From: xxzenrisingxx@aol.com (Xx Zen Rising xX)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 17:18:01 EDT
""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."
But he just said he DIDN'T know it would happen!
I think that little tidbit best illustrates that you two aren't even arguing the same thing anymore.
Ian is saying the rules allow for this possiblity and (at least, I believe) that it should be changed. I DON'T believe he is arguing that Marius ought to continue with the challenge, but that seems to be what Var is taking issue with nevertheless.
Var is saying that we should use "common sense" not to allow this to happen.
I'm going to ask you this, Var: Instead of using "common sense", why don't we just have the rule changed to eliminate the possibility of this happening, and leave no questions, about the "common sense" of it or anything else?
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: 17 Sep 1999 17:23:40 EDT
Billy:
Sorry if you feel insulted, but the simple fact is... you should have known ME better than to assume I actually supported the idea. No, I don't think you're an idiot; you actually said you couldn't believe I would support such a... what was it? Preposterous?... idea. Of course... if you couldn't believe it, I'm at a loss as to why you chose to castigate me for it rather than ask me what in bloody hell I was talking about.
~irm
Date: 17 Sep 1999 17:23:40 EDT
Billy:
Sorry if you feel insulted, but the simple fact is... you should have known ME better than to assume I actually supported the idea. No, I don't think you're an idiot; you actually said you couldn't believe I would support such a... what was it? Preposterous?... idea. Of course... if you couldn't believe it, I'm at a loss as to why you chose to castigate me for it rather than ask me what in bloody hell I was talking about.
~irm
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:11:28 EDT
"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."
It's not common sense, or toleration and the lack thereof, or association. It's that in damn near every society, destroying other people's property is illegal. Methous wasn't suspended for "breaking rules." He was basically told by the owner of the property he destroyed to go sit on his thumb for awhile... just like I'd suspend you from the League if you came by my offices and started destroying League property.
"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?"
That's got to be the silliest attempt at an analogy you've offered. Simply put, the other ranks are RANKS, while Baron is a TITLE. This was the very reason Barons were determined to be peers. The Barons and the Overlord ARE still Warlords. (My protest of that situation is solely to either have "10/15 Warlords" changed to "10/15 peers" or to have it made clear in the rules that Barons and the Overlord are Warlords, as that's not stated either.)
"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."
Var... I am not going to tell you this again, and if you attempt to argue it further, expect to be soundly mocked into eternity... and not only by myself.
The rules -only- cover who may -issue- challenge, or intercede in one. They do not, ANYWHERE, refer to who may -fight- them.
"Common sense" has nothing to do with THE LETTER OF THE LAW, Var. After all, "common sense" would also stipulate that the "Test of Worthiness" shouldn't be applied to someone who's been Overlord twice, but that doesn't stop it from happening within the rules, does it?
This is about the RULES, Var, not what "makes sense." That's WHY IT'S A LOOPHOLE.
"And to try to say that it's my fault because you can't relay your thoughts correctly is horribly immature."
It's not your fault because "I can't relay my thoughts," Var. It's your fault for being too ridiculously stupid to grasp my previous section here after having had it drilled into your head repeatedly.
"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."
If you ever receive a professorship teaching logic, let me know where, so that I might advise my sons to choose another institution of higher learning. "Waited until he did so" referred to "mentioning his intent (or lack thereof) to press his challenge." I WAS, after all, referring to Marius' speaking of his intentions.
"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."
Var... using ANY logic, it was too late to ask for a rule change NO MATTER WHAT in this situation, and it became too late the second Marius clinched a tourney prize. It only became NOT too late the moment Marius "withdrew" his challenge, in fact.
And, Var... I am not "throwing a fit." I am busily being disgusted with someone who obviously has no concept of what the Rule of Law is, and thinks that his opinions should take precedence over those Rules. Just because you see a situation as "common sense" does NOT mean the rules cover it. The sooner you get over your belief that it DOES, the better off we'll all be. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you; you cannot say "sorry, you
can't do this," unless the rules SAY you can't. The only exception - Methous - ISN'T one, as the owner of a facility has every moral and legal right to bar a customer who willfully destroys their property, regardless of any posted house rules.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:11:28 EDT
"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."
