From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 14:34:58 EDT
As much as my Roman blood heats up at the smell of scandal, I was caught off guard that Golden's ruling not quell the outcry.
"Res iudicata pro veritate habetur." Right?
In any event I don't see the logic behind my challenge being voided inosfar as I didn't do anything wrong or improper. I suppose Elijahs PWs should be returned and that any who wish it should be able to file a complaint to have there PWs returned again. I anxiously await a legal ruling.
Zafiroo: I as you, bear no ill will. I also look forward greatly to rematching you (we dueled last night) in slightly more glorious surroundings. I also find myself, even now, quaking at the thought of "thine mighty Stop Hit".
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Warlord of the DoS.
Civus Romanus.
Marius Challenge: Take 2
-
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: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 15:00:21 EDT
> I suppose Elijahs PWs should be returned and that any who wish it should be
>able to file a complaint to have there PWs returned again.
I'm not sure, but I think that anyone's definition of *met* you could say that Ecore's challenge was indeed Met.... as well as Invalid in the first place. In my opinion, I feel that in that situation the stripping of PW's, as is stated in that first bit of the challenge rules that was quoted earlier dealing with met challenges, is a suitable punishment..... as well as the loss of right to press challenge for the remainder of the cycle, as is stated
in the second portion dealing with invalid challenges. Of course, this situation has already been ruled on by the DoS officials. So unless we wish to open the can of worms of questioning previous decisions and making demands regarding those decisions, this really is only moot to the discussion at hand.
Khrys
Date: 05 Sep 1999 15:00:21 EDT
> I suppose Elijahs PWs should be returned and that any who wish it should be
>able to file a complaint to have there PWs returned again.
I'm not sure, but I think that anyone's definition of *met* you could say that Ecore's challenge was indeed Met.... as well as Invalid in the first place. In my opinion, I feel that in that situation the stripping of PW's, as is stated in that first bit of the challenge rules that was quoted earlier dealing with met challenges, is a suitable punishment..... as well as the loss of right to press challenge for the remainder of the cycle, as is stated
in the second portion dealing with invalid challenges. Of course, this situation has already been ruled on by the DoS officials. So unless we wish to open the can of worms of questioning previous decisions and making demands regarding those decisions, this really is only moot to the discussion at hand.
Khrys
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zafiroo@aol.com (Zafiroo)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 15:48:53 EDT
<< I feel that in that situation the stripping of PW's, as is stated in that first bit of the challenge rules>>
Khrysta,
Where did you find this at? It is not in the copy of the rule book that I have.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Date: 05 Sep 1999 15:48:53 EDT
<< I feel that in that situation the stripping of PW's, as is stated in that first bit of the challenge rules>>
Khrysta,
Where did you find this at? It is not in the copy of the rule book that I have.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 16:11:01 EDT
Elijah's peer wins were stripped by a Council Ruling, and not by the Standings Keeper. His situation does not apply.
~ L
Date: 05 Sep 1999 16:11:01 EDT
Elijah's peer wins were stripped by a Council Ruling, and not by the Standings Keeper. His situation does not apply.
~ L
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rdigolden@aol.com (RDI Golden)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 16:49:50 EDT
Duelists,
Let me take a moment to give a bit of history about these rules and clear up the misinformation that is seemingly spreading rampant across all of these messages. Many people are claiming that for years those who have had their challenges voided by the standings keeper have also had their peer wins stripped at the time. This is blatantly false, and I challenge anyone to find evidence of this happening in the past two years. I say two years because
that was the time, approximately in the month of June, when I took over the duties of standings keeper. For those of you who remember, at the time there was no penalty for invalid challenges, excepting a bit of embarrassment for the culprit. The moment I received an invalid challenge, which was perhaps in July or August of the same year, I questioned Lady Helix Girvin, the then supervisor, whether or not the challenge was considered met and what to
do with the peer wins. It was her decision that a voided challenge was *not* met, and that the Warlord who committed the error did not have peer wins stripped.
A year later, give or take a few months, a rules discussion ended and the new rule was institutued that penalized Warlords who offered invalid challenges. That penalty was the loss of right to challenge for the cycle. I vividly remember voting on this issue as it was a concern of mine, and I even remember the options that were presented to us. Among others, three of those options for voided challenges were as follows:
1. Loss of peer wins
2. Loss of right to challenge for the cycle.
3. Loss of peer wins and right to challenge for the cycle.
To make a long story short, the second option was the one that received the majority of votes and the one that was instituted. And that is how things have been handled since then. I can guarantee that a voided challenge was not punished by the loss of peer wins between June of two years ago to October of last year, the duration that I was the standings keeper. To the best of my knowledge, Bridgette and Drakewyn, the two ladies that have been
standings keeper since, have followed the same procedures. If I am wrong, then someone please correct me.
To sum things up, this is the manner that a voided challenge has been handled in for a little over two years, at the very least. I am not sure how Devon Goral, my predecessor to the standings, handled a situation like this, because I had nothing to do with challenges then. It is my assumption that he handled matters the same, considering he also worked for Lady Helix for a lengthy time, but you all know what is said about assuming things.
Nevertheless, when I took office as the standings keeper, I asked the same questions that many of you do now, and I have told you what I was told then, and what I have kept to since then.
As far as Elijah's situation is concerned, that was indeed something that was decided by the Council of Barons and does not apply here. However, since one of the causes for that situation was a mistake on the part of the staff, namely myself, then perhaps the loss of his peer wins should not have been part of his punishment. It is something that I will have to consider and speak with him about privately.
Thank you for reading this far, and I hope my explanation answers some of your questions. You are welcome to send me a private missive if you desire. Good day.
Golden Evermeadow
Date: 05 Sep 1999 16:49:50 EDT
Duelists,
Let me take a moment to give a bit of history about these rules and clear up the misinformation that is seemingly spreading rampant across all of these messages. Many people are claiming that for years those who have had their challenges voided by the standings keeper have also had their peer wins stripped at the time. This is blatantly false, and I challenge anyone to find evidence of this happening in the past two years. I say two years because
that was the time, approximately in the month of June, when I took over the duties of standings keeper. For those of you who remember, at the time there was no penalty for invalid challenges, excepting a bit of embarrassment for the culprit. The moment I received an invalid challenge, which was perhaps in July or August of the same year, I questioned Lady Helix Girvin, the then supervisor, whether or not the challenge was considered met and what to
do with the peer wins. It was her decision that a voided challenge was *not* met, and that the Warlord who committed the error did not have peer wins stripped.
A year later, give or take a few months, a rules discussion ended and the new rule was institutued that penalized Warlords who offered invalid challenges. That penalty was the loss of right to challenge for the cycle. I vividly remember voting on this issue as it was a concern of mine, and I even remember the options that were presented to us. Among others, three of those options for voided challenges were as follows:
1. Loss of peer wins
2. Loss of right to challenge for the cycle.
3. Loss of peer wins and right to challenge for the cycle.
To make a long story short, the second option was the one that received the majority of votes and the one that was instituted. And that is how things have been handled since then. I can guarantee that a voided challenge was not punished by the loss of peer wins between June of two years ago to October of last year, the duration that I was the standings keeper. To the best of my knowledge, Bridgette and Drakewyn, the two ladies that have been
standings keeper since, have followed the same procedures. If I am wrong, then someone please correct me.
To sum things up, this is the manner that a voided challenge has been handled in for a little over two years, at the very least. I am not sure how Devon Goral, my predecessor to the standings, handled a situation like this, because I had nothing to do with challenges then. It is my assumption that he handled matters the same, considering he also worked for Lady Helix for a lengthy time, but you all know what is said about assuming things.
Nevertheless, when I took office as the standings keeper, I asked the same questions that many of you do now, and I have told you what I was told then, and what I have kept to since then.
As far as Elijah's situation is concerned, that was indeed something that was decided by the Council of Barons and does not apply here. However, since one of the causes for that situation was a mistake on the part of the staff, namely myself, then perhaps the loss of his peer wins should not have been part of his punishment. It is something that I will have to consider and speak with him about privately.
Thank you for reading this far, and I hope my explanation answers some of your questions. You are welcome to send me a private missive if you desire. Good day.
Golden Evermeadow
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 16:55:34 EDT
"However, since one of the causes for that situation was a mistake on the part of the staff, namely myself, then perhaps the loss of his peer wins should not have been part of his punishment."
