From: marzan@aol.com (Marzan)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 02:15:32 EST
~~
I, Lord Eros DeBurgo, do hereby accept the demand of Challenge for The Crown of Overlord, presented by the Renegade Baron, Lord Uziel. I shall be dueling in the Name of The Elven Kingdom of Eldicor and The House of Asgard. My Colors shall be Red, Black and Gold. My Second shall be Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont. My Lady of Honor shall be My wife, The Lady Topaz DeBurgo. My weapon shall be the Mithril Elven Broadsword,
Valinor. My Choice of caller shall be the RDI Fish. If RDI Fish is unavailable, the Challenger may choose a caller. There will be no Test of Worthiness. The Match will be in the best of Three Format. It shall take place this Friday, February 26, at
9 PM by The Eastern Moon in The RDI Basement Annex. May Honor be Defended and Served.
~~~Blessings of Twilight~~~
Lord Eros DeBurgo
XXIX Overlord of Swords
Formal Acceptance of Demand for 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: athlstan@aol.com (Athlstan)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:06:37 EST
Mayhaps I have missed something, milords, but does not the challenge of the winner of the warlord tournament take precedence? Is not there some insciption amongst the Rules defining a period of time prior to a tournament during which the Overlord is free from challenge? methinks aslo that there is no queue of challenges save *to* a renegade baron.
- Athlstan
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:06:37 EST
Mayhaps I have missed something, milords, but does not the challenge of the winner of the warlord tournament take precedence? Is not there some insciption amongst the Rules defining a period of time prior to a tournament during which the Overlord is free from challenge? methinks aslo that there is no queue of challenges save *to* a renegade baron.
- Athlstan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lorduziel@aol.com (Lord Uziel)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:12:49 EST
I find this to be somewhat acceptable.
Though I believe Lord Phisch will be calling that evening at that time in the Arena and we should best find a caller that will not be otherwise engaged. I could be wrong, but I believe thats right during his shift. If not, still another caller would be more suitable to me. As I know Lord Phisch is a very busy man.
My colors are Crimson and Black, my standard is a Black sun on a Crimson field. As this is a special situation, I have considered the issue of my second carefully and have chosen the ever honorable Lord Ian Mackenzie to stand at my side as my second. As I am presently unengaged with a lady of fine grace and breeding that I could honorablly call upon to stand with me, I leave the question of my Lady of Honor open, and will fight for the honor of all
the ladies of grace and beauty that have ever walked our fine halls. Unless of course, I find a suitable replacement for them before the time of this match.
I fight with my standard blade, a six foot falchion of great mass and weight, which I have lately named *Mirth* for this heinous situation that has fallen upon me of late, forged by my own hand in the deserts of my wanderings er my return. May the blade strike true to expunge this disgrace to my honor.
I will of course await final appraisement from Lady Jansen and Lord EverMeadow. I stand ready to meet this challenge forthwith.
I am,
~Adonai Uziel
~DragonLord of Rhydin
~Twice Baron of the Seventh.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:12:49 EST
I find this to be somewhat acceptable.
Though I believe Lord Phisch will be calling that evening at that time in the Arena and we should best find a caller that will not be otherwise engaged. I could be wrong, but I believe thats right during his shift. If not, still another caller would be more suitable to me. As I know Lord Phisch is a very busy man.
My colors are Crimson and Black, my standard is a Black sun on a Crimson field. As this is a special situation, I have considered the issue of my second carefully and have chosen the ever honorable Lord Ian Mackenzie to stand at my side as my second. As I am presently unengaged with a lady of fine grace and breeding that I could honorablly call upon to stand with me, I leave the question of my Lady of Honor open, and will fight for the honor of all
the ladies of grace and beauty that have ever walked our fine halls. Unless of course, I find a suitable replacement for them before the time of this match.
I fight with my standard blade, a six foot falchion of great mass and weight, which I have lately named *Mirth* for this heinous situation that has fallen upon me of late, forged by my own hand in the deserts of my wanderings er my return. May the blade strike true to expunge this disgrace to my honor.
I will of course await final appraisement from Lady Jansen and Lord EverMeadow. I stand ready to meet this challenge forthwith.
I am,
~Adonai Uziel
~DragonLord of Rhydin
~Twice Baron of the Seventh.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ducpercy@aol.com (DucPercy)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:21:02 EST
>>Mayhaps I have missed something, milords, but does not the challenge of the winner of the warlord tournament take precedence?<<
Athlstan,
There is some question of the conflict of a pair of rules that have never come into conflict this way before. A Loyal Baron realigned to Renegade has the right to *immediately* challenge the Overlord who realigns him. The Tourney winner merely gets to duel whoever is Overlord when he wins his right to challenge. It is the opinion of some, and I would agree, that a Baron's right to challenge *the Overlord who realigned him* takes precedence, and that
the Tourney winner's prize of an intercession free challenge to *the Overlord* should wait for the outcome.
This is just my opinion. The Supervisor has not yet made his known.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:21:02 EST
>>Mayhaps I have missed something, milords, but does not the challenge of the winner of the warlord tournament take precedence?<<
Athlstan,
There is some question of the conflict of a pair of rules that have never come into conflict this way before. A Loyal Baron realigned to Renegade has the right to *immediately* challenge the Overlord who realigns him. The Tourney winner merely gets to duel whoever is Overlord when he wins his right to challenge. It is the opinion of some, and I would agree, that a Baron's right to challenge *the Overlord who realigned him* takes precedence, and that
the Tourney winner's prize of an intercession free challenge to *the Overlord* should wait for the outcome.
This is just my opinion. The Supervisor has not yet made his known.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:52:56 EST
Athlstan,
M'lord no such clause as ta who holds priority in a que of challenges ta da Overlord exists, because typically no que can exist. However, da said grace period only applies ta 24 days *prior* ta a WL tournament. Da altercation between Overlord DeBurgo and Baron Uziel took place after da WL tournament had already begun. Herein lies da discrepancy with our rulebook.
~J
Date: 24 Feb 1999 16:52:56 EST
Athlstan,
M'lord no such clause as ta who holds priority in a que of challenges ta da Overlord exists, because typically no que can exist. However, da said grace period only applies ta 24 days *prior* ta a WL tournament. Da altercation between Overlord DeBurgo and Baron Uziel took place after da WL tournament had already begun. Herein lies da discrepancy with our rulebook.
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 18:07:05 EST
I believe the intent behind the 24 day grace period was so that the Overlord would not be forced to accept a queue of challenges as he is considered "under challenge" 24 days before and no more than one week after the tourney
The UTC expressly states there shall be no queues of challenges, with the exception of challenges to Neutral and Renegade Barons.
Because there is a special section regarding the Tourney and the prize(s) offered, as Seamus has been kind enough to attach for our reference, I believe that it takes priority over a realigned baron's right.
In light of how the rules are currently worded, I have changed my stance. Under no circumstance do I believe anyone's right to challenge takes priority over the right of the person who won the right to face the Overlord, as is clearly defined in the rules. Under no circumstance do I believe the Overlord should be forced to face a queue of challengers, as is also clearly defined.
Perhaps there could be an amendment made to the rules that state the Overlord may not realign barons during the 24 day grace period and until after facing the tourney winner. If potential challengers are restricted, then perhaps so should the Overlord be restricted.
Also, it occurs to me that a realigned baron could possibly never have an opportunity to excercise the right to "immediate" challenge, as the rules stand. It is conceivable that a challenge to the Overlord could be pending for 21 days and on the 22nd day expect another person's challenge. If the realigned baron does not get the time stamp first, s/he is out of luck just like the rest of the hopefuls who were not in time.
Please do not get me wrong. I do believe a realigned baron should have the right to immediate challenge or comparable recourse; however, as the rules stand, a realigned baron would have to break the rules in order to press his/her right.
Either the rules need to expressly state that a realigned baron takes precedence and is allowed to step on someone else's challenge (which I do not necessarily think is appropriate), or a realigned baron can be allowed first chance at offering challenge once the Overlord has successfully defended his/her title and is free to be challenged again.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 18:07:05 EST
I believe the intent behind the 24 day grace period was so that the Overlord would not be forced to accept a queue of challenges as he is considered "under challenge" 24 days before and no more than one week after the tourney
The UTC expressly states there shall be no queues of challenges, with the exception of challenges to Neutral and Renegade Barons.
