From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 06 Aug 1999 16:53:36 EDT
Send him whimpering to the mage, Rix.
~ L
Formal Notice of 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: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 06 Aug 1999 18:23:49 EDT
Lady Drakewyn,
I find extreme fault with the practice of allowing a Warlord to not duel for an entire cycle and get removed from the Swords Standings for inactivity and be allowed to return with full rights and priviledges including peer wins if they hurry up and duel the first weekend of a new cycle. We already have enough problems with ghost Warlords who duel barely once a cycle to stay active just so they can show up only for a Warlord Tourney, and now your
catering to someone just because they are some old school veteran. What a fragrant violation of the rules to allow a policy like this and it further demeans the value of the sport and titles when we keep making eceptions to the rules to promote more activity or give people more chances.
If Valmion, or anyone else, was removed from the Standings for inactivity, then when they get reinstated they should have to start from scratch to reestablish their priviledge to again challenge. The fact that Valmion even saught to exercise such a weak excuse to establish a challenge makes me looose respect for him and the sport. It referes to that cliche, what have you done lately to prove your worth.
I formely protest this policy of the Swords officials, and certainly don't remember any announcement ever posted upon this cork stating this new policy. I would suggest the duelers of this sport who agree with me flood the officials mailboxes in protest.
~Ecore, Warlord of Swords~
Date: 06 Aug 1999 18:23:49 EDT
Lady Drakewyn,
I find extreme fault with the practice of allowing a Warlord to not duel for an entire cycle and get removed from the Swords Standings for inactivity and be allowed to return with full rights and priviledges including peer wins if they hurry up and duel the first weekend of a new cycle. We already have enough problems with ghost Warlords who duel barely once a cycle to stay active just so they can show up only for a Warlord Tourney, and now your
catering to someone just because they are some old school veteran. What a fragrant violation of the rules to allow a policy like this and it further demeans the value of the sport and titles when we keep making eceptions to the rules to promote more activity or give people more chances.
If Valmion, or anyone else, was removed from the Standings for inactivity, then when they get reinstated they should have to start from scratch to reestablish their priviledge to again challenge. The fact that Valmion even saught to exercise such a weak excuse to establish a challenge makes me looose respect for him and the sport. It referes to that cliche, what have you done lately to prove your worth.
I formely protest this policy of the Swords officials, and certainly don't remember any announcement ever posted upon this cork stating this new policy. I would suggest the duelers of this sport who agree with me flood the officials mailboxes in protest.
~Ecore, Warlord of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 06 Aug 1999 19:40:00 EDT
Valmion,
After speaking with you in the Arena and understanding you did duel before the cycle ended and not in a new cycle when thought inactive for the previous cycle, but could have kept your peer wins, I simply apologize. I was not trying to insult you, but voice a concern of what I saw as a vagrant disrespect for the duels as the Standings Keeper was trying to set policy as.
Date: 06 Aug 1999 19:40:00 EDT
Valmion,
After speaking with you in the Arena and understanding you did duel before the cycle ended and not in a new cycle when thought inactive for the previous cycle, but could have kept your peer wins, I simply apologize. I was not trying to insult you, but voice a concern of what I saw as a vagrant disrespect for the duels as the Standings Keeper was trying to set policy as.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 06 Aug 1999 19:56:39 EDT
To the Swords Community at large,
I had a chance to speak with the Standings Keeper and ask her her reasoning on such a policy of allowing a Warlord who was inactive the entire previous cycle to duel the first week of a new cycle and be able to keep their peer wins accumulated from before. In which she stated she understood some don't have quite the time to get in and duel as much. I am sorry, but if a dueler can't make it once within three moons time to get in one duel, and by
the rules that govern they are ruled inactive, and all inactive Warlords have their peer wins set to zero. It's a written law of this sport in which they are trying to bend to their liking.
While your at it why don't you establish policy saying as long as someone sends their challenge within a half day of the Standings release their challenge remains valid. Or better yet, if a Warlord falls to 14 WoLs let them stay a Warlord for a week to see if they can pull it back up to keep their status and peer wins. Where does it end in continious devaluing of this sport?
How much is a title worth these days if people can let the rules become lax so everyone has a chance to keep what little they have earned over time and vagruntly disobey established custom and written law? The issue is about activity, and while I have other ideas about activity, all I am saying here is it too much to ask someone if they want to keep their rights and priviledges they earn to show up for one duel in three months?
