Petition for reinstatement of Title/Rank

[DoS Archive]

From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 28 Jun 1999 12:45:13 EDT

To my thinking there is a flaw in your logic, Valmion.

It assumes that the only people with opinions worth hearing are those who are in a position to challenge. With no intended insult, it is an elitist position that assumes the lower ranks have nothing they can contribute.

My position is thus: Any duelist, ranked high or ranked low, able to challenge or not, is in a perfectly fit position to offer opinion of the matters of the council or the state of DoS. Their writing may well not effect the thoughts of the current council, but also such may not be their cause.

By submitting such an opinion to the public, one might sway the next generation of barons to their own way of thinking.... and thereby effect a desired change without taking the ring of challenge. One who is not in position to challenge, may convince someone who is... and that person bring about the desired course of action.

As always, I refuse to accept a "might makes right" mentallity. All duelists, be they commoners or retired warlords, have the ability to make an impact upon the arena and should not be silenced simply because their weapon skill does not match the skill of their pen.

Kalamere Ar'Din...
- a duelist of strong opinions whether or not he holds a title

[DoS Archive]

From: cyggnimoi@aol.com (Cyg Gnimoi)
Date: 28 Jun 1999 13:19:35 EDT

Standing before the ancient cork in the arena, Cyggy and Gnim spend some time catching up on the many missives placed upon the board.

"Kalamere is always so well spoken, I must say", pointing his note out to the gnome.

"yup, I agree with ya there sweety. And I agree with him too."

The conversation ends at that as they both continue reading, the low grumble of the gnomes stomach signaling it's time for lunch.

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 28 Jun 1999 13:22:47 EDT

Interesting point, Dem, about the stripping of peer wins when the match "never happened". One to be mulled over, I'm sure.

~Sidartha

[DoS Archive]

From: sirduel@aol.com (Sir Duel)
Date: 28 Jun 1999 21:32:20 EDT

What if, the standards set by the previous Baronial councils were based upon personal opinions about the persons involved? Then, isn't there room for change--to set a better standard?




Well wishes,

Coron.

[DoS Archive]

From: valmion@aol.com (Valmion)
Date: 28 Jun 1999 21:54:33 EDT

M'lord Kalamere,

I agree that they should have a voice, that was not the point of my argument. I am addressing the point that you cannot expect every Baron to make just decisions just because he's a Baron. And that if you don't like the way a Baron votes, remove him by challenge. If your a lower rank, go find someone to champion your cause and remove him by challenge.

Sincerely,

Valmion

[DoS Archive]

From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 02:37:51 EDT

From the vacation desk of the Standing's Keeper.

According to the way I see it... thereby making this my opinion only and not an official ruling... If a Warlord makes an invalid challenge due to a falsified peer win, or just a peer win that isn't posted yet...
Then that Warlord loses those peer wins, but not his or her right to challenge for that cycle.
For some, it's a major loss. For example, I myself don't get much opportunity to duel so loosing ten or more peer wins is a big thing.
For others, it's a hinderance of two or three weeks... maybe four now that there are fewer days to duel.

I will be discussing the matter with Golden... but in my opinion, the Warlord Ecore does retain his right of challenge for this cycle... retirement, improper challenge or other situation not withstanding.


Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.

[DoS Archive]

From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 03:11:52 EDT

::quirks a brow as he read's Drake's quick note about his possibility of being able to challenge again this cycle::

Yes....most interesting.

::thinking he might try to be in towne to duel::

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 03:44:25 EDT

Madame Silvertree

I shouldst point out that the rules of engagement do state, to whit:

"Challenges, if not properly served, will be voided by the Standings Keeper." In the case of the improper challenge made by the Warlord Ecore agin the Baron Daelin Dragonsblade this wasna done.

Further the rules of engagement do state, to whit:

"In the case of a voided challenge, the challenger will have his or her right to challenge stripped for the remainder of the cycle as a penalty."

The warlord dinna withdraw his improper challenge, the duel wast permitted to take place, improperly, and the matter wast given over unto the Baron's Council by Master Evermeadow for adjudication ast well ast a decision hast been seemingly rendered by said Council.

Hae the challenge be handled in the proper manner, the warlord would hae been stripped of his right ta challenge ast well ast of his bona fides. Further, by his retirement, the warlord hast voluntarily forfeited his bona fides.

The Baron's Council isna limited in rendering their decisions by the rules of engagement nor by precedent. They may choose to consider precedents and rulings of past Baron's Councils, yet the Council isna bound by such precedents. Tis a wise Council what chooses to consider all the available evidence and circumstances in rendering a decision ast well ast looking to both the letter of the 'law' ast well ast the spirit of the 'law'.

Tis, in mine opinion, the penalty, that of removing the right of challenge, wast set forth to encourage those what wouldst issue challenge to take the wherewithall to do so properly or face the loss of their bona fides ast well ast the right to present challenge. Tis also mine opinion that anna challenger what issues challenge for title improperly and what dinna withdraw said challenge shouldst face the penalty.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 04:18:10 EDT

The Baron's Council basically ruled that my challenge never happened, or that is how they rationalized just handing the ring back to Daelin. I have accepted the fact that even though I beat Daelin to get the Seventh the Seventh was never really mine, I don't have any peer wins, and for the moment the question of my right to challenge for the rest of the cycle for Baron is up in the air. I can
accept losing that too, but will obviously be pleased if I do get that right back. What I can't accept, and what disappoint's me, is the fact that I beat Daelin when it was thought the Seventh was on the line and the Baron's Council just hands it back to him. Whether or not I do get my right to challenge for this cycle back, I will work my hardest to get 10 peer wins back immediately and challenge Daelin as soon as I can again. For the same reason
as before that I challenged him with the added insentive to set the record straight. Or I might get bored waiting that long and go for titles that are availible for me.

It's amazing how quick one is to go digging quotes out of the rule book moments after someone brings up a potential in favor of me. In fact I find it ironic that it helps my cause more then hurt it. It was pointed out in that post that the Standings Keeper never voided my challenge, and yet they then went on to go on about what happens to challengers who have their challenges voided by the Standings Keeper. Seemed pretty useless information to
me.

What those rules are for is when the Standings Keeper gets a challenge, reviews it, and notices the error to make it voided. She didn't, and it was only after another member of the community question it after the challenge happen that it was discovered. The dueler had every write to ask, and yes, it was proven I somehow managed to screw up. Because it was an odd circumstance that wasn't cut and dry because of clerical error that is usually found
before challenges can proceed, the officials turned it over to the Baron's Council. Their ruling was basically my challenge never happen and Daelin keeps his ring like the match never happened. It's up to Golden I think to determine the course of the particulars based on what he feels from the rules.

As a side note, never has retiring and coming back within the same cycle taken away someone's right to challenge for a title, though if they had challenge in the cycle before leaving and then came back after retiring in the same cycle I am pretty sure they couldn't challenge again for the same title in the same cycle. The one thing I am curious about is if by retiring regardless of the judgement my peer wins are wiped out, how does this affect my
Warlord Rankings?


~Ecore~

~Praetor of the Dragon Templar~

~Thrice Baron of Swords, 2nd Highest WoLs Warlord of Swords~

[DoS Archive]

From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 04:18:51 EDT

Personally, Jona, I don't think one should be allowed to retract his or her challenge if they submit invalid peer wins. To be honest, it contradicts the rule that if they challenge with invalid peer wins, then their right to challenge is removed from the cycle.
I simply think it should be one way, or the other. There are two ways it should, in my opinion, be worded:

Option 1:
Should a warlord not comply with the universal terms of challenge (sending invalid peer wins, challenging when they've already challenged for the cycle, or challenging without standings being posted yet in terms of a loyal or overlord challenge), then their peer wins and right to challenge are erased for the remainder of the cycle. No retractions may be made.

Option 2:
Should a warlord not comply with the universal terms of challenge (sending invalid peer wins, challenging when they've already challenged for the cycle, or challenging without standings being posted yet in terms of a loyal or overlord challenge), then they MUST retract their challenge and reissue when the conditions are met, if it is their desire to do so.

As of now, it says, in so many words:
Should a warlord not comply with the universal terms of challenge (sending invalid peer wins, challenging when they've already challenged for the cycle, or challenging without standings being posted yet in terms of a loyal or overlord challenge), then they have the OPTION of retracting their challenge. If the warlord, by some chance, does not choose to retract their challenge, then their right to challenge and peer wins are eliminated for the
remainder of the cycle.

To restate my thoughts: Either they can't retract, or challenges can't ever be invalid. If I had my choice as to which one, I'd say "they can't retract" so people will be more careful when they do choose to issue challenge.
Then again, that's just me.


Var Medici-Giovanni

Proud Father, Proud Husband

Phantom Scots Captain

Baron of the 10th

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 04:33:25 EDT

Warlord Ecore

Thee hae been in the realms an' the duels long enow ta well know that a letter of retirement ist official upon the Standings Keeper receiving it. Nae in all the history of the duels hae a warlord hae the right to 'rescind' a retirement, save if said warlord ist able to recall the courier afore the messanger hae delivered the missive. Thine retirement wast official the moment Madame Silvertree didst receive it and nae attal wast it necessary fer the
Standings Lists to be publicly available to make thine retirement official.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 06:19:32 EDT

Warlord Ecore

There wast nae annathing 'odd' about the circumstances. Thee issued improper challenge, tis that simple. Madame Silvertree's lapse in noticing the illegality of thine challenge, naewithstanding, t'was thee what failed to issue right and proper challenge unto the Baron Daelin Dragonsblade.

Thee shall certes correct me if I do err, but dinna thee and the Baron Daelin Dragonsblade set the date and time for the challenge right quickly? I do recall thee stating upon this verra cork the verra short time span between the issuance of thine challenge and the actual duel. Were the challenge match nae set with such haste, perhaps those who do pay heed to such would hae called for verification of the bona fides afore thee set foot in the
challenge ring. Fie, tis a moot point, yet tis one to ponder.

Thou didst voluntarily retired and didst forfeit the ring whilst the Council wast in deliberation. By thine retirement thee didst forfeit thine bona fides. Thine question ast to the manner in which thine retirement wouldst affect thine status ast warlord ist verra simple. Tis I trust thee hae the wherewithall ta pen a missive unto the Standings Keeper requesting thine official re-instatement ast warlord, sans of course, the forfeited bona fides.
Ast be the general case with returning warlords, once thine identity hast been established ast being the rightful holder of said record, thee wouldst be reinstated at thine warlord rank with thine record intact. Tis nae thine retirement that wouldst eschew thine right to challenge, tis the issuance of an improper challenge that wouldst properly strip thee of that right.

Thou art correct in stating that a returning warlord, provided that warlord hae nae issued challenge during said cycle, wouldst nae be precluded from issuing challenge during said cycle, provided naturally that said warlord didst earn the bona fides wherein to present proper challenge for title.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 06:27:05 EDT

Elijah, Drakewyn,

Our rules clearly state a penalty exists fer submitting an invalid challenge, Jonalyn did an excellent job of point our da exact sentence covering it. Elijah's peer wins were lost da moment he retired, his right ta challenge was lost da moment he issued invalid challenge.

I *personally* asked our council ta forgo da process of penalizing Elijah, because at da time I was asked ta move us forward Elijah was retired from DoS, and penalizing him seemed a moot point. I did not expect or anticipate his return, perhaps I should have.

As ta Daelin's reinstatement as baron, it was a logical decision plain and simple. If he was never challenged, he would never have lost his ring. If Elijah's challenge is voided, Daelin was never challenged. Its no different dan if Drakewyn had stopped Elijah before his challenge, da reason fer it being invalid is da same both before and after - his peer wins.

I am very curious why Elijah is so opposed ta Daelin's reinstatement ta baron. If Elijah beat Daelin in a practice duel, certainly he would not ask fer his ring. Elijah's duel, fer all intense purposes, was nothing more dan a practice duel. I don't care if it was a challenge match when it happened, da barons council was asked ta rule retroactively; and all effects of our rulings would take place in a similar manner. We were forced ta wipe out a
bit of DoS history, ta preserve and enforce our rules.

If Elijah has any further questions or complaints about da baron council's ruling/logic, I kindly ask he direct dem ta me rather dan vent at Jonalyn or whoever else is available. I am well versed in DoS rules, I have been in practicely every challenge situation possible, I will be able ta field yer questions Elijah.


~Jeffery Oakenshield~
Senior Baron of DoS

[DoS Archive]

From: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 10:46:29 EDT



::Cletus just shakes his head, wondering how we could have a Standings Keeper who doesn't seem to care about the rules. After a moments pause, he shrugs and turns to walk away, not in the mood to get into anything::

[DoS Archive]

From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 29 Jun 1999 12:18:02 EDT

All that aside, Elijah... the lass is right.

~Kal...