Are you saying you're considering overruling a past Council decision, one previously approved?
~ L
Date: 05 Sep 1999 16:55:34 EDT
"However, since one of the causes for that situation was a mistake on the part of the staff, namely myself, then perhaps the loss of his peer wins should not have been part of his punishment."
Are you saying you're considering overruling a past Council decision, one previously approved?
~ L
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:04:51 EDT
Well.
I certainly believe it's time for some rules changes.
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:04:51 EDT
Well.
I certainly believe it's time for some rules changes.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:06:45 EDT
As far as the Elijah challenge goes,
Elijah fought with invalid peer wins. Yes.
However, those wins that were valid should be indeed returned to him, as they were valid before challenge was presented.
There is NO difference between the two.
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:06:45 EDT
As far as the Elijah challenge goes,
Elijah fought with invalid peer wins. Yes.
However, those wins that were valid should be indeed returned to him, as they were valid before challenge was presented.
There is NO difference between the two.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:10:12 EDT
"Hrm."
Golden:
Your comments have the ring of truth, and, in retrospect, you're quite correct that this situation is not relevant to Elijah's situation. We must remember to keep council actions, which are not bound by previous precedent, separate from executive action by the Standings Keeper or Supervisor.
However, that said... I do seem to recall instances where an official invalidated a challenge and the peer wins were stripped. I cannot recall them in specific, though I'm sure the victims, if I'm indeed correct, will pipe up at this stage.
As regards Elijah's situation, and I also address my old friend Lupton with this: It is my recollection that the Council acted before the details of the confusion regarding the posting of the standings were disseminated. In light of that, and in light of the admitted error by the Supervisor, one could very well argue that the situation warrants revisiting.
On the other hand, the physical presence of the standings is something that should be fairly apparent to anyone with functioning eyes, and regardless of what errors might have occurred here, it's fairly obvious that Elijah's challenge was issued prior to the physical posting of the standings in question. That, to my mind, is an argument against any action other than restoring his peer wins.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:10:12 EDT
"Hrm."
Golden:
Your comments have the ring of truth, and, in retrospect, you're quite correct that this situation is not relevant to Elijah's situation. We must remember to keep council actions, which are not bound by previous precedent, separate from executive action by the Standings Keeper or Supervisor.
However, that said... I do seem to recall instances where an official invalidated a challenge and the peer wins were stripped. I cannot recall them in specific, though I'm sure the victims, if I'm indeed correct, will pipe up at this stage.
As regards Elijah's situation, and I also address my old friend Lupton with this: It is my recollection that the Council acted before the details of the confusion regarding the posting of the standings were disseminated. In light of that, and in light of the admitted error by the Supervisor, one could very well argue that the situation warrants revisiting.
On the other hand, the physical presence of the standings is something that should be fairly apparent to anyone with functioning eyes, and regardless of what errors might have occurred here, it's fairly obvious that Elijah's challenge was issued prior to the physical posting of the standings in question. That, to my mind, is an argument against any action other than restoring his peer wins.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:28:00 EDT
"Res iudicata pro veritate habetur."
Something important you would like to share? I'm not the least bit excited you can speak a foreign language. Good for you.
- Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:28:00 EDT
"Res iudicata pro veritate habetur."
Something important you would like to share? I'm not the least bit excited you can speak a foreign language. Good for you.
- Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sarafinamulford@aol.com (Sarafina Mulford)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:49:25 EDT
::after witnessing the events for two nights previous she has become a little bolder in making her presense known. she reads the long stack of arguements and shakes her head. she finds clear space at the bottom of the latest post and writes::
I believe the standings keeper is owed an appology for the insults thrown at her in this debate.
::below the notice is pressed the seal of the trading house of Brant-Mulford::
Date: 05 Sep 1999 17:49:25 EDT
::after witnessing the events for two nights previous she has become a little bolder in making her presense known. she reads the long stack of arguements and shakes her head. she finds clear space at the bottom of the latest post and writes::
I believe the standings keeper is owed an appology for the insults thrown at her in this debate.
::below the notice is pressed the seal of the trading house of Brant-Mulford::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 18:03:48 EDT
Drey, the reason for my Latin quotation was not originally to impress or "excite" you. You are however correct, I should have supplied translation.
