From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 24 Aug 1999 22:08:25 EDT
I've a simple question. I'd like simple answers, and thoughtful ones. I see no need to fight over this question. I am personally curious as to views.
It has been said in a recent post that the Barons Council should Not judge Morals.
I ask you. Why?
Personally, I feel that a person should be judged on Morals, and if they do something that a legal body can take action against, they should. Especially if that action is for the universal good.
I am aware that you will get different opinions, and the "Universal Good" would change each time you get a different member of the council via challenge and such. However, Why should the Council Not judge morals, when every single one of you do so in one way or another?
Note: This is not necessarily a bad thing, either.
I know I've judged based on Morals and Honor when I was a council member. Need more info, ask me, for I won't post that incedent upon these boards as they are long since settled.
*G*
Simple Question.
-
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: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 24 Aug 1999 22:34:49 EDT
>>However, Why should the Council Not judge morals, when every single one of you do so in one way or another?<<
G's question is a good one. Especially when he is right. We all use our own moral codes to make judgements. My personal gyroscope tends to be in regard to sportsmanship, and to a slightly lesser degree personal honesty. We all tend to use our own moral ideas to judge the actions of others.
In regards to the Baron Council, however, the question being raised is one of rules. The question is (supposed to be) how to judge the individual found in forfeit, based on their conduct, reason for such conduct, etc. Sometimes the conduct of the party not found in forfeit is used to decide the consequences for the person in forfeit.
This is a dangerous situation. People should be judged by their actions, not by the opinion of others on the moral values of their opponent. Nor on the popularity of their opponent. It is wrong to make a decision in favor of the duelist in forfeit based on the conduct of their opponent. It is the conduct and motivations of the duelist in forfeit that is to be discussed when making a decision regarding the consequences of the forfeit.
After consequences have been decided, *then* it is appropriate to judge the other party on their actions. But not until *after* a decision has been made regarding the forfeit, which is the first priority of the Baron's Council.
Of course, this is my opinion. However, I believe it very strongly. Having seen one instance where the party in forfeit was basically rewarded for not showing up, I tend to look closely at the situations under council discussion. I don't really have much faith in the council's objectivity, or even in their real tendency to consider morality. Far more often they consider popularity and personal bias.
However, all in all, I think that moral judgement *does* have a place in Council decisions. However, sometimes the Barons consider the *wrong* moral issues when using morality as a guideline.
That help, G?
Percy
Date: 24 Aug 1999 22:34:49 EDT
>>However, Why should the Council Not judge morals, when every single one of you do so in one way or another?<<
G's question is a good one. Especially when he is right. We all use our own moral codes to make judgements. My personal gyroscope tends to be in regard to sportsmanship, and to a slightly lesser degree personal honesty. We all tend to use our own moral ideas to judge the actions of others.
In regards to the Baron Council, however, the question being raised is one of rules. The question is (supposed to be) how to judge the individual found in forfeit, based on their conduct, reason for such conduct, etc. Sometimes the conduct of the party not found in forfeit is used to decide the consequences for the person in forfeit.
This is a dangerous situation. People should be judged by their actions, not by the opinion of others on the moral values of their opponent. Nor on the popularity of their opponent. It is wrong to make a decision in favor of the duelist in forfeit based on the conduct of their opponent. It is the conduct and motivations of the duelist in forfeit that is to be discussed when making a decision regarding the consequences of the forfeit.
After consequences have been decided, *then* it is appropriate to judge the other party on their actions. But not until *after* a decision has been made regarding the forfeit, which is the first priority of the Baron's Council.
Of course, this is my opinion. However, I believe it very strongly. Having seen one instance where the party in forfeit was basically rewarded for not showing up, I tend to look closely at the situations under council discussion. I don't really have much faith in the council's objectivity, or even in their real tendency to consider morality. Far more often they consider popularity and personal bias.
However, all in all, I think that moral judgement *does* have a place in Council decisions. However, sometimes the Barons consider the *wrong* moral issues when using morality as a guideline.
