From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 20:02:12 EDT
>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.
>
Morgan,
The decision -was- Drake's to make. I thought that she made the correct choice in stripping the peer wins when the challenge was invalid.
However, Golden seems to have overruled Drake. And as we all know, Golden is in charge of DoS.
Frankly, I believe Golden's choice to allow Marius to retain the older peer wins is a mistake and shouldn't be allow.
But I'm not in charge to make that choice.
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: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 20:31:43 EDT
Community of Swords,
I don't want my peer wins back. I don't derserve them for making an improper illegal invalid challenge. No one does. People need to be made examples of for commiting errors or "crimes" against the sport. However, I don't believe the option should be left to the Baron's Council to determine who gets how much punishment. It should be the same punishment for everyone given the similiar situation, regardless of the individuals involved. Make an
improper illegal invalid challenge and you should lose your right to challenge for the rest of the cycle and all your peer wins wiped out to zero to start fresh from none. There should be no arbitrary decisions that dueler A gets to keep their peer wins, but dueler B doesn't. All I ask of this situation, mine, and others of the past, is that the dueling officials develop consistency. The Baron's Council should determine if a dueler should be
punished for their actions, and the dueling officials should have set punishments for the situations that apply to everyone equally.
~Elijah Eagle Ecore
Warlord of Swords
Date: 05 Sep 1999 20:31:43 EDT
Community of Swords,
I don't want my peer wins back. I don't derserve them for making an improper illegal invalid challenge. No one does. People need to be made examples of for commiting errors or "crimes" against the sport. However, I don't believe the option should be left to the Baron's Council to determine who gets how much punishment. It should be the same punishment for everyone given the similiar situation, regardless of the individuals involved. Make an
improper illegal invalid challenge and you should lose your right to challenge for the rest of the cycle and all your peer wins wiped out to zero to start fresh from none. There should be no arbitrary decisions that dueler A gets to keep their peer wins, but dueler B doesn't. All I ask of this situation, mine, and others of the past, is that the dueling officials develop consistency. The Baron's Council should determine if a dueler should be
punished for their actions, and the dueling officials should have set punishments for the situations that apply to everyone equally.
~Elijah Eagle Ecore
Warlord of Swords
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 05 Sep 1999 20:46:27 EDT
Just for clarification:
I made a mistake on the challenge, I had not challenged in years and made an oversight. I was punished after which I never complained, nor bitched, nor argued for special treatment. I was given a sentence, then I was given a new one.
In challenging I followed through with my punishment (however insufficiently dire it may seem to some). I didnt believe when challenging, as I dont believe now; that I am doing something wrong.
My deepest regrets if other duelers feel they have been treated unjustly.
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 20:46:27 EDT
Just for clarification:
I made a mistake on the challenge, I had not challenged in years and made an oversight. I was punished after which I never complained, nor bitched, nor argued for special treatment. I was given a sentence, then I was given a new one.
In challenging I followed through with my punishment (however insufficiently dire it may seem to some). I didnt believe when challenging, as I dont believe now; that I am doing something wrong.
My deepest regrets if other duelers feel they have been treated unjustly.
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: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 00:46:04 EDT
The commoner tacks a note to the cork, then shoos a messanger off to deliver a copy to Master Evermeadow.
Gentles,
Firstly, in the matter 'o Elijah's improper challenge, the warlord didst retire amidst the Council's deliberations. In retiring, Elijah didst forfeit anna bona fides earned if'n they were nae already forfeit in havin' 'met' th' challenge by dint 'o blade ast well ast th' Council's ruling 'pon th' matter. Master Evermeadow aire thee considerin' settin' aside th' Council's decision in th' matter in th' thee thineself hae stated th' wouldst nae be
somethin' thee wouldst consider? If Ah am nae mistaken thee hae eschewed e'en considerin' settin' aside anna previous decisions 'o th' Council, nae th' least 'o those decisions bein' th' censorin' 'o Lord Dalamar ArD'aumon.
Ian,
Thou art correct that warlords hae been stripped 'o their bona fides. Perchance thou may recall a challenge presented by Unagi Miyamota wh' wast declared improper. Perhap he may comment on that issue. Tis certes others ast well hae suffered th' forfeiture 'o their bona fides.
Master Evermeadow,
Tis been manna a mishandlin' of th' challenge process includin' those under th' former Supervisor, Madame Helix Girvin. Certes th' most blatant 'o Madame Girvin's errors wast 'er acceding t' a request from a servant 'o Madame Ashleana's an' permittin' an illegal challenge t' proceed. Certes, thee recall th' rulin', Master Evermeadow, since it directly set aside yuir own rulin' in th' matter. Thou statest thee can guarantee that nae anna warlord
wast deprived 'o bona fides. Master Evermeadow, perhaps thee shouldst inquire more carefully afore makin' th' assertion. Tis nae blatantly false, Master Evermeadow, for in truth, bona fides hae been stripped ast well ast th' right t' challenge. Tis thee hae yet ta set forth yuir interpretation 'o other matters wh' hae been placed afore thee. Tis also th' amount 'o mishandlin' 'o challenges, nae only th' one bu' th' matter involving th' challenge
'o th' warlord Goldie unta' th' then Baron Magnus Eques yet stands ast unanswered. Tis clear th' Madame Silvertree wast asked t' present unta Magnus ast well ast 'is kinsman those bona fides an' ne'er wast th' accomplished, nor, if Ah am nae mistaken, were thee ta' see th' phantom bona fides wh' were used t' garner th' right t' challenge.
Tis th' Baron Var Medici-Giovanni seems t' also be among those wh' were stripped 'o bona fides. Tis seemin' indeed th' th' rulin's in various challenges aire bein' 'andled in a mos' injudicious manner. T'was also Ah am aware th' when th' warlord Gunthar O'Dwyer didst issue challenge unta th' then Overlord, Christian de Oro, th' warlord's challenge wast validated, then withdrawn, an' 'is bona fides returned unta 'im.
Baron Turidan,
Mind thee, Baron, thou thineself are little knowin' 'o th' rules ast well ast th' past rulin's made, for th' tis mos' plain from manna 'o yuir jottin's. Perhaps thee should take th' time t'a peruse th' cork, for it shall gi' thee ast well ast others insight inta previous challenges an' a partial bit 'o infermation ast t' wh' wast in fact ruled. Master Turidan, rest assured nae only do Ah hae a copy 'o th' current rules 'o engagement, th' library
at Arda contains tomes datin' back unta nigh th' verra beginnin' an' includes copies 'o th' rules 'o engagement ast well ast various adjudications. Thine suggestion th' Master Evermeadow owes anna apology unta th' Warlord Elijah flies in th' face 'o th' fact th' th' warlord himself didst tender 'is official retirement, thereby rendering anna earned bona fides forfeit unta' 'im. Tis clear, Baron Turidan, that tis thee wh' perhaps shouldst more
carefully peruse th' rules 'o engagement.
Tis truly a sad state 'o affairs, Master Evermeadow, an' thee, ast ruling official do owe unta th' community some explanation ast well ast some remedy fer such blatant an' repeated floutin' 'o th' rules 'o engagement. Considerin' th' verra fact th' a proper rulin' made by thee wast injudiciously o'erruled by Madame Girvin, an' lest thee fergit, thee thineself didst place a missive 'pon th' verra cork setting forth th' parameters wi' regard t'
presentin' a challenge, perhaps thee hae nae obtained th' proper infermation from th' verra same Madame Girvin.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 06 Sep 1999 00:46:04 EDT
The commoner tacks a note to the cork, then shoos a messanger off to deliver a copy to Master Evermeadow.
Gentles,
Firstly, in the matter 'o Elijah's improper challenge, the warlord didst retire amidst the Council's deliberations. In retiring, Elijah didst forfeit anna bona fides earned if'n they were nae already forfeit in havin' 'met' th' challenge by dint 'o blade ast well ast th' Council's ruling 'pon th' matter. Master Evermeadow aire thee considerin' settin' aside th' Council's decision in th' matter in th' thee thineself hae stated th' wouldst nae be
somethin' thee wouldst consider? If Ah am nae mistaken thee hae eschewed e'en considerin' settin' aside anna previous decisions 'o th' Council, nae th' least 'o those decisions bein' th' censorin' 'o Lord Dalamar ArD'aumon.
Ian,
Thou art correct that warlords hae been stripped 'o their bona fides. Perchance thou may recall a challenge presented by Unagi Miyamota wh' wast declared improper. Perhap he may comment on that issue. Tis certes others ast well hae suffered th' forfeiture 'o their bona fides.
Master Evermeadow,
Tis been manna a mishandlin' of th' challenge process includin' those under th' former Supervisor, Madame Helix Girvin. Certes th' most blatant 'o Madame Girvin's errors wast 'er acceding t' a request from a servant 'o Madame Ashleana's an' permittin' an illegal challenge t' proceed. Certes, thee recall th' rulin', Master Evermeadow, since it directly set aside yuir own rulin' in th' matter. Thou statest thee can guarantee that nae anna warlord
wast deprived 'o bona fides. Master Evermeadow, perhaps thee shouldst inquire more carefully afore makin' th' assertion. Tis nae blatantly false, Master Evermeadow, for in truth, bona fides hae been stripped ast well ast th' right t' challenge. Tis thee hae yet ta set forth yuir interpretation 'o other matters wh' hae been placed afore thee. Tis also th' amount 'o mishandlin' 'o challenges, nae only th' one bu' th' matter involving th' challenge
'o th' warlord Goldie unta' th' then Baron Magnus Eques yet stands ast unanswered. Tis clear th' Madame Silvertree wast asked t' present unta Magnus ast well ast 'is kinsman those bona fides an' ne'er wast th' accomplished, nor, if Ah am nae mistaken, were thee ta' see th' phantom bona fides wh' were used t' garner th' right t' challenge.
Tis th' Baron Var Medici-Giovanni seems t' also be among those wh' were stripped 'o bona fides. Tis seemin' indeed th' th' rulin's in various challenges aire bein' 'andled in a mos' injudicious manner. T'was also Ah am aware th' when th' warlord Gunthar O'Dwyer didst issue challenge unta th' then Overlord, Christian de Oro, th' warlord's challenge wast validated, then withdrawn, an' 'is bona fides returned unta 'im.