"Res iudicata pro veritate habetur." Is an old Roman legal maxim which can be roughly translated as follows: "A matter which has been legally decided on, is to be considered true."
I concede that by not supplying a translation on the maxim which was meant only to illustrate a point, It may have been interpretted as pedantic or unecessary instead. I am sorry if it came across as such.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Warlord of the DoS.
Civus Romanus.
Date: 05 Sep 1999 18:03:48 EDT
Drey, the reason for my Latin quotation was not originally to impress or "excite" you. You are however correct, I should have supplied translation.
"Res iudicata pro veritate habetur." Is an old Roman legal maxim which can be roughly translated as follows: "A matter which has been legally decided on, is to be considered true."
I concede that by not supplying a translation on the maxim which was meant only to illustrate a point, It may have been interpretted as pedantic or unecessary instead. I am sorry if it came across as such.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Warlord of the DoS.
Civus Romanus.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 19:17:17 EDT
"I think it's absolutely vulgar that we can flaunt the standard method of doing things to give peers back to those who screw up, while at the same time nobody would EVER give peers back to someone who retired. Nice example for future generations.FACE="Arial" LANG="0">"
I, too, believe the returning warlords deserve to keep their peer wins moreso than someone who challenged improperly.
In my opinion, if a challenge is deemed invalid, then it is considered met and thus, the peer wins may not be used again for another challenge.
Also, the Standings Keeper should refrain from mixing her opinion in with her rulings as her authoritative position confuses the issue between what is her opinion and what is her ruling. If it is not her ruling, then she should not mention it.
Drakewyn said the peer wins were stripped and she said so in a formal statement. If she is wrong, then she should admit that she was wrong and Golden should also admit that she was wrong and assure us that she will not speak as an authority on matters she has no authority to speak on in the future. Trying to push the mistake off on everyone else by saying "oh, I didn't really rule on that, you all just misunderstood me" is irresponsible.
Golden, Drakewyn, I await your public assurances that the Standings Keeper will discontinue opining personally when acting as Standings Keeper.
Date: 05 Sep 1999 19:17:17 EDT
"I think it's absolutely vulgar that we can flaunt the standard method of doing things to give peers back to those who screw up, while at the same time nobody would EVER give peers back to someone who retired. Nice example for future generations.FACE="Arial" LANG="0">"
I, too, believe the returning warlords deserve to keep their peer wins moreso than someone who challenged improperly.
In my opinion, if a challenge is deemed invalid, then it is considered met and thus, the peer wins may not be used again for another challenge.
Also, the Standings Keeper should refrain from mixing her opinion in with her rulings as her authoritative position confuses the issue between what is her opinion and what is her ruling. If it is not her ruling, then she should not mention it.
Drakewyn said the peer wins were stripped and she said so in a formal statement. If she is wrong, then she should admit that she was wrong and Golden should also admit that she was wrong and assure us that she will not speak as an authority on matters she has no authority to speak on in the future. Trying to push the mistake off on everyone else by saying "oh, I didn't really rule on that, you all just misunderstood me" is irresponsible.
Golden, Drakewyn, I await your public assurances that the Standings Keeper will discontinue opining personally when acting as Standings Keeper.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 19:42:23 EDT
Oh well, like Magnus said, as long as you issue an invalid challenge during the last week of the cycle, then you have no worries about a punishment.
Here's a question... I remember back when Evan was holding the first ring, Seamus issued challenge, with me issuing challenge to Evan the following morning. Seamus won his challenge.
My right to challenge and peer wins were removed. Of course, if you want to be technical, my challenge to Evan was never "met". In fact, the only difference between my challenge to Evan and Marius' challenge to Zafiroo is that the ten peer wins I used were all valid. I didn't argue, though; I got ten peer wins and challenged again when I could.
Or is there some bigger difference between the challenges? Oh, that's right, mine was valid. Does that mean only valid challenges have their peer wins taken away?
Any enlightenment on this situation would be much appreciated. I admit though; I'll be pretty impressed if someone can provide a shred of decent justification which allows him to keep his peer wins and prevented me from reusing mine.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 05 Sep 1999 19:42:23 EDT
Oh well, like Magnus said, as long as you issue an invalid challenge during the last week of the cycle, then you have no worries about a punishment.
Here's a question... I remember back when Evan was holding the first ring, Seamus issued challenge, with me issuing challenge to Evan the following morning. Seamus won his challenge.
My right to challenge and peer wins were removed. Of course, if you want to be technical, my challenge to Evan was never "met". In fact, the only difference between my challenge to Evan and Marius' challenge to Zafiroo is that the ten peer wins I used were all valid. I didn't argue, though; I got ten peer wins and challenged again when I could.
Or is there some bigger difference between the challenges? Oh, that's right, mine was valid. Does that mean only valid challenges have their peer wins taken away?
Any enlightenment on this situation would be much appreciated. I admit though; I'll be pretty impressed if someone can provide a shred of decent justification which allows him to keep his peer wins and prevented me from reusing mine.
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: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 19:56:34 EDT
Baron Zafiroo~~~
The part that I was referring to has been quoted several times in this discussion already. This is that same portion, taken from Jonalyn's note upon this very board from yesterday.
<< "Peer Wins" are retroactive to the last time you challenged a Baron or the Overlord. Once a challenge is met, either against the Overlord or a Baron, the challenging Warlord's "Peer Wins" are zeroed out up to the date the challenge is issued.>>
<<Challenges, if not properly served, will be voided by the Standings Keeper. In the case of a voided challenge, the challenger shall have his or her right to challenge stripped for the remainder of the cycle as a penalty. This penalty will *not* take effect if the challenge is withdrawn before voided.>>
My thoughts on this situation are that Elijah's situation is more or less unique. While I wouldn't say that an invalid challenge has never been actually dueled before, I can say that it is not a normal or regular occurance. My thought is that since the challenge was indeed met and dueled (as mentioned in the first portion) the PW's are lost, as well as since the challenge had been declared invalid (as mentioned in the second portion) the loss of
the right to challenge comes into play. My point is not necessarily that either is correct in this situation, as I say this is a relatively unique situation. My point ~is~, however, that once a decision has been rendered by the proper authorities it is normally considered final. Demanding Goldendust Evermeadow to apologize and/or restore his peers wins will accomplish nothing other than open up considerable undesireable problems with everyone
questioning decisions made in the past and demanding changes in those decisions. I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for Goldendust in this, or any matter, but as a former staff member under Goldendust, I can assure you that, in my experience with him, he would have taken the utmost care in his decision with Elijah's rather unusual situation to make certain that whatever was decreed
would be able to be upheld under the then current rules and guidelines for the sport.
Khrys
Date: 05 Sep 1999 19:56:34 EDT
Baron Zafiroo~~~
The part that I was referring to has been quoted several times in this discussion already. This is that same portion, taken from Jonalyn's note upon this very board from yesterday.
<< "Peer Wins" are retroactive to the last time you challenged a Baron or the Overlord. Once a challenge is met, either against the Overlord or a Baron, the challenging Warlord's "Peer Wins" are zeroed out up to the date the challenge is issued.>>
<<Challenges, if not properly served, will be voided by the Standings Keeper. In the case of a voided challenge, the challenger shall have his or her right to challenge stripped for the remainder of the cycle as a penalty. This penalty will *not* take effect if the challenge is withdrawn before voided.>>
My thoughts on this situation are that Elijah's situation is more or less unique. While I wouldn't say that an invalid challenge has never been actually dueled before, I can say that it is not a normal or regular occurance. My thought is that since the challenge was indeed met and dueled (as mentioned in the first portion) the PW's are lost, as well as since the challenge had been declared invalid (as mentioned in the second portion) the loss of
the right to challenge comes into play. My point is not necessarily that either is correct in this situation, as I say this is a relatively unique situation. My point ~is~, however, that once a decision has been rendered by the proper authorities it is normally considered final. Demanding Goldendust Evermeadow to apologize and/or restore his peers wins will accomplish nothing other than open up considerable undesireable problems with everyone
questioning decisions made in the past and demanding changes in those decisions. I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for Goldendust in this, or any matter, but as a former staff member under Goldendust, I can assure you that, in my experience with him, he would have taken the utmost care in his decision with Elijah's rather unusual situation to make certain that whatever was decreed
would be able to be upheld under the then current rules and guidelines for the sport.
Khrys