Baron's Tournament.

[DoS Archive]

From: rdigryphn@aol.com (RDI Gryphn)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 01:41:48 EDT

To the Community.

This hereby is an official announcement of the coming Baron's Tournament mentioned in the Standings.

At this time, no Baron may be challenged until the Tournament has been held and a winner has been declared, by common decision of the Senior Staff of the Duel of Swords.

In regards to Warlord Glowacki's challenge to the Baron of the First... This challenge is hereby placed in abeyance until after the Baron's Tournament. Should Baron Zafiroo win said Tournament, Warlord Glowacki will be given immediate right to either recind his challenge, or press his challenge against the new Overlord... I hope this will serve well enough, given the delay in the Warlord's challenge.

It is currently the intention of the Staff that the Baron's Tournament be held before the beginning of the Overlord's traditional "Grace Period" of twentyfour days before the Warlord's Tournament, which will take place at the end of next month. It is further the intention of the Staff that the Baron's Tournament be held in a round-robin format, rather than the more common double-elimination format.

Any and all questions regarding this matter should be placed here upon the cork, save for those things that the Baron's Council wishes to keep private amoungst themselves or with myself in particular.


Lady Drake, aka The Gryphon...



Standing's Keeper for the Duel of Swords.



( AOL Dueling Center Volunteer )

[DoS Archive]

From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 02:01:46 EDT

Lady Drakewyn,

I commend you on choice of tourneys and of cutting off all challenges to barons till the issued is resolved However, I would think that Warlord Glowacki's challenge should have been resolved post haste rather than be put off. Perhaps, he doesn't want to challenge the person for Overlord but for Baron, or for that matter may have not offered 15 peer wins as required for a Warlord going for Overlord. Just some food for thought is all, I look
forward to the event.


~Ecore~

~Praetor of the Dragon Templar~

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

[DoS Archive]

From: rdigryphn@aol.com (RDI Gryphn)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 02:10:59 EDT

My first comment, already.

Warlord Glowacki did indeed present more than enough peer wins to challenge for the Crown.
You will also note that I have allowed for him to recind his challenge, should he not wish to challenge for said Crown.
I hope that clears things up.


Lady Drake, aka The Gryphon...



Standing's Keeper for the Duel of Swords.

[DoS Archive]

From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 02:51:55 EDT

Lady Drakewyn,

Thanks for the clarification. Was just curious, though I don't entirely agree, decision doesn't hurt either way.


~Ecore~

~Praetor of the Dragon Templar~

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

[DoS Archive]

From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 05:06:33 EDT

I'd like to wish luck to all the barons participating in the tourney. May skill be with you.


Var Medici-Giovanni

Proud Father, Proud Husband

Phantom Scots Captain

Baron of the 10th

[DoS Archive]

From: pkardinal@aol.com (PKardinal)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 14:43:07 EDT

May the best man... No, the best person win. Good luck to those Baron's that participate.

~Phil

[DoS Archive]

From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 14:54:39 EDT



Good luck to you all.




Cassius Gaius Maximius
Laylla's husband.
Roman pretorian
Warlord in DoS
Former Baron of the Sixth
Mage in DoM
Member of HDT
The Llama-ask Huma
"I am an honorable man, but to duel me is not a pleasant experience, if only for the pain"

[DoS Archive]

From: skylercj@aol.com (Skyler CJ)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 17:21:21 EDT

I got an idea.

All the Barons fight me at once.

If even one of you is left at the end, I'll retire.

Skyler Jackson Chamberland

[DoS Archive]

From: knight7044@aol.com (Knight7044)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 18:24:39 EDT

Barons,
May you duel with honor and skill,
And may the best of both of these
be in the person that will raise
to be the Overlord.
all the best my friends..

Sir Robert
Knight Of the Holy Order
A Knight of castle Questrion

[DoS Archive]

From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 18:45:13 EDT

Barons of Swords,

Be aware my Swordsister's star is rising. The Fates and Destiny would deem it approproiate if Simini became Overlady. I might have been the first to reach Warlord of the Bishop's Chapel, and my Swordbrother, Aspendale and I were to become two of the first Nine Barons of Swords and of the Bishop's Chapel. But the lovely irony of the fact that the first of the Bishop's Chapel to become Supreme Dueler of Swords, could be my Swordsister, Simini,
warms my heart to no end. The circle is almost complete for the accomplishments of Fandral Kurgan's Kohei.

Simini,

Skill to thy blade and luck to thy fortune, I am rooting for you.


~Ecore~

~Praetor of the Dragon Templar~

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

[DoS Archive]

From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 18:49:04 EDT

May the best woman win.


~ L

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 20:00:16 EDT

Gentles,

Tis right interestin' th' th' officials hae taken it 'pon themselves ta protect th' standin' barons from bein' challenged. Ne'er in th' istory 'o th' duels hae such 'appened. Tis further interestin' th' th' warlord Glowacki ist given th' right ta challenge fer th' title 'o Overlord when 'e hae in fact issued a challenge unta a baron.

Perhaps th' officials hae taken it 'pon themselves ta add a clause inta th' rules 'o engagement wh' be unknown ta th' public.

Master Golden Evermeadow,

I hae hae occasion ta speak wi' th' Baron Magnus Eques wi' regard ta a challenge wh' wast presented unta 'im a while agon. Th' matter hae ta do wi' th' challenge issued unta th' Baron by th' Warlord Goldie. Tis seemin' th' original challenge contained invalid bona fides which should hae rendered th' challenge void. Tis seemin' th' Standin's Keeper, Madame Drakewyn Silvertree hast made claim th' further bona fides were garnered from th' warlord
Goldie followin' th' initial missive wh' wast issued unta th' Baron. Th' Baron hae made request unta Madame Silvertree ta provide said bona fides which she failed ta do. Th' question, Master Evermeadow ist whyfore wast nae th' original challenge set aside ast illegal? Further, tis a question ast ta whether Madame Silvertree took it upon 'erself ta inquiry 'o th' warlord Goldie an' request further bona fides wh' which ta make th' challenge proper.
If such wast th' case, tis seemin' th' Standin's Keeper, Madame Silvertree ist o'ersteppin' 'er bounds an' tamperin' wi' th' challenge process.

Th' Baron, Magnus Eques, dinna press further th' ta request th' Madame Silvertree furnish 'im wi' th' list 'o bona fides, a request which wasnae fulfilled by Madame Silvertree. Interference wi' or tamperin' wi' th' challenge process by th' official wh' be designated ta rule 'pon th' validity 'o challenges ist ta me way 'o thinkin' a corruption 'o th' sport. I do call upon thee, Master Evermeadow, ta investigate th' circumstances 'o th' challenge.
If it should be discovered th' th' original challenge list 'o bona fides wast indeed nae valid, th' question then be whyfore didst Madame Silvertree nae render th' challenge void an' whyfore wasnae th' warlord Goldie given th' penalty wh' applies ta those wh' issue improper challenge?

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: waikrboh@aol.com (WaIkrBoh)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 20:24:02 EDT

>It is further the intention of the Staff that the Baron's Tournament be held
>in a round-robin format, rather than the more common double-elimination
>format.

Round-Robin with 13 (12?) Barons? That could take a bit, couldn't it? Do you mean Swiss-style instead? That format hasn't been used to my knowledge since people got sick of arcanely calculated tiebreakers that meant the placements weren't fought for in the ring. And depending on the version of Swiss you'll be using, there could definitely be that sort of problem.

My input certainly has little bearing on whatever you'll be doing, but I'd certainly like to see it run fairly and smoothly.

-Walker Boh

[DoS Archive]

From: rdigryphn@aol.com (RDI Gryphn)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 21:42:08 EDT

Certain facts to be made in regards to Lady Starfare's accusations.

I did not ask the Warlady Goldie to provide myself with additional Peer Wins, she supplied them to myself personally before I had begun verifying her initial wins.
I do not see the need to keep pieces of mail for longer than perhaps a month, if even that long. The archives are full enough as it is.
The so-called protection offered to the standing Barons comes from the idea that, technically, all the Barons are "challenging" for the crown, thus further challenges must be delayed.

Having received missives from a majority of the Council, the Baron's Tourney is to be held upon the 26th and 27th, starting at 10pm by the eastern clock.
Should it come to pass that not all the participating Barons have dueled each other by the closing time of the second day, the winner will be declared based upon the duels that have been completed.
All decisions on this matter were based upon a full concensus of the entire senior staff.

Please attempt to keep further discussion in this stack to the point of the matter of the Baron's Tournament.


Lady Drake, aka The Gryphon...



Standing's Keeper for the Duel of Swords.

[DoS Archive]

From: karnafexx@aol.com (Karnafexx)
Date: 17 Jul 1999 23:00:16 EDT

Walker, at least three of the barons won't be in the tournament, according to their former letters.

<<Should it come to pass that not all the participating Barons have dueled each other by the closing time of the second day, the winner will be declared based upon the duels that have been completed.
All decisions on this matter were based upon a full concensus of the entire senior staff.>>

Can you say controversial? Such a hasty tournament with even hastier rules will most likely end up in "tragedy". As usual, it looks like little thought went into the final decision, but what else can you expect.

The mere fact that a pending challenge was not allowed to continue is a travesty in itself. The fact that RDI Gryphn and the "Senior staff" feel that they can bend and twist the rules to suit their own needs is a laugh. The "saving clause" at the end of the rules does not apply here because, according to the rules, a valid challenge must be accepted within one week and duel within two. Steve's challenge WAS valid...so what is the problem?!

Oh wait...Drake tries to explain it thusly:

<<The so-called protection offered to the standing Barons comes from the idea that, technically, all the Barons are "challenging" for the crown, thus further challenges must be delayed.>>

This is a lie and RDI Gryphn needs to reread the rules of challenge. The ONLY time a valid challenge is to be overridden with regards to the overlord is if the overlord declares a baron renegade. Said baron then gains the right to immediately challenge the overlord for his crown. Period. This whole "Challenging" for the crown is another load of nonsense. What this is telling us is that is a warlord has a valid
challenge to the overlord, then a baron who challenges after should gain preference. There is no stipulation in the rules of challenge for this as she states here.

How can we expect rules to be upheld and enforced when the "senior staff" so willingly bastardizes them to suit their needs? This barons tournament is already in question because Steve has every bit the right if he were to win his challenge as any other baron on the council.

By the way, it says nothing in the rules about the barons tournament taking priority over an existing validated challenge, the senior staff simply decided to make it seem that way.


<< Please attempt to keep further discussion in this stack to the point of the matter of the Baron's Tournament.>>

I think I made my point made. Not that it would matter much, rules are made to be broken.