That help, G?
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 Aug 1999 23:38:21 EDT
Thank you for wording what I was hoping to word when I wrote to Bret on this matter.
Like I said, if in the future the council is instructed to use morality as a guideline, then that's how I will do my job. Until then, I'm handling my job the way I'm handling it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 24 Aug 1999 23:38:21 EDT
Thank you for wording what I was hoping to word when I wrote to Bret on this matter.
Like I said, if in the future the council is instructed to use morality as a guideline, then that's how I will do my job. Until then, I'm handling my job the way I'm handling it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 00:58:26 EDT
Interesting question, G.
In a personal letter, totally outside any official channels, I asked the Council to be sure to take into account every word and action taken by the two participants in the most recent challenge they judged.
The very idea that a decision could be made totally divorced from emotion is an impossiblity for most any living being. I'm certain it's possible that there are some beings that do not have emotions... but I certainly would not want them to judge anything involving a "human" element.
It's important to consider the emotional impact that words and actions have... if we do not, how can we call ourselves civilized?
Please note, I use the term "human" for ease of reference, not out of any bias.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 25 Aug 1999 00:58:26 EDT
Interesting question, G.
In a personal letter, totally outside any official channels, I asked the Council to be sure to take into account every word and action taken by the two participants in the most recent challenge they judged.
The very idea that a decision could be made totally divorced from emotion is an impossiblity for most any living being. I'm certain it's possible that there are some beings that do not have emotions... but I certainly would not want them to judge anything involving a "human" element.
It's important to consider the emotional impact that words and actions have... if we do not, how can we call ourselves civilized?
Please note, I use the term "human" for ease of reference, not out of any bias.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 01:10:18 EDT
Gnort,
You bring up an interesting question. I personally feel it would be quite hard to judge any matter without bringing morals into issue. They should be brought in, as it seems important to me. As Drake said, it would be hard to just ignore any emotion you feel when making a descision.
Good question, and maybe after I get some sleep I would be able to give a better answer.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
Date: 25 Aug 1999 01:10:18 EDT
Gnort,
You bring up an interesting question. I personally feel it would be quite hard to judge any matter without bringing morals into issue. They should be brought in, as it seems important to me. As Drake said, it would be hard to just ignore any emotion you feel when making a descision.
Good question, and maybe after I get some sleep I would be able to give a better answer.
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: falablah@aol.com (Falablah)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 02:15:59 EDT
The morals of the Warlord have nothing to do with him gaining the barony. When it comes down to it, the Warlord must best the Baron in the ring (challange match). It makes no sense to therefore take the title earned through skill in the ring away because of other's conflicting morals. If this was a government where morals mattered in the gaining of such
position I could understand but morals have nothing to do with gaining the title so why should they be involved when taking the title away?
~Falablah Dalegate~
~Mage~
~Former Warlord~
~Former Emerald~
~Twice Holder of Pathfinder~
~Member of House Asgard~
Date: 25 Aug 1999 02:15:59 EDT
The morals of the Warlord have nothing to do with him gaining the barony. When it comes down to it, the Warlord must best the Baron in the ring (challange match). It makes no sense to therefore take the title earned through skill in the ring away because of other's conflicting morals. If this was a government where morals mattered in the gaining of such
position I could understand but morals have nothing to do with gaining the title so why should they be involved when taking the title away?
~Falablah Dalegate~
~Mage~
~Former Warlord~
~Former Emerald~
~Twice Holder of Pathfinder~
~Member of House Asgard~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 13:51:41 EDT
>>If this was a government where morals mattered in the gaining of such position I could understand but morals have nothing to do with gaining the title so why should they be involved when taking<<
This is a common error made by a lot of people around here. This is *not* a government, this is a sport. The Overlord and Barons do not rule over any of the members of the sport or community (except in those cases where they are sovereigns of their own realms or vassals in another realm with vassals of their own) nor are they connected in any way with government. They are occasionally called to discharge their duties in regard to the sport.
