From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 19 Jul 1999 05:45:22 EDT
" In point of fact, no one mentioned the possibility of the challenge being invalid until after it had already been dueled. I wonder if any fuss would have been raised had Warlord Elijah not won that duel."
While I let you (Drake) and Jona have the discussion, I just wanted to say something real quick in response to the quoted comment.
No, no fuss would have been made, because no changes would have occurred. If you wish to put another challenge into perspective, I have heard someone mention, and later confirmed, that during one of Overlord Dalamar's challengers used a sixth fancily performed technique that is not allowed for barons. Dalamar still won the match, but not a major fuss was over it because nothing changed. If the challenger had, indeed won, then I can assure you
there would be an issue.
I just thought I'd answer your comment in my perspective. Sometimes, the little things are nitpicked at. Other times, however, when it doesn't make a difference, it's let alone.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the 10th
Baron's Tournament.
-
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: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 19 Jul 1999 16:04:09 EDT
Drake,
Excuse me a moment. Did you say you asked the Baron's Council how to handle challenges to them before the Baron's Tourney? Um, I think they are a little biases since they are going to in the tourney, as long as they are a Baron. Of course those who want to be in the tourney for Overlord want as little chance as possible to lose their title before the tourney. Consulting them I think was error in that regard.
~Ecore~
~Praetor of the Dragon Templar~
~Thrice Baron of Swords, 2nd Highest WoLs Warlord of Swords~
Date: 19 Jul 1999 16:04:09 EDT
Drake,
Excuse me a moment. Did you say you asked the Baron's Council how to handle challenges to them before the Baron's Tourney? Um, I think they are a little biases since they are going to in the tourney, as long as they are a Baron. Of course those who want to be in the tourney for Overlord want as little chance as possible to lose their title before the tourney. Consulting them I think was error in that regard.
~Ecore~
~Praetor of the Dragon Templar~
~Thrice Baron of Swords, 2nd Highest WoLs Warlord of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:14:09 EDT
Golden, and everyone else too,
I have to join with Morgan (Sick, isn't it?) in expressing the feeling that the Senior Staff should stick their own necks out as well and not leave Drake to take the community's potshots with their decisions and to absorb personal attacks for informing the community of such staff decisions.
While I, personally, don't see a strong argument against the decisions made by the Senior Staff I do see a problem with the way they were presented to the community, leaving one staff member open to all the responses. If *one* staff member is going to take the flak for a consensus decision, I would think it should be the Supervisor.
I would like to see a little more firm leadership from the Supervisor. This does not mean that he can't allow others participation in staff decisions, but he should be there to discuss such decisions.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
((Author's note: This is not a personal attack on Golden, nor an OOC statement. This is, rather, the IC expression of a character's opinion.))
Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:14:09 EDT
Golden, and everyone else too,
I have to join with Morgan (Sick, isn't it?) in expressing the feeling that the Senior Staff should stick their own necks out as well and not leave Drake to take the community's potshots with their decisions and to absorb personal attacks for informing the community of such staff decisions.
While I, personally, don't see a strong argument against the decisions made by the Senior Staff I do see a problem with the way they were presented to the community, leaving one staff member open to all the responses. If *one* staff member is going to take the flak for a consensus decision, I would think it should be the Supervisor.
I would like to see a little more firm leadership from the Supervisor. This does not mean that he can't allow others participation in staff decisions, but he should be there to discuss such decisions.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
((Author's note: This is not a personal attack on Golden, nor an OOC statement. This is, rather, the IC expression of a character's opinion.))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Jul 1999 20:03:24 EDT
To the community in general.
I am not afraid to be the one who the community takes "potshots" at, nor am I afraid to be the one who absorbs personal attacks for informing the community of staff decisions.
Master Evermeadow is, has been, and will continue to be a strong leader for the Duel of Swords staff. He is also a very busy man with many obligations that wear upon his time.
Praetor Elijah.
Perhaps you misinterpreted my statement. I asked those of long standing in the community whom I felt I could discuss matters with in a friendly manner, what was done in the previous instances of the Overlord abdicating the Crown. It just so happens that some of the Baron's Council were included in that group.
Lady Starfare.
It is my policy to seek the advice of others whenever I come across a situation that I feel warrents extra attention, this is why I decided to consult with the Baron's Council and others of long standing in the community on this situation. I wished to see how others felt and how other situations were handled.
Were it up to myself, I would ask that anyone who challenges make sure they have at least half again as many peer wins as required to challenge. This to ensure that their challenge would be safe.
To quote passage from the General Rules of the Duel of Swords: "Warlords who retire or "are inactive for more than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standings Keeper."
Clearly this is a matter of the discretion of the Standing's Keeper. Please note that I did not add emphasis to the word may, the rules themselves do that.
Should any Baron be remiss in their obligations as to informing myself of the acceptance of a challenge or the arranging of the time and date of a challenge, it is indeed within the limits of my office to question them, write to them or otherwise remind them in any way I see fit. In order to prevent such things from happening, I felt it prudent to ensure that all were reminded, not instructed.
The two entrants in the Warlord's Tournament had indeed achived the rank of Warlord before the closing of registration. However, due to a late caller's report, the change was not made upon the Standings. Therefore, in fairness to the hard work of those two individuals, I gave them special dispensation... Just as I give special dispensation to returning Warlords who's requests for reinstatement are received after the Standings are already
prepared and made ready for placement.
I am the Standing's Keeper, not the person who posts said Standings. Copies are delivered from my office to the offices of the various officials and persons who request such a delivery.
I have not taken anything you have writ to be anything but a Statement, a Comment or a Question... and, so doing, I answer them as such.
I have been counciled to avoid making public statements when questioned.
But more importantly, I was taught to hold the truth as answer to any question.
You say it is often the guilty who presume a comment to be an accusation.
I say it is often the honest person who freely answers any comment or question with the truth.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 19 Jul 1999 20:03:24 EDT
To the community in general.
I am not afraid to be the one who the community takes "potshots" at, nor am I afraid to be the one who absorbs personal attacks for informing the community of staff decisions.
Master Evermeadow is, has been, and will continue to be a strong leader for the Duel of Swords staff. He is also a very busy man with many obligations that wear upon his time.
Praetor Elijah.
Perhaps you misinterpreted my statement. I asked those of long standing in the community whom I felt I could discuss matters with in a friendly manner, what was done in the previous instances of the Overlord abdicating the Crown. It just so happens that some of the Baron's Council were included in that group.
Lady Starfare.
It is my policy to seek the advice of others whenever I come across a situation that I feel warrents extra attention, this is why I decided to consult with the Baron's Council and others of long standing in the community on this situation. I wished to see how others felt and how other situations were handled.
Were it up to myself, I would ask that anyone who challenges make sure they have at least half again as many peer wins as required to challenge. This to ensure that their challenge would be safe.
To quote passage from the General Rules of the Duel of Swords: "Warlords who retire or "are inactive for more than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standings Keeper."
Clearly this is a matter of the discretion of the Standing's Keeper. Please note that I did not add emphasis to the word may, the rules themselves do that.
Should any Baron be remiss in their obligations as to informing myself of the acceptance of a challenge or the arranging of the time and date of a challenge, it is indeed within the limits of my office to question them, write to them or otherwise remind them in any way I see fit. In order to prevent such things from happening, I felt it prudent to ensure that all were reminded, not instructed.
The two entrants in the Warlord's Tournament had indeed achived the rank of Warlord before the closing of registration. However, due to a late caller's report, the change was not made upon the Standings. Therefore, in fairness to the hard work of those two individuals, I gave them special dispensation... Just as I give special dispensation to returning Warlords who's requests for reinstatement are received after the Standings are already
prepared and made ready for placement.
I am the Standing's Keeper, not the person who posts said Standings. Copies are delivered from my office to the offices of the various officials and persons who request such a delivery.
I have not taken anything you have writ to be anything but a Statement, a Comment or a Question... and, so doing, I answer them as such.
I have been counciled to avoid making public statements when questioned.
But more importantly, I was taught to hold the truth as answer to any question.
You say it is often the guilty who presume a comment to be an accusation.
I say it is often the honest person who freely answers any comment or question with the truth.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: simini@aol.com (Simini)
Date: 19 Jul 1999 23:43:03 EDT
Despite the encouragement, despite the counsel, the letters, and the "ambush"... she can come to no other conclusion than the one instinct first led her to the moment she learned of the vacancy in the Overlordship.