Because there is a special section regarding the Tourney and the prize(s) offered, as Seamus has been kind enough to attach for our reference, I believe that it takes priority over a realigned baron's right.
In light of how the rules are currently worded, I have changed my stance. Under no circumstance do I believe anyone's right to challenge takes priority over the right of the person who won the right to face the Overlord, as is clearly defined in the rules. Under no circumstance do I believe the Overlord should be forced to face a queue of challengers, as is also clearly defined.
Perhaps there could be an amendment made to the rules that state the Overlord may not realign barons during the 24 day grace period and until after facing the tourney winner. If potential challengers are restricted, then perhaps so should the Overlord be restricted.
Also, it occurs to me that a realigned baron could possibly never have an opportunity to excercise the right to "immediate" challenge, as the rules stand. It is conceivable that a challenge to the Overlord could be pending for 21 days and on the 22nd day expect another person's challenge. If the realigned baron does not get the time stamp first, s/he is out of luck just like the rest of the hopefuls who were not in time.
Please do not get me wrong. I do believe a realigned baron should have the right to immediate challenge or comparable recourse; however, as the rules stand, a realigned baron would have to break the rules in order to press his/her right.
Either the rules need to expressly state that a realigned baron takes precedence and is allowed to step on someone else's challenge (which I do not necessarily think is appropriate), or a realigned baron can be allowed first chance at offering challenge once the Overlord has successfully defended his/her title and is free to be challenged again.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 18:47:47 EST
Lady Cornwall:
Or, we can understand that there are two situations in the rules where a challenge is directly called for, and recognize that such situations may, indeed, overlap, creating this situation... and amend the Terms so that the Overlord may, in fact, face a queue of challenge IF circumstances which allow immediate challenge do occur.
Let us understand one thing: The Overlord took his action willingly. I will not say that this happened in this instance - but if we weaken the right of a realigned Renegade Baron to challenge the Overlord over that matter of honor, there is nothing stopping an Overlord from blithely realigning people 23 days prior to a tournament and denying them the opportunity for redress. In this case, the Overlord's overreaction may serve to do just that,
although it was probably not his intent.
Furthermore, let us remember one very important point: In virtually every tourney, the free shot at the title of Overlord has been a consolation prize. As I have stated, a matter of honor should take precedence over a prize; even moreso when that prize is what's left over.
The Warlord Eric WILL have his chance at his prize, regardless (the title of Overlord); if his prize take precedence, Baron Uziel may be denied a specific right granted him. I feel the decision which course to take here requires little thought.
One further note: Propriety not only demands that the Baron be allowed his opportunity to redress a wrong he feels done him... but the Overlord deserves an equal right to face the Baron that he feels wronged him, as well. The rule was placed in the Terms FOR THAT REASON, and is just about the only point in the Terms that singularly reflects an imposition of honor on these proceedings. If we cast that aside, then what message are we sending?
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 18:47:47 EST
Lady Cornwall:
Or, we can understand that there are two situations in the rules where a challenge is directly called for, and recognize that such situations may, indeed, overlap, creating this situation... and amend the Terms so that the Overlord may, in fact, face a queue of challenge IF circumstances which allow immediate challenge do occur.
Let us understand one thing: The Overlord took his action willingly. I will not say that this happened in this instance - but if we weaken the right of a realigned Renegade Baron to challenge the Overlord over that matter of honor, there is nothing stopping an Overlord from blithely realigning people 23 days prior to a tournament and denying them the opportunity for redress. In this case, the Overlord's overreaction may serve to do just that,
although it was probably not his intent.
Furthermore, let us remember one very important point: In virtually every tourney, the free shot at the title of Overlord has been a consolation prize. As I have stated, a matter of honor should take precedence over a prize; even moreso when that prize is what's left over.
The Warlord Eric WILL have his chance at his prize, regardless (the title of Overlord); if his prize take precedence, Baron Uziel may be denied a specific right granted him. I feel the decision which course to take here requires little thought.
One further note: Propriety not only demands that the Baron be allowed his opportunity to redress a wrong he feels done him... but the Overlord deserves an equal right to face the Baron that he feels wronged him, as well. The rule was placed in the Terms FOR THAT REASON, and is just about the only point in the Terms that singularly reflects an imposition of honor on these proceedings. If we cast that aside, then what message are we sending?
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 19:00:03 EST
Simply put.
Until Warlord Siadek officially uses his right to challenge, no challenge queue exists.
However, the rules -as written- indicate that should the Warlord uses his right to challenge and issue said challenge, then his duel superceeds all others.
I am in agreement that this should not be so, that a matter of Honor should never be set aside, but unless the rules are ammended, I cannot do aught but abide by the letter of those rules.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 19:00:03 EST
Simply put.
Until Warlord Siadek officially uses his right to challenge, no challenge queue exists.
However, the rules -as written- indicate that should the Warlord uses his right to challenge and issue said challenge, then his duel superceeds all others.
I am in agreement that this should not be so, that a matter of Honor should never be set aside, but unless the rules are ammended, I cannot do aught but abide by the letter of those rules.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 19:23:19 EST
If a challenge occured 23 days before the tourney was scheduled, then the challenge match should be completed by then and thus, there will be no concerns about a potential queue.
The number 24 is very specific. It allows for the one week (7 days) the challenged has to accept and schedule the challenge, the two weeks (14) the challenged has to get to the duel fought, and three days pad, presumably the time period between time stamp on the letter of challenge and the Standings Keeper's verification of valid right to challenge.
The point is, the Overlord came under challenge exactly 24 days before the tourney started and will still be under challenge until the prize is redeemed within one week. He cannot be expected to hold a queue of challengers as the rules expressly states he is not required to.
No matter what the reason was for the realigned baron rule, it conflicts with the other rules specified in the Warlord Tourney section and the Universal Terms of Challenge. No one should be forced to break one rule in order to reap the benefits of another.
As I said, as the rules stand, a realigned baron has virtually no "immediate" right to challenge. If the community feels it is important enough that a realigned baron has some reasonable recourse, then we must rally to get the rules amended either in the UTC or in the Warlord Tourney section or both.
As far as the rules are concerned, all challengers are equal--held to the same standard--regardless of title, lack of title, or how they earned that right (either by peer wins or prize in a tourney). The rules were not written with the various opinions on honor in mind because everyone has differing concepts of what honor is about. Enforcing codes of honor and integrity is not the function of a set of rules.
Rather the rules were written in order to maintain order and consistency. No more, no less. We should not expect more from them.
Matters of honor are personal in nature, even when employed in our public and political lives. If the rules do not explicitly account for special cases regarding ambiguous matters of "honor" then other forms of recourse must be considered.
If there is anything that I have learned from you it is that if we cannot enforce rules consistently, then why have them at all?
I seem to remember a time when you told me that I could not look at issues with case by case compassion and that I must divorce myself from the details and focus on what the rules actually allow or do not allow without regard to what is "fair" or what is "honorable."
I ask you now to do the same.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 19:23:19 EST
If a challenge occured 23 days before the tourney was scheduled, then the challenge match should be completed by then and thus, there will be no concerns about a potential queue.
The number 24 is very specific. It allows for the one week (7 days) the challenged has to accept and schedule the challenge, the two weeks (14) the challenged has to get to the duel fought, and three days pad, presumably the time period between time stamp on the letter of challenge and the Standings Keeper's verification of valid right to challenge.
The point is, the Overlord came under challenge exactly 24 days before the tourney started and will still be under challenge until the prize is redeemed within one week. He cannot be expected to hold a queue of challengers as the rules expressly states he is not required to.
No matter what the reason was for the realigned baron rule, it conflicts with the other rules specified in the Warlord Tourney section and the Universal Terms of Challenge. No one should be forced to break one rule in order to reap the benefits of another.
As I said, as the rules stand, a realigned baron has virtually no "immediate" right to challenge. If the community feels it is important enough that a realigned baron has some reasonable recourse, then we must rally to get the rules amended either in the UTC or in the Warlord Tourney section or both.
As far as the rules are concerned, all challengers are equal--held to the same standard--regardless of title, lack of title, or how they earned that right (either by peer wins or prize in a tourney). The rules were not written with the various opinions on honor in mind because everyone has differing concepts of what honor is about. Enforcing codes of honor and integrity is not the function of a set of rules.
Rather the rules were written in order to maintain order and consistency. No more, no less. We should not expect more from them.
Matters of honor are personal in nature, even when employed in our public and political lives. If the rules do not explicitly account for special cases regarding ambiguous matters of "honor" then other forms of recourse must be considered.
If there is anything that I have learned from you it is that if we cannot enforce rules consistently, then why have them at all?
I seem to remember a time when you told me that I could not look at issues with case by case compassion and that I must divorce myself from the details and focus on what the rules actually allow or do not allow without regard to what is "fair" or what is "honorable."
I ask you now to do the same.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 19:44:17 EST
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
In that thee wouldst hae nae anna way of knowing, the circumstances thee claim hae "never come into conflict this way before." hae indeed taken place. Witness the reign of Feadur who didst declare all his seated Barons renegade and the challenge of Devon Goral, fourth place finisher in the warlord's tourney.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 24 Feb 1999 19:44:17 EST
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
In that thee wouldst hae nae anna way of knowing, the circumstances thee claim hae "never come into conflict this way before." hae indeed taken place. Witness the reign of Feadur who didst declare all his seated Barons renegade and the challenge of Devon Goral, fourth place finisher in the warlord's tourney.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:17:52 EST
Lady Cornwall:
You state, "the Overlord came under challenge exactly 24 days before the tourney started..."
He did not. The tourney winner is not granted "a challenge." He is granted the right TO challenge, which is not active until such time as he DOES challenge.
It can be argued, I suppose, that having issued his challenge, the way the rules are currently written, the Warlord Eric's challenge does indeed, by rule, supersede Baron Uziel's. However.
The red herring regarding challenge queues has been thrown out, and I will state unequivocally that should Eros defeat Eric, ADONAI'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MUST HOLD PRECEDENCE AGAINST ANY OTHER ATTEMPTED CHALLENGE. Otherwise, the entire purpose of the rule allowing a realigned Baron to seek redress will have been shunted aside TWICE... all so that someone who didn't even win the tournament can get a shot at a specific individual rather than a title.
Think about this. The realigned renegade's right is an act against a specific individual. The warlord tourney prize is a shot at a title. Are we to then accept that the RIGHT thing to do is grant the prize-winner the shot at the individual, and to hell with the matter of person-to-person honor?
If we do that, this truly is nothing more than a game, the rings and crown trinkets, and those of us who place any semblance of honor on their holding may as well go hunt pheasant.
I know the prospect of Adonai as Overlord causes many to cringe, but just as I stood for my most hated enemy on the principle that Barons should not be tested by the Overlord, so will I stand for the honor of someone I view with considerably more goodwill. Adonai did act inappropriately - but the reaction was akin to killing every dog in the city because a few were rabid. His rights are the same as any other, and I will fight for them as assuredly
as I will fight for my own.
I wish the Warlord well - but the fact remains that he could as easily dethrone Adonai as Eros, and granting his challenge foremost serves only to allow an Overlord, in the future, to get away with using the rules to force someone into the Renegade camp at tourney time without fear of redress.
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:17:52 EST
Lady Cornwall:
You state, "the Overlord came under challenge exactly 24 days before the tourney started..."
He did not. The tourney winner is not granted "a challenge." He is granted the right TO challenge, which is not active until such time as he DOES challenge.
It can be argued, I suppose, that having issued his challenge, the way the rules are currently written, the Warlord Eric's challenge does indeed, by rule, supersede Baron Uziel's. However.
The red herring regarding challenge queues has been thrown out, and I will state unequivocally that should Eros defeat Eric, ADONAI'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MUST HOLD PRECEDENCE AGAINST ANY OTHER ATTEMPTED CHALLENGE. Otherwise, the entire purpose of the rule allowing a realigned Baron to seek redress will have been shunted aside TWICE... all so that someone who didn't even win the tournament can get a shot at a specific individual rather than a title.
