From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 15:01:39 EDT
Billy:
Nowhere in the rules does it state that one loses their peer wins upon becoming a Baron - and, in fact, it clearly states when you lose them:
1) "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.
Thus, in this instance, Marius has not lost his peer wins; the challenge has been met.
2) Barons and the Overlord do NOT accumulate "Peer Wins" while holding title and start out with zero when unseated to the Warlord rank.
I have underlined the part which should make this most clear.
"I find it strange that Ian, an adversary for any kind of baronial monopolies, would even support such a damn preposterous idea."
I find it disheartening, William, that you could be so dense as to think I -am- supporting the idea. I am attempting to close loopholes, as I have always done when I find them. If the cost of getting the loopholes closed is to point out just how close we came to such a situation being pressed, then I will do just that.
Were it not for the fact that I know Marius had no intention of pressing his previous challenge, I would have remained silent. It's very frightening to me that apparently, there are a raft of people out there too stupid to have grasped THAT fact, either.
Damn bone heads, indeed.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Official Protest
-
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: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 15:03:26 EDT
>Thus, in this instance, Marius has not lost his peer wins; the challenge has
>been met.
NOT been met. My apologies for the missing word.
Date: 16 Sep 1999 15:03:26 EDT
>Thus, in this instance, Marius has not lost his peer wins; the challenge has
>been met.
NOT been met. My apologies for the missing word.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 16:38:03 EDT
"Were it not for the fact that I know Marius had no intention of pressing his previous challenge, I would have remained silent. It's very frightening to me that apparently, there are a raft of people out there too stupid to have grasped THAT fact, either.FACE="Verdana" LANG="0">"
Oh, well I guess all I can say is "duh." Maybe people thought you brought it up because it was the right thing to do. Silly them for thinking you actually had some moral issue here that was important at the time. I guess the rules which you felt were so important could have been ignored for a while longer if someone DID take advantage of the rules.
In fact, NOT bringing it up if you knew someone was going to do it would be more stupid than those whom you accuse of lacking intelligence.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 16 Sep 1999 16:38:03 EDT
"Were it not for the fact that I know Marius had no intention of pressing his previous challenge, I would have remained silent. It's very frightening to me that apparently, there are a raft of people out there too stupid to have grasped THAT fact, either.FACE="Verdana" LANG="0">"
Oh, well I guess all I can say is "duh." Maybe people thought you brought it up because it was the right thing to do. Silly them for thinking you actually had some moral issue here that was important at the time. I guess the rules which you felt were so important could have been ignored for a while longer if someone DID take advantage of the rules.
In fact, NOT bringing it up if you knew someone was going to do it would be more stupid than those whom you accuse of lacking intelligence.
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: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 17:13:56 EDT
Var:
"I guess the rules which you felt were so important could have been ignored for a while longer if someone DID take advantage of the rules."
If I had thought Marius was going to press his challenge, I would have remained silent until he did so... and then said the same thing. The rules are the rules, are they not? If the rules are faulty, then those who make the rules, and those who live under the rules, must accept whatever occurs as a result of those rules being followed.
If it strikes your fancy to insult me because I note a loophole in the rules which I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE THERE, and bring it to the attention of the community by causing them to consider the immediate ramifications of those flawed rules, then by all means, enjoy yourself. As to having accused certain parties of lacking intelligence... I can only say that anyone who would actually believe for one second that I truly feel someone should be allowed
to hold two rings at once IS sorely under-funded in the currency of brains.
Then again, I note that rather than take up the banner of demanding a change in the rules, you sought to argue with me over interpretation, bleating about what is "right." Well, Var... I don't think it's "right" that Methous was EVER allowed to wear a Baron's Ring, but... you know... the rules rather allowed it, didn't they?
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 16 Sep 1999 17:13:56 EDT
Var:
"I guess the rules which you felt were so important could have been ignored for a while longer if someone DID take advantage of the rules."
If I had thought Marius was going to press his challenge, I would have remained silent until he did so... and then said the same thing. The rules are the rules, are they not? If the rules are faulty, then those who make the rules, and those who live under the rules, must accept whatever occurs as a result of those rules being followed.
If it strikes your fancy to insult me because I note a loophole in the rules which I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE THERE, and bring it to the attention of the community by causing them to consider the immediate ramifications of those flawed rules, then by all means, enjoy yourself. As to having accused certain parties of lacking intelligence... I can only say that anyone who would actually believe for one second that I truly feel someone should be allowed
to hold two rings at once IS sorely under-funded in the currency of brains.
Then again, I note that rather than take up the banner of demanding a change in the rules, you sought to argue with me over interpretation, bleating about what is "right." Well, Var... I don't think it's "right" that Methous was EVER allowed to wear a Baron's Ring, but... you know... the rules rather allowed it, didn't they?