~Ecore, Warlord of Swords~
Date: 06 Aug 1999 19:56:39 EDT
To the Swords Community at large,
I had a chance to speak with the Standings Keeper and ask her her reasoning on such a policy of allowing a Warlord who was inactive the entire previous cycle to duel the first week of a new cycle and be able to keep their peer wins accumulated from before. In which she stated she understood some don't have quite the time to get in and duel as much. I am sorry, but if a dueler can't make it once within three moons time to get in one duel, and by
the rules that govern they are ruled inactive, and all inactive Warlords have their peer wins set to zero. It's a written law of this sport in which they are trying to bend to their liking.
While your at it why don't you establish policy saying as long as someone sends their challenge within a half day of the Standings release their challenge remains valid. Or better yet, if a Warlord falls to 14 WoLs let them stay a Warlord for a week to see if they can pull it back up to keep their status and peer wins. Where does it end in continious devaluing of this sport?
How much is a title worth these days if people can let the rules become lax so everyone has a chance to keep what little they have earned over time and vagruntly disobey established custom and written law? The issue is about activity, and while I have other ideas about activity, all I am saying here is it too much to ask someone if they want to keep their rights and priviledges they earn to show up for one duel in three months?
~Ecore, Warlord of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 06 Aug 1999 20:12:08 EDT
Warlord Ecore.
I show absolutely no favoritism with this personal policy. All duelists are treated equally, regardless of tenure, rank or name. I act according to my discretion, as the Rules clearly state.
To use as examples the two Warlords mentioned by Lady Starfare:
Firstly... the Lord of Questrion, indeed the entire of the lands of Questrion, were separated from the Realms and Nexus. Thus, there was no way the Lord of Questrion could know his rank and standing was endangered by inactivity until contact was once again re-established.
Secondly... the Lady MidnytBlue was set upon by a personal illness for many a month and had only recently recovered from such. Though she had not yet fully regained her strength, she came and dueled.
I will always give the benifit of the doubt, where I am permitted to do such.
I prefer to err on the side of weel, rather than woe.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 06 Aug 1999 20:12:08 EDT
Warlord Ecore.
I show absolutely no favoritism with this personal policy. All duelists are treated equally, regardless of tenure, rank or name. I act according to my discretion, as the Rules clearly state.
To use as examples the two Warlords mentioned by Lady Starfare:
Firstly... the Lord of Questrion, indeed the entire of the lands of Questrion, were separated from the Realms and Nexus. Thus, there was no way the Lord of Questrion could know his rank and standing was endangered by inactivity until contact was once again re-established.
Secondly... the Lady MidnytBlue was set upon by a personal illness for many a month and had only recently recovered from such. Though she had not yet fully regained her strength, she came and dueled.
I will always give the benifit of the doubt, where I am permitted to do such.
I prefer to err on the side of weel, rather than woe.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 06 Aug 1999 20:34:20 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
Tis thee that ist indeed mistaken. By the exact passage thee dost quote, a warlord isnae ta be removed from the standings save that the warlord hast nae dueled for at least two cycles. I quote, "...(emphasis added) are inactive for MORE than one cycle". The Lord of Questrion, Valmion, and the Lady Blue both hae dueled during the previous two cycles yet thou didst remove their names from the standings lists.
Thou blithely disregard the writ rules of engagement by thine so-called, self proclaimed 'leniency', Madame. The lesser ranks, and those of the titled ranks hae nae the same protection of the rules of engagement ast be offered unta the warlords I shall remind thee, for thine memory seems to hae failed thee mightily, that neither the warlord, Valmion, nor the Lady Blue prooffered formal retirement unto thee and both hae dueled in the time alloted.
Indeed, thou art the first standings keeper to send out missives apprising duelers of there situation. A kindness, aye, yet nae dost thine 'discretionary' function permit thee to re-write the official rules, Madame. Thou hast taken it upon thineself to alter the rules in permitting those of lesser rank to return unto the lists with records intact, another blatant flouting of the rules of engagement. Perhaps thou seek to garner a modicum of
followers by thine favoritism. Madame. A pity thee feels the need to do less than ist required of thee and more than thou hast the right to in thine seeming attempt to garner favor with the less knowledgeable of the community.
In thine 'leniency', Madame, thou hast validated challenges that were plainly illegal, yet thee are sheltered in that thee conveniently hae 'lost' the records, whilst stating in thine own hand that thee hae kept records of those of less than warlord rank thus allowing them to be reinstated. How interesting and how verra convenient, Madame, that records of little worth are kept whilst those that hae a direct bearing on a challenge match hae gone
missing.
Madame, thee hae nae the faintest clue what the spirit of the rules be, and e'en less what the letter of the rules be. Thou hast proven that o'er and o'er, by thine own admissions.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 06 Aug 1999 20:34:20 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
Tis thee that ist indeed mistaken. By the exact passage thee dost quote, a warlord isnae ta be removed from the standings save that the warlord hast nae dueled for at least two cycles. I quote, "...(emphasis added) are inactive for MORE than one cycle". The Lord of Questrion, Valmion, and the Lady Blue both hae dueled during the previous two cycles yet thou didst remove their names from the standings lists.
Thou blithely disregard the writ rules of engagement by thine so-called, self proclaimed 'leniency', Madame. The lesser ranks, and those of the titled ranks hae nae the same protection of the rules of engagement ast be offered unta the warlords I shall remind thee, for thine memory seems to hae failed thee mightily, that neither the warlord, Valmion, nor the Lady Blue prooffered formal retirement unto thee and both hae dueled in the time alloted.
Indeed, thou art the first standings keeper to send out missives apprising duelers of there situation. A kindness, aye, yet nae dost thine 'discretionary' function permit thee to re-write the official rules, Madame. Thou hast taken it upon thineself to alter the rules in permitting those of lesser rank to return unto the lists with records intact, another blatant flouting of the rules of engagement. Perhaps thou seek to garner a modicum of
followers by thine favoritism. Madame. A pity thee feels the need to do less than ist required of thee and more than thou hast the right to in thine seeming attempt to garner favor with the less knowledgeable of the community.
In thine 'leniency', Madame, thou hast validated challenges that were plainly illegal, yet thee are sheltered in that thee conveniently hae 'lost' the records, whilst stating in thine own hand that thee hae kept records of those of less than warlord rank thus allowing them to be reinstated. How interesting and how verra convenient, Madame, that records of little worth are kept whilst those that hae a direct bearing on a challenge match hae gone
missing.
Madame, thee hae nae the faintest clue what the spirit of the rules be, and e'en less what the letter of the rules be. Thou hast proven that o'er and o'er, by thine own admissions.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: methous45@aol.com (Methous45)
Date: 06 Aug 1999 23:14:14 EDT
::Smiles::
Get him Rix, I'll buy you a new pair of shoe's, if by any means you happen to lose one.
Meth
Date: 06 Aug 1999 23:14:14 EDT
::Smiles::
Get him Rix, I'll buy you a new pair of shoe's, if by any means you happen to lose one.
Meth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 01:54:18 EDT
> By the exact passage thee dost quote, a warlord isnae ta be removed from the
>standings save that the warlord hast nae dueled for at least two cycles. I
>quote, "...(emphasis added) are inactive for MORE than one cycle"
And Jonalyn is "More than she appears"
Does this mean there are -Two- Jonalyns?
Gods, I hope not.
Date: 07 Aug 1999 01:54:18 EDT
> By the exact passage thee dost quote, a warlord isnae ta be removed from the
>standings save that the warlord hast nae dueled for at least two cycles. I
>quote, "...(emphasis added) are inactive for MORE than one cycle"
And Jonalyn is "More than she appears"
Does this mean there are -Two- Jonalyns?
Gods, I hope not.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 03:29:36 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
Thou art mistaken in thine claim that the entire land of Questrion wast separated from the Realms and Nexus. At no time hae the lands of Questrion resided elsewhere save where they hae always been.
In point of fact, Madame, the Lord Valmion and the Lady Blue didst both duel during the time required and thou didst remove their names from the lists in error. I dinna expect thee to admit thine error, Madame. But I mineself wast present upon the eves both didst dance and thou werenae.
The rules of engagement are clear in that a warlord ist graced with the privilege, unlike anna other rank or title to be required to dance but once in two cycles to maintain standing upon the lists. Tis interesting that the challenge issued by the warlord Steve Glowacki unto the Baron Zafiroo Turidan hast been permitted to exceed the prescribed limits of the law of the duels. Thee and the senior officials seem to be set upon a course of blatant
abuse, bias and favoritism ta the detriment of the sport. The warlord Ecore indeed makes valid argument for the manner in which the flagrant setting aside of the law which thee so blithely seem to be indulging in sets the stage for further abuse of the sport. Shortly shall we see anarchy reign, that or shall the community fall under the sway of dictatorship by officials what wouldst set aside the law at whim? What a sad state of affairs for a
once proud sport.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 07 Aug 1999 03:29:36 EDT
Madame Silvertree,
Thou art mistaken in thine claim that the entire land of Questrion wast separated from the Realms and Nexus. At no time hae the lands of Questrion resided elsewhere save where they hae always been.
In point of fact, Madame, the Lord Valmion and the Lady Blue didst both duel during the time required and thou didst remove their names from the lists in error. I dinna expect thee to admit thine error, Madame. But I mineself wast present upon the eves both didst dance and thou werenae.
The rules of engagement are clear in that a warlord ist graced with the privilege, unlike anna other rank or title to be required to dance but once in two cycles to maintain standing upon the lists. Tis interesting that the challenge issued by the warlord Steve Glowacki unto the Baron Zafiroo Turidan hast been permitted to exceed the prescribed limits of the law of the duels. Thee and the senior officials seem to be set upon a course of blatant
abuse, bias and favoritism ta the detriment of the sport. The warlord Ecore indeed makes valid argument for the manner in which the flagrant setting aside of the law which thee so blithely seem to be indulging in sets the stage for further abuse of the sport. Shortly shall we see anarchy reign, that or shall the community fall under the sway of dictatorship by officials what wouldst set aside the law at whim? What a sad state of affairs for a
once proud sport.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 05:09:21 EDT
After hearing some comments, I would like to add in my few cents.
I have less of a problem with this since Drake did at least post it on the boards. I don't remember reading it, but there is no reason to doubt that she didn't post it.
If the standings keeper is allowed to reinstate those who have lost their records due to inactivity, I would at least make it on record by stating it somewhere in the rules. Aside from that, I will say that I agree with Ecore and Jona by saying I don't think people should be given the opportunity to be reinstated. It ends up being a cycle of second and third chances if they really don't seem to show much attention to their record.
I was once an enchanter in DoM, many months ago, and I was removed from the standings because I stopped dueling there for a time. I was removed because I did not put my time into taking part of the sport. It took me a long time before I started dueling again, but I would not ask to be reinstated if I was removed.
But Drake, I feel you're taking on too much responsibility for these duelers. It isn't, and shouldn't be, your job to let people keep their hard earned record if they choose not to put more time in it. You're watering other people's plants, so to speak. Once they're ready again, let them start from scratch. I sometimes hear you say in the arena that you work too much, and this is one of the reasons why; you're carrying seven other people's
responsibilities on your shoulders.
That's just how I see it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Apprentice of DoM
Glass of DoF
Date: 07 Aug 1999 05:09:21 EDT
After hearing some comments, I would like to add in my few cents.
I have less of a problem with this since Drake did at least post it on the boards. I don't remember reading it, but there is no reason to doubt that she didn't post it.
If the standings keeper is allowed to reinstate those who have lost their records due to inactivity, I would at least make it on record by stating it somewhere in the rules. Aside from that, I will say that I agree with Ecore and Jona by saying I don't think people should be given the opportunity to be reinstated. It ends up being a cycle of second and third chances if they really don't seem to show much attention to their record.
I was once an enchanter in DoM, many months ago, and I was removed from the standings because I stopped dueling there for a time. I was removed because I did not put my time into taking part of the sport. It took me a long time before I started dueling again, but I would not ask to be reinstated if I was removed.
But Drake, I feel you're taking on too much responsibility for these duelers. It isn't, and shouldn't be, your job to let people keep their hard earned record if they choose not to put more time in it. You're watering other people's plants, so to speak. Once they're ready again, let them start from scratch. I sometimes hear you say in the arena that you work too much, and this is one of the reasons why; you're carrying seven other people's
responsibilities on your shoulders.
That's just how I see it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Apprentice of DoM
Glass of DoF
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 09:09:12 EDT
Be afraid, Jonalyn agreed with me. Aside from that, I think Drake has done an excellent job in other ways, such as taking the time to send notices out to Warlords that they are close to inactivity and such, and to give people fair warning. I think that is by far above the call of duty for her position. Especially after such
attention she gives to the job of being Standings Keeper she has every excuse, right, and I would hope motivation to stick completely to the letter of the written law.
~Ecore, Warlord of Swords~
Date: 07 Aug 1999 09:09:12 EDT
Be afraid, Jonalyn agreed with me. Aside from that, I think Drake has done an excellent job in other ways, such as taking the time to send notices out to Warlords that they are close to inactivity and such, and to give people fair warning. I think that is by far above the call of duty for her position. Especially after such
attention she gives to the job of being Standings Keeper she has every excuse, right, and I would hope motivation to stick completely to the letter of the written law.
~Ecore, Warlord of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 09:52:48 EDT
>>Aside from that, I will say that I agree with Ecore and Jona by saying I don't think people should be given the opportunity to be reinstated.<<
Actually, Var, Jona isn't saying that Valmion shouldn't have been reinstated. She is saying Drake was out of line for taking him off the standings in the first place and there should never have been a need for reinstatement. She is saying this despite the fact that the written rules on the matter leave the question of when, after an inactive cycle, a duelist should be removed from the standings entirely up to the Standings Keeper.
That said, who do you agree with? E or Jona? They are on opposite sides of the argument.
Percy
Date: 07 Aug 1999 09:52:48 EDT
>>Aside from that, I will say that I agree with Ecore and Jona by saying I don't think people should be given the opportunity to be reinstated.<<
Actually, Var, Jona isn't saying that Valmion shouldn't have been reinstated. She is saying Drake was out of line for taking him off the standings in the first place and there should never have been a need for reinstatement. She is saying this despite the fact that the written rules on the matter leave the question of when, after an inactive cycle, a duelist should be removed from the standings entirely up to the Standings Keeper.
That said, who do you agree with? E or Jona? They are on opposite sides of the argument.
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 12:52:12 EDT
"What a fragrant violation of the rules to allow a policy like this..."
I agree with Ecore. It's quite fragrant. It may even stink.
~ Lup
Date: 07 Aug 1999 12:52:12 EDT
"What a fragrant violation of the rules to allow a policy like this..."
I agree with Ecore. It's quite fragrant. It may even stink.
~ Lup
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 14:35:19 EDT
Percy,
Jona wrote the following:
Indeed, thou art the first standings keeper to send out missives apprising duelers of there situation. A kindness, aye, yet nae dost thine 'discretionary' function permit thee to re-write the official rules, Madame. Thou hast taken it upon thineself to alter the rules in permitting those of lesser rank to return unto the lists with records intact, another blatant flouting of the rules of engagement. Perhaps thou seek to garner a modicum
of
followers by thine favoritism. Madame. A pity thee feels the need to do less than ist required of thee and more than thou hast the right to in thine seeming attempt to garner favor with the less knowledgeable of the community.
Like I said, I agree with both.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Apprentice of DoM
Glass of DoF
Date: 07 Aug 1999 14:35:19 EDT
Percy,
Jona wrote the following:
Indeed, thou art the first standings keeper to send out missives apprising duelers of there situation. A kindness, aye, yet nae dost thine 'discretionary' function permit thee to re-write the official rules, Madame. Thou hast taken it upon thineself to alter the rules in permitting those of lesser rank to return unto the lists with records intact, another blatant flouting of the rules of engagement. Perhaps thou seek to garner a modicum
of
followers by thine favoritism. Madame. A pity thee feels the need to do less than ist required of thee and more than thou hast the right to in thine seeming attempt to garner favor with the less knowledgeable of the community.
Like I said, I agree with both.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Apprentice of DoM
Glass of DoF
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xstevegx@aol.com (X SteveG X)
Date: 07 Aug 1999 23:33:56 EDT
>Tis interesting that the challenge issued by the warlord Steve Glowacki unto
>the Baron Zafiroo Turidan hast been permitted to exceed the prescribed limits
>of the law of the duels.
I was not aware of any law requiring the standings keeper to ratify challenges in a timely fashion. If I had an issue with the fact that the Standings Keeper decided to wait until after the tournament to ratify my challenge, I would have said something. But after waiting many, many months to challenge, I really don't care about waiting another week or so.
Once again, you are attempting to place legal blame on the standings keeper when she is merely doing her job with discretion. The rules are vague in some areas, and non-existant in others. While you are entitled to voice your opinions on how the standings keeper *should* do her job, I think the whole community grows tired of you finding the smallest, insigifcant, and often non-existant faults in her duties, especially since you have shown no desire
(nor even replied to the suggestion) to do the job yourself.
Go ahead and be mad at Drake on my behalf. Since my opinion of you is rock-bottom already, it won't mean much to me.
And my first name has 6 letters, not 5.
-Steven Glowacki
Date: 07 Aug 1999 23:33:56 EDT
>Tis interesting that the challenge issued by the warlord Steve Glowacki unto
>the Baron Zafiroo Turidan hast been permitted to exceed the prescribed limits
>of the law of the duels.
I was not aware of any law requiring the standings keeper to ratify challenges in a timely fashion. If I had an issue with the fact that the Standings Keeper decided to wait until after the tournament to ratify my challenge, I would have said something. But after waiting many, many months to challenge, I really don't care about waiting another week or so.
Once again, you are attempting to place legal blame on the standings keeper when she is merely doing her job with discretion. The rules are vague in some areas, and non-existant in others. While you are entitled to voice your opinions on how the standings keeper *should* do her job, I think the whole community grows tired of you finding the smallest, insigifcant, and often non-existant faults in her duties, especially since you have shown no desire
(nor even replied to the suggestion) to do the job yourself.
Go ahead and be mad at Drake on my behalf. Since my opinion of you is rock-bottom already, it won't mean much to me.
And my first name has 6 letters, not 5.
-Steven Glowacki