Think about this. The realigned renegade's right is an act against a specific individual. The warlord tourney prize is a shot at a title. Are we to then accept that the RIGHT thing to do is grant the prize-winner the shot at the individual, and to hell with the matter of person-to-person honor?
If we do that, this truly is nothing more than a game, the rings and crown trinkets, and those of us who place any semblance of honor on their holding may as well go hunt pheasant.
I know the prospect of Adonai as Overlord causes many to cringe, but just as I stood for my most hated enemy on the principle that Barons should not be tested by the Overlord, so will I stand for the honor of someone I view with considerably more goodwill. Adonai did act inappropriately - but the reaction was akin to killing every dog in the city because a few were rabid. His rights are the same as any other, and I will fight for them as assuredly
as I will fight for my own.
I wish the Warlord well - but the fact remains that he could as easily dethrone Adonai as Eros, and granting his challenge foremost serves only to allow an Overlord, in the future, to get away with using the rules to force someone into the Renegade camp at tourney time without fear of redress.
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:30:06 EST
Lady Cornwall:
I responded to a point, and realized there was more I needed to address. Forgive me. Onward.
"As I said, as the rules stand, a realigned baron has virtually no 'immediate' right to challenge."
Pardon me? I quote, from the Overlord section of the UTC:
"9. If the Overlord should banish a Loyalist to a Renegade alignment then the Overlord must accept an immediate challenge of title if issued by that Baron."
What exactly do we all think "must accept an immediate challenge of title" means? Do we think it means "unless A, B, C, and W?" I certainly hope not, as it does not SAY that. And I do believe the word immediate is fairly well placed in the sentence for all to see, as well as fairly obvious in its meaning.
You said:
"As far as the rules are concerned, all challengers are equal--held to the same standard--regardless of title, lack of title, or how they earned that right (either by peer wins or prize in a tourney)."
This is absolutely incorrect, in two ways.
1) First-come, first served - Adonai wins.
2) The rules relating to the winner of the tournament - Eric wins.
3) Overlord Rule 9, UTC - Adonai wins.
Even if we cancel out 2 and 3 above as being in conflict... Adonai pressed challenge first among equal claims.
"Matters of honor are personal in nature, even when employed in our public and political lives. If the rules do not explicitly account for special cases regarding ambiguous matters of 'honor' then other forms of recourse must be considered."
The rule allowing a Renegade Baron the immediate right to challenge upon realignment can be construed as nothing BUT a matter of honor encoded into the rules, and as such, the rules DO explicitly account for special cases regarding ambiguous matters of "honor."
"I seem to remember a time when you told me that I could not look at issues with case by case compassion and that I must divorce myself from the details and focus on what the rules actually allow or do not allow without regard to what is 'fair' or what is 'honorable.'
I ask you now to do the same."
As I have demonstrated above, that is exactly what I am doing. In turn, I'd ask you to review the lesson. Dear though you are to me, I believe you are, indeed, arguing for your desires rather than the rules; I can think of no other reason why you would state that concepts which are in the rules are not there, and vice-versa.
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:30:06 EST
Lady Cornwall:
I responded to a point, and realized there was more I needed to address. Forgive me. Onward.
"As I said, as the rules stand, a realigned baron has virtually no 'immediate' right to challenge."
Pardon me? I quote, from the Overlord section of the UTC:
"9. If the Overlord should banish a Loyalist to a Renegade alignment then the Overlord must accept an immediate challenge of title if issued by that Baron."
What exactly do we all think "must accept an immediate challenge of title" means? Do we think it means "unless A, B, C, and W?" I certainly hope not, as it does not SAY that. And I do believe the word immediate is fairly well placed in the sentence for all to see, as well as fairly obvious in its meaning.
You said:
"As far as the rules are concerned, all challengers are equal--held to the same standard--regardless of title, lack of title, or how they earned that right (either by peer wins or prize in a tourney)."
This is absolutely incorrect, in two ways.
1) First-come, first served - Adonai wins.
2) The rules relating to the winner of the tournament - Eric wins.
3) Overlord Rule 9, UTC - Adonai wins.
Even if we cancel out 2 and 3 above as being in conflict... Adonai pressed challenge first among equal claims.
"Matters of honor are personal in nature, even when employed in our public and political lives. If the rules do not explicitly account for special cases regarding ambiguous matters of 'honor' then other forms of recourse must be considered."
The rule allowing a Renegade Baron the immediate right to challenge upon realignment can be construed as nothing BUT a matter of honor encoded into the rules, and as such, the rules DO explicitly account for special cases regarding ambiguous matters of "honor."
"I seem to remember a time when you told me that I could not look at issues with case by case compassion and that I must divorce myself from the details and focus on what the rules actually allow or do not allow without regard to what is 'fair' or what is 'honorable.'
I ask you now to do the same."
As I have demonstrated above, that is exactly what I am doing. In turn, I'd ask you to review the lesson. Dear though you are to me, I believe you are, indeed, arguing for your desires rather than the rules; I can think of no other reason why you would state that concepts which are in the rules are not there, and vice-versa.
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:45:04 EST
As Lady Starfare has brought up the point of Devon Goral's challenge to Feadur Feamegil, I will - being directly involved in that instance - explain fully.
On the eve of my gaining the eighth Baron ring, Feadur Feamegil had just won the title of Overlord from Percival of the Table Round. At that time, I did declare myself Loyal to the Swordbrother of my dear mentor, Siera Redwin.
Devon Goral proferred his challenge almost immediately. On the day following, the new Overlord did announce that all Barons would be aligned neutral. At this point, I attempted to discern whether the Overlord's requirement to "immediately face challenge" from a realigned Baron held precedence. Gloin pondered this, but as part of his denial of my petition, he did, in fact, bring up the matter of the challenge queue - in other words, as Warlord
Goral had already issued challenge, I would have to wait.
As you can see, this leaves a cloud over this situation. Are, in fact, two challenges which are both deemed as "immediate" and/or "superseding" equal - and if so, must we then consider the timing?
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:45:04 EST
As Lady Starfare has brought up the point of Devon Goral's challenge to Feadur Feamegil, I will - being directly involved in that instance - explain fully.
On the eve of my gaining the eighth Baron ring, Feadur Feamegil had just won the title of Overlord from Percival of the Table Round. At that time, I did declare myself Loyal to the Swordbrother of my dear mentor, Siera Redwin.
Devon Goral proferred his challenge almost immediately. On the day following, the new Overlord did announce that all Barons would be aligned neutral. At this point, I attempted to discern whether the Overlord's requirement to "immediately face challenge" from a realigned Baron held precedence. Gloin pondered this, but as part of his denial of my petition, he did, in fact, bring up the matter of the challenge queue - in other words, as Warlord
Goral had already issued challenge, I would have to wait.
As you can see, this leaves a cloud over this situation. Are, in fact, two challenges which are both deemed as "immediate" and/or "superseding" equal - and if so, must we then consider the timing?
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:56:02 EST
I said:
"On the day following, the new Overlord did announce that all Barons would be aligned neutral."
Obviously, that should have been "renegade." We didn't have wishy-washy people back then.....
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:56:02 EST
I said:
"On the day following, the new Overlord did announce that all Barons would be aligned neutral."
Obviously, that should have been "renegade." We didn't have wishy-washy people back then.....
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 21:09:01 EST
Ian
I am in whole hearted agreement with thee in thine statement, "The red herring regarding challenge queues has been thrown out, and I will state unequivocally that should Eros defeat Eric, ADONAI'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MUST HOLD PRECEDENCE AGAINST ANY OTHER ATTEMPTED CHALLENGE. "
Jona
Date: 24 Feb 1999 21:09:01 EST
Ian
I am in whole hearted agreement with thee in thine statement, "The red herring regarding challenge queues has been thrown out, and I will state unequivocally that should Eros defeat Eric, ADONAI'S RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MUST HOLD PRECEDENCE AGAINST ANY OTHER ATTEMPTED CHALLENGE. "
Jona