To the Patrons of the Duel of Swords, its Staff and Baron's Council,
I am declining invitation to participate in the upcoming Baron's Tournament. I am sorely lacking in two attributes I personally consider essential to a "good" Overlord; political finesse and a solid win/loss record. Despite others' opinions that politics may be delegated to others, or a win/loss record is not relevant to the example of honor an Overlord sets... I still feel these qualities should be inherent, if the Overlordship is to be an
outstanding one.
Despite many years of dueling, it is only very recently that I took my first steps into the political Arena; hardly enough time to acquire the political experience that is unfortunately sometimes required of an Overlord. As a new Baron, I would feel uncomfortable competing against the more established members of the Council for a position for which they are politically better suited.
Additionally, I believe an ideal Overlord should carry a strong winning record. This is not a reflection of the Overlord's honor or politics, but simply of dueling skill. I do not believe the Overlord should be required to carry the highest win/loss ratio of all duelists, but I do think a notable show of competency in the sport is important.
I cannot in good conscience compete for a position I do not feel I am ideally qualified for. I wish the best of luck to those that do enter. In the meantime, I stand ready to accept any Challenges that may be issued to the Sixth.
Respectfully,
~ Simini
Date: 19 Jul 1999 23:43:03 EDT
Despite the encouragement, despite the counsel, the letters, and the "ambush"... she can come to no other conclusion than the one instinct first led her to the moment she learned of the vacancy in the Overlordship.
To the Patrons of the Duel of Swords, its Staff and Baron's Council,
I am declining invitation to participate in the upcoming Baron's Tournament. I am sorely lacking in two attributes I personally consider essential to a "good" Overlord; political finesse and a solid win/loss record. Despite others' opinions that politics may be delegated to others, or a win/loss record is not relevant to the example of honor an Overlord sets... I still feel these qualities should be inherent, if the Overlordship is to be an
outstanding one.
Despite many years of dueling, it is only very recently that I took my first steps into the political Arena; hardly enough time to acquire the political experience that is unfortunately sometimes required of an Overlord. As a new Baron, I would feel uncomfortable competing against the more established members of the Council for a position for which they are politically better suited.
Additionally, I believe an ideal Overlord should carry a strong winning record. This is not a reflection of the Overlord's honor or politics, but simply of dueling skill. I do not believe the Overlord should be required to carry the highest win/loss ratio of all duelists, but I do think a notable show of competency in the sport is important.
I cannot in good conscience compete for a position I do not feel I am ideally qualified for. I wish the best of luck to those that do enter. In the meantime, I stand ready to accept any Challenges that may be issued to the Sixth.
Respectfully,
~ Simini
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 20 Jul 1999 17:38:31 EDT
Madame Silvertree
Tis verra interesting thee wouldst inquire 'o wh' thee term longstandin' members 'o th' community wh' wast done in th' previous instance 'o th' Overlord's retirement. None 'o th' current Barons save mayhap th' Baroness Simini an' th' Baron Verceterix Favre were e'en in th' realms durin' th' last instance, an' certes verra verra few 'o th' community extant at present were either.
To quote the passage thee indictated, Madame, thee shall note, "Warlord who retire or 'are inactive for more (emphasis added) than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standing's Keeper." Clearly, Madame, that be nae givin' thee th' right ta remove a warlord wh' hast duel durin' at least two cycles, somethin' thee hae indeed done. Were th' community ta rely on thine discretion,
Madame, th' community might find itself given verra short shrift. Thee be seeming ta be given special dispensations willy nilly, Madame. Ast an added note, Madame, tis long been th' a returning warlord wh' hast requested reinstatement ist immediately granted such upon verification of identity an' nae needs ta wait for th' official announcement ta be made in th' Standings save shouldst said warlord wish ta issue challenge.
Thee do state, "I say it is often the honest person who freely answers any comment or question with the truth." Didst answer the questions placed unta thee by th' Baron Magnus Eques an' 'is kinsman, Cletus Ganderfald, Madame? From all seemin' evidence, thee dinna.
Madame, in all mine years in th' community, thee be nae one 'o th' brighter lights 'olding a position o' trust ast Standing's Keeper. Thee do, howe'er, shine out ast one 'o th' personages 'o lesser intelligence. Wast it nae th' penned thee were makin' answer ta 'accusations'? Wast it nae thee th' penned th' ye aire nae afeared ta be absorbin' wh' thee dost term ast 'personal attacks'? Madame, methinks thee aire hopin' ta find sympathy for thine
incompetance.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 20 Jul 1999 17:38:31 EDT
Madame Silvertree
Tis verra interesting thee wouldst inquire 'o wh' thee term longstandin' members 'o th' community wh' wast done in th' previous instance 'o th' Overlord's retirement. None 'o th' current Barons save mayhap th' Baroness Simini an' th' Baron Verceterix Favre were e'en in th' realms durin' th' last instance, an' certes verra verra few 'o th' community extant at present were either.
