From: hostdfcturi@aol.com (HOST DFC Turi)
Date: 06 Mar 2000 02:03:52 EST
Lords and Ladies of the Duel of Swords,
My apologies for the delay in giving an official decision to this situation. Young Lord Evermeadow and I are in agreement, however, on the appropriate solution.
The ruling by Lady Drakewyn Alabaster on the duel between Damien Mortis and Silver is hereby reversed. The win is given to Damien, as per his request when Silver was called in forfeit for vacating the ring. This will be reflected in the next standings.
My apologies to Damien for the error and the situation that arose from it.
Turienal Lodrelhai Castle
Assistant Supervisor, Senior Historian
Duel of Swords
A call for Investigation: Official decision
-
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: 06 Mar 2000 02:46:04 EST
Thank you Turi.
I will forthwith amend the Standings and make note of this for future situations, should such arise. I apologize for this situation occurring, as I was basing it simply upon a strict interpretation of the rules rather than upon any indication of tradition.
Further, I will amend my own record by a reduction of two wins... reversing two arbitrations by callers who declared wins in my favor when I requested ties.
Again, I thank both you and Valentine for clearing up this matter, and I hope that the rules will be adjusted to make this clear in the future.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 06 Mar 2000 02:46:04 EST
Thank you Turi.
I will forthwith amend the Standings and make note of this for future situations, should such arise. I apologize for this situation occurring, as I was basing it simply upon a strict interpretation of the rules rather than upon any indication of tradition.
Further, I will amend my own record by a reduction of two wins... reversing two arbitrations by callers who declared wins in my favor when I requested ties.
Again, I thank both you and Valentine for clearing up this matter, and I hope that the rules will be adjusted to make this clear in the future.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dagnortman@aol.com (DaGnortMan)
Date: 06 Mar 2000 02:48:04 EST
I certainly hope this has been rewritten in the rules right away, then.
G
Date: 06 Mar 2000 02:48:04 EST
I certainly hope this has been rewritten in the rules right away, then.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 06 Mar 2000 09:34:56 EST
It is unfortunate that there is even a need to rewrite a rule that was otherwise clear to everyone but a staff person and the staff person's best friend.
The only "prerogative" a caller has is to call a match null, as in situations where a patron is acting inappropriately, for instance.
At no time does a caller have the prerogative to call the official outcome of a match that affects official records, be that a win, loss, or tie. Their job is to simply call the rounds without partiality. To think that a caller does have that right, indeed, is arrogant and unacceptable.
Date: 06 Mar 2000 09:34:56 EST
It is unfortunate that there is even a need to rewrite a rule that was otherwise clear to everyone but a staff person and the staff person's best friend.
The only "prerogative" a caller has is to call a match null, as in situations where a patron is acting inappropriately, for instance.
At no time does a caller have the prerogative to call the official outcome of a match that affects official records, be that a win, loss, or tie. Their job is to simply call the rounds without partiality. To think that a caller does have that right, indeed, is arrogant and unacceptable.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 06 Mar 2000 15:15:44 EST
Morgan,
This is not the first time that a Rule in the Duel of Swords has been interpreted in a way other than "tradition" and "Precidence" has shown it to be.
What truly is unfortunate, is that the rules allow for multiple interpretations of the same rule. And, I believe, there's been an outcry for well over a year for these rules to be rewritten properly. Don't begin saying this is unfortunate because it involves someone you've made clear you don't like. Say it's unfortunate because it's not the first time it's happened, involving quite a few patrons, and that the rules aren't reflected properly.
Go through the rules very carefully, and you'll see plenty of different ways to interpret them.
The rule in question this time, -clearly- stated that the final decision is up to the official after input from the remaining duelist. The ones who brought it up clouded their judgement because of previous decisions and the person who called the match.
Let me say that on at least three occasions I have had to argue with my caller about a decision involving a forfiet of an opponent. I was fortunate enough to convince them that I would be taking the tie.
I also want to say that Drake asked me my opinion, and I disagreed with the way she handled it. However, she believed she had the right to do as the Rule Clearly stated, and I will defend anyone's beliefs if they strongly hold to them.
That said, I still hope that Val and Turi have gone in and rewrote that specific rule to say that the Duelists decision in the matter is the result of the forfieted match.
Thank you,
G
Date: 06 Mar 2000 15:15:44 EST
Morgan,
This is not the first time that a Rule in the Duel of Swords has been interpreted in a way other than "tradition" and "Precidence" has shown it to be.
What truly is unfortunate, is that the rules allow for multiple interpretations of the same rule. And, I believe, there's been an outcry for well over a year for these rules to be rewritten properly. Don't begin saying this is unfortunate because it involves someone you've made clear you don't like. Say it's unfortunate because it's not the first time it's happened, involving quite a few patrons, and that the rules aren't reflected properly.
Go through the rules very carefully, and you'll see plenty of different ways to interpret them.
The rule in question this time, -clearly- stated that the final decision is up to the official after input from the remaining duelist. The ones who brought it up clouded their judgement because of previous decisions and the person who called the match.
Let me say that on at least three occasions I have had to argue with my caller about a decision involving a forfiet of an opponent. I was fortunate enough to convince them that I would be taking the tie.
I also want to say that Drake asked me my opinion, and I disagreed with the way she handled it. However, she believed she had the right to do as the Rule Clearly stated, and I will defend anyone's beliefs if they strongly hold to them.
That said, I still hope that Val and Turi have gone in and rewrote that specific rule to say that the Duelists decision in the matter is the result of the forfieted match.
Thank you,
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 06 Mar 2000 17:28:20 EST
"And, I believe, there's been an outcry for well over a year for these rules to be rewritten properly."
Yes, granted.
"Don't begin saying this is unfortunate because it involves someone you've made clear you don't like."
The difference between this incident and all those others is that generally the ones who creatively interpreted the rules were patrons, not staffpeople.
Oddly enough, the staff person in question makes it a habit of creatively interpreting and manipulating the rules to suit her fancy.
"The rule in question this time, -clearly- stated that the final decision is up to the official after input from the remaining duelist."
This is not true and I am tired of seeing you trying to shove this down our throats. What it says is "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss." It does not say "..the referee, with the input of the remaining player but not necessarily with regard to, agreement of, or compliance with the input, will decide..."
There is no way you can logically interpret that rule as saying "the referee will decide." If the input from the remaining duelist is not required, then the clause regarding duelist input would not be there in the first place as it would be irrelevent.
We all know that this is not what the spirit of the rule is intended. What is the spirit intending? That the offended duelist decides how the duel will be recorded: as a win or a tie for the remaining duelist. Why does the official need to be a part of this rule? Because duels are only considered "official" when they are turned in to the Standings Keeper by an official.
This is one of the LEAST ambiguous clauses in the rules and I find it telling that you find it absolutely necessary that this clause be amended when there are much more pressing ambiguities that need to be addressed.
"I will defend anyone's beliefs if they strongly hold to them."
I strongly hold to my belief that Drakewyn should be stripped of her duties as Standings Keeper, placed on probation, retrained and rigorously monitored, and should be restricted from posting on these boards in any official capacity or "unofficially" from the staff person's view point, and should do nothing while in uniform except to call the matches indifferently, and report the results to the appropriate person. She should keep her personal
opinions about patrons, their attitudes, sense of honor, actions, skill, etc. to herself when she is acting in an official capacity.
Defend my belief.
Date: 06 Mar 2000 17:28:20 EST
"And, I believe, there's been an outcry for well over a year for these rules to be rewritten properly."
Yes, granted.
"Don't begin saying this is unfortunate because it involves someone you've made clear you don't like."
The difference between this incident and all those others is that generally the ones who creatively interpreted the rules were patrons, not staffpeople.
Oddly enough, the staff person in question makes it a habit of creatively interpreting and manipulating the rules to suit her fancy.
"The rule in question this time, -clearly- stated that the final decision is up to the official after input from the remaining duelist."
This is not true and I am tired of seeing you trying to shove this down our throats. What it says is "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss." It does not say "..the referee, with the input of the remaining player but not necessarily with regard to, agreement of, or compliance with the input, will decide..."
There is no way you can logically interpret that rule as saying "the referee will decide." If the input from the remaining duelist is not required, then the clause regarding duelist input would not be there in the first place as it would be irrelevent.
We all know that this is not what the spirit of the rule is intended. What is the spirit intending? That the offended duelist decides how the duel will be recorded: as a win or a tie for the remaining duelist. Why does the official need to be a part of this rule? Because duels are only considered "official" when they are turned in to the Standings Keeper by an official.
This is one of the LEAST ambiguous clauses in the rules and I find it telling that you find it absolutely necessary that this clause be amended when there are much more pressing ambiguities that need to be addressed.
"I will defend anyone's beliefs if they strongly hold to them."
I strongly hold to my belief that Drakewyn should be stripped of her duties as Standings Keeper, placed on probation, retrained and rigorously monitored, and should be restricted from posting on these boards in any official capacity or "unofficially" from the staff person's view point, and should do nothing while in uniform except to call the matches indifferently, and report the results to the appropriate person. She should keep her personal
opinions about patrons, their attitudes, sense of honor, actions, skill, etc. to herself when she is acting in an official capacity.
Defend my belief.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 06 Mar 2000 20:05:10 EST
Turienal Lodrelhai Castle, Lord Valentine Evermeadow,
I do offer thee mine thanks for conducting the investigation and also for upholding one of the longest standing traditions and precedents ast well ast upholding the long standing interpretation of that particular clause in the rules of engagement.
Madame Silvertree,
Thou, by thine own words, do owe unto the new baron, Damien Mortis, a personal apology for thine arrogant manner, bias and behavior in this matter. Perhaps that hae slipped yuir addled brain?
For one who hast so stridently claimed to be aware of nae only the rules of engagement but tradition and precedent, thine knowledge again proves woefully lacking, Madame.
G'nort,
Thou may sincerely believe that yuir friend didst ast wast permitted by the rules of engagement, that be plain from yuir jottings.
Yet, sir, thou art nae new come to the basement, so how thee canst hold ast right and proper a thing that hast ne'er been held ast being the prerogative of anna official in all the history of this blood sport, I am at a loss to contemplate.
Madame Silvertree's continual attempts to subvert the rules of engagement in favor of certain personages be a dismal situation, one what blights these ancient caverns. I do ask thee, sir, how manna times must her deeds be brought to the attention of the supervisor before thee shall at least admit she far too often oversteps her bounds?
Each time Madame Silvertree hast been called to account fer her actions, she hast been overruled by higher authority, G'nort. None be so arrogant ast Madame Silvertree to go so far ast to all but dare folk to bring such matters to light, sir. One can only contemplate how manna other such deeds she hae managed to accomplish which ahe nae been brought to the light.
In thine attempt to defend the indefensible, G'nort, thee seem to o'er look that hae anna official deigned such arrogance, the matter wouldst hae been brought to the attention of young Lord Evermeadow.
Thee may defend ast thee wish annaone's right to a belief, G'nort, howe'er to defend what wast clearly another attempt by Madame Silvertree to foist her own code of morals and behavior upon the community at large canna be defended.
Madame Silvertree hast repeatedly attempted to tamper with challenges, with the missives given o'er into her hand for safekeeping with regard to challenges, with the official lists removing the names of warlords improperly whilst retaining those what hold ranking below that 'o warlord.
Tis the duty of anna official to adjudicate official duels with complete neutrality. Madame Silvertree's continued grasping for power ast well ast her failure to e'en deign to announce to the community at large when she hast validated offered challenges canst nae be denied, G'nort, by the wench herself, nor by thee, Baron.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 06 Mar 2000 20:05:10 EST
Turienal Lodrelhai Castle, Lord Valentine Evermeadow,
I do offer thee mine thanks for conducting the investigation and also for upholding one of the longest standing traditions and precedents ast well ast upholding the long standing interpretation of that particular clause in the rules of engagement.
Madame Silvertree,
Thou, by thine own words, do owe unto the new baron, Damien Mortis, a personal apology for thine arrogant manner, bias and behavior in this matter. Perhaps that hae slipped yuir addled brain?
For one who hast so stridently claimed to be aware of nae only the rules of engagement but tradition and precedent, thine knowledge again proves woefully lacking, Madame.
G'nort,
Thou may sincerely believe that yuir friend didst ast wast permitted by the rules of engagement, that be plain from yuir jottings.
Yet, sir, thou art nae new come to the basement, so how thee canst hold ast right and proper a thing that hast ne'er been held ast being the prerogative of anna official in all the history of this blood sport, I am at a loss to contemplate.
Madame Silvertree's continual attempts to subvert the rules of engagement in favor of certain personages be a dismal situation, one what blights these ancient caverns. I do ask thee, sir, how manna times must her deeds be brought to the attention of the supervisor before thee shall at least admit she far too often oversteps her bounds?
Each time Madame Silvertree hast been called to account fer her actions, she hast been overruled by higher authority, G'nort. None be so arrogant ast Madame Silvertree to go so far ast to all but dare folk to bring such matters to light, sir. One can only contemplate how manna other such deeds she hae managed to accomplish which ahe nae been brought to the light.
In thine attempt to defend the indefensible, G'nort, thee seem to o'er look that hae anna official deigned such arrogance, the matter wouldst hae been brought to the attention of young Lord Evermeadow.
Thee may defend ast thee wish annaone's right to a belief, G'nort, howe'er to defend what wast clearly another attempt by Madame Silvertree to foist her own code of morals and behavior upon the community at large canna be defended.
Madame Silvertree hast repeatedly attempted to tamper with challenges, with the missives given o'er into her hand for safekeeping with regard to challenges, with the official lists removing the names of warlords improperly whilst retaining those what hold ranking below that 'o warlord.
Tis the duty of anna official to adjudicate official duels with complete neutrality. Madame Silvertree's continued grasping for power ast well ast her failure to e'en deign to announce to the community at large when she hast validated offered challenges canst nae be denied, G'nort, by the wench herself, nor by thee, Baron.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 06 Mar 2000 20:18:27 EST
>Defend my belief.
>
>
I will defend your belief. I just don't agree with it.
>What it says is "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC
>(referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match
>is to be ruled a tie or a loss." It does not say "..the referee, with the
>input of the remaining player but not necessarily with regard to, agreement
>of, or compliance with the input, will decide..."
>
>There is no way you can logically interpret that rule as saying "the referee
>will decide."
Yes, you can. Let me simply edit it to exclude the input from the remaining duelist.
> "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee) will decide if the match is to be ruled a
>tie or a loss."
You see, You can interpret it that way. I'll finish this discussion soon enough.
G
Date: 06 Mar 2000 20:18:27 EST
>Defend my belief.
>
>
I will defend your belief. I just don't agree with it.
>What it says is "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC
>(referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match
>is to be ruled a tie or a loss." It does not say "..the referee, with the
>input of the remaining player but not necessarily with regard to, agreement
>of, or compliance with the input, will decide..."
>
>There is no way you can logically interpret that rule as saying "the referee
>will decide."
Yes, you can. Let me simply edit it to exclude the input from the remaining duelist.
> "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee) will decide if the match is to be ruled a
>tie or a loss."
You see, You can interpret it that way. I'll finish this discussion soon enough.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 01:52:16 EST
Simply put, G is exactly right.
More complicatedly put, as easily as Morgan can say, ">What it says is "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC
>>(referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match
>>is to be ruled a tie or a loss." It does not say "..the referee, with the
>>input of the remaining player but not necessarily with regard to, agreement
>>of, or compliance with the input, will decide..."
>>
>>There is no way you can logically interpret that rule as saying "the referee
>>will decide."," someone else can say that it doesn't say the remaining duelist will decide whether the match is a win or a tie. It says that the OFFICIAL will make that decision with the input of the player. If the final decision is in the hands of the player, then the PLAYER makes the decision and not the OFFICIAL and the rule needs to be changed, in writing, officially, to reflect that!
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 07 Mar 2000 01:52:16 EST
Simply put, G is exactly right.
More complicatedly put, as easily as Morgan can say, ">What it says is "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC
>>(referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match
>>is to be ruled a tie or a loss." It does not say "..the referee, with the
>>input of the remaining player but not necessarily with regard to, agreement
>>of, or compliance with the input, will decide..."
>>
>>There is no way you can logically interpret that rule as saying "the referee
>>will decide."," someone else can say that it doesn't say the remaining duelist will decide whether the match is a win or a tie. It says that the OFFICIAL will make that decision with the input of the player. If the final decision is in the hands of the player, then the PLAYER makes the decision and not the OFFICIAL and the rule needs to be changed, in writing, officially, to reflect that!
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: jakethrash@aol.com (JakeThrash)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 02:26:26 EST
>Yes, you can. Let me simply edit it to exclude the input from
>the remaining duelist.
>
>> "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee) will
>decide if the match is to be ruled a
>>tie or a loss."
>
>You see, You can interpret it that way. I'll finish this discussion soon
>enough.
>
I can't believe you really chose to try an defend your interpretation that way...
You can't honestly be suggseting that it's alright to simply delete words from the rules. That's insane.
Hell...why don't we snip some more words?! Let's boil it down to "the HOST DFC (referee) will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss." Why bother with waiting for a duelist to punt? Let's just make it caller's prerogative to determine the outcome of *every* duel.
G'nort, I can understand defending a friend, but suggesting that it's ok to ignore words that are in the written rules is beyond belief.
-Jake
Date: 07 Mar 2000 02:26:26 EST
>Yes, you can. Let me simply edit it to exclude the input from
>the remaining duelist.
>
>> "If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee) will
>decide if the match is to be ruled a
>>tie or a loss."
>
>You see, You can interpret it that way. I'll finish this discussion soon
>enough.
>
I can't believe you really chose to try an defend your interpretation that way...
You can't honestly be suggseting that it's alright to simply delete words from the rules. That's insane.
Hell...why don't we snip some more words?! Let's boil it down to "the HOST DFC (referee) will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss." Why bother with waiting for a duelist to punt? Let's just make it caller's prerogative to determine the outcome of *every* duel.
G'nort, I can understand defending a friend, but suggesting that it's ok to ignore words that are in the written rules is beyond belief.
-Jake
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 02:38:56 EST
Personal apologies are, by their very nature, made in person.
I have a very fine grasp of the letter of the rules. Precedent and tradition are not rules. The spirit of the rules is open to interpretation until the letter of the rules is adjusted to negate any such interpretation.
In closing... once again, many of you have overlooked the fact that other callers have done just this thing in the past, and many people have witnessed it. Yet, when I do it, it is called an abomination.
I do not complain about the actions of others towards me, save perhaps to the person directly... Yet once again the old adage of "the squeeky wheel gets the grease" has proven true.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 02:38:56 EST
Personal apologies are, by their very nature, made in person.
I have a very fine grasp of the letter of the rules. Precedent and tradition are not rules. The spirit of the rules is open to interpretation until the letter of the rules is adjusted to negate any such interpretation.
In closing... once again, many of you have overlooked the fact that other callers have done just this thing in the past, and many people have witnessed it. Yet, when I do it, it is called an abomination.
I do not complain about the actions of others towards me, save perhaps to the person directly... Yet once again the old adage of "the squeeky wheel gets the grease" has proven true.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 03:00:40 EST
Percy Poo,
Much ast thee may yammer and scribble, t'would seem neither young Master Evermeadow, Turienal Lodrelhai Castle, nor anna with an understanding of the common tongue, the rules of engagement, tradition, precedent nae ta mention the true spirit which be the honor of these rings finds thine premise ast being correct.
Let me use small words for thee, Percy. The officials hae nae further duty than to call a match in a fair and unbiased manner. The officials also have a duty, sir, a duty, to nae attempt to foist upon the community their own brand of honor.
For one who hast made repeated claim to his long standing attendance, thou hast again apparently chosen to firmly seat one of thine lower appendages firmly into the wider of one of thine orifices. Be wary when thee swallow, Percy, the choking noises canst be grating.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 07 Mar 2000 03:00:40 EST
Percy Poo,
Much ast thee may yammer and scribble, t'would seem neither young Master Evermeadow, Turienal Lodrelhai Castle, nor anna with an understanding of the common tongue, the rules of engagement, tradition, precedent nae ta mention the true spirit which be the honor of these rings finds thine premise ast being correct.
Let me use small words for thee, Percy. The officials hae nae further duty than to call a match in a fair and unbiased manner. The officials also have a duty, sir, a duty, to nae attempt to foist upon the community their own brand of honor.
For one who hast made repeated claim to his long standing attendance, thou hast again apparently chosen to firmly seat one of thine lower appendages firmly into the wider of one of thine orifices. Be wary when thee swallow, Percy, the choking noises canst be grating.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 04:47:11 EST
Madame Silvertree,
Kindly recall thee insulted the now Baron Damien Mortis quite publicly in front of witnesses, Madame. The least thee canst manage is ast public an apology ast wast thine insult. I shall, of course, nae expect an apology from thee, Madame, for thee be nae bright enow ta be aware thee didst offer one unto me. Yet perhaps thee might also consider an apology to the entire community for thine arrogance, nae ta mention for attempting to foist off upon
them the notorious and certes flawed "Caller's Prerogative."
Ast to yuir grasp, Madame, again, yuir grasp for power wast denied. May all the gods be praised. Ast to the spirit, Madame, thee know little of such ast be patently evident in that thee hae manna times attempted to impart yuir flawed interpretation up it.
No one hast overlooked annathing, Madame, save perhaps those poor souls who were nae aware that wearing a uniform dinna grant the status of deity unto the officials. I find it amusing that ast usual thee bemoan thine fate lass, when thee rather adroitly managed to fall over thine own wide open mouth. Madame, thee hae done little but complain, whine, snivel, back pedal and flout all sense of the spirit of these ancient caverns. Pity, Madame, that
thine squeeking but earned thee another set back.
Thou art merely whining that again thee were caught out. Another case perhaps of "if no one notices nor speaks out, thee and others are free to follow what path they please"?
What an interesting premise to ponder, Drakey Poo. Certes thee wouldst prefer that thine deeds, thine incompetance, thine grubby grasping for power wouldst nae come to light.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 07 Mar 2000 04:47:11 EST
Madame Silvertree,
Kindly recall thee insulted the now Baron Damien Mortis quite publicly in front of witnesses, Madame. The least thee canst manage is ast public an apology ast wast thine insult. I shall, of course, nae expect an apology from thee, Madame, for thee be nae bright enow ta be aware thee didst offer one unto me. Yet perhaps thee might also consider an apology to the entire community for thine arrogance, nae ta mention for attempting to foist off upon
them the notorious and certes flawed "Caller's Prerogative."
Ast to yuir grasp, Madame, again, yuir grasp for power wast denied. May all the gods be praised. Ast to the spirit, Madame, thee know little of such ast be patently evident in that thee hae manna times attempted to impart yuir flawed interpretation up it.
No one hast overlooked annathing, Madame, save perhaps those poor souls who were nae aware that wearing a uniform dinna grant the status of deity unto the officials. I find it amusing that ast usual thee bemoan thine fate lass, when thee rather adroitly managed to fall over thine own wide open mouth. Madame, thee hae done little but complain, whine, snivel, back pedal and flout all sense of the spirit of these ancient caverns. Pity, Madame, that
thine squeeking but earned thee another set back.
Thou art merely whining that again thee were caught out. Another case perhaps of "if no one notices nor speaks out, thee and others are free to follow what path they please"?
What an interesting premise to ponder, Drakey Poo. Certes thee wouldst prefer that thine deeds, thine incompetance, thine grubby grasping for power wouldst nae come to light.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 05:15:45 EST
Madame Silvertree,
Perhaps thee wouldst care to name the officials to whom thee make reference in thine comment to whit: "Further, I will amend my own record by a reduction of two wins... reversing two arbitrations by callers who declared wins in my favor when I requested ties."
For the benefit of the sport and the community, of course.
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: 07 Mar 2000 05:15:45 EST
Madame Silvertree,
Perhaps thee wouldst care to name the officials to whom thee make reference in thine comment to whit: "Further, I will amend my own record by a reduction of two wins... reversing two arbitrations by callers who declared wins in my favor when I requested ties."
For the benefit of the sport and the community, of course.
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: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 06:28:17 EST
"In closing... once again, many of you have overlooked the fact that other callers have done just this thing in the past, and many people have witnessed it. Yet, when I do it, it is called an abomination."
I am forced to note that this is not the first time Lady Silvertree has used the "someone else did it before me and you didn't do anything about it" defense.
I will state for the public what I have stated previously on this matter: "If we don't know about it, we can't address it." I will also note that when I previously said this, and requested details from Lady Silvertree on the "someone else did it before me" situation, such details were not forthcoming. That matter is not one for discussion in this venue as regards the details, but the character issue must be addressed.
Let me make this perfectly clear; just because someone did something you know is wrong, and got away with it, does not mean you get to as well. Drakewyn, you yourself say that you felt it was wrong to gain a win when you'd requested a tie. Therefore, it stands to reason that you know your ruling was wrong.
If you witness me murdering someone in the back alley, you cannot then later murder someone yourself and claim that you shouldn't face recrimination because I got away with it. Your insistence on this form of "defense" is at best disingenuous, and at worst infantile.
Yet again, you spit on long-held tradition in this arena, and offer EXCUSES. Don't you think it's time to stop?
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 06:28:17 EST
"In closing... once again, many of you have overlooked the fact that other callers have done just this thing in the past, and many people have witnessed it. Yet, when I do it, it is called an abomination."
I am forced to note that this is not the first time Lady Silvertree has used the "someone else did it before me and you didn't do anything about it" defense.
I will state for the public what I have stated previously on this matter: "If we don't know about it, we can't address it." I will also note that when I previously said this, and requested details from Lady Silvertree on the "someone else did it before me" situation, such details were not forthcoming. That matter is not one for discussion in this venue as regards the details, but the character issue must be addressed.
Let me make this perfectly clear; just because someone did something you know is wrong, and got away with it, does not mean you get to as well. Drakewyn, you yourself say that you felt it was wrong to gain a win when you'd requested a tie. Therefore, it stands to reason that you know your ruling was wrong.
If you witness me murdering someone in the back alley, you cannot then later murder someone yourself and claim that you shouldn't face recrimination because I got away with it. Your insistence on this form of "defense" is at best disingenuous, and at worst infantile.
Yet again, you spit on long-held tradition in this arena, and offer EXCUSES. Don't you think it's time to stop?
Regards,
Ian Rex.