From: rdifish@aol.com (RDI Fish)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 16:46:44 EST
tacks the parchment upon the board--------
be it known this day, the challenge for the 4th ring took place in the basement annex, between the warlord huma dragonbane 'n the baroness morgan le fay.
the overlord began the event by taking his right ta interceed upon the challenge. the baron gimmzak dueled the overlord in the intercession.
the duel proceeded as follows:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
marzan fdk th hc lc th lc th lc fss
gimmzak th fdk hc fcp fss lc sl fcp lc
the baron defeated the overlord 5-2 in 9 rounds and the challenge for the ring took place between huma 'n morgan
the results of the challenge match are as follows:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
huma fdk sh fss lc sl fcp fdk
morgan hc fdk fcp hc fss th flp
the warlord defeated the baroness 5-2 in 7 rounds and the new holder of the 4th ring was thereby declared.
sets his seal on the parchment
kf
results of the challenge for the 4th
-
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: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 17:37:03 EST
::shakes his head::
What a disappointment.
Date: 14 Feb 1999 17:37:03 EST
::shakes his head::
What a disappointment.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 17:53:48 EST
Jonalyn and Jesse, thank you for standing by me. I knew I chose the perfect partners to cheer me on!
Thank you to everyone else who supported me. It means more to me than anyone will ever know.
Huma, you say you want to start your tenure as honorable. However, your challenge was full of bile and illegalities from the beginning. You, sir, are the coward for forcing an illegal challenge on me thereby denying others the chance to offer challenge because they were following the rules.
You are pathetic and I hope you enjoy that ring you wear. I hope with every fiber of my being that you lose it as soon as possible.
Date: 14 Feb 1999 17:53:48 EST
Jonalyn and Jesse, thank you for standing by me. I knew I chose the perfect partners to cheer me on!
Thank you to everyone else who supported me. It means more to me than anyone will ever know.
Huma, you say you want to start your tenure as honorable. However, your challenge was full of bile and illegalities from the beginning. You, sir, are the coward for forcing an illegal challenge on me thereby denying others the chance to offer challenge because they were following the rules.
You are pathetic and I hope you enjoy that ring you wear. I hope with every fiber of my being that you lose it as soon as possible.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 19:39:36 EST
> You, sir, are the coward for forcing an illegal challenge on me thereby
>denying others the chance to offer challenge because they were following the
>rules.
Morgan,
I'm just curious. What rule did he break? Since I wasn't directly involved with the challenge, I don't know the details, thus is my simple inquisition.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Warlord of Duel of Swords¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 14 Feb 1999 19:39:36 EST
> You, sir, are the coward for forcing an illegal challenge on me thereby
>denying others the chance to offer challenge because they were following the
>rules.
Morgan,
I'm just curious. What rule did he break? Since I wasn't directly involved with the challenge, I don't know the details, thus is my simple inquisition.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Warlord of Duel of Swords¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:13:01 EST
On December 17th, Percival (LeDucBlanc) issued challenge to me. On December 19 (a Saturday, I believe), Bridgette verified his wins.
Throughout that holiday week, I sent message after message to Bridgette only to have the messages returned as refused. On or about December 25th, I finally sent a message to Golden describing my difficulty in answering the challenge and feared that I would be unable to get my acceptance notarized within a week's time so I hoped he could help me. He replied that this was acceptable as Bridgette was on a leave of absense.
Please note that no more than six days had passed since the verification of the Standings Keeper and it would have been answered sooner had I been apprised of Bridgette's leave of absense.
I began making preparations to get the challenge fought within the two week time frame as dictated by the rules despite the holdiday season and so I suggested we arrange the duel to be fought the week of January 4th (January 5th was the date I put forth). Percival requested an extension for the next week. I asked Golden if we could do this for Percival in light of the holiday season and he agreed.
Percival and I fought on January 12th.
The day after Marzan defeated Dalamar, the coward Huma challenged me. Perhaps he thought I would not align myself loyal to my long time friend, I do not know.
That date was January 30th.
I, and many others I consulted with, were given to understand that a loyal baron need not defend their title but once per calendar month. Golden's intepretation at the time was that I would not have to accept the challenge until February 1st. I argued that if this were the case then what would stop someone from challenging a loyal baron immediately after a successful defense if the loyal baron need not answer it until the next calendar month?
In my opinion, and I believe it is also now Golden's opinion, a baron's defense of his/her title begins at the moment of challenge and ends after successful defense. I should not have been challenged and thereby forced to begin to defend my title until February 1st.
My defense against Huma's challenge started two days earlier than was necessary.
Huma chose to go around the rules to prevent someone else from waiting until the next calendar month. He then, like the hypocrite he is, charged that I was "hiding" behind my loyal status when in fact, I, personally, never stepped outside the time frames required for any baron. Any delays in the match between Percival and I were at his request, not mine.
And so, if anyone is wondering why I asked Marzan to intercede, there you have it. Huma is not only known as an oathbreaker, he is now known as a blatant bullying lawbreaker as well.
I hope everyone enjoys his influence in the rings. Anyone who supports liars and criminals should be very happy.
How do you feel about standing up for a hypocrtical rule breaker now, Gimzak and Jaycynda?
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:13:01 EST
On December 17th, Percival (LeDucBlanc) issued challenge to me. On December 19 (a Saturday, I believe), Bridgette verified his wins.
Throughout that holiday week, I sent message after message to Bridgette only to have the messages returned as refused. On or about December 25th, I finally sent a message to Golden describing my difficulty in answering the challenge and feared that I would be unable to get my acceptance notarized within a week's time so I hoped he could help me. He replied that this was acceptable as Bridgette was on a leave of absense.
Please note that no more than six days had passed since the verification of the Standings Keeper and it would have been answered sooner had I been apprised of Bridgette's leave of absense.
I began making preparations to get the challenge fought within the two week time frame as dictated by the rules despite the holdiday season and so I suggested we arrange the duel to be fought the week of January 4th (January 5th was the date I put forth). Percival requested an extension for the next week. I asked Golden if we could do this for Percival in light of the holiday season and he agreed.
Percival and I fought on January 12th.
The day after Marzan defeated Dalamar, the coward Huma challenged me. Perhaps he thought I would not align myself loyal to my long time friend, I do not know.
That date was January 30th.
I, and many others I consulted with, were given to understand that a loyal baron need not defend their title but once per calendar month. Golden's intepretation at the time was that I would not have to accept the challenge until February 1st. I argued that if this were the case then what would stop someone from challenging a loyal baron immediately after a successful defense if the loyal baron need not answer it until the next calendar month?
In my opinion, and I believe it is also now Golden's opinion, a baron's defense of his/her title begins at the moment of challenge and ends after successful defense. I should not have been challenged and thereby forced to begin to defend my title until February 1st.
My defense against Huma's challenge started two days earlier than was necessary.
Huma chose to go around the rules to prevent someone else from waiting until the next calendar month. He then, like the hypocrite he is, charged that I was "hiding" behind my loyal status when in fact, I, personally, never stepped outside the time frames required for any baron. Any delays in the match between Percival and I were at his request, not mine.
And so, if anyone is wondering why I asked Marzan to intercede, there you have it. Huma is not only known as an oathbreaker, he is now known as a blatant bullying lawbreaker as well.
I hope everyone enjoys his influence in the rings. Anyone who supports liars and criminals should be very happy.
How do you feel about standing up for a hypocrtical rule breaker now, Gimzak and Jaycynda?
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ducpercy@aol.com (DucPercy)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:23:05 EST
>>Any delays in the match between Percival and I were at his request, not mine.<<
To answer for my liege, this is true. Plain and simple.
Rory McMurdoch
Deputy of Clermont
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:23:05 EST
>>Any delays in the match between Percival and I were at his request, not mine.<<
To answer for my liege, this is true. Plain and simple.
Rory McMurdoch
Deputy of Clermont
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:25:31 EST
As a note, when i first held this ring, Jesse challenged me, and his original challenge was found invalid due to a peer win, he added one PW and the challenge went forth, shortly after, Helix clarified the rule that if your challenge gets ruled invalid, you lose your right to challenge. I do beleive that's how it goes anyway.
Now, what has happened is done and over. Golden said the match was valid, so let it be written, so let it be done, complaining will do nobody any good.
If anybody cares, lets look at it this way, Percy challenged on Dec 15th, PW's varified Dec 17th...near four weeks later the match actually happened, does it really make sense that we by the rules couldn't challenge in January? Think about that...
Huma
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:25:31 EST
As a note, when i first held this ring, Jesse challenged me, and his original challenge was found invalid due to a peer win, he added one PW and the challenge went forth, shortly after, Helix clarified the rule that if your challenge gets ruled invalid, you lose your right to challenge. I do beleive that's how it goes anyway.
Now, what has happened is done and over. Golden said the match was valid, so let it be written, so let it be done, complaining will do nobody any good.
If anybody cares, lets look at it this way, Percy challenged on Dec 15th, PW's varified Dec 17th...near four weeks later the match actually happened, does it really make sense that we by the rules couldn't challenge in January? Think about that...
Huma
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:32:39 EST
In all honesty, Morgan, I do find that "A loyal baron needs to defend a ring only once per calendar month" clause faulty.
If one manipulates the rules correctly, one can get challenged every two months.
If warlord A challenged on January 13, then the rules state that the challenged has one week to ACCEPT the challenge. The duel must be sceduled within two weeks of the acceptance.
If the challenged waits one week to respond and two weeks to schedule the match, then the match would be fought early February. Thus, all challengers have to wait until March to challenge again when the loyal baron was challenged early January.
That rule itself, in my opinion, was made to give the loyals another benefit over the renegades. However, there's also the neutral now. If I had it my way, I'd strike off that clause.
For reference, here's a copy of the rules I was regarding, from the "Universal Terms of Challenge" in the third paragraph.
And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Warlord of Duel of Swords¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:32:39 EST
In all honesty, Morgan, I do find that "A loyal baron needs to defend a ring only once per calendar month" clause faulty.
If one manipulates the rules correctly, one can get challenged every two months.
If warlord A challenged on January 13, then the rules state that the challenged has one week to ACCEPT the challenge. The duel must be sceduled within two weeks of the acceptance.
If the challenged waits one week to respond and two weeks to schedule the match, then the match would be fought early February. Thus, all challengers have to wait until March to challenge again when the loyal baron was challenged early January.
That rule itself, in my opinion, was made to give the loyals another benefit over the renegades. However, there's also the neutral now. If I had it my way, I'd strike off that clause.
For reference, here's a copy of the rules I was regarding, from the "Universal Terms of Challenge" in the third paragraph.
And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Warlord of Duel of Swords¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:36:16 EST
>If anybody cares, lets look at it this way, Percy challenged on Dec 15th,
>PW's varified Dec 17th...
Why should we look at it that way when that is clearly not true?
The challenge came to me on the 17th, and was verified by the 19th. If matters had gone the way I planned them the duel would have been fought 17 days later, and was fought, at Percival's request, 24 days later.
Huma, you charge me with going around the rules, I did not go around the rules. If I should be blamed for anything it was because I wanted to accomodate my challenger and his predicament.
Even had we fought the duel within the 21 day period, that date would be within the week of January 4th and Huma's challenge was STILL illegal as he challenged in Janary and I did not finish my defense until January.
Huma, you were the one who went around the rules, not me, so stop trying to make it look like I am the rule breaker when it was you that broke the rules! Own up to your mistake. You. Were. Wrong.
Enjoy.
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:36:16 EST
>If anybody cares, lets look at it this way, Percy challenged on Dec 15th,
>PW's varified Dec 17th...
Why should we look at it that way when that is clearly not true?
The challenge came to me on the 17th, and was verified by the 19th. If matters had gone the way I planned them the duel would have been fought 17 days later, and was fought, at Percival's request, 24 days later.
Huma, you charge me with going around the rules, I did not go around the rules. If I should be blamed for anything it was because I wanted to accomodate my challenger and his predicament.
Even had we fought the duel within the 21 day period, that date would be within the week of January 4th and Huma's challenge was STILL illegal as he challenged in Janary and I did not finish my defense until January.
Huma, you were the one who went around the rules, not me, so stop trying to make it look like I am the rule breaker when it was you that broke the rules! Own up to your mistake. You. Were. Wrong.
Enjoy.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:39:45 EST
Excuse me, I read wrong...maybe I need glasses?
Huma
Date: 14 Feb 1999 20:39:45 EST
Excuse me, I read wrong...maybe I need glasses?
Huma
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: str8clutch@aol.com (Str8Clutch)
Date: 14 Feb 1999 21:19:55 EST
Whether you feel this was an illegal challenge or not, Golden said the match was valid and you lost. Plain and simple. Complaining about it won't get you your ring back. So get your PW's and issue challenge or stop making excuses.
~Clutch
Date: 14 Feb 1999 21:19:55 EST
Whether you feel this was an illegal challenge or not, Golden said the match was valid and you lost. Plain and simple. Complaining about it won't get you your ring back. So get your PW's and issue challenge or stop making excuses.
~Clutch
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 01:59:34 EST
Clutch, I do not want the ring back and never said anything to make anyone believe I did.
Making assumptions of my motivations just make you look like the fool.
Date: 15 Feb 1999 01:59:34 EST
Clutch, I do not want the ring back and never said anything to make anyone believe I did.
Making assumptions of my motivations just make you look like the fool.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zenblack@aol.com (Zen Black)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 02:08:58 EST
Yeah...I'm the one who wants the ring back...
Although I fear someone else will beat Huma before I get the chance. Again.
Zen
Date: 15 Feb 1999 02:08:58 EST
Yeah...I'm the one who wants the ring back...
Although I fear someone else will beat Huma before I get the chance. Again.
Zen
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 02:23:16 EST
Var,
I think you bring up a good point. However, how is this for food for thought? The rule can also be manipulated by two or more challengers working in concert to wear a loyal baron and the overlord down.
A challenge could be made at the end of a month, say, January 25th, verified and dueled that same week. On February 1st, the loyal baron is available for challenge again. If the Baron waits the full 21+ days to fight, the duel is fought on the 22nd. The baron will be eligible for challenge in no less than six to nine days.
I am of the mind that the "calendar month" item is too vague and should be changed to a 30 day period once the standings come out verifying the baron successfully defended their title. This would cut out any possibility for a loyal baron to pad the time between challenges and cut out the possibility of challengers working in tandem at the end/beginning of months.
Just as Renegades and Neutrals can have the perk of challenging the Overlord at anytime (within the bounds of the UTC) and can step in against intercessions and tests of worthiness, so do I think that the Loyals deserver their perks. One of those perks is that they should only have to defend their ring once a month.
Date: 15 Feb 1999 02:23:16 EST
Var,
I think you bring up a good point. However, how is this for food for thought? The rule can also be manipulated by two or more challengers working in concert to wear a loyal baron and the overlord down.
A challenge could be made at the end of a month, say, January 25th, verified and dueled that same week. On February 1st, the loyal baron is available for challenge again. If the Baron waits the full 21+ days to fight, the duel is fought on the 22nd. The baron will be eligible for challenge in no less than six to nine days.
I am of the mind that the "calendar month" item is too vague and should be changed to a 30 day period once the standings come out verifying the baron successfully defended their title. This would cut out any possibility for a loyal baron to pad the time between challenges and cut out the possibility of challengers working in tandem at the end/beginning of months.
Just as Renegades and Neutrals can have the perk of challenging the Overlord at anytime (within the bounds of the UTC) and can step in against intercessions and tests of worthiness, so do I think that the Loyals deserver their perks. One of those perks is that they should only have to defend their ring once a month.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 02:35:52 EST
Zen, he is Renegade. One could say that according to Huma's rules of challenge, you can challenge two days before he is eligible for challenge, so why not?
Date: 15 Feb 1999 02:35:52 EST
Zen, he is Renegade. One could say that according to Huma's rules of challenge, you can challenge two days before he is eligible for challenge, so why not?