To quote the passage thee indictated, Madame, thee shall note, "Warlord who retire or 'are inactive for more (emphasis added) than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standing's Keeper." Clearly, Madame, that be nae givin' thee th' right ta remove a warlord wh' hast duel durin' at least two cycles, somethin' thee hae indeed done. Were th' community ta rely on thine discretion,
Madame, th' community might find itself given verra short shrift. Thee be seeming ta be given special dispensations willy nilly, Madame. Ast an added note, Madame, tis long been th' a returning warlord wh' hast requested reinstatement ist immediately granted such upon verification of identity an' nae needs ta wait for th' official announcement ta be made in th' Standings save shouldst said warlord wish ta issue challenge.
Thee do state, "I say it is often the honest person who freely answers any comment or question with the truth." Didst answer the questions placed unta thee by th' Baron Magnus Eques an' 'is kinsman, Cletus Ganderfald, Madame? From all seemin' evidence, thee dinna.
Madame, in all mine years in th' community, thee be nae one 'o th' brighter lights 'olding a position o' trust ast Standing's Keeper. Thee do, howe'er, shine out ast one 'o th' personages 'o lesser intelligence. Wast it nae th' penned thee were makin' answer ta 'accusations'? Wast it nae thee th' penned th' ye aire nae afeared ta be absorbin' wh' thee dost term ast 'personal attacks'? Madame, methinks thee aire hopin' ta find sympathy for thine
incompetance.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 20 Jul 1999 22:12:04 EDT
And it's nice to see that you think it's interesting that Drake inquired, yadda yadda. But, in case you haven't notice, It doesn't matter. I bet you're just unhappy because she didn't ask you for any suggestions. Oh, that's right, you likely only would have insulted her for coming to you for suggestions, but since she didn't, you complain anyway. Imagine that. You, Jona, constantly try to find things wrong with how Drake does things. To qoute
your passage you qouted from Drake, "Warlord who retire or 'are inactive for more (emphasis added) than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standing's Keeper." Clearly, Madame, even you can tell time. Everyone knows that More that one Cycle is just as equal to one single day more. Therefore, if someone is inactive for a full cycle, and One Day, it is the Standing Keepers Discretion and
decision to remove them from the Standings. Only a fool or complete idiot would think that "More than One Cycle" would mean that a person has to be inactive for two full cycles for them to be removed. Besides, Ever since I came here, and Devon, I'm sure you remember old Devon, was Standings Keeper, anyone who was inactive for one full Cycle was most often removed. So, Devon, Golden, Rogue, and now Drake all did the same things. Yet you single out
Drake. Now -that- is something interesting.
Of course, I really don't think you're an idiot, though. Maybe.. you should rethink your stance? After all, you are a Respectable, Upstanding member of the DoS community, aren't you?
Onto the whole Magnus thing. If you want my opinion, and I know it's none of my business. But, frankly, it's none of your business either. Drake's not incompetant, she's doing things differently, and I personally think she's doing a fine job. After all, she was taught by Rogue and Golden. Now, I know someone as honest and respectable as you wouldn't think that Rogue and Golden are incompetant, would you? I didn't think so, that's why we like
you.
Ah well, I've rambled enough. I await you using my past against me, it's one of the joys of reading your responses, you're so good and information gathering. You should be a detective or something, really.
*G*
Date: 20 Jul 1999 22:12:04 EDT
And it's nice to see that you think it's interesting that Drake inquired, yadda yadda. But, in case you haven't notice, It doesn't matter. I bet you're just unhappy because she didn't ask you for any suggestions. Oh, that's right, you likely only would have insulted her for coming to you for suggestions, but since she didn't, you complain anyway. Imagine that. You, Jona, constantly try to find things wrong with how Drake does things. To qoute
your passage you qouted from Drake, "Warlord who retire or 'are inactive for more (emphasis added) than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standing's Keeper." Clearly, Madame, even you can tell time. Everyone knows that More that one Cycle is just as equal to one single day more. Therefore, if someone is inactive for a full cycle, and One Day, it is the Standing Keepers Discretion and
decision to remove them from the Standings. Only a fool or complete idiot would think that "More than One Cycle" would mean that a person has to be inactive for two full cycles for them to be removed. Besides, Ever since I came here, and Devon, I'm sure you remember old Devon, was Standings Keeper, anyone who was inactive for one full Cycle was most often removed. So, Devon, Golden, Rogue, and now Drake all did the same things. Yet you single out
Drake. Now -that- is something interesting.
Of course, I really don't think you're an idiot, though. Maybe.. you should rethink your stance? After all, you are a Respectable, Upstanding member of the DoS community, aren't you?
Onto the whole Magnus thing. If you want my opinion, and I know it's none of my business. But, frankly, it's none of your business either. Drake's not incompetant, she's doing things differently, and I personally think she's doing a fine job. After all, she was taught by Rogue and Golden. Now, I know someone as honest and respectable as you wouldn't think that Rogue and Golden are incompetant, would you? I didn't think so, that's why we like
you.
Ah well, I've rambled enough. I await you using my past against me, it's one of the joys of reading your responses, you're so good and information gathering. You should be a detective or something, really.
*G*
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 21 Jul 1999 00:55:59 EDT
Wow G, I thought you were illiterate. Since when did you get long sinded?
The Huma-miester 2000
Date: 21 Jul 1999 00:55:59 EDT
Wow G, I thought you were illiterate. Since when did you get long sinded?
The Huma-miester 2000
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 22 Jul 1999 14:52:26 EDT
Gnort
If thee wish ta believe Madame Silvertree ist competent, thee aire free ta do so, certes. Howe'er, th' "Duchess' hast more th' shown both 'er ignorance an' 'er incompetance 'pon numerous occasions. How utterly droll 'o thee ta consider th' 'more th' one cycle' refers ta a cycle an' a day. Nae didst Devon so consider it nor hae anna other. It seems ta hae escaped thine notice th' e'en a commoner isna removed from th' standin's save if they hae
nae dueled durin' a complete cycle.
A pity such ist acceptable ta th' community, though such speaks volumes for th' depths ta which th' once gran' sport hae fallen.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 22 Jul 1999 14:52:26 EDT
Gnort
If thee wish ta believe Madame Silvertree ist competent, thee aire free ta do so, certes. Howe'er, th' "Duchess' hast more th' shown both 'er ignorance an' 'er incompetance 'pon numerous occasions. How utterly droll 'o thee ta consider th' 'more th' one cycle' refers ta a cycle an' a day. Nae didst Devon so consider it nor hae anna other. It seems ta hae escaped thine notice th' e'en a commoner isna removed from th' standin's save if they hae
nae dueled durin' a complete cycle.
A pity such ist acceptable ta th' community, though such speaks volumes for th' depths ta which th' once gran' sport hae fallen.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 22 Jul 1999 15:55:37 EDT
Beg to Differ.
How utterly droll of you to think that More than one cycle has to refer to two full cycles. Devon indeed took people off the standings who were inactive for a full cycle. As did Golden. And trust me, I know Rogue did, as well. If someone did not duel for one single cycle, they were pulled off the standings for inactivity. I've seen it happen numerous times.
Date: 22 Jul 1999 15:55:37 EDT
Beg to Differ.
How utterly droll of you to think that More than one cycle has to refer to two full cycles. Devon indeed took people off the standings who were inactive for a full cycle. As did Golden. And trust me, I know Rogue did, as well. If someone did not duel for one single cycle, they were pulled off the standings for inactivity. I've seen it happen numerous times.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 22 Jul 1999 20:36:50 EDT
Jonalyn writes:
>>Howe'er, th' "Duchess' hast more th' shown both 'er ignorance an' 'er incompetance 'pon numerous occasions.<<
I am curious as to the quotations around the word Duchess. Is this an inference that perhaps she is *not* a Duchess? This is strange, coming from one who is only Queen by right of marriage and not by any merit of her own.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 22 Jul 1999 20:36:50 EDT
Jonalyn writes:
>>Howe'er, th' "Duchess' hast more th' shown both 'er ignorance an' 'er incompetance 'pon numerous occasions.<<
I am curious as to the quotations around the word Duchess. Is this an inference that perhaps she is *not* a Duchess? This is strange, coming from one who is only Queen by right of marriage and not by any merit of her own.
~Sidartha Elgarette