This is not a function of government, but of sport.
And, to a degree, morals do matter in the gaining of position here. Sportsmanship is (or should be) the gauge by which the actions of all members of the sport are measured. Those who have shown a certain amount of sportsmanship as well as skill gain more respect than those who merely demonstrate skill alone.
The problem is, too often people look at the wrong aspects of a situation when making their decisions. Decisions regarding someone held in forfeit are made by the conduct of the party not in forfeit, or vice versa. Individuals should be judged by their actions rather than the actions of their opponents. The fact that Methous behaved like a fool and a blackguard, while it does (to a certain extent) make Aspen the aggrieved party, does not make
Aspen any less of a fool or a blackguard himself.
The council, for a change, did surprisingly well in judging Methous and Aspen each on the basis of their own conduct. Of course, they may just have all been in a mood to punish two people they didn't like. We will never really know.
I am all in favor of some sort of moral compass, however I would tend to state (again) that such a compass is all too often used with the wrong map. People all too often make low decisions for high-minded reasons.
Percy
Date: 25 Aug 1999 13:51:41 EDT
>>If this was a government where morals mattered in the gaining of such position I could understand but morals have nothing to do with gaining the title so why should they be involved when taking<<
This is a common error made by a lot of people around here. This is *not* a government, this is a sport. The Overlord and Barons do not rule over any of the members of the sport or community (except in those cases where they are sovereigns of their own realms or vassals in another realm with vassals of their own) nor are they connected in any way with government. They are occasionally called to discharge their duties in regard to the sport.
This is not a function of government, but of sport.
And, to a degree, morals do matter in the gaining of position here. Sportsmanship is (or should be) the gauge by which the actions of all members of the sport are measured. Those who have shown a certain amount of sportsmanship as well as skill gain more respect than those who merely demonstrate skill alone.
The problem is, too often people look at the wrong aspects of a situation when making their decisions. Decisions regarding someone held in forfeit are made by the conduct of the party not in forfeit, or vice versa. Individuals should be judged by their actions rather than the actions of their opponents. The fact that Methous behaved like a fool and a blackguard, while it does (to a certain extent) make Aspen the aggrieved party, does not make
Aspen any less of a fool or a blackguard himself.
The council, for a change, did surprisingly well in judging Methous and Aspen each on the basis of their own conduct. Of course, they may just have all been in a mood to punish two people they didn't like. We will never really know.
I am all in favor of some sort of moral compass, however I would tend to state (again) that such a compass is all too often used with the wrong map. People all too often make low decisions for high-minded reasons.
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 20:27:53 EDT
Percy
Let nae anna ferget thine support fer th' 'sportsmanship' shown by th' perfidious Baroness 'o th' Third Ring, aye? Thee sway in th' winds, yuir Grace. Tis if'n thee do 'old tha' morals do matter, tis vastly amusin' thee dinna 'old cheatin' ta gain a challenge ta be a matter t' be decried. Thee seem t' leap from one side 'o th' moral fence t' th' other. Tis a wonder thee hae nae injured some delicate portion 'o thine anatomy.
Amusedly,
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 25 Aug 1999 20:27:53 EDT
Percy
Let nae anna ferget thine support fer th' 'sportsmanship' shown by th' perfidious Baroness 'o th' Third Ring, aye? Thee sway in th' winds, yuir Grace. Tis if'n thee do 'old tha' morals do matter, tis vastly amusin' thee dinna 'old cheatin' ta gain a challenge ta be a matter t' be decried. Thee seem t' leap from one side 'o th' moral fence t' th' other. Tis a wonder thee hae nae injured some delicate portion 'o thine anatomy.
Amusedly,
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 20:31:40 EDT
>>Let nae anna ferget thine support fer th' 'sportsmanship' shown by th' perfidious Baroness 'o th' Third Ring, aye? <<
Well, since I know the facts and those who condemn her so loudly refuse to listen to them, I feel fairly morally secure. I am glad you are so happy with your own constancy, Jonalyn. We are all quite proud of you. For your high moral standard and your pristine ability to not need the facts to justify it.
