From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 15:15:56 EDT
"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."
Herein lies my point.
Should the council be informed and not biased. Yes it should, but let us consider the matter before the council. Is Huma's honor the matter before the council or Dalamar's forfeiture? I say yet again that this same council, even though the point is academic, would NOT have forced Jeff to surrender his ring should he have decided for whatever reason to keep it. Therefore the council votes in bias to enforce a decision that was not its place to
offer or make. Should the council have given the honor match as an option to Huma, it would have a right to make Huma honor that agreement. Meaning that the Honor duel is between Jeff and Huma and not the council. Will the council start spying on all warlords to determine their honor?
Since when does the Baron's Council have the right to tell anyone how to behave?
This is a matter of distastful and disgraceful bad judgement, but should this same body be able to take the moral high ground when it has voted, under the direction of the Overlord, numerous times to punish those that "disrespect" the title they seek by missing a challenge, then every person on the council has shown them selves to be clearly biased against those that are not among there membership and thus do not have the best intrests of the Duel of
Swords at heart. This is what I hope to avoid but it remains as the next logical step. Should Huma have the crown? Well, I think we may never know for as I recall all it took to achieve the crown you once held Kalamere, is to be the better of two duelers on one night.
I agree totally that Huma is toatlly without honor but when did honor become a requirement to pick up a sword and enter the ring? However, his fitness is not yours or mine to determine. Place yourself in the place of being punished for being the person to show up.
I ask again, when did the Baron's Council become the judge of moral correctness? If you have broken one vow, no matter how small, you are guilty of the same crime as Huma. THAT is honor. All or none.
Let he who is with out sin among us cast the first stone.
I know I have no place to throw rocks.
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: silentcris@aol.com (SilentCris)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 15:33:50 EDT
From the desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaeology; Black Friday, Inc.
Kalamere Ar'Din,
You insult the very meaning of this sport by attempting to enforce unenforceable moral standards and seeking to call it "justice". As I stated before, the Baron's Council has absolutely no right to decide what is justice and what is not... you can call upon every rule you've made yet you will never be able to justify to anyone that the Baron's Council of the Duel of Swords should act as judge and jury and, in the name of "justice", rule on a matter
outside that of the Overlord's forfeiture. Your opinion is respected, but, unfortunately, you are blinded by partiality. All those outside of the Council can see that. You do not want to see a dishonorable man take the Overlord's seat, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, the Council is not a court of justice... should you wish to seek justice against Huma Dragonbane, establish a court outside that of the Duel of Swords... there, he would be
guilty as sin. However, that guilt holds absolutely no matter in regards to this challenge. It is simply a challenge unmet, one failed to show, and that one is the one to be punished.
If you wish to talk of justice, then stripping Huma Dragonbane of his right to challenge because he is simply dishonorable would do a great injustice to this sport on a whole. We cannot police the ranks for every incidence of dishonor. Indeed, it is not any of our places to define honor, yours nor mine (the same could be said of justice, one culture's justice is the exact opposite of another's).
To sum up... if you don't want to see Huma Dragonbane as Overlord, face him in the ring, officially sanctioned and decided upon by the Council. Give him his chance against the Overlord, but put yourself in his path in a true and decided Test of Worthiness. Offer your blade as judge... I have no doubt that you can best him.
Cristian de Oro
Date: 17 Oct 1998 15:33:50 EDT
From the desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaeology; Black Friday, Inc.
Kalamere Ar'Din,
You insult the very meaning of this sport by attempting to enforce unenforceable moral standards and seeking to call it "justice". As I stated before, the Baron's Council has absolutely no right to decide what is justice and what is not... you can call upon every rule you've made yet you will never be able to justify to anyone that the Baron's Council of the Duel of Swords should act as judge and jury and, in the name of "justice", rule on a matter
outside that of the Overlord's forfeiture. Your opinion is respected, but, unfortunately, you are blinded by partiality. All those outside of the Council can see that. You do not want to see a dishonorable man take the Overlord's seat, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, the Council is not a court of justice... should you wish to seek justice against Huma Dragonbane, establish a court outside that of the Duel of Swords... there, he would be
guilty as sin. However, that guilt holds absolutely no matter in regards to this challenge. It is simply a challenge unmet, one failed to show, and that one is the one to be punished.
If you wish to talk of justice, then stripping Huma Dragonbane of his right to challenge because he is simply dishonorable would do a great injustice to this sport on a whole. We cannot police the ranks for every incidence of dishonor. Indeed, it is not any of our places to define honor, yours nor mine (the same could be said of justice, one culture's justice is the exact opposite of another's).
To sum up... if you don't want to see Huma Dragonbane as Overlord, face him in the ring, officially sanctioned and decided upon by the Council. Give him his chance against the Overlord, but put yourself in his path in a true and decided Test of Worthiness. Offer your blade as judge... I have no doubt that you can best him.
Cristian de Oro
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: guyysavage@aol.com (GuyySavage)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:04:30 EDT
Percival wrote (in response to my own statement): " "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."
My lord duke, I think you have no issue with my comment at all. I stated that I looked forward to "fair resolution" but I did not state what I thought fair resolution was.
It's entirely possible that my opinion of what would constitute a fair resolution would be for the Overlord to lose his title and for a Baron's Tournament be held. It's also possible that my fair resolution be for Dalamar to retain his title and for the match to be rescheduled.
As my definition of fair resolution has not been stated, you cannot be in disagreement with me.
Percival also wrote: "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!"
I fear I must ask for enlightenment then, my lord duke, as the latter half of your post seems to be spent on critiquing that selfsame baronial council to which you just chastised other non-barons for interfering with.
If it is truly your belief that non-barons should desist from attempting to sway the baronial council, then I would ask you to join me in refraining from offering opinions about those proceedings. At least until AFTER the council has rendered its decision.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:04:30 EDT
Percival wrote (in response to my own statement): " "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."
My lord duke, I think you have no issue with my comment at all. I stated that I looked forward to "fair resolution" but I did not state what I thought fair resolution was.
It's entirely possible that my opinion of what would constitute a fair resolution would be for the Overlord to lose his title and for a Baron's Tournament be held. It's also possible that my fair resolution be for Dalamar to retain his title and for the match to be rescheduled.
As my definition of fair resolution has not been stated, you cannot be in disagreement with me.
Percival also wrote: "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!"
I fear I must ask for enlightenment then, my lord duke, as the latter half of your post seems to be spent on critiquing that selfsame baronial council to which you just chastised other non-barons for interfering with.
If it is truly your belief that non-barons should desist from attempting to sway the baronial council, then I would ask you to join me in refraining from offering opinions about those proceedings. At least until AFTER the council has rendered its decision.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xxlucianxx@aol.com (XxLucianxX)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:06:52 EDT
I would just like to point out one thing to those who would call the Duel of Honor between Baron Oakenshield and Huma meaningless, outside of the rules, and whatever else it has been negatively referred to. The duel itself was fought after an agreement was reached by verbal contract, which is a very real and binding agreement. Huma, by not fufilling his part of the verbal contract has quite willingly,
maliciously, and blatantly shown his disregard for law, or "rules" if you will. Those of you rules lawyers out there arguing against Dalamar, do try not to step too deeply into the hypocrisy caused by the one you defend.
-- Lucian
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:06:52 EDT
I would just like to point out one thing to those who would call the Duel of Honor between Baron Oakenshield and Huma meaningless, outside of the rules, and whatever else it has been negatively referred to. The duel itself was fought after an agreement was reached by verbal contract, which is a very real and binding agreement. Huma, by not fufilling his part of the verbal contract has quite willingly,
maliciously, and blatantly shown his disregard for law, or "rules" if you will. Those of you rules lawyers out there arguing against Dalamar, do try not to step too deeply into the hypocrisy caused by the one you defend.
-- Lucian
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: guyysavage@aol.com (GuyySavage)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:15:14 EDT
Girvin writes: "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."
Mr Girvin,
Again I would suggest that your fears about the power of the baronial council are unfounded. The baron's council has no power to call itself into being to adjucate any matter. In fact, it is your own wife's power to call forth the baronial council.
Is it your contention that Ms. Helix Girvin would have summoned the council to enforce Jeff's retirement of his ring?
Such was not the intent of the baronial council when it was created and any power given to the council to mediate is regulated by the DoS staff. In other words, so long as Ms. Girvin does not call upon the baron's council, the council has no power at all.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:15:14 EDT
Girvin writes: "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."
Mr Girvin,
Again I would suggest that your fears about the power of the baronial council are unfounded. The baron's council has no power to call itself into being to adjucate any matter. In fact, it is your own wife's power to call forth the baronial council.
Is it your contention that Ms. Helix Girvin would have summoned the council to enforce Jeff's retirement of his ring?
Such was not the intent of the baronial council when it was created and any power given to the council to mediate is regulated by the DoS staff. In other words, so long as Ms. Girvin does not call upon the baron's council, the council has no power at all.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qxz137@aol.com (QXZ137)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:26:47 EDT
A commoners view:
So, this is what happened, right?
There was to be a duel for the Overlord's crown. The contenders were Dalamar, who was the Overlord, and Dragonbane, who was not. Dalamar did not show up.
Now, the current notion of the Baronial Council is the stripping of Dragonbane's peer wins. Does this seem fair to anyone?
--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 16:26:47 EDT
A commoners view:
So, this is what happened, right?
There was to be a duel for the Overlord's crown. The contenders were Dalamar, who was the Overlord, and Dragonbane, who was not. Dalamar did not show up.
Now, the current notion of the Baronial Council is the stripping of Dragonbane's peer wins. Does this seem fair to anyone?
--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: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:53:09 EDT
Again I would suggest that your fears about the power of the baronial council are unfounded. The baron's council has no power to call itself into being to adjucate any matter. In fact, it is your own wife's power to call forth the baronial council. -Guy
Guy you continue to make my point.
Neither was the council convened to rule on Huma NOT honoring his word.
So can someone please tell me how Huma can be punished for meeting the offical requirments of his challenge to the Overlord? The forfeiture of the Overlord is the issue at hand here, and as I am sure Mr Brandon Fox can attest juries can very well be denied facts that may relate to a case if it is deemed as being able to *bias* a jury's decision making capability. The same as jurors can be striken for being biased in one manner or another.
Would you want a council biased *against* you deciding your fate?
If the council wishes to champoin justice perhaps he should remember that justice is blind, not omnicient and limit their decision to ONLY the matter given them. Huma was at the scheduled match and Dalamar was not. If they are to consider after the forfieture, than they are forced to consider *any* matters before the challenge and the honor match On the part of Huma, Dalamar *and* Jeff.
I say again, where does Huma breaking a promise to Jeff have any bearing on Dalamar being in forfeit?
And to let you know Guy, this council has before petitioned to send a matter to its self on a prior occasion, for an alleged slight to a baron. I have good reasons for placing my arguments as I have. I have seen the mob mentality inside the Arena as well as the mob that now marches without.
Reason and true justice must prevail over emotions else where are little more than children throwing a tantrum. The duel of swords is about dueling, or does any here wish to question the wisdom of one of the most stellar duelers to have graced the rings, Billy Ray Karnefexx. He said on many occasions, "Honor don't mean nothin' if ya can't win."
Billy Ray was right.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
Date: 17 Oct 1998 16:53:09 EDT
Again I would suggest that your fears about the power of the baronial council are unfounded. The baron's council has no power to call itself into being to adjucate any matter. In fact, it is your own wife's power to call forth the baronial council. -Guy
Guy you continue to make my point.
Neither was the council convened to rule on Huma NOT honoring his word.
So can someone please tell me how Huma can be punished for meeting the offical requirments of his challenge to the Overlord? The forfeiture of the Overlord is the issue at hand here, and as I am sure Mr Brandon Fox can attest juries can very well be denied facts that may relate to a case if it is deemed as being able to *bias* a jury's decision making capability. The same as jurors can be striken for being biased in one manner or another.
Would you want a council biased *against* you deciding your fate?
If the council wishes to champoin justice perhaps he should remember that justice is blind, not omnicient and limit their decision to ONLY the matter given them. Huma was at the scheduled match and Dalamar was not. If they are to consider after the forfieture, than they are forced to consider *any* matters before the challenge and the honor match On the part of Huma, Dalamar *and* Jeff.
I say again, where does Huma breaking a promise to Jeff have any bearing on Dalamar being in forfeit?
And to let you know Guy, this council has before petitioned to send a matter to its self on a prior occasion, for an alleged slight to a baron. I have good reasons for placing my arguments as I have. I have seen the mob mentality inside the Arena as well as the mob that now marches without.
Reason and true justice must prevail over emotions else where are little more than children throwing a tantrum. The duel of swords is about dueling, or does any here wish to question the wisdom of one of the most stellar duelers to have graced the rings, Billy Ray Karnefexx. He said on many occasions, "Honor don't mean nothin' if ya can't win."
Billy Ray was right.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 17:00:44 EDT
Reason and true justice must prevail over emotions else where are little more than children throwing a tantrum.
((SHould be: else we are... sorry))
Date: 17 Oct 1998 17:00:44 EDT
Reason and true justice must prevail over emotions else where are little more than children throwing a tantrum.
((SHould be: else we are... sorry))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: guyysavage@aol.com (GuyySavage)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 17:12:45 EDT
>Guy you continue to make my point.
I am doing nothing of the kind Mr. Girvin.
It seems to be your contention that the council is out of control and is in danger of interfering with every aspect of the Arena and every dueler.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The council only has power when it is called upon to do so by the proper authorities of the Arena. Just because it petitions for activation is not empowerment. It matters not that a baron might have requested the council be called, as even the lowliest commoner could petition for the council to be called, but that does not obligate the DoS staff to do so.
It is also within the power of Ms. Girvin and Mr. Thorn to veto the council should they find that their ruling was unjust. The council cannot be considered to be out of control and a danger to the Arena when there are so many obvious controls in place to prevent them from being so.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
Date: 17 Oct 1998 17:12:45 EDT
>Guy you continue to make my point.
I am doing nothing of the kind Mr. Girvin.
It seems to be your contention that the council is out of control and is in danger of interfering with every aspect of the Arena and every dueler.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The council only has power when it is called upon to do so by the proper authorities of the Arena. Just because it petitions for activation is not empowerment. It matters not that a baron might have requested the council be called, as even the lowliest commoner could petition for the council to be called, but that does not obligate the DoS staff to do so.
It is also within the power of Ms. Girvin and Mr. Thorn to veto the council should they find that their ruling was unjust. The council cannot be considered to be out of control and a danger to the Arena when there are so many obvious controls in place to prevent them from being so.
Respectfully,
Guy Savage
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 17:26:52 EDT
For note, you will find the name of Mr. Brandon Fox under the history of the Seventh Ring regarding Kairee holding the ring.
Date: 17 Oct 1998 17:26:52 EDT
For note, you will find the name of Mr. Brandon Fox under the history of the Seventh Ring regarding Kairee holding the ring.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cygnetsera@aol.com (CygnetSera)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:01:04 EDT
Glances at Nimmy after reading Lucians note.
"what law or rule governs a verbal agreement between two duelers, that the Barons Council has the power to rule on? Huma broke no DoS rule or law, so how is it he maliciously and blatantly, as Lucian says, disregarded a rule or law?"
The angels visage shows confusion.
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:01:04 EDT
Glances at Nimmy after reading Lucians note.
"what law or rule governs a verbal agreement between two duelers, that the Barons Council has the power to rule on? Huma broke no DoS rule or law, so how is it he maliciously and blatantly, as Lucian says, disregarded a rule or law?"
The angels visage shows confusion.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnimishrw@aol.com (Gnimish RW)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:10:20 EDT
::The old gnome looks from Cyggie to Lucians' post, then back again::
Ummm...welll....
Gee...you know, Cyggie, I don't think I get it either....
Something about a verbal contract not being worth the paper it's written on comes to mind....
::The gnome just shrugs with a slight chuckle, taking his angels' hand and moving along;:
Date: 17 Oct 1998 18:10:20 EDT
::The old gnome looks from Cyggie to Lucians' post, then back again::
Ummm...welll....
Gee...you know, Cyggie, I don't think I get it either....
Something about a verbal contract not being worth the paper it's written on comes to mind....
::The gnome just shrugs with a slight chuckle, taking his angels' hand and moving along;:
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 22:39:05 EDT
Ah but you do make my point, Guy.
The baron's council is making a ruling on ethics. Specifically, Huma's ethics. They are forcing Huma to live to his agreement. That is at least the argument I heard.
Fine. I will state again that Dalamar broke his vow to attend the match, yet I do not see the council clamoring to *force* Dalamar to live up to his verbal *and* written contract. Each man commited the same crime, there should be equal punishment for both if both the forfieture and the Honor duel are to be considered. Furthermore, Guy, the matter placed before the council was *not* Huma and Jeff's Honor Duel. It was Dalamar's lack of appearing to
attend the challenge match that he himself scheduled. If my recollections are correct, it was BARON that interjected the matter of the honor duel before the council and NOT Helix, or Thorn or Clo or Golden. Hence the Baron's council IS bringing it's own agenda to the table and considering evidence that in essence is not the buisness of the Sport or the community as far as rule goes. If this current travesty continues to the end that it has, the
Baron's council is no longer a body deciding on the outcome of a forfeiture of, or to, one of it's members, instead it becomes an ethics committee enforcing a code of conduct that is not written.
How can I, Kalamere, be informed if there is no written rule?
Would you ask me that Huma were dishonorable, I would say yes without hesitation. Huma lacks honor, but that is by my definition of honor, which Baron Oakenshield bluntly pointed out to me many months back was my own definition, and should not be forced on the public as a whole, but now the council has placed its self as being able to decide on ethics, yet it is odd that there is no ethics clause in the definition of a baron or the Overlord.
Who changed the Baron's council to an ethics committee?
It is not a rethorical question it is a heartfelt one. This council does not judge Huma by rule, but on his code of conduct, his ethics. Thereby they force their own ethics above those of the individual. Helix is not god and it is not the duel of Helix. Neither is the Baron's council god or the protector of the ethics of the DoS, nor is it the Duel of Barons. This is a sport about contest and skill and a person's personal character is not the
end all be all of the DoS. There are many cases of Baron's being stripped of their titles for not arriving to a challenge match yet how many cried out that this was wrong? No one cried out. Thus the council seeks to ignore precedent in this sport, and to ignore the differences in us all that makes this sport great, that I will not agree with you but I will defend to the death your right to determine your own fate.
This is what is at risk, not honor, but self determination. My right to choose is more valuable than anything else. When I entered this sport actively years ago, I submitted to *written* rules. Clear. Definable. Able to be read and understood, to some degree, as to what was and was not correct behavior in the Duel of Swords. I challenge anyone to point out to me a place where Huma can be brought to task for violating any written rule. There is
none.
I say again, legally, Huma is right, but morality is a differnet question altogether is it not? Can I not be legaly right but morally bankrupt? Are morals not a personal choice, or would you prefer to be told that you have sinned, Guy, and marched about in disgrace for a law that you could never know you broke.
I cannot see where this council has any ethics guidelines to follow, so how can one be punished by them (for forcing someone to do something against their will is punishment, whether or not you call it punishment for I doubt that any man entered stocks willingly)?
Please, I beg of the council, adhere to what is clear and written for to stray form this is to step into the darkness. To consider Huma's very dishonorable actions is for the community of the sport at large. We are not so dense as to not see that Huma cannot be trusted to keep his word, but private matters should be private and the council should not set its self up to be moral abritators. One abuse of power is hard, the second comes much easier,
and the third barely takes an after thought.
Please let us not stray from what we can see and determine is a violation of the rules.
Should there be a requirement to be honorable in the duels? I believe there should. I challenge any to go back and read my feelings on honor. I would love to see those that have no honor striken from this sport, but do I, or any one else, have that right?
No.
If the council wishes to see that only those that always keep their word be able to attain the rank of Overlord, for it is still a rank as is swordsman and Master at Arms, then place a suggestion at the next rules discussion, but do not enforce unwritten rules.
Unwritten rules are by their nature unjust and unfair.
How can I be informed of a law that is written in no place?
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
Date: 17 Oct 1998 22:39:05 EDT
Ah but you do make my point, Guy.
The baron's council is making a ruling on ethics. Specifically, Huma's ethics. They are forcing Huma to live to his agreement. That is at least the argument I heard.
Fine. I will state again that Dalamar broke his vow to attend the match, yet I do not see the council clamoring to *force* Dalamar to live up to his verbal *and* written contract. Each man commited the same crime, there should be equal punishment for both if both the forfieture and the Honor duel are to be considered. Furthermore, Guy, the matter placed before the council was *not* Huma and Jeff's Honor Duel. It was Dalamar's lack of appearing to
attend the challenge match that he himself scheduled. If my recollections are correct, it was BARON that interjected the matter of the honor duel before the council and NOT Helix, or Thorn or Clo or Golden. Hence the Baron's council IS bringing it's own agenda to the table and considering evidence that in essence is not the buisness of the Sport or the community as far as rule goes. If this current travesty continues to the end that it has, the
Baron's council is no longer a body deciding on the outcome of a forfeiture of, or to, one of it's members, instead it becomes an ethics committee enforcing a code of conduct that is not written.
How can I, Kalamere, be informed if there is no written rule?
Would you ask me that Huma were dishonorable, I would say yes without hesitation. Huma lacks honor, but that is by my definition of honor, which Baron Oakenshield bluntly pointed out to me many months back was my own definition, and should not be forced on the public as a whole, but now the council has placed its self as being able to decide on ethics, yet it is odd that there is no ethics clause in the definition of a baron or the Overlord.
Who changed the Baron's council to an ethics committee?
It is not a rethorical question it is a heartfelt one. This council does not judge Huma by rule, but on his code of conduct, his ethics. Thereby they force their own ethics above those of the individual. Helix is not god and it is not the duel of Helix. Neither is the Baron's council god or the protector of the ethics of the DoS, nor is it the Duel of Barons. This is a sport about contest and skill and a person's personal character is not the
end all be all of the DoS. There are many cases of Baron's being stripped of their titles for not arriving to a challenge match yet how many cried out that this was wrong? No one cried out. Thus the council seeks to ignore precedent in this sport, and to ignore the differences in us all that makes this sport great, that I will not agree with you but I will defend to the death your right to determine your own fate.
This is what is at risk, not honor, but self determination. My right to choose is more valuable than anything else. When I entered this sport actively years ago, I submitted to *written* rules. Clear. Definable. Able to be read and understood, to some degree, as to what was and was not correct behavior in the Duel of Swords. I challenge anyone to point out to me a place where Huma can be brought to task for violating any written rule. There is
none.
I say again, legally, Huma is right, but morality is a differnet question altogether is it not? Can I not be legaly right but morally bankrupt? Are morals not a personal choice, or would you prefer to be told that you have sinned, Guy, and marched about in disgrace for a law that you could never know you broke.
I cannot see where this council has any ethics guidelines to follow, so how can one be punished by them (for forcing someone to do something against their will is punishment, whether or not you call it punishment for I doubt that any man entered stocks willingly)?
Please, I beg of the council, adhere to what is clear and written for to stray form this is to step into the darkness. To consider Huma's very dishonorable actions is for the community of the sport at large. We are not so dense as to not see that Huma cannot be trusted to keep his word, but private matters should be private and the council should not set its self up to be moral abritators. One abuse of power is hard, the second comes much easier,
and the third barely takes an after thought.
Please let us not stray from what we can see and determine is a violation of the rules.
Should there be a requirement to be honorable in the duels? I believe there should. I challenge any to go back and read my feelings on honor. I would love to see those that have no honor striken from this sport, but do I, or any one else, have that right?
No.
If the council wishes to see that only those that always keep their word be able to attain the rank of Overlord, for it is still a rank as is swordsman and Master at Arms, then place a suggestion at the next rules discussion, but do not enforce unwritten rules.
Unwritten rules are by their nature unjust and unfair.
How can I be informed of a law that is written in no place?
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
© G Irvin 1998 all rights reserved
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:15:12 EDT
If such paragraphs were added Gnim, another would have ta be written right below both
"At no time must sarcastic gnomes need have any idea what honor is, or loyalty."
~J
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:15:12 EDT
If such paragraphs were added Gnim, another would have ta be written right below both
"At no time must sarcastic gnomes need have any idea what honor is, or loyalty."
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnimishrw@aol.com (Gnimish RW)
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:55:41 EDT
Ow, Jeffy....please, no more....stop....
Seriously, though...
What, because I believe that a duel fought outside the official and stated rules of this sport is not admissable in this situation, I don't have a clue what honor is?
Because I don't blindly follow the Overlord like the sheep following the shepherd, I have no idea what loyalty is?
Honor is defined within, and loyalty of oneself is paramout, Jeffy. Next time do try to think over what you say before putting pen to paper. It'll prevent needless argument, which we certainly don't need more of.
-Gnimish Gnimoi
Companion and Love to Cygnet Seraphin
Lord of House Gnimoi
Emperor of Shylasa
Warlord of DoS
Date: 17 Oct 1998 23:55:41 EDT
Ow, Jeffy....please, no more....stop....
Seriously, though...
What, because I believe that a duel fought outside the official and stated rules of this sport is not admissable in this situation, I don't have a clue what honor is?
Because I don't blindly follow the Overlord like the sheep following the shepherd, I have no idea what loyalty is?
Honor is defined within, and loyalty of oneself is paramout, Jeffy. Next time do try to think over what you say before putting pen to paper. It'll prevent needless argument, which we certainly don't need more of.
-Gnimish Gnimoi
Companion and Love to Cygnet Seraphin
Lord of House Gnimoi
Emperor of Shylasa
Warlord of DoS