From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:06:18 EST
To make my note short, I strongly disagree with how Drake handled the situation. My reasons are mainly the same as the reasons Rix outlined.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
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: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:40:35 EST
The situation, as it stood.
1) Damien and a man calling himself Silver, whom I had not seen in the Arena or on my lists before that night, entered the Ring when called.
2) The man calling himself Silver vanished just before the announcement of the first round's results... those results being a successful parry for Damien's opponent. There was no evidence that the man left voluntarily.
3) A sufficient time passed, ensuring in my mind and the minds of some few others that the man was unlikely to return.
4) I asked Damien if he would care to find a new opponent, at which point he asked, to the effect of, "Don't I get the win?"
5) I told him that, in effect, I felt one round did not make a duel.
6) When further pressed by the patrons on this matter, I read the exact rule... "If a duelist (player) vanishes (is punted) and unable to return, the caller (HOST DFC), with the input of the remaining duelist (player), will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss."
7) After further discussion, I ruled that the duel would be listed as a tie and, should Damien or anyone else disagree they should take the matter to the Supervisor, who's final decision I would abide by without question.
8) I told Lupton that according to the exact wording of the rules, it was possible for a caller to call any duel as a tie... but I did not in any way say that I would call the duel he gave as an example a tie.
On a side note... I can recall two specific instances where, when my opponent vanished during a duel, I specifically requested to be given the tie... yet the callers for those two duels recorded the duel as a win anyway. Having discussed this with others, I find it is not a terribly rare situation.
This is the entire situation and all relevant facts concerning it, and my final word on the subject unless my personal ruling is overturned by the Supervisor... in which case I will make a formal appology to Damien and adjust the records accordingly.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:40:35 EST
The situation, as it stood.
1) Damien and a man calling himself Silver, whom I had not seen in the Arena or on my lists before that night, entered the Ring when called.
2) The man calling himself Silver vanished just before the announcement of the first round's results... those results being a successful parry for Damien's opponent. There was no evidence that the man left voluntarily.
3) A sufficient time passed, ensuring in my mind and the minds of some few others that the man was unlikely to return.
4) I asked Damien if he would care to find a new opponent, at which point he asked, to the effect of, "Don't I get the win?"
5) I told him that, in effect, I felt one round did not make a duel.
6) When further pressed by the patrons on this matter, I read the exact rule... "If a duelist (player) vanishes (is punted) and unable to return, the caller (HOST DFC), with the input of the remaining duelist (player), will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss."
7) After further discussion, I ruled that the duel would be listed as a tie and, should Damien or anyone else disagree they should take the matter to the Supervisor, who's final decision I would abide by without question.
8) I told Lupton that according to the exact wording of the rules, it was possible for a caller to call any duel as a tie... but I did not in any way say that I would call the duel he gave as an example a tie.
On a side note... I can recall two specific instances where, when my opponent vanished during a duel, I specifically requested to be given the tie... yet the callers for those two duels recorded the duel as a win anyway. Having discussed this with others, I find it is not a terribly rare situation.
This is the entire situation and all relevant facts concerning it, and my final word on the subject unless my personal ruling is overturned by the Supervisor... in which case I will make a formal appology to Damien and adjust the records accordingly.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: bodebojangles@aol.com (Bode BoJangles)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:04:33 EST
Y'all are forgettin somethin very important:
Damien can do whatever the hell he wants.
Always willin to help,
Bode
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:04:33 EST
Y'all are forgettin somethin very important:
Damien can do whatever the hell he wants.
Always willin to help,
Bode
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:32:00 EST
Falablah
The score dinna hae anna bearing on the rules of engagement. Though I canst understand thine objection shouldst the score be at naught for both duelist it hast nae bearing attal.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:32:00 EST
Falablah
The score dinna hae anna bearing on the rules of engagement. Though I canst understand thine objection shouldst the score be at naught for both duelist it hast nae bearing attal.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:32:00 EST
Falablah
The score dinna hae anna bearing on the rules of engagement. Though I canst understand thine objection shouldst the score be at naught for both duelist it hast nae bearing attal.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:32:00 EST
Falablah
The score dinna hae anna bearing on the rules of engagement. Though I canst understand thine objection shouldst the score be at naught for both duelist it hast nae bearing attal.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:36:18 EST
G,
Perhaps thee missed the comment where in t'was stated that Madame Silvertree dinna afford the courtesy of input from the offended duelist? The rules quite clearly do nae grant the caller the right to chose beyond inquiring of the offended duelist which of the two penalties shall be handed unto the offending duelist, that of a tie or a loss. Further, Madame Silvertree quite clearly announced that she dinna consider a single round ast constituting a
duel, again flouting the verra rules of engagement which she claims ast being her prerogative.
Jona
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:36:18 EST
G,
Perhaps thee missed the comment where in t'was stated that Madame Silvertree dinna afford the courtesy of input from the offended duelist? The rules quite clearly do nae grant the caller the right to chose beyond inquiring of the offended duelist which of the two penalties shall be handed unto the offending duelist, that of a tie or a loss. Further, Madame Silvertree quite clearly announced that she dinna consider a single round ast constituting a
duel, again flouting the verra rules of engagement which she claims ast being her prerogative.
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:51:00 EST
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
By thine logic, Percy, the official wouldst merely be giving lip service to the rules of engagement and wouldst hae the right then to deny the offended duelist the right granted by the very rules themselves and wouldst place the adjudication of a match at the whim and bias of the official.
Further, Percy, dost believe that by stating quite clearly in the rules that imput shall be obtained from the offended duelist, that such implies that said offended duelists choice may be blatantly disregarded at the whim of the official? Ye canna be that addled headed, or can ye.
Jonalyn Starfare
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:51:00 EST
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
By thine logic, Percy, the official wouldst merely be giving lip service to the rules of engagement and wouldst hae the right then to deny the offended duelist the right granted by the very rules themselves and wouldst place the adjudication of a match at the whim and bias of the official.
Further, Percy, dost believe that by stating quite clearly in the rules that imput shall be obtained from the offended duelist, that such implies that said offended duelists choice may be blatantly disregarded at the whim of the official? Ye canna be that addled headed, or can ye.
Jonalyn Starfare
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: skylercj@aol.com (Skyler CJ)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:52:20 EST
I'm the new Supervisor.
The Duel of Swords is officially disbanded.
Everybody go home.
-Skyler Jackson Chamberland
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:52:20 EST
I'm the new Supervisor.
The Duel of Swords is officially disbanded.
Everybody go home.
-Skyler Jackson Chamberland
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 01:31:29 EST
Madame Silvertree,
1.) There wast no evidence that the man calling himself Silver had nae left voluntarily.
2.) Yuir exact word with regard to what thee consider constitutes a duel I hae quoted exactly, Madame. Perhaps thee wouldst care to apprise all precisely how manna rounds thee consider be required to constitute a duel.
3.) Thee eschewed obtaining anna input from Damien Mortis ast be required by the rules of engagement. If mine ears dinna deceive me, Damien himself heartily protested thine ruling and didst say he did intend to lodge a complaint unto the Supervisor of the sport for in the denied him his right ast stated by the rules to offer input into which penalty he, as the offended duelist wished to choose.
Further perusual of thine comments Madame, infers that thee accepted wins upon thine own record contrary to accepting a tie. Yet thee denied this same adjudication unto Damien Mortis. How verra honorable of thee, Madame. Be thee so arrogant that thee believe thee hae the right and canst attempt to force thine morals and code of behavior upon any that duel in thine rings, whilst thee thineself apparently hae accepted wins o'er thine supposed
objection. How manna rounds hae thee dueled and what wast the score, Madame, for in thee didst make that inquiry of Leo de Lorenzo who quite clearly opined that the score wast of little consequence. Further, Madame, if it be indeed ast thee hae stated nae a terribly rare situation, one can only wonder how poorly trained be those who be officiating the matchs. Perhaps the community should be apprised in whole that the officials may now ,at whim,
foist their own code of honor and conduct upon those who choose to duel.
Madame, if that indeed be thine plan, thee again display thine overweening pomposity and arrogance. Shouldst then all bow to Madame Drakewyn Anastatia Alabaster Silvertree's code of morals, honor and conduct? Fie on thee, Madame, and I shall repeat, this ist nae the Duel of Drakewyn.
Hae thee anna morals attal, Madame? Hae thee anna honor? Or hast thine overblown ego, thine overweening pride and thine ignorance completely consumed what common sense may hae once lurk in the depths of that addled appendage resting upon thine shoulders?
What further blatant follies may the community expect of thee, Madame? Shall thee next insist that duelist bend knee and kiss thine feet, Madame, or perhaps nae bend so far and kiss another portion of thine anatomy more odorous? Shall thee require those who find themselves dueling under thine purview to accept thine morals and codes, Madame, else face thine whims if they decline? Be this the way thee wouldst wish to renew the lost honor of this
sport, by foisting your own flawed honor upon the community? May all the gods of all the pantheons upon all the planes within all the vast galaxies and universes preserve us all from such, Madame.
Bluntly,
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 29 Feb 2000 01:31:29 EST
Madame Silvertree,
1.) There wast no evidence that the man calling himself Silver had nae left voluntarily.
2.) Yuir exact word with regard to what thee consider constitutes a duel I hae quoted exactly, Madame. Perhaps thee wouldst care to apprise all precisely how manna rounds thee consider be required to constitute a duel.
3.) Thee eschewed obtaining anna input from Damien Mortis ast be required by the rules of engagement. If mine ears dinna deceive me, Damien himself heartily protested thine ruling and didst say he did intend to lodge a complaint unto the Supervisor of the sport for in the denied him his right ast stated by the rules to offer input into which penalty he, as the offended duelist wished to choose.
Further perusual of thine comments Madame, infers that thee accepted wins upon thine own record contrary to accepting a tie. Yet thee denied this same adjudication unto Damien Mortis. How verra honorable of thee, Madame. Be thee so arrogant that thee believe thee hae the right and canst attempt to force thine morals and code of behavior upon any that duel in thine rings, whilst thee thineself apparently hae accepted wins o'er thine supposed
objection. How manna rounds hae thee dueled and what wast the score, Madame, for in thee didst make that inquiry of Leo de Lorenzo who quite clearly opined that the score wast of little consequence. Further, Madame, if it be indeed ast thee hae stated nae a terribly rare situation, one can only wonder how poorly trained be those who be officiating the matchs. Perhaps the community should be apprised in whole that the officials may now ,at whim,
foist their own code of honor and conduct upon those who choose to duel.
Madame, if that indeed be thine plan, thee again display thine overweening pomposity and arrogance. Shouldst then all bow to Madame Drakewyn Anastatia Alabaster Silvertree's code of morals, honor and conduct? Fie on thee, Madame, and I shall repeat, this ist nae the Duel of Drakewyn.
Hae thee anna morals attal, Madame? Hae thee anna honor? Or hast thine overblown ego, thine overweening pride and thine ignorance completely consumed what common sense may hae once lurk in the depths of that addled appendage resting upon thine shoulders?
What further blatant follies may the community expect of thee, Madame? Shall thee next insist that duelist bend knee and kiss thine feet, Madame, or perhaps nae bend so far and kiss another portion of thine anatomy more odorous? Shall thee require those who find themselves dueling under thine purview to accept thine morals and codes, Madame, else face thine whims if they decline? Be this the way thee wouldst wish to renew the lost honor of this
sport, by foisting your own flawed honor upon the community? May all the gods of all the pantheons upon all the planes within all the vast galaxies and universes preserve us all from such, Madame.
Bluntly,
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijaheagleecore@aol.com (ElijahEagleEcore)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 09:47:37 EST
The rules are simple, and the presecedent set by previous callers and situations is simpler. The caller is an official of the sport here to facilitate the matches for the patrons. It is not the caller's duty to instill their own brand of honor upon the rings and make choices for the duelers. The officials clearly carry out the wishes of the duelers while maintaining the aspect of proper rules being
followed, not for the official to execute those rules for the duelers at their own intent. Clearly the official was extrememly incorrect in how she handled the proceedure regardless of the circumstances. It is the remaining dueler's right and choice to make the determination within the rules of the sport how the outcome will remain, not the official's.
Date: 29 Feb 2000 09:47:37 EST
The rules are simple, and the presecedent set by previous callers and situations is simpler. The caller is an official of the sport here to facilitate the matches for the patrons. It is not the caller's duty to instill their own brand of honor upon the rings and make choices for the duelers. The officials clearly carry out the wishes of the duelers while maintaining the aspect of proper rules being
followed, not for the official to execute those rules for the duelers at their own intent. Clearly the official was extrememly incorrect in how she handled the proceedure regardless of the circumstances. It is the remaining dueler's right and choice to make the determination within the rules of the sport how the outcome will remain, not the official's.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 13:09:32 EST
Does it matter what Valentine thinks?
Truly, if the vast majority--and judging from the responses, it does seem vast--think Drakewyn should be reprimanded, up and to being ousted from her title as Standings Keeper, then why isn't she? How many public rallies over her indecencies does it take? Does she have to further taint the symbols of the Baron title? Does she have to further manipulate the rules to her fancy?
What more do we, the patrons, have to do to convince the powers that be that we don't want her doing that job, no matter what they want? They're here for us, and if we are so blatantly unhappy with Drakewyn, why does she remain?
~ Lupton
Date: 29 Feb 2000 13:09:32 EST
Does it matter what Valentine thinks?
Truly, if the vast majority--and judging from the responses, it does seem vast--think Drakewyn should be reprimanded, up and to being ousted from her title as Standings Keeper, then why isn't she? How many public rallies over her indecencies does it take? Does she have to further taint the symbols of the Baron title? Does she have to further manipulate the rules to her fancy?
What more do we, the patrons, have to do to convince the powers that be that we don't want her doing that job, no matter what they want? They're here for us, and if we are so blatantly unhappy with Drakewyn, why does she remain?
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 13:20:58 EST
I agree she was wrong in this situation. But not all of us are "blatantly unhappy" with her as Standings Keeper. I also don't see how this incident has anything to do with her as Standings Keeper.
Date: 29 Feb 2000 13:20:58 EST
I agree she was wrong in this situation. But not all of us are "blatantly unhappy" with her as Standings Keeper. I also don't see how this incident has anything to do with her as Standings Keeper.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 15:40:39 EST
This situation has a perfectly clear manner of resolution.
Despite the exact wording of the rule, standard and accepted practice has always been to allow the remaining duelist to choose the win or tie. Always.
The debate regarding whether one SHOULD claim a win has universally been within the bounds of the community, not within the rules; indeed, previous attempts to codify the assessment of a result in these situations have been universally rejected on the grounds that such decisions are NOT in the realm of either rules or staff, but are a matter of an individual duelist's personal honor.
Let me restate that, in order to be perfectly clear:
Those in charge of this arena have repeatedly said it's none of their business to determine whether a forfeit is a win or a tie, and that it's the decision of the remaining duelist, with the honor repercussions of said decision resting on said duelist.
That being the case, I see absolutely no reason for a mere caller to take it upon themselves to overturn years of tradition without an official change of policy.
Lady Silvertree apparently feels it is indeed her duty to do so repeatedly. I refuse to address the issue of her competence or capacity to continue in her position, but I am forced to make a demand on behalf of the entire community.
Yes, I said demand, and I meant it.
If this duel is recorded officially as a tie, I DEMAND that the rules be IMMEDIATELY revised to reflect that the caller has final judgment on what decision to render in such a case. Insofar as this decision flies directly in the face of commonly accepted practice, no lesser conclusion is acceptable.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 29 Feb 2000 15:40:39 EST
This situation has a perfectly clear manner of resolution.
Despite the exact wording of the rule, standard and accepted practice has always been to allow the remaining duelist to choose the win or tie. Always.
The debate regarding whether one SHOULD claim a win has universally been within the bounds of the community, not within the rules; indeed, previous attempts to codify the assessment of a result in these situations have been universally rejected on the grounds that such decisions are NOT in the realm of either rules or staff, but are a matter of an individual duelist's personal honor.
Let me restate that, in order to be perfectly clear:
Those in charge of this arena have repeatedly said it's none of their business to determine whether a forfeit is a win or a tie, and that it's the decision of the remaining duelist, with the honor repercussions of said decision resting on said duelist.
That being the case, I see absolutely no reason for a mere caller to take it upon themselves to overturn years of tradition without an official change of policy.
Lady Silvertree apparently feels it is indeed her duty to do so repeatedly. I refuse to address the issue of her competence or capacity to continue in her position, but I am forced to make a demand on behalf of the entire community.
Yes, I said demand, and I meant it.
If this duel is recorded officially as a tie, I DEMAND that the rules be IMMEDIATELY revised to reflect that the caller has final judgment on what decision to render in such a case. Insofar as this decision flies directly in the face of commonly accepted practice, no lesser conclusion is acceptable.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 15:41:11 EST
>,
>
>Perhaps thee missed the comment where in t'was stated that Madame Silvertree
>dinna afford the courtesy of input from the offended duelist
Jona,
I never said she did. I qouted the rules as to what is clearly stated.
>The rules quite clearly do nae grant the caller the right to chose beyond
>inquiring of the offended duelist which of the two penalties shall be handed
>unto the offending duelist, that of a tie or a loss.
Yes, they do. If you'd like, I'll qoute the exact passage for you. Please let me know if this is your wish.
G
Date: 29 Feb 2000 15:41:11 EST
>,
>
>Perhaps thee missed the comment where in t'was stated that Madame Silvertree
>dinna afford the courtesy of input from the offended duelist
Jona,
I never said she did. I qouted the rules as to what is clearly stated.
>The rules quite clearly do nae grant the caller the right to chose beyond
>inquiring of the offended duelist which of the two penalties shall be handed
>unto the offending duelist, that of a tie or a loss.
Yes, they do. If you'd like, I'll qoute the exact passage for you. Please let me know if this is your wish.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:13:39 EST
"If this duel is recorded officially as a tie, I DEMAND that the rules be IMMEDIATELY revised to reflect that the caller has final judgment on what decision to render in such a case. Insofar as this decision flies directly in the face of commonly accepted practice, no lesser conclusion is
acceptable."
While I agree with Ian that this would be the best way to handle the solution if it is recorded as a tie, I strongly discourage it to lead this far.
Part of the duty as an official for the Duel of Swords is impartiality, and while I don't mean to sound accusing of any official using poor judgment, the fact remains we'd be putting them in one of those positions where they shouldn't be.
Ultimately, the decision should be up to the duelist. Simply stating, the officials have different opinions on what is right and wrong, and it would eventually lead to unfair treatment of other duelists.
"But Official X let me take the win last time!"
"Hey, my opponent whispered to me I could take the win, because he has to go, now you won't let me?"
"What made you let him take the win that wouldn't make you allow me to take the win?"
Just a few examples, though I hope you see my point.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:13:39 EST
"If this duel is recorded officially as a tie, I DEMAND that the rules be IMMEDIATELY revised to reflect that the caller has final judgment on what decision to render in such a case. Insofar as this decision flies directly in the face of commonly accepted practice, no lesser conclusion is
acceptable."
While I agree with Ian that this would be the best way to handle the solution if it is recorded as a tie, I strongly discourage it to lead this far.
Part of the duty as an official for the Duel of Swords is impartiality, and while I don't mean to sound accusing of any official using poor judgment, the fact remains we'd be putting them in one of those positions where they shouldn't be.
Ultimately, the decision should be up to the duelist. Simply stating, the officials have different opinions on what is right and wrong, and it would eventually lead to unfair treatment of other duelists.
"But Official X let me take the win last time!"
"Hey, my opponent whispered to me I could take the win, because he has to go, now you won't let me?"
"What made you let him take the win that wouldn't make you allow me to take the win?"
Just a few examples, though I hope you see my point.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband