From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 00:51:18 EST
>>Ya defend yerself, yer own records, heaven forbid politics, feelings, and emotions ever take part in DoS.<<
...Reads this part of the message twice, laughing, and suddenly is struck by a terribly improper thought. He carefully pens his response, still laughing...
Jeff,
Such a lovely picture you paint. It only it were attainable. Unfortunately, I think far too many people enjoy shooting their mouths, and pens, off for that to ever happen. Such a shame.
Dripping Irony,
Percy
Challenge
-
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: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:46:02 EST
"First off, I do oppose the intercession and champions."
I believe it is safe to deduce that you oppose both intercession and champions.
"How do I speak out against this unless I do something about it? I chose to become a champion myself to face Dal in the ring and to try and stop the intercession from commencing."
So, if you said you oppose champions, then say you became a champion yourself, by your line of thinking you oppose yourself? Or is it somehow all right for you to do whatever you want for whatever arbitrary reason you want but it is not okay for someone else to do the same?
Do you think that when you think it is unfair it is suddenly more noble than what another person might deem unfair? When did you become the authority on what is fair and what is not? When did you become the authority on when it is the right time to be a champion and the the right time to sneer at another who chooses to be a champion or use one when it does not suit your little fancy?
"This makes me a hypocrite?"
Dingdingding! Give that man a prize!
If you do not like <insert behavior>, and you <insert same behavior>, you are a hypocrite.
If you criticize someone for, say, eating apples, then turn around and become a person who eats apples himself, that makes you a hypocrite.
Therefore:
If you criticize someone for being a champion or using a champion, then turn around and become a champion or condone another for using a champion, that is quite obviously hypocritical.
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:46:02 EST
"First off, I do oppose the intercession and champions."
I believe it is safe to deduce that you oppose both intercession and champions.
"How do I speak out against this unless I do something about it? I chose to become a champion myself to face Dal in the ring and to try and stop the intercession from commencing."
So, if you said you oppose champions, then say you became a champion yourself, by your line of thinking you oppose yourself? Or is it somehow all right for you to do whatever you want for whatever arbitrary reason you want but it is not okay for someone else to do the same?
Do you think that when you think it is unfair it is suddenly more noble than what another person might deem unfair? When did you become the authority on what is fair and what is not? When did you become the authority on when it is the right time to be a champion and the the right time to sneer at another who chooses to be a champion or use one when it does not suit your little fancy?
"This makes me a hypocrite?"
Dingdingding! Give that man a prize!
If you do not like <insert behavior>, and you <insert same behavior>, you are a hypocrite.
If you criticize someone for, say, eating apples, then turn around and become a person who eats apples himself, that makes you a hypocrite.
Therefore:
If you criticize someone for being a champion or using a champion, then turn around and become a champion or condone another for using a champion, that is quite obviously hypocritical.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:47:34 EST
"How is it dishonorable or hypocritical for someone who opposes Intercession to step in and even the odds?"
If you oppose A and you A, it is hypocritical.
If you oppose Intercession and you intercede, it is hypocritical.
Soon this will sink in, I am sure of it.
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:47:34 EST
"How is it dishonorable or hypocritical for someone who opposes Intercession to step in and even the odds?"
If you oppose A and you A, it is hypocritical.
If you oppose Intercession and you intercede, it is hypocritical.
Soon this will sink in, I am sure of it.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:58:48 EST
"Advocating the misuse of certain rights and priveleges because one wishes to stop someone from becoming Overlord isn't precisely either mature or responsible."
This is not consistent with what you said earlier. ("Of course, Dal is within his rights to Test anyone he so chooses. Justified or not. This is one of the perqs of being Overlord. Everyone knows my point of view on the Test, namely that I think it is wrong in at least 2 out of 3 situations. It won't surprise anyone when I say that it would be wrong to Test Magnus now. However, Dal is perfectly within his rights to do as
he sees fit.") If it is his right, there can be no "misuse" construed in there whatsoever. If it is a right, it is unequivocably a right, not conditonally a right.
Supporting Dalamar's right to use the ToW or to champion his loyal barons for whatever reason he sees fit, is just that -- supporting his right, it is not advocating your slanted charge of "misuse."
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:58:48 EST
"Advocating the misuse of certain rights and priveleges because one wishes to stop someone from becoming Overlord isn't precisely either mature or responsible."
This is not consistent with what you said earlier. ("Of course, Dal is within his rights to Test anyone he so chooses. Justified or not. This is one of the perqs of being Overlord. Everyone knows my point of view on the Test, namely that I think it is wrong in at least 2 out of 3 situations. It won't surprise anyone when I say that it would be wrong to Test Magnus now. However, Dal is perfectly within his rights to do as
he sees fit.") If it is his right, there can be no "misuse" construed in there whatsoever. If it is a right, it is unequivocably a right, not conditonally a right.
Supporting Dalamar's right to use the ToW or to champion his loyal barons for whatever reason he sees fit, is just that -- supporting his right, it is not advocating your slanted charge of "misuse."
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:58:48 EST
"Advocating the misuse of certain rights and priveleges because one wishes to stop someone from becoming Overlord isn't precisely either mature or responsible."
This is not consistent with what you said earlier. ("Of course, Dal is within his rights to Test anyone he so chooses. Justified or not. This is one of the perqs of being Overlord. Everyone knows my point of view on the Test, namely that I think it is wrong in at least 2 out of 3 situations. It won't surprise anyone when I say that it would be wrong to Test Magnus now. However, Dal is perfectly within his rights to do as
he sees fit.") If it is his right, there can be no "misuse" construed in there whatsoever. If it is a right, it is unequivocably a right, not conditonally a right.
Supporting Dalamar's right to use the ToW or to champion his loyal barons for whatever reason he sees fit, is just that -- supporting his right, it is not advocating your slanted charge of "misuse."
Date: 19 Dec 1998 01:58:48 EST
"Advocating the misuse of certain rights and priveleges because one wishes to stop someone from becoming Overlord isn't precisely either mature or responsible."
This is not consistent with what you said earlier. ("Of course, Dal is within his rights to Test anyone he so chooses. Justified or not. This is one of the perqs of being Overlord. Everyone knows my point of view on the Test, namely that I think it is wrong in at least 2 out of 3 situations. It won't surprise anyone when I say that it would be wrong to Test Magnus now. However, Dal is perfectly within his rights to do as
he sees fit.") If it is his right, there can be no "misuse" construed in there whatsoever. If it is a right, it is unequivocably a right, not conditonally a right.
Supporting Dalamar's right to use the ToW or to champion his loyal barons for whatever reason he sees fit, is just that -- supporting his right, it is not advocating your slanted charge of "misuse."
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 02:34:39 EST
You have the right to wield a blade, Morgan, but you can misuse your right and cut the wrong person;maybe yourself.
Thus, there does exist "misuse" within "rights".
Now, to incorporate that into this situation:
Dalamar wrote one day that he would no longer test barons. While we all know that it was just a political move to bend over backwards and kiss Kal's feet, it was his word.
Now, it is Dal's RIGHT to test Magnus, but doing so would probably result in a challenge every week from a warlord or baron seeking to remove Dal and a bunch of words from people who have lost all faith in Dal.
I think I understand what Percy is saying, for he is writing it from his perspective of a baron, and of the overlord. I don't want to misconstrue Percival's point of view, though. If I have interpreted your meaning incorrectly, Percival, please feel free to let me know.
I want to add, though, as it is Dal's right to break his word, it's also my right to have an opinion, like all the other duelers, ranks, and spectators.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 19 Dec 1998 02:34:39 EST
You have the right to wield a blade, Morgan, but you can misuse your right and cut the wrong person;maybe yourself.
Thus, there does exist "misuse" within "rights".
Now, to incorporate that into this situation:
Dalamar wrote one day that he would no longer test barons. While we all know that it was just a political move to bend over backwards and kiss Kal's feet, it was his word.
Now, it is Dal's RIGHT to test Magnus, but doing so would probably result in a challenge every week from a warlord or baron seeking to remove Dal and a bunch of words from people who have lost all faith in Dal.
I think I understand what Percy is saying, for he is writing it from his perspective of a baron, and of the overlord. I don't want to misconstrue Percival's point of view, though. If I have interpreted your meaning incorrectly, Percival, please feel free to let me know.
I want to add, though, as it is Dal's right to break his word, it's also my right to have an opinion, like all the other duelers, ranks, and spectators.
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: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 04:26:12 EST
Morgan, I'm seeing one fairly obvious fault in your claim of Magnus being a hypocrite.
The Interceding of an Overlord for a Loyal Baron (which will be referred to as simply Intercession throughout my posts) is done primarily with the purpose of stopping the challenger from dueling the person he or she challenged.
The action Baron Magnus has used (which I will call the "Right to Intercession," as the action is not named in the rules), is used with the purpose of letting the challenger duel the person he or she challenged.
The two are opposites in purpose. How can someone begin to call them the same?
~Lupton
Date: 19 Dec 1998 04:26:12 EST
Morgan, I'm seeing one fairly obvious fault in your claim of Magnus being a hypocrite.
The Interceding of an Overlord for a Loyal Baron (which will be referred to as simply Intercession throughout my posts) is done primarily with the purpose of stopping the challenger from dueling the person he or she challenged.
The action Baron Magnus has used (which I will call the "Right to Intercession," as the action is not named in the rules), is used with the purpose of letting the challenger duel the person he or she challenged.
The two are opposites in purpose. How can someone begin to call them the same?
~Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 05:07:30 EST
Point of order.
Whether Dalamar was "bending over backwards and kissing Kalamere's feet" or not is now irrellevant. Kalamere has -publicly- released Dalamar from that agreement. There is no dishonor or loss of faith here.
My -personal- feelings are that Magnus is a fine dueler, and quite able in the defence of the Thirteenth Ring. But, I fall in the school of thought that believes that skill with a blade is hardly the be-all and end-all of one's "worthiness." There are dozens of intangibles, including "honor", and "respect" that -must- be considered as well.
-However-, I do -not- fall in the school of thought that believes one must have many years of experience, and a near complete memory of the histories to be considered "worthy."
When one blindly insults everyone of a group, social class, or generation... heaping upon all of them the actions or attitudes of a few... -that- is when there is dishonor. -That- is when faith, trust and sometimes even friendship is lost.
I await commentary, and I thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon (On vacation.)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 05:07:30 EST
Point of order.
Whether Dalamar was "bending over backwards and kissing Kalamere's feet" or not is now irrellevant. Kalamere has -publicly- released Dalamar from that agreement. There is no dishonor or loss of faith here.
My -personal- feelings are that Magnus is a fine dueler, and quite able in the defence of the Thirteenth Ring. But, I fall in the school of thought that believes that skill with a blade is hardly the be-all and end-all of one's "worthiness." There are dozens of intangibles, including "honor", and "respect" that -must- be considered as well.
-However-, I do -not- fall in the school of thought that believes one must have many years of experience, and a near complete memory of the histories to be considered "worthy."
When one blindly insults everyone of a group, social class, or generation... heaping upon all of them the actions or attitudes of a few... -that- is when there is dishonor. -That- is when faith, trust and sometimes even friendship is lost.
I await commentary, and I thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon (On vacation.)
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 11:18:22 EST
>>If it is his right, there can be no "misuse" construed in there whatsoever. If it is a right, it is unequivocably a right, not conditonally a right.<<
I don't think you understand the concept of rights, Morgan. Just because someone has 'the right' to do something, that doesn't make doing it 'right' or correct. Rights and priveleges are very easily abused and misused.
Let me give you an example. Here in RhyDin we have, up to a point, the 'right' to speak freely. However, when you choose to use your 'right' of free speech to insult someone, you are making a wrong action. This falls under abuse of your 'rights.'
You see, with rights come responsibilities. Dal's right to Test his challengers comes with the responsibility to use that right wisely. In the past, certain Overlords have badly abused their 'right' to Test their challengers. Dal has, at times, leaned towards being one of them. In such circumstances, it becomes necessary for a Renegade Baron to step in and allow the match to take place. This is not hypocrisy. It is acting on one's beliefs, and
demonstrating one's desire to fight for one's beliefs.
If you have a problems understanding this, or the logic involved in the responsible and irresponsible use of rights, I have a radical suggestion for you. Try thinking a little more and reading a little more closely, and stop super-imposing what you think on what you read. You will find it much easier to read intelligently with an open mind.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Date: 19 Dec 1998 11:18:22 EST
>>If it is his right, there can be no "misuse" construed in there whatsoever. If it is a right, it is unequivocably a right, not conditonally a right.<<
I don't think you understand the concept of rights, Morgan. Just because someone has 'the right' to do something, that doesn't make doing it 'right' or correct. Rights and priveleges are very easily abused and misused.
Let me give you an example. Here in RhyDin we have, up to a point, the 'right' to speak freely. However, when you choose to use your 'right' of free speech to insult someone, you are making a wrong action. This falls under abuse of your 'rights.'
You see, with rights come responsibilities. Dal's right to Test his challengers comes with the responsibility to use that right wisely. In the past, certain Overlords have badly abused their 'right' to Test their challengers. Dal has, at times, leaned towards being one of them. In such circumstances, it becomes necessary for a Renegade Baron to step in and allow the match to take place. This is not hypocrisy. It is acting on one's beliefs, and
demonstrating one's desire to fight for one's beliefs.
If you have a problems understanding this, or the logic involved in the responsible and irresponsible use of rights, I have a radical suggestion for you. Try thinking a little more and reading a little more closely, and stop super-imposing what you think on what you read. You will find it much easier to read intelligently with an open mind.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sirduel@aol.com (Sir Duel)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 11:41:15 EST
::blinks, pawing through Morgan's posts::
Err..is it the same though if it's Magnus steppin' in as a renegade during a test by Dalamar, and for him to attempt to get the challenger and the challenged to duel personally, Morgan? Nae debatin' or wotever yas call it, I just have a question.
Young Coron.
Date: 19 Dec 1998 11:41:15 EST
::blinks, pawing through Morgan's posts::
Err..is it the same though if it's Magnus steppin' in as a renegade during a test by Dalamar, and for him to attempt to get the challenger and the challenged to duel personally, Morgan? Nae debatin' or wotever yas call it, I just have a question.
Young Coron.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sirduel@aol.com (Sir Duel)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 11:42:44 EST
::reads Lupton's post::
Ohhhhhhhhh..
Date: 19 Dec 1998 11:42:44 EST
::reads Lupton's post::
Ohhhhhhhhh..
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dexm@aol.com (Dex M)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 12:52:43 EST
::pausing::
I take no sides nor make any political statements but simply offer this on the hypocritical aspect:
Having seen my homeland ravaged by the attack of powerful mages, I oppose the harming of others through magic.Having seen innocent men, women and children murdered by the sword, I oppose bloodshed.
BUT
I will use my learned skills in magic to duel in sport and I would use them to defend my family and daughters. I would use my skills with a rapier to enjoy the sport of fencing, and I would use them to kill an invader to my home and friends.
I may oppose and abhor the very things I have done at times, but I look myself in the mirror and even in my hypocrisy can call myself honorable. The reason being is that life is not black and white and there are times when we can oppose and support to what some may see as the same thing. Conditions, qualifiers and wisdom abounds when one truly acts from the center of their being.
Hypocritically,
Dexter Montoya
loyal to Rhydin
Date: 19 Dec 1998 12:52:43 EST
::pausing::
I take no sides nor make any political statements but simply offer this on the hypocritical aspect:
Having seen my homeland ravaged by the attack of powerful mages, I oppose the harming of others through magic.Having seen innocent men, women and children murdered by the sword, I oppose bloodshed.
BUT
I will use my learned skills in magic to duel in sport and I would use them to defend my family and daughters. I would use my skills with a rapier to enjoy the sport of fencing, and I would use them to kill an invader to my home and friends.
I may oppose and abhor the very things I have done at times, but I look myself in the mirror and even in my hypocrisy can call myself honorable. The reason being is that life is not black and white and there are times when we can oppose and support to what some may see as the same thing. Conditions, qualifiers and wisdom abounds when one truly acts from the center of their being.
Hypocritically,
Dexter Montoya
loyal to Rhydin
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 13:24:47 EST
In interest of saving paper, I am going to post my thoughts on this subject entirely on this one sheet, rather than having one responding to each particular area that I shall address.
Var writes:
"Now, it is Dal's RIGHT to test Magnus, but doing so would probably result in a challenge every week from a warlord or baron seeking to remove Dal and a bunch of words from people who have lost all faith in Dal."
Does this not already happen? Does Dal ever not have a challenge pending for more than a couple days other than the time previous to the Warlord Tournament? I don't advocate the test, certainly, but this seems to be a fairly weak attempt (underhanded, as well) to convince Dal to not use it.
Drake writes:
"Whether Dalamar was "bending over backwards and kissing Kalamere's feet" or not is now irrellevant. Kalamere has -publicly- released Dalamar from that agreement. There is no dishonor or loss of faith here."
This would be the case if Dalamar had made the vow particularly for Kalamere, and both parties had told the community that it was between them. The policy affects the community, not just Kal and Dal. If they had made an agreement just affecting themselves, then Kal could have released Dal from it. However, despite the agreement being between Kal and Dal, due to its impact on the community, neither should be able to void the agreement without
facing the concequences.
The problem here lies in the interpretation of Dal's announcement of his policy. Many have thought it to be his word of honor, that he would no longer test Barons during his reign. Others have read it that it was a decision in order to gain Kal's loyalty, and was merely a temporal policy, with no intention of being permanent. He may have said "for the rest of my reign as OL", but meant "for the rest of my reign as OL, or until the agreement is
voided". Both are acceptable interpretations, but in both cases I still find Dal guilty of using underhanded tactics to gain loyalty.
Morgan writes:
"[Someone (Magnus?) writes:]
'First off, I do oppose the intercession and champions.'
I believe it is safe to deduce that you oppose both intercession and champions.
<snip>
[Magnus(?) writes again:]
"This makes me a hypocrite?"
Dingdingding! Give that man a prize!
If you do not like <insert behavior>, and you <insert same behavior>, you are a hypocrite."
(Emphasis Morgan's)
Since it is Magnus we are discussing, I will assume that Magnus was quoted by Morgan, and it was to he she was reffering.
I believe that Magnus did not intend the term "champion" to apply to his action, but merely as a synonym for intercessor. By picking apart his words and shouting "Hypocrite! Hyporcrite!", you seem to be avoiding the issue. When Dalamar exercises his right, Magnus exercises his in what he believes is a correct manner to level the playing field. Whether I agree with this or not, he is taking the correct action in opposing the use of the ToW.
On the other hand, if Magnus did not oppose the use of the test, I can hear some people labeling him a hypocrite for opposing the test by words and not taking steps to oppose the test by action. Even others might call him a coward for not wanting to stand up to what he finds is Dal's "misuse" of his rights.
This line of reasoning has been previously laid out (in part) by Lupton, but somehow has been previously ignored.
Jeff writes:
"Ya defend yerself, yer own records, heaven forbid politics, feelings, and emotions ever take part in DoS.
Yeesh, someday I hope *all* people figure out DoS is about more dan just doin' moves and observing results."
Feelings and emotions are most certainly a part of the DoS as a community, but I fail to find even one mention of them in the rules (as well it should be). I cannot speak entirely for Percy, nor do I wish to, but I believe he is saying (and I concur) that perhaps too much emotion and feeling has entered the rings, and perhaps people should be more focus on their won skill, as well as that of others, in the ring.
Are there not many people opposed to the use of the board to fling insults at each other? Do these people not want the issues settled in the rings instead of the boards?
This bundle of posts is supposedly regarding Magnus' challenge to the Overlord. I have stated this before, and for clarity, I shall state this once again: Although I am opposed to the use of the ToW in this case, I shall do nothing to hinder its use. Additionally, should Magnus prevail and become Overlord, I shall heavily consider a Renegade alignment.
Constructive comments to any of the above are most welcome.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
Date: 19 Dec 1998 13:24:47 EST
In interest of saving paper, I am going to post my thoughts on this subject entirely on this one sheet, rather than having one responding to each particular area that I shall address.
Var writes:
"Now, it is Dal's RIGHT to test Magnus, but doing so would probably result in a challenge every week from a warlord or baron seeking to remove Dal and a bunch of words from people who have lost all faith in Dal."
Does this not already happen? Does Dal ever not have a challenge pending for more than a couple days other than the time previous to the Warlord Tournament? I don't advocate the test, certainly, but this seems to be a fairly weak attempt (underhanded, as well) to convince Dal to not use it.
Drake writes:
"Whether Dalamar was "bending over backwards and kissing Kalamere's feet" or not is now irrellevant. Kalamere has -publicly- released Dalamar from that agreement. There is no dishonor or loss of faith here."
This would be the case if Dalamar had made the vow particularly for Kalamere, and both parties had told the community that it was between them. The policy affects the community, not just Kal and Dal. If they had made an agreement just affecting themselves, then Kal could have released Dal from it. However, despite the agreement being between Kal and Dal, due to its impact on the community, neither should be able to void the agreement without
facing the concequences.
The problem here lies in the interpretation of Dal's announcement of his policy. Many have thought it to be his word of honor, that he would no longer test Barons during his reign. Others have read it that it was a decision in order to gain Kal's loyalty, and was merely a temporal policy, with no intention of being permanent. He may have said "for the rest of my reign as OL", but meant "for the rest of my reign as OL, or until the agreement is
voided". Both are acceptable interpretations, but in both cases I still find Dal guilty of using underhanded tactics to gain loyalty.
Morgan writes:
"[Someone (Magnus?) writes:]
'First off, I do oppose the intercession and champions.'
I believe it is safe to deduce that you oppose both intercession and champions.
<snip>
[Magnus(?) writes again:]
"This makes me a hypocrite?"
Dingdingding! Give that man a prize!
If you do not like <insert behavior>, and you <insert same behavior>, you are a hypocrite."
(Emphasis Morgan's)
Since it is Magnus we are discussing, I will assume that Magnus was quoted by Morgan, and it was to he she was reffering.
I believe that Magnus did not intend the term "champion" to apply to his action, but merely as a synonym for intercessor. By picking apart his words and shouting "Hypocrite! Hyporcrite!", you seem to be avoiding the issue. When Dalamar exercises his right, Magnus exercises his in what he believes is a correct manner to level the playing field. Whether I agree with this or not, he is taking the correct action in opposing the use of the ToW.
On the other hand, if Magnus did not oppose the use of the test, I can hear some people labeling him a hypocrite for opposing the test by words and not taking steps to oppose the test by action. Even others might call him a coward for not wanting to stand up to what he finds is Dal's "misuse" of his rights.
This line of reasoning has been previously laid out (in part) by Lupton, but somehow has been previously ignored.
Jeff writes:
"Ya defend yerself, yer own records, heaven forbid politics, feelings, and emotions ever take part in DoS.
Yeesh, someday I hope *all* people figure out DoS is about more dan just doin' moves and observing results."
Feelings and emotions are most certainly a part of the DoS as a community, but I fail to find even one mention of them in the rules (as well it should be). I cannot speak entirely for Percy, nor do I wish to, but I believe he is saying (and I concur) that perhaps too much emotion and feeling has entered the rings, and perhaps people should be more focus on their won skill, as well as that of others, in the ring.
Are there not many people opposed to the use of the board to fling insults at each other? Do these people not want the issues settled in the rings instead of the boards?
This bundle of posts is supposedly regarding Magnus' challenge to the Overlord. I have stated this before, and for clarity, I shall state this once again: Although I am opposed to the use of the ToW in this case, I shall do nothing to hinder its use. Additionally, should Magnus prevail and become Overlord, I shall heavily consider a Renegade alignment.
Constructive comments to any of the above are most welcome.
-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 14:05:07 EST
Walker,
Whether or not he uses the test is up to him. The majority of the barons will be there, anyways. However, should Dal use the test, people who have lost all faith in Dal will probably write a few words about it, or "take it to the ring", a philosophy people seem to adopt (according to some posts). Just how I see it.
To be blunt, Walker, I am probably one of the last people Dal would listen to, and that doesn't bother me. It's up to him what he does, regardless of what I say, just as he is able to speak an opinion about what will happen if I do something.
If you think that it's weak and underhanded, that's up to you. I can take the words, but wanted to state how I saw it. Whether or not you hold the same stance is your decision.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 19 Dec 1998 14:05:07 EST
Walker,
Whether or not he uses the test is up to him. The majority of the barons will be there, anyways. However, should Dal use the test, people who have lost all faith in Dal will probably write a few words about it, or "take it to the ring", a philosophy people seem to adopt (according to some posts). Just how I see it.
To be blunt, Walker, I am probably one of the last people Dal would listen to, and that doesn't bother me. It's up to him what he does, regardless of what I say, just as he is able to speak an opinion about what will happen if I do something.
If you think that it's weak and underhanded, that's up to you. I can take the words, but wanted to state how I saw it. Whether or not you hold the same stance is your decision.
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: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 19 Dec 1998 14:09:39 EST
>> I cannot speak entirely for Percy, nor do I wish to, but I believe he is saying (and I concur) that perhaps too much emotion and feeling has entered the rings, and perhaps people should be more focus on their won skill, as well as that of others, in the ring.<<
This is half of what I am saying, yes. And very well stated. The other half is that this emotion tends to cloud rational judgement. We are participants in a sport, not a matter of deep seriousness. We are here to have fun, to compete, and to entertain those who wish to watch us compete. Some of us wish to gain prizes for their skill, others love competition for its own sake, and most are somewhere in between.
However, the fundamental element of sport is sportsmanship. Something sadly lacking in the day to day conduct of many here. Now, no doubt, some will say that sportsmanship only matters inside the ring. That outside of it, other rules apply. I call this not only wrong, but both dangerous and foolish.
Competitors must be held to a standard. That standard must be one of sportsmanlike behavior both in the ring and in daily conduct. Title holders, especially, have a duty to uphold this standard. For Barons to exchange vicious insults like fishmongers or tavern rats is degrading to their rings, the sport, the community, and themselves.
Of course, no one has reasonable excuse to behave in such a fashion. However, it falls upon those who hold title to set an example of that sportsmanship.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Date: 19 Dec 1998 14:09:39 EST
>> I cannot speak entirely for Percy, nor do I wish to, but I believe he is saying (and I concur) that perhaps too much emotion and feeling has entered the rings, and perhaps people should be more focus on their won skill, as well as that of others, in the ring.<<
This is half of what I am saying, yes. And very well stated. The other half is that this emotion tends to cloud rational judgement. We are participants in a sport, not a matter of deep seriousness. We are here to have fun, to compete, and to entertain those who wish to watch us compete. Some of us wish to gain prizes for their skill, others love competition for its own sake, and most are somewhere in between.
However, the fundamental element of sport is sportsmanship. Something sadly lacking in the day to day conduct of many here. Now, no doubt, some will say that sportsmanship only matters inside the ring. That outside of it, other rules apply. I call this not only wrong, but both dangerous and foolish.
Competitors must be held to a standard. That standard must be one of sportsmanlike behavior both in the ring and in daily conduct. Title holders, especially, have a duty to uphold this standard. For Barons to exchange vicious insults like fishmongers or tavern rats is degrading to their rings, the sport, the community, and themselves.
Of course, no one has reasonable excuse to behave in such a fashion. However, it falls upon those who hold title to set an example of that sportsmanship.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont