From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 03:00:41 EST
Interesting.
According to the information I have been able to gather concerning this matter, the Warlord Huma could have easily withdrawn his challenge to the Baronness before the challenge letter was read by the Standing's Keeper.
The fact that he did not appears to indicate that he wished such controversy.
One does not just wake up one morning and decide "I will be honorable from now on" and succeed. The coming months will be a true test of the new Baron's "honor."
I regret that I was unable to serve long as a Baroness alongside such a self-assured and straight-speaking Baroness as Morgan Le Fay.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
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: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 03:01:32 EST
It's time I put in my two cents.
It seems to me that some people are angered that the Overlord chose to intercede.
Interestingly enough, these same people did not complain when Dal interceded for his Loyal barons some....15 times.
By the way...this is not a slam on the man whom I have said myself many times is the greatest Overlord to step onto the sand. But there is a hypocrisy relevant here.
Fire away.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Laylla's husband.
Roman pretorian
Warlord in DoS
Mage in DoM
Member of HDT
"I am an honorable man, but to duel me is not a pleasant experience, if only for the pain"
Date: 15 Feb 1999 03:01:32 EST
It's time I put in my two cents.
It seems to me that some people are angered that the Overlord chose to intercede.
Interestingly enough, these same people did not complain when Dal interceded for his Loyal barons some....15 times.
By the way...this is not a slam on the man whom I have said myself many times is the greatest Overlord to step onto the sand. But there is a hypocrisy relevant here.
Fire away.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Laylla's husband.
Roman pretorian
Warlord in DoS
Mage in DoM
Member of HDT
"I am an honorable man, but to duel me is not a pleasant experience, if only for the pain"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 08:14:35 EST
"A Loyal may be challenged only once per calendar month"
What that means is if someone issues challenge on December 19th, that is the once per calendar month regardless of when the duel is faught. Period. So if the challenge process is completed on January 10th, then as soon as the Standings are released the following week detailing the completion of the challenge a new challenge can be issued immediatetly. Period.
The rule is not once per two calendar months or however you can bend the rules to make it seem it was part of the same month. And regardless beyond that, the new challenge came over 31 days from when the former challenge had been issued. So either way it can be interpeted Huma did not break any rules.
"Once per calendar month" December is a calendar month. January is a calendar month. A challenge was issued on December 19th. The next challenge was issued on January 30th. Period. Its not hard to figure out and during the rules debate this was addressed when the rule was put into place at the formation of the first nine barons.
Date: 15 Feb 1999 08:14:35 EST
"A Loyal may be challenged only once per calendar month"
What that means is if someone issues challenge on December 19th, that is the once per calendar month regardless of when the duel is faught. Period. So if the challenge process is completed on January 10th, then as soon as the Standings are released the following week detailing the completion of the challenge a new challenge can be issued immediatetly. Period.
The rule is not once per two calendar months or however you can bend the rules to make it seem it was part of the same month. And regardless beyond that, the new challenge came over 31 days from when the former challenge had been issued. So either way it can be interpeted Huma did not break any rules.
"Once per calendar month" December is a calendar month. January is a calendar month. A challenge was issued on December 19th. The next challenge was issued on January 30th. Period. Its not hard to figure out and during the rules debate this was addressed when the rule was put into place at the formation of the first nine barons.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 10:21:35 EST
> "A Loyal may be challenged only once per calendar month"
> What that means is if someone issues challenge on December 19th, that
> is the once per calendar month regardless of when the duel is faught. Period.
Spoken with the clarity of mind that comes from twice having one's head separated from his shoulders.
The standards of the sport dictate that:
" 7. Loyalists need only defend their title once per calendar Month. "
You'll note that the clause says "defended" not a reference to when said baron is "challenged." So the question remains: At what point is the title considered defended? This is a debatable issue. On one side, it goes against all logic to say that the title is "defended" at any point before the final round is called. On the other, and this has already been pointed out, to rule that way means a Loyal Baron could, conceivably, only fight a defense
every two months.
What is needed here is a ruling (made public, preferably) by the DoS Coordinator and an amendment to the standards of the sport for means of clarification. Perhaps the ruling has already been made, in which case this entire argument is unwarranted, but my understanding of the case here is that there was an agreement to let the challenge proceed without taking an official stance on the matter.
Overall, the point remains that the "this is the way it is, period end of story" rhetoric should be saved for a time when the person making the statement actually has the facts correct and on his side.... this issue, however, remains an open one.
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 15 Feb 1999 10:21:35 EST
> "A Loyal may be challenged only once per calendar month"
> What that means is if someone issues challenge on December 19th, that
> is the once per calendar month regardless of when the duel is faught. Period.
Spoken with the clarity of mind that comes from twice having one's head separated from his shoulders.
The standards of the sport dictate that:
" 7. Loyalists need only defend their title once per calendar Month. "
You'll note that the clause says "defended" not a reference to when said baron is "challenged." So the question remains: At what point is the title considered defended? This is a debatable issue. On one side, it goes against all logic to say that the title is "defended" at any point before the final round is called. On the other, and this has already been pointed out, to rule that way means a Loyal Baron could, conceivably, only fight a defense
every two months.
What is needed here is a ruling (made public, preferably) by the DoS Coordinator and an amendment to the standards of the sport for means of clarification. Perhaps the ruling has already been made, in which case this entire argument is unwarranted, but my understanding of the case here is that there was an agreement to let the challenge proceed without taking an official stance on the matter.
Overall, the point remains that the "this is the way it is, period end of story" rhetoric should be saved for a time when the person making the statement actually has the facts correct and on his side.... this issue, however, remains an open one.
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: foxxgrrl@aol.com (Foxxgrrl)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 11:01:43 EST
" 7. Loyalists need only defend their title once per calendar Month. "
Defending the title means actually getting into a ring. Not reading a letter, not having peer wins verified, not arguing on the boards.
Assuming that, why is it a problem for someone to challenge on January 13th, the duel to be fought on February 3rd, and the next challenge to be issued February 8th? Since the Loyal Baron can take up to three weeks before actually dueling the challenger (making the date of defense March 1st), he or she "need only defend their title once per calendar Month". They also have the option of dueling twice in the same month. I don't believe the Loyal
Baron can't defend his or her ring more than once per month, as far as the rules are concerned, the Baron just isn't forced to do so.
It may not be friendly, it may not be honorable, but right now it's entirely legal.
-Ally
Date: 15 Feb 1999 11:01:43 EST
" 7. Loyalists need only defend their title once per calendar Month. "
Defending the title means actually getting into a ring. Not reading a letter, not having peer wins verified, not arguing on the boards.
Assuming that, why is it a problem for someone to challenge on January 13th, the duel to be fought on February 3rd, and the next challenge to be issued February 8th? Since the Loyal Baron can take up to three weeks before actually dueling the challenger (making the date of defense March 1st), he or she "need only defend their title once per calendar Month". They also have the option of dueling twice in the same month. I don't believe the Loyal
Baron can't defend his or her ring more than once per month, as far as the rules are concerned, the Baron just isn't forced to do so.
It may not be friendly, it may not be honorable, but right now it's entirely legal.
-Ally
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 12:45:11 EST
<<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.>>
Morgan,
Pardon if I disagree with dis specific line of logic. Standin' in defense of an Overlord ya respect is one of da greatest honors a loyal baron can have. Such a perk could stand alone, and still give da station privilege. However, if da rules remain where loyals gain da protection of a restricted # of challenges, I believe yer suggestion ta change da vague "calendar month" ta a period of 30 days is a good one.
~J
Date: 15 Feb 1999 12:45:11 EST
<<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.>>
Morgan,
Pardon if I disagree with dis specific line of logic. Standin' in defense of an Overlord ya respect is one of da greatest honors a loyal baron can have. Such a perk could stand alone, and still give da station privilege. However, if da rules remain where loyals gain da protection of a restricted # of challenges, I believe yer suggestion ta change da vague "calendar month" ta a period of 30 days is a good one.
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 13:35:38 EST
Only a fool would defend a man who refuses to reciprocate.
Date: 15 Feb 1999 13:35:38 EST
Only a fool would defend a man who refuses to reciprocate.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 13:36:10 EST
Kalamere,
That is how Gloin explained it to me as to how it is supposed to work when the rules regarding Barons were first made. And in the early days of Barons the question had come up on the boards, and Gloin answered it with the same explanation he gave me. Considering he was one of the main individuals who wrote the rules, I have a tendency to beleive his interpetation.
Thanks.
Date: 15 Feb 1999 13:36:10 EST
Kalamere,
That is how Gloin explained it to me as to how it is supposed to work when the rules regarding Barons were first made. And in the early days of Barons the question had come up on the boards, and Gloin answered it with the same explanation he gave me. Considering he was one of the main individuals who wrote the rules, I have a tendency to beleive his interpetation.
Thanks.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 19:27:19 EST
Morgan
Tis I shall e'er be most humbly honored to hae hae the privilege to stand ast thine second. The hae e'er honored these ancient halls, the rings and the traditions and thine heart. The fire yet burns, lass, the wheel yet turns. Thou art a light in these dim times, and thee shine brightly, lass.
Thine friend,
Jona
Date: 15 Feb 1999 19:27:19 EST
Morgan
Tis I shall e'er be most humbly honored to hae hae the privilege to stand ast thine second. The hae e'er honored these ancient halls, the rings and the traditions and thine heart. The fire yet burns, lass, the wheel yet turns. Thou art a light in these dim times, and thee shine brightly, lass.
Thine friend,
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 19:41:24 EST
Ally
The question remains what constitutes "defense". Consider if thee will that a Baron begins "defense" of the title the moment the gauntlet ist cast. The "defense" nae ends officially until tis the outcome ist placed in the lists.
Tis indeed ast Kalamere hast writ, the community ist in need of an official interpretation.
Jona
Date: 15 Feb 1999 19:41:24 EST
Ally
The question remains what constitutes "defense". Consider if thee will that a Baron begins "defense" of the title the moment the gauntlet ist cast. The "defense" nae ends officially until tis the outcome ist placed in the lists.
Tis indeed ast Kalamere hast writ, the community ist in need of an official interpretation.
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 15 Feb 1999 20:44:23 EST
Community of DoS,
Perhaps its time we put a decision ta da Barons' council other dan one involvin' challenge matches. However given it is a decision dat will permanantly affect DoS and its rules, Goldendust should of course be overseer and cast da final decision. I propose dat any clarifications ta be submitted ta our rulebook be voted upon by our very own Barons' coucil. Long has da rank of Baron been respected as a position of leadership in our community, now
its time fer da barons ta show some leadership. I also believe dat fer once, da council will not meet under a pretense of station (Loyal, Renegade, or Neutral) as our decision will affect every last dueler in our honored sport.
~J
Date: 15 Feb 1999 20:44:23 EST
Community of DoS,
Perhaps its time we put a decision ta da Barons' council other dan one involvin' challenge matches. However given it is a decision dat will permanantly affect DoS and its rules, Goldendust should of course be overseer and cast da final decision. I propose dat any clarifications ta be submitted ta our rulebook be voted upon by our very own Barons' coucil. Long has da rank of Baron been respected as a position of leadership in our community, now
its time fer da barons ta show some leadership. I also believe dat fer once, da council will not meet under a pretense of station (Loyal, Renegade, or Neutral) as our decision will affect every last dueler in our honored sport.
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 16 Feb 1999 03:13:31 EST
Jeff, Huma is a Baron. Let's not let him effect our lives.
~ L
Date: 16 Feb 1999 03:13:31 EST
Jeff, Huma is a Baron. Let's not let him effect our lives.
~ L
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Feb 1999 14:58:57 EST
Baron Oakenshield
Though the title of Baron may deserve respect, tis nae anna requirement it be held by a personage of honesty, honor or intelligence. Ta hae the current Council, with a few notable exceptions, rule on the matter of anna clarifications ta the rules of engagement wouldst, ta me mind simply add ta the blight pon the community. Do recall ye hae Huma, nae ta mention the deceitful cheat, Jaycynda, an let us nae fergit Uzie Poo.
Jona.
Date: 16 Feb 1999 14:58:57 EST
Baron Oakenshield
Though the title of Baron may deserve respect, tis nae anna requirement it be held by a personage of honesty, honor or intelligence. Ta hae the current Council, with a few notable exceptions, rule on the matter of anna clarifications ta the rules of engagement wouldst, ta me mind simply add ta the blight pon the community. Do recall ye hae Huma, nae ta mention the deceitful cheat, Jaycynda, an let us nae fergit Uzie Poo.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gimmzak@aol.com (Gimmzak)
Date: 16 Feb 1999 16:05:21 EST
Jona,
I don't see how you can think this will hurt the community. If anything it will better serve those that wish to challenge. For you to even cast judgment here is uncalled for. Please save your venomous words for another topic. You will only start something that need not be started.
I think what Jeff says should be looked into, I agree whole heatedly. There is obvious disagreement on challenging. Why not rectify that now, rather then after another problem arises.
Gim
Date: 16 Feb 1999 16:05:21 EST
Jona,
I don't see how you can think this will hurt the community. If anything it will better serve those that wish to challenge. For you to even cast judgment here is uncalled for. Please save your venomous words for another topic. You will only start something that need not be started.
I think what Jeff says should be looked into, I agree whole heatedly. There is obvious disagreement on challenging. Why not rectify that now, rather then after another problem arises.
Gim
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 16 Feb 1999 17:25:03 EST
Jona,
I've been doing my best to just ignore everything, but I feel I need to comment here. When you fight your way to warlord, then to baron, whether people like you or not, you'd still be apart of the council. They can of course vote differently than I. it's that simple.
Huma
Date: 16 Feb 1999 17:25:03 EST
Jona,
I've been doing my best to just ignore everything, but I feel I need to comment here. When you fight your way to warlord, then to baron, whether people like you or not, you'd still be apart of the council. They can of course vote differently than I. it's that simple.
Huma