It's not common sense, or toleration and the lack thereof, or association. It's that in damn near every society, destroying other people's property is illegal. Methous wasn't suspended for "breaking rules." He was basically told by the owner of the property he destroyed to go sit on his thumb for awhile... just like I'd suspend you from the League if you came by my offices and started destroying League property.
"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?"
That's got to be the silliest attempt at an analogy you've offered. Simply put, the other ranks are RANKS, while Baron is a TITLE. This was the very reason Barons were determined to be peers. The Barons and the Overlord ARE still Warlords. (My protest of that situation is solely to either have "10/15 Warlords" changed to "10/15 peers" or to have it made clear in the rules that Barons and the Overlord are Warlords, as that's not stated either.)
"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."
Var... I am not going to tell you this again, and if you attempt to argue it further, expect to be soundly mocked into eternity... and not only by myself.
The rules -only- cover who may -issue- challenge, or intercede in one. They do not, ANYWHERE, refer to who may -fight- them.
"Common sense" has nothing to do with THE LETTER OF THE LAW, Var. After all, "common sense" would also stipulate that the "Test of Worthiness" shouldn't be applied to someone who's been Overlord twice, but that doesn't stop it from happening within the rules, does it?
This is about the RULES, Var, not what "makes sense." That's WHY IT'S A LOOPHOLE.
"And to try to say that it's my fault because you can't relay your thoughts correctly is horribly immature."
It's not your fault because "I can't relay my thoughts," Var. It's your fault for being too ridiculously stupid to grasp my previous section here after having had it drilled into your head repeatedly.
"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."
If you ever receive a professorship teaching logic, let me know where, so that I might advise my sons to choose another institution of higher learning. "Waited until he did so" referred to "mentioning his intent (or lack thereof) to press his challenge." I WAS, after all, referring to Marius' speaking of his intentions.
"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."
Var... using ANY logic, it was too late to ask for a rule change NO MATTER WHAT in this situation, and it became too late the second Marius clinched a tourney prize. It only became NOT too late the moment Marius "withdrew" his challenge, in fact.
And, Var... I am not "throwing a fit." I am busily being disgusted with someone who obviously has no concept of what the Rule of Law is, and thinks that his opinions should take precedence over those Rules. Just because you see a situation as "common sense" does NOT mean the rules cover it. The sooner you get over your belief that it DOES, the better off we'll all be. I don't know how to make it any clearer to you; you cannot say "sorry, you
can't do this," unless the rules SAY you can't. The only exception - Methous - ISN'T one, as the owner of a facility has every moral and legal right to bar a customer who willfully destroys their property, regardless of any posted house rules.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:14:48 EDT
"I'm going to ask you this, Var: Instead of using "common sense", why don't we just have the rule changed to eliminate the possibility of this happening, and leave no questions, about the "common sense" of it or anything else?"
Zen... you give me hope that logical thought truly is not dead in this realm. I'm at a complete loss as to why a self-important fool feels the need to argue incessantly over this, when it's very simple... change one word, add one short sentence. You'd think I've asked for RhyDin Towne to be moved thirty miles down the road or something.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:14:48 EDT
"I'm going to ask you this, Var: Instead of using "common sense", why don't we just have the rule changed to eliminate the possibility of this happening, and leave no questions, about the "common sense" of it or anything else?"
Zen... you give me hope that logical thought truly is not dead in this realm. I'm at a complete loss as to why a self-important fool feels the need to argue incessantly over this, when it's very simple... change one word, add one short sentence. You'd think I've asked for RhyDin Towne to be moved thirty miles down the road or something.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:23:33 EDT
The Overlord and the Barons are not peers to Warlords. They are at a higher level. Personally, they should maintain and clarify the rules to state that Warlords can only accumulate peer wins by defeating only other Warlords, and the Overlord and Barons will not count any further as peer wins.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:23:33 EDT
The Overlord and the Barons are not peers to Warlords. They are at a higher level. Personally, they should maintain and clarify the rules to state that Warlords can only accumulate peer wins by defeating only other Warlords, and the Overlord and Barons will not count any further as peer wins.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:37:32 EDT
"The Overlord and the Barons are not peers to Warlords. They are at a higher level. Personally, they should maintain and clarify the rules to state that Warlords can only accumulate peer wins by defeating only other Warlords, and the Overlord and Barons will not count any further as peer wins."
Well, Elijah... no offense intended, but your opinion on this matter was made irrelevant when the rule was adopted during the same Rules Discussion which brought forth the Baron's Council. My protest is a result of that rule - although passed and made public at the time - failing to be clarified clearly in the actual rules.
If you don't have respect for those rules which are brought about as a result of community rules discussions... then you might consider not taking part in them yourself. Now, let's be clear here - I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't take part. I'm only saying that if you don't respect the results of the process, then distancing yourself from said process is a reasonable act.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:37:32 EDT
"The Overlord and the Barons are not peers to Warlords. They are at a higher level. Personally, they should maintain and clarify the rules to state that Warlords can only accumulate peer wins by defeating only other Warlords, and the Overlord and Barons will not count any further as peer wins."
Well, Elijah... no offense intended, but your opinion on this matter was made irrelevant when the rule was adopted during the same Rules Discussion which brought forth the Baron's Council. My protest is a result of that rule - although passed and made public at the time - failing to be clarified clearly in the actual rules.
If you don't have respect for those rules which are brought about as a result of community rules discussions... then you might consider not taking part in them yourself. Now, let's be clear here - I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't take part. I'm only saying that if you don't respect the results of the process, then distancing yourself from said process is a reasonable act.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:53:41 EDT
Ian,
I was merely expressing an opinion and a view about how things are. The rules are constantly being changed and are about to go under review again. And as it sometimes happens, the community has changed and as happens perhaps though one measure of change may not be approved last time, perhaps this time it will be. Not just this issue, but many issues, such as your own "Duke" idea.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
Date: 17 Sep 1999 18:53:41 EDT
Ian,
I was merely expressing an opinion and a view about how things are. The rules are constantly being changed and are about to go under review again. And as it sometimes happens, the community has changed and as happens perhaps though one measure of change may not be approved last time, perhaps this time it will be. Not just this issue, but many issues, such as your own "Duke" idea.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rdigolden@aol.com (RDI Golden)
Date: 18 Sep 1999 01:03:09 EDT
>
>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?
Lady Starfare,
To answer your questions. No such ruling was ever made. If you want the full details of what happened, make sure you have your reading glasses, because you're about to get them.
Lady Topaz herself approached me one evening, the evening of the challenge match in fact, to discuss this matter with me. She told me exactly what happened, and I agreed that the Baroness was in the wrong. I told her her options, as I will tell you now. She could either refuse to duel the challenge that night and let the matter be taken to the Baron's Council, as you have already mentioned. Or she could duel the match that night anyway. She
herself chose the latter. Also, I believe I sent a note to the Baroness informing her of her error, as per the agreement reached between Lady Topaz and myself. At no point was Lady Topaz forced to duel this match, and she fully knew all of her options. You are incorrect that I made any determinations or decisions in this matter. Please get all of the facts on a topic before deciding to question my integrity. Thank you.
Golden Evermeadow
Date: 18 Sep 1999 01:03:09 EDT
>
>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?
Lady Starfare,
To answer your questions. No such ruling was ever made. If you want the full details of what happened, make sure you have your reading glasses, because you're about to get them.
Lady Topaz herself approached me one evening, the evening of the challenge match in fact, to discuss this matter with me. She told me exactly what happened, and I agreed that the Baroness was in the wrong. I told her her options, as I will tell you now. She could either refuse to duel the challenge that night and let the matter be taken to the Baron's Council, as you have already mentioned. Or she could duel the match that night anyway. She
herself chose the latter. Also, I believe I sent a note to the Baroness informing her of her error, as per the agreement reached between Lady Topaz and myself. At no point was Lady Topaz forced to duel this match, and she fully knew all of her options. You are incorrect that I made any determinations or decisions in this matter. Please get all of the facts on a topic before deciding to question my integrity. Thank you.
Golden Evermeadow
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 18 Sep 1999 02:09:39 EDT
Master Evermeadow,
I do thank thee most kindly for thine comments. Tis if I do understand thee, thou art then confirming that the then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana dinna fulfill th' requirement th' she mus' apprise both th' challenger and t' Standings Keeper by missive in that challenge. Tis I mus' ask thee howe'er, yuir reasons fer permittin th' match ta continue knowing ast thee seem ta tha' th' Baroness hae disregarded t' rules...again.
Certes I do wish nae t' question either yuir integrity nor th' 'o the Lady Topaz, bu' I mus' further inquire if'n thee then made nae comment unto the Lady Topaz ast t' what thee wouldst advise t' Council t' do shouldst th' Lady Topaz chose nae t' duel th' Baroness? Perforce, Master Evermeadow, tis indeed, I mos' assuredly wish t' git th' facts straight in th' matter. I wouldst certes 'ope thee wouldst wish th' community ast well t' nae be mislead
or misinformed in this matter.
Respectfully,
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 18 Sep 1999 02:09:39 EDT
Master Evermeadow,
I do thank thee most kindly for thine comments. Tis if I do understand thee, thou art then confirming that the then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana dinna fulfill th' requirement th' she mus' apprise both th' challenger and t' Standings Keeper by missive in that challenge. Tis I mus' ask thee howe'er, yuir reasons fer permittin th' match ta continue knowing ast thee seem ta tha' th' Baroness hae disregarded t' rules...again.
Certes I do wish nae t' question either yuir integrity nor th' 'o the Lady Topaz, bu' I mus' further inquire if'n thee then made nae comment unto the Lady Topaz ast t' what thee wouldst advise t' Council t' do shouldst th' Lady Topaz chose nae t' duel th' Baroness? Perforce, Master Evermeadow, tis indeed, I mos' assuredly wish t' git th' facts straight in th' matter. I wouldst certes 'ope thee wouldst wish th' community ast well t' nae be mislead
or misinformed in this matter.
Respectfully,
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jaycyashleana@aol.com (Jaycy Ashleana)
Date: 18 Sep 1999 21:36:54 EDT
>Also, I believe I sent a note to the Baroness informing her of her error, as
>per the agreement reached between Lady Topaz and myself.
Reading this, Jaycy frowns... she never got a letter from Golden regarding this.
With a shrug, she moves back to where she belongs.. apparently away from here.
Date: 18 Sep 1999 21:36:54 EDT
>Also, I believe I sent a note to the Baroness informing her of her error, as
>per the agreement reached between Lady Topaz and myself.
Reading this, Jaycy frowns... she never got a letter from Golden regarding this.
With a shrug, she moves back to where she belongs.. apparently away from here.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Sep 1999 05:12:26 EDT
Point of order.
If I remember the situation correctly, the Lady Topaz approached me some two days before her duel with Jaycynda, asking if I had received a letter from the Baroness confirming the challenge.
I told her that I had not. I further told her that, even though the Baroness was my friend, I would not remind her of that requirement and that she ( the Lady Topaz ) should proceed as she saw fit.
Further, I believe, though again I am not certain as those papers are no longer in my files, that the duel was held exactly one week after my letter confirming the Lady Topaz' challenge was sent out. Therefore, I was unable to declare the Baroness in forfeit of the challenge as the duel was fought before the one week period was over.
I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to Lady Topaz. I also recall informing her that I felt her very fortunate that the Lady Topaz had not simply waited a day and had me declare her in forfeit of the challenge, which most certainly would have occurred.
I believe the Lady Topaz' decisions on this matter show her high degree of sportsmanship and honor, holding to the spirit of the rules rather than hanging someone by the letter of the rules.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 19 Sep 1999 05:12:26 EDT
Point of order.
If I remember the situation correctly, the Lady Topaz approached me some two days before her duel with Jaycynda, asking if I had received a letter from the Baroness confirming the challenge.
I told her that I had not. I further told her that, even though the Baroness was my friend, I would not remind her of that requirement and that she ( the Lady Topaz ) should proceed as she saw fit.
Further, I believe, though again I am not certain as those papers are no longer in my files, that the duel was held exactly one week after my letter confirming the Lady Topaz' challenge was sent out. Therefore, I was unable to declare the Baroness in forfeit of the challenge as the duel was fought before the one week period was over.
I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to Lady Topaz. I also recall informing her that I felt her very fortunate that the Lady Topaz had not simply waited a day and had me declare her in forfeit of the challenge, which most certainly would have occurred.
I believe the Lady Topaz' decisions on this matter show her high degree of sportsmanship and honor, holding to the spirit of the rules rather than hanging someone by the letter of the rules.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 19 Sep 1999 13:21:59 EDT
" I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to Lady Topaz. I also recall informing her that I felt her very fortunate that the Lady Topaz had not simply waited a day and had me declare her in forfeit of the challenge, which most certainly would have occurred."
What a confusing state of affairs...
We have Topaz, on one end, saying that she never received a letter of acceptance from Jaycy.
We have Golden saying he sent a letter to Jaycy informing her that she has to send a letter of acceptance.
We have Drake saying she was handed the letter of acceptance that was sent to Topaz, from Jaycy.
But I am confused by one thing, Drake. If you did receive a letter from Jaycy, how do you feel she's fortunate? If Jaycy did officially accept the challenge, then there was no way that Topaz could have waited one day and declare a forfeit.
The root of the question is: Was Jaycy's challenge officially accepted? Or was it just another unofficial challenge that shouldn't have taken place?
However, things seem rather shady. We have different stories from different people, on the same subject. The stories, more or less, contradict eachother. Things truly seem sad, though. I'll be sincerely disappointed if Jaycy was allowed to break another rule in her challenge.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 19 Sep 1999 13:21:59 EDT
" I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to Lady Topaz. I also recall informing her that I felt her very fortunate that the Lady Topaz had not simply waited a day and had me declare her in forfeit of the challenge, which most certainly would have occurred."
What a confusing state of affairs...
We have Topaz, on one end, saying that she never received a letter of acceptance from Jaycy.
We have Golden saying he sent a letter to Jaycy informing her that she has to send a letter of acceptance.
We have Drake saying she was handed the letter of acceptance that was sent to Topaz, from Jaycy.
But I am confused by one thing, Drake. If you did receive a letter from Jaycy, how do you feel she's fortunate? If Jaycy did officially accept the challenge, then there was no way that Topaz could have waited one day and declare a forfeit.
The root of the question is: Was Jaycy's challenge officially accepted? Or was it just another unofficial challenge that shouldn't have taken place?
However, things seem rather shady. We have different stories from different people, on the same subject. The stories, more or less, contradict eachother. Things truly seem sad, though. I'll be sincerely disappointed if Jaycy was allowed to break another rule in her challenge.
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: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 19 Sep 1999 14:03:06 EDT
Var,
This isn't meant to be insulting or mean, but why are you persueing this? Jayc is no longer a Baroness, so let it lie. No one is going to get punished or made to lose their position over furthering it. You can't change history and no one is going to get anything out of furthering this issue except some personal satisfaction of rubbing it in someone's face that they made another or more of a mistake. If you are that bored go crunch some more
numbers and stats about some challenges or tournies. Perhaps if we quit worrying about who did what in the past over stuff that isn't going to be changed anyway or it's too late to ammend, and focus on the here and now, we might get some where.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
Date: 19 Sep 1999 14:03:06 EDT
Var,
This isn't meant to be insulting or mean, but why are you persueing this? Jayc is no longer a Baroness, so let it lie. No one is going to get punished or made to lose their position over furthering it. You can't change history and no one is going to get anything out of furthering this issue except some personal satisfaction of rubbing it in someone's face that they made another or more of a mistake. If you are that bored go crunch some more
numbers and stats about some challenges or tournies. Perhaps if we quit worrying about who did what in the past over stuff that isn't going to be changed anyway or it's too late to ammend, and focus on the here and now, we might get some where.
As Guardian of the Seventh till Draco fails me,
~Elijah Eagle Ecore~
~Baron of Swords~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 19 Sep 1999 14:24:54 EDT
"This isn't meant to be insulting or mean, but why are you persueing this?"
Because I want to know. I have no intent to change the past, but hearing of these rules constantly being broken has a hold of my curiosity.
" If you are that bored go crunch some more
numbers and stats about some challenges or tournies."
How about this for some stats then?
Number of invalid challenges that have been allowed to pass:
To my knowledge only the third ring has had two invalid challenges to go by untouched, and both of the instances involved Jaycy.
Interesting stats, huh?
"Perhaps if we quit worrying about who did what in the past over stuff that isn't going to be changed anyway or it's too late to ammend, and focus on the here and now, we might get some where."
I don't want to just shrug my shoulders when the rules of the arena are being ignored, E. Sorry, but when it comes to the arena, I'd like to worry about it, and understand it. Of course, I am still eager to work on today with the arena, don't get me wrong.
" I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to Lady Topaz."
It's been brought to my attention that I misunderstood what Drake meant here. I guess Jaycy sent a letter of acceptance after the challenge was fought. I guess I didn't expect someone to send a letter of acceptance AFTER the challenge has been fought (frankly, I think it's silly and it's something I didn't expect), but it's my fault for misunderstanding. No contradicting stories, then... Apparently just a wave of dismissal to a few of the
rules.
Just sad... the whole situation's just very sad.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 19 Sep 1999 14:24:54 EDT
"This isn't meant to be insulting or mean, but why are you persueing this?"
Because I want to know. I have no intent to change the past, but hearing of these rules constantly being broken has a hold of my curiosity.
" If you are that bored go crunch some more
numbers and stats about some challenges or tournies."
How about this for some stats then?
Number of invalid challenges that have been allowed to pass:
To my knowledge only the third ring has had two invalid challenges to go by untouched, and both of the instances involved Jaycy.
Interesting stats, huh?
"Perhaps if we quit worrying about who did what in the past over stuff that isn't going to be changed anyway or it's too late to ammend, and focus on the here and now, we might get some where."
I don't want to just shrug my shoulders when the rules of the arena are being ignored, E. Sorry, but when it comes to the arena, I'd like to worry about it, and understand it. Of course, I am still eager to work on today with the arena, don't get me wrong.
" I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to Lady Topaz."
It's been brought to my attention that I misunderstood what Drake meant here. I guess Jaycy sent a letter of acceptance after the challenge was fought. I guess I didn't expect someone to send a letter of acceptance AFTER the challenge has been fought (frankly, I think it's silly and it's something I didn't expect), but it's my fault for misunderstanding. No contradicting stories, then... Apparently just a wave of dismissal to a few of the
rules.
Just sad... the whole situation's just very sad.
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: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 19 Sep 1999 15:06:43 EDT
>" I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at
>which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to
>Lady Topaz."
I think what's being said here, Var, Is not that Jaycy sent a letter of acceptance "After" the challenge was fought, but that Jaycy sent a letter of acceptance to Topaz, but not Drake. And when Drake said something, Jaycy sent a copy of the one she sent Topaz. Drake brought it up after the duel was fought though.
I probably was confusing there.. However, I do think that a letter of acceptance was supposed to go to both challenger and Standings keeper.
Also keep in mind, it was fully within Topaz' power to refuse the date and time Jaycy chose.
*G*
P.S. I'm not insulting anyone here, nor was I trying. I'm just hoping to clear some things up.
Date: 19 Sep 1999 15:06:43 EDT
>" I do recall discussing this with the Baroness later that same day, at
>which time she gave me a copy of the acceptance letter that she had mailed to
>Lady Topaz."
I think what's being said here, Var, Is not that Jaycy sent a letter of acceptance "After" the challenge was fought, but that Jaycy sent a letter of acceptance to Topaz, but not Drake. And when Drake said something, Jaycy sent a copy of the one she sent Topaz. Drake brought it up after the duel was fought though.
I probably was confusing there.. However, I do think that a letter of acceptance was supposed to go to both challenger and Standings keeper.
Also keep in mind, it was fully within Topaz' power to refuse the date and time Jaycy chose.
*G*
P.S. I'm not insulting anyone here, nor was I trying. I'm just hoping to clear some things up.