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 18:01:25 EDT
"If it strikes your fancy to insult me because I note a loophole in the rules which I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE THERE, and bring it to the attention of the community by causing them to consider the immediate ramifications of those flawed rules, then by all means, enjoy yourself. As to having accused certain parties of lacking intelligence... I can only say that anyone who would actually believe
for one second that I truly feel someone should be allowed
to hold two rings at once IS sorely under-funded in the currency of brains."
No, I find it suits my fancy to insult you because you said that you'd remain silent if Marius did press challenge. After all, if you knew someone would take advantage of a loophole in the rules, wouldn't that even serve as some reason to bring it up faster? That way, the rule would be clarified before someone would take advantage of it. You waiting for someone to actually begin taking advantage of the rules before saying anything is, indeed
stupid. Of course, you probably would have said something to the person, thus perhaps it wouldn't be stupid. However, not saying a thing about it at all is stupid.
"Then again, I note that rather than take up the banner of demanding a change in the rules, you sought to argue with me over interpretation, bleating about what is "right." Well, Var... I don't think it's "right" that Methous was EVER allowed to wear a Baron's Ring, but... you know... the rules rather allowed it, didn't they?"
I said that the rules do need to be clarified, but there are some parts more important than others. Those that aren't important are the ones that demand common sense. The ones you site are a couple I feel need to be determined by simple common sense, until other rules are clarified.
I do agree that it should be noted in the rules that barons and the overlord count as peers, but to say that they're not peers until then is wrong; from what I've read, it's has already been established that they DO count as peer wins.
Some other issues that I feel should be looked over in the rules:
- The "Overlord may employ a best of three series instead of a test of worthiness" rule. I always thought the best of three would be treated the same as the test, and thus not allowing it to be enforced on Warlord tourney winners.
- It doesn't say if the Overlord may banish a neutral baron to renegade. I don't know if the Overlord has done it yet (I don't recall), but I would like clarification of this rule.
- The "Loyal barons only need to defend their title once per calendar month" rule. I just think that instead of clarifying this one, it just needs to be tossed out. It's too easy for a loyalist to take advantage of that rule.
- Clarification as to whether or not a baron being realigned may challenge despite the Overlord's 24 day grace period. It was allowed before, so this is probably just one of those "common sense" questions, but I'd still like to see that on paper.
- " 8. Can, at anytime, switch the alignment of a Baron with reason given in writing to all Barons and to the Standings Keeper provided a WoL record of 15 is maintained."
I was just glancing at the rules to jog my memory of some rules I'd like clarification on, and I noticed this one. I don't ever recall the latter part of that rule there. I always felt that as long as he's overlord, he can realign the barons to his desire.
- " 9. If the Overlord should banish a Loyalist to a Renegade alignment then the Overlord must accept an immediate challenge of title if issued by that Baron."
Another common sense question, probably, but what if he realigns the baron to Neutral?
- " 10. When unseated by a Baron the Overlord is aligned at the discretion of the new Overlord."
I always thought that the overlord unseated by a baron declared his own alignment.
Those are a few that have dawned upon me when I think about it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 16 Sep 1999 18:01:25 EDT
"If it strikes your fancy to insult me because I note a loophole in the rules which I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE THERE, and bring it to the attention of the community by causing them to consider the immediate ramifications of those flawed rules, then by all means, enjoy yourself. As to having accused certain parties of lacking intelligence... I can only say that anyone who would actually believe
for one second that I truly feel someone should be allowed
to hold two rings at once IS sorely under-funded in the currency of brains."
No, I find it suits my fancy to insult you because you said that you'd remain silent if Marius did press challenge. After all, if you knew someone would take advantage of a loophole in the rules, wouldn't that even serve as some reason to bring it up faster? That way, the rule would be clarified before someone would take advantage of it. You waiting for someone to actually begin taking advantage of the rules before saying anything is, indeed
stupid. Of course, you probably would have said something to the person, thus perhaps it wouldn't be stupid. However, not saying a thing about it at all is stupid.
"Then again, I note that rather than take up the banner of demanding a change in the rules, you sought to argue with me over interpretation, bleating about what is "right." Well, Var... I don't think it's "right" that Methous was EVER allowed to wear a Baron's Ring, but... you know... the rules rather allowed it, didn't they?"
I said that the rules do need to be clarified, but there are some parts more important than others. Those that aren't important are the ones that demand common sense. The ones you site are a couple I feel need to be determined by simple common sense, until other rules are clarified.
I do agree that it should be noted in the rules that barons and the overlord count as peers, but to say that they're not peers until then is wrong; from what I've read, it's has already been established that they DO count as peer wins.
Some other issues that I feel should be looked over in the rules:
- The "Overlord may employ a best of three series instead of a test of worthiness" rule. I always thought the best of three would be treated the same as the test, and thus not allowing it to be enforced on Warlord tourney winners.
- It doesn't say if the Overlord may banish a neutral baron to renegade. I don't know if the Overlord has done it yet (I don't recall), but I would like clarification of this rule.
- The "Loyal barons only need to defend their title once per calendar month" rule. I just think that instead of clarifying this one, it just needs to be tossed out. It's too easy for a loyalist to take advantage of that rule.
