Marius Challenge: Take 2

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 16:39:04 EDT

Morgan notes:

"Each time you interpret a clause as having a certain meaning, the rules document should reflect the Supervisor's definition, justification for the interpretation, and when the amendment was made. In this way, there can be no other arguments about the decision, other than on a philosophical level. Why? Because the matter is already clearly defined."

I do agree that when the officials of the sport (as opposed to the Baron's Council) make a ruling on a matter of vagueness, that ruling should immediately be incorporated into the rules, so as to avoid further confusion. Making this request of the officials is a perfectly responsible and reasonable act.

The constant and consistent personal abuse of those who oversee this sport by disgruntled patrons, on the other hand, is despicable. Those of you engaging in it should be ashamed of yourselves. When you raise a question, and the matter is ruled on by the supervisor, the matter is closed; continuing to harp on it is infantile. When you see impropriety, politely questioning it is one thing; acting as if someone has set your privates aflame is
another entirely.

Those of you screaming the loudest in this debate are among those who wonder where the honor and respect have gone. I wonder if I'm the only one who sees the irony. On the other hand, I'm wondering why Golden tolerates it; most people know my reaction when duelers abuse Alexa for speaking on my behalf in league matters.

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 18:38:30 EDT

Zafiroo wrote, "The only arrogance I see is in you."

This statement is irrelevant. I have no position of authority within this sport and thus, cannot use that position to force others to hold to my opinion or enforce my interpretation of what is written (or not written). At no time is my permission required in order for a challenger to challenge or for the challenged to meet a challenger. At no time is it stated that my approval is necessary for any official business within this sport to take
place.

You do not need me to call your duels. You do not need me to verify your duels. You do not need me to keep track of your record and ranking. Because of that, you need not ever speak with me, read anything presented by me, respond to anything I write or say, nor need you acknowledge my presense; excepting, of course, if I challenged you for your title or you challenged me for mine, if I had one.

If I held a position of authority within this sport, it would be unethical for me to include with my official statements my personal opinions on a challenger or the method of challenge. It would be inappropriate for me to include how I felt the matter should be handled if the matter was not mine to control. If I believed I was above reproach when acting in such a manner in an official capacity, then my arrogance would be impeding my ability to do my
job fairly, accurately, and consistently. That is when arrogance becomes relevant. When I use my position to elevate myself, my standing, and my opinions above the best interest of the community and sport, that is unethical.

If someone were empowering me to continue acting unethically within my position of authority, either by turning a blind eye or by publicly supporting my inappropriate behavior, that becomes alarmingly relevent as well, and that person's ability to act in the best interest of the community and sport should also be called into question.

If anyone disagrees that the best interest of this sport and community is fair, consistent, accurate, and clear governing and leadership, please, say so.

[DoS Archive]

From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 19:01:32 EDT

"When you raise a question, and the matter is ruled on by the supervisor, the matter is closed; continuing to harp on it is infantile. "

Hear ye, Hear ye!

A question of impropriety has been raised regarding the previous besmirching of Brave Sir J's Reputation at Arms, Combat, and Lady Wooing. Queen Goddess of the Realm has graciously looked into Her Majesty's ruling and found nothing wrong with HRH's opinion on the matter. Matter was ruled and thusly closed as irrevocable; there shall be no further appeal.

Kindly do not further waste HRH's time for Queen Goddess of the Realm has ruled that Sir J's Reputation at Arms, Combat, and Lady Wooing means nothing compared to Her Divine Right To Adoration and Respect. HRH never makes mistakes. If it appears She has made a mistake, it is someone else's fault and rest assured the offender's head will be severed from his body poste haste. Any further harping discussion on this matter shall be deemed too
silly to remark and declared as Ripe for Ridicule and could be subject to severe taxation and possible incarceration in a Flaming Privates Only Facility.

As always, HRH appreciates your patience and contributions to Her coffers.

As It Is Written, So Is It Done.

Long Live the Queen.

[DoS Archive]

From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 19:08:03 EDT


Jonalyn Starfare,

How dare you? I never held quarrel with you nor wished it, but the maliciousness with which your words did systematically insult all major paticipants of this challenge was beyond tactless, it was ridiculous.

While, I hold much respect for the longevity which you possess. I do disagree with your right do judge me. We have interacted at most thrice, only one of which involved any shadow of conversation. I was dueling, you supported my opponent and after I won the duel, you proceded unto open ridiculization of me. I defended myself verbally but at no time did I give any worst then I was getting.

You claim me to be ill mannered but after the strings of baseless insults you let raind down upon all major participants of this challenge I refuse to acknowledge your moral authority to judge anyone's. You bitch about the so called 'golden years', and the ill mannered strings of new Warlords.

As I pen this there are 79 posts on the topic of my challenge to Zafiroo. Scroll back through them Madame Starfare and you will find that only your words are ill mannered. Only your opinions are so influenced with political feces which has permanently tainted thee for (from what I can tell) years.

I have only met one other being such as yourself in my millenia upon this rock. Possessing your arrogance, avarice, and general disdain for all she touched. She was Nero's mother, and she came to a bad end. What goes around comes around Jonalyn and no one can judge so harshly and unfairly for so many years and remain unjudged. Jonalyn you stand out within DoS' rich history as Magnes inter opes inops, a pauper in the in the midst of untold
riches. Apology accepted.

I apologize to all present that what I meant to be a friendly challenge would become a stage for mudslinging. If I had known it would be such, I would have thrown out my 'tainted' Peer Wins, and not challenged at all.

Disenchantedly yours,

[DoS Archive]

From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 19:09:56 EDT

::My last missive having been signes as follows::




Gaius Marius Colestae'

Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.

Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.

Warlord of the DoS.

Civus Romanus.

[DoS Archive]

From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 19:45:54 EDT

Ian.

Thank you for saying what I have said many times, and in many ways, in the past. Indeed, how do insults serve to bring back honor?

Lady Starfare.

Having informed a majority of the community, especially the Baron's Council, that I would be away for a number of days, I believe that holding me accountable for allowing this matter to come to a crescendo is more than slightly extreme. Within one hour of my return to RhyDin, I posted the clairification sent to me by Master Evermeadow. If you choose to take that as failing to admit to an error on my part, then that is your choice. To call me
a coward for the simple fact that I was not in the Realm for a few days is falacious and rude in the extreme.
To say that myself and Golden did not inform the duelers who were affected by this situation is entirely incorrect, as is obvious by the fact that the Warlord was informed by myself. In point of fact Warlord Unagi has posted here that your statement of his peer wins being revoked was in error, which further supports Golden's statements.
The duelist who was removed for not dueling for a full three cycles was added, by their request, at the end of the cycle previous to the last one. When said duelist did not duel during the last cycle, they were removed from the Standings, just as everyone else who did not.
I was unaware that this line of commentary had led to the point where I would be asked to verify the fact that Warlord Elijah had in fact given notice of retirement, as no other official has said otherwise. In clear point of fact, the Warlord Elijah did say in a letter to myself and the Council that he would retire. Shortly thereafter, I placed a note upon the board of this, and was quickly approached by the Warlord who stated that he wished
to revoke his letter of retirement. I informed him that, as the notice had not been placed upon the Standings, that he was not officially retired as of yet, though I would require a letter from him for my own records. Therefore, according to the Standings and the records of the Office of the Standing's Keeper, Warlord Elijah Ecore was never removed from the lists and therefore had not been officially retired from the Duel of Swords.
As for why I verified his Challenge in the first place, I have made the circumstances clear ad infinitum and made a clear admission of and appology for that error.

Morgan.

Once again, I ask you to provide proof that I have used my office of Standing's Keeper to further any private goal of my own. I also ask for proof of myself making any personal opinion known without clearly stating that it was a personal opinion. Further, I ask for proof that I have given my personal opinion upon a specific challenger within an official statement.
Lastly, I would ask for proof that I have ever "used my position to elevate myself, my standing or my opinions above the interests of the community and sport."


Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.

[DoS Archive]

From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 19:49:32 EDT

"Your attitude, and your persistent harassment of an underling when you have been addressed by her supervisor, is reproachful. "

Actually, dear Ian, HRH was as if it were me acting as the supervisor, not the underling, as if what you said were put to practice.

How... interesting ... it is how you chose to interpret who "she" was in the parable.

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 20:09:32 EDT

Drakewyn:

While I certainly feel that the behaviour of those who object to your performance is far out of line, do not thank me so hastily.

I do, indeed, feel that your performance has been less than it might be; I also feel that you have failed, in general, to recognize those times when you have been in error. What I do not agree with is pillorying someone for mistakes, when the appropriate course is to address the supervisor.

That is the source of my opposition here. Having now been all but completely absolved of wrongdoing by Lord Evermeadow, continuing public harrassment of Lady Silvertree is wholly inappropriate.

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 22:42:17 EDT

Marius,

How utterly insecure thee must be to consider mine opinion to be a judgement of thee. Rest assured, sirrah, I ast well recall yuir comments. If'n thee canna stand th' heat, roman, dinna sit in th' water.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 22:57:30 EDT

Ian

Yuir avoiding one glaring dichotomy. Tis Golden himself didst pen upon this verra cork that he would inform the community of his rulings in such matters. Tis he hast failed to follow up upon his own statements. Would thee he wast nae reminded, or more so would thee that he keep his 'rulings' from the community? Where is the honor when the man himself fails to do what he himself hast penned he would? Perhaps thee hold the officials above the
masses? Perhaps thee wouldst that silence reigned and that anna what know of instances wherein the sport hast suffered abuse by the verra officials charged with maintaining it wouldst still both pen and tongue?

Perhaps it escaped thine notice, Ian, but Madame Drakewyn dinna state in her missive upon this cork when she didst pen she had voided the challenge of Marius, that her decision wast reviewed and found in error. Nor did she correct matters until Master Evermeadow's attention wast called upon. Perhaps it hast also escaped thine notice that other matters hae left to wave in the winds of vagary?

Thine comments with respect to Alexa, though certes true, thee must certes recall that Alexa hast always made it plain she wast speaking on thine behalf, ast well ast thee thineself stating that she hast been granted leave to speak for thee. Thee ast well ast I well know also, that when the league makes a ruling on a matter which alters the leagues rules, everyone in the league hast access to the new ruling ast soon ast tis rendered.

Regards
Jona

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 07 Sep 1999 23:18:22 EDT

Madame Silvertree,

Thine claim that thee did in fact inform the duelist ist only correct to a point. Thee nor Golden informed the community of thine error in thine ruling. Kindly dinna attempt to avoid that very salient and pertinent fact, Madame.

I beg to differ with thee ast to the matter of the Warlord Elijah. Madame thee in fact penned upon this very cork that he wast retired ast well ast that fact wast clearly noted in the official standings. Perhaps that slipped thine memory? Madame, ne'er in the history of these rings hae it been necessary for a retirement to be made "official" in the standings for in that the letter penned by the retiring warlord is official upon it being sent.
Therefore, Madame, thee again misstate thineself ast to the facts. Perhaps thee hae 'lost' the warlord's letter of retirement as thee seemed to hae 'lost' the list of legal bona fides what thee claim were presented to thee in the matter of the challenge of the warlord Goldie agin the Baron Magnus?

How many times must the community accept thine apology for thine incompetance, Madame? Ad infinitim, perhaps? Ast to proof thee hae elevated thine position, Madame. Perchance, tis only I what hae noticed that the Standing's Keeper's job wast given to one Karen Jansen, by the official announcement in the Standings. Then t'would seem thee didst make claim to hae hired her ast thine replacement. Interesting, Madame, for thee to claim to hae hired
her ast thine replacement, when the official lists didst state quick clearly that Karen Jansen hae been set ast the Standings Keeper and nae Drakewyn Alabaster Silvertree. Ne'er until thee made that particular statement hast it been within the purview of the Standing's Keeper to hire or replace annaone. That wouldst seem to be the first instance wherein thee seem to hae elevated thineself, Madame.

Madame, thee decry the dearth of honor. I do claim, Madame, that thee in thine power hungry drive to place thineself above reproach ast well ast above scrutiny, tis thee what hae laid honor low.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: mthorgrin@aol.com (M Thorgrin)
Date: 08 Sep 1999 00:32:11 EDT

Gentles.

Methinks that those who doth claim imperfections upon the parts of others needs must look unto themselves first. To decry the mistakes of others even past the point of those persons admitting to their mistakes is wrong. To fail to admit to ones own mistakes, yet still decry the mistakes of others is to compound the wrongdoing.
Mayhaps thee two ladies in thine manifest perfection shouldst do ast Laird MacKenzie didst suggest. Then mayhaps t'would by those thee do decry who wouldst become thine rightful detractors.
Mine daughter doth have too kind a heart, for she wilt give explination and rational converse even with those that doth show they will only give back irrational banter and unwarrented insult. Mayhaps when next I do see her I wilt council her to give ast good as she ist given... for ist nae the golden rule to treat others ast thou wishest to be treated? If mine daughter dost treat thee with respect and thou doth treat her with insults, then
that doth show that thou art the ones who doth wish to be insulted in turn.

Mikhail Thorgrin,
Bard Extraordinaire.

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 08 Sep 1999 02:05:09 EDT

She tacks a note to the cork.

Master Thorgrin,

Tis certes natural thee wouldst support thine daughter. Tis thine daughter hast long shown more than a modicum of disrepect and insult. Rest assured she ist verra capable of speaking out. I seem to recall a suggestion she didst make that I should leap from a cliff. Tis certes thee may consider that rational converse, for in she be thine daughter. Perhaps, she ast well considered the suggestion ast being rational converse. Tis nae telling, since
she nae be fully human. Tis rather amusing thee shouldst consider the verra fact that she demands apology from others for her own mistakes ast being rational converse. Perhaps the apology shouldst be that we are sorry for pointing out her continued failings and less than capable handling of matters? Perhaps thee holds with mediocrity and hold that all shouldst strive fer it? Or perhaps twas nae she what didst make these decisions? Perhaps t'was
nae she what penned the various missives 'pon the cork? Thine platitudes, though kindly, dinna answer fer 'er deeds, Master Thorgrin.

The respect thee wish perchance shouldst be that which thine daughter shouldst show unto the sport and those of this community. Tis I do recall thine daughter penning something to the effect ast long ast someone wast respectful in the ring, t'was all that mattered. Tis I do opine tis much more t' respect. Simply because she hold a position ast an official, dinna in an of itself, perforce dinna grant upon her respect. She hae mine at one time, nae
anna longer, sir.

Jonalyn Starfare
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.

[DoS Archive]

From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 08 Sep 1999 11:23:16 EDT

"Were you to engage in this form of protest in my venue... you'd be summarily barred."

If there is ever a time when I feel members of your staff are acting inappropriately, rest assured, I will make no bones about making my complaint.

I understand you are looking at this from a perspective where your staff members are without fault; however, assure me that you have enough world experience to know that there are times when a staff member needs to be reprimanded.

I promise you that if I encounter a staff member from your organization routinely neglecting their duties or using their position to give more weight to their personal opinions and platforms, I will not hold my complaints in check to suit your demands.

If you bar someone for protesting against corruption within your organization, then you are as guilty as the corrupter. I would hope you care enough about your organization to not allow corruption and negligence to hold sway. So far, you have acted in a manner that shows you do not allow your staff to jeopardize the integrity of your sport.

You may be king in your own land, but you recognize that your organization is governed by rules that even you are not above as a participant, and people participate in good faith that their petitions will be answered fairly by someone who has only the best interest of the sport as a whole in mind.

So far, I have not encountered you to act outside the interest of your organization; however, theoretically, if you ever justify your decision with nothing more than a scolding parental tone like "I have ruled it, therefore the subject is closed," you can be assured I will be there to show you just how many ways that subject is not closed when inappropriate behavior is allowed to continue unchecked. That attitude from you alone prompted my response
of how that reasoning ("because I said so") can be interpreted as tyrannical and is detrimental to the success of the organization.

I know you do not run your organization in such a horrible manner, so it confounds me to see you act like you do.

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 08 Sep 1999 11:24:10 EDT

If someone over my head made a decision, and *I* was insulted for it, I too would demand an appology.

Perhaps Cassius' lead in this should be taken. It seems the way of a kind heart, to give an appology and not expect anything in return.

~Sidartha Elgarette