From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 10:19:13 EST
"Re-read the full transcript of the night in question. I knew Damien Mortis' opinion at the time I made the decision to declare the match a tie.
Posting a small part of the transcript makes it easy to claim anything, but I do not accuse you of that. I only ask that, if you wish to show evidence, you show all of it."
As far as I know, I posted all of the relevant material. I posted from the announcement of the first round and everything related after that. If you are certain I did not, provide the relevant gaps you seem to think are missing that supports your claim that you knew Damien's opinion before making your ruling. If you cannot provide the relevant gaps, then you can not truthfully claim with any real strength that I did not show all of the evidence.
From the transcripts I have, you never acknowledged or asked for Damien's input regarding his wishes for the outcome of the forfeited duel. The only item you responded to before making your ruling was whether the time limit had passed, that is it.
As a reminder, I did not post anything that occurred that night that was not directly related to to the incident in question as it obviously had no bearing.
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: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 14:06:05 EST
Percy,
The result has to be given by the caller, since we are not officials and cannot declare a win or tie for ourselves. That is the caller's job -- to call the duel as a win or tie, not to decide if it is a win or tie.
-Rix
Date: 14 Mar 2000 14:06:05 EST
Percy,
The result has to be given by the caller, since we are not officials and cannot declare a win or tie for ourselves. That is the caller's job -- to call the duel as a win or tie, not to decide if it is a win or tie.
-Rix
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 15:47:25 EST
"IF THE RULE BEING ARGUED OVER WAS WRITTEN SO THAT IT COULD ONLY BE TAKEN TO HAVE ONE CLEAR MEANING, THEN THIS ENTIRE INCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE."
If officials of this sport who have been here for a long while, and who seem to wish us to recognize their importance, are unable to recognize a traditional interpretation of this rule which has existed since the proverbial dawn of time, this incident would not have taken place either.
The bottom line is that Lady Silvertree didn't even inquire as to Lord Mortis' preference. As such, regardless of how one chooses to interpret the rule, she blatantly violated it. Further, as it's clear that Lady Silvertree perused the rule in order to defend herself at the time of the incident, such blatant violation must also have been completely willful; one cannot carefully read that rule in order to defend oneself while completely failing to
miss the relevant clause.
Make no mistake; the subject of duelers choosing to take wins while losing a duel has been debated here before. Drakewyn cannot pretend she is ignorant of such discussions. Therefore, she cannot be anything but guilty of attempting to enforce her own morals in opposition to standard practice; further, she IS guilty, without question, of ignoring a clause which is clearly given within the rules.
Censure is most assuredly called for.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 14 Mar 2000 15:47:25 EST
"IF THE RULE BEING ARGUED OVER WAS WRITTEN SO THAT IT COULD ONLY BE TAKEN TO HAVE ONE CLEAR MEANING, THEN THIS ENTIRE INCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE."
If officials of this sport who have been here for a long while, and who seem to wish us to recognize their importance, are unable to recognize a traditional interpretation of this rule which has existed since the proverbial dawn of time, this incident would not have taken place either.
The bottom line is that Lady Silvertree didn't even inquire as to Lord Mortis' preference. As such, regardless of how one chooses to interpret the rule, she blatantly violated it. Further, as it's clear that Lady Silvertree perused the rule in order to defend herself at the time of the incident, such blatant violation must also have been completely willful; one cannot carefully read that rule in order to defend oneself while completely failing to
miss the relevant clause.
Make no mistake; the subject of duelers choosing to take wins while losing a duel has been debated here before. Drakewyn cannot pretend she is ignorant of such discussions. Therefore, she cannot be anything but guilty of attempting to enforce her own morals in opposition to standard practice; further, she IS guilty, without question, of ignoring a clause which is clearly given within the rules.
Censure is most assuredly called for.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zamhulem@aol.com (Zamhulem)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:02:12 EST
Why should she ask him again after he made it perfectly clear what he wanted several times. His input had already been given on the matter so she did follow the rules as far as I can tell unless I am missing somethin.
Zamhulem protector of the meek and weilder of SoulBinder
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:02:12 EST
Why should she ask him again after he made it perfectly clear what he wanted several times. His input had already been given on the matter so she did follow the rules as far as I can tell unless I am missing somethin.
Zamhulem protector of the meek and weilder of SoulBinder
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sentryash@aol.com (Sentry Ash)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:09:36 EST
"If it is to be so painfully obvious, sir, that the choice is to be that of the remaining duelist, than why do the rules explicitly say the decision is to be made by the caller?"
Sir Percival,
The duelist's input is the final decision, and the caller makes the decision official.
~ A
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:09:36 EST
"If it is to be so painfully obvious, sir, that the choice is to be that of the remaining duelist, than why do the rules explicitly say the decision is to be made by the caller?"
Sir Percival,
The duelist's input is the final decision, and the caller makes the decision official.
~ A
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:45:43 EST
>The result has to be given by the caller, since we are not officials and
>cannot declare a win or tie for ourselves. That is the caller's job -- to
>call the duel as a win or tie, not to decide if it is a win or tie.
>
Then that should be put into the rules instead of them reading, "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. " As of right now the rules do not read, "The caller shall announce the duelist's decision." They read that the caller will make the decision. That is a lo more than what you have said, and it is said explicitly
in the rules. If the rules are to be enforced differently than they are written, then I am merely suggesting that they be written to match their enforcement.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:45:43 EST
>The result has to be given by the caller, since we are not officials and
>cannot declare a win or tie for ourselves. That is the caller's job -- to
>call the duel as a win or tie, not to decide if it is a win or tie.
>
Then that should be put into the rules instead of them reading, "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. " As of right now the rules do not read, "The caller shall announce the duelist's decision." They read that the caller will make the decision. That is a lo more than what you have said, and it is said explicitly
in the rules. If the rules are to be enforced differently than they are written, then I am merely suggesting that they be written to match their enforcement.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:53:20 EST
>Make no mistake; the subject of duelers choosing to take wins while losing a
>duel has been debated here before. Drakewyn cannot pretend she is ignorant
>of such discussions. Therefore, she cannot be anything but guilty of
>attempting to enforce her own morals in opposition to standard practice;
>further, she IS guilty, without question, of ignoring a clause which is
>clearly given within the rules.
>
Let me repeat, again,. the clause as it is written in the rules. " 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. " The way it is written, the traditional interperetation everyone is making so much noise about is incorrect. The rules do not say that the remaining duelist makes the decision. They say, explicitly, that the
caller makes the decision. As the rules are written, Drakewyn followed them exactly.
Now, if the argument is whether or not that interperetation is right, I don't think it is. I think that the remaining duelist should make the decision, though I think it should be subject to a few limitations. However, regardless of the 'traditional' way of reading the rules, that is most certainly not what the rules say. What they do say is that the caller makes the decision, with input from the remaining duelist, which is exactly
what Drake did.
If the traditional meaning of the rules is to be enforced by the staff, then the staff needs to change the rules so they say what they mean. Pure and simple. If they do not change the written rule to match the tradition, then when they enforce the tradition rather than the written rule, the staff themselves are guilty of breaking the rules. This is only one small instance of this problem in the written rules, but it is a good place to start fixing
it.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
Date: 14 Mar 2000 17:53:20 EST
>Make no mistake; the subject of duelers choosing to take wins while losing a
>duel has been debated here before. Drakewyn cannot pretend she is ignorant
>of such discussions. Therefore, she cannot be anything but guilty of
>attempting to enforce her own morals in opposition to standard practice;
>further, she IS guilty, without question, of ignoring a clause which is
>clearly given within the rules.
>
Let me repeat, again,. the clause as it is written in the rules. " 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. " The way it is written, the traditional interperetation everyone is making so much noise about is incorrect. The rules do not say that the remaining duelist makes the decision. They say, explicitly, that the
caller makes the decision. As the rules are written, Drakewyn followed them exactly.
Now, if the argument is whether or not that interperetation is right, I don't think it is. I think that the remaining duelist should make the decision, though I think it should be subject to a few limitations. However, regardless of the 'traditional' way of reading the rules, that is most certainly not what the rules say. What they do say is that the caller makes the decision, with input from the remaining duelist, which is exactly
what Drake did.
If the traditional meaning of the rules is to be enforced by the staff, then the staff needs to change the rules so they say what they mean. Pure and simple. If they do not change the written rule to match the tradition, then when they enforce the tradition rather than the written rule, the staff themselves are guilty of breaking the rules. This is only one small instance of this problem in the written rules, but it is a good place to start fixing
it.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:04:34 EST
"His input had already been given on the matter so she did follow the rules as far as I can tell unless I am missing somethin."
You are missing something, Zam, certainly. What you are missing, as are the rest of us, is her acknowledgement of that input before making her ruling.
Where is it? Drakewyn implies she acknowledged his input and that this bit of information is missing from the evidence I put forth. I await this missing, pertinent, piece of information.
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:04:34 EST
"His input had already been given on the matter so she did follow the rules as far as I can tell unless I am missing somethin."
You are missing something, Zam, certainly. What you are missing, as are the rest of us, is her acknowledgement of that input before making her ruling.
Where is it? Drakewyn implies she acknowledged his input and that this bit of information is missing from the evidence I put forth. I await this missing, pertinent, piece of information.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:04:39 EST
>The duelist's input is the final decision, and the caller makes the decision
>official.
Yes, this is the way that many have long chosen to interperet the rule. It is what the group who are currently attacking Drake say is the only correct interperetation of the rule. However, it is not what the rule says. The rule says, quite explicitly, "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 that the
remaining duelist will decide, it explicitly says that the caller will make the decision with the duelist's help.
To put it in a way everyone can understand, this is what the rule means taken literally: the caller is supposed to ask the player's preference, but is not bound to accept the player's preference. The final decision, the way the rule is written, is explicitly that of the caller. That is what 'input' means. The remaining duelist's wishes are one of a great many factors that go into the process of making the decision, which is explicitly, as the
rules are written, the province of the caller.
Now, this is not necessarily the 'right' rule. However, right now it is the correct interperetation of the rules. Since the senior staff has made a decision changing the rule's enforcement, officially, then the seinor staff is bound, for the good of the patrons of the sport, to change the rule in writing to match their official decision.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:04:39 EST
>The duelist's input is the final decision, and the caller makes the decision
>official.
Yes, this is the way that many have long chosen to interperet the rule. It is what the group who are currently attacking Drake say is the only correct interperetation of the rule. However, it is not what the rule says. The rule says, quite explicitly, "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 that the
remaining duelist will decide, it explicitly says that the caller will make the decision with the duelist's help.
To put it in a way everyone can understand, this is what the rule means taken literally: the caller is supposed to ask the player's preference, but is not bound to accept the player's preference. The final decision, the way the rule is written, is explicitly that of the caller. That is what 'input' means. The remaining duelist's wishes are one of a great many factors that go into the process of making the decision, which is explicitly, as the
rules are written, the province of the caller.
Now, this is not necessarily the 'right' rule. However, right now it is the correct interperetation of the rules. Since the senior staff has made a decision changing the rule's enforcement, officially, then the seinor staff is bound, for the good of the patrons of the sport, to change the rule in writing to match their official decision.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:04:39 EST
>The duelist's input is the final decision, and the caller makes the decision
>official.
Yes, this is the way that many have long chosen to interperet the rule. It is what the group who are currently attacking Drake say is the only correct interperetation of the rule. However, it is not what the rule says. The rule says, quite explicitly, "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 that the
remaining duelist will decide, it explicitly says that the caller will make the decision with the duelist's help.
To put it in a way everyone can understand, this is what the rule means taken literally: the caller is supposed to ask the player's preference, but is not bound to accept the player's preference. The final decision, the way the rule is written, is explicitly that of the caller. That is what 'input' means. The remaining duelist's wishes are one of a great many factors that go into the process of making the decision, which is explicitly, as the
rules are written, the province of the caller.
Now, this is not necessarily the 'right' rule. However, right now it is the correct interperetation of the rules. Since the senior staff has made a decision changing the rule's enforcement, officially, then the seinor staff is bound, for the good of the patrons of the sport, to change the rule in writing to match their official decision.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:04:39 EST
>The duelist's input is the final decision, and the caller makes the decision
>official.
Yes, this is the way that many have long chosen to interperet the rule. It is what the group who are currently attacking Drake say is the only correct interperetation of the rule. However, it is not what the rule says. The rule says, quite explicitly, "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 that the
remaining duelist will decide, it explicitly says that the caller will make the decision with the duelist's help.
To put it in a way everyone can understand, this is what the rule means taken literally: the caller is supposed to ask the player's preference, but is not bound to accept the player's preference. The final decision, the way the rule is written, is explicitly that of the caller. That is what 'input' means. The remaining duelist's wishes are one of a great many factors that go into the process of making the decision, which is explicitly, as the
rules are written, the province of the caller.
Now, this is not necessarily the 'right' rule. However, right now it is the correct interperetation of the rules. Since the senior staff has made a decision changing the rule's enforcement, officially, then the seinor staff is bound, for the good of the patrons of the sport, to change the rule in writing to match their official decision.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: bodebojangles@aol.com (Bode BoJangles)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:23:12 EST
"Let me repeat, again,. the clause as it is written in the rules. ' If a player is punted and unable to return...'"
Ya mean if I kick them so hard they can't get up? Ya damn right I get the win.
"'...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. ' The way it is written, the traditional interperetation everyone is making so much noise about is incorrect. The rules do not say that the remaining duelist makes the decision. They say, explicitly, that the caller makes the decision. As the rules are written, Drakewyn followed them exactly."
I underlined an important little thing up there for ya, bud, cuz them officials didn't throw it in there to give us normal folk a false sense of butterflies-in-the-belly specialness. The ref bases her decision on the remaining guy's imput, meaning, she decide what he decides. Get it? Got it? I'm gone.
Bode
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:23:12 EST
"Let me repeat, again,. the clause as it is written in the rules. ' If a player is punted and unable to return...'"
Ya mean if I kick them so hard they can't get up? Ya damn right I get the win.
"'...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. ' The way it is written, the traditional interperetation everyone is making so much noise about is incorrect. The rules do not say that the remaining duelist makes the decision. They say, explicitly, that the caller makes the decision. As the rules are written, Drakewyn followed them exactly."
I underlined an important little thing up there for ya, bud, cuz them officials didn't throw it in there to give us normal folk a false sense of butterflies-in-the-belly specialness. The ref bases her decision on the remaining guy's imput, meaning, she decide what he decides. Get it? Got it? I'm gone.
Bode
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:31:31 EST
"They read that the caller will make the decision."
No, Percival, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Rix. The rules read that the caller with the input of the remaining duelist will make the decision. The inclusion of the commas does not make the clause unnecessary. The inclusion of the commas make the clause a condition of the outcome.
In other words, where:
A = official
B = remaining duelist's input
C = official decision made
+ = with
- = without
A + B = C
You continually try to assert that:
A +/- B = C
The only way your assertion can work is if B = 0.
If B = 0, then B has no impact on the outcome. If B had no impact, it would not be in this equation and it would simply stand at A = C. But B is in the equation and is expected to have an impact on the outcome; therefore, B cannot = 0.
Date: 14 Mar 2000 18:31:31 EST
"They read that the caller will make the decision."
No, Percival, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Rix. The rules read that the caller with the input of the remaining duelist will make the decision. The inclusion of the commas does not make the clause unnecessary. The inclusion of the commas make the clause a condition of the outcome.
In other words, where:
A = official
B = remaining duelist's input
C = official decision made
+ = with
- = without
A + B = C
You continually try to assert that:
A +/- B = C
The only way your assertion can work is if B = 0.
If B = 0, then B has no impact on the outcome. If B had no impact, it would not be in this equation and it would simply stand at A = C. But B is in the equation and is expected to have an impact on the outcome; therefore, B cannot = 0.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:13:58 EST
"If the traditional meaning of the rules is to be enforced by the staff, then the staff needs to change the rules so they say what they mean. Pure and simple."
I fully agree.
You, however, are missing the point entirely.
Until this incident, I'd have been more than happy to gather a random selection of one hundred duelists and bet you an entire duchy that not one would answer "the official" when asked the question "who decides whether a forfeit is a win or tie?"
Why?
Because with the apparent exception of these two phantom duels Lady Silvertree refers to, it has always been the practice to allow the remaining duelist the choice. Those "with honor" take the tie, some even when they are winning 4-0 after four. Those "without honor" take the win, even when they're losing, and WE SIT HERE AND ARGUE ABOUT IT INCESSANTLY, and the staff has repeatedly informed us that it's up to the individual dueler!
This use of the two duels in which Lady Silvertree's wishes were apparently not taken into consideration is, in my mind, yet another red herring; as I have stated, it is not the first time Lady Silvertree has justified her own actions by using the "but they did it and you didn't say/do anything" argument without providing evidence of the previous incident she addresses. But we'll ignore that, because it's irrelevant. Our intrepid standings keeper
is not (or should not be) so stupid as to pretend she does not know this is tradition, it is the public's expectation, and it is previously stated POLICY.
Feel free to argue the rule interpretation as written; I will agree with you on that point. Do not for a moment pretend, however, that Lady Silvertree "innocently" followed the rules. She knew the proper resolution for the situation, and chooses to hide behind what she knows to be a poorly written rule as justification for her overweening arrogance.
In other words, Your Grace, as a non-supervisory official of this sport, she had no business taking it upon herself as "prerogative" to use her position to point out flawed wording. The matter should have been addressed as all rules matters are, not by caller fiat.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:13:58 EST
"If the traditional meaning of the rules is to be enforced by the staff, then the staff needs to change the rules so they say what they mean. Pure and simple."
I fully agree.
You, however, are missing the point entirely.
Until this incident, I'd have been more than happy to gather a random selection of one hundred duelists and bet you an entire duchy that not one would answer "the official" when asked the question "who decides whether a forfeit is a win or tie?"
Why?
Because with the apparent exception of these two phantom duels Lady Silvertree refers to, it has always been the practice to allow the remaining duelist the choice. Those "with honor" take the tie, some even when they are winning 4-0 after four. Those "without honor" take the win, even when they're losing, and WE SIT HERE AND ARGUE ABOUT IT INCESSANTLY, and the staff has repeatedly informed us that it's up to the individual dueler!
This use of the two duels in which Lady Silvertree's wishes were apparently not taken into consideration is, in my mind, yet another red herring; as I have stated, it is not the first time Lady Silvertree has justified her own actions by using the "but they did it and you didn't say/do anything" argument without providing evidence of the previous incident she addresses. But we'll ignore that, because it's irrelevant. Our intrepid standings keeper
is not (or should not be) so stupid as to pretend she does not know this is tradition, it is the public's expectation, and it is previously stated POLICY.
Feel free to argue the rule interpretation as written; I will agree with you on that point. Do not for a moment pretend, however, that Lady Silvertree "innocently" followed the rules. She knew the proper resolution for the situation, and chooses to hide behind what she knows to be a poorly written rule as justification for her overweening arrogance.
In other words, Your Grace, as a non-supervisory official of this sport, she had no business taking it upon herself as "prerogative" to use her position to point out flawed wording. The matter should have been addressed as all rules matters are, not by caller fiat.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:15:40 EST
"Yes, this is the way that many have long chosen to interperet the rule. It is what the group who are currently attacking Drake say is the only correct interperetation of the rule."
Given that the supervisors of this sport have publicly supported and continue to publicly support that interpretation, you're damned right it's the only correct one.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:15:40 EST
"Yes, this is the way that many have long chosen to interperet the rule. It is what the group who are currently attacking Drake say is the only correct interperetation of the rule."
Given that the supervisors of this sport have publicly supported and continue to publicly support that interpretation, you're damned right it's the only correct one.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:18:28 EST
"Now, this is not necessarily the 'right' rule. However, right now it is the correct interperetation of the rules. Since the senior staff has made a decision changing the rule's enforcement..."
My apologies. I should have addressed this as well.
The staff has not made a decision CHANGING the rule's enforcement; they have made a decision AFFIRMING the rule's traditional enforcement.
I remind you the only contrary claim that supports any theory that senior staff made an opposing decision previously comes from the accused.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 14 Mar 2000 19:18:28 EST
"Now, this is not necessarily the 'right' rule. However, right now it is the correct interperetation of the rules. Since the senior staff has made a decision changing the rule's enforcement..."
My apologies. I should have addressed this as well.
The staff has not made a decision CHANGING the rule's enforcement; they have made a decision AFFIRMING the rule's traditional enforcement.
I remind you the only contrary claim that supports any theory that senior staff made an opposing decision previously comes from the accused.
Regards,
Ian Rex.