From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 23:46:39 EDT
"'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 occur to you that I hadn't realized the loophole until I brought it up? Really, Var, you're not doing wonders for my opinion of your intelligence, if you can't draw a reasonable idea such as that.
"'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.'"
Given that I didn't discover the loophole until the situation presented itself, it's rather hard to bring it up beforehand, isn't 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."
Actually, part of this is that I DO have a lack of faith in them to follow the letter of the rules. It is more important to me that the letter of the rules be followed than to do the "right" thing. There is a very simple reason for this; if the rules may be broken by those in charge of the sport, then the rules are meaningless.
"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."
What you consider common sense - or, even, what I consider common sense - may not be apparent to someone who walks in here, becomes a Warlord in three weeks, and wants to issue challenge two weeks later. And if that person sees a loophole, they'll be entirely justified in raising a manure storm over the fact that they're just following the rules. It's supremely arrogant of you to assume that just because -you- know what's "right," then it doesn't
need clarification for the rest of society. I'm disappointed.
As far as Methous, I would note that it's against the law to destroy property that does not belong to you in pretty much any jurisdiction.
"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."
And when you insist on making public assumptions even after being told otherwise, you look like an arse. You carried this argument as if I were supporting the idea even after Sidartha pointed out I wasn't; you continued the nonsense about how "a Baron can't challenge a Baron" even after having it pointed out repeatedly that a Warlord had challenged a Baron; and now you're trying to blame me for the assumptions you made from trying too damned hard to
read between the lines, rather than simply reading what I said.
Maybe if you put the pen down and -thought- for a bit... you'd get the idea.
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: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 00:38:23 EDT
>I sent you two missives and several IMs
What the hell? I know Zaf is probably messed up enough to understand this, but I sure don't. Please enlighten me, Baron.
Maybe it means In My sentiments?
I Marius says?
Inside My senility?
That's about as much sense as I am making out of that strange word...
Cletus
Baron of the 13th
Date: 17 Sep 1999 00:38:23 EDT
>I sent you two missives and several IMs
What the hell? I know Zaf is probably messed up enough to understand this, but I sure don't. Please enlighten me, Baron.
Maybe it means In My sentiments?
I Marius says?
Inside My senility?
That's about as much sense as I am making out of that strange word...
Cletus
Baron of the 13th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:40:28 EDT
I apologize for the confusion. IM is an old Latin term standing for 'illegitiumus mius'. Romans live very "liberal" lifestyles and as such gather a large number of bastard children. Since they aren't much good, and it isnt cost-effective to educate them, most Roman patricians use them to run errands. Wait tables, deliver messages and the such.
Your remarks are justified, I sometimes tend to forget that RhyDyn is not Rome, and the same terms are not necessarily common.
In any event, I must now humbly ask that the Baron Zafiroo return my IMs. They were sent to deliver messages not so that you could keep them.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Godfather of the FSH philosophy.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:40:28 EDT
I apologize for the confusion. IM is an old Latin term standing for 'illegitiumus mius'. Romans live very "liberal" lifestyles and as such gather a large number of bastard children. Since they aren't much good, and it isnt cost-effective to educate them, most Roman patricians use them to run errands. Wait tables, deliver messages and the such.
Your remarks are justified, I sometimes tend to forget that RhyDyn is not Rome, and the same terms are not necessarily common.
In any event, I must now humbly ask that the Baron Zafiroo return my IMs. They were sent to deliver messages not so that you could keep them.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Godfather of the FSH philosophy.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:44:02 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
Thine petulant diatribes hae little bearing on th' matter. Thee attribute unto me, "ire", when tis thee what wouldst appear to be havin' a temper tantrum, much like a petulant an' spoiled child. Again, Madame, th' comes ast nae surprise. Thee hae changed little since thee first entered th' basement.
Madame, I am nae yuir servant, and ast thee claim thee aire nae blind, thee canst perhaps manage to peruse the cork for thine own jottings, that ist unless thee hae suddenly become crippled. Thee hae long displayed a penchant for lapses in thine memory, Madame, perhaps thee might seek out a cleric t' cure thee.
Madame, I dinna recall damning annaone, tis again thee flee into hyperbole and diatribe. Thou ever were an emotional female, much given to dramatics, tears, screechings, rantings, and accusations. Certes these latest hae the ring of thine usual ravings. Madame, thou art easily fooled and a fool ast well, though that ist also nae anna surprise.
Madame, thee shall pardon me if I find thine last comment droll. Since I hae long considered thee an utter fool, tis certes thee wouldst know well what a fool wouldst find amusing. Considering, I most certainly be nae "grinning" ast I pen this missive nor mine last one. Be that thine omniscience coming to the fore?
Madame, thine foolishness may find some what find approve, howe'er, Madame, kindly dinna expect me to find it intelligent.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:44:02 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
Thine petulant diatribes hae little bearing on th' matter. Thee attribute unto me, "ire", when tis thee what wouldst appear to be havin' a temper tantrum, much like a petulant an' spoiled child. Again, Madame, th' comes ast nae surprise. Thee hae changed little since thee first entered th' basement.
Madame, I am nae yuir servant, and ast thee claim thee aire nae blind, thee canst perhaps manage to peruse the cork for thine own jottings, that ist unless thee hae suddenly become crippled. Thee hae long displayed a penchant for lapses in thine memory, Madame, perhaps thee might seek out a cleric t' cure thee.
Madame, I dinna recall damning annaone, tis again thee flee into hyperbole and diatribe. Thou ever were an emotional female, much given to dramatics, tears, screechings, rantings, and accusations. Certes these latest hae the ring of thine usual ravings. Madame, thou art easily fooled and a fool ast well, though that ist also nae anna surprise.
Madame, thee shall pardon me if I find thine last comment droll. Since I hae long considered thee an utter fool, tis certes thee wouldst know well what a fool wouldst find amusing. Considering, I most certainly be nae "grinning" ast I pen this missive nor mine last one. Be that thine omniscience coming to the fore?
Madame, thine foolishness may find some what find approve, howe'er, Madame, kindly dinna expect me to find it intelligent.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:44:56 EDT
See Sidartha act the utter twit. Come one, Come all, the show is one.
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.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:44:56 EDT
See Sidartha act the utter twit. Come one, Come all, the show is one.
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
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 02:03:51 EDT
Gaius Marius Colestae,
Sir, tis thee what claim that I claimed thee withdrew thine challenge when controversy didst brew. Kindly make nae such claims when thee well know tis I wast in the basement when the question arose.
Thee speculate that thee wouldst win another ring, how utterly arrogant of thee. Thee also speculate that thee wouldst make a worthy enemy, how utterly droll. Tis almost amusing that thee wouldst consider that I would think thee worthy of annathing let alone being mine enemy. Tis if annathin' ist t' be pitied tis the duels for having such ast thee ast a Baron.
Tis amusing, Marius, that thee wouldst descend into petty insult, and nae annathin' original at that. Tis far more amusing that thee wouldst think that I care one way or the other if'n thee hold me with respect. Rest assured, thee hae nae earned mine, and further hae flung what thee hold ast honorable, further inta the Abyss. Thee claim thee hold the ring with respect, and I, sir say thee hae nae anna regard fer either th' Second, th' duels or
annathin' save fer yuirself.
I do notice that thee hae deftly sidestepped anna comment with regard to whether or nae th' Baron Zafiroo Turidan didst answer yuir challenge in a timely manner. Certes thee hae nae made an enemy 'o that baron. How clever of thee.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 17 Sep 1999 02:03:51 EDT
Gaius Marius Colestae,
Sir, tis thee what claim that I claimed thee withdrew thine challenge when controversy didst brew. Kindly make nae such claims when thee well know tis I wast in the basement when the question arose.
Thee speculate that thee wouldst win another ring, how utterly arrogant of thee. Thee also speculate that thee wouldst make a worthy enemy, how utterly droll. Tis almost amusing that thee wouldst consider that I would think thee worthy of annathing let alone being mine enemy. Tis if annathin' ist t' be pitied tis the duels for having such ast thee ast a Baron.
Tis amusing, Marius, that thee wouldst descend into petty insult, and nae annathin' original at that. Tis far more amusing that thee wouldst think that I care one way or the other if'n thee hold me with respect. Rest assured, thee hae nae earned mine, and further hae flung what thee hold ast honorable, further inta the Abyss. Thee claim thee hold the ring with respect, and I, sir say thee hae nae anna regard fer either th' Second, th' duels or
annathin' save fer yuirself.
I do notice that thee hae deftly sidestepped anna comment with regard to whether or nae th' Baron Zafiroo Turidan didst answer yuir challenge in a timely manner. Certes thee hae nae made an enemy 'o that baron. How clever of thee.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 02:24:39 EDT
The commoner tacks a missive to the cork and sends a messanger with a copy to Master Evermeadow.
Master Evermeadow,
Tis come to mine attention that seemingly thee hae made a ruling, privy to verra few, to whit: that the challenged need nae apprise the challenger and the standings keeper when such challenge ist accepted.
I point thee to the matter of the challenge of Topaz unto the then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, wherein, the Baroness failed to apprise the Standings Keeper afore the match took place that she had accepted the challenge. Tis seeming thee made determination that such need nae be done in direct contradiction of the rules of engagement. Wouldst care to comment upon the matter, sir? Tis also I must ask thee if'n thee didst apprise the Lady Topaz that
should the matter come to the Council thee made comment that thee wouldst direct the Council in their decision? Tis though the situation took place during the fifth month of the current year, nae such official ruling be announced unto the community at large. Be it thine privilege to consider directing the Baron's Council in matters afore the fact?
Tis I am of the understanding that the Supervisor may review the Council's decisions once made.
I also ask of Madame Silvertree did she receive the proper document afore the Warlord Topaz and the then Baroness Ashleana didst meet in the ring? I am aware that Madame Silvertree chose to pass the Warlord's question unto the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor and that the warlord wast advised that a missive from the Baroness to the challenger and to the Standings Keeper sent prior to the match wouldst suffice. Yet the question remains wast
the formality neglected?
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 17 Sep 1999 02:24:39 EDT
The commoner tacks a missive to the cork and sends a messanger with a copy to Master Evermeadow.
Master Evermeadow,
Tis come to mine attention that seemingly thee hae made a ruling, privy to verra few, to whit: that the challenged need nae apprise the challenger and the standings keeper when such challenge ist accepted.
I point thee to the matter of the challenge of Topaz unto the then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, wherein, the Baroness failed to apprise the Standings Keeper afore the match took place that she had accepted the challenge. Tis seeming thee made determination that such need nae be done in direct contradiction of the rules of engagement. Wouldst care to comment upon the matter, sir? Tis also I must ask thee if'n thee didst apprise the Lady Topaz that
should the matter come to the Council thee made comment that thee wouldst direct the Council in their decision? Tis though the situation took place during the fifth month of the current year, nae such official ruling be announced unto the community at large. Be it thine privilege to consider directing the Baron's Council in matters afore the fact?
Tis I am of the understanding that the Supervisor may review the Council's decisions once made.
I also ask of Madame Silvertree did she receive the proper document afore the Warlord Topaz and the then Baroness Ashleana didst meet in the ring? I am aware that Madame Silvertree chose to pass the Warlord's question unto the Assistant Supervisor and the Supervisor and that the warlord wast advised that a missive from the Baroness to the challenger and to the Standings Keeper sent prior to the match wouldst suffice. Yet the question remains wast
the formality neglected?
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 05:43:59 EDT
To the Community.
This matter, and others which have caused controversy previously, are currently under review.
Rather than see endless debate on the problems, perhaps honest possible solutions should be rendered for view by the community.
Example: The Rules of Engagement should be revised in all cases of stating that a Warlord needs to defeat X number of Warlords to challenge, to stating that a Warlord needs to defeat X number of peers to challenge, where X is the appropriate number 10 or 15 depending upon the challenge. In addition, The Rules of Engagement should be ammended to state that Barons and the Overlord shall be counted as
peers for the purpose of a Warlord's challenge for a title.
The example above is, perhaps, not the most elegant way to state the solution... but it is certainly better than an endless arguement.
Thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 05:43:59 EDT
To the Community.
This matter, and others which have caused controversy previously, are currently under review.
Rather than see endless debate on the problems, perhaps honest possible solutions should be rendered for view by the community.
Example: The Rules of Engagement should be revised in all cases of stating that a Warlord needs to defeat X number of Warlords to challenge, to stating that a Warlord needs to defeat X number of peers to challenge, where X is the appropriate number 10 or 15 depending upon the challenge. In addition, The Rules of Engagement should be ammended to state that Barons and the Overlord shall be counted as
peers for the purpose of a Warlord's challenge for a title.
The example above is, perhaps, not the most elegant way to state the solution... but it is certainly better than an endless arguement.
Thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 06:08:11 EDT
Drakewyn:
I could hardly have been more plain and direct in pointing out the problems I noted, and the solutions to both are painfully obvious:
Change two words, and
Add a note that if someone wins a Baron's Ring as a tourney prize, any pending challenge by that person is immediately void.
Surely, the staff here is bright enough to figure out such simple solutions when the problem is detailed so clearly with citations?
Regards,
Ian Rex
Date: 17 Sep 1999 06:08:11 EDT
Drakewyn:
I could hardly have been more plain and direct in pointing out the problems I noted, and the solutions to both are painfully obvious:
Change two words, and
Add a note that if someone wins a Baron's Ring as a tourney prize, any pending challenge by that person is immediately void.
Surely, the staff here is bright enough to figure out such simple solutions when the problem is detailed so clearly with citations?
Regards,
Ian Rex
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 06:26:00 EDT
Laird MacKenzie:
To often members of the Community have decried any changes the Staff might make to The Rules of Engagement without proper representation from the patronage.
Do you not agree that, if you were to have posted your ideas for these changes in your initial post, a great majority of this argument and name calling could have been avoided?
I gave my example merely as that... and example. While you may believe that the changing of two words and the adding of a simple note will fill this hole, it is my experience that this may not be the case.
Quick patching of the rules will only lead to more loopholes... while clear and concise revisions, debated in a calm and rational manner, will produce a solid foundation.
Yes, the Staff is more than bright enough to make rulings and "figure out such simple solutions". But the Staff is also quite aware that many of the patrons become very vocal against such rulings and solutions when it appears to fit their whim.
Perhaps, as the solution to these problems has come so easily to you, you could chair the upcoming Patron's Rules Discussion Committee. I will bring the idea up to Master Evermeadow when I see him on the morrow.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 06:26:00 EDT
Laird MacKenzie:
To often members of the Community have decried any changes the Staff might make to The Rules of Engagement without proper representation from the patronage.
Do you not agree that, if you were to have posted your ideas for these changes in your initial post, a great majority of this argument and name calling could have been avoided?
I gave my example merely as that... and example. While you may believe that the changing of two words and the adding of a simple note will fill this hole, it is my experience that this may not be the case.
Quick patching of the rules will only lead to more loopholes... while clear and concise revisions, debated in a calm and rational manner, will produce a solid foundation.
Yes, the Staff is more than bright enough to make rulings and "figure out such simple solutions". But the Staff is also quite aware that many of the patrons become very vocal against such rulings and solutions when it appears to fit their whim.
Perhaps, as the solution to these problems has come so easily to you, you could chair the upcoming Patron's Rules Discussion Committee. I will bring the idea up to Master Evermeadow when I see him on the morrow.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 06:33:03 EDT
Drakewyn:
I have never known the public - nor would I expect them - to raise a cry regarding the altering of verbiage in the rules in order to prevent a situation which (a) nobody actually wants to happen, (b) most people merely assume won't, and (c) hasn't yet occurred.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 06:33:03 EDT
Drakewyn:
I have never known the public - nor would I expect them - to raise a cry regarding the altering of verbiage in the rules in order to prevent a situation which (a) nobody actually wants to happen, (b) most people merely assume won't, and (c) hasn't yet occurred.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 08:14:48 EDT
Madame Starfare,
You are like talking to a wall. You make up your mind about a person or a situation then you just mold the evidence to fit your petty rationale. As such, anything I say will just stir up roughly the same response. So honestly, whats the point? If anyone else in the DoS community has questions about the challenge feel free to ask them of me, however, for all intents and purposes my Cross-Examination by Miss Jonalyn Starfare is over.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Godfather of the FSH philosophy.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 08:14:48 EDT
Madame Starfare,
You are like talking to a wall. You make up your mind about a person or a situation then you just mold the evidence to fit your petty rationale. As such, anything I say will just stir up roughly the same response. So honestly, whats the point? If anyone else in the DoS community has questions about the challenge feel free to ask them of me, however, for all intents and purposes my Cross-Examination by Miss Jonalyn Starfare is over.
Gaius Marius Colestae'
Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.
Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.
Godfather of the FSH philosophy.
Sword Baron of the Second.
Civus Romanus.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: karnafexx@aol.com (Karnafexx)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 11:22:19 EDT
Ian,
The difference between you and I when it come to insults is that friend or no, I'll find you and kill you if you push me too far. Call me dense and stupid at your own risk old man but don't be the least bit surprised if I tire of it and decide to manually extract your tongue.
Contradict me or correct me all you want, but I'm not Var and I won't sit here and trade insults with any of you.
Make light of this at your own risk.
Karnafexx
Date: 17 Sep 1999 11:22:19 EDT
Ian,
The difference between you and I when it come to insults is that friend or no, I'll find you and kill you if you push me too far. Call me dense and stupid at your own risk old man but don't be the least bit surprised if I tire of it and decide to manually extract your tongue.
Contradict me or correct me all you want, but I'm not Var and I won't sit here and trade insults with any of you.
Make light of this at your own risk.
Karnafexx
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 11:29:09 EDT
On her way to Amandor to get some work done in the morning, she stopped by the corkboard and simply shook her head.
Her missive, written before the situation with Ian erupted in the Arena, had been replied to. After everything that had happened. After all that pain of having the link snapped shut, the woman still couldn't resist putting a little barb in there.
Well, *Sid* certainly had no intention of bringing that kind of pain back upon her, so she slipped away, writing nothing.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 11:29:09 EDT
On her way to Amandor to get some work done in the morning, she stopped by the corkboard and simply shook her head.
Her missive, written before the situation with Ian erupted in the Arena, had been replied to. After everything that had happened. After all that pain of having the link snapped shut, the woman still couldn't resist putting a little barb in there.
Well, *Sid* certainly had no intention of bringing that kind of pain back upon her, so she slipped away, writing nothing.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 16:41:06 EDT
"Does it occur to you that I hadn't realized the loophole until I brought it up? Really, Var, you're not doing wonders for my opinion of your intelligence, if you can't draw a reasonable idea such as that."
You seem to be misunderstanding: I was saying if the situation is brought up to you, where you feel someone would take advantage of the situation, then you should bring it up. When you don't bring it up, nothing will be done.
"Given that I didn't discover the loophole until the situation presented itself, it's rather hard to bring it up beforehand, isn't it?"
Hardly. If you know something WILL happen, then it's best to bring it up. From your first two posts, it sounded like you were waiting for Marius to challenge even if you had prior knowledge. I'm not saying you need to read minds.
"What you consider common sense - or, even, what I consider common sense - may not be apparent to someone who walks in here, becomes a Warlord in three weeks, and wants to issue challenge two weeks later. And if that person sees a loophole, they'll be entirely justified in raising a manure storm over the fact that they're just following the rules. It's supremely arrogant of you to assume that just because -you- know what's "right," then it doesn't
need clarification for the rest of society. I'm disappointed."
You still miss my point; I said that it needs to be clarified, but I feel other rule clarification/changes should take priority.
"As far as Methous, I would note that it's against the law to destroy property that does not belong to you in pretty much any jurisdiction."
Using my argument (which you seemed to have incorporated here in your own words): Even though it's not in the rules, common sense says that people are not allowed to just break a ring. There's NOTHING in the rules about defacing the Arena's property. Merely common sense tells you that, because mostly any other society won't tolerate it. That common sense comes from association. Now let's associate it with Duel of Swords:
Putting it in the Duel of Swords terms, have you ever seen someone have two ranks at one time? Whether they don two commoner's titles, two swordsman's titles, or two warlord's titles; they just don't happen. Using common sense, why would such an exception be for a baron?
"you continued the nonsense about how "a Baron can't challenge a Baron" even after having it pointed out repeatedly that a Warlord had challenged a Baron; and now you're trying to blame me for the assumptions you made from trying too damned hard to
read between the lines, rather than simply reading what I said."
A baron cannot fight a challenge against another baron, intercessions excluded. This "nonsense" you refer to is what I call common sense, which I've been trying to incorporate throughout this whole argument. A warlord challenged a baron, but that warlord is now a baron. Thus, they cannot have a challenge against another baron.
And to try to say that it's my fault because you can't relay your thoughts correctly is horribly immature. You throw a tantrum when I don't read your words and analyze each syllable, yet when I read your post word for word, I have a problem for not assuming you meant otherwise.
You said: "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."
You then 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." (emphasis by me)
You are specifically saying you would have waited until he did so. What was it you were waiting for him to do? Not ONCE did you specify what it would be (until in a later post), so by using the process of elimination, the only thing you could have meant by "waited until he did so" was him pressing challenge. Using this logic, it would have been too late to ask for a rule change. This is what I thought was stupid, from the beginning.
Tell me, if I wrote: "If I knew someone was going to attack me, I would have waited till they did it, and then try to avoid it."
What do YOU assume I meant? It sounds like I'd be twiddling my thumbs while someone's eyeing me and sharpening his knife. If I waited for him to attack me, it would have been too late, just as your words state you would have waited for him to press challenge.
If you wish to continue throwing a tantrum and attempt to justify it as "losing patience," please remember that it's not because I don't understand. It's because of how your words were presented in that argument.
I do admit I initially misunderstood the meaning of the post. I'm not saying you misworded that. My argument there is incorporating some common sense, until the rules are clarified. Yes, I, personally, feel there are more important rules to address. If you still feel yours have more merit, go ahead.
"Maybe if you put the pen down and -thought- for a bit... you'd get the idea."
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps I feel you are wrong? Does anyone who feel that way "not think enough?"
I do get your idea. I do think the rules need to be clarified. I simply think other issues are more important.
Yet you continuously throw a fit saying that I lack intelligence when I have read your posts, word for word, and saying where some of your representations are (albeit misunderstanding them initially.) Does it matter? Not really, just interesting enough to mention.
However, I will close this note with the utmost simplicity, for it sums up basically everything... I think you are wrong.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 17 Sep 1999 16:41:06 EDT
"Does it occur to you that I hadn't realized the loophole until I brought it up? Really, Var, you're not doing wonders for my opinion of your intelligence, if you can't draw a reasonable idea such as that."
