Decision

[DoS Archive]

From: rdigolden@aol.com (RDI Golden)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 01:46:35 EST

Patrons,

Attached is a copy of the missive that I sent to those on the Baron's Council as well as those parties involved.

Golden Evermeadow

Fire away

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concerned parties,

After having had a small amount of time to review all of the opinions and concerns that crossed my desk, I have come to a decision. Let me first state that everyone had a valid point in his/her argument. There is a strong argument that Adonai's challenge should go first and an equally strong argument that Eric has first shot. Obviously the rules are not clear on this situation, so I personally feel there is no absolutely correct answer. No
matter what I decide, some people will believe I made the wrong decision. There's nothing I can do to prevent that.
Nevertheless, a decision has to be made. Since the rules are not explicit concerning this scenario, I feel that a decision should be made on personal assessment and judgement of the situation. In other words, I have to do what I feel is fair for all parties concerned.
Now getting to the point, I have decided that Adonai's challenge will be settled first. Since no one will be satisfied with just that, I'll also give my reasoning for this judgement. When Eros banished Adonai to Renegade, Adonai gained the right to immediate challenge to the Overlord, Eros. Upon taking a prize in the Warlord's Tournament, Eric also won a similar prize. But there is a difference in both of those rights.
In order to reach a decision on this, I imagined two different scenarios. First, I imagined allowing Adonai's challenge to be completed. The winner of that match shall face Eric, not necessarily the same night, but within a two week period of time. Adonai's challenge is satisfied immediately, and Eric's challenge will be satisfied when he faces the winner of the Adonai-Eros match. Both challenges are settled with each challenger getting a shot
at the crown.
Next I pictured letting Eric's challenge to proceed first. If Eros were to win that match, then Adonai's challenge to Eros could proceed without a hitch. But if Eric were to prevail, this is where I feel things get sticky. When Adonai was banished to Renegade, he gained the right to challenge Eros. If Eric were to win the crown first, then Adonai would lose his right to immediate challenge. That is because Eric was not the one who banished
Adonai, and thus he should not have to face an immediate challenge from Adonai. Granted, Adonai could always issue challenge once more, but there is the chance another Warlord or Baron may step forward and submit a challenge to Eric first. In that case, Adonai would have been banished to Renegade and never given a chance to exercise his right to immediate challenge. And that is why I feel that Adonai's challenge should come first.
I'm sure there are some who are going to take great delight in finding the holes in my argument. The only rebuttal I have to that is to state that this is my final decision. Obviously the rules need to be worked on so further instances similar to this can be avoided. But for now, the best I can do is make this judgement call. Thank you for your time.

Golden Evermeadow
Duel of Swords Supervisor

[DoS Archive]

From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 08:16:22 EST

An excellent and wise decision, m'lord Supervisor of Swords. That was the most logical and fair decision that could be made under the circumstances.

And on further note, to the community at large, if another RDI posts something officially upon this cork, since they can not post otherwise, I would suggest taking it as being official from Lord Evermeadow down to the newest caller. They have been trained and selected upon their ability to handle the situations that arise in DoS. I am sure one under Lord Evermeadow would not falsely post upon this cork in regards to official matters.

~Ecore
~Has been who never was.

[DoS Archive]

From: jakvaltrds@aol.com (Jakvaltrds)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 10:47:08 EST

I do not wish to argue against Golden's decison as it will be no more than whipping a dead horse. I do, however, wish to make a point for the record. I see this as a point where the overall rules of the sport come into conflict with the general rules. Whereas the bannished Renagade has the right to immediate challenge, the winner of the tournament has the right to challenge as well. The general rule in
the warlord tournament section states clearly that Eric's challenge supercedes Adonai's due to the fact Adonai's challenges is deemed to be outstanding. I quote,"The winner has the right to challenge the Overlord directly, superseding any outstanding challenge. This challenge must be made within one week of the Tournament outcome. This challenge is not subject to the "Right of Challenge" and can not be denied for any reason and will
follow the "Universal terms of Challenge" with regard to response and dueling date."
Is it possible, the framers of the rules took into consideration that should a challenge be allowed, before the tourney that this conflict would arise? I dare say yes. With issuance of challenge the Overlord has one week to accept, 14 days from then to complete the defense 3 days lee-way makes 24 days prior to the tourney a safe bet for no conflict in the process of allowing challengers a fair shot at the Overlord, or the winner of the tourney the
same.
Does Prior mean before the opening of the event? Does it mean before completion?
That is the question. Does Adonai even have a valid challenge?
This is the more important question at the moment in my humble opinion.
I say we need to ammend the rules post haste to remove the descrepencies so that this matter does not come into question again. I hope I have put you to sleep.
Simply
Seamus

[DoS Archive]

From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 11:11:57 EST

Seamus,

You are exactly right. The WLT clause was written to avoid any possible loophole that a challenge might actually get allowed despite the grace period assurances. Coupled with the clause in the UTC that says there can be no queuing of challenges (to the Overlord) this gives the rule more weight.

Because of an oversight regarding a realigned baron, the spirit and intent of the WLT clause in conjunction with the UTC was grossly ignored.

[DoS Archive]

From: lyonxx@aol.com (Lyon xx)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 11:35:15 EST

There are instances where one must look past the letter of the law to the spirit of the law. I feel Golden has done such a thing. I applaud him.


Lyon

[DoS Archive]

From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 12:31:02 EST

Seamus, Morgan,

Since ye persist in brinin' up da clause referrin' ta WLT winners supercedin' all challenges, I will again remind ye of my situation when I was realigned by Overlady Alais. It was ruled at dat time, and can be considered a precedent fer dis matter, dat realigned Loyal barons (ta Renegade) have a right ta challenge which ALSO SUPERCEDED ALL OUTSTANDING CHALLENGES (capitals for emphasis of point). My challenge superceded Leto's already issued and
validated challenge ta da position of Overlord. Just because he was a baron and not a WLT winner does not take away from da fact dat my right ta challenge did supercede his. So now we have two rights of challenge which supercede all others; Adonai's as a realigned loyalist, and Eric, as a WLT winner. Golden has ruled in da spirit of da situation, but I don't believe anyone has proven one right greater dan another.


~Jeffrey Oakenshield~
Senior Baron of DoS

[DoS Archive]

From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 14:30:56 EST

So umm.... when are we going to have a rules change..... since i have been here, there have been several rules that have been talked about. I think we all need to get together, and change these rules... Update them so these same problems wont exist.


Avery

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 16:05:05 EST

Jeffrey

With all respect, Baron, hae thee pressed thine challenge an nae rescinded it, thine challenge ast a realigned Baron would indeed hae been superior to Leto's challenge for he hae offered challenge ast a warlord challenging from the ranks. Further perusal of the tomes in the library at Arda, t'was indicated that I erred in stating that Leto of Covington wast a Baron at the time he issued challenge unto the Lady Alais d Nitesong Sidhe. Hae thee
pressed thine challenge an' hae that challenge been denied th' would hae been a precedent. Tis ast writ, the rules of engagement aire in conflict in manna instances. In this matter, the conflict ist clearly t'wixt the challenge rights of the warlord what hast earned the right by dint of combat in the Warlord's Tourney, and that of a Baron realigned for cause amidst said Tourney.

Ast Seamus hast writ, tis the community hast been apprised of Master Evermeadows decision. If annathing, the situation hast brought to the fore the fact that the rule of engagement do indeed present glaring conflict.

Cordially,

Jona

[DoS Archive]

From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 16:17:36 EST

>Patrons,
>
> Attached is a copy of the missive that I sent to those on the Baron's
>Council as well as those parties involved.
>
>Golden Evermeadow

I would like to point out that I did not receive this official announcement in the mail. I believe I have also not been included in many mailings recently that were supposed to go to the entire council. I hope that this does not continue in the future.

-Walker Boh
Baron of the 12th

[DoS Archive]

From: lrdartides@aol.com (LrdArtides)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 16:29:16 EST

::chuckles ruefully, passing by the kiosk::

Well, now...ain't dat jes' takin' da cake. Ya would t'ink....

::trails off, slinking away with a shake of his head::