From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:06:41 EST
Steven,
Thine sweeping statement, to whit: "If I am not mistaken, (emphasis added) 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."
Thou mayest have 'hated Athlstan" yet making such a sweeping comment that "we all hated Athlstan" is a bald faced misrepresentation, nae e'en a blatant insult to those who knew the cleric.
Unamused.
Jona.
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.
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: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:18:06 EST
>>I did state exactly what was done that was illegal several times.<<
Problem is, Percy, Morgan keeps asking you for the specific rule that was broken.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress-At-Arms
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:18:06 EST
>>I did state exactly what was done that was illegal several times.<<
Problem is, Percy, Morgan keeps asking you for the specific rule that was broken.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress-At-Arms
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:33:21 EST
"Problem is, Percy, Morgan keeps asking you for the specific rule that was broken."
Sid, take a look in the rules. You will find something about the principles in challenges not voting in the Council. Jeff not only voted, but did a great deal of arguing during the deliberations.
People will say that Jeff was nott he one who forfeited, and therefore it was fine for him to vote. HOWEVER, the Council chose to CONSIDER THE DUEL OF HONOR. This would exclude Jeff. However, he not only voted and spoke, but was listened to rather than excluded. This is a fairly major rules violation.
Percy
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:33:21 EST
"Problem is, Percy, Morgan keeps asking you for the specific rule that was broken."
Sid, take a look in the rules. You will find something about the principles in challenges not voting in the Council. Jeff not only voted, but did a great deal of arguing during the deliberations.
People will say that Jeff was nott he one who forfeited, and therefore it was fine for him to vote. HOWEVER, the Council chose to CONSIDER THE DUEL OF HONOR. This would exclude Jeff. However, he not only voted and spoke, but was listened to rather than excluded. This is a fairly major rules violation.
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xxlucianxx@aol.com (XxLucianxX)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:47:46 EST
>You will find something about the principles in challenges not voting in the
>Council. Jeff not only voted, but did a great deal of arguing during the
>deliberations.
> People will say that Jeff was nott he one who forfeited, and therefore
>it was fine for him to vote. HOWEVER, the Council chose to CONSIDER THE DUEL
>OF HONOR. This would exclude Jeff. However, he not only voted and spoke, but
>was listened to rather than excluded. This is a fairly major rules violation. (Emphasis added)
>
>
Percival,
2. The Baron's Council shall consist of all current Barons and the
Overlord.
4. The overseer of the Council shall be the Overlord, unless it is the title
of Overlord that is at issue, in which case the senior most Baron shall
fill the position.
Those are what seem to me the relevant rules under the Baron's Council heading. I fail to see the mysterious rule you mentioned. I'd be more than satisfied to let it drop if you could just quote the section you're referring to that I cannot seem to locate. Care to give it a go?
-- Lucian
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:47:46 EST
>You will find something about the principles in challenges not voting in the
>Council. Jeff not only voted, but did a great deal of arguing during the
>deliberations.
> People will say that Jeff was nott he one who forfeited, and therefore
>it was fine for him to vote. HOWEVER, the Council chose to CONSIDER THE DUEL
>OF HONOR. This would exclude Jeff. However, he not only voted and spoke, but
>was listened to rather than excluded. This is a fairly major rules violation. (Emphasis added)
>
>
Percival,
2. The Baron's Council shall consist of all current Barons and the
Overlord.
4. The overseer of the Council shall be the Overlord, unless it is the title
of Overlord that is at issue, in which case the senior most Baron shall
fill the position.
Those are what seem to me the relevant rules under the Baron's Council heading. I fail to see the mysterious rule you mentioned. I'd be more than satisfied to let it drop if you could just quote the section you're referring to that I cannot seem to locate. Care to give it a go?
-- Lucian
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:55:36 EST
>Magnus, Colleen
>
>Where it nae such a foolish question, I might grace thee both with an answer.
>
>Jona.
I don't see how the question was foolish, but the way you avoid questions, if it were "logical" in your sense, you still wouldn't have answered it, and you woulda tried to change the subject.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
Date: 26 Oct 1998 21:55:36 EST
>Magnus, Colleen
>
>Where it nae such a foolish question, I might grace thee both with an answer.
>
>Jona.
I don't see how the question was foolish, but the way you avoid questions, if it were "logical" in your sense, you still wouldn't have answered it, and you woulda tried to change the subject.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 22:24:53 EST
Colleen
Lass, t'was nothing in the least "cryptic" about your question, and certes nothing "tangled" in me reply.
Amusedly.
Jona.
Date: 26 Oct 1998 22:24:53 EST
Colleen
Lass, t'was nothing in the least "cryptic" about your question, and certes nothing "tangled" in me reply.
Amusedly.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 22:40:34 EST
Walker,
Will you clarify or correct my understanding of your stance during the council?
I thought you considered the challenge to have been "met" and therefore felt Huma should not retain his peer wins or his right to challenge.
While I find your logic persuasive, especially in light of Helix's stance on what a "met" challenged entailed, I admit I still voted that Huma at least retain his peer wins to offer challenge again at a later time.
I look forward to your reply,
Morgan
Date: 26 Oct 1998 22:40:34 EST
Walker,
Will you clarify or correct my understanding of your stance during the council?
I thought you considered the challenge to have been "met" and therefore felt Huma should not retain his peer wins or his right to challenge.
While I find your logic persuasive, especially in light of Helix's stance on what a "met" challenged entailed, I admit I still voted that Huma at least retain his peer wins to offer challenge again at a later time.
I look forward to your reply,
Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 26 Oct 1998 23:42:43 EST
"You will find something about the principles in challenges not voting in the Council."
Jeff can only be considered a principal to this IF we accept that there is merit to the honor match between Huma and Jeff with regard to the Council's deliberations. If there is no merit to the honor match, then Jeff cannot be considered a principal. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this is Percival's argument in essence.
Presuming that Jeff was indeed a principal, the rules as written at this time only cover the exclusion of the challenged and challenger from the council, and therefore, in absence of specific direction from the DoS Supervisor forbidding his participation, it was appropriate for Jeff to remain on the council.
Simply,
Morgan du Cornwall
Baron, 5th Ring
Date: 26 Oct 1998 23:42:43 EST
"You will find something about the principles in challenges not voting in the Council."
Jeff can only be considered a principal to this IF we accept that there is merit to the honor match between Huma and Jeff with regard to the Council's deliberations. If there is no merit to the honor match, then Jeff cannot be considered a principal. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this is Percival's argument in essence.
Presuming that Jeff was indeed a principal, the rules as written at this time only cover the exclusion of the challenged and challenger from the council, and therefore, in absence of specific direction from the DoS Supervisor forbidding his participation, it was appropriate for Jeff to remain on the council.
Simply,
Morgan du Cornwall
Baron, 5th Ring
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 00:23:34 EST
"Jeff can only be considered a principal to this IF we accept that there is merit to the honor match between Huma and Jeff with regard to the Council's deliberations. If there is no merit to the honor match, then Jeff cannot be considered a principal. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this is Percival's argument in essence.
Presuming that Jeff was indeed a principal, the rules as written at this time only cover the exclusion of the challenged and challenger from the council, and therefore, in absence of specific direction from the DoS Supervisor forbidding his participation, it was appropriate for Jeff to remain on the council."
The Council made the statement that it DID consider the duel of honour to have merit. It even went so far as to consider the honour match BEFORE considering Dal's match, and in voting on whether to enforce the honour match results or not FIRST. IF the Council was acting in such a manner, then the rules would exclude Jeff from both voting and deliberating.
If the Council did NOT consider the match to have merit, then they made the wrong decision. Either the match had merit, in which case there should have been two separate sessions, Jeff being excluded from the session regarding his match with Huma, OR it had no merit. If it had no merit, then it should not have been considered at all. As to the decision of whether it had merit or did not, it would strike me as highly inappopriate to include Jeff
because he is biased.
That is it in a nutshell. If the duel between Huma and Jeff has merit, the decision the Council reached was reached illegally because of Jeff's participation. This is how the rules seem to read to me. If the match had no merit, then the Council made the wrong decision. Either way, in seeking to punish a dishonourable act the Council itself acted with less than full honour.
The White Duke
Date: 27 Oct 1998 00:23:34 EST
"Jeff can only be considered a principal to this IF we accept that there is merit to the honor match between Huma and Jeff with regard to the Council's deliberations. If there is no merit to the honor match, then Jeff cannot be considered a principal. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this is Percival's argument in essence.
Presuming that Jeff was indeed a principal, the rules as written at this time only cover the exclusion of the challenged and challenger from the council, and therefore, in absence of specific direction from the DoS Supervisor forbidding his participation, it was appropriate for Jeff to remain on the council."
The Council made the statement that it DID consider the duel of honour to have merit. It even went so far as to consider the honour match BEFORE considering Dal's match, and in voting on whether to enforce the honour match results or not FIRST. IF the Council was acting in such a manner, then the rules would exclude Jeff from both voting and deliberating.
If the Council did NOT consider the match to have merit, then they made the wrong decision. Either the match had merit, in which case there should have been two separate sessions, Jeff being excluded from the session regarding his match with Huma, OR it had no merit. If it had no merit, then it should not have been considered at all. As to the decision of whether it had merit or did not, it would strike me as highly inappopriate to include Jeff
because he is biased.
That is it in a nutshell. If the duel between Huma and Jeff has merit, the decision the Council reached was reached illegally because of Jeff's participation. This is how the rules seem to read to me. If the match had no merit, then the Council made the wrong decision. Either way, in seeking to punish a dishonourable act the Council itself acted with less than full honour.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 00:33:03 EST
Baron Magnus...
It looks like you've gotten to the crux of the matter... and every matter concerning Jonalyn.
I've always known there was a reason I didn't want to challenge you...
Hold the ring well and in good health, Baron. Again you have shown your insight matches your skill.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
Date: 27 Oct 1998 00:33:03 EST
Baron Magnus...
It looks like you've gotten to the crux of the matter... and every matter concerning Jonalyn.
I've always known there was a reason I didn't want to challenge you...
Hold the ring well and in good health, Baron. Again you have shown your insight matches your skill.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 01:15:19 EST
Collie, Percy,
Yer both missin' somethin' here. I'm askin' Dal ta let me fight fer him. He didn't ask me before makin' his vow ta DoS, he didn't consult me; I woulda been against it. I verra much wanna be a part of his defense, too slow ta understand it?
I hear what yer sayin' but its two different situations. Huma set it up and went back on it, no one asked him ta go back on it. I'm *asking* Dal ta go back on it, outside party askin' him ta break his word. HE didn't make such a choice. Big difference folks, get it in yer head.
~J
PS: I can take da heat, its nothin' compared ta what I use ta put up with when Leto was OL and I wanted ta defend him.
PPS: Collie, I don't care what ya call me anymore, yer opinion means as much ta me as da sand I dance in when I duel. Percy, don't know ya too well, ya don't me too well. Yer vacation skipped over my previous reigns, so ya don't know my values of honor or loyalty. Til ya do ya might wanna assume ya know what I believe and what values I'm going back on.
Date: 27 Oct 1998 01:15:19 EST
Collie, Percy,
Yer both missin' somethin' here. I'm askin' Dal ta let me fight fer him. He didn't ask me before makin' his vow ta DoS, he didn't consult me; I woulda been against it. I verra much wanna be a part of his defense, too slow ta understand it?
I hear what yer sayin' but its two different situations. Huma set it up and went back on it, no one asked him ta go back on it. I'm *asking* Dal ta go back on it, outside party askin' him ta break his word. HE didn't make such a choice. Big difference folks, get it in yer head.
~J
PS: I can take da heat, its nothin' compared ta what I use ta put up with when Leto was OL and I wanted ta defend him.
PPS: Collie, I don't care what ya call me anymore, yer opinion means as much ta me as da sand I dance in when I duel. Percy, don't know ya too well, ya don't me too well. Yer vacation skipped over my previous reigns, so ya don't know my values of honor or loyalty. Til ya do ya might wanna assume ya know what I believe and what values I'm going back on.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 01:36:36 EST
Jeff...
I mean no offence by this, but... how is it different if you tell Dal to go back on his word, or he goes back on his word without you telling him to do so? Other than the stain of the dishonor falling on you as well.
Jeff, I am only asking that you think this through logically... personally, I have no stake in the matter, as I am not a current or former Baroness, nor do I have any political stance as regards the OverLord any longer.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
Date: 27 Oct 1998 01:36:36 EST
Jeff...
I mean no offence by this, but... how is it different if you tell Dal to go back on his word, or he goes back on his word without you telling him to do so? Other than the stain of the dishonor falling on you as well.
Jeff, I am only asking that you think this through logically... personally, I have no stake in the matter, as I am not a current or former Baroness, nor do I have any political stance as regards the OverLord any longer.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 02:11:34 EST
"The Council made the statement that it DID consider the duel of honour to have merit."
Stipulated.
"It even went so far as to consider the honour match BEFORE considering Dal's match, and in voting on whether to enforce the honour match results or not FIRST."
That is not true.
The first ballot said:
" 1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure.
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord.
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would be Walker's suggestion of the tournament."
The first ballot concerned only the titleship of the Overlord. Please highlight for me where Huma's honor match is voted on above.
The next ballot *did* consider Huma and the Honor match.
The third, and final ballot, considered only Dalamar and censures to place upon him.
"As to the decision of whether it had merit or did not, it would strike me as highly inappopriate to include Jeff because he is biased."
Everyone involved had a bias. It strikes me as unrealistic to expect people to not form their own opinions on the matter.
"If the duel between Huma and Jeff has merit, the decision the Council reached was reached illegally because of Jeff's participation."
You are reaching, to be blunt. To restate, nowhere in the written rules does it state that anyone other than the challenged and challenger should not be allowed to sit on the council. Furthermore, since the Supervisor who is ultimately the authority on interpretation of the rules did not instruct the council to forbid Jeff's vote or even remotely insinuate that it would be inappropriate, then the council acted in good faith that Jeff was legally
able to vote in this matter in addition to providing his testimony.
"This is how the rules seem to read to me."
If I hand you a manuscript written in Ogham, and you said, "it appears to me that this is Sanskrit," you would be wrong despite your fervent belief that it is Sanskrit.
Date: 27 Oct 1998 02:11:34 EST
"The Council made the statement that it DID consider the duel of honour to have merit."
Stipulated.
"It even went so far as to consider the honour match BEFORE considering Dal's match, and in voting on whether to enforce the honour match results or not FIRST."
That is not true.
The first ballot said:
" 1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure.
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord.
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would be Walker's suggestion of the tournament."
The first ballot concerned only the titleship of the Overlord. Please highlight for me where Huma's honor match is voted on above.
The next ballot *did* consider Huma and the Honor match.
The third, and final ballot, considered only Dalamar and censures to place upon him.
"As to the decision of whether it had merit or did not, it would strike me as highly inappopriate to include Jeff because he is biased."
Everyone involved had a bias. It strikes me as unrealistic to expect people to not form their own opinions on the matter.
"If the duel between Huma and Jeff has merit, the decision the Council reached was reached illegally because of Jeff's participation."
You are reaching, to be blunt. To restate, nowhere in the written rules does it state that anyone other than the challenged and challenger should not be allowed to sit on the council. Furthermore, since the Supervisor who is ultimately the authority on interpretation of the rules did not instruct the council to forbid Jeff's vote or even remotely insinuate that it would be inappropriate, then the council acted in good faith that Jeff was legally
able to vote in this matter in addition to providing his testimony.
"This is how the rules seem to read to me."
If I hand you a manuscript written in Ogham, and you said, "it appears to me that this is Sanskrit," you would be wrong despite your fervent belief that it is Sanskrit.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 02:43:31 EST
>>" 1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure.
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord.
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would be Walker's suggestion of the tournament."
The first ballot concerned only the titleship of the Overlord. Please highlight for me where Huma's honor match is voted on above. <<
Morgan,
Are you saying that by not showing up to a match, the title holder does not have to suffer the consequences? Typically, if one does not show up for a challenge, the council would basically vote for a forfeit of the title, or rematch.
You are saying that option A had nothing to do with the honor match? If someone else failed to show up to their challenge, due to their father passing away, you would honestly say they don't have any obligation to fight that challenger, even in the near future?
This brings me to my question: If option A had nothing to do with the honor match (according to your vote), then I kindly ask you restate the reasons you voted for it. I hope you understand, that things are hard to find amidst all these papers.
I am sad at Dalamar's loss, and I don't think anyone would be able to battle that night. However, it is possible for him to reschedule a match at a date that makes him comfortable. Moreover, he could have even had a loyal baron intercede OFFICIALLY. That's what I believe would be fair, but that's just me.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 27 Oct 1998 02:43:31 EST
>>" 1) Who shall hold the title of Overlord?
(a) Dalamar retains the title, with or without some form of censure.
(b) Huma takes the title by virtue of Dalamar's failure to appear
(c) A rematch is schedule and fought between Huma and Dalamar to determine the Overlord.
(d) Some other method is used to make the determination. One such example here would be Walker's suggestion of the tournament."
The first ballot concerned only the titleship of the Overlord. Please highlight for me where Huma's honor match is voted on above. <<
Morgan,
Are you saying that by not showing up to a match, the title holder does not have to suffer the consequences? Typically, if one does not show up for a challenge, the council would basically vote for a forfeit of the title, or rematch.
You are saying that option A had nothing to do with the honor match? If someone else failed to show up to their challenge, due to their father passing away, you would honestly say they don't have any obligation to fight that challenger, even in the near future?
This brings me to my question: If option A had nothing to do with the honor match (according to your vote), then I kindly ask you restate the reasons you voted for it. I hope you understand, that things are hard to find amidst all these papers.
I am sad at Dalamar's loss, and I don't think anyone would be able to battle that night. However, it is possible for him to reschedule a match at a date that makes him comfortable. Moreover, he could have even had a loyal baron intercede OFFICIALLY. That's what I believe would be fair, but that's just me.
Simply,
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 03:39:53 EST
Jeff,
I'm afraid you have me at a loss. It's ok to break a vow if someone asks you to?? You have implied that Dal isn't entitled to make his own decisions in policy matters.
Dal's letter dated 9/11/98 states:
Fellow Patrons of the Duel of Swords,
I will make this letter brief. I am herein announcing my intention to change one of the policies of testing that I have believed in during the course of my reign. From this point forward, I will not seek the aid of a champion in any challenge I receive from a duelist currently holding the rank of Baron.
respectfully,
Lord Dalamar Ar'Daumon
Let's take this from another view. Hypothetically, mind you.
You and Summer are well known to be a happily married couple by all. You two vowed to each other before your friends to stay together until death do you part.
What if an old beau of Summer's comes along and asked her to break her vow to you because he wasn't consulted? Knowing Summer to be a loyal and loving wife to you, I believe she would decline, however, what it comes down to is does the old beau have the right to ask her to do this simply because she didn't ask his permission or advice?
I hope the analogy here is clear.. if not I'll spell it out. In my example, the beau has no right to ask Summer to leave Jeff because he wasn't asked if she should marry Jeff.
What it comes down to is, Jeff, you say you are loyal to this man, and will defend and follow him, yet, you question his judgement in making the decision to not test Barons.
Point is.. regardless of circumstances the oath HE made would be broken if he went back on it, it wouldn't reflect on you, the one who asked him to change his policy, but only on him. Now, I think it ironic that you have proclaimed your loyalty, steadfast and true to Dalamar Ar'Daumon and yet you ask him to commit what is effectively political suicide.
Frankly, Jeff, as anti-Dal as OverLord as I have been, I feel sorry for what will happen to the man himself if he lets you talk him into this.
Colleen Lasher
Date: 27 Oct 1998 03:39:53 EST
Jeff,
I'm afraid you have me at a loss. It's ok to break a vow if someone asks you to?? You have implied that Dal isn't entitled to make his own decisions in policy matters.
Dal's letter dated 9/11/98 states:
Fellow Patrons of the Duel of Swords,
I will make this letter brief. I am herein announcing my intention to change one of the policies of testing that I have believed in during the course of my reign. From this point forward, I will not seek the aid of a champion in any challenge I receive from a duelist currently holding the rank of Baron.
respectfully,
Lord Dalamar Ar'Daumon
Let's take this from another view. Hypothetically, mind you.
You and Summer are well known to be a happily married couple by all. You two vowed to each other before your friends to stay together until death do you part.
What if an old beau of Summer's comes along and asked her to break her vow to you because he wasn't consulted? Knowing Summer to be a loyal and loving wife to you, I believe she would decline, however, what it comes down to is does the old beau have the right to ask her to do this simply because she didn't ask his permission or advice?
I hope the analogy here is clear.. if not I'll spell it out. In my example, the beau has no right to ask Summer to leave Jeff because he wasn't asked if she should marry Jeff.
What it comes down to is, Jeff, you say you are loyal to this man, and will defend and follow him, yet, you question his judgement in making the decision to not test Barons.
Point is.. regardless of circumstances the oath HE made would be broken if he went back on it, it wouldn't reflect on you, the one who asked him to change his policy, but only on him. Now, I think it ironic that you have proclaimed your loyalty, steadfast and true to Dalamar Ar'Daumon and yet you ask him to commit what is effectively political suicide.
Frankly, Jeff, as anti-Dal as OverLord as I have been, I feel sorry for what will happen to the man himself if he lets you talk him into this.
Colleen Lasher