever the next challenger is. The result is not so different. The same penalty for the Overlord, while enforcing what Huma himself agreed
to.
Justice my friends.. not punishment. I would see more justice in stripping Dalamar of his crown outright, than I do in making him face Huma.
Respectfully and, hopefully, without insult,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 17 Oct 1998 14:32:36 EDT
There are a multitude of comments to be made here. I'll not address each author, as many names have escaped me at this point.. rather I address the issue and you might determine for yourself whether I refer to a point you made or not.
I. What, precisely, is the matter before the council.
~ The duty of the council is to decide the disposition of this challenge. It is not limited to only the Overlord, a Baron or a forfeiting warlord. The section being referred to is that which lists how a matter gets to the council. Overlords and Barons are listed specifically, because only they can not answer a challenge. Forfeit listed, because aside from not answering, it is the only other way the matter can get to the council. Once the matter
is there, however, the rights of both parties involved in the challenge come under review, for it is the challenge as a whole that must be examined.
Now, please.. before you respond to this, I ask that you couch your arguments in how the standard *should* be applied, or how you believe Helix should decide to change it. Kindly do not explain to me that I have read it incorrectly, because the words being interpreted here are my own. I realize that sounds arrogant, and I apologize for that.. but be so kind as to refrain from telling the author of the rule and creator of the council what he meant
at the time. I am not yet so senile.
II. Unbiased vs. Uninformed.
It has been argued that several council members are bias in their opinions because of the Honor Duel, and that it should play no part in our discussion. To this I would respond that you are asking the councilmembers to be uninformed, not unbiased. Here I can speak but for myself, but please be so kind as to hear me out. I feel that the duel between Jeff and Huma has an impact on the challenge to the Overlord. Certainly, at the time it was fought,
these two duelists intended it to. This is a fact that I cannot ignore and had Huma never changed his mind, the voting options would have remained the same. Would we now be holding this same discussion about what the council may and may not consider if Huma had kept his word? I somehow doubt it.
Now, the fact that Huma has broken that vow and seeks to challenge the Overlord anyway effects my impression of him. My personal opinion is that such an honorless cur should be banned from the duel of swords itself. My upbringing gives me very little sympathy when it comes to an Oathbreaker. That, however, is a bias opinion. I would never make such a statement to the council, because it is based wholly on my opinion of Huma and not the actual
occurrences that took place. The duel itself and the wager on it, however, is a fact that could effect the challenge to Dalamar and one that should be considered.
III. Justice and Punishment.
This, again, will be a matter of opinion. However, I do not believe that the council is inflicting punishment upon Huma. Personally, I think that it is a sad day when making a man adhere to his word of honor is called punishment. The council is seeking to do no more than he himself put on the line. This is called Justice, not punishment.
Where punishment comes into play is in regard to Dalamar. The man missed a duel because his father passed away. What punishment that should entail is still under discussion. I believe his reasons for missing the duel great enough to not force him to forfeit the crown. Perhaps he should be made to duel in order to keep it. This is an option I will consider, though I had not originally thought of it myself.
Had Huma defeated Jeff, my vote on this council would have been that Dalamar face Huma for the crown without the option of a test of worthiness. Since I find it a paramount breach of justice to return Huma's challenge to him, I had voiced the option that, instead, Dalamar would be without this right against whomever the next challenger is. The result is not so different. The same penalty for the Overlord, while enforcing what Huma himself agreed
to.
Justice my friends.. not punishment. I would see more justice in stripping Dalamar of his crown outright, than I do in making him face Huma.
Respectfully and, hopefully, without insult,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...