Baron Turidan,
Mind thee, Baron, thou thineself are little knowin' 'o th' rules ast well ast th' past rulin's made, for th' tis mos' plain from manna 'o yuir jottin's. Perhaps thee should take th' time t'a peruse th' cork, for it shall gi' thee ast well ast others insight inta previous challenges an' a partial bit 'o infermation ast t' wh' wast in fact ruled. Master Turidan, rest assured nae only do Ah hae a copy 'o th' current rules 'o engagement, th' library
at Arda contains tomes datin' back unta nigh th' verra beginnin' an' includes copies 'o th' rules 'o engagement ast well ast various adjudications. Thine suggestion th' Master Evermeadow owes anna apology unta th' Warlord Elijah flies in th' face 'o th' fact th' th' warlord himself didst tender 'is official retirement, thereby rendering anna earned bona fides forfeit unta' 'im. Tis clear, Baron Turidan, that tis thee wh' perhaps shouldst more
carefully peruse th' rules 'o engagement.
Tis truly a sad state 'o affairs, Master Evermeadow, an' thee, ast ruling official do owe unta th' community some explanation ast well ast some remedy fer such blatant an' repeated floutin' 'o th' rules 'o engagement. Considerin' th' verra fact th' a proper rulin' made by thee wast injudiciously o'erruled by Madame Girvin, an' lest thee fergit, thee thineself didst place a missive 'pon th' verra cork setting forth th' parameters wi' regard t'
presentin' a challenge, perhaps thee hae nae obtained th' proper infermation from th' verra same Madame Girvin.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 02:06:59 EDT
Lady Starfare.
Someone told me that it wouldn't do any good to post this, but I'm going to anyway.
Given my posting of the letter, and Master Evermeadow's own postings here, I do believe that you owe me an apology for your statements about me on this matter.
Morgan.
Where did I mix my opinion with a ruling I made?
While I have often made my opinions on matters perfectly clear, I have always prefaced such postings and statements with the disclaimer that they were indeed my own opinion. I am also generally more than careful to refrain from posting such statements and including my official seal upon them.
As I have said with each and every ruling I have been asked to make, my decisions are always subject to review and potential overturning by the Supervisor.
At no time did I say that I did not rule Marius' previous challenge invalid, and at no time did I deny informing him that his peer wins were stripped. I have also clearly shown that, after being informed that my decision on this matter was wrong in the eyes of the Supervisor, that I rectified the situation to his satisfaction.
As Master Evermeadow clearly indicated, it is my responsibility and duty to make rulings on the validity of challenges and the punishment of improper challenges. As he has also clearly indicated, it is his right and duty to overturn any such ruling or punishment.
I find your accusation of irresponsibility on my part to be improper and mistaken, and I believe that I am owed an apology.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 06 Sep 1999 02:06:59 EDT
Lady Starfare.
Someone told me that it wouldn't do any good to post this, but I'm going to anyway.
Given my posting of the letter, and Master Evermeadow's own postings here, I do believe that you owe me an apology for your statements about me on this matter.
Morgan.
Where did I mix my opinion with a ruling I made?
While I have often made my opinions on matters perfectly clear, I have always prefaced such postings and statements with the disclaimer that they were indeed my own opinion. I am also generally more than careful to refrain from posting such statements and including my official seal upon them.
As I have said with each and every ruling I have been asked to make, my decisions are always subject to review and potential overturning by the Supervisor.
At no time did I say that I did not rule Marius' previous challenge invalid, and at no time did I deny informing him that his peer wins were stripped. I have also clearly shown that, after being informed that my decision on this matter was wrong in the eyes of the Supervisor, that I rectified the situation to his satisfaction.
As Master Evermeadow clearly indicated, it is my responsibility and duty to make rulings on the validity of challenges and the punishment of improper challenges. As he has also clearly indicated, it is his right and duty to overturn any such ruling or punishment.
I find your accusation of irresponsibility on my part to be improper and mistaken, and I believe that I am owed an apology.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 02:28:10 EDT
"I find your accusation of irresponsibility on my part to be improper and mistaken, and I believe that I am owed an apology."
You owe us an apology for not owning up to making a mistake. Rather than admitting you made a mistake you said, " I simply fulfill my duties as the Standing's Keeper without making final rulings as to my interpretation of the rules. I leave all final rulings to the Supervisor, as the above letter indicates."
Either you were wrong or Golden was wrong. Either way, by virtue that your ruling was overturned, your ruling was wrong and confused the community as to what was right. Admit it and apologize for the error or misinterpretation of the rules. If you were not wrong, and it was Golden who is in error, then he should apologize for the confusion for misinterpreting the rules.
Either way, you are out of line to demand a patron apologize for pointing out that that the contradictory messages coming from you and Golden are, to be kind, confusing.
Date: 06 Sep 1999 02:28:10 EDT
"I find your accusation of irresponsibility on my part to be improper and mistaken, and I believe that I am owed an apology."
You owe us an apology for not owning up to making a mistake. Rather than admitting you made a mistake you said, " I simply fulfill my duties as the Standing's Keeper without making final rulings as to my interpretation of the rules. I leave all final rulings to the Supervisor, as the above letter indicates."
Either you were wrong or Golden was wrong. Either way, by virtue that your ruling was overturned, your ruling was wrong and confused the community as to what was right. Admit it and apologize for the error or misinterpretation of the rules. If you were not wrong, and it was Golden who is in error, then he should apologize for the confusion for misinterpreting the rules.
Either way, you are out of line to demand a patron apologize for pointing out that that the contradictory messages coming from you and Golden are, to be kind, confusing.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 02:53:02 EDT
Morgan.
Maybe you need to re-read my earlier post.
The Warlord Marius clearly stated that he received a letter from me informing him that his peer wins were not stripped.
After a number of patrons questioned this, I posted the letter from Golden which clearly indicated his view on the matter and further stated that I had indeed sent the letter to the Warlord. Also, in that letter, I offered my apologies to him, as he was the one affected.
I further clearly indicated that I would be verifying the Warlord's wins.
The only time my words during this stack of missives were different was when Altara posted a copy of a previous missive of mine from the Warlord's previous challenge. I will not be held accountable for that. I didn't previously announce Golden's overturning of my previous ruling because he felt it should be kept private. The only reason I did so at this time was to settle this debate.
I will say it again. At no time during this particular debate on this particular stack of missives have I given any indication of a contradictory message from Golden's.
Therefore, I am obviously not out of line for the reasons you claim, nor did I demand an apology.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 06 Sep 1999 02:53:02 EDT
Morgan.
Maybe you need to re-read my earlier post.
The Warlord Marius clearly stated that he received a letter from me informing him that his peer wins were not stripped.
After a number of patrons questioned this, I posted the letter from Golden which clearly indicated his view on the matter and further stated that I had indeed sent the letter to the Warlord. Also, in that letter, I offered my apologies to him, as he was the one affected.
I further clearly indicated that I would be verifying the Warlord's wins.
The only time my words during this stack of missives were different was when Altara posted a copy of a previous missive of mine from the Warlord's previous challenge. I will not be held accountable for that. I didn't previously announce Golden's overturning of my previous ruling because he felt it should be kept private. The only reason I did so at this time was to settle this debate.
I will say it again. At no time during this particular debate on this particular stack of missives have I given any indication of a contradictory message from Golden's.
Therefore, I am obviously not out of line for the reasons you claim, nor did I demand an apology.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 11:53:40 EDT
For the record,
I didn't officially retire the 7th or from the duels to lose those peer wins. I sent a email to the council that I probably should just retire it and retire myself from the duels because of my screw up and the "BS" about the whole situation. Drake posted the Standings that week with me stil as the holder of the 7th and active. It was the stupid peice of crap worthless Baron's Council who took as I officially retired. I tried to send a missive
exclaiming I wasn't gone I was just upset, but they took that as a official retirement anyway. Further proof of double standards and power hungary idiots taking any morsel they can to ruin a person's dueling career. I just wanted to clear that point up, I never retired. However, as I stated yesterday, I don't want my peer wins back, because I know I can earn them back quick enough. Hell, I threw out all my peer wins I accumulated since last cycle
after that challenge, and am starting fresh with a new list this cycle. But's that;s just me, I don't try to rest on past laurels, but rather what have I done in the present.
My only contention to Golden, who it seems didn't bother to respond to me in the long list of people he responded to, is equality. That all duelers be given the same punishment for similiar situations. Regardless of who is involved and what excuses they have. Break the rules, pay the piper.
~Elijah
Date: 06 Sep 1999 11:53:40 EDT
For the record,
I didn't officially retire the 7th or from the duels to lose those peer wins. I sent a email to the council that I probably should just retire it and retire myself from the duels because of my screw up and the "BS" about the whole situation. Drake posted the Standings that week with me stil as the holder of the 7th and active. It was the stupid peice of crap worthless Baron's Council who took as I officially retired. I tried to send a missive
exclaiming I wasn't gone I was just upset, but they took that as a official retirement anyway. Further proof of double standards and power hungary idiots taking any morsel they can to ruin a person's dueling career. I just wanted to clear that point up, I never retired. However, as I stated yesterday, I don't want my peer wins back, because I know I can earn them back quick enough. Hell, I threw out all my peer wins I accumulated since last cycle
after that challenge, and am starting fresh with a new list this cycle. But's that;s just me, I don't try to rest on past laurels, but rather what have I done in the present.
My only contention to Golden, who it seems didn't bother to respond to me in the long list of people he responded to, is equality. That all duelers be given the same punishment for similiar situations. Regardless of who is involved and what excuses they have. Break the rules, pay the piper.
~Elijah
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 14:36:47 EDT
"The only time my words during this stack of missives were different was when Altara posted a copy of a previous missive of mine from the Warlord's previous challenge. I will not be held accountable for that. I didn't previously announce Golden's overturning of my previous ruling because he felt it should be kept private. The only reason I did so at this time was to
settle this debate."
So, you and Golden both felt it was more important to keep everyone under the impression that peer wins were stripped in an invalid challenge than it was to publicly admit your mistake. That is just so... typical.
Because of your unwillingness to admit you were wrong, Marius took heat because we all knew that you had said his peer wins were stripped because of the previous invalid challenge.
Perhaps this debate would have never STARTED had you had enough integrity and humility to step forward and amend your statements IMMEDIATELY upon finding out you were in error.
" I will say it again. At no time during this particular debate on this particular stack of missives have I given any indication of a contradictory message from Golden's."
Nice try at confusing the issue. The point is that you said it at all and felt you were too good to own up to being wrong.
" Therefore, I am obviously not out of line for the reasons you claim, nor did I demand an apology."
To Jonalyn, posted in the early hours of this day:
"Given my posting of the letter, and Master Evermeadow's own postings here, I do believe that you owe me an apology for your statements about me on this matter."
In the same letter, addressed to me:
"I find your accusation of irresponsibility on my part to be improper and mistaken, and I believe that I am owed an apology."
No matter how politely you phrase it, or couch it in opinion, the demand is implied, quite imperiously so. Remember your position, Drakewyn, you are an employee of this forum and your arrogance has no place in serving the patrons of this community, especially when that arrogance gets in the way of making rulings clear to the rest of the community.
Kindly do not bother setting forth any more of your outraged opinions. Do your job, keep your opinions to yourself when acting as Standings Keeper, and admit when you were wrong publicly and immediately so others do not use that wrong information thinking they are doing what is right.
The fact that Marius drew heat for using those peer wins was solely based on words you posted here recently and you never, NEVER bothered to amend your incorrect information until you were called on it. This fiasco is the responsibility of two people: you and Golden, no one else and yes, I expect an apology for it.
Still waiting...
Date: 06 Sep 1999 14:36:47 EDT
"The only time my words during this stack of missives were different was when Altara posted a copy of a previous missive of mine from the Warlord's previous challenge. I will not be held accountable for that. I didn't previously announce Golden's overturning of my previous ruling because he felt it should be kept private. The only reason I did so at this time was to
settle this debate."
So, you and Golden both felt it was more important to keep everyone under the impression that peer wins were stripped in an invalid challenge than it was to publicly admit your mistake. That is just so... typical.
Because of your unwillingness to admit you were wrong, Marius took heat because we all knew that you had said his peer wins were stripped because of the previous invalid challenge.
Perhaps this debate would have never STARTED had you had enough integrity and humility to step forward and amend your statements IMMEDIATELY upon finding out you were in error.
" I will say it again. At no time during this particular debate on this particular stack of missives have I given any indication of a contradictory message from Golden's."
Nice try at confusing the issue. The point is that you said it at all and felt you were too good to own up to being wrong.
" Therefore, I am obviously not out of line for the reasons you claim, nor did I demand an apology."
To Jonalyn, posted in the early hours of this day:
"Given my posting of the letter, and Master Evermeadow's own postings here, I do believe that you owe me an apology for your statements about me on this matter."
In the same letter, addressed to me:
"I find your accusation of irresponsibility on my part to be improper and mistaken, and I believe that I am owed an apology."
No matter how politely you phrase it, or couch it in opinion, the demand is implied, quite imperiously so. Remember your position, Drakewyn, you are an employee of this forum and your arrogance has no place in serving the patrons of this community, especially when that arrogance gets in the way of making rulings clear to the rest of the community.
Kindly do not bother setting forth any more of your outraged opinions. Do your job, keep your opinions to yourself when acting as Standings Keeper, and admit when you were wrong publicly and immediately so others do not use that wrong information thinking they are doing what is right.
The fact that Marius drew heat for using those peer wins was solely based on words you posted here recently and you never, NEVER bothered to amend your incorrect information until you were called on it. This fiasco is the responsibility of two people: you and Golden, no one else and yes, I expect an apology for it.
Still waiting...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lordgunthr@aol.com (LordGunthr)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 14:37:33 EDT
The difference when I recieved my peer wins back after withdrawing a challenge made to Cristian De Oro was that I do not believe he had even accepted the challenge yet. I know for a fact it had not been validated to procceed though.
Gunthar O'dwyer
Date: 06 Sep 1999 14:37:33 EDT
The difference when I recieved my peer wins back after withdrawing a challenge made to Cristian De Oro was that I do not believe he had even accepted the challenge yet. I know for a fact it had not been validated to procceed though.
Gunthar O'dwyer
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 15:04:13 EDT
" It was the stupid peice of crap worthless Baron's Council who took as I officially retired. I tried to send a missive
exclaiming I wasn't gone I was just upset, but they took that as a official retirement anyway. Further proof of double standards and power hungary idiots taking any morsel they can to ruin a person's dueling career."
Repeat this in your sleep, Ecore... "The world is NOT out to get me... the world is NOT out to get me..."
That might help cure the paranoia you seem to be enduring.
Sometimes, it helps looking at the situation and wondering why they voted against you? Personally, while I can't speak for all, you issued a challenge that shouldn't have gone through in the first place, with a retirement on the side. Now you say you don't retire, but after what happened, I forgot about every little thing you said. All I remember was the justification, "We dueled with the impression that something was on the line." If, for
some reason, it bothers you that today I don't remember you saying that, then there's nothing I can do.
All I know is, I had no personal issue with you. While Daelin is a friend, I don't abuse my power to protect them; if you question that, refer to the Dal/Huma situation when I voted for a rematch between Huma and the Overlord I was loyal to at the time. If you're referring to anyone else, I can't speak for them.
Just a couple cents from someone who was on the "stupid piece of crap Baron's Council" at the time.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 06 Sep 1999 15:04:13 EDT
" It was the stupid peice of crap worthless Baron's Council who took as I officially retired. I tried to send a missive
exclaiming I wasn't gone I was just upset, but they took that as a official retirement anyway. Further proof of double standards and power hungary idiots taking any morsel they can to ruin a person's dueling career."
Repeat this in your sleep, Ecore... "The world is NOT out to get me... the world is NOT out to get me..."
That might help cure the paranoia you seem to be enduring.
Sometimes, it helps looking at the situation and wondering why they voted against you? Personally, while I can't speak for all, you issued a challenge that shouldn't have gone through in the first place, with a retirement on the side. Now you say you don't retire, but after what happened, I forgot about every little thing you said. All I remember was the justification, "We dueled with the impression that something was on the line." If, for
some reason, it bothers you that today I don't remember you saying that, then there's nothing I can do.
All I know is, I had no personal issue with you. While Daelin is a friend, I don't abuse my power to protect them; if you question that, refer to the Dal/Huma situation when I voted for a rematch between Huma and the Overlord I was loyal to at the time. If you're referring to anyone else, I can't speak for them.
Just a couple cents from someone who was on the "stupid piece of crap Baron's Council" at the time.
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: zafiroo@aol.com (Zafiroo)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 15:25:49 EDT
Morgan,
<< Drakewyn, you are an employee of this forum and your arrogance has no place in serving the patrons of this community, especially when that arrogance gets in the way of making rulings clear to the rest of the community.>>
I see no arrogance from Drakewyn and the appology she be going to her,not coming from her.The only arrogance I see is in you.I have respected a lot of what you have said in the past and agreed with you , but on this issue I think you are clearly wrong as she has done nothing wrong.If you truly read her post then you could see that.
I find nothing confusing in any of her missives.I can see nothing she did wrong.All I see is you twisting her words to suit your needs.You are starting to sound like Jona.
I agree I was wrong with following everyone and bringing Elijahs stripping of peer wins in. His situation was different and I appologies to Golden for saying he had wronged Elijah when he had not.
I think everyone who has attacked Drakewyn for this owes her an appology for your lack of patiance.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Date: 06 Sep 1999 15:25:49 EDT
Morgan,
<< Drakewyn, you are an employee of this forum and your arrogance has no place in serving the patrons of this community, especially when that arrogance gets in the way of making rulings clear to the rest of the community.>>
I see no arrogance from Drakewyn and the appology she be going to her,not coming from her.The only arrogance I see is in you.I have respected a lot of what you have said in the past and agreed with you , but on this issue I think you are clearly wrong as she has done nothing wrong.If you truly read her post then you could see that.
I find nothing confusing in any of her missives.I can see nothing she did wrong.All I see is you twisting her words to suit your needs.You are starting to sound like Jona.
I agree I was wrong with following everyone and bringing Elijahs stripping of peer wins in. His situation was different and I appologies to Golden for saying he had wronged Elijah when he had not.
I think everyone who has attacked Drakewyn for this owes her an appology for your lack of patiance.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rdigolden@aol.com (RDI Golden)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 16:15:42 EDT
To address the matters brought forth by Jonalyn:
** Firstly, in the matter 'o Elijah's improper challenge, the warlord didst retire amidst the Council's deliberations. In retiring, Elijah didst forfeit anna bona fides earned if'n they were nae already forfeit in havin' 'met' th' challenge by dint 'o blade ast well ast th' Council's ruling 'pon th' matter. **
Indeed, this was something that eluded my memory. Thank you for refreshing it for me, Jonalyn.
** Thou art correct that warlords hae been stripped 'o their bona fides. Perchance thou may recall a challenge presented by Unagi Miyamota wh' wast declared improper. **
This I know not to be true, as I was the standings keeper at the time. Unagi's situation was similar to what happened to Marius months ago. His punishment was loss of right to challenge for the cycle. If Unagi interpreted that to mean his peer wins were forfeit as well, then that is not my fault, as I never wrote any such words to him indicating that his peer wins were stripped.
** Certes th' most blatant 'o Madame Girvin's errors wast 'er acceding t' a request from a servant 'o Madame Ashleana's an' permittin' an illegal challenge t' proceed. **
Jonalyn, you have already brought this matter to me before. I considered your opinion and request, and you certainly know what was decided at that time. I see no point in your bringing this subject up yet again.
** Tis also th' amount 'o mishandlin' 'o challenges, nae only th' one bu' th' matter involving th' challenge 'o th' warlord Goldie unta' th' then Baron Magnus Eques yet stands ast unanswered. **
Again, you brought this matter to me months ago, I deliberated in your request, and answered you at the time. It most certainly has been answered and settled.
**Tis th' Baron Var Medici-Giovanni seems t' also be among those wh' were stripped 'o bona fides. **
If you would go back and reference the second post I have issued on this matter, you'll be able to see the explanation for that in great detail.
** T'was also Ah am aware th' when th' warlord Gunthar O'Dwyer didst issue challenge unta th' then Overlord, Christian de Oro, th' warlord's challenge wast validated, then withdrawn, an' 'is bona fides returned unta 'im. **
When a challenge is willingly withdrawn before the match is completed, then that challenge is not considered to be met. This is another determination that was made by Lady Helix Girvin.
** Tis truly a sad state 'o affairs, Master Evermeadow, an' thee, ast ruling official do owe unta th' community some explanation ast well ast some remedy fer such blatant an' repeated floutin' 'o th' rules 'o engagement.**
I hope these explanations satisfy your protests.
To quickly answer another's comments:
"This fiasco is the responsibility of two people: you and Golden, no one else and yes, I expect an apology for it."
I don't completely agree with that assessment. I think a big reason for this "fiasco" is the bad information that has been posted by various duelists. Several have claimed that those before Marius have been punished with stripped peer wins for voided challenges, and yet I've shown this not to be the case. If their facts had not been incorrect, then this would perhaps not have become such a big issue. Had those parties understood the rules, they
would have known that this is the way things have been handled for years, and that Marius was given no special consideration. He's been subjected to the same punishment as those before him who have made the same error.
I will admit that another reason for this controversy is how the matter was handled months ago. Had I known that the standings keeper had publically posted her initial, erroneous handling of Marius's first challenge, then I would have instructed her to post a correction. For the confusion generated by that, I apologize. To place all the blame on Drakewyn and myself is a bit extreme, in my opinion.
I think I've covered the concerns and questions that have dominated this situation. Unless a pressing situation develops, I don't think there's a need for me to post any further messages. If any of you would like to discuss it further, I will gladly do so in a private setting. Good day.
Golden Evermeadow
Date: 06 Sep 1999 16:15:42 EDT
To address the matters brought forth by Jonalyn:
** Firstly, in the matter 'o Elijah's improper challenge, the warlord didst retire amidst the Council's deliberations. In retiring, Elijah didst forfeit anna bona fides earned if'n they were nae already forfeit in havin' 'met' th' challenge by dint 'o blade ast well ast th' Council's ruling 'pon th' matter. **
Indeed, this was something that eluded my memory. Thank you for refreshing it for me, Jonalyn.
** Thou art correct that warlords hae been stripped 'o their bona fides. Perchance thou may recall a challenge presented by Unagi Miyamota wh' wast declared improper. **
This I know not to be true, as I was the standings keeper at the time. Unagi's situation was similar to what happened to Marius months ago. His punishment was loss of right to challenge for the cycle. If Unagi interpreted that to mean his peer wins were forfeit as well, then that is not my fault, as I never wrote any such words to him indicating that his peer wins were stripped.
** Certes th' most blatant 'o Madame Girvin's errors wast 'er acceding t' a request from a servant 'o Madame Ashleana's an' permittin' an illegal challenge t' proceed. **
Jonalyn, you have already brought this matter to me before. I considered your opinion and request, and you certainly know what was decided at that time. I see no point in your bringing this subject up yet again.
** Tis also th' amount 'o mishandlin' 'o challenges, nae only th' one bu' th' matter involving th' challenge 'o th' warlord Goldie unta' th' then Baron Magnus Eques yet stands ast unanswered. **
Again, you brought this matter to me months ago, I deliberated in your request, and answered you at the time. It most certainly has been answered and settled.
**Tis th' Baron Var Medici-Giovanni seems t' also be among those wh' were stripped 'o bona fides. **
If you would go back and reference the second post I have issued on this matter, you'll be able to see the explanation for that in great detail.
** T'was also Ah am aware th' when th' warlord Gunthar O'Dwyer didst issue challenge unta th' then Overlord, Christian de Oro, th' warlord's challenge wast validated, then withdrawn, an' 'is bona fides returned unta 'im. **
When a challenge is willingly withdrawn before the match is completed, then that challenge is not considered to be met. This is another determination that was made by Lady Helix Girvin.
** Tis truly a sad state 'o affairs, Master Evermeadow, an' thee, ast ruling official do owe unta th' community some explanation ast well ast some remedy fer such blatant an' repeated floutin' 'o th' rules 'o engagement.**
I hope these explanations satisfy your protests.
To quickly answer another's comments:
"This fiasco is the responsibility of two people: you and Golden, no one else and yes, I expect an apology for it."
I don't completely agree with that assessment. I think a big reason for this "fiasco" is the bad information that has been posted by various duelists. Several have claimed that those before Marius have been punished with stripped peer wins for voided challenges, and yet I've shown this not to be the case. If their facts had not been incorrect, then this would perhaps not have become such a big issue. Had those parties understood the rules, they
would have known that this is the way things have been handled for years, and that Marius was given no special consideration. He's been subjected to the same punishment as those before him who have made the same error.
I will admit that another reason for this controversy is how the matter was handled months ago. Had I known that the standings keeper had publically posted her initial, erroneous handling of Marius's first challenge, then I would have instructed her to post a correction. For the confusion generated by that, I apologize. To place all the blame on Drakewyn and myself is a bit extreme, in my opinion.
I think I've covered the concerns and questions that have dominated this situation. Unless a pressing situation develops, I don't think there's a need for me to post any further messages. If any of you would like to discuss it further, I will gladly do so in a private setting. Good day.
Golden Evermeadow
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rdigolden@aol.com (RDI Golden)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 16:21:12 EDT
As someone pointed out an error in one of my earlier posts, I've reworded the second message. If you've already read it, don't be alarmed. I haven't lost my mind and gone mad in posting the same message repeatedly. Sorry for the confusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Duelists,
Allow me the chance to answer some questions offered. I'll take each one at a time.
As written by the one known as L:
"Are you saying you're considering overruling a past Council decision, one previously approved?"
I'm saying I'm considering looking at the decision made by the Council and possibly amending it. I don't know if I'm even going to look into it, and if I do, if the situation warrants an amendment. But it is something I will be considering.
As written by Ian:
"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."
If such a situation happened in the past two years, especially while I was the standings keeper, then it seems I'm going senile much more faster than I imagined. If it indeed happened, then I would definitely like to be reminded. But I honestly cannot recall ever personally stripping a challenger of his peer wins, and I don't believe my successors have, at least not to the best of my knowledge.
As written by another (no signature):
"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."
One of the duties of the standings keeper is to void invalid challenges and handle the punishments accordingly. That is simply part of Drakewyn's job.
As written by Var:
" 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."
Again, this is another situation that arised while I was the standings keeper and Lady Helix was the supervisor. I brought this same question to her, and she ruled that a challenge in a Renegade's Baron queue was considered met, even if that challenge was never fought. Her reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that there needed to be some sort of risk when entering a
Renegade Baron's queue, and that risk was losing peer wins and right to challenge. I remember asking Helix after Billy Ray Karnafexx accepted three challenges at once and later fought them all on one night, in case anyone is interested in when this was decided.
I have tried to remain consistent with the decisions made by Lady Helix, and have shown no favoritism to anyone.
Golden
Date: 06 Sep 1999 16:21:12 EDT
As someone pointed out an error in one of my earlier posts, I've reworded the second message. If you've already read it, don't be alarmed. I haven't lost my mind and gone mad in posting the same message repeatedly. Sorry for the confusion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Duelists,
Allow me the chance to answer some questions offered. I'll take each one at a time.
As written by the one known as L:
"Are you saying you're considering overruling a past Council decision, one previously approved?"
I'm saying I'm considering looking at the decision made by the Council and possibly amending it. I don't know if I'm even going to look into it, and if I do, if the situation warrants an amendment. But it is something I will be considering.
As written by Ian:
"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."
If such a situation happened in the past two years, especially while I was the standings keeper, then it seems I'm going senile much more faster than I imagined. If it indeed happened, then I would definitely like to be reminded. But I honestly cannot recall ever personally stripping a challenger of his peer wins, and I don't believe my successors have, at least not to the best of my knowledge.
As written by another (no signature):
"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."
One of the duties of the standings keeper is to void invalid challenges and handle the punishments accordingly. That is simply part of Drakewyn's job.
As written by Var:
" 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."
Again, this is another situation that arised while I was the standings keeper and Lady Helix was the supervisor. I brought this same question to her, and she ruled that a challenge in a Renegade's Baron queue was considered met, even if that challenge was never fought. Her reasoning, if I recall correctly, was that there needed to be some sort of risk when entering a
Renegade Baron's queue, and that risk was losing peer wins and right to challenge. I remember asking Helix after Billy Ray Karnafexx accepted three challenges at once and later fought them all on one night, in case anyone is interested in when this was decided.
I have tried to remain consistent with the decisions made by Lady Helix, and have shown no favoritism to anyone.
Golden
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 06 Sep 1999 16:21:42 EDT
I think Drakewyn does a fine job as Standings Keeper. Sure, she has made mistakes but she is human. I think she could handle her mistakes with the public better. And I agree that sometimes I think Drake uses her position to influence her personal opinions and agendas a little. But that's par for the course around here.
Var,
There are some on that worthless piece of crap council who have stated they don't like me and don't want to see me get power. Explain to me when all this stupid BS happens to me and I get screwed over, others are allowed to get away with things. What am I left to think when I have often been treated alot more unfair then others in the same situations.
~Elijah
Date: 06 Sep 1999 16:21:42 EDT
I think Drakewyn does a fine job as Standings Keeper. Sure, she has made mistakes but she is human. I think she could handle her mistakes with the public better. And I agree that sometimes I think Drake uses her position to influence her personal opinions and agendas a little. But that's par for the course around here.
Var,
There are some on that worthless piece of crap council who have stated they don't like me and don't want to see me get power. Explain to me when all this stupid BS happens to me and I get screwed over, others are allowed to get away with things. What am I left to think when I have often been treated alot more unfair then others in the same situations.
~Elijah