From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 29 Oct 1999 21:35:20 EDT
I remember hearing a story, of one duelist who was down 4-0, and left the ring because he claimed he didn't have the time to make a comeback.
There are so many circumstances, it is hard to clearly define what a "proper" peer win is, if there is a forfeiture involved. If there is no forfeiture allowed to be used, then that should be established in the rules.
Personally, I think one should try to earn more peer wins before challenging. If the challenge is time pressed (they know someone else might challenge the same baron), then they should proceed using their "peer win" at their own risk. Personally, I rarely take the win anyhow, so I probably wouldn't use it.
All I know is that I would rather just earn the ten wins myself. When I lose the title of baron, I plan on challenging for the Tenth the same way I always have: earning the wins.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Results o' the Challenge fer the 8th
-
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: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 29 Oct 1999 23:14:58 EDT
>So what's your opinion on a match that is 4-3 after 15 rounds, G? Still
>going by the rules, that is a win.
>
>Sartan
4-3 after 15 rounds yes, I would call a tie. I'm not saying everyone will agree with me, I don't expect anyone to, to be honest. And I'm not really trying to get it changed. But 4-3 after 15 rounds, it's too close to call a win since you didn't actually get the 5 points needed.
I didn't always think like this. Wasn't until I learned some of the rules in the other sports that it struck me as understandable. I could explain in greater detail, I think. Also, Iam hoping to keep this a calm discussion. And no, I don't think anyone has attacked, and I hope it doesn't happen.
G
Date: 29 Oct 1999 23:14:58 EDT
>So what's your opinion on a match that is 4-3 after 15 rounds, G? Still
>going by the rules, that is a win.
>
>Sartan
4-3 after 15 rounds yes, I would call a tie. I'm not saying everyone will agree with me, I don't expect anyone to, to be honest. And I'm not really trying to get it changed. But 4-3 after 15 rounds, it's too close to call a win since you didn't actually get the 5 points needed.
I didn't always think like this. Wasn't until I learned some of the rules in the other sports that it struck me as understandable. I could explain in greater detail, I think. Also, Iam hoping to keep this a calm discussion. And no, I don't think anyone has attacked, and I hope it doesn't happen.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 30 Oct 1999 03:34:49 EDT
Mr. Ganderfald.
You ask what hypocracy? I say your hypocracy towards the honor of the duels. Your eagerness to defend a man whom many clearly believe did not earn the win he took and thus did not earn the challenge he made.
And now that this man has challenged for the Crown, as so many knew he would, I can only assume you will fight for him again.
You also write that I should make no comments about things I know nothing about... and yet you yourself claimed that I did not take Baron Colestae' to task for his rude comment concerning this challenge. Again, pure hypocracy.
I call on the Overlord to Test this upstart Baron who challenges him, though many may disagree with testing Barons. Damien Mortis has shown he cares nothing for the honor of the sport, only for himself and his blind climb for rank.
Further, I recommend that the former Baron of the Eighth, Cassius Maximius be brought forth to Test this Baron.
You sicken me, Mr Ganderfald, and your lies to Lady Topaz about being unable to appear for a duel before the Second stand revield. Your presence in the Arena this night and the previous were marked, and your pushing of the date for your duel with Topaz is revealed as simple grasping at time to hold on to the Ring you wear.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 30 Oct 1999 03:34:49 EDT
Mr. Ganderfald.
You ask what hypocracy? I say your hypocracy towards the honor of the duels. Your eagerness to defend a man whom many clearly believe did not earn the win he took and thus did not earn the challenge he made.
And now that this man has challenged for the Crown, as so many knew he would, I can only assume you will fight for him again.
You also write that I should make no comments about things I know nothing about... and yet you yourself claimed that I did not take Baron Colestae' to task for his rude comment concerning this challenge. Again, pure hypocracy.
I call on the Overlord to Test this upstart Baron who challenges him, though many may disagree with testing Barons. Damien Mortis has shown he cares nothing for the honor of the sport, only for himself and his blind climb for rank.
Further, I recommend that the former Baron of the Eighth, Cassius Maximius be brought forth to Test this Baron.
You sicken me, Mr Ganderfald, and your lies to Lady Topaz about being unable to appear for a duel before the Second stand revield. Your presence in the Arena this night and the previous were marked, and your pushing of the date for your duel with Topaz is revealed as simple grasping at time to hold on to the Ring you wear.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 30 Oct 1999 11:34:31 EDT
Drake,
>You disagree with the use of a forfieture as a peer win, yet did nothing to
>convince the man to wait.
That just shows how much you know...just because I didn't post every conversation I ever partake in on these boards doesn't mean it never happened.
> yet you feel this was wrong of him to do.
Show me when I stated that, if you would.
>and I quote, "le' wha's his name decide fer me." Yet you offer no censure
>for a man who does not know the name of the Overlord... when you
>castigated Long Wang Lo for just that.
If you do recall...I wasn't at the match that night, so how would I know that Damien did not know the Overlords name?
> Sir Eques, your hypocracy stands revealed
So what hypocracy is that? Because I didn't get on someone for something I didn't hear of? For not publicly announcing my conversations with Damien? For never posting my feelings of Avery's use of the intercession? Seems to me you're just trying to get on me for some things I never did.
~Magnus~
Date: 30 Oct 1999 11:34:31 EDT
Drake,
>You disagree with the use of a forfieture as a peer win, yet did nothing to
>convince the man to wait.
That just shows how much you know...just because I didn't post every conversation I ever partake in on these boards doesn't mean it never happened.
> yet you feel this was wrong of him to do.
Show me when I stated that, if you would.
>and I quote, "le' wha's his name decide fer me." Yet you offer no censure
>for a man who does not know the name of the Overlord... when you
>castigated Long Wang Lo for just that.
If you do recall...I wasn't at the match that night, so how would I know that Damien did not know the Overlords name?
> Sir Eques, your hypocracy stands revealed
So what hypocracy is that? Because I didn't get on someone for something I didn't hear of? For not publicly announcing my conversations with Damien? For never posting my feelings of Avery's use of the intercession? Seems to me you're just trying to get on me for some things I never did.
~Magnus~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: devongorai@aol.com (DevonGoraI)
Date: 04 Nov 1999 00:29:46 EST
G'nort wrote:
>>I have to agree with G' except for one thing. If you are ahead 4-0
>>after 12 rounds then the peer win should be allowed.
>
>I thank you for your vote of agreement, and almost do agree with you
>as well, but unless you have to required 5 points, you've still not
>actually won a match. It's an interesting point of debate.
I rather like what has happened here. Let the rule stand, and let people judge on a case-by-case basis whether or not the challenger actually earned his record. Those kinds of judgement calls bring out some interesting personality observations.
Date: 04 Nov 1999 00:29:46 EST
G'nort wrote:
>>I have to agree with G' except for one thing. If you are ahead 4-0
>>after 12 rounds then the peer win should be allowed.
>
>I thank you for your vote of agreement, and almost do agree with you
>as well, but unless you have to required 5 points, you've still not
>actually won a match. It's an interesting point of debate.
I rather like what has happened here. Let the rule stand, and let people judge on a case-by-case basis whether or not the challenger actually earned his record. Those kinds of judgement calls bring out some interesting personality observations.