From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 14:43:09 EST
>We merely wanted the Barons to follow the rules.<
Please show me the rules you think were broken.
Request ta Dalamar
-
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: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 14:54:54 EST
"Please show me the rules you think were broken."
I am sorry, that is a naive request. You know perfectly well, and to make such a request is merely another excuse to start a political argument. The facts are that the challenger was punished for the Overlord's failure to appear for a match. This is over and done with, but it was still wrong. If Huma had failed to show, I don't think anyone would have let say, Magnus, fight Dalamar for him and then acted as if the results actually meant
anything. Huma as ho honor. All well and good. Ask to test him during the match, don't sink to his level by performing an act at least as dishonourable, if not more, by closing ranks and protecting the Overlord. He can protect himself.
What is worse, Jeff is condoning Huma's betrayal of his own word by asking Dalamar to break his. That makes Jeff and anyone who sided with him to null Huma's challenge and who now sides with him in asking Dalamar to Test Seamus or Ajay hypocrites in the most cynical and disgusting of ways.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Member of House Dragoon-Talanador
Date: 26 Oct 1998 14:54:54 EST
"Please show me the rules you think were broken."
I am sorry, that is a naive request. You know perfectly well, and to make such a request is merely another excuse to start a political argument. The facts are that the challenger was punished for the Overlord's failure to appear for a match. This is over and done with, but it was still wrong. If Huma had failed to show, I don't think anyone would have let say, Magnus, fight Dalamar for him and then acted as if the results actually meant
anything. Huma as ho honor. All well and good. Ask to test him during the match, don't sink to his level by performing an act at least as dishonourable, if not more, by closing ranks and protecting the Overlord. He can protect himself.
What is worse, Jeff is condoning Huma's betrayal of his own word by asking Dalamar to break his. That makes Jeff and anyone who sided with him to null Huma's challenge and who now sides with him in asking Dalamar to Test Seamus or Ajay hypocrites in the most cynical and disgusting of ways.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Member of House Dragoon-Talanador
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:01:52 EST
Jona,
Are you saying it's allirght for Dal to go back on his oath, but no one else?
Collie
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:01:52 EST
Jona,
Are you saying it's allirght for Dal to go back on his oath, but no one else?
Collie
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:28:11 EST
Percival replied, "I am sorry, that is a naive request. You know perfectly well, and to make such a request is merely another excuse to start a political argument."
Please show me the rules you think were broken. You keep saying that the rules were broken, that part I do know perfectly well. However, I have read and reread the rules and I cannot find any support for your claim that the rules were broken. I am tired of reading your lies.
What is so objectionable to backing up your claim? Perhaps that there is, in fact, no basis for your claim? Perhaps you do not want to be exposed for the charlatan you are?
Each time you bring it up, you, too, are continuing the political argument. Forgive me for calling you on it; I will continue to do so until you cease your unfounded claims.
It is very simple: Show me the rules you claim were broken. If you cannot do such a simple task, then cease harping on something that is nothing but argumentative and based on lies.
Morgan
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:28:11 EST
Percival replied, "I am sorry, that is a naive request. You know perfectly well, and to make such a request is merely another excuse to start a political argument."
Please show me the rules you think were broken. You keep saying that the rules were broken, that part I do know perfectly well. However, I have read and reread the rules and I cannot find any support for your claim that the rules were broken. I am tired of reading your lies.
What is so objectionable to backing up your claim? Perhaps that there is, in fact, no basis for your claim? Perhaps you do not want to be exposed for the charlatan you are?
Each time you bring it up, you, too, are continuing the political argument. Forgive me for calling you on it; I will continue to do so until you cease your unfounded claims.
It is very simple: Show me the rules you claim were broken. If you cannot do such a simple task, then cease harping on something that is nothing but argumentative and based on lies.
Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:35:12 EST
Let's see. Dalamar fails to show, and Huma is punished. That seems to me to be a fairly major rupture of the rules. That is not a lie, that is how I see it. If you disagree, fine, disagree. Just don't pretend to be self righteous and honourable about it. The simple fact that you thought punishing the challenger for the defender;s failure to show was just and honourable says it all.
The White Duke
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:35:12 EST
Let's see. Dalamar fails to show, and Huma is punished. That seems to me to be a fairly major rupture of the rules. That is not a lie, that is how I see it. If you disagree, fine, disagree. Just don't pretend to be self righteous and honourable about it. The simple fact that you thought punishing the challenger for the defender;s failure to show was just and honourable says it all.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:45:17 EST
Jona,
It does, to me, sound like you are implying that it is ok for the Overlord to brake his oath, but Huma, as you say "the Oathbreaker", can not. Tell me this, if Dalamar does change his policy and champion a baron, will you call him an "Oathbreaker" too?
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
Date: 26 Oct 1998 15:45:17 EST
Jona,
It does, to me, sound like you are implying that it is ok for the Overlord to brake his oath, but Huma, as you say "the Oathbreaker", can not. Tell me this, if Dalamar does change his policy and champion a baron, will you call him an "Oathbreaker" too?
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 16:19:31 EST
"That seems to me to be a fairly major rupture of the rules. That is not a lie, that is how I see it."
Which rules, to be exact, are you seeing ruptured? I am hard pressed to find a rule that gives a no-fault ruling in favor of the challenger based on the actions of the challenged.
You are entitled to your belief that Huma was punished because of Dalamar's failure to show. It is not based on any fact, but you are entitled to whatever flights of fanciful opinion you desire. You are not, however, entitled to mislead others, or twist the facts, or malign others with your lies to support your groundless stances.
Back up your claim that the rules were broken. If you cannot do that, then cease your slander. It will not be tolerated.
Date: 26 Oct 1998 16:19:31 EST
"That seems to me to be a fairly major rupture of the rules. That is not a lie, that is how I see it."
Which rules, to be exact, are you seeing ruptured? I am hard pressed to find a rule that gives a no-fault ruling in favor of the challenger based on the actions of the challenged.
You are entitled to your belief that Huma was punished because of Dalamar's failure to show. It is not based on any fact, but you are entitled to whatever flights of fanciful opinion you desire. You are not, however, entitled to mislead others, or twist the facts, or malign others with your lies to support your groundless stances.
Back up your claim that the rules were broken. If you cannot do that, then cease your slander. It will not be tolerated.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xxlucianxx@aol.com (XxLucianxX)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 17:07:54 EST
Percival,
It seems I recall you accusing someone of "ducking the question" as it were not too long ago. Why don't you give Morgan a straight answer? Without "taking sides" in the issue at hand, she makes a good point. What rules were broken? You've yet to display the section or passage, which should be very simple, if you're claims ring of truth. This whole debate is over "rules lawyering", as I've heard it called, so please, back it up in writing.
Simply curious,
-- Lucian
Date: 26 Oct 1998 17:07:54 EST
Percival,
It seems I recall you accusing someone of "ducking the question" as it were not too long ago. Why don't you give Morgan a straight answer? Without "taking sides" in the issue at hand, she makes a good point. What rules were broken? You've yet to display the section or passage, which should be very simple, if you're claims ring of truth. This whole debate is over "rules lawyering", as I've heard it called, so please, back it up in writing.
Simply curious,
-- Lucian
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 17:10:23 EST
Lucian,
I did state exactly what was done that was illegal several times. What is more, so has just about everyone else here, since Girvin made his first post. If anyone needs to see it again, I would question their motives.
The White Duke
Date: 26 Oct 1998 17:10:23 EST
Lucian,
I did state exactly what was done that was illegal several times. What is more, so has just about everyone else here, since Girvin made his first post. If anyone needs to see it again, I would question their motives.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 19:05:02 EST
Magnus, Colleen
Where it nae such a foolish question, I might grace thee both with an answer.
Jona.
Date: 26 Oct 1998 19:05:02 EST
Magnus, Colleen
Where it nae such a foolish question, I might grace thee both with an answer.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 19:18:32 EST
On the topic of the Council's decision of "breaking the rules":
In normal dueling, when a patron leaves his match due to circumstance beyond his or her control, and is ruled to forfeit the match, the other patron has the option of taking the win or tie. One cannot take the loss (and once I even wanted to). Honorably, the tie should be taken unless there is more than ample evidence that the patron left to avoid the loss. In the case of challenge matches, we have a whole council to decide on the matter. It
would make sense, to me at least, that the same kind of options are available. The person who forfeited cannot be ruled to win a match that they forfeit during normal dueling hours, so why should they be able to just because it is a challenge match? Just an argument I just thought of...but once again one that uses "common sense", not legalese.
I certainly believe that the decision does not hold up to common sense beliefs as to what should happen, but it appears that the Council did have legal authority to do what it did. I was throughout most of the debate trying to make my case for how it was not legal, but the interpretation by the Coordinator of the language that describes the purpose and options of the Council defeated my case. And I did not win over enough support to prevent passage
of the ruling that is not in the realm of common sense. I tried to use the legalese to make my case, and was defeated.
I hope this helps those that up to now have failed to understand why the Coucnil did what it did....
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
Date: 26 Oct 1998 19:18:32 EST
On the topic of the Council's decision of "breaking the rules":
In normal dueling, when a patron leaves his match due to circumstance beyond his or her control, and is ruled to forfeit the match, the other patron has the option of taking the win or tie. One cannot take the loss (and once I even wanted to). Honorably, the tie should be taken unless there is more than ample evidence that the patron left to avoid the loss. In the case of challenge matches, we have a whole council to decide on the matter. It
would make sense, to me at least, that the same kind of options are available. The person who forfeited cannot be ruled to win a match that they forfeit during normal dueling hours, so why should they be able to just because it is a challenge match? Just an argument I just thought of...but once again one that uses "common sense", not legalese.
I certainly believe that the decision does not hold up to common sense beliefs as to what should happen, but it appears that the Council did have legal authority to do what it did. I was throughout most of the debate trying to make my case for how it was not legal, but the interpretation by the Coordinator of the language that describes the purpose and options of the Council defeated my case. And I did not win over enough support to prevent passage
of the ruling that is not in the realm of common sense. I tried to use the legalese to make my case, and was defeated.
I hope this helps those that up to now have failed to understand why the Coucnil did what it did....
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: demxcyrax@aol.com (DemXCyrax)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 19:56:52 EST
::quick post::
To Oakenshield and all those that still say what happened between the Overlord and Warlord Dragonbane was 'right and fair'
You and I and everyone else knows that is a crock. As I told Sid, and as I'll tell you, the punishment Dalamar recieved was blatantly a slap in the face of the community of duelers. As i've said before, a fine and community service HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DOS OR HIS ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE WITHIN IT. Get the point? You can rattle on about it being a large sum of money, or how the charities will appreciate it....I care little. It has no bearing on the
Duel of Swords, and therefore should have no place as a punishment for one that failed to show to his own challenge match. Do you mean to tell me that if I had failed to show to a challenge match, were I a baron, that I would have been fined gold pieces?? I seriously doubt that. Oakenshield, your anger is misplaced. Others are angry at the way the Council seems to seperate the Overlord, holding him above all others. True, he is the Supreme Dueler of
the DoS, and that must be respected, but nothing should be overlooked in this case, since his position is most likely the most scrutinized of the entire Council.
What happened between you and Dragonbane was an HONOR match....the punishment that the warlord recieved should have never come from the mouths of the Council...it wasn't their business.
Dem Cyrax
Warlord of the DoS
Date: 26 Oct 1998 19:56:52 EST
::quick post::
To Oakenshield and all those that still say what happened between the Overlord and Warlord Dragonbane was 'right and fair'
You and I and everyone else knows that is a crock. As I told Sid, and as I'll tell you, the punishment Dalamar recieved was blatantly a slap in the face of the community of duelers. As i've said before, a fine and community service HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DOS OR HIS ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE WITHIN IT. Get the point? You can rattle on about it being a large sum of money, or how the charities will appreciate it....I care little. It has no bearing on the
Duel of Swords, and therefore should have no place as a punishment for one that failed to show to his own challenge match. Do you mean to tell me that if I had failed to show to a challenge match, were I a baron, that I would have been fined gold pieces?? I seriously doubt that. Oakenshield, your anger is misplaced. Others are angry at the way the Council seems to seperate the Overlord, holding him above all others. True, he is the Supreme Dueler of
the DoS, and that must be respected, but nothing should be overlooked in this case, since his position is most likely the most scrutinized of the entire Council.
What happened between you and Dragonbane was an HONOR match....the punishment that the warlord recieved should have never come from the mouths of the Council...it wasn't their business.
Dem Cyrax
Warlord of the DoS
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xgnortx@aol.com (X Gnort X)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 20:13:32 EST
Know what, you're all figgin crybabies, I'm tired of hearing about this damned stupid debate.
If DoS reopens, which I doubt it will, and at this point in time, I actually hope it doesn't, I may reconsider my participation in the arena just to get away from you people.
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
Date: 26 Oct 1998 20:13:32 EST
Know what, you're all figgin crybabies, I'm tired of hearing about this damned stupid debate.
If DoS reopens, which I doubt it will, and at this point in time, I actually hope it doesn't, I may reconsider my participation in the arena just to get away from you people.
G'nort Espelande G'neesmacher Dragoon Talanador
Head of House Dragoon Talanador
Thrice Baron of the DoS
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xstevegx@aol.com (X SteveG X)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 20:38:06 EST
::decides that this request will be the subject of another of Steve's long and nearly pointless political propaganda ramblings, not to be confused with the short and to the point political propaganda that he and others often use; thusly he posts the many sheets of paper, one beneath the other, with page markings on the bottom.::
Be forewarned, the following is way too long. Only read this unless you like getting bored with rhetoric and propaganda.
The Baron of the 8th writes:
>Overlord,
> It would seem many a baron fault ya fer da events dat have occured. In
>light of such, I do humbly request ye recind yer promise ta nae test Baron
>challengers. Please allow yer loyal barons, myself included, ta defend ya
>against yer opposition. I have no official sway, tis merely a request from
>one who was loyal since ye did challenge Athlstan, and who will remain such
>until ye are dethroned.
I find this at least a bit amusing. And I'm glad, since I'm about to vomit all over the floor here, and that would make quite a mess.
Let me go through this line by line...
"It would seem many a baron fault ya fer da events dat have occured."
Yes, I can agree with this. And I believe there is good reason to fault Dal for it. Foremost being that Dal didn't show up at a challenge match.
"In light of such, I do humbly request ye recind yer promise ta nae test Baron challengers."
Such a nice way of putting "Why don't you be dishonorable and show everyone how self-serving we are.", don't you think? I particuarly like using "recind" (I'm assuming he means "rescind"), to make it sound so much more wholesome.
"I have no official sway,"
Really? I could have sworn otherwise. In any case, if you have no official sway, why do you make this request in the first place? The only reason I see is either to get the community angry at you (which kind of works against your plan, so I'll dismiss it), or that you actually do hold a good amount of sway, official or not. And what exactly is "official sway", as opposed to "unofficial sway"?
"tis merely a request from one who was loyal since ye did challenge Athlstan,"
If I am not mistaken, the main reason we all hated Athlstan, and presumably the reason that the current Overlord challenged him was that he tested everyone. To me, this is part of what makes this whole thing amusing.
" and who will remain such until ye are dethroned."
No matter what? What will you do if Dal decides to make you renegade? What will you do then? Ok, maybe that's a but far-fetched, but you'll really support him no matter what he does? If that's not blind loyalty, I can't come up with another example. So, please, do not ever accuse anyone of slandering when they accuse you of blind loyalty, for this line proves it.
On the whole, I would like to congradulate the Overlord and Baron of the 6th and 8th, the mighty Lord Sar-daumon-shield...
::says that word over and over again, really liking the sound of it::
...on how masterfully they were able to manipulate most of the rest of the sport for so long.
Now to statements directed more to the community as a whole (not like the above ones weren't, but these are even moreso).
If you wonder why I never responded to the accusations after I accused Dal of staging his father's death, I shall speak on that now.
I really didn't mean it. It was propaganda. Just like most everything else I write. And I never really made a direct accusation (or at least didn't mean to), but merely planted that suggestion into everyone's mind. Most people summarily rejected it and said all sorts of things about me.
I'll accept full responsibility for whatever label you wish to place on me for what I wrote, as well as this admission. My goal, which I'll readily admit, is to expose the current Overlord for who he is, and to drum up as much support to dethrone him as possible, as well as try to chip away at his Loyal followers (excluding the blind ones, of course). If there is any wonder why I should hold these feelings, I think a history lesson is in order:
I challenged then-Renegade Baron Rand al'Tan for mainly being Renegade (and for the fact that he hadn't been challenge in a while), for I was Loyal to Dal at that time. He had not tested anyone yet, and I saw no faults in his reign. The truth was, he was Loyal, and somehow failed to communicate that to Dal and Golden. He had been on a hiatus, and I challenge him about a week after he returned (I'm not completely without honor, see?), only to find
out the truth after the challenge was issued. I was severely torn on the issue, with friends telling me to stick with the challenge, and others telling me to retract it. I stuck with it, and Dal decided it would be the perfect time to actually test one of the challengers to a Loyal Baron. As fate would have it, and as the histories show, I beat both of them.
Due to Dal's surprise intercession, I made myself renegade. I received a challenge a week or so later, and lost the ring to one who would stand Loyal. I have no proof Dal arranged this challenge, but the possibility remains in the back of my head.
I later was the first challenger of another Loyal, and Dal interceeded on me! I was shutout in the match, but throughout the match I was overcome with shock from what Dal was doing to fight well. Sure, its an excuse, but I found myself not able to control myself after the match, and I fail to remember what happened to me for what I learned to be around two weeks. It may also be added that the first time the Baron I had challenged then actually
faced a challenger, the Baron was defeated.
Is hard to see why I don't like Dal at all? Dal challenged Ath on basically an anti-test platform. He first went off that platform for *me*. I could later accept that, as I was a young, untested Warlord up to that point, but I still don't understand that testing of a ex-baron who passed the test once before. This indicates that he is more concerned with lowering the probability of his Loyal Baron being defeated than he is of actually "testing"
the challengers. There certainly isn't somethat wrong with that, per se, in some fields, but in the DoS, I feel one should have the courage, honor, and conviction to stand up to one's own challenge.
(We interrupt this posting with an important breaking event...someone's actually reading this far down! It's absoultely amazing! Now back to our story...)
Right now, the DoS has become way too political, and much less fun. Around when I first got here, there were 4 Overlords in around 6 months (Leto, Kal, Ath, Dal). In my eyes, the politicking was at a much smaller scale. I can now hear you saying, "Well isn't your entire message political?", and in response to that I will say that all I was immeidiately polarized against Dal when I first became Baron, and that has stuck with me. The more that
people support Dal and what I perceive as his "evil deeds" (note the quotations there), the more I feel oblidged to speak out. Once Dal is dethroned, can we honestly say that there will be politicking on the same level as we have now? The Overlord will most likely change so rapidly, we'll probably forget who it is sometimes. The Barons will be declaring new alignments every month. There will not be the set polarization that we have now. So in
politicking now, I am push for a future with hopefully much less politicking.
Of course, I could be wrong. It could lead to a good deal *more* politicking. There'll be more Overlords to argue about, and more alignment changes to scrutinize. But the way I see it, that future looks much better than the one we have now. I believe the DoS is doing poorly because of the near political stagnation due to the same Overlord whose interests he serves more and more as his reign progresses. I remember him being hailed as the freer of
Ath's oppresion, but now we suffer much greater under our savior.
-Steven Glowacki
::walks off smiling as he lightly says "Lord Sar-daumon-shield" a few more times, liking the ring to it::
Date: 26 Oct 1998 20:38:06 EST
::decides that this request will be the subject of another of Steve's long and nearly pointless political propaganda ramblings, not to be confused with the short and to the point political propaganda that he and others often use; thusly he posts the many sheets of paper, one beneath the other, with page markings on the bottom.::
Be forewarned, the following is way too long. Only read this unless you like getting bored with rhetoric and propaganda.
The Baron of the 8th writes:
>Overlord,
> It would seem many a baron fault ya fer da events dat have occured. In
>light of such, I do humbly request ye recind yer promise ta nae test Baron
>challengers. Please allow yer loyal barons, myself included, ta defend ya
>against yer opposition. I have no official sway, tis merely a request from
>one who was loyal since ye did challenge Athlstan, and who will remain such
>until ye are dethroned.
I find this at least a bit amusing. And I'm glad, since I'm about to vomit all over the floor here, and that would make quite a mess.
Let me go through this line by line...
"It would seem many a baron fault ya fer da events dat have occured."
Yes, I can agree with this. And I believe there is good reason to fault Dal for it. Foremost being that Dal didn't show up at a challenge match.
"In light of such, I do humbly request ye recind yer promise ta nae test Baron challengers."
Such a nice way of putting "Why don't you be dishonorable and show everyone how self-serving we are.", don't you think? I particuarly like using "recind" (I'm assuming he means "rescind"), to make it sound so much more wholesome.
"I have no official sway,"
Really? I could have sworn otherwise. In any case, if you have no official sway, why do you make this request in the first place? The only reason I see is either to get the community angry at you (which kind of works against your plan, so I'll dismiss it), or that you actually do hold a good amount of sway, official or not. And what exactly is "official sway", as opposed to "unofficial sway"?
"tis merely a request from one who was loyal since ye did challenge Athlstan,"
If I am not mistaken, the main reason we all hated Athlstan, and presumably the reason that the current Overlord challenged him was that he tested everyone. To me, this is part of what makes this whole thing amusing.
" and who will remain such until ye are dethroned."
No matter what? What will you do if Dal decides to make you renegade? What will you do then? Ok, maybe that's a but far-fetched, but you'll really support him no matter what he does? If that's not blind loyalty, I can't come up with another example. So, please, do not ever accuse anyone of slandering when they accuse you of blind loyalty, for this line proves it.
On the whole, I would like to congradulate the Overlord and Baron of the 6th and 8th, the mighty Lord Sar-daumon-shield...
::says that word over and over again, really liking the sound of it::
...on how masterfully they were able to manipulate most of the rest of the sport for so long.
Now to statements directed more to the community as a whole (not like the above ones weren't, but these are even moreso).
If you wonder why I never responded to the accusations after I accused Dal of staging his father's death, I shall speak on that now.
I really didn't mean it. It was propaganda. Just like most everything else I write. And I never really made a direct accusation (or at least didn't mean to), but merely planted that suggestion into everyone's mind. Most people summarily rejected it and said all sorts of things about me.
I'll accept full responsibility for whatever label you wish to place on me for what I wrote, as well as this admission. My goal, which I'll readily admit, is to expose the current Overlord for who he is, and to drum up as much support to dethrone him as possible, as well as try to chip away at his Loyal followers (excluding the blind ones, of course). If there is any wonder why I should hold these feelings, I think a history lesson is in order:
I challenged then-Renegade Baron Rand al'Tan for mainly being Renegade (and for the fact that he hadn't been challenge in a while), for I was Loyal to Dal at that time. He had not tested anyone yet, and I saw no faults in his reign. The truth was, he was Loyal, and somehow failed to communicate that to Dal and Golden. He had been on a hiatus, and I challenge him about a week after he returned (I'm not completely without honor, see?), only to find
out the truth after the challenge was issued. I was severely torn on the issue, with friends telling me to stick with the challenge, and others telling me to retract it. I stuck with it, and Dal decided it would be the perfect time to actually test one of the challengers to a Loyal Baron. As fate would have it, and as the histories show, I beat both of them.
Due to Dal's surprise intercession, I made myself renegade. I received a challenge a week or so later, and lost the ring to one who would stand Loyal. I have no proof Dal arranged this challenge, but the possibility remains in the back of my head.
I later was the first challenger of another Loyal, and Dal interceeded on me! I was shutout in the match, but throughout the match I was overcome with shock from what Dal was doing to fight well. Sure, its an excuse, but I found myself not able to control myself after the match, and I fail to remember what happened to me for what I learned to be around two weeks. It may also be added that the first time the Baron I had challenged then actually
faced a challenger, the Baron was defeated.
Is hard to see why I don't like Dal at all? Dal challenged Ath on basically an anti-test platform. He first went off that platform for *me*. I could later accept that, as I was a young, untested Warlord up to that point, but I still don't understand that testing of a ex-baron who passed the test once before. This indicates that he is more concerned with lowering the probability of his Loyal Baron being defeated than he is of actually "testing"
the challengers. There certainly isn't somethat wrong with that, per se, in some fields, but in the DoS, I feel one should have the courage, honor, and conviction to stand up to one's own challenge.
(We interrupt this posting with an important breaking event...someone's actually reading this far down! It's absoultely amazing! Now back to our story...)
Right now, the DoS has become way too political, and much less fun. Around when I first got here, there were 4 Overlords in around 6 months (Leto, Kal, Ath, Dal). In my eyes, the politicking was at a much smaller scale. I can now hear you saying, "Well isn't your entire message political?", and in response to that I will say that all I was immeidiately polarized against Dal when I first became Baron, and that has stuck with me. The more that
people support Dal and what I perceive as his "evil deeds" (note the quotations there), the more I feel oblidged to speak out. Once Dal is dethroned, can we honestly say that there will be politicking on the same level as we have now? The Overlord will most likely change so rapidly, we'll probably forget who it is sometimes. The Barons will be declaring new alignments every month. There will not be the set polarization that we have now. So in
politicking now, I am push for a future with hopefully much less politicking.
Of course, I could be wrong. It could lead to a good deal *more* politicking. There'll be more Overlords to argue about, and more alignment changes to scrutinize. But the way I see it, that future looks much better than the one we have now. I believe the DoS is doing poorly because of the near political stagnation due to the same Overlord whose interests he serves more and more as his reign progresses. I remember him being hailed as the freer of
Ath's oppresion, but now we suffer much greater under our savior.
-Steven Glowacki
::walks off smiling as he lightly says "Lord Sar-daumon-shield" a few more times, liking the ring to it::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 20:48:33 EST
Jona,
Perhaps if the comments you make and answers you give to direct questions weren't tangled like the silk of a spider's web, the questions you are asked in response wouldn't seem so cryptic.
Collie
Date: 26 Oct 1998 20:48:33 EST
Jona,
Perhaps if the comments you make and answers you give to direct questions weren't tangled like the silk of a spider's web, the questions you are asked in response wouldn't seem so cryptic.
Collie