Percy
Date: 25 Aug 1999 20:31:40 EDT
>>Let nae anna ferget thine support fer th' 'sportsmanship' shown by th' perfidious Baroness 'o th' Third Ring, aye? <<
Well, since I know the facts and those who condemn her so loudly refuse to listen to them, I feel fairly morally secure. I am glad you are so happy with your own constancy, Jonalyn. We are all quite proud of you. For your high moral standard and your pristine ability to not need the facts to justify it.
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 22:30:43 EDT
Percy,
Aye, th' facts. The' Baroness 'o th' third didst present illegal challenge, She didst hae 'er servant ta seek out an' overturn th' proper rulin' made by th' then standin's keeper. She cast blame upon 'er servant fer 'er own perfidy. Tis she certes 'oped nae anna wouldst bring 'er schemin' deceit t' light. She hae yet ta admit 'er deceit an' deception. An' dost yet carry on ast if she didst nae wrong atall. Tis indeed those be th' facts,
Percival, ast well ast it be fact th' Baroness stood silently by whilst others were castigated fer bringin' 'er perfidy ta light. Lest anna ferget, she also be an official 'o these ancient 'alls. She wast permitted t' lay down 'er challenge in total an' complete contradiction 'o th' rules 'o engagement whilst other warlords hae faced penalty both afore an' after 'er deceitful deed. Those be th' facts, Percival. An if'n I am nae mistaken, thee do
'old th' th' Baroness ist sportsmanlike an' 'onorable. Bah. Th' Third Ring yet bears 'er taint.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 25 Aug 1999 22:30:43 EDT
Percy,
Aye, th' facts. The' Baroness 'o th' third didst present illegal challenge, She didst hae 'er servant ta seek out an' overturn th' proper rulin' made by th' then standin's keeper. She cast blame upon 'er servant fer 'er own perfidy. Tis she certes 'oped nae anna wouldst bring 'er schemin' deceit t' light. She hae yet ta admit 'er deceit an' deception. An' dost yet carry on ast if she didst nae wrong atall. Tis indeed those be th' facts,
Percival, ast well ast it be fact th' Baroness stood silently by whilst others were castigated fer bringin' 'er perfidy ta light. Lest anna ferget, she also be an official 'o these ancient 'alls. She wast permitted t' lay down 'er challenge in total an' complete contradiction 'o th' rules 'o engagement whilst other warlords hae faced penalty both afore an' after 'er deceitful deed. Those be th' facts, Percival. An if'n I am nae mistaken, thee do
'old th' th' Baroness ist sportsmanlike an' 'onorable. Bah. Th' Third Ring yet bears 'er taint.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 22:45:43 EDT
And once again, we've dug deep into the annals of redundant history lessons. What we need is to push to the future, rather than wallow in the past like pigs in the mud.
Soon to be called "senile" or "insane",
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 25 Aug 1999 22:45:43 EDT
And once again, we've dug deep into the annals of redundant history lessons. What we need is to push to the future, rather than wallow in the past like pigs in the mud.
Soon to be called "senile" or "insane",
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 22:45:43 EDT
And once again, we've dug deep into the annals of redundant history lessons. What we need is to push to the future, rather than wallow in the past like pigs in the mud.
Soon to be called "senile" or "insane",
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 25 Aug 1999 22:45:43 EDT
And once again, we've dug deep into the annals of redundant history lessons. What we need is to push to the future, rather than wallow in the past like pigs in the mud.
Soon to be called "senile" or "insane",
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: walkerdrd@aol.com (Walker Drd)
Date: 25 Aug 1999 23:05:34 EDT
Seeing as I was the main opponent of those that judged Huma to be at fault in Dal's forfeited challenge, I feel I must say something on this topic.
