From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 16:47:18 EST
The woman tacks a missive upon the cork whilst couriers carry a true copy unto Master Valentine Evermeadow.
Master Valentine Evermeadow, Gentles,
Be it known that Madame Drakewyn Anastasia Alabaster Silvertree, whilst officiating a duel hast declared and apprised all present of a new ruling which she declared to be the Caller’s Prerogative.
The matter came about when, whilst Madame Silvertree didst announce the happenings during the first round of a duel t’wixt a duelist who called himself by name Silver and a duelist who called himself by name Damien Mortis, the duelist by name Silver didst vacate the ring and the basement in silence. Madame Silvertree seemed aware of the departure of the one calling himself Silver, for she didst make comment upon it during her announcement to those
present ast she didst make the call from her place nigh ringside.
When the warlord, Damien Mortis, didst inquire of Madame Drakewyn to whit, "When do I win? Ain’t there some sorta time limit?", Madame Silvertree replied, "Sure is. Two more minutes, according to the clock." Madame Silvertree then, in answer to Damien Mortis query, "Don’ I ge’ a win?", made by the warlord following the expiration of the period he wast informed he must wait, replied, "Sorry, not
after one round. If it were more than one round, I'd give you the option. It's called Caller's perogative. I don't consider one round to be a duel. It's nothing against you, honestly. I would do the same no matter who was dueling."
Master Evermeadow, here be the statement within the rules of engagement with appropriate definitions, to whit, Forfeiture: (n. Something surrendered as a penalty; lose the right to, be deprived of, or have to pay as a penalty.) If a dueler voluntarily leaves during a duel, the duelist (clearly meaning the one who hast departed), forfeits the match. If the duelist fails to return within the time set by the official, said official, with the
input of the remaining duelist, will decide if the match is to be ruled as a tie or as a loss for the departed duelist.
I should wish to point out to thee, Master Evermeadow, that tis since the earliest days of this sport, once the first round hast been announced the duel hast been deemed to hae begun an’ be an official match. No where in the rules of engagement be there any statement that a duel must consists of more than one round to be declared to be official. Madame Silvertree’s statement that she dinna consider "one round to be a duel" flies in the face of
the all logic, the rules of engagement, tradition and precedent.
Madame Silvertree further went on to state and I quote, "I'm sorry, but it's in the rules. By rights, no one -has- to be offered a win in a forfeit situation." Master Evermeadow, a perusal of the rule with respect to forfeitures clearly indicates that the match may be declared either a tie or a win for the remaining duelist. The rules of engagement
quite clearly state ast well that the duelist found to be in forfeit canst at best obtain a tie and may under no circumstances be granted a win. It would be utter folly for the remaining duelist to be offered the choice of a tie or a loss, for in that the remaining duelist is nae under penalty for departing the match.
Madame Silvertree didst appear to refuse the required input from the remaining duelist, one Damien Mortis, in what canst only be considered a show of bias upon her part. Tis officials must present themselves ast neutral to all parties in a match ast well ast all officials shouldst adjudicate each match according to the rules of engagement in a fair and unbiased manner. Madame Silvertree further stated when questioned on the matter by myself to
whit, "Kindly keep your opinion to yourself. By the rules as written, it is my choice whether to offer a win in -any- forfeit situation. If you wish it to be otherwise, then I suggest you work to become the supervisor and change the rules."
I didst apprise Madame Silvertree that I wouldst nae only apprise thee of the matter but also the community at large ast well I also didst suggest she resign her position for in that it was becoming more and more apparent that she hast chosen to officiate in a manner detrimental to the sport. Further, Madame Silvertree didst comment that she hae chosen to rule the match a tie, seemingly having refused input from the warlord, Damien Mortis.
She further stated in comments to the duelist, Leo de Lorenzo, her personal bias in matters pertaining to whether a duelist should decide to chose to accept a win or a tie. Master Evermeadow, whilst an official ist in uniform, personal bias must be set aside. It becomes increasingly clear that Madame Silvertree wished to impose on the matter her own personal code of behavior ast well ast her flawed interpretation of the rules
of engagement. She went on to state that to Master Leo de Lorenzo that he could nae expect every official to see the matter ast she did. That is a rather clear inference that Madame Silvertree chooses to interpret the rules according to her own lights and personal code of behavior ast well ast to infer that other officials may chose what she has termed "Caller's Prerogative" to flout the rules of engagement.
Madame Silvertree hast in past been reprimanded by your father, the Elder Goldendust Evermeadow for her failures with regard to the most serious matters involving challenge matches. Madame Silvertree hast in past validated improperly issued challenges and when called upon to produce the bona fides presented during a challenge made unto the then Baron Magnus Eques, she declared she had lost the missives. Further, Madame Silvertree didst validate the
improperly issued challenge lain by the former Warlord Elijah and, further didst tamper with the challenge process in the matter of another challenge made by the warlord Topaz Eludes unto the then Baroness Jaycynda Ashleana.
I call upon thee, Valentine Evermeadow, to look into the matter and to take the proper course of action. I further call for the resignation of Madame Drakewyn Alabaster Silvertree ast an official of this sport ast well ast resigning her duties ast Keeper of the Standings. A perusal of the standings shall find listed among those of lesser rank than that of warlord, the names of personages who hae failed to duel in the cycle prior to the present one.
Madame Silvertree seems to be padding the standings with the names of those who, by the rules of engagement, should have been removed. Madame Silvertree’s self proclaimed prerogatives be little more than her on going attempts to gather unto herself powers that she hae nae anna right to garner, nae the least of those examples be her recent claim to hae bespelled the Rings of the Barons, placing the Barons, their families, their loved ones,
perhaps even their holdings in danger.
Madame Silvertree, being of the blood of the draconian races, ist perhaps attempting in her usual manner to take draconian measures to garner unto herself that which she couldnae obtain otherwise were she nae to wear the uniform of an official of the duels, to whit, a following of the unenlightened, the sycophants and perhaps those that are nae of sterner backbone, for in she wouldst in silence hope to continue her reign of incompetence.
Further, Master Valentine Evermeadow, when anna duelist ist forced by an official into accepting what ist quite clearly a case of the rules "According to Madame Silvertree" ast opposed to the rules ast writ, and dost declare that he or she will eschew wandering into the basement whilst Madame Silvertree ist officiating, the ancient and honorable blood sport ist brought further into the ever deepening Abyss.
Such behavior ast displayed by Madame Silvertree but opens the path for anna official to use their office ast a platform for intimidation. In particular, shouldst said official be of the ilk of Madame Silvertree and dost ast well hold the responsibily for nae only officiating the matches in a fair, proper and unbiased manner, but who also holds the responsibility for the validation of bona fides for challenges ast well ast that of assuring that the
standings be properly administered, her attempts to garner unto herself such power, power which hae nae basis within the rules of engagement, but shows her ongoing attempts to despoil these ancient halls and this ancient bloodsport.
In disgust,
Jonalyn Starfare
A call for Investigation
-
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: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:10:22 EST
I find myself again siding with Jonalyn. Drakewyn, in what could only be considered abuse of power, flung her weight about to keep the rules as the public knows them from being followed.
There was not one who spoke up to agree with her ruling that night.
Drakewyn's desire to impress her seemingly limitless whims upon us is growing faster than any beast. From the beginning, with adjusting challenges, to altering the Ward (the fight was to be held outside actual rings), to invading the privacy of every Baron by casting secret spells on the thirteen rings, to flat-out ignoring everything we know of forfeits and deeming her own result.
I questioned her then. I asked if I was defeating Var, a casual example, 4-0 and he fled, and I demanded to take a win, if she could call it a tie. The reply was an affirmative. She could choose the duel's outcome however she desired.
Her arrogance is flowering and blooming within her at a rate too fast to track. Valentine, remove her from her position before her next act of power lust.
Who knows? Tomorrow my wins may be short one digit.
~ Lupton
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:10:22 EST
I find myself again siding with Jonalyn. Drakewyn, in what could only be considered abuse of power, flung her weight about to keep the rules as the public knows them from being followed.
There was not one who spoke up to agree with her ruling that night.
Drakewyn's desire to impress her seemingly limitless whims upon us is growing faster than any beast. From the beginning, with adjusting challenges, to altering the Ward (the fight was to be held outside actual rings), to invading the privacy of every Baron by casting secret spells on the thirteen rings, to flat-out ignoring everything we know of forfeits and deeming her own result.
I questioned her then. I asked if I was defeating Var, a casual example, 4-0 and he fled, and I demanded to take a win, if she could call it a tie. The reply was an affirmative. She could choose the duel's outcome however she desired.
Her arrogance is flowering and blooming within her at a rate too fast to track. Valentine, remove her from her position before her next act of power lust.
Who knows? Tomorrow my wins may be short one digit.
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:32:38 EST
It clearly states in the rules that if a duelist is unable to return, that the Caller, yes, with input from the remaining duelist, will decide if the duel is forfiet or tie.
Therefore, by the rules, Drakewyn can call the match a tie, even if the remaining duelist asks for the win.
G
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:32:38 EST
It clearly states in the rules that if a duelist is unable to return, that the Caller, yes, with input from the remaining duelist, will decide if the duel is forfiet or tie.
Therefore, by the rules, Drakewyn can call the match a tie, even if the remaining duelist asks for the win.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:58:40 EST
G,
Kindly peruse the rules of engagement. The departure of a duelist amidst a duel and his or her failure to return ist what constitutes a forfeit. Tis the caller then ist required by the rules of engagement to seek input from the remaining duelist in the matter of declaring the duel to be a tie or a loss for the departed duelist. Therefore by the rules, Madame Drakewyn ist required to seek said input in determination of granting either a tie or win
to the duelist remaining.
The forfeit be a fact already determined by the non-return of one of the duelist. Tis for the caller to then inquire of the offended duelist his or her choice ast to the penalty which the forfeiture dost require, that of granting the offending duelist a tie or a loss. Leaping to the defense of one who claims thee ast friend may be laudable, howe'er, in this instance, such a defense canna be held to be ought but perhaps an attempt on your part to
defend the indefensible.
Jona
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:58:40 EST
G,
Kindly peruse the rules of engagement. The departure of a duelist amidst a duel and his or her failure to return ist what constitutes a forfeit. Tis the caller then ist required by the rules of engagement to seek input from the remaining duelist in the matter of declaring the duel to be a tie or a loss for the departed duelist. Therefore by the rules, Madame Drakewyn ist required to seek said input in determination of granting either a tie or win
to the duelist remaining.
The forfeit be a fact already determined by the non-return of one of the duelist. Tis for the caller to then inquire of the offended duelist his or her choice ast to the penalty which the forfeiture dost require, that of granting the offending duelist a tie or a loss. Leaping to the defense of one who claims thee ast friend may be laudable, howe'er, in this instance, such a defense canna be held to be ought but perhaps an attempt on your part to
defend the indefensible.
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 18:52:52 EST
As many times as I've stood up for Drake, I'm afraid that I, too, must agree with Jona here.
From my own personal experience as an official of nearly two years in DoS it was always understood that in a forfeit situation where one duelist simply left and didn't return, the remaining duelist was allowed his/her choice of either a win or a tie.
Twist and interpret the phrase in the rules however you wish, but the fact remains that the decision was always made by the remaining duelist.
Khrys
Date: 28 Feb 2000 18:52:52 EST
As many times as I've stood up for Drake, I'm afraid that I, too, must agree with Jona here.
From my own personal experience as an official of nearly two years in DoS it was always understood that in a forfeit situation where one duelist simply left and didn't return, the remaining duelist was allowed his/her choice of either a win or a tie.
Twist and interpret the phrase in the rules however you wish, but the fact remains that the decision was always made by the remaining duelist.
Khrys
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:04:43 EST
Gotta put my two cents in here....if a duel is under three rounds in, and one oppoent is unable to cintinue, I say it's a tie. That was my outlook when I wore the uniform of the arena.
Also, Jona, why are you so conserned about the arena officials when you yourself rarely step into those same rings? Why not just sit at your stool and tend things that directly affect you?
That's all I have to say.
Huma
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:04:43 EST
Gotta put my two cents in here....if a duel is under three rounds in, and one oppoent is unable to cintinue, I say it's a tie. That was my outlook when I wore the uniform of the arena.
Also, Jona, why are you so conserned about the arena officials when you yourself rarely step into those same rings? Why not just sit at your stool and tend things that directly affect you?
That's all I have to say.
Huma
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:23:52 EST
Personal opinions don't matter. Once a duel starts, it's a duel. Whether it goes one round or fifteen. It is still a duel.
I may not like someone choosing to take a win after one round, but they have every right to do so. In all the years I have dueled here, I have never once heard of the caller choosing to award a tie or win against the offended dueler's wishes.
-Rix
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:23:52 EST
Personal opinions don't matter. Once a duel starts, it's a duel. Whether it goes one round or fifteen. It is still a duel.
I may not like someone choosing to take a win after one round, but they have every right to do so. In all the years I have dueled here, I have never once heard of the caller choosing to award a tie or win against the offended dueler's wishes.
-Rix
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:32:26 EST
Huma Dragonbane,
Perhaps that explains why thou art nae longer an official of this ancient sport? Tis plain if that be yuir outlook whilst thee didst wear a uniform that thou wast ast lackwitted ast be Madame Silvertree. Pity anna what accepted thine faulty interpretation of the rules of engagement.
So like thee, Huma Dragonbane, to consider only those that lift blade ast having reason for concern. Perhaps thou hast nae considered that I so rarely set foot within the rings fore in the incompetence shown by some of the officials dost dampen the joy of the dance?
The matter affects all, Oathbreaker, though perhaps thee hold that incompetence amongst those who do officiate shouldst be tolerated in silence? That speaks only of thine own willingness to accept mediocrity ast the standard, though I canna say I am surprised that thou wouldst so opine.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:32:26 EST
Huma Dragonbane,
Perhaps that explains why thou art nae longer an official of this ancient sport? Tis plain if that be yuir outlook whilst thee didst wear a uniform that thou wast ast lackwitted ast be Madame Silvertree. Pity anna what accepted thine faulty interpretation of the rules of engagement.
So like thee, Huma Dragonbane, to consider only those that lift blade ast having reason for concern. Perhaps thou hast nae considered that I so rarely set foot within the rings fore in the incompetence shown by some of the officials dost dampen the joy of the dance?
The matter affects all, Oathbreaker, though perhaps thee hold that incompetence amongst those who do officiate shouldst be tolerated in silence? That speaks only of thine own willingness to accept mediocrity ast the standard, though I canna say I am surprised that thou wouldst so opine.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lorddarylkyle@aol.com (Lord Daryl Kyle)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:51:48 EST
As rare as it may be, I too must join Jona's side in this matter. In the rules it says that it is a forfieture especially if the opponant left of his own free will. I was not there of course and don't know what happened...but if Silver left at will then it is a forfiet..if he just "fell in a hole" then I agree with G. There my two cents are in.
Daryl Kyle,
Baron of the 6th Baronial Ring of the Duel of Swords
Journeyman of the Phantom Scots
Date: 28 Feb 2000 20:51:48 EST
As rare as it may be, I too must join Jona's side in this matter. In the rules it says that it is a forfieture especially if the opponant left of his own free will. I was not there of course and don't know what happened...but if Silver left at will then it is a forfiet..if he just "fell in a hole" then I agree with G. There my two cents are in.
Daryl Kyle,
Baron of the 6th Baronial Ring of the Duel of Swords
Journeyman of the Phantom Scots
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: falablah@aol.com (Falablah)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 21:05:12 EST
For the sake of more info.....What was the score of the match Jonalyn? If your interpretation of the rules is correct then this question doesn't matter at all but I'd just like to know. I know if the match was tied at zero and I got pulled away for whatever reason and got a loss because of it that I'd be pretty disgusted.
~Falablah Dalegate~
~Former Mage~
~Former Warlord~
~Former Emerald~
~Twice Holder of Pathfinder~
~Member of House Asgard~
~Proud dueler of DHL~
Date: 28 Feb 2000 21:05:12 EST
For the sake of more info.....What was the score of the match Jonalyn? If your interpretation of the rules is correct then this question doesn't matter at all but I'd just like to know. I know if the match was tied at zero and I got pulled away for whatever reason and got a loss because of it that I'd be pretty disgusted.
~Falablah Dalegate~
~Former Mage~
~Former Warlord~
~Former Emerald~
~Twice Holder of Pathfinder~
~Member of House Asgard~
~Proud dueler of DHL~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 21:58:26 EST
Jona,
I did look up the rules before I made my post.
Don't try to confuse me with someone who is unaware of what the rules state, I assure you, I checked before making a statement.
The rules -Clearly- state that the Caller, with input from the remaining duelist, makes the decision on the outcome of the duel.
It's very clear.
G
Date: 28 Feb 2000 21:58:26 EST
Jona,
I did look up the rules before I made my post.
Don't try to confuse me with someone who is unaware of what the rules state, I assure you, I checked before making a statement.
The rules -Clearly- state that the Caller, with input from the remaining duelist, makes the decision on the outcome of the duel.
It's very clear.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:23:01 EST
> The rules -Clearly- state that the Caller, with input from the remaining
>duelist, makes the decision on the outcome of the duel.
>
> It's very clear.
>
Gnort, I wasn't present, but if what Jona has stated is accurate, then Drake rejected input from the remaining duelist, making the decision on her own.
That is, by your statement, a violation of the rules.
Khrys
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:23:01 EST
> The rules -Clearly- state that the Caller, with input from the remaining
>duelist, makes the decision on the outcome of the duel.
>
> It's very clear.
>
Gnort, I wasn't present, but if what Jona has stated is accurate, then Drake rejected input from the remaining duelist, making the decision on her own.
That is, by your statement, a violation of the rules.
Khrys
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:43:28 EST
>Gnort, I wasn't present, but if what Jona has stated is accurate, then Drake
>rejected input from the remaining duelist, making the decision on her own.
>
>That is, by your statement, a violation of the rules.
>
The rules don't say that the caller in question must follow the remaining duelist's input. Merely that they must seek said input. If you want to be strictly literal, then no, no rules were broken. A person being allowed input is not the same as a person being given the entire decision.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:43:28 EST
>Gnort, I wasn't present, but if what Jona has stated is accurate, then Drake
>rejected input from the remaining duelist, making the decision on her own.
>
>That is, by your statement, a violation of the rules.
>
The rules don't say that the caller in question must follow the remaining duelist's input. Merely that they must seek said input. If you want to be strictly literal, then no, no rules were broken. A person being allowed input is not the same as a person being given the entire decision.
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: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:00:22 EST
Percy,
Perhaps I wasn't clear... I didn't mean that Drake listened to, and then rejected the remaining duelist's input. I meant that if Jona's statement is accurate, she didn't even listen to him.
Apologies for the confusion.
Khrys
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:00:22 EST
Percy,
Perhaps I wasn't clear... I didn't mean that Drake listened to, and then rejected the remaining duelist's input. I meant that if Jona's statement is accurate, she didn't even listen to him.
Apologies for the confusion.
Khrys
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jakethrash@aol.com (JakeThrash)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:03:14 EST
I'll add my voice to others. If Drake didn't give the duelist the choice, the wrong call was made here. Might be in bad form to take a win after a single round being fought, but it's the duelers right to suffer from that lack of honor, not the caller's right to make them choose the honorable path.
Warlord Jake Thrash
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:03:14 EST
I'll add my voice to others. If Drake didn't give the duelist the choice, the wrong call was made here. Might be in bad form to take a win after a single round being fought, but it's the duelers right to suffer from that lack of honor, not the caller's right to make them choose the honorable path.
Warlord Jake Thrash