A call for Investigation

[DoS Archive]

From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 11:12:07 EST

Drakewyne,

Here's my problem. You continually assert dat ya did have knowledge of Damien's opinion as ta whether da match should be a win or a tie. You also say ya took said opinion into consideration. Why was da match ruled a tie if both previous statements are true?

Only way I can figure it is ya didn't care one bit what Damien believed. You refute everyone's claim dat ya made da decision alone without Damien, yet da fact remains yer decision completely contradicts what Damien's wishes were.

I don't care if some past callers screwed you like yer screwin' Damien. It's not right and it shouldn't ever be allowed ta happen again. I've always said your a good caller, and I know you work hard as da Standings keeper. But i'm getting fed up with da "innocent caller" routine yer putting on. You were wrong, admit it, and quit with da charade like ya were justified in da decision ya made.


~J

[DoS Archive]

From: lrdbraden@aol.com (LrdBraden)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 14:19:49 EST


Lord MacKenzie,

I want to thank you for your response to my question that I posted on this board, and I appreciate the "answer" to my question that you gave to me indirectly through Lady Drakewyn, though I disagree with your response. Before I go further, let me state my full understanding that the issue surrounding the duel in question has been settled by executive decree, and that Damien was given the win he originally requested.

Lord MacKenzie, you have expressed to me that the argument of this case is not over wording. And in your view, that may be true (although your previous writings on this issue indicate that the issue *is* over wording). Actually, there are several direct issues ongoing in this forum which are being addressed by various people in response to Jonalyn's original missive (which I was finally able to uncover once more on the board, and which, I might
add, was very well written and, in my opinion, very documentary).

Three of these issues have been:

1) The issue of "Caller's Perogative" (Lady Drakewyn's term), which translates to "After what point in a duel is the duel considered to have "begun".

2) A direct discussion of whether Damien Mortis was ever allowed to have input to the decision decreed by Lady Drakewyn; and

3) Lady Drakewyn's interpretation of the rule surrounding the decision to award a tie or win to a remaining dueler after their opponent has vanished;

Of these issues (and there were others), the first is the only one in which I believe Lady Drakewyn overstepped herself. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no reference in the "Rules" about when a match has officially "begun". This is a matter of common sense and precedence, and from my point of view seems fairly obvious (and has nothing to do with how many points have been scored). If two duelers have entered the ring and have raised their
weapons against each other, then the match has started (Argus's rule). This issue should be debated and should be resolved by having a clear entry appended to the rules which details "the start of a duel."

Now, as for the second issue that I listed above: it seems clear to me, but obviously not to others, that Damien made his desire for the win known by his statement asking whether he was going to get the win or not; and it seems clear to me that Lady Drakewyn must have heard him say that, judging from her further comments, thereby having gained his input (( in some cases I have been asked this question via IM and a conversation has never transpired
in the Arena)).

As for the third issue above, and the one to which I originally addressed my "example" question, I have these remarks in response to you Lord MacKenzie:

1) I completely disagree with your assertion to me that the "argument is not over wording". One of the ongoing arguments is very much over the wording of the rule, with different people reading the rule differently. Now it may be true, as you have stated, that "everyone agrees that it is improper wording for the intent", though it seems here like you are speaking for "everyone", and you are definitely not speaking for me. Anyway, with the
overturning of Lady Drakewyn's decision, the point of view of the management on this matter does seem rather clear. BUT ... It seems to me that the over-ruling of her decision should have been followed immediately with a posted change to the rule in question. That I have not seen, and I am really disappointed that the management has not implemented that change as of this writing.

2) I also completely disagree with your implied assertion that when "standard practice" goes against the "written rule", the "standard practice" should take precedence. That, sir, is a scary proposition, and I think I should not have to cite examples. Rather, in this case, I applaud Lady Drakewyn's action indirectly, for she has, unwittingly or not, uncovered a glaring difference in Practice vs Policy. And rather than attacking her for following
the rule as written, we should attack the rule itself and use our energies to ensure that the mis-written rule is changed forthwith to reflect the accepted practice. By the way, did I mention that I am really disappointed that the management has not changed the written rule yet? I would think that everyone should be beating down their door to have the new rule posted quickly (that is, if they truly agree that the wording is wrong, though they never
really *said* that; all they said was that Damien got his win).

3) And finally, I also completely disagree with your assertion to Lady Drakewyn, that my example as stated is not relevant to this issue. Not only is it relevant, it is a complete parallel. I believe that the response you gave to Lady Drakewyn concerning this issue is completely bogus and off the wall, and I am disappointed.

Well, that's all I have to say. I'm sorry I've rambled so much, but it feels good to get my feelings out on this issue. Oh, and in case I failed to mention it, I *really* would like to see the rule changed immediately, and I'm sure others would too. You, Lord MacKenzie, seem to have a lot of "clout" around here, and I'm sure you could approach the right people to have this done expediently.

Respectfully,
Argus

[DoS Archive]

From: hostdfcturi@aol.com (HOST DFC Turi)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 16:13:46 EST

To settle one thing:

The rule in question is being revised. It is not, and cannot, be done "immediately" because hasty writing leads to loopholes. I don't think anyone wishes to go through this same argument on this same rule in another four months?

Admittedly, we had hoped to have the revision done before this, which is why I have not answered this query sooner. It will be done shortly, however, and my apologies for the delay.

Turi

[DoS Archive]

From: lrdbraden@aol.com (LrdBraden)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 21:15:26 EST

Lady Turienal,

I am well pleased to hear that the matter is being taken care of. I thank you very much for the notification.

Respectfully,
Argus Braden

[DoS Archive]

From: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 21:18:50 EST

Argus,

Just to show how your example cannot be used to match this situation . . .

The worker works for the supervisor, whereas the callers work for us.

-Rix

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 22:13:06 EST

Lord Argus,

I'll be brief in my response, as from your words and tone, I think we have little to argue about intellectually.

"I want to thank you for your response to my question that I posted on this board, and I appreciate the "answer" to my question that you gave to me indirectly through Lady Drakewyn..."

And I owe you an apology for not responding directly. I was pondering your message, but never got around to articulating my thoughts on the matter.

You've very effectively broken down the issues, which is helpful to everyone, I think. I'll address your responses to the third issue, as you've convinced me of your view on the first two - especially your desire for a clear definition of when a duel has begun.

"1) I completely disagree with your assertion to me that the "argument is not over wording". "

"Now it may be true, as you have stated, that "everyone agrees that it is improper wording for the intent", though it seems here like you are speaking for "everyone", and you are definitely not speaking for me."

I combine these two comments to address them together; to ME, the argument should not be about wording, and if I've digressed toward that, I shouldn't have. My intent was not to speak for "everyone," and I shouldn't have made the generalization, either. So, my apologies for misspeaking.

"BUT ... It seems to me that the over-ruling of her decision should have been followed immediately with a posted change to the rule in question. That I have not seen, and I am really disappointed that the management has not implemented that change as of this writing."

We have no argument there, though I'll mention that I am aware that discussions are underway regarding the exact wording of the "new" rule, and in this instance, I think everyone should be aware that management IS apparently addressing this issue. It's just taking some time.

"2) I also completely disagree with your implied assertion that when "standard practice" goes against the "written rule", the "standard practice" should take precedence. That, sir, is a scary proposition, and I think I should not have to cite examples. "

Normally, I would agree with you whole-heartedly; however, in this case, management has made public statements in support of the standard practice, and as such, it's not a case where the "police" are violating the "law," but a case where a policy addendum has been made and distributed, but the official manual hasn't been altered to reflect it. Again, we're led back to the need to have the rule rewritten to reflect its intent.

"Rather, in this case, I applaud Lady Drakewyn's action indirectly, for she has, unwittingly or not, uncovered a glaring difference in Practice vs Policy. And rather than attacking her for following the rule as written, we should attack the rule itself and use our energies to ensure that the mis-written rule is changed forthwith to reflect the accepted practice."

Again, I would agree, if Lady Silvertree had ever once claimed this was her purpose. In this case, however, that agreement would be lukewarm, as I'm not convinced it is the job of an employee to challenge company policy by defying it (though, at the same time, I am sympathetic to the cause of civil disobedience). As an employee of the arena, and a servant of the public, it's her job to follow the rules and the policies made by management. The
issue is not so much what the rule SAYS, but what Damien Mortis had every right to expect based on standard practice and management policy. Is that clearer?

"3) And finally, I also completely disagree with your assertion to Lady Drakewyn, that my example as stated is not relevant to this issue. Not only is it relevant, it is a complete parallel. I believe that the response you gave to Lady Drakewyn concerning this issue is completely bogus and off the wall, and I am disappointed."

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the fact remains that one case involves an exchange of information involving two people's thoughts on one's performance, and one is a completely objective ruling. An official in this sport is not someone's supervisor. As we all know, some bosses will look out for their employees, and some will be out to get them. An official here must be impartial, and simply report on what they see.

At that, I've said my piece on this issue, at least until someone says something I have to object to. Do not misunderstand, there are issues here which can be read in more than one way; my major objection is to a member of this sport's staff continually making "interpretations" at whim.

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: lrdbraden@aol.com (LrdBraden)
Date: 17 Mar 2000 09:17:56 EST

::a dry chuckle on viewing the words addressed to him by Rix, hoping that the comment was actually meant to be humorous, then turning to Ian's response and taking time to read it carefully::

Lord MacKenzie,

I truly appreciate the tact and tone of your reply to me. I agree that in essence we have little or nothing to argue in this case. I still disagree with your view of my "example" but, then again, I have no problem with two people agreeing to disagree on any subjective issue.

I could not help but notice Lady Turienal's proclamation tacked over my original message, stating that the management is in the process of amending the rule with regard to this incident. I thank you for any action you might have taken which hastened that announcement.

Respectfully,
Argus

[DoS Archive]

From: rhy@aol.com (Rhy)
Date: 17 Mar 2000 14:58:16 EST

::Just before leaving, she adds a short note to the last missive that caught her eye::

> The worker works for the supervisor, whereas the callers work for us.

Strange bit of rationale that. When I accept a job, I do so for the patronne paying my wages. ...not his agent. Out of curiosity....what are the wages for calling these days? ...use to be much in line with original sin...only Hell was more objective. If it's still the standard, don't bother with the answer. Vituperative remuneration in an insensible argument under any
circumstance...and tiresome beyond the telling.

[DoS Archive]

From: jakvaltrds@aol.com (Jakvaltrds)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 14:57:45 EST

Were those who speak with such vehemence for the traditions of the sport, to spend their time instructing the newest members of said traditions, rather than sit in lofty positions in non DoS forums which are off shoots of the DoS,stop sniping those who are in the trenches, this would have been avoided in the first place.

I do not defend Drake in this matter as I feel she was in error. I have never been told by an official there was a peroggative which allowed them to determine the outcome of a match. Mind you, I have been offered loss, win, or tie.
I would speak to the *other* issue which was barely brushed upon, and that is the adamant desire by the Warlord to take a win which was not earned. Had he been taught, or had he an inkling of honor, this discussion would not be takin place.
If this community were to hold its members to such scrutiny, tradition would serve far better than rules.
Those who would hold their members to such scrutiny without dealing themselves the responsibility of teaching new members of the community, have no right to preach.

Seamus

I'm back
::ducking the slings and arrows which are certain to follow::

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 20 Mar 2000 04:39:12 EST

Madame Silvertree,

Ast ta yuir claim to be following a ruling made by a previous Supervisor, Madame. No such official ruling wast announced unto the community. There be bu' yuir word on the matter, an' yuir word be suspect. Thee constantly demand proof, Madame, but yet to present none whatsoe'er to back yuir claim.

It is nae tradition to salute the official, tis a matter of preference though some may consider it custom. Tis nae a tradition to salute one's opponent, again tis a matter of individual preference though again some consider it custom. Ast to thanking the official, again tis nae tradition, though some, again by preference, do so ast a custom. Madame, perhaps thee ast well ast other officials may nae deserve ta be thanked, considering, none forced
thee inta the duty, nor hast anna official ta me knowledge been coerced inta th' duty. One offers thanks for a job well done. One dost nae demand it nor whine and moan when tis nae offered.

Madame, the proof of yuir insults lies in yuir own jottings. Ast ta huntin' commoners, Madame, th' records ye provided fell short o matchin' mine own, an' there in lies th' proof.

If thee wish what thee term accusation withdrawn, do substantiate yuir denial.

Madame Silvertree, the Baron Damien Mortis hast indeed been in ta basement 'o late, perhaps tis thee what hae nae been there. So like thee ta lay ta onus 'pon one other than yuirself.

Thee stridently claim ast 'fact' that thee were given a 'ruling', Madame, bu' continue to eschew showin' ta community annathin' ta support wh' thee claim ast 'fact'.

Madame, tis thee wh' hae so stridently avered upon numerous occasions that thee were familiar wi' nae only th' rules 'o engagement, but ast well both custom an' tradition, yet clearly thou art entirely ignorant.

I must say tis an interesting comment that thou hast writ, attributing paranoia to a person what hae nae e'en been named. How amusing, Madame. Now thee insult nameless folk and aver thee nae offer insult, no doubt. I should wonder that this nameless person wouldst e'en bother to provide annathing to thee after that comment.

Madame Silvertree, thou art a whining, sniveling wretch. Tis calling into question Ian's word shows quite clearly, Madame, that ast well thou art a fool ast well.

Madame, apparently thee dinna understand that thee hae claimed things with nae annathing ta substantiate thine claims. Madame Silvertree, how many times must this community be subjected to yuir clearly imcompetent handling of yuir duties? Must all merely accept a constant and repeated barrage of apologies?

Thee hae proven thineself repeatedly to be incapable of handling matters, e'en back to yuir 'irin' 'o th' lass by name 'o Karen Jansen to do the job. Yuir in o'er yuir 'ead, Madame, an' certes hae nae ta wit ta understand ye be quite simply an' mos' assuredly th' worst example 'o a Keeper 'o th' Standin's th' hae e'er been permitted ta do th' duty.

Thee hae yet to explain where thee came by ta notion that one round dinna constitute a duel, Madame, nor supplied anna documentation to support that claim. Perhaps because, Madame, there be none with which to support it.

I assure you Drakey Poo, there be nothing round about atall about mine insults. Perhaps I shouldst suggest unto thee what thee once suggested unto me. Madame, hie thee off a tall cliff, and I shall add, stuff a sock in it on yuir way down.

Bluntly,
Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 20 Mar 2000 04:47:30 EST

Laird Seamus McDonnaugh,

The matter 'o Damien Mortis' choice to desire the win shall rest ast it shouldst upon his shoulders. Unless I am verra much mistaken, thee wouldst nae desire nor permit another to foist upon thee their own code 'o honor, and I wouldst be verra much surprised were thee ta permit an official 'o this ancient sport to do so by official writ.

Ast to instructing others in the traditions and customs, Seamus, one may instruct, but one canna force. If one takes it upon himself to declare that he be instructing in the traditions and customs the community shall know by their deeds and behavior and upon that shall come to decide.

Jona

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 20 Mar 2000 08:27:43 EST

((First paragraph utterly ignored as an OOC reference.))

"I would speak to the *other* issue which was barely brushed upon, and that is the adamant desire by the Warlord to take a win which was not earned. Had he been taught, or had he an inkling of honor, this discussion would not be takin place."

That may very well be so. However, the root of the issue is not the clear lack of personal honor displayed by the Warlord, but that a member of the staff took it upon themselves to deprive him of the choice to be honorable or otherwise.

That debate has long since been settled. It is NOT the sport's duty to legislate honor. Had Lady Silvertree followed the publicly known custom, this argument would NOT be about her. You're absolutely correct. It would be about whether the Warlord was a slimebag for taking the win.

To put it quite bluntly, we all have the right to be slimebags if we wish. We also do NOT have the right to not have our actions questioned.

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:03:36 EST

Ian, do you get hand cramps, or do you have a magical quill to do all your writings like Jona does?
I knew there was something nifty at the shop I should have bought.

With humor, and nothing else to contribute to the discussion,




Var Medici-Giovanni

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 20 Mar 2000 19:23:15 EST

"Ian, do you get hand cramps, or do you have a magical quill to do all your writings like Jona does?"

Don't be silly. I have secretaries.

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: zafiroo@aol.com (Zafiroo)
Date: 22 Mar 2000 18:24:58 EST

>It is NOT the sport's duty to legislate honor. Had Lady Silvertree followed
>the publicly known custom, this argument would NOT be about her.

Ian,
Is it better to follow the rules as written or is it better to follow customs and traditions?

Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Zafiroo Turidan

Baron of the First