The Council is a body of potentially 13 members. Each has nearly a different belief on how it should be run, and what information and circumstances should be considered. Each, if they are doing their "job" to the full extent, will try to convince the others that their view is correct, mainly based on there own feelings, and very little, and heavily interpreted, law. In the end, the final vote count comes down mainly to what each side feels is
appropriate information to consider. Perhaps they feel slightly different on a certain grevious act by a dueler, but it comes down to whether the "crime" warrants the "time".
The Council is judge and jury for each case, but in know way, unlike all other court systems I know of, must look at precedence. Certainly a glance is warranted, but since the make up continuously changes, and the Council is never entirely of law scholars, personal feelings are used extensively. Even for those that are mindful of precedent, it can often be discarded due to the lack of legal merit in this particlar case, due to different
circumstances.
Therefore, when looking specifically at the actions a dueler takes, there can be no set punishment (unless there was a law stating exactly that, but there isn't one yet). Therefore, a Baron must consult their own feelings of the situation in order to determine what they feel is the correct result. If anyone else thinks differently, so be it. State your opinions, and try to find some law on your side.
All throughout the council I was on, I was steadfastly for a rematch, but all the time knowing that the opposition had a good argument backed by a good arguer (Morgan). My feelings were that Dal should not get off just for Huma's stupidity, since he did "forfeit". Huma deserved some punishment, certainly, but I felt the community was capable of levying it themself; they didn't need our ruling. However, both of those statements of mere opinion,
based on the laws of my homeland, and many other places I know of. Other members are free to their own opinions, whatever they may be based on.
And that is the major "problem" with the council, although most would argue it isn't one. People can form whatever baseless opinions they want, and it doesn't matter if the opinion is entirely irrelevant, it counts as a vote. I won't say to hand the decision making back to the staff, but I would like to see some sort of law enforced when it comes to the council. I'm not talking about strictly following precedent, but having some sort of
parliamentary rules would be a good step. Right now they are severly lacking.
Perhaps we should call on the judges from all the out-lying areas to ignore precedent and evidence that they wish to, and enact whatever punishment they want on whoever. Even judges appointed for life aren't like that. And please don't tell me you can always challenge someone who's opinions you don't like. That is just a further push towards mob rule.
So when it comes down to whether the council should always look upon a dueler's actions taken in an unofficial capacity, I say nay.
-Walker Boh
((Author's note: I'd like to mention for clarity that perhaps the best thing about the Council is it's "randomness". I'd like to see more random things get thrown into the Council's lap too :) ))
Date: 25 Aug 1999 23:05:34 EDT
Seeing as I was the main opponent of those that judged Huma to be at fault in Dal's forfeited challenge, I feel I must say something on this topic.
The Council is a body of potentially 13 members. Each has nearly a different belief on how it should be run, and what information and circumstances should be considered. Each, if they are doing their "job" to the full extent, will try to convince the others that their view is correct, mainly based on there own feelings, and very little, and heavily interpreted, law. In the end, the final vote count comes down mainly to what each side feels is
appropriate information to consider. Perhaps they feel slightly different on a certain grevious act by a dueler, but it comes down to whether the "crime" warrants the "time".
The Council is judge and jury for each case, but in know way, unlike all other court systems I know of, must look at precedence. Certainly a glance is warranted, but since the make up continuously changes, and the Council is never entirely of law scholars, personal feelings are used extensively. Even for those that are mindful of precedent, it can often be discarded due to the lack of legal merit in this particlar case, due to different
circumstances.
Therefore, when looking specifically at the actions a dueler takes, there can be no set punishment (unless there was a law stating exactly that, but there isn't one yet). Therefore, a Baron must consult their own feelings of the situation in order to determine what they feel is the correct result. If anyone else thinks differently, so be it. State your opinions, and try to find some law on your side.
All throughout the council I was on, I was steadfastly for a rematch, but all the time knowing that the opposition had a good argument backed by a good arguer (Morgan). My feelings were that Dal should not get off just for Huma's stupidity, since he did "forfeit". Huma deserved some punishment, certainly, but I felt the community was capable of levying it themself; they didn't need our ruling. However, both of those statements of mere opinion,
based on the laws of my homeland, and many other places I know of. Other members are free to their own opinions, whatever they may be based on.
And that is the major "problem" with the council, although most would argue it isn't one. People can form whatever baseless opinions they want, and it doesn't matter if the opinion is entirely irrelevant, it counts as a vote. I won't say to hand the decision making back to the staff, but I would like to see some sort of law enforced when it comes to the council. I'm not talking about strictly following precedent, but having some sort of
parliamentary rules would be a good step. Right now they are severly lacking.
Perhaps we should call on the judges from all the out-lying areas to ignore precedent and evidence that they wish to, and enact whatever punishment they want on whoever. Even judges appointed for life aren't like that. And please don't tell me you can always challenge someone who's opinions you don't like. That is just a further push towards mob rule.
So when it comes down to whether the council should always look upon a dueler's actions taken in an unofficial capacity, I say nay.
-Walker Boh
((Author's note: I'd like to mention for clarity that perhaps the best thing about the Council is it's "randomness". I'd like to see more random things get thrown into the Council's lap too :) ))
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 26 Aug 1999 12:51:29 EDT
Jona,
Once again, you see the facts that suit you and ignore the facts that contradict you. The first fact is that Jaycy left RhyDin, leaving her challenge to be posted by a retainer. Possibly bad judgement, but hardly an offense. Second, her retainer asked the advice of the coordinator of swords regarding when to deliver the challenge as he did not fully understand the rules, not being a duelist. Third, the answer he was given was in error. Fourth, the
person who made the error (I can only guess at motives, but I assume it was because she felt responsible and didn't want Jaycy to lose her right to challenge because of HER advice) decided that the best way to correct her own error was to allow the challenge to proceed.
I know full well that you would like to punish Jaycy for someone else's mistake. I also know full well that every time someone has told you what really happened, which you were not privy to at all and know nothing about, you ignore it. Therefore, having stated everything that happened one last time, I will not bother to educate the ignorant in this case any further.
I would only add that it must be a very fine thing to be perfect, Jona. We all wish that we had infallible moral compasses like yours and that we could be as perfect as you. Of course, we'd also probably have to settle for sacrificing common sense and compassion. But hey, you seem happy without them.
Percy
Date: 26 Aug 1999 12:51:29 EDT
Jona,
Once again, you see the facts that suit you and ignore the facts that contradict you. The first fact is that Jaycy left RhyDin, leaving her challenge to be posted by a retainer. Possibly bad judgement, but hardly an offense. Second, her retainer asked the advice of the coordinator of swords regarding when to deliver the challenge as he did not fully understand the rules, not being a duelist. Third, the answer he was given was in error. Fourth, the
person who made the error (I can only guess at motives, but I assume it was because she felt responsible and didn't want Jaycy to lose her right to challenge because of HER advice) decided that the best way to correct her own error was to allow the challenge to proceed.
I know full well that you would like to punish Jaycy for someone else's mistake. I also know full well that every time someone has told you what really happened, which you were not privy to at all and know nothing about, you ignore it. Therefore, having stated everything that happened one last time, I will not bother to educate the ignorant in this case any further.
I would only add that it must be a very fine thing to be perfect, Jona. We all wish that we had infallible moral compasses like yours and that we could be as perfect as you. Of course, we'd also probably have to settle for sacrificing common sense and compassion. But hey, you seem happy without them.
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: alyxz@aol.com (Alyxz)
Date: 26 Aug 1999 14:13:44 EDT
I think the council should make decisions based on upon the following:
whatever they damn well feel like.
If you got the shaft because someone doesn't like you, go cry in your ale, next time try not to be such a snot and maybe someone will cut you some slack.
~Alyxz
Date: 26 Aug 1999 14:13:44 EDT
I think the council should make decisions based on upon the following:
whatever they damn well feel like.
If you got the shaft because someone doesn't like you, go cry in your ale, next time try not to be such a snot and maybe someone will cut you some slack.
~Alyxz