You seem to be misunderstanding: I was saying if the situation is brought up to you, where you feel someone would take advantage of the situation, then you should bring it up. When you don't bring it up, nothing will be done.
"Given that I didn't discover the loophole until the situation presented itself, it's rather hard to bring it up beforehand, isn't it?"
Hardly. If you know something WILL happen, then it's best to bring it up. From your first two posts, it sounded like you were waiting for Marius to challenge even if you had prior knowledge. I'm not saying you need to read minds.
"What you consider common sense - or, even, what I consider common sense - may not be apparent to someone who walks in here, becomes a Warlord in three weeks, and wants to issue challenge two weeks later. And if that person sees a loophole, they'll be entirely justified in raising a manure storm over the fact that they're just following the rules. It's supremely arrogant of you to assume that just because -you- know what's "right," then it doesn't
need clarification for the rest of society. I'm disappointed."
You still miss my point; I said that it needs to be clarified, but I feel other rule clarification/changes should take priority.
"As far as Methous, I would note that it's against the law to destroy property that does not belong to you in pretty much any jurisdiction."
Using my argument (which you seemed to have incorporated here in your own words): Even though it's not in the rules, common sense says that people are not allowed to just break a ring. There's NOTHING in the rules about defacing the Arena's property. Merely common sense tells you that, because mostly any other society won't tolerate it. That common sense comes from association. Now let's associate it with Duel of Swords:
Putting it in the Duel of Swords terms, have you ever seen someone have two ranks at one time? Whether they don two commoner's titles, two swordsman's titles, or two warlord's titles; they just don't happen. Using common sense, why would such an exception be for a baron?
"you continued the nonsense about how "a Baron can't challenge a Baron" even after having it pointed out repeatedly that a Warlord had challenged a Baron; and now you're trying to blame me for the assumptions you made from trying too damned hard to
read between the lines, rather than simply reading what I said."
A baron cannot fight a challenge against another baron, intercessions excluded. This "nonsense" you refer to is what I call common sense, which I've been trying to incorporate throughout this whole argument. A warlord challenged a baron, but that warlord is now a baron. Thus, they cannot have a challenge against another baron.
And to try to say that it's my fault because you can't relay your thoughts correctly is horribly immature. You throw a tantrum when I don't read your words and analyze each syllable, yet when I read your post word for word, I have a problem for not assuming you meant otherwise.
You said: "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."
You then 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." (emphasis by me)
You are specifically saying you would have waited until he did so. What was it you were waiting for him to do? Not ONCE did you specify what it would be (until in a later post), so by using the process of elimination, the only thing you could have meant by "waited until he did so" was him pressing challenge. Using this logic, it would have been too late to ask for a rule change. This is what I thought was stupid, from the beginning.
Tell me, if I wrote: "If I knew someone was going to attack me, I would have waited till they did it, and then try to avoid it."
What do YOU assume I meant? It sounds like I'd be twiddling my thumbs while someone's eyeing me and sharpening his knife. If I waited for him to attack me, it would have been too late, just as your words state you would have waited for him to press challenge.
If you wish to continue throwing a tantrum and attempt to justify it as "losing patience," please remember that it's not because I don't understand. It's because of how your words were presented in that argument.
I do admit I initially misunderstood the meaning of the post. I'm not saying you misworded that. My argument there is incorporating some common sense, until the rules are clarified. Yes, I, personally, feel there are more important rules to address. If you still feel yours have more merit, go ahead.
"Maybe if you put the pen down and -thought- for a bit... you'd get the idea."
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps I feel you are wrong? Does anyone who feel that way "not think enough?"
I do get your idea. I do think the rules need to be clarified. I simply think other issues are more important.
Yet you continuously throw a fit saying that I lack intelligence when I have read your posts, word for word, and saying where some of your representations are (albeit misunderstanding them initially.) Does it matter? Not really, just interesting enough to mention.
However, I will close this note with the utmost simplicity, for it sums up basically everything... I think you are wrong.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM