Request ta Dalamar

[DoS Archive]

From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 09:59:11 EST

Var asks,"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."

Certainly, Baron. Here is an excerpt from my letter sent to the council on 10/17 and posted on the boards. I have bolded two paragraphs of note :

"In the preliminary voting I chose option A, which was to allow Dalamar to retain his crown, with or without possible censure. That is not punishing Huma for anything.

"To all,

"Let me recap the choices that were before us:

"A) Dalamar retains his crown, with or without censure;
B) Huma receives the crown;
C) Schedule a rematch;
D) Other: Walker's suggestion of a Baronial Tourney, or other option.

"Logically, if A is that Dalamar retains his crown, the C must assume that his crown is in question and that he cannot act as Overlord until the rematch has been fought.

"It is my opinion that we assure the community that we do, indeed, have an acting, full-charge Overlord, despite the fact we are currently discussing how to handle the dilema of Dalamar's inability to show up for the match because his father died.

"It makes perfect sense to me to rule that Dalamar keeps his crown WITHOUT question and have one of the options be to allow Dalamar to reschedule the match as befits decency and respect to the grieving (other options would be to fine Dalamar, or disallow the TOW next challenge, or take away a fancy, or all of the options combined)."

I will be responding to another of your questions in the next posting.

Morgan

[DoS Archive]

From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 10:52:00 EST

::coughs:: obviously, my bolding did not show up on the paper, my apologies.

Continuing,

Var asks, "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?"

No, I would not say that.

I lean strongly toward Walker's logic, if I understand it correctly. He contends the challenge was "met" as per Helix's definition of a met duel, and as such, Huma's peer wins and right to challenge for the cycle were no longer valid. However, I did not want Huma to lose the peer wins and so I voted that he retain them, fully expecting him to issue challenge to one of the Barons, including myself. I did, however, consider his oath when voting on
restricting his right to challenge to the Overlord.

[DoS Archive]

From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 12:28:46 EST

"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."


Baron Oakenshield,

I believe you just said exactly what I did. You believed Huma should be punished for going back on his word. But now YOU are asking Dalamar to go back on HIS word for no other reason than you think he shouldn't have made the promise he made. I'm sorry, are you saying that if *I* has ASKED Huma to go back on HIS word because I didn't like his promise that what he did would have been all wonderful and fine by you?
If the answer to that question is yes, well, I would have to say that you are entitled to your own opinion. However, if you answer that question "no", then my original statement stands. Your request to Dalamar is hypocritical.



The White Duke

[DoS Archive]

From: athlstan@aol.com (Athlstan)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 19:59:45 EST

::the guardian stirs::
Everyone hated Athlstan? Hmmm. Dalamar didn't.

And I did not test everyone. I remember facing at least Elijah and Rennor and Alais. I also remember winning through the Test of GoldenLyon to face and defeat Daegarth. Would that these young pups knew their history.

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 20:04:59 EST

>>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.<<

Well, since all of you keep insiting that Jeff's part that night had no bearing on what happened concerning the actual Challenge, Jeff was anything but a "principal", being neither Overlord, Challenger or Second.


~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress-At-Arms

[DoS Archive]

From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 20:22:45 EST

Collie,

So yer sayin' no one has ever left his or her wife/husband fer another man or woman? If an old "beau" as ya stated were ta ask Summer ta leave me, Summer would have ta figure out who she loves more and follow her heart. Maybe ya never stopped ta consider Dalamar might consider my request more important dan how all ya non-loyal twits view him going back on it. Maybe I'm da old loyal beau he chooses over his current wife (anti-Dal crowd). We'll
see how it turns out.

Fact of da matter is I defended him before and Huma isn't challengin' anymore. I won dat battle, wonder if I'll win dis one....::sly grin::


~J

[DoS Archive]

From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 27 Oct 1998 21:50:43 EST

Morgan asked for a clarification, and I think you all are rather mystfied as to what has happened, so here goes another try...

I wrote Helix near the beginning of the Council's convention to ask about whether the challenge was "met". She said it was a bad word to use for the situation at hand, but according to her interpretation of the rules (all that matters), the challenge had to be considered "met" for a forfeit to be ruled. This means a few of things:

1) This counts as Huma's challenge for the cycle.
2) His peer wins are considered used up.
3) Most importantly, the challenge must continue unless the council decides to punish Huma.

Admittedly, there is no legal precedence for the third, but here I assume that with the first and second, there has to be something else about the challenge that causes the right to challenge and the peer wins to go away.

The council decided to throw away Huma's challenge on the basis of the honor duel. I, for most of the debate, thought this was not a legal option, but I was shown that it clearly is legal (although, as I said before, not common-sensical).

Because of this ruling, I said that Huma should not be given back his right to challenge or his peer wins, since the challenge was met. His only challenge he gets the challenge he offered initially which in time had become "met".

Note that I did not say anything about how I feel Huma should actually get a chance to challenge, and therefore give him back the tools to do so. Once the Council voted to do something, and the ruling was upheld by Helix, I had to logically go on to the next step without concern to the previous options.

Admittedly, most is this may be for Morgan, but I hope that others are enriched by how the rules have been interpreted in this case, and what the precedence will be for the next case.

If there are any more questions, don't hesitate to ask them politely. Please hesitate if you want to not be polite about it.

-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th

[DoS Archive]

From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 28 Oct 1998 00:07:32 EST

>all ya non-loyal twits view him going back on it.

Jeff,

I thought you were above stooping to name calling like someone else.. I guess I was wrong.

Collie

[DoS Archive]

From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 28 Oct 1998 01:19:09 EST

<<I thought you were above stooping to name calling like someone else.. I guess I was wrong.>>

Collie,

I guess ya just learned another of yer ideas dat was wrong, toss it on da pile with all da others.

Careful, yer gonna drown me in paper pretty soon and I'm not even dat short.

~J