- Clarification as to whether or not a baron being realigned may challenge despite the Overlord's 24 day grace period. It was allowed before, so this is probably just one of those "common sense" questions, but I'd still like to see that on paper.
- " 8. Can, at anytime, switch the alignment of a Baron with reason given in writing to all Barons and to the Standings Keeper provided a WoL record of 15 is maintained."
I was just glancing at the rules to jog my memory of some rules I'd like clarification on, and I noticed this one. I don't ever recall the latter part of that rule there. I always felt that as long as he's overlord, he can realign the barons to his desire.
- " 9. If the Overlord should banish a Loyalist to a Renegade alignment then the Overlord must accept an immediate challenge of title if issued by that Baron."
Another common sense question, probably, but what if he realigns the baron to Neutral?
- " 10. When unseated by a Baron the Overlord is aligned at the discretion of the new Overlord."
I always thought that the overlord unseated by a baron declared his own alignment.
Those are a few that have dawned upon me when I think about it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 19:32:08 EDT
Madame Elgarette
Interesting, Madame, thine comment, "...knowing that you are not the first to make the mistake of thinking this is specifically about Marius' challenge..." Kindly dinna presume I share thine lack of intelligence, Madame. Tis interesting that thee claim to know me ways. Aire thee suddenly now omnipotent an' omniscient?
Tis amusing though nae surprising, that ast usual, Madame, thee mistake valid questions ast an' attack. Ast t' thine position havin' nae strayed, Madame, perhaps thee hae forgotten yuir own jottin's 'pon th' cork. Tis rather insightful that whene'er I didst question such a matter, thee leaped immediately t' th' fore, thine stridency all bu' deafin' , tellin' me t'was nae mine business t' comment 'pon such matters. Tis interestin' thee hae nae
chosen t' tell Ian t' hush, Madame. Kindly withdraw thine foot from thine mouth lass, trippin' o'er thine own tongue agin mus' certes be painful.
Tis I wh' know thine ways well, Madame. Tis so oft thee attribute mine comments ast being an' attack whilst conveniently fergittin' yuir own, both 'pon t' cork an' in t' basement. Since thee ast usual aire nae privy t' all matters, I canst bu' attribute yuir jottin's ast little bu' yuir usual ill informed, ill thought out an' strident attempt t' disregard t' true issue.
Amusedly
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 16 Sep 1999 19:32:08 EDT
Madame Elgarette
Interesting, Madame, thine comment, "...knowing that you are not the first to make the mistake of thinking this is specifically about Marius' challenge..." Kindly dinna presume I share thine lack of intelligence, Madame. Tis interesting that thee claim to know me ways. Aire thee suddenly now omnipotent an' omniscient?
Tis amusing though nae surprising, that ast usual, Madame, thee mistake valid questions ast an' attack. Ast t' thine position havin' nae strayed, Madame, perhaps thee hae forgotten yuir own jottin's 'pon th' cork. Tis rather insightful that whene'er I didst question such a matter, thee leaped immediately t' th' fore, thine stridency all bu' deafin' , tellin' me t'was nae mine business t' comment 'pon such matters. Tis interestin' thee hae nae
chosen t' tell Ian t' hush, Madame. Kindly withdraw thine foot from thine mouth lass, trippin' o'er thine own tongue agin mus' certes be painful.
Tis I wh' know thine ways well, Madame. Tis so oft thee attribute mine comments ast being an' attack whilst conveniently fergittin' yuir own, both 'pon t' cork an' in t' basement. Since thee ast usual aire nae privy t' all matters, I canst bu' attribute yuir jottin's ast little bu' yuir usual ill informed, ill thought out an' strident attempt t' disregard t' true issue.
Amusedly
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 19:45:25 EDT
Topaz,
A verra interesting point thee mention, lass. That wouldst certes hae been th' challenge thee issued unta th' then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, if'n I am nae mistaken. Tis interestin' th' thee received nae official reply from th' Baroness or 'er servants, an' th' Master Evermeadow 'eld t'was proper e'en wi' out th' Keeper 'o th' Standin's bein' apprised. Tis aire th' challengers then t' jus' guess if'n their challenges hae been accepted, an' wander
'bout th' basement at th' pleasure 'o t' titled ranks? Indeed, t'would appear t' standards aire nae applied nor e'en courtesy. Och, bu' considerin' 'ow t' former Baroness didst come by 'er ring in' t' first place, tis seemin' th' standards indeed wouldst appear t' show a bias.
Jona
Date: 16 Sep 1999 19:45:25 EDT
Topaz,
A verra interesting point thee mention, lass. That wouldst certes hae been th' challenge thee issued unta th' then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, if'n I am nae mistaken. Tis interestin' th' thee received nae official reply from th' Baroness or 'er servants, an' th' Master Evermeadow 'eld t'was proper e'en wi' out th' Keeper 'o th' Standin's bein' apprised. Tis aire th' challengers then t' jus' guess if'n their challenges hae been accepted, an' wander
'bout th' basement at th' pleasure 'o t' titled ranks? Indeed, t'would appear t' standards aire nae applied nor e'en courtesy. Och, bu' considerin' 'ow t' former Baroness didst come by 'er ring in' t' first place, tis seemin' th' standards indeed wouldst appear t' show a bias.
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 19:57:25 EDT
Ian
Indeed, tis manna a seemin' loophole, manna large enow fer a dragon, full grown, t' slip through. Tis interestin' indeed, t' Marius, who so stridently whimpered t' 'e wast bein' called inta question 'bout 'is challenge unta t' Baron Zafiroo hae withdrawn said challenge, seemin'ly after t'was validated ast well ast havin' t' appearance th' t' Baron failed t' answer it in a timely manner. Tis th' Baron Zafiroo certes wouldst nae complain th' 'e nae
mus' face a challenger nor t' Council in t' matter. Tis it wouldst seem t' Marius sought anna ring, nae a specific ring, an' havin' garnered one in t' Tourney, th' seems t' hae satisfied 'is graspin' fer glory.
Curiouser an' curiouser.
Jona
Date: 16 Sep 1999 19:57:25 EDT
Ian
Indeed, tis manna a seemin' loophole, manna large enow fer a dragon, full grown, t' slip through. Tis interestin' indeed, t' Marius, who so stridently whimpered t' 'e wast bein' called inta question 'bout 'is challenge unta t' Baron Zafiroo hae withdrawn said challenge, seemin'ly after t'was validated ast well ast havin' t' appearance th' t' Baron failed t' answer it in a timely manner. Tis th' Baron Zafiroo certes wouldst nae complain th' 'e nae
mus' face a challenger nor t' Council in t' matter. Tis it wouldst seem t' Marius sought anna ring, nae a specific ring, an' havin' garnered one in t' Tourney, th' seems t' hae satisfied 'is graspin' fer glory.
Curiouser an' curiouser.
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 20:38:04 EDT
>> - " 8. Can, at anytime, switch the alignment of a Baron with reason given in writing to all Barons and to the Standings Keeper provided a WoL record of 15 is maintained."
I was just glancing at the rules to jog my memory of some rules I'd like clarification on, and I noticed this one. I don't ever recall the latter part of that rule there. I always felt that as long as he's overlord, he can realign the barons to his desire.>>
Just for historical reference...this rule was brought up in the short tenure of Cristian de Oro as Overlord, when he possessed less than 15 WoL, and in fact, did not have some of the Overlord's usual privileges due to that fact. I served on the Council at that time, and I beleive that the Baron asking this question did as well.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Laylla's husband.
Roman pretorian
Reigning Baron of the Eighth
Former Baron of the Sixth
Mage in DoM
"I am an honorable man, but to duel me is not a pleasant experience, if only for the pain"
Date: 16 Sep 1999 20:38:04 EDT
>> - " 8. Can, at anytime, switch the alignment of a Baron with reason given in writing to all Barons and to the Standings Keeper provided a WoL record of 15 is maintained."
I was just glancing at the rules to jog my memory of some rules I'd like clarification on, and I noticed this one. I don't ever recall the latter part of that rule there. I always felt that as long as he's overlord, he can realign the barons to his desire.>>
Just for historical reference...this rule was brought up in the short tenure of Cristian de Oro as Overlord, when he possessed less than 15 WoL, and in fact, did not have some of the Overlord's usual privileges due to that fact. I served on the Council at that time, and I beleive that the Baron asking this question did as well.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Laylla's husband.
Roman pretorian
Reigning Baron of the Eighth
Former Baron of the Sixth
Mage in DoM
"I am an honorable man, but to duel me is not a pleasant experience, if only for the pain"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 20:47:32 EDT
"Interesting, Madame, thine comment, "...knowing that you are not the first to make the mistake of thinking this is specifically about Marius' challenge..." Kindly dinna presume I share thine lack of intelligence, Madame. Tis interesting that thee claim to know me ways. Aire thee suddenly now omnipotent an' omniscient?"
I made no claims to you having a lack of intelligence, Regent. It was by your queeries of "Was it not thee who..." towards Marius that I had figured that you had made that *mistake*. I wish I knew why you have a penchant for claiming that all mistakes are due to a lack of intelligence.
"Tis amusing though nae surprising, that ast usual, Madame, thee mistake valid questions ast an' attack."
I know you think I am blind, Regent, but you are wrong. Your ire towards Marius has been strikingly blatant for a while now. As one that has been at the recieving end of several of your "Was it not thee who.." so-called "valid questions", I know them well.
"Ast t' thine position havin' nae strayed, Madame, perhaps thee hae forgotten yuir own jottin's 'pon th' cork."
Perhaps I have forgotten...perhaps. However, it would be useful if you provided proof, from my *own* hand of this change in position. And, in context, please.
" Tis rather insightful that whene'er I didst question such a matter, thee leaped immediately t' th' fore, thine stridency all bu' deafin' , tellin' me t'was nae mine business t' comment 'pon such matters."
Think upon this. Was it really the rules I was defending, or the person you had vehemently and unnecessarily damned to the Nine Hells, crying dishonor, slander and all sorts of rash accusations?
"Tis interestin' thee hae nae
chosen t' tell Ian t' hush, Madame. Kindly withdraw thine foot from thine mouth lass, trippin' o'er thine own tongue agin mus' certes be painful."
This should be a matter that you bring up with Lupton. Ask him whether or not I blindly align myself with my beloved's stance. In fact, it is a bit of a sore point between the two of us.
"Tis I wh' know thine ways well, Madame."
You do? You could have fooled me, Regent.
"Tis so oft thee attribute mine comments ast being an' attack whilst conveniently fergittin' yuir own, both 'pon t' cork an' in t' basement. Since thee ast usual aire nae privy t' all matters, I canst bu' attribute yuir jottin's ast little bu' yuir usual ill informed, ill thought out an' strident attempt t' disregard t' true issue."
Since the true issue is that many of the rules of this sport are as clear as mud, I have *yet* to disregard it.
And, Regent, do drop the goofy "amused" grin off your face. It is well known then only fools are amused at inopportune times such as this.
Bluntly,
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 16 Sep 1999 20:47:32 EDT
"Interesting, Madame, thine comment, "...knowing that you are not the first to make the mistake of thinking this is specifically about Marius' challenge..." Kindly dinna presume I share thine lack of intelligence, Madame. Tis interesting that thee claim to know me ways. Aire thee suddenly now omnipotent an' omniscient?"
I made no claims to you having a lack of intelligence, Regent. It was by your queeries of "Was it not thee who..." towards Marius that I had figured that you had made that *mistake*. I wish I knew why you have a penchant for claiming that all mistakes are due to a lack of intelligence.
"Tis amusing though nae surprising, that ast usual, Madame, thee mistake valid questions ast an' attack."
I know you think I am blind, Regent, but you are wrong. Your ire towards Marius has been strikingly blatant for a while now. As one that has been at the recieving end of several of your "Was it not thee who.." so-called "valid questions", I know them well.
"Ast t' thine position havin' nae strayed, Madame, perhaps thee hae forgotten yuir own jottin's 'pon th' cork."
Perhaps I have forgotten...perhaps. However, it would be useful if you provided proof, from my *own* hand of this change in position. And, in context, please.
" Tis rather insightful that whene'er I didst question such a matter, thee leaped immediately t' th' fore, thine stridency all bu' deafin' , tellin' me t'was nae mine business t' comment 'pon such matters."
Think upon this. Was it really the rules I was defending, or the person you had vehemently and unnecessarily damned to the Nine Hells, crying dishonor, slander and all sorts of rash accusations?
"Tis interestin' thee hae nae
chosen t' tell Ian t' hush, Madame. Kindly withdraw thine foot from thine mouth lass, trippin' o'er thine own tongue agin mus' certes be painful."
This should be a matter that you bring up with Lupton. Ask him whether or not I blindly align myself with my beloved's stance. In fact, it is a bit of a sore point between the two of us.
"Tis I wh' know thine ways well, Madame."
You do? You could have fooled me, Regent.
"Tis so oft thee attribute mine comments ast being an' attack whilst conveniently fergittin' yuir own, both 'pon t' cork an' in t' basement. Since thee ast usual aire nae privy t' all matters, I canst bu' attribute yuir jottin's ast little bu' yuir usual ill informed, ill thought out an' strident attempt t' disregard t' true issue."
Since the true issue is that many of the rules of this sport are as clear as mud, I have *yet* to disregard it.
And, Regent, do drop the goofy "amused" grin off your face. It is well known then only fools are amused at inopportune times such as this.
Bluntly,
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 21:11:00 EDT
"Tis it wouldst seem t' Marius sought anna ring, nae a specific ring, an' havin' garnered one in t' Tourney, th' seems t' hae satisfied 'is graspin' fer glory."
I'll take it that *this* is your idea of a "valid question", Jonalyn?
Indeed, perhaps you *are* lacking in intelligence. I'll repeat it to you in small words that even my children no longer need for me to use for them to understand.
See Marius.
See Marius with a Ring.
See Marius not asking for the Challenge to go on.
See you acting as if he *does* want the Challenge to go on.
See you forgetting that it was Ian who made the comment and not Marius.
Is that clear enough for you yet?
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 16 Sep 1999 21:11:00 EDT
"Tis it wouldst seem t' Marius sought anna ring, nae a specific ring, an' havin' garnered one in t' Tourney, th' seems t' hae satisfied 'is graspin' fer glory."
I'll take it that *this* is your idea of a "valid question", Jonalyn?
Indeed, perhaps you *are* lacking in intelligence. I'll repeat it to you in small words that even my children no longer need for me to use for them to understand.
See Marius.
See Marius with a Ring.
See Marius not asking for the Challenge to go on.
See you acting as if he *does* want the Challenge to go on.
See you forgetting that it was Ian who made the comment and not Marius.
Is that clear enough for you yet?
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 21:14:55 EDT
Var:
I am losing patience.
"No, I find it suits my fancy to insult you because you said that you'd remain silent if Marius did press challenge."
No, I said I would remain silent save that I knew he would not. There is a distinct difference between the two, which was made even CLEARER in the missive you responded to, in the section you didn't bother quoting. Are you so desperate to look important that you must resport to misrepresenting my words? Or are you merely too stupid to read them?
Let me help you here. Had I known he intended to press challenge, I would have focussed my efforts on talking him out of it, rather than on the action I took. Is it sunken into your stubborn ox head yet? Then you go on:
"After all, if you knew someone would take advantage of a loophole in the rules, wouldn't that even serve as some reason to bring it up faster? That way, the rule would be clarified before someone would take advantage of it."
It's still not clarified NOW, is it? Why should one think it will be clarified any sooner just because someone thinks it will be done -- oh, wait. So many of you thought it was going to be done because of my post, what's the difference? Does it make any sense to you yet? You can change a rule, or a law, before someone actually does something, and have it be 'legal'. Once they've done it, you can't. Not in a civilized society, at any rate.
"You waiting for someone to actually begin taking advantage of the rules before saying anything is, indeed
stupid. "
But I didn't. Which is in direct contrast to people like you, who DID think stupid things.
"Of course, you probably would have said something to the person, thus perhaps it wouldn't be stupid."
Hmm. Imagine that. Var actually grasps something. Good. Maybe we're getting somewhere after all.
"I said that the rules do need to be clarified, but there are some parts more important than others. Those that aren't important are the ones that demand common sense. The ones you site are a couple I feel need to be determined by simple common sense, until other rules are clarified."
And in this universe, there are con men and corporations just waiting to make money off people like you, who actually think that the letter of the law is less important than what you, in your boundless and infinite wisdom, know to be true. If the letter of the law can be ignored, then it's completely useless.
"I do agree that it should be noted in the rules that barons and the overlord count as peers, but to say that they're not peers until then is wrong; from what I've read, it's has already been established that they DO count as peer wins."
That establishment is in direct contradiction to the published rules of this sport. Therefore, anyone would be perfectly within their right to point at those rules and say, "I'm sorry, but I don't care about your ruling; the rules say this QUITE specifically, and your 'saving clause' only covers your ability to rule on those things which are not clear." The rules are very precise. They refer to Warlords.
As to your rule concerns, they are not clarifications of loopholes, but (with a couple of exceptions) outright rules changes.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 16 Sep 1999 21:14:55 EDT
Var:
I am losing patience.
"No, I find it suits my fancy to insult you because you said that you'd remain silent if Marius did press challenge."
No, I said I would remain silent save that I knew he would not. There is a distinct difference between the two, which was made even CLEARER in the missive you responded to, in the section you didn't bother quoting. Are you so desperate to look important that you must resport to misrepresenting my words? Or are you merely too stupid to read them?
Let me help you here. Had I known he intended to press challenge, I would have focussed my efforts on talking him out of it, rather than on the action I took. Is it sunken into your stubborn ox head yet? Then you go on:
"After all, if you knew someone would take advantage of a loophole in the rules, wouldn't that even serve as some reason to bring it up faster? That way, the rule would be clarified before someone would take advantage of it."
It's still not clarified NOW, is it? Why should one think it will be clarified any sooner just because someone thinks it will be done -- oh, wait. So many of you thought it was going to be done because of my post, what's the difference? Does it make any sense to you yet? You can change a rule, or a law, before someone actually does something, and have it be 'legal'. Once they've done it, you can't. Not in a civilized society, at any rate.
"You waiting for someone to actually begin taking advantage of the rules before saying anything is, indeed
stupid. "
But I didn't. Which is in direct contrast to people like you, who DID think stupid things.
"Of course, you probably would have said something to the person, thus perhaps it wouldn't be stupid."
Hmm. Imagine that. Var actually grasps something. Good. Maybe we're getting somewhere after all.
"I said that the rules do need to be clarified, but there are some parts more important than others. Those that aren't important are the ones that demand common sense. The ones you site are a couple I feel need to be determined by simple common sense, until other rules are clarified."
And in this universe, there are con men and corporations just waiting to make money off people like you, who actually think that the letter of the law is less important than what you, in your boundless and infinite wisdom, know to be true. If the letter of the law can be ignored, then it's completely useless.
"I do agree that it should be noted in the rules that barons and the overlord count as peers, but to say that they're not peers until then is wrong; from what I've read, it's has already been established that they DO count as peer wins."
That establishment is in direct contradiction to the published rules of this sport. Therefore, anyone would be perfectly within their right to point at those rules and say, "I'm sorry, but I don't care about your ruling; the rules say this QUITE specifically, and your 'saving clause' only covers your ability to rule on those things which are not clear." The rules are very precise. They refer to Warlords.
As to your rule concerns, they are not clarifications of loopholes, but (with a couple of exceptions) outright rules changes.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 22:22:06 EDT
Madame Starfare,
I have always failed to understand why your atrocious accent carries unto a written post, regardless I believe I have deciphered it...
"Tis interestin' indeed, t' Marius, who so stridently whimpered t' 'e wast bein' called inta question 'bout 'is challenge unta t' Baron Zafiroo hae withdrawn said challenge, seemin'ly after t'was validated ast well ast havin' t' appearance th' t' Baron failed t' answer it in a timely manner."
You claim that I withdrew my challenge, as soon as controversy started brewing. As Ian, Sid, and I have all explained ad nauseum, it had never occured to me that my challenge might still be valid after winning a prize at the tourney. I steadfastly held off everyone's slings and arrows when I originally posted my challenge and my PWs were called into question.
"Tis it wouldst seem t' Marius sought anna ring, nae a specific ring, an' havin' garnered one in t' Tourney, th' seems t' hae satisfied 'is graspin' fer glory. "
I never claimed otherwise, I wanted to be a Baron. I thought dueling Zafiroo would be an enjoyable way to test my skills and perhaps become a baron. Read my original challenge, my motives were crystal clear from the start. And now that I am a Baron, I do not want to slip dishonorably through a loophole in the rules and gain another ring. Anyone who views this as cowardice must be mad, it is simple pride and respect for the rings.
Jonalyn, until now I put up with you and your petty attacks. This ends now. If you wished to garner an enemy I congratulate you for you have found one. You are a monstrously bitter, condescending, conniving person. I dont respect you enough to hate you. I feel only pity.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
Date: 16 Sep 1999 22:22:06 EDT
Madame Starfare,
I have always failed to understand why your atrocious accent carries unto a written post, regardless I believe I have deciphered it...
"Tis interestin' indeed, t' Marius, who so stridently whimpered t' 'e wast bein' called inta question 'bout 'is challenge unta t' Baron Zafiroo hae withdrawn said challenge, seemin'ly after t'was validated ast well ast havin' t' appearance th' t' Baron failed t' answer it in a timely manner."
You claim that I withdrew my challenge, as soon as controversy started brewing. As Ian, Sid, and I have all explained ad nauseum, it had never occured to me that my challenge might still be valid after winning a prize at the tourney. I steadfastly held off everyone's slings and arrows when I originally posted my challenge and my PWs were called into question.
"Tis it wouldst seem t' Marius sought anna ring, nae a specific ring, an' havin' garnered one in t' Tourney, th' seems t' hae satisfied 'is graspin' fer glory. "
I never claimed otherwise, I wanted to be a Baron. I thought dueling Zafiroo would be an enjoyable way to test my skills and perhaps become a baron. Read my original challenge, my motives were crystal clear from the start. And now that I am a Baron, I do not want to slip dishonorably through a loophole in the rules and gain another ring. Anyone who views this as cowardice must be mad, it is simple pride and respect for the rings.
Jonalyn, until now I put up with you and your petty attacks. This ends now. If you wished to garner an enemy I congratulate you for you have found one. You are a monstrously bitter, condescending, conniving person. I dont respect you enough to hate you. I feel only pity.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 22:23:14 EDT
Zafiroo,
I complained in the arena about what I saw as your refusal to get back to me with a date after I sent you two missives and several IMs. I never wanted to alert the council or further my challenge against you. I wish you only the best.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
Date: 16 Sep 1999 22:23:14 EDT
Zafiroo,
I complained in the arena about what I saw as your refusal to get back to me with a date after I sent you two missives and several IMs. I never wanted to alert the council or further my challenge against you. I wish you only the best.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 23:01:02 EDT
You said a few posts back:
"Were it not for the fact that I know Marius had no intention of pressing his previous challenge, I would have remained silent. It's very frightening to me that apparently, there are a raft of people out there too stupid to have grasped THAT fact, either."
Later, you said:
"If I had thought Marius was going to press his challenge, I would have remained silent until he did so... and then said the same thing. The rules are the rules, are they not? If the rules are faulty, then those who make the rules, and those who live under the rules, must accept whatever occurs as a result of those rules being followed.FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Verdana" LANG="0">"
You now say:
"Let me help you here. Had I known he intended to press challenge, I would have focussed my efforts on talking him out of it, rather than on the action I took. Is it sunken into your stubborn ox head yet? "
It hasn't until now, because you merely said you would remain silent and then said the same thing. You didn't specify if you'd talk to him or post it. You said specifically you would have "waited for him to do so" and then "said the same thing." I am calling it stupid because you sounded like you were waiting for him to challenge before saying anything.
So yes, it has apparently not gone through my "stubborn ox head" when you keep saying different things you'd do. However, if you had decided to say something BEFORE he actually pressed challenge, then it's not stupid.
"It's still not clarified NOW, is it? Why should one think it will be clarified any sooner just because someone thinks it will be done -- oh, wait. So many of you thought it was going to be done because of my post, what's the difference?"
The sooner you bring something up, the sooner it becomes an issue to discuss. How many rule clarification/changes have been made WITHOUT someone initiating the discussion with a request? I'm guessing not many.
"Does it make any sense to you yet? You can change a rule, or a law, before someone actually does something, and have it be 'legal'. Once they've done it, you can't. Not in a civilized society, at any rate."
Why do you think I mentioned that you should bring it up BEFORE someone issues challenge, so then a rule change can be legally made, and the person wouldn't take advantage of the rules. Of course, this was said by me in your quote, "That way, the rule would be clarified before someone would take advantage of it."
"And in this universe, there are con men and corporations just waiting to make money off people like you, who actually think that the letter of the law is less important than what you, in your boundless and infinite wisdom, know to be true. If the letter of the law can be ignored, then it's completely useless."
You have a complete lack of faith in Golden and Drake, obviously. I feel the ones you mentioned are unimportant because if they are made an issue of, then simple common sense can be incorporated to judge them. They DO make rulings if there is a discrepancy. Like Avery brought up, nothing in the rule says that it's against the rules to break the ring, yet when the situation arises, they did do something about it.
"As to your rule concerns, they are not clarifications of loopholes, but (with a couple of exceptions) outright rules changes."
But they're still the kind of clarifications/changes that are important to me. They might not all fit under the category of "rules with loopholes," but they are rules that I am concerned about. After all, wasn't your original post brought up due to a concern?
To finalize this on my side, I am not out to "get attention" as you accused me of in so many words. When I have something to say, I say it. If I have statistics that I think the community might be interested in, I post it. It's not for the sake of self glorification.
If you refuse to grasp that, then that's your problem. I won't go out of my way to prove you wrong on it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 16 Sep 1999 23:01:02 EDT
You said a few posts back:
"Were it not for the fact that I know Marius had no intention of pressing his previous challenge, I would have remained silent. It's very frightening to me that apparently, there are a raft of people out there too stupid to have grasped THAT fact, either."
Later, you said:
"If I had thought Marius was going to press his challenge, I would have remained silent until he did so... and then said the same thing. The rules are the rules, are they not? If the rules are faulty, then those who make the rules, and those who live under the rules, must accept whatever occurs as a result of those rules being followed.FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Verdana" LANG="0">"
You now say:
"Let me help you here. Had I known he intended to press challenge, I would have focussed my efforts on talking him out of it, rather than on the action I took. Is it sunken into your stubborn ox head yet? "
It hasn't until now, because you merely said you would remain silent and then said the same thing. You didn't specify if you'd talk to him or post it. You said specifically you would have "waited for him to do so" and then "said the same thing." I am calling it stupid because you sounded like you were waiting for him to challenge before saying anything.
So yes, it has apparently not gone through my "stubborn ox head" when you keep saying different things you'd do. However, if you had decided to say something BEFORE he actually pressed challenge, then it's not stupid.
"It's still not clarified NOW, is it? Why should one think it will be clarified any sooner just because someone thinks it will be done -- oh, wait. So many of you thought it was going to be done because of my post, what's the difference?"
The sooner you bring something up, the sooner it becomes an issue to discuss. How many rule clarification/changes have been made WITHOUT someone initiating the discussion with a request? I'm guessing not many.
"Does it make any sense to you yet? You can change a rule, or a law, before someone actually does something, and have it be 'legal'. Once they've done it, you can't. Not in a civilized society, at any rate."
Why do you think I mentioned that you should bring it up BEFORE someone issues challenge, so then a rule change can be legally made, and the person wouldn't take advantage of the rules. Of course, this was said by me in your quote, "That way, the rule would be clarified before someone would take advantage of it."
"And in this universe, there are con men and corporations just waiting to make money off people like you, who actually think that the letter of the law is less important than what you, in your boundless and infinite wisdom, know to be true. If the letter of the law can be ignored, then it's completely useless."
You have a complete lack of faith in Golden and Drake, obviously. I feel the ones you mentioned are unimportant because if they are made an issue of, then simple common sense can be incorporated to judge them. They DO make rulings if there is a discrepancy. Like Avery brought up, nothing in the rule says that it's against the rules to break the ring, yet when the situation arises, they did do something about it.
"As to your rule concerns, they are not clarifications of loopholes, but (with a couple of exceptions) outright rules changes."
But they're still the kind of clarifications/changes that are important to me. They might not all fit under the category of "rules with loopholes," but they are rules that I am concerned about. After all, wasn't your original post brought up due to a concern?
To finalize this on my side, I am not out to "get attention" as you accused me of in so many words. When I have something to say, I say it. If I have statistics that I think the community might be interested in, I post it. It's not for the sake of self glorification.
If you refuse to grasp that, then that's your problem. I won't go out of my way to prove you wrong on it.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM