From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 11:36:40 EDT
::sighs and writes again::
Jonalyn and Drakewyn~
I'll write in nice, large letters for the both of you.
CAN WE GET BACK TO THE SUBJECT AND STOP TALKING ABOUT PERSONAL MATTERS THAT ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS???
If you are not certain of the subject, I'll give it you.
Subject: The Challenge between Topaz and Jaycynda.
Got it now?
Annoyed,
~Sidartha
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: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 11:37:29 EDT
"I see you suffer from Drakewyn syndrome where you believe each thing you write merits response."
And we have the award for the unnecessary insult of the day.
Good gods..
~Sid
Date: 22 Sep 1999 11:37:29 EDT
"I see you suffer from Drakewyn syndrome where you believe each thing you write merits response."
And we have the award for the unnecessary insult of the day.
Good gods..
~Sid
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 12:26:13 EDT
I will talk about anything I want to talk about where ever I want to talk about it, Sidartha, so save your pat protests and condescending sighs for someone else who buys into it.
Drakewyn is in a position that requires certain high levels of impartiality. It is everyone's business when she acts in less-than-impartial ways. She would be best served keeping her personal opinions of others to herself. One never knows when she may have to deal with that person on a professional level.
I, for one, will never trust her to be impartial where it concerns the dueling career of someone she does not like. Perhaps if new policies were implemented and she was reined in... but considering who's lap she sits in (figuratively speaking?), that is unlikely to happen considering his own lack of impartial ability.
Date: 22 Sep 1999 12:26:13 EDT
I will talk about anything I want to talk about where ever I want to talk about it, Sidartha, so save your pat protests and condescending sighs for someone else who buys into it.
Drakewyn is in a position that requires certain high levels of impartiality. It is everyone's business when she acts in less-than-impartial ways. She would be best served keeping her personal opinions of others to herself. One never knows when she may have to deal with that person on a professional level.
I, for one, will never trust her to be impartial where it concerns the dueling career of someone she does not like. Perhaps if new policies were implemented and she was reined in... but considering who's lap she sits in (figuratively speaking?), that is unlikely to happen considering his own lack of impartial ability.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 12:42:23 EDT
>I, for one, will never trust her to be impartial where it concerns the
>dueling career of someone she does not like.
Of course, we are all aware of Morgan's impartiality on the subject of Drakewyn. We are certainly aware of her objectivity in forming her opinions of Drakewyn's ethics or lack of it. I know that I, for one, know exactly how much I trust Morgan to be impartial in her assessment of the character of someone she dislikes. We have also all seen her own sterling character as well. If anything, Drakewyn is quite circumspect in her opinions by comparison.
Of course, you say, Morgan is not the standings keeper. This is true. However, I do not believe there is anything, anywhere, that says an official gives up their humanity (I use the term metaphorically not literally) to become perfect or Godlike. Nor do I believe that there is any disclaimer warning them that they have made themselves a target of every disgruntled whiner.
To be frank, some people just aren't happy unless they have someone to belittle, it would seem.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 22 Sep 1999 12:42:23 EDT
>I, for one, will never trust her to be impartial where it concerns the
>dueling career of someone she does not like.
Of course, we are all aware of Morgan's impartiality on the subject of Drakewyn. We are certainly aware of her objectivity in forming her opinions of Drakewyn's ethics or lack of it. I know that I, for one, know exactly how much I trust Morgan to be impartial in her assessment of the character of someone she dislikes. We have also all seen her own sterling character as well. If anything, Drakewyn is quite circumspect in her opinions by comparison.
Of course, you say, Morgan is not the standings keeper. This is true. However, I do not believe there is anything, anywhere, that says an official gives up their humanity (I use the term metaphorically not literally) to become perfect or Godlike. Nor do I believe that there is any disclaimer warning them that they have made themselves a target of every disgruntled whiner.
To be frank, some people just aren't happy unless they have someone to belittle, it would seem.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 12:42:23 EDT
>I, for one, will never trust her to be impartial where it concerns the
>dueling career of someone she does not like.
Of course, we are all aware of Morgan's impartiality on the subject of Drakewyn. We are certainly aware of her objectivity in forming her opinions of Drakewyn's ethics or lack of it. I know that I, for one, know exactly how much I trust Morgan to be impartial in her assessment of the character of someone she dislikes. We have also all seen her own sterling character as well. If anything, Drakewyn is quite circumspect in her opinions by comparison.
Of course, you say, Morgan is not the standings keeper. This is true. However, I do not believe there is anything, anywhere, that says an official gives up their humanity (I use the term metaphorically not literally) to become perfect or Godlike. Nor do I believe that there is any disclaimer warning them that they have made themselves a target of every disgruntled whiner.
To be frank, some people just aren't happy unless they have someone to belittle, it would seem.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 22 Sep 1999 12:42:23 EDT
>I, for one, will never trust her to be impartial where it concerns the
>dueling career of someone she does not like.
Of course, we are all aware of Morgan's impartiality on the subject of Drakewyn. We are certainly aware of her objectivity in forming her opinions of Drakewyn's ethics or lack of it. I know that I, for one, know exactly how much I trust Morgan to be impartial in her assessment of the character of someone she dislikes. We have also all seen her own sterling character as well. If anything, Drakewyn is quite circumspect in her opinions by comparison.
Of course, you say, Morgan is not the standings keeper. This is true. However, I do not believe there is anything, anywhere, that says an official gives up their humanity (I use the term metaphorically not literally) to become perfect or Godlike. Nor do I believe that there is any disclaimer warning them that they have made themselves a target of every disgruntled whiner.
To be frank, some people just aren't happy unless they have someone to belittle, it would seem.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 13:41:13 EDT
Percival, your entire post is irrelevant as usual, bravo for your consistency and flair for showcasing your complete lack of intellectual reasoning. When I choose to make an argument regarding the topic of patron bias and the impact of that bias upon the duels and another's dueling career, I will certainly make every effort to notify you so you can make this argument at that time.
As expected, since you cannot adequately deal with the actual argument I made on its own, you twist it around into something different, yet easy for you to attack. You must feel like a big smart man now, eh?
Now that you have gotten your token inanity out, and felt so much better for it, let us bring you back over here, oh lost one, so you can see that what I am discussing is an official's inability to be impartial, not a patron's, and the impact that official's obvious bias has on a patron's dueling career. You can yammer on about your opinion of me, but it will never address the argument I put forth.
To refresh your addled memory (the stroke must have impaired more of your brain than originally thought), I have at no time held an official position within these halls and as such my impartiality does not aid or adversely affect anyone's legitimate right to participate in this sport. For you to try to make that the argument is quite humorous, albeit stupid.
If you cannot see the ethical difference between a biased patron with no viable means of power over any other patron and a biased official controlling a patron's records/challenge status, then you are so sadly naive it pains me to think about. The fact that you have managed to survive so long with such simple-mindedness attests to the maxim of "dumb luck." Perhaps I could make a Sitting Duck Code of Conduct item just for you, but I believe that would
only encourage you to act more logically bereft than you already are.
Cheers.
Date: 22 Sep 1999 13:41:13 EDT
Percival, your entire post is irrelevant as usual, bravo for your consistency and flair for showcasing your complete lack of intellectual reasoning. When I choose to make an argument regarding the topic of patron bias and the impact of that bias upon the duels and another's dueling career, I will certainly make every effort to notify you so you can make this argument at that time.
As expected, since you cannot adequately deal with the actual argument I made on its own, you twist it around into something different, yet easy for you to attack. You must feel like a big smart man now, eh?
Now that you have gotten your token inanity out, and felt so much better for it, let us bring you back over here, oh lost one, so you can see that what I am discussing is an official's inability to be impartial, not a patron's, and the impact that official's obvious bias has on a patron's dueling career. You can yammer on about your opinion of me, but it will never address the argument I put forth.
To refresh your addled memory (the stroke must have impaired more of your brain than originally thought), I have at no time held an official position within these halls and as such my impartiality does not aid or adversely affect anyone's legitimate right to participate in this sport. For you to try to make that the argument is quite humorous, albeit stupid.
If you cannot see the ethical difference between a biased patron with no viable means of power over any other patron and a biased official controlling a patron's records/challenge status, then you are so sadly naive it pains me to think about. The fact that you have managed to survive so long with such simple-mindedness attests to the maxim of "dumb luck." Perhaps I could make a Sitting Duck Code of Conduct item just for you, but I believe that would
only encourage you to act more logically bereft than you already are.
Cheers.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 13:46:31 EDT
>o refresh your addled memory (the stroke must have impaired more of your
>brain than originally thought), I have at no time held an official position
>within these halls and as such my impartiality does not aid or adversely
>affect anyone's legitimate right to participate in this sport. For you to try
>to make that the argument is quite humorous, albeit stupid.
Morgan,
Your impartiality, or lack of it, affects how others see your judgements of others. Your personal opinion of someone, and your track record for making rather serious and often rather baseless accusations based on your dislike of people, affects your credibility when you make an accusation. Simply put, I generally assume that if you accuse someone, they are probably innocent. That tends to be your record.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 22 Sep 1999 13:46:31 EDT
>o refresh your addled memory (the stroke must have impaired more of your
>brain than originally thought), I have at no time held an official position
>within these halls and as such my impartiality does not aid or adversely
>affect anyone's legitimate right to participate in this sport. For you to try
>to make that the argument is quite humorous, albeit stupid.
Morgan,
Your impartiality, or lack of it, affects how others see your judgements of others. Your personal opinion of someone, and your track record for making rather serious and often rather baseless accusations based on your dislike of people, affects your credibility when you make an accusation. Simply put, I generally assume that if you accuse someone, they are probably innocent. That tends to be your record.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 15:30:29 EDT
"Bringing this discussion back around to the original topic:
At this stage, I think it worth noting that the rule in question in the current conversation is one intended to protect the challenger. As such, Lord Evermeadow's ruling did, indeed, meet the "common sense" interpretation; Topaz, the challenger, was informed that if she wished to go ahead and disregard the infraction, the duel would stand - as the only party negatively impacted was, indeed, Topaz herself. The Baroness' failure to properly respond
did not impact other possible challengers, and, in fact, only those who study the rules and their application with the diligence of a legal scholar would even have noted the infraction.
That said... we all know my opinion on "common sense" interpretations of that which is and is not written. It would seem to me that, in the case of rules which are solely to protect one combatant in a challenge, language should be inserted allowing them the option to "decline the penalty," to borrow an old Terran sporting term. Barring that, it would certainly seem a rule was violated, and was not dealt with within the letter of the rules.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
"
Actually, Ian, it is a direct violation written in the Universal Terms of Challenge. It says:
"All challenges and answer to challenge must be sent to both the Standings Keeper and Baron or Overlord being challenged for purposes of notification and validation.
A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation and dueled within two weeks of the response."
There is no point where common sense needs to be implied. In fact, Golden made a ruling that is against the Universal Terms of Challenge.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 22 Sep 1999 15:30:29 EDT
"Bringing this discussion back around to the original topic:
At this stage, I think it worth noting that the rule in question in the current conversation is one intended to protect the challenger. As such, Lord Evermeadow's ruling did, indeed, meet the "common sense" interpretation; Topaz, the challenger, was informed that if she wished to go ahead and disregard the infraction, the duel would stand - as the only party negatively impacted was, indeed, Topaz herself. The Baroness' failure to properly respond
did not impact other possible challengers, and, in fact, only those who study the rules and their application with the diligence of a legal scholar would even have noted the infraction.
That said... we all know my opinion on "common sense" interpretations of that which is and is not written. It would seem to me that, in the case of rules which are solely to protect one combatant in a challenge, language should be inserted allowing them the option to "decline the penalty," to borrow an old Terran sporting term. Barring that, it would certainly seem a rule was violated, and was not dealt with within the letter of the rules.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
"
Actually, Ian, it is a direct violation written in the Universal Terms of Challenge. It says:
"All challenges and answer to challenge must be sent to both the Standings Keeper and Baron or Overlord being challenged for purposes of notification and validation.
A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation and dueled within two weeks of the response."
There is no point where common sense needs to be implied. In fact, Golden made a ruling that is against the Universal Terms of 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: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 15:49:04 EDT
>There is no point where common sense needs to be implied. In fact, Golden
>made a ruling that is against the Universal Terms of Challenge.
>
Now that someone has made a post back on the original topic and isn't just jumping on the bandwagon, here we go again. Var is right. This covers explicit rules. Not much that needs to be clarified this long after the fact. Nor do their seem to be the extenuating circumstances that were in existence surrounding the original challenge. On this end of the matter, the charge would be accurate.
Considering Topaz's statements, and she has no reason to lie, it would seem that Golden was definitely in the wrong here. This was not a matter of rectifying an error that caused the situation in the first place, but a definite infraction. This raises a question in my mind. Two successive supervisors have seemed to have made major errors regarding fairly explicit rules.
I have to wonder what is going on, what patrons are not being told, and what the staff policy on the rules is.
I also have to add that I in no way apologize to Morgan. I still strongly question her motives and real intent.
I also have to ask a question I asked once before. Where are the signs of the Supervisor's leadership, even his presence, in such a discussion? Drake has been the one defending the staff position, Golden has been silent. Visibly, while Drake has loyally defended him, she would seem to not be receiving equal support from the top. While I cannot tell Drake how to think or feel, were I treated in such a way by someone I was defending so vocally, I
would be rather angry.
The issue here is Golden's decisions. Drake, a loyal employee, has defended her superior and received the expected attack from her usual enemies. Why isn't her loyalty being visibly returned?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 22 Sep 1999 15:49:04 EDT
>There is no point where common sense needs to be implied. In fact, Golden
>made a ruling that is against the Universal Terms of Challenge.
>
Now that someone has made a post back on the original topic and isn't just jumping on the bandwagon, here we go again. Var is right. This covers explicit rules. Not much that needs to be clarified this long after the fact. Nor do their seem to be the extenuating circumstances that were in existence surrounding the original challenge. On this end of the matter, the charge would be accurate.
Considering Topaz's statements, and she has no reason to lie, it would seem that Golden was definitely in the wrong here. This was not a matter of rectifying an error that caused the situation in the first place, but a definite infraction. This raises a question in my mind. Two successive supervisors have seemed to have made major errors regarding fairly explicit rules.
I have to wonder what is going on, what patrons are not being told, and what the staff policy on the rules is.
I also have to add that I in no way apologize to Morgan. I still strongly question her motives and real intent.
I also have to ask a question I asked once before. Where are the signs of the Supervisor's leadership, even his presence, in such a discussion? Drake has been the one defending the staff position, Golden has been silent. Visibly, while Drake has loyally defended him, she would seem to not be receiving equal support from the top. While I cannot tell Drake how to think or feel, were I treated in such a way by someone I was defending so vocally, I
would be rather angry.
The issue here is Golden's decisions. Drake, a loyal employee, has defended her superior and received the expected attack from her usual enemies. Why isn't her loyalty being visibly returned?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 15:51:03 EDT
Gods, Ian, it must be just you, because I sometimes have a hard time catching onto your words.
However, if you have a problem with the "common sense" philosophy of mine, at least remember what I did say:
Some rules do need to be reworded/clarified/changed. There are some that take priority, and until we get to the other rules, common sense should be used.
In this case, it's a rule that should be clarified very soon. It's not one that should be put off.
Of course, in the case a rule isn't clarified at all, common sense must be implemented where there's a discrepancy.
Please remember the argument before trying to bash it. In my opinion, this is not a rule to be put off.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 22 Sep 1999 15:51:03 EDT
Gods, Ian, it must be just you, because I sometimes have a hard time catching onto your words.
However, if you have a problem with the "common sense" philosophy of mine, at least remember what I did say:
Some rules do need to be reworded/clarified/changed. There are some that take priority, and until we get to the other rules, common sense should be used.
In this case, it's a rule that should be clarified very soon. It's not one that should be put off.
Of course, in the case a rule isn't clarified at all, common sense must be implemented where there's a discrepancy.
Please remember the argument before trying to bash it. In my opinion, this is not a rule to be put off.
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: ladythesbe@aol.com (LadyThesbe)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 16:06:44 EDT
>
>If you cannot see the ethical difference between a biased patron with no
>viable means of power over any other patron and a biased official controlling
>a patron's records/challenge status
(Partial quote)
I will make the assumption this was from Lady Morgana, forgive me if I am in error.
Although I have not dueled here often, I have read the rules and the posts upon this board and I will freely admit that there are some things that seem to contradict common sense. I am no expert on the rules, nor do I claim to be, please try to remember this when replying if I have made some obvious mistake.
In what situation would a single official have sole province over your records and or challenge status?
Other than when they are calling a normal duel, for I believe I read that in a challenge you can protest the caller chosen.
I believe that you can request a specific official even for a normal duel, provided there is more than one on duty.
Curiously,
Thesbe
Date: 22 Sep 1999 16:06:44 EDT
>
>If you cannot see the ethical difference between a biased patron with no
>viable means of power over any other patron and a biased official controlling
>a patron's records/challenge status
(Partial quote)
I will make the assumption this was from Lady Morgana, forgive me if I am in error.
Although I have not dueled here often, I have read the rules and the posts upon this board and I will freely admit that there are some things that seem to contradict common sense. I am no expert on the rules, nor do I claim to be, please try to remember this when replying if I have made some obvious mistake.
In what situation would a single official have sole province over your records and or challenge status?
Other than when they are calling a normal duel, for I believe I read that in a challenge you can protest the caller chosen.
I believe that you can request a specific official even for a normal duel, provided there is more than one on duty.
Curiously,
Thesbe
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 16:09:55 EDT
" Now that someone has made a post back on the original topic and isn't just jumping on the bandwagon, here we go again. Var is right. This covers explicit rules. Not much that needs to be clarified this long after the fact. Nor do their seem to be the extenuating circumstances that were in existence surrounding the original challenge. On this end of the matter, the charge
would be accurate."
Percival,
Unless I'm mistaken (and I sometimes am), I believe Ian's point was stating "According to the rules, because Topaz went along with it, there is no infraction that could be implied."
Nothing is stated in the rules as to what happens if the challenger goes along with it. In the Topaz/Jaycy case, Jaycy got away with it. Of course, this should be clarified as soon as possible, which is what I feel Ian's point was.
In my second reply to Ian, I realize that the term "bash" was a poor choice of wording. I just don't think this was a good instance to make reference to it. This event, which Ian is bringing up my "common sense" argument, simply doesn't meet MY personal criteria of using common sense. Of course, because I was one of the only people who constantly spoke of it earlier, I feel he was making reference to me, which I answered.
All I can say now is, "ugh, sorry for the confusion and the many posts." There are so many thoughts on this matter that they just seem to scatter.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 22 Sep 1999 16:09:55 EDT
" Now that someone has made a post back on the original topic and isn't just jumping on the bandwagon, here we go again. Var is right. This covers explicit rules. Not much that needs to be clarified this long after the fact. Nor do their seem to be the extenuating circumstances that were in existence surrounding the original challenge. On this end of the matter, the charge
would be accurate."
Percival,
Unless I'm mistaken (and I sometimes am), I believe Ian's point was stating "According to the rules, because Topaz went along with it, there is no infraction that could be implied."
Nothing is stated in the rules as to what happens if the challenger goes along with it. In the Topaz/Jaycy case, Jaycy got away with it. Of course, this should be clarified as soon as possible, which is what I feel Ian's point was.
In my second reply to Ian, I realize that the term "bash" was a poor choice of wording. I just don't think this was a good instance to make reference to it. This event, which Ian is bringing up my "common sense" argument, simply doesn't meet MY personal criteria of using common sense. Of course, because I was one of the only people who constantly spoke of it earlier, I feel he was making reference to me, which I answered.
All I can say now is, "ugh, sorry for the confusion and the many posts." There are so many thoughts on this matter that they just seem to scatter.
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: 22 Sep 1999 19:59:41 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
Ast seems apparent, thee aire mistaken in' t' subject. How quaint that thee chose t' utilize large letters. Tis perhaps th' be th' way thee instruct thine bairns? Madame, t' subject be th' blithe an' continuin' floutin' 'o t' rules ast well ast th' less th' stellar record 'o Madame Drakewyn t' apply t' rules 'o engagement wi' utter neutrality nae t' mention competence. Further, tis seemin' Master Evermeadow hae also, in th' instance 'o th' Lady
Topaz's challenge agin th' then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, knowin'ly permitted an impropriety. Perhaps thee wouldst rise an' peek below thee. Thine own cacklin' seems t' hae produced an egg. Do be wary thee dinna find it 'pon yuir face, aye?
Percy poo,
Tis amusin' th' thee yet babble 'bout extenuating circumstances durin' Madame Ashleana's original challenge unta th' then Baron Evan Rush Rynth. T'was nae anna circumstance other th' that th' lass wast permitted t' git away wi' another illegal challenge. Ta charge in th' matter ist precisely ast accurate ast was th' first.
Ast ta' wh' Madame Silvertree be attemptin' t' defend, tis methinks she be attemptin' t' defend t' fact th' t' rules 'o engagement aire nae applied equally, fer which, tis nae defense attal. Master Evermeadow hae stated 'e dinna make anna new rulin' settin' aside t' requirement fer t' challenged t' apprise t' Standin's Keeper 'o th' official acceptance 'o a challenge. If'n th' be given credence tis nae anna need t' defend Master Evermeadow, save
th' 'e dinna follow 'is own rulin'. If'n Madame Silvertree be defendin' th', tis she then be defendin' impropriety by th' Supervisor, neh? Tis right interestin' th' thee seem t' be defendin' impropriety, ast well ast those wh' defend it. Simply put, I wouldst generally presume those thee defend wouldst more likely be guilty, fore in th' tends t' be yuir record, laddie buck.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Tis ast I hae apprised Percy, tis Master Evermeadow hae claimed 'e made nae such rulin', yet in point 'o fact 'e ast well ast Madame Silvertree seemin'ly permitted t' challenge t' take place knowin' t' then Baroness hae nae complied wi' a verra simple rule 'o engagement. Th' be t' crux 'o t' matter.
Thesbe,
Tis 'eld th' t' Standings Keeper more oft th' nae 'olds sole province o'er a duelist's record ast well ast t' status 'o anna challenges. Tis naturally 'oped shouldst said official be involved in a challenge th' another 'o th' senior officials, in th' instance, Master Goldendust Evermeadow or Turienal Lodrelhai Castle wouldst o'ersee t' matter.
Ast t' yuir query wi' regard t' protestin' an official chosen t' call a challenge, tis 'eld ast tradition 'o long standin' th' t' challenger hae right 'o choice, though tis tradition an' nae set in t' rules 'o engagement. T'was some while agon th' became t' way challenges were 'andled, though tis also a courtesy oft t'wixt th' challenged an' t' challenger t' come t' agreement 'pon t' official. Tis been instances in past where in a challenger hae
attempted t' use t' tradition t' obtain a less th' impartial official t' call. In one instance th' comes t' mind, th' attempt nae succeeded.
Ast t' yuir comment 'o askin' fer a specific official durin' regular duelin' 'ours, tis t' me knowledge certes permitted, though t' do so might be seen by some officials ast a slight 'pon their abilities.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 22 Sep 1999 19:59:41 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
Ast seems apparent, thee aire mistaken in' t' subject. How quaint that thee chose t' utilize large letters. Tis perhaps th' be th' way thee instruct thine bairns? Madame, t' subject be th' blithe an' continuin' floutin' 'o t' rules ast well ast th' less th' stellar record 'o Madame Drakewyn t' apply t' rules 'o engagement wi' utter neutrality nae t' mention competence. Further, tis seemin' Master Evermeadow hae also, in th' instance 'o th' Lady
Topaz's challenge agin th' then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, knowin'ly permitted an impropriety. Perhaps thee wouldst rise an' peek below thee. Thine own cacklin' seems t' hae produced an egg. Do be wary thee dinna find it 'pon yuir face, aye?
Percy poo,
Tis amusin' th' thee yet babble 'bout extenuating circumstances durin' Madame Ashleana's original challenge unta th' then Baron Evan Rush Rynth. T'was nae anna circumstance other th' that th' lass wast permitted t' git away wi' another illegal challenge. Ta charge in th' matter ist precisely ast accurate ast was th' first.
Ast ta' wh' Madame Silvertree be attemptin' t' defend, tis methinks she be attemptin' t' defend t' fact th' t' rules 'o engagement aire nae applied equally, fer which, tis nae defense attal. Master Evermeadow hae stated 'e dinna make anna new rulin' settin' aside t' requirement fer t' challenged t' apprise t' Standin's Keeper 'o th' official acceptance 'o a challenge. If'n th' be given credence tis nae anna need t' defend Master Evermeadow, save
th' 'e dinna follow 'is own rulin'. If'n Madame Silvertree be defendin' th', tis she then be defendin' impropriety by th' Supervisor, neh? Tis right interestin' th' thee seem t' be defendin' impropriety, ast well ast those wh' defend it. Simply put, I wouldst generally presume those thee defend wouldst more likely be guilty, fore in th' tends t' be yuir record, laddie buck.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Tis ast I hae apprised Percy, tis Master Evermeadow hae claimed 'e made nae such rulin', yet in point 'o fact 'e ast well ast Madame Silvertree seemin'ly permitted t' challenge t' take place knowin' t' then Baroness hae nae complied wi' a verra simple rule 'o engagement. Th' be t' crux 'o t' matter.
Thesbe,
Tis 'eld th' t' Standings Keeper more oft th' nae 'olds sole province o'er a duelist's record ast well ast t' status 'o anna challenges. Tis naturally 'oped shouldst said official be involved in a challenge th' another 'o th' senior officials, in th' instance, Master Goldendust Evermeadow or Turienal Lodrelhai Castle wouldst o'ersee t' matter.
Ast t' yuir query wi' regard t' protestin' an official chosen t' call a challenge, tis 'eld ast tradition 'o long standin' th' t' challenger hae right 'o choice, though tis tradition an' nae set in t' rules 'o engagement. T'was some while agon th' became t' way challenges were 'andled, though tis also a courtesy oft t'wixt th' challenged an' t' challenger t' come t' agreement 'pon t' official. Tis been instances in past where in a challenger hae
attempted t' use t' tradition t' obtain a less th' impartial official t' call. In one instance th' comes t' mind, th' attempt nae succeeded.
Ast t' yuir comment 'o askin' fer a specific official durin' regular duelin' 'ours, tis t' me knowledge certes permitted, though t' do so might be seen by some officials ast a slight 'pon their abilities.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 20:14:44 EDT
Morgan~
Using your logic, *nobody* would fit your standards for trust, because there is not a single person in the entirity of RhyDin that does not in some way dislike another person.
If you cannot trust impartiality to someone who happens to dislike another, then this Sport will *never* have someone who lives up to your standards.
~Sidartha
Date: 22 Sep 1999 20:14:44 EDT
Morgan~
Using your logic, *nobody* would fit your standards for trust, because there is not a single person in the entirity of RhyDin that does not in some way dislike another person.
If you cannot trust impartiality to someone who happens to dislike another, then this Sport will *never* have someone who lives up to your standards.
~Sidartha
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 20:25:07 EDT
"Ast seems apparent, thee aire mistaken in' t' subject. How quaint that thee chose t' utilize large letters. Tis perhaps th' be th' way thee instruct thine bairns?"
As a matter of fact, no, I don't. I have no need to.
It is of no import to me whether you find my post quaint. However, I'm curious as to what Topaz's love affairs have to do with a Challenge match.
" Madame, t' subject be th' blithe an' continuin' floutin' 'o t' rules ast well ast th' less th' stellar record 'o Madame Drakewyn t' apply t' rules 'o engagement wi' utter neutrality nae t' mention competence."
Then perhaps one could stick to the subject of whether or not Drakewyn is biased, rather than debating Topaz's lovelife.
"Further, tis seemin' Master Evermeadow hae also, in th' instance 'o th' Lady
Topaz's challenge agin th' then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, knowin'ly permitted an impropriety."
It would seem that would be something to bring up to Golden, aye?
"Perhaps thee wouldst rise an' peek below thee. Thine own cacklin' seems t' hae produced an egg."
Again, straying from the subject.
"Do be wary thee dinna find it 'pon yuir face, aye?"
Aye indeed, I will.
~Sidartha
Date: 22 Sep 1999 20:25:07 EDT
"Ast seems apparent, thee aire mistaken in' t' subject. How quaint that thee chose t' utilize large letters. Tis perhaps th' be th' way thee instruct thine bairns?"
As a matter of fact, no, I don't. I have no need to.
It is of no import to me whether you find my post quaint. However, I'm curious as to what Topaz's love affairs have to do with a Challenge match.
" Madame, t' subject be th' blithe an' continuin' floutin' 'o t' rules ast well ast th' less th' stellar record 'o Madame Drakewyn t' apply t' rules 'o engagement wi' utter neutrality nae t' mention competence."
Then perhaps one could stick to the subject of whether or not Drakewyn is biased, rather than debating Topaz's lovelife.
"Further, tis seemin' Master Evermeadow hae also, in th' instance 'o th' Lady
Topaz's challenge agin th' then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana, knowin'ly permitted an impropriety."
It would seem that would be something to bring up to Golden, aye?
"Perhaps thee wouldst rise an' peek below thee. Thine own cacklin' seems t' hae produced an egg."
Again, straying from the subject.
"Do be wary thee dinna find it 'pon yuir face, aye?"
Aye indeed, I will.
~Sidartha