From: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 20:02:12 EST
I was not trying to interpret the rules. I was saying what a caller's job is, pure and simple. The caller is supposed to be objective and call the duel as they see it, not force their own personal opinions on a duel by saying they feel one round does not constitute a duel.
-Rix
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: 15 Mar 2000 03:15:15 EST
Laird MacKenzie.
How dare you accuse me of making up "phantom duels" in order to bolster my case. Whatever you may think of my decisions as Standing's Keeper, I would have thought you knew me better than to believe I would lie.
Further, as I explained and you appear to have skipped over, I spoke with the Supervisor at the time of the first incident and was told that the Caller's decision was final. How much more official does it need to be?
I will not give the names of the callers, under any circumstances.
From the Results of 10/26/97:
Drakewyn x def. IRONSlDES, 2.5-3 in 7 rounds due to forfeit.
From the Results of 8/31/97:
Drakewyn x def. LOGANDANTE, 4.5 - 3 in 8 rounds.
Unfortunately, neither of these duelists are active any longer. However, should either of them return, I will discuss the matter with them and adjust their record... if the Supervisor approves.
Further, I discovered this interesting tidbit... the names of the duelists are obscured to protect either of them from any public harrassment or involvement they may not wish.
From the Results of 4/7/97:
C------ def. E-------, 2.5 - 1 in 4 rounds ENDED by Referee discretion
There stands my proof. I found many other such duels involving many other persons who, unless I am unfortunately mistaken, would never request a win in a forfeiture situation. I refuse to name these people for much the same reason as I refuse to name the callers. If they wish to step forward, that is their choice.
As for the transcript of the night in question, I certainly do not have one. I record the results of the duels, no more. Unlike some, I do not find in nessasary to make a recording of everything that transpires in the Arena. However, I will point out one thing on the peice of transcript you provided.
"HOST DFC Drake: Speaking of that... ::Looks to Damien:: did you want to find a new opponent?
Damien Mortis: don' I ge' a win?
HOST DFC Drake: Sorry, not after one round. If it were more than one round, I'd give you the option."
It would appear that I clearly heard him say that he wished a win and responded to him based on his statement of such. He asks, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Don't I get a win?" and I reply "Sorry, not after one round." I heard his input, then I decided on the match's results.
Please note that I am no longer arguing whether my decision was right or wrong. Whether I was right or wrong has no meaning at this point, as a final ruling has already been made and I have adjusted both the Standings and my calling to reflect that ruling. I am merely putting to rest certain claims made against me.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 15 Mar 2000 03:15:15 EST
Laird MacKenzie.
How dare you accuse me of making up "phantom duels" in order to bolster my case. Whatever you may think of my decisions as Standing's Keeper, I would have thought you knew me better than to believe I would lie.
Further, as I explained and you appear to have skipped over, I spoke with the Supervisor at the time of the first incident and was told that the Caller's decision was final. How much more official does it need to be?
I will not give the names of the callers, under any circumstances.
From the Results of 10/26/97:
Drakewyn x def. IRONSlDES, 2.5-3 in 7 rounds due to forfeit.
From the Results of 8/31/97:
Drakewyn x def. LOGANDANTE, 4.5 - 3 in 8 rounds.
Unfortunately, neither of these duelists are active any longer. However, should either of them return, I will discuss the matter with them and adjust their record... if the Supervisor approves.
Further, I discovered this interesting tidbit... the names of the duelists are obscured to protect either of them from any public harrassment or involvement they may not wish.
From the Results of 4/7/97:
C------ def. E-------, 2.5 - 1 in 4 rounds ENDED by Referee discretion
There stands my proof. I found many other such duels involving many other persons who, unless I am unfortunately mistaken, would never request a win in a forfeiture situation. I refuse to name these people for much the same reason as I refuse to name the callers. If they wish to step forward, that is their choice.
As for the transcript of the night in question, I certainly do not have one. I record the results of the duels, no more. Unlike some, I do not find in nessasary to make a recording of everything that transpires in the Arena. However, I will point out one thing on the peice of transcript you provided.
"HOST DFC Drake: Speaking of that... ::Looks to Damien:: did you want to find a new opponent?
Damien Mortis: don' I ge' a win?
HOST DFC Drake: Sorry, not after one round. If it were more than one round, I'd give you the option."
It would appear that I clearly heard him say that he wished a win and responded to him based on his statement of such. He asks, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Don't I get a win?" and I reply "Sorry, not after one round." I heard his input, then I decided on the match's results.
Please note that I am no longer arguing whether my decision was right or wrong. Whether I was right or wrong has no meaning at this point, as a final ruling has already been made and I have adjusted both the Standings and my calling to reflect that ruling. I am merely putting to rest certain claims made against me.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 04:32:33 EST
Madame Silvertree,
I do thank thee fer supplying th' dates 'o th' duels. It shouldst be wi' verra little difficulty that mine scribes may ascertain the names of those officials and circumstances surrounding the incidents. Certes tis nae doubt who wast at the time th' supervisor. It mayest also be wi' little difficulty that mine scribes may ascertain th' circumstances surrounding th' matter thou dost make reference ta ast havin' been ended by Referee discretion.
I do find yuir arrogance in presuming ta know wh' anna other duelist may hae chosen ta do ast unsurprising.
By thine own pen ast well ast thine own mouth, Madame, thee declared yuir obviously flawed concept that one round didst nae constitute a duel, then further stated thee wouldst grant unto Damien Mortis the option were thee ta consider it ta be in fact a duel.
Thee hae conveniently failed ta apprise the community just where thee came by th' idea that one round dinna constitute a duel, Drakey Poo.
Madame, th' claims made against thee an' thine own answer show thee did nae take into consideration annathing save yuir own opinion that one round wast nae a duel, a patently false concept, an' followed th' statement by clearly stating if th' duel hae been more th' one round thee wouldst hae given Damien Mortis the option to decide.
If I am nae mistaken th' Supervisor thee hae inferred by th' dates thee hae given didst also override a valid and proper decision made by th' then Standings Keeper, the Elder Master Goldendust Evermeadow in th' matter of th' improperly issued challenge of one Jaycynda Ashleana to th' then Baron Evan. A ruling, mind ye, that flew in th' face of one o' th' most concise and clearly written rules of engagement.
In addition, Master Goldendust Evermeadow hae placed a missive 'pon the cork some time AFORE that challenge which contained a concise an' clear clarification o' th' rule governing th' requirement that bona fides are nae legal fer use in issuin' challenges UNTIL placed wi' th' standings publicly.
One then canna be verra surprised that th' then Supervisor perhaps hae nae understanding of the simplest concepts, an' I assure thee, Madame, most certes did nae make anna official announcement at anna time that she hae decided ta overrule one of th' longest standing traditions o' these ancient halls.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 15 Mar 2000 04:32:33 EST
Madame Silvertree,
I do thank thee fer supplying th' dates 'o th' duels. It shouldst be wi' verra little difficulty that mine scribes may ascertain the names of those officials and circumstances surrounding the incidents. Certes tis nae doubt who wast at the time th' supervisor. It mayest also be wi' little difficulty that mine scribes may ascertain th' circumstances surrounding th' matter thou dost make reference ta ast havin' been ended by Referee discretion.
I do find yuir arrogance in presuming ta know wh' anna other duelist may hae chosen ta do ast unsurprising.
By thine own pen ast well ast thine own mouth, Madame, thee declared yuir obviously flawed concept that one round didst nae constitute a duel, then further stated thee wouldst grant unto Damien Mortis the option were thee ta consider it ta be in fact a duel.
Thee hae conveniently failed ta apprise the community just where thee came by th' idea that one round dinna constitute a duel, Drakey Poo.
Madame, th' claims made against thee an' thine own answer show thee did nae take into consideration annathing save yuir own opinion that one round wast nae a duel, a patently false concept, an' followed th' statement by clearly stating if th' duel hae been more th' one round thee wouldst hae given Damien Mortis the option to decide.
If I am nae mistaken th' Supervisor thee hae inferred by th' dates thee hae given didst also override a valid and proper decision made by th' then Standings Keeper, the Elder Master Goldendust Evermeadow in th' matter of th' improperly issued challenge of one Jaycynda Ashleana to th' then Baron Evan. A ruling, mind ye, that flew in th' face of one o' th' most concise and clearly written rules of engagement.
In addition, Master Goldendust Evermeadow hae placed a missive 'pon the cork some time AFORE that challenge which contained a concise an' clear clarification o' th' rule governing th' requirement that bona fides are nae legal fer use in issuin' challenges UNTIL placed wi' th' standings publicly.
One then canna be verra surprised that th' then Supervisor perhaps hae nae understanding of the simplest concepts, an' I assure thee, Madame, most certes did nae make anna official announcement at anna time that she hae decided ta overrule one of th' longest standing traditions o' these ancient halls.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 12:07:01 EST
"Whatever you may think of my decisions as Standing's Keeper, I would have thought you knew me better than to believe I would lie."
You've left me little choice, by raising an issue to defend your own actions elsewhere, then utterly refusing to document your claims. Not the track record of an honest person. If you don't like it, that's too bad, but it's a situation of your own creation.
"How much more official does it need to be?"
Given that the disposition of forfeited duels has been a matter of public debate off and on for several years, the Supervisor in question - who as we all know was responsible for some other egregious errors - needed to make the unilateral change in policy public. As it stands, the policy still did not change uniformly, as many, many times since the dates you supply, callers have expressed their displeasure at "having to" grant a dueler a win in a
forfeit situation while that duelist was losing. A policy change which is not uniform, and which is not publicly disseminated, is not an official policy change at all, no matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise.
"Further, I discovered this interesting tidbit... the names of the duelists are obscured to protect either of them from any public harrassment or involvement they may not wish."
How utterly paranoid.
"From the Results of 4/7/97:
C------ def. E-------, 2.5 - 1 in 4 rounds ENDED by Referee discretion"
Indeed, I may recall this duel myself; if not, I certainly remember duels like it. When it becomes impossible to complete a duel because (a) a mistaken call fundamentally alters the ability to complete the duel (it's happened), (b) BOTH duelers are unable to continue (it's happened), (c) one dueler has become abusive to the point where the caller refuses to continue (it's happened), or for any number of other possible reasons, I can perfectly
understand "ENDED by Referee discretion."
You're addressing a very rare situation which is in no way comparable to the common forfeit. It's like comparing halflings and storm giants.
"As for the transcript of the night in question, I certainly do not have one. I record the results of the duels, no more. Unlike some, I do not find in nessasary to make a recording of everything that transpires in the Arena."
Necessary. And, naturally, your need to be condescending and insulting outweighs your common sense; the recording of the events of this sport is an enormously helpful mechanism for allowing us to retain and maintain the history of the sport.
Additionally, since you have not redirected your commentary to the person who provided the transcript, one must assume that in your addled state, you're continuing to address me in the following:
"However, I will point out one thing on the peice of transcript you provided."
I provided nothing. Now, unless you're viewing all we horrible people who dare to question the Great Lady Drakewyn Silvertree as one entity, kindly address your concerns to the relevant party.
"It would appear that I clearly heard him say that he wished a win and responded to him based on his statement of such. He asks, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Don't I get a win?" and I reply "Sorry, not after one round." I heard his input, then I decided on the match's results."
Granted; however, you still suffer from a complete lack of comprehension. If the input of the duelist is to be disregarded, then there's no reason for the input clause.
In point of fact, now that we've reached this state, I will remind the public that the REASON for the input clause in the first place was to allow duelists to take the TIE if they so chose, rather than having to accept a win they felt they had not earned (as forfeit were formerly routinely granted as wins regardless). Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule.
"Please note that I am no longer arguing whether my decision was right or wrong. Whether I was right or wrong has no meaning at this point..."
It has every meaning in the world, as you, in the position of a servant of the public, continue to err and then try to justify yourself. This case is particularly egregious, as it involves an official of this sport imposing their own morality over a long-established practice, basing their decision on a "prerogative" to which they are not entitled to. As an official, your job is to witness a match and record the result. Period.
I will repeat: either you are incredibly blind, inattentive, or both; or you are perfectly aware that the disposition of a forfeited duel in which the remaining duelist is not winning has been a source of contention in the past, and that the staff's public response has ALWAYS been that the duelist has the choice, and the effects of their decision reflects upon their own personal honor. That you are willing to ignore this in order to defend your own
arrogant moralizing speaks volumes about your character.
Ian Rex.
Date: 15 Mar 2000 12:07:01 EST
"Whatever you may think of my decisions as Standing's Keeper, I would have thought you knew me better than to believe I would lie."
You've left me little choice, by raising an issue to defend your own actions elsewhere, then utterly refusing to document your claims. Not the track record of an honest person. If you don't like it, that's too bad, but it's a situation of your own creation.
"How much more official does it need to be?"
Given that the disposition of forfeited duels has been a matter of public debate off and on for several years, the Supervisor in question - who as we all know was responsible for some other egregious errors - needed to make the unilateral change in policy public. As it stands, the policy still did not change uniformly, as many, many times since the dates you supply, callers have expressed their displeasure at "having to" grant a dueler a win in a
forfeit situation while that duelist was losing. A policy change which is not uniform, and which is not publicly disseminated, is not an official policy change at all, no matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise.
"Further, I discovered this interesting tidbit... the names of the duelists are obscured to protect either of them from any public harrassment or involvement they may not wish."
How utterly paranoid.
"From the Results of 4/7/97:
C------ def. E-------, 2.5 - 1 in 4 rounds ENDED by Referee discretion"
Indeed, I may recall this duel myself; if not, I certainly remember duels like it. When it becomes impossible to complete a duel because (a) a mistaken call fundamentally alters the ability to complete the duel (it's happened), (b) BOTH duelers are unable to continue (it's happened), (c) one dueler has become abusive to the point where the caller refuses to continue (it's happened), or for any number of other possible reasons, I can perfectly
understand "ENDED by Referee discretion."
You're addressing a very rare situation which is in no way comparable to the common forfeit. It's like comparing halflings and storm giants.
"As for the transcript of the night in question, I certainly do not have one. I record the results of the duels, no more. Unlike some, I do not find in nessasary to make a recording of everything that transpires in the Arena."
Necessary. And, naturally, your need to be condescending and insulting outweighs your common sense; the recording of the events of this sport is an enormously helpful mechanism for allowing us to retain and maintain the history of the sport.
Additionally, since you have not redirected your commentary to the person who provided the transcript, one must assume that in your addled state, you're continuing to address me in the following:
"However, I will point out one thing on the peice of transcript you provided."
I provided nothing. Now, unless you're viewing all we horrible people who dare to question the Great Lady Drakewyn Silvertree as one entity, kindly address your concerns to the relevant party.
"It would appear that I clearly heard him say that he wished a win and responded to him based on his statement of such. He asks, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Don't I get a win?" and I reply "Sorry, not after one round." I heard his input, then I decided on the match's results."
Granted; however, you still suffer from a complete lack of comprehension. If the input of the duelist is to be disregarded, then there's no reason for the input clause.
In point of fact, now that we've reached this state, I will remind the public that the REASON for the input clause in the first place was to allow duelists to take the TIE if they so chose, rather than having to accept a win they felt they had not earned (as forfeit were formerly routinely granted as wins regardless). Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule.
"Please note that I am no longer arguing whether my decision was right or wrong. Whether I was right or wrong has no meaning at this point..."
It has every meaning in the world, as you, in the position of a servant of the public, continue to err and then try to justify yourself. This case is particularly egregious, as it involves an official of this sport imposing their own morality over a long-established practice, basing their decision on a "prerogative" to which they are not entitled to. As an official, your job is to witness a match and record the result. Period.
I will repeat: either you are incredibly blind, inattentive, or both; or you are perfectly aware that the disposition of a forfeited duel in which the remaining duelist is not winning has been a source of contention in the past, and that the staff's public response has ALWAYS been that the duelist has the choice, and the effects of their decision reflects upon their own personal honor. That you are willing to ignore this in order to defend your own
arrogant moralizing speaks volumes about your character.
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 01:55:25 EST
Laird MacKenzie.
Why you chose to continue to use insults eludes me.
1. I have documented my claims, will you offer an appology for accusing me of lying?
2. Whatever the Supervisor in question was or was not responsible for, that person still told me that the caller's decision was final... and I never claimed it was an official policy change. At the time it occured, it became a de facto admission of fact.
3. I have no desire to involve other people in this debate without their permission. If you wish to call that paranoid, so be it.
4. Your statements do not, in any way, explain away the fact that this has happened to others. If you wish, I will provide the copies of the dueling Results to you privately, so that you may see these for yourself.
5. Whether I redirected the commentary to the person who provided the transcript or not... I find it stunning you would use such a minor thing to insult me further.
6. Please provide me the documentation backing up your assertation of the following: "I will remind the public that the REASON for the input clause in the first place was to allow duelists to take the TIE if they so chose, rather than having to accept a win they felt they had not earned (as forfeit were formerly routinely granted as wins regardless).
Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule." Show me exactly where this reason is/was stated, and exactly where this intent is/was shown.
Note that I am not saying you are lying or even that these things are not true... I am just asking you to provide as much proof as you and others ask me to provide.
7. You state: "that the staff's public response has ALWAYS been that the duelist has the choice," and yet you completely disregard my proof that this is not a guaranteed fact. Why?
8. While, since the official decision was handed down, others have defended or attempted to justify my case... I have not. Once the official ruling was given, as I stated in a previous post, I accepted that ruling and adjusted my stance and calling to match it. My only posts have been answers to specific questions directed at me or statements to put to rest lies about myself.
For further clairity, let me state it thus: My decision was based upon my interpretation of the rules as written and previous incidents involving myself personally. In regards to the traditions, it was incorrect... and thus was overturned by the Supervisors.
9. You clearly state in another post that "Everyone agrees that it is improper wording for the intent." Yet this is clearly not the case. Many people clearly believe that the wording is exactly the way they wish it to be, and have stated so. I ask you to read the
posts again. The arguement is specifically regarding my interpretation and the actions I took based on that interpretation.
Lastly, you did not answer the question posited by Lord Argus.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 16 Mar 2000 01:55:25 EST
Laird MacKenzie.
Why you chose to continue to use insults eludes me.
1. I have documented my claims, will you offer an appology for accusing me of lying?
2. Whatever the Supervisor in question was or was not responsible for, that person still told me that the caller's decision was final... and I never claimed it was an official policy change. At the time it occured, it became a de facto admission of fact.
3. I have no desire to involve other people in this debate without their permission. If you wish to call that paranoid, so be it.
4. Your statements do not, in any way, explain away the fact that this has happened to others. If you wish, I will provide the copies of the dueling Results to you privately, so that you may see these for yourself.
5. Whether I redirected the commentary to the person who provided the transcript or not... I find it stunning you would use such a minor thing to insult me further.
6. Please provide me the documentation backing up your assertation of the following: "I will remind the public that the REASON for the input clause in the first place was to allow duelists to take the TIE if they so chose, rather than having to accept a win they felt they had not earned (as forfeit were formerly routinely granted as wins regardless).
Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule." Show me exactly where this reason is/was stated, and exactly where this intent is/was shown.
Note that I am not saying you are lying or even that these things are not true... I am just asking you to provide as much proof as you and others ask me to provide.
7. You state: "that the staff's public response has ALWAYS been that the duelist has the choice," and yet you completely disregard my proof that this is not a guaranteed fact. Why?
8. While, since the official decision was handed down, others have defended or attempted to justify my case... I have not. Once the official ruling was given, as I stated in a previous post, I accepted that ruling and adjusted my stance and calling to match it. My only posts have been answers to specific questions directed at me or statements to put to rest lies about myself.
For further clairity, let me state it thus: My decision was based upon my interpretation of the rules as written and previous incidents involving myself personally. In regards to the traditions, it was incorrect... and thus was overturned by the Supervisors.
9. You clearly state in another post that "Everyone agrees that it is improper wording for the intent." Yet this is clearly not the case. Many people clearly believe that the wording is exactly the way they wish it to be, and have stated so. I ask you to read the
posts again. The arguement is specifically regarding my interpretation and the actions I took based on that interpretation.
Lastly, you did not answer the question posited by Lord Argus.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 05:00:55 EST
Ian,
Perhaps thee might posit unto Madame Silvertree the question as ta 'er source for her declaration that one round dinna constitute a duel. I, for one, and likely others of the community wouldst certes be interested in learning what source she drew upon to make that 'ruling' and 'interpretation'.
Thee might also inquire the particulars from Madame Silvertree in the matter of a duel betwixt herself an' Kingphisch which wast ruled a win fer Kingphisch by forfeit with th' score standing at three ta naught fer KF after five rounds. Or mayhap th' particulars 'o another duel which took place less th' a month followin' which wast declared a tie wi' ta score standin' at four ta naught after bu' six rounds in Madame Silvertree's favor agin Jesse
Troyan. In ta second duel nae mention ist made 'o forfeit.
Cordially,
Jona
Date: 16 Mar 2000 05:00:55 EST
Ian,
Perhaps thee might posit unto Madame Silvertree the question as ta 'er source for her declaration that one round dinna constitute a duel. I, for one, and likely others of the community wouldst certes be interested in learning what source she drew upon to make that 'ruling' and 'interpretation'.
Thee might also inquire the particulars from Madame Silvertree in the matter of a duel betwixt herself an' Kingphisch which wast ruled a win fer Kingphisch by forfeit with th' score standing at three ta naught fer KF after five rounds. Or mayhap th' particulars 'o another duel which took place less th' a month followin' which wast declared a tie wi' ta score standin' at four ta naught after bu' six rounds in Madame Silvertree's favor agin Jesse
Troyan. In ta second duel nae mention ist made 'o forfeit.
Cordially,
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 07:40:34 EST
"Why you chose to continue to use insults eludes me."
Why you choose to continue to insult the entire community eludes me, as well.
"1. I have documented my claims, will you offer an appology for accusing me of lying?"
Had I "accused" you of lying, I would. There is a difference between accusing someone of lying and noting previous instances wherein you were asked for details - not even hard, concrete, documented proof, but just DETAILS - regarding an accusation you made in order to justify your own actions, and didn't deem it worth the energy to follow up.
Or, put another way, there's a difference between accusing you of lying and suggesting you might be. At this stage, in the other matter, I do, indeed, believe you were lying to me. I see no reason to ever, in the future, assume your honesty when your response to being called down on a matter is to use the "but they did it and nobody did anything" argument. Smply put, I trust you about as much as I trust your average kender.
As for offering an apology... when you finally learn the art of doing so, I might consider it. Until then, you'll excuse me for riding my moral high horse and refusing you that which you refuse everyone else most of the time. And rest assured that if I ever do decide to, I'll spend six weeks justifying myself, so that you might finally understand how infuriating your own actions are. You, dear Lady, have the dubious honor of being the first person
in recorded history whom I DON'T consider worthy of an immediate apology if I happen to wrong you.
"2. Whatever the Supervisor in question was or was not responsible for, that person still told me that the caller's decision was final... and I never claimed it was an official policy change. At the time it occured, it became a de facto admission of fact."
And have you, then, in your time as standings keeper, changed any results forwarded to you as "So-and-So def. Such-and-Suxh x-y in z rounds by forfeit" to a tie?
No, I don't think you have. Therefore, it was nothing of the sort. It was a pair of individual rulings which clearly don't seem to apply to standard practice.
"3. I have no desire to involve other people in this debate without their permission. If you wish to call that paranoid, so be it."
What I term paranoid is the "I don't want to subject them to harassment" nonsense. Indeed, I can see no relevant reason to bring those into the debate at all. They are irrelevant, as my list of possible explanations for such a recorded result should make clear.
"4. Your statements do not, in any way, explain away the fact that this has happened to others."
And neither is "data" the plural of "anecdote." Your point? By your logic, the fact that a certain percentage of my citizens get away with not paying me their share of taxes is a free pass for any given one to claim that they had justifiable cause not to as well. This is a logic flaw which you have persisted in demonstrating to me, and I really do wish you'd correct it.
"5. Whether I redirected the commentary to the person who provided the transcript or not... I find it stunning you would use such a minor thing to insult me further."
I find a lot of things stunning about your entire chain of behaviour of late... including your penchant for lumping your detractors together into a faceless mass, and your incessant attitude that there's an organized group out to get you for no valid reason. Unless I specifically state that I am speaking for another party, or offer my interpretation of what another party has written on their own, I am expressing my own opinion. Not only is failing
to distinguish one "attacker" from another insulting, but failing to make that distinction allows those who may be come late to the debate to attribute words and/or actions to me which are not my own.
"6. Please provide me the documentation backing up your assertation of the following: "I will remind the public that the REASON for the input clause in the first place was to allow duelists to take the TIE if they so chose, rather than having to accept a win they felt they had not earned (as forfeit were formerly routinely granted as wins regardless).
Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule." Show me exactly where this reason is/was stated, and exactly where this intent is/was shown."
This happened back when you were still soiling your diapers, Lady Silvertree. Frankly, the only person who'd have hard-copy access to such discussions, you wouldn't believe anyway, since your hatred outstrips your common sense.
Suffice it to say that I remember. If that's not good enough for you... oh, well. Trust me, at this stage in life, there are worse things than having you dispute my memory. Such as, for instance, living with knowing that I was among those who recommended someone so clearly unsuited to a service position for this job.
"Note that I am not saying you are lying or even that these things are not true... I am just asking you to provide as much proof as you and others ask me to provide."
And, of course, once again, Her Majesty, surrounded by her tormentors, can't keep them straight. I defy you to point to a single instance where I have asked you for "proof" of anything, except in instances where a policy issue demands proof. In your attempt to divert me from acting on the issue I've referred to, I didn't ask for proof; I asked for details (which is why I doubt your veracity on the matter). In our debates upon this cork, I have
never demanded proof. That is the province of Ladies Starfare and Cornwall.
"7. You state: "that the staff's public response has ALWAYS been that the duelist has the choice," and yet you completely disregard my proof that this is not a guaranteed fact. Why?"
This, Lady Silvertree, is why I might tend to insult. You've offered nothing whatsoever that even remotely resembles "proof" of anything regarding the staff's PUBLIC response.
Let me help you. Every time the issue of what to do about a forfeit has come up, the official public response from the supervisory staff of this sport is to agree with the majority of the community that it is not the sport's business to legislate the individual honor of a duelist, and as such, if some slimebag wishes to take a win when they're losing 4-0, it's their business. That a previous supervisor made a differing decision BEHIND THE SCENES is
irrelevant. That the rule can be interpreted differently than public statements offered by management staff is irrelevant, except to prove that the wording needs to be changed. Nothing you say can or will alter that salient fact, unless you show me where a management figure in this sport has publicly disseminated information different from what I'm mentioning. I certainly don't remember it.
"8. While, since the official decision was handed down, others have defended or attempted to justify my case... I have not."
No, perhaps not, though the point may be open to argument. You are, however, also failing to address the issue which I have been attempting to make clear: You are not blind, or at least I surmise you are not. You are not without memory, and you certainly peruse not only this cork, but all other documentation relating to the sport... or so you say, anyway. As such, I find it completely unbelievable that you are not aware that the official publicly
stated policy, when offered, has that the remaining duelist chooses the tie or the win; I find it completely unbelievable that you have missed the previous arguments on the topic; and I find it completely unbelievable that armed with said knowledge, you even allowed the situation you've referred to regarding your own duels to remain in force without a public policy change.
You are not without principles, Lady Silvertree. If I can be firm and insistent that the rule must be rewritten if it is to be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the history of this sport, so can you.
"For further clairity, let me state it thus: My decision was based upon my interpretation of the rules as written and previous incidents involving myself personally. In regards to the traditions, it was incorrect... and thus was overturned by the Supervisors."
This is what I find most disturbing. You, in your position as an official of this sport, took YOUR interpretation, and filtered it through YOUR experiences, while ignoring reams of conflicting evidence. It strikes one as more than a wee bit self-centered.
"9. You clearly state in another post that "Everyone agrees that it is improper wording for the intent." Yet this is clearly not the case. Many people clearly believe that the wording is exactly the way they wish it to be, and have stated so. I ask you to read the posts again. The arguement is specifically regarding my interpretation and the actions I took based on that interpretation."
The argument is that your interpretation is wrong because everyone with a functioning memory knows that the number of times this rule was interpreted the way you did, compared to the number of times the rule was interpreted the way you didn't, is roughly analogous to the number of times Gnimish has beaten me in the ring compared to the number of times he hasn't. Morgan, and others, are arguing a semantic issue, but I'm sure will quickly tell you
that the ambiguity must be excised regardless.
"Lastly, you did not answer the question posited by Lord Argus."
I find it an inappropriate analogy, in that a supervisor's job generally is to subjectively rate an employee's performance and rank it on a scale, where as your job is to objectively determine the scoring of points in a contest of sport and rule, not on a scale, but either win or loss. You have no grey area. The feelings, goals, and attitudes of the duelers whose exertions you oversee are irrelevant to your duties. There is no discussion,
officially at any rate, between you and the duelers regarding how well they should have done, how they might improve, where they are failing to meet standards, or any of the myriad of things which constitute an employee's "input" in the review process. You do not have the power to affect a duelist's "review" based on your biases for or against them. Thus, while I will confess Lord Argus' question was indeed thoughtful, it is off the mark.
Lastly, I am compelled to point something out. At a certain point, while mistakes are forgivable, they begin to add up to the point where contriteness is irrelevant. If I own a shop, and an employee comes up short in the till at days' end, I can forgive that. If it happens again a week later, I can probably still forgive. When it happens repeatedly, and constant correction is not taking root, it's time to find another person to man the till.
Of course, if on the first occurrence, the employee sits and makes excuses and casts blame to the four winds, they're likely looking for employment elsewhere, but that's another issue.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 16 Mar 2000 07:40:34 EST
"Why you chose to continue to use insults eludes me."
Why you choose to continue to insult the entire community eludes me, as well.
"1. I have documented my claims, will you offer an appology for accusing me of lying?"
Had I "accused" you of lying, I would. There is a difference between accusing someone of lying and noting previous instances wherein you were asked for details - not even hard, concrete, documented proof, but just DETAILS - regarding an accusation you made in order to justify your own actions, and didn't deem it worth the energy to follow up.
Or, put another way, there's a difference between accusing you of lying and suggesting you might be. At this stage, in the other matter, I do, indeed, believe you were lying to me. I see no reason to ever, in the future, assume your honesty when your response to being called down on a matter is to use the "but they did it and nobody did anything" argument. Smply put, I trust you about as much as I trust your average kender.
As for offering an apology... when you finally learn the art of doing so, I might consider it. Until then, you'll excuse me for riding my moral high horse and refusing you that which you refuse everyone else most of the time. And rest assured that if I ever do decide to, I'll spend six weeks justifying myself, so that you might finally understand how infuriating your own actions are. You, dear Lady, have the dubious honor of being the first person
in recorded history whom I DON'T consider worthy of an immediate apology if I happen to wrong you.
"2. Whatever the Supervisor in question was or was not responsible for, that person still told me that the caller's decision was final... and I never claimed it was an official policy change. At the time it occured, it became a de facto admission of fact."
And have you, then, in your time as standings keeper, changed any results forwarded to you as "So-and-So def. Such-and-Suxh x-y in z rounds by forfeit" to a tie?
No, I don't think you have. Therefore, it was nothing of the sort. It was a pair of individual rulings which clearly don't seem to apply to standard practice.
"3. I have no desire to involve other people in this debate without their permission. If you wish to call that paranoid, so be it."
What I term paranoid is the "I don't want to subject them to harassment" nonsense. Indeed, I can see no relevant reason to bring those into the debate at all. They are irrelevant, as my list of possible explanations for such a recorded result should make clear.
"4. Your statements do not, in any way, explain away the fact that this has happened to others."
And neither is "data" the plural of "anecdote." Your point? By your logic, the fact that a certain percentage of my citizens get away with not paying me their share of taxes is a free pass for any given one to claim that they had justifiable cause not to as well. This is a logic flaw which you have persisted in demonstrating to me, and I really do wish you'd correct it.
"5. Whether I redirected the commentary to the person who provided the transcript or not... I find it stunning you would use such a minor thing to insult me further."
I find a lot of things stunning about your entire chain of behaviour of late... including your penchant for lumping your detractors together into a faceless mass, and your incessant attitude that there's an organized group out to get you for no valid reason. Unless I specifically state that I am speaking for another party, or offer my interpretation of what another party has written on their own, I am expressing my own opinion. Not only is failing
to distinguish one "attacker" from another insulting, but failing to make that distinction allows those who may be come late to the debate to attribute words and/or actions to me which are not my own.
"6. Please provide me the documentation backing up your assertation of the following: "I will remind the public that the REASON for the input clause in the first place was to allow duelists to take the TIE if they so chose, rather than having to accept a win they felt they had not earned (as forfeit were formerly routinely granted as wins regardless).
Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule." Show me exactly where this reason is/was stated, and exactly where this intent is/was shown."
This happened back when you were still soiling your diapers, Lady Silvertree. Frankly, the only person who'd have hard-copy access to such discussions, you wouldn't believe anyway, since your hatred outstrips your common sense.
Suffice it to say that I remember. If that's not good enough for you... oh, well. Trust me, at this stage in life, there are worse things than having you dispute my memory. Such as, for instance, living with knowing that I was among those who recommended someone so clearly unsuited to a service position for this job.
"Note that I am not saying you are lying or even that these things are not true... I am just asking you to provide as much proof as you and others ask me to provide."
And, of course, once again, Her Majesty, surrounded by her tormentors, can't keep them straight. I defy you to point to a single instance where I have asked you for "proof" of anything, except in instances where a policy issue demands proof. In your attempt to divert me from acting on the issue I've referred to, I didn't ask for proof; I asked for details (which is why I doubt your veracity on the matter). In our debates upon this cork, I have
never demanded proof. That is the province of Ladies Starfare and Cornwall.
"7. You state: "that the staff's public response has ALWAYS been that the duelist has the choice," and yet you completely disregard my proof that this is not a guaranteed fact. Why?"
This, Lady Silvertree, is why I might tend to insult. You've offered nothing whatsoever that even remotely resembles "proof" of anything regarding the staff's PUBLIC response.
Let me help you. Every time the issue of what to do about a forfeit has come up, the official public response from the supervisory staff of this sport is to agree with the majority of the community that it is not the sport's business to legislate the individual honor of a duelist, and as such, if some slimebag wishes to take a win when they're losing 4-0, it's their business. That a previous supervisor made a differing decision BEHIND THE SCENES is
irrelevant. That the rule can be interpreted differently than public statements offered by management staff is irrelevant, except to prove that the wording needs to be changed. Nothing you say can or will alter that salient fact, unless you show me where a management figure in this sport has publicly disseminated information different from what I'm mentioning. I certainly don't remember it.
"8. While, since the official decision was handed down, others have defended or attempted to justify my case... I have not."
No, perhaps not, though the point may be open to argument. You are, however, also failing to address the issue which I have been attempting to make clear: You are not blind, or at least I surmise you are not. You are not without memory, and you certainly peruse not only this cork, but all other documentation relating to the sport... or so you say, anyway. As such, I find it completely unbelievable that you are not aware that the official publicly
stated policy, when offered, has that the remaining duelist chooses the tie or the win; I find it completely unbelievable that you have missed the previous arguments on the topic; and I find it completely unbelievable that armed with said knowledge, you even allowed the situation you've referred to regarding your own duels to remain in force without a public policy change.
You are not without principles, Lady Silvertree. If I can be firm and insistent that the rule must be rewritten if it is to be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the history of this sport, so can you.
"For further clairity, let me state it thus: My decision was based upon my interpretation of the rules as written and previous incidents involving myself personally. In regards to the traditions, it was incorrect... and thus was overturned by the Supervisors."
This is what I find most disturbing. You, in your position as an official of this sport, took YOUR interpretation, and filtered it through YOUR experiences, while ignoring reams of conflicting evidence. It strikes one as more than a wee bit self-centered.
"9. You clearly state in another post that "Everyone agrees that it is improper wording for the intent." Yet this is clearly not the case. Many people clearly believe that the wording is exactly the way they wish it to be, and have stated so. I ask you to read the posts again. The arguement is specifically regarding my interpretation and the actions I took based on that interpretation."
The argument is that your interpretation is wrong because everyone with a functioning memory knows that the number of times this rule was interpreted the way you did, compared to the number of times the rule was interpreted the way you didn't, is roughly analogous to the number of times Gnimish has beaten me in the ring compared to the number of times he hasn't. Morgan, and others, are arguing a semantic issue, but I'm sure will quickly tell you
that the ambiguity must be excised regardless.
"Lastly, you did not answer the question posited by Lord Argus."
I find it an inappropriate analogy, in that a supervisor's job generally is to subjectively rate an employee's performance and rank it on a scale, where as your job is to objectively determine the scoring of points in a contest of sport and rule, not on a scale, but either win or loss. You have no grey area. The feelings, goals, and attitudes of the duelers whose exertions you oversee are irrelevant to your duties. There is no discussion,
officially at any rate, between you and the duelers regarding how well they should have done, how they might improve, where they are failing to meet standards, or any of the myriad of things which constitute an employee's "input" in the review process. You do not have the power to affect a duelist's "review" based on your biases for or against them. Thus, while I will confess Lord Argus' question was indeed thoughtful, it is off the mark.
Lastly, I am compelled to point something out. At a certain point, while mistakes are forgivable, they begin to add up to the point where contriteness is irrelevant. If I own a shop, and an employee comes up short in the till at days' end, I can forgive that. If it happens again a week later, I can probably still forgive. When it happens repeatedly, and constant correction is not taking root, it's time to find another person to man the till.
Of course, if on the first occurrence, the employee sits and makes excuses and casts blame to the four winds, they're likely looking for employment elsewhere, but that's another issue.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 08:36:05 EST
Laird MacKenzie:
"Why you choose to continue to insult the entire community eludes me, as well"
In what way? By ignoring a tradition? I have stated that I will be following the ruling passed down by the Supervisors. How is that "continuing"?
Is it not also a tradition to salute the officiator of your duel? And your opponent as well? And to thank the official for calling your duel? Would not those who fail to do these things also be insulting the community?
"Had I "accused" you of lying, I would" You stated that you believed I was lying about this situation and wrote that I was citing "phantom" duels to back my case. If you do not believe this to be an accusation, then you are hiding behind semantics.
" There is a difference between accusing someone of lying and noting previous instances wherein you were asked for details - not even hard, concrete, documented proof, but just DETAILS - regarding an accusation you made in order to justify your own actions, and didn't deem it worth the energy to follow upFAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">" If you would please, cite these incidents.
In a related aside... When I was accused of being a "commoner hunter", I provided proof to the contrary. When I was accused of casting insults... there was no way I could provide proof to the contrary. So instead, I asked for the proof... and to this day it has never appeared, yet the accusations are not revoked.
" At this stage, in the other matter, I do, indeed, believe you were lying to me." What "other matter" do you speak of? I have nothing to hide here.
"As for offering an apology... when you finally learn the art of doing so, I might consider it. Until then, you'll excuse me for riding my moral high horse and refusing you that which you refuse everyone else most of the time. "
The offended party, Baron Mortis, will receive my apology when I next see him. As he has not been in the Arena of late, I have been unable to do so. Where an apology is owed, I give it. When I am found to be in error, I state it. If you believe otherwise, please provide your evidence.
""2. Whatever the Supervisor in question was or was not responsible for, that person still told me that the caller's decision was final... and I never claimed it was an official policy change. At the time it occured, it became a de facto admission of fact."
And have you, then, in your time as standings keeper, changed any results forwarded to you as "So-and-So def. Such-and-Suxh x-y in z rounds by forfeit" to a tie?
No, I don't think you have. Therefore, it was nothing of the sort. It was a pair of individual rulings which clearly don't seem to apply to standard practice." As I was not the caller of the results forwarded to me, I would never change the results because of the fact that I was told that "the caller's decision is final".
So how does your statement apply? It more seems to back my own assertation that I kept the caller's decision as the final one.
"By your logic, the fact that a certain percentage of my citizens get away with not paying me their share of taxes is a free pass for any given one to claim that they had justifiable cause not to as well." Apples and oranges, Laird MacKenzie. That is the equivilant of
stating that because some people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food, that all people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food.
What I was stating is more analogous to, but not nearly the same as, "some few patrons to go to a Tavern do not purchase anything, while most people do. It is a matter of their choice." Or, even better, "some few patrons who come to the Arena never duel, while most patrons do." It is traditional that patrons who go to a Tavern purchase drinks, and it is traditional that patrons who come to the Arena duel... but it is not the rule or the law.
When a thing moves from a tradition to a rule, then it must be ahered to fully... just like my analogy above about saluting one's caller and opponent.
"Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule." Show me exactly where this reason is/was stated, and exactly where this intent is/was shown."
This happened back when you were still soiling your diapers, Lady Silvertree. Frankly, the only person who'd have hard-copy access to such discussions, you wouldn't believe anyway, since your hatred outstrips your common sense."
1) Of what relevance is it how long ago this event occured?
2) The person who you say would have hard-copy access to such discussions has shown an extreme reluctance bordering on sheer paranoia to do so on too many occassions to count. Until the person in question begins to share these documents, I will doubt their very existance.
3) Why is it that you believe this person would be the only person who would have such documents? Did you not tell me, or at the very least imply, that it was my duty as a member of the Staff to record everything that occured during my shifts as a caller?
4) If you recall when this was discussed, I am certain there are others still alive who were about when it was discussed. Me Monk was seen dueling just three weeks ago, for example. Why do you believe that only one person would currently have such documentation.
"Suffice it to say that I remember. If that's not good enough for you... oh, well" And you demand proof from me beyond me saying that I remember. Very hypocritical of you.
" I defy you to point to a single instance where I have asked you for "proof" of anything, except in instances where a policy issue demands proof. In your attempt to divert me from acting on the issue I've referred to, I didn't ask for proof; I asked for details (which is why I doubt your veracity on the matter).PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">" What are details if not proof? If I am correct on which issue you are referring to acting upon... you asked me what I said and did. I provided you with not only what I said and did, but why I said what I said and did what I did. I in no way denied saying what I said, I simply told you the why of it. For, without knowing the reasons for an action, one cannot properly judge an action.
"You've offered nothing whatsoever that even remotely resembles "proof" of anything regarding the staff's PUBLIC response." ... "That a previous supervisor made a differing decision
BEHIND THE SCENES is irrelevant."
This strikes me as a "do as I say, don't do as I do" arguement.
I have shown that members of the Staff have publically defied this tradition, on multiple occasions. I have spoken to others who have also seen or been involved in such incidents, and these incidents were never decried as being wrong.
Why?
"You are not without principles, Lady Silvertree. If I can be firm and insistent that the rule must be rewritten if it is to be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the history of this sport, so can you." I agree completely. The rule should be changed to uphold
the history and traditions of the sport. I have never said it should not be changed. I have only said that it could be interpreted in a manner inconsistant with the traditional manner.
"The argument is that your interpretation is wrong because" ... "Morgan, and others, are arguing a semantic issue, but I'm sure will quickly tell youthat the ambiguity must be
excised regardless." I did not say it shouldn't. In fact, I have said that the rule should be changed to match the official decision that was handed down in this manner.
"If I own a shop, and an employee comes up short in the till at days' end, I can forgive that. If it happens again a week later, I can probably still forgive. When it happens repeatedly, and constant correction is not taking root, it's time to find another person to man the tillLANG="0">" If an employee comes up short in the till at days' end once, and never again... then a week later drops a glass once, and never again... then four weeks later spills a drink on a table once, and never again... and otherwise performs their duties more than efficiently... is it time fire that person?
I leave that for you and all the rest of the patrons to answer.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 19 Mar 2000 08:36:05 EST
Laird MacKenzie:
"Why you choose to continue to insult the entire community eludes me, as well"
In what way? By ignoring a tradition? I have stated that I will be following the ruling passed down by the Supervisors. How is that "continuing"?
Is it not also a tradition to salute the officiator of your duel? And your opponent as well? And to thank the official for calling your duel? Would not those who fail to do these things also be insulting the community?
"Had I "accused" you of lying, I would" You stated that you believed I was lying about this situation and wrote that I was citing "phantom" duels to back my case. If you do not believe this to be an accusation, then you are hiding behind semantics.
" There is a difference between accusing someone of lying and noting previous instances wherein you were asked for details - not even hard, concrete, documented proof, but just DETAILS - regarding an accusation you made in order to justify your own actions, and didn't deem it worth the energy to follow upFAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">" If you would please, cite these incidents.
In a related aside... When I was accused of being a "commoner hunter", I provided proof to the contrary. When I was accused of casting insults... there was no way I could provide proof to the contrary. So instead, I asked for the proof... and to this day it has never appeared, yet the accusations are not revoked.
" At this stage, in the other matter, I do, indeed, believe you were lying to me." What "other matter" do you speak of? I have nothing to hide here.
"As for offering an apology... when you finally learn the art of doing so, I might consider it. Until then, you'll excuse me for riding my moral high horse and refusing you that which you refuse everyone else most of the time. "
The offended party, Baron Mortis, will receive my apology when I next see him. As he has not been in the Arena of late, I have been unable to do so. Where an apology is owed, I give it. When I am found to be in error, I state it. If you believe otherwise, please provide your evidence.
""2. Whatever the Supervisor in question was or was not responsible for, that person still told me that the caller's decision was final... and I never claimed it was an official policy change. At the time it occured, it became a de facto admission of fact."
And have you, then, in your time as standings keeper, changed any results forwarded to you as "So-and-So def. Such-and-Suxh x-y in z rounds by forfeit" to a tie?
No, I don't think you have. Therefore, it was nothing of the sort. It was a pair of individual rulings which clearly don't seem to apply to standard practice." As I was not the caller of the results forwarded to me, I would never change the results because of the fact that I was told that "the caller's decision is final".
So how does your statement apply? It more seems to back my own assertation that I kept the caller's decision as the final one.
"By your logic, the fact that a certain percentage of my citizens get away with not paying me their share of taxes is a free pass for any given one to claim that they had justifiable cause not to as well." Apples and oranges, Laird MacKenzie. That is the equivilant of
stating that because some people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food, that all people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food.
What I was stating is more analogous to, but not nearly the same as, "some few patrons to go to a Tavern do not purchase anything, while most people do. It is a matter of their choice." Or, even better, "some few patrons who come to the Arena never duel, while most patrons do." It is traditional that patrons who go to a Tavern purchase drinks, and it is traditional that patrons who come to the Arena duel... but it is not the rule or the law.
When a thing moves from a tradition to a rule, then it must be ahered to fully... just like my analogy above about saluting one's caller and opponent.
"Indeed, the callers who refused your wishes in the duels you cite were in violation of the very INTENT of the rule." Show me exactly where this reason is/was stated, and exactly where this intent is/was shown."
This happened back when you were still soiling your diapers, Lady Silvertree. Frankly, the only person who'd have hard-copy access to such discussions, you wouldn't believe anyway, since your hatred outstrips your common sense."
1) Of what relevance is it how long ago this event occured?
2) The person who you say would have hard-copy access to such discussions has shown an extreme reluctance bordering on sheer paranoia to do so on too many occassions to count. Until the person in question begins to share these documents, I will doubt their very existance.
3) Why is it that you believe this person would be the only person who would have such documents? Did you not tell me, or at the very least imply, that it was my duty as a member of the Staff to record everything that occured during my shifts as a caller?
4) If you recall when this was discussed, I am certain there are others still alive who were about when it was discussed. Me Monk was seen dueling just three weeks ago, for example. Why do you believe that only one person would currently have such documentation.
"Suffice it to say that I remember. If that's not good enough for you... oh, well" And you demand proof from me beyond me saying that I remember. Very hypocritical of you.
" I defy you to point to a single instance where I have asked you for "proof" of anything, except in instances where a policy issue demands proof. In your attempt to divert me from acting on the issue I've referred to, I didn't ask for proof; I asked for details (which is why I doubt your veracity on the matter).PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">" What are details if not proof? If I am correct on which issue you are referring to acting upon... you asked me what I said and did. I provided you with not only what I said and did, but why I said what I said and did what I did. I in no way denied saying what I said, I simply told you the why of it. For, without knowing the reasons for an action, one cannot properly judge an action.
"You've offered nothing whatsoever that even remotely resembles "proof" of anything regarding the staff's PUBLIC response." ... "That a previous supervisor made a differing decision
BEHIND THE SCENES is irrelevant."
This strikes me as a "do as I say, don't do as I do" arguement.
I have shown that members of the Staff have publically defied this tradition, on multiple occasions. I have spoken to others who have also seen or been involved in such incidents, and these incidents were never decried as being wrong.
Why?
"You are not without principles, Lady Silvertree. If I can be firm and insistent that the rule must be rewritten if it is to be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the history of this sport, so can you." I agree completely. The rule should be changed to uphold
the history and traditions of the sport. I have never said it should not be changed. I have only said that it could be interpreted in a manner inconsistant with the traditional manner.
"The argument is that your interpretation is wrong because" ... "Morgan, and others, are arguing a semantic issue, but I'm sure will quickly tell youthat the ambiguity must be
excised regardless." I did not say it shouldn't. In fact, I have said that the rule should be changed to match the official decision that was handed down in this manner.
"If I own a shop, and an employee comes up short in the till at days' end, I can forgive that. If it happens again a week later, I can probably still forgive. When it happens repeatedly, and constant correction is not taking root, it's time to find another person to man the tillLANG="0">" If an employee comes up short in the till at days' end once, and never again... then a week later drops a glass once, and never again... then four weeks later spills a drink on a table once, and never again... and otherwise performs their duties more than efficiently... is it time fire that person?
I leave that for you and all the rest of the patrons to answer.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 08:50:39 EST
Lady Starfare:
Why ask for Laird MacKenzie to inquire things, when you can ask me directly?
Concerning the duel between myself and Kingphisch that was listed as a win for him... Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was spirited from the Arena after the fifth round. I was unable to return for more than half an hour, and when I did so, he apologized to me and said that the duel had been ruled as a win in his favor... I believe by his wishes.
Concerning the duel between myself and Jesse Troyan... after the first round of the duel, Jesse became aware, because of a comment shouted from the crowd, that I was with child. At that point, despite my assurances that my magicks were more than capable of defending my child's life, he refused to engage me or leave the ring. Finally, I told him that I had no wish to duel someone who would not duel back. The duel was then declared over. I do
not recall with absolute certainty, but I believe that the duel was called as a tie because neither of us would finish it.
Further, I can point to many dozens of duels that are listed as ties before the fifteenth round where there is no mention made of a forfeit.
As for your first inquiry, read the full text of your "transcript" of the night in question, then read again my posts on the matter. You will find your answers there.
Perhaps next time I have a question for you, I should ask Laird MacKenzie to pose it to you. Mayhaps then you will provide an answer, rather than round-about insults.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 19 Mar 2000 08:50:39 EST
Lady Starfare:
Why ask for Laird MacKenzie to inquire things, when you can ask me directly?
Concerning the duel between myself and Kingphisch that was listed as a win for him... Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was spirited from the Arena after the fifth round. I was unable to return for more than half an hour, and when I did so, he apologized to me and said that the duel had been ruled as a win in his favor... I believe by his wishes.
Concerning the duel between myself and Jesse Troyan... after the first round of the duel, Jesse became aware, because of a comment shouted from the crowd, that I was with child. At that point, despite my assurances that my magicks were more than capable of defending my child's life, he refused to engage me or leave the ring. Finally, I told him that I had no wish to duel someone who would not duel back. The duel was then declared over. I do
not recall with absolute certainty, but I believe that the duel was called as a tie because neither of us would finish it.
Further, I can point to many dozens of duels that are listed as ties before the fifteenth round where there is no mention made of a forfeit.
As for your first inquiry, read the full text of your "transcript" of the night in question, then read again my posts on the matter. You will find your answers there.
Perhaps next time I have a question for you, I should ask Laird MacKenzie to pose it to you. Mayhaps then you will provide an answer, rather than round-about insults.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 19 Mar 2000 12:24:14 EST
"If an employee comes up short in the till at days' end once, and never again... then a week later drops a glass once, and never again... then four weeks later spills a drink on a table once, and never again... and otherwise performs their duties more than efficiently... is it time fire that person?"
Alter this for the proper analogy, Drakewyn.
"If an employee comes up short in the till at day's end, but never again... then the next day drops and shatters a glass, but never again... then the next day spills a drink all over a customer, but never again... then the next day sets part of the building on fire, but never again... then calls herself in the right on all matters, despite an empty apology and is moderate to fair at her job."
At that point, and probably before, the employee needs to be fired.
~ Lupton
Date: 19 Mar 2000 12:24:14 EST
"If an employee comes up short in the till at days' end once, and never again... then a week later drops a glass once, and never again... then four weeks later spills a drink on a table once, and never again... and otherwise performs their duties more than efficiently... is it time fire that person?"
Alter this for the proper analogy, Drakewyn.
"If an employee comes up short in the till at day's end, but never again... then the next day drops and shatters a glass, but never again... then the next day spills a drink all over a customer, but never again... then the next day sets part of the building on fire, but never again... then calls herself in the right on all matters, despite an empty apology and is moderate to fair at her job."
At that point, and probably before, the employee needs to be fired.
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 20 Mar 2000 08:15:45 EST
He said:
"Why you choose to continue to insult the entire community eludes me, as well"
She said:
"In what way? By ignoring a tradition? I have stated that I will be following the ruling passed down by the Supervisors. How is that 'continuing'?"
Is there some recess of your mind where you think that agreeing to abide by a decision which overturned the one you made means that you never made the decision to begin with? It's patently obvious that you feel that the community should ignore your arrogance when you're caught out on it, because, well, after all, you were overruled and you'll abide by it. The issue here is not whether you were wrong, and it ceased to be long ago. The issue, Lady
Silvertree, is how much longer this community must tolerate your lust for power under the guise of service to the community.
"Is it not also a tradition to salute the officiator of your duel? And your opponent as well? And to thank the official for calling your duel? Would not those who fail to do these things also be insulting the community?"
It's nowhere near as traditional - and never has been, mind you - as the remaining duelist choosing the result. Not even close. Not even in the same orbit.
He said:
""Had I "accused" you of lying, I would"
She said:
"You stated that you believed I was lying about this situation..."
I'm fairly sure I never stated any such thing prior to the response quoted. Did I imply that you are dishonest? You bet. And we'll get to that shortly.
"...and wrote that I was citing "phantom" duels to back my case."
And phantom duels they were until you produced them. Perhaps you should apprise yourself of the actual meaning of the term.
He said:
" There is a difference between accusing someone of lying and noting previous instances wherein you were asked for details - not even hard, concrete, documented proof, but just DETAILS - regarding an accusation you made in order to justify your own actions, and didn't deem it worth the energy to follow up."
She said:
"If you would please, cite these incidents."
As I said, we'd tough on your honesty; very well. On the occasion of your suspension from the Team Dueling League for publicly questioning the integrity of a league official, you plead to me your case that if you were to be penalized, then members of the Unemployed should have been as well as a result of actions which you did not see fit to report to me weeks earlier. I asked you for details so that I might investigate; you never followed through.
We will touch on this AGAIN momentarily.
"In a related aside... When I was accused of being a 'commoner hunter', I provided proof to the contrary."
An issue which I'm sure the community at large neither cares about, nor has any business caring about. How one achieves the rank of Warlord is utterly irrelevant so long as they meet the requirements without cheating.
He said:
"At this stage, in the other matter, I do, indeed, believe you were lying to me."
She said:
"What 'other matter' do you speak of? I have nothing to hide here."
Addressed above, and we're still not done.
He said:
"As for offering an apology... when you finally learn the art of doing so, I might consider it. Until then, you'll excuse me for riding my moral high horse and refusing you that which you refuse everyone else most of the time."
She said:
"The offended party, Baron Mortis, will receive my apology when I next see him. As he has not been in the Arena of late, I have been unable to do so."
There is more insult offered by your arrogance than that to Damien Mortis.
"Where an apology is owed, I give it. When I am found to be in error, I state it. If you believe otherwise, please provide your evidence."
When you are found to be in error. What Lady Silvertree means, dear readers, is that when she can no longer justify, dodge, or wheedle, she apologizes. But by God, she'll never do so without proof. (Proof. Funny how that keeps coming up.)
He said:
"By your logic, the fact that a certain percentage of my citizens get away with not paying me their share of taxes is a free pass for any given one to claim that they had justifiable cause not to as well."
She said:
"Apples and oranges, Laird MacKenzie. That is the equivilant of
stating that because some people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food, that all people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food.
"What I was stating is more analogous to, but not nearly the same as, 'some few patrons to go to a Tavern do not purchase anything, while most people do. It is a matter of their choice.' "
Yet, amazingly, you feel that you, a servant of the community, were in the right to take away a patron's choice. You're using my own logic against yourself. How very, very charming!
Of course, despite the fact that you've now trapped yourself, you still missed the point of my comment, as usual. Your entire attitude about your errors is that when you make them, your immediate reaction is to point fingers in other directions, claiming that you are being unfairly abused for your errors because someone else made them and, gee, The Great Lady Drakewyn never heard about anything happening to them.
"When a thing moves from a tradition to a rule, then it must be ahered to fully... just like my analogy above about saluting one's caller and opponent."
I'd say that offical management comments on these boards in the past stating that it wasn't their business to legislate honor might be regarded as something a little more than "tradition."
He said:
"This happened back when you were still soiling your diapers, Lady Silvertree. Frankly, the only person who'd have hard-copy access to such discussions, you wouldn't believe anyway, since your hatred outstrips your common sense."
She said:
"1) Of what relevance is it how long ago this event occured?"
You think it might have something to do with the unavailability of the "proof" you asked for? No wonder dragons keep getting slain by mere mortals in tin cans.
"2) The person who you say would have hard-copy access to such discussions has shown an extreme reluctance bordering on sheer paranoia to do so on too many occassions to count. Until the person in question begins to share these documents, I will doubt their very existance [sic]."
This, friends, is the woman who wishes us to believe that she's put upon by rude, insulting people at every turn.
"3) Why is it that you believe this person would be the only person who would have such documents? Did you not tell me, or at the very least imply, that it was my duty as a member of the Staff to record everything that occured during my shifts as a caller?"
First, because she's the only person I know that is still around who archived such things. If there are others, they haven't made their archiving known to me.
Regarding your duty, and my implication, unless something has changed, I'm perfectly aware that in the past, it was a requirement that a complete recording of the evening's events be a part of a caller's reports. If that is no longer the case, then it is no longer the case. In any event, the only person remaining in this realm who was an official of the sport when I arrived here who's still anywhere to be found is Lord Darelir--and it should be
noted that forwarding one's reports to management does not imply that one keeps them for themselves when no longer employed.
He said:
"Suffice it to say that I remember. If that's not good enough for you... oh, well"
She said:
"And you demand proof from me beyond me saying that I remember. Very hypocritical of you."
I'll expect a retraction on that after the following:
He said:
" I defy you to point to a single instance where I have asked you for "proof" of anything, except in instances where a policy issue demands proof. In your attempt to divert me from acting on the issue I've referred to, I didn't ask for proof; I asked for details (which is why I doubt your veracity on the matter)."
She said:
"What are details if not proof? If I am correct on which issue you are referring to acting upon..."
Ah, now you remember... sort of. How sweet.
You're not correct, as I'm not referring to your actions, but the complaint you attempted to file as a lame defense of your actions. And there is a huge difference between "details" and "proof," Lady Silvertree. One is documentation to back up the other. I did NOT demand proof from you; I asked that you write me a note telling me what the bloody hell happened. You couldn't even bother with that, which is precisely why I feel you were merely
trying to obscure the events and prey upon my former trust in you.
She said, initially:
"You've offered nothing whatsoever that even remotely resembles "proof" of anything regarding the staff's PUBLIC response."
He said:
"That a previous supervisor made a differing decision BEHIND THE SCENES is irrelevant."
She rebutted:
"This strikes me as a 'do as I say, don't do as I do' arguement."
It strikes me as you being too dense to discern the difference between public notification and a decision made in private and not disseminated to the public.
"I have shown that members of the Staff have publically defied this tradition, on multiple occasions. I have spoken to others who have also seen or been involved in such incidents, and these incidents were never decried as being wrong.
Why?"
Here's the old "they got away with it, why shouldn't I" argument.
Why? Because nobody spoke up, and apparently that's the way you'd prefer things to be handled.
She said:
"If an employee comes up short in the till at days' end once, and never again... then a week later drops a glass once, and never again... then four weeks later spills a drink on a table once, and never again... and otherwise performs their duties more than efficiently... is it time fire that person?"
I'm sure that we all consider your verification of the Warlord Xeric Mues challenge as "performing your duties efficiently." I dare say it's easier to drop a glass than it is to miss the same name occurring twice on a list of bonafides when your ONLY JOB when presented with such a list is to count to ten, make sure there's no repeats, and verify the duels actually happened!
But, still, that's not the point. You seem to think that you've made several different mistakes. That's not the case, Lady Silvertree. It's true that you HAVE made several different mistakes--each and every one compounded by your insulting this community with lengthy and tiresome excuses, justifications, and finger-pointing.
You are a servant of the community. The community is increasingly becoming of the opinion that they are not being served.
Ian Rex.
Date: 20 Mar 2000 08:15:45 EST
He said:
"Why you choose to continue to insult the entire community eludes me, as well"
She said:
"In what way? By ignoring a tradition? I have stated that I will be following the ruling passed down by the Supervisors. How is that 'continuing'?"
Is there some recess of your mind where you think that agreeing to abide by a decision which overturned the one you made means that you never made the decision to begin with? It's patently obvious that you feel that the community should ignore your arrogance when you're caught out on it, because, well, after all, you were overruled and you'll abide by it. The issue here is not whether you were wrong, and it ceased to be long ago. The issue, Lady
Silvertree, is how much longer this community must tolerate your lust for power under the guise of service to the community.
"Is it not also a tradition to salute the officiator of your duel? And your opponent as well? And to thank the official for calling your duel? Would not those who fail to do these things also be insulting the community?"
It's nowhere near as traditional - and never has been, mind you - as the remaining duelist choosing the result. Not even close. Not even in the same orbit.
He said:
""Had I "accused" you of lying, I would"
She said:
"You stated that you believed I was lying about this situation..."
I'm fairly sure I never stated any such thing prior to the response quoted. Did I imply that you are dishonest? You bet. And we'll get to that shortly.
"...and wrote that I was citing "phantom" duels to back my case."
And phantom duels they were until you produced them. Perhaps you should apprise yourself of the actual meaning of the term.
He said:
" There is a difference between accusing someone of lying and noting previous instances wherein you were asked for details - not even hard, concrete, documented proof, but just DETAILS - regarding an accusation you made in order to justify your own actions, and didn't deem it worth the energy to follow up."
She said:
"If you would please, cite these incidents."
As I said, we'd tough on your honesty; very well. On the occasion of your suspension from the Team Dueling League for publicly questioning the integrity of a league official, you plead to me your case that if you were to be penalized, then members of the Unemployed should have been as well as a result of actions which you did not see fit to report to me weeks earlier. I asked you for details so that I might investigate; you never followed through.
We will touch on this AGAIN momentarily.
"In a related aside... When I was accused of being a 'commoner hunter', I provided proof to the contrary."
An issue which I'm sure the community at large neither cares about, nor has any business caring about. How one achieves the rank of Warlord is utterly irrelevant so long as they meet the requirements without cheating.
He said:
"At this stage, in the other matter, I do, indeed, believe you were lying to me."
She said:
"What 'other matter' do you speak of? I have nothing to hide here."
Addressed above, and we're still not done.
He said:
"As for offering an apology... when you finally learn the art of doing so, I might consider it. Until then, you'll excuse me for riding my moral high horse and refusing you that which you refuse everyone else most of the time."
She said:
"The offended party, Baron Mortis, will receive my apology when I next see him. As he has not been in the Arena of late, I have been unable to do so."
There is more insult offered by your arrogance than that to Damien Mortis.
"Where an apology is owed, I give it. When I am found to be in error, I state it. If you believe otherwise, please provide your evidence."
When you are found to be in error. What Lady Silvertree means, dear readers, is that when she can no longer justify, dodge, or wheedle, she apologizes. But by God, she'll never do so without proof. (Proof. Funny how that keeps coming up.)
He said:
"By your logic, the fact that a certain percentage of my citizens get away with not paying me their share of taxes is a free pass for any given one to claim that they had justifiable cause not to as well."
She said:
"Apples and oranges, Laird MacKenzie. That is the equivilant of
stating that because some people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food, that all people must have gardens and/or raise livestock in order to have food.
"What I was stating is more analogous to, but not nearly the same as, 'some few patrons to go to a Tavern do not purchase anything, while most people do. It is a matter of their choice.' "
Yet, amazingly, you feel that you, a servant of the community, were in the right to take away a patron's choice. You're using my own logic against yourself. How very, very charming!
Of course, despite the fact that you've now trapped yourself, you still missed the point of my comment, as usual. Your entire attitude about your errors is that when you make them, your immediate reaction is to point fingers in other directions, claiming that you are being unfairly abused for your errors because someone else made them and, gee, The Great Lady Drakewyn never heard about anything happening to them.
"When a thing moves from a tradition to a rule, then it must be ahered to fully... just like my analogy above about saluting one's caller and opponent."
I'd say that offical management comments on these boards in the past stating that it wasn't their business to legislate honor might be regarded as something a little more than "tradition."
He said:
"This happened back when you were still soiling your diapers, Lady Silvertree. Frankly, the only person who'd have hard-copy access to such discussions, you wouldn't believe anyway, since your hatred outstrips your common sense."
She said:
"1) Of what relevance is it how long ago this event occured?"
You think it might have something to do with the unavailability of the "proof" you asked for? No wonder dragons keep getting slain by mere mortals in tin cans.
"2) The person who you say would have hard-copy access to such discussions has shown an extreme reluctance bordering on sheer paranoia to do so on too many occassions to count. Until the person in question begins to share these documents, I will doubt their very existance [sic]."
This, friends, is the woman who wishes us to believe that she's put upon by rude, insulting people at every turn.
"3) Why is it that you believe this person would be the only person who would have such documents? Did you not tell me, or at the very least imply, that it was my duty as a member of the Staff to record everything that occured during my shifts as a caller?"
First, because she's the only person I know that is still around who archived such things. If there are others, they haven't made their archiving known to me.
Regarding your duty, and my implication, unless something has changed, I'm perfectly aware that in the past, it was a requirement that a complete recording of the evening's events be a part of a caller's reports. If that is no longer the case, then it is no longer the case. In any event, the only person remaining in this realm who was an official of the sport when I arrived here who's still anywhere to be found is Lord Darelir--and it should be
noted that forwarding one's reports to management does not imply that one keeps them for themselves when no longer employed.
He said:
"Suffice it to say that I remember. If that's not good enough for you... oh, well"
She said:
"And you demand proof from me beyond me saying that I remember. Very hypocritical of you."
I'll expect a retraction on that after the following:
He said:
" I defy you to point to a single instance where I have asked you for "proof" of anything, except in instances where a policy issue demands proof. In your attempt to divert me from acting on the issue I've referred to, I didn't ask for proof; I asked for details (which is why I doubt your veracity on the matter)."
She said:
"What are details if not proof? If I am correct on which issue you are referring to acting upon..."
Ah, now you remember... sort of. How sweet.
You're not correct, as I'm not referring to your actions, but the complaint you attempted to file as a lame defense of your actions. And there is a huge difference between "details" and "proof," Lady Silvertree. One is documentation to back up the other. I did NOT demand proof from you; I asked that you write me a note telling me what the bloody hell happened. You couldn't even bother with that, which is precisely why I feel you were merely
trying to obscure the events and prey upon my former trust in you.
She said, initially:
"You've offered nothing whatsoever that even remotely resembles "proof" of anything regarding the staff's PUBLIC response."
He said:
"That a previous supervisor made a differing decision BEHIND THE SCENES is irrelevant."
She rebutted:
"This strikes me as a 'do as I say, don't do as I do' arguement."
It strikes me as you being too dense to discern the difference between public notification and a decision made in private and not disseminated to the public.
"I have shown that members of the Staff have publically defied this tradition, on multiple occasions. I have spoken to others who have also seen or been involved in such incidents, and these incidents were never decried as being wrong.
Why?"
Here's the old "they got away with it, why shouldn't I" argument.
Why? Because nobody spoke up, and apparently that's the way you'd prefer things to be handled.
She said:
"If an employee comes up short in the till at days' end once, and never again... then a week later drops a glass once, and never again... then four weeks later spills a drink on a table once, and never again... and otherwise performs their duties more than efficiently... is it time fire that person?"
I'm sure that we all consider your verification of the Warlord Xeric Mues challenge as "performing your duties efficiently." I dare say it's easier to drop a glass than it is to miss the same name occurring twice on a list of bonafides when your ONLY JOB when presented with such a list is to count to ten, make sure there's no repeats, and verify the duels actually happened!
But, still, that's not the point. You seem to think that you've made several different mistakes. That's not the case, Lady Silvertree. It's true that you HAVE made several different mistakes--each and every one compounded by your insulting this community with lengthy and tiresome excuses, justifications, and finger-pointing.
You are a servant of the community. The community is increasingly becoming of the opinion that they are not being served.
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zafiroo@aol.com (Zafiroo)
Date: 22 Mar 2000 18:04:15 EST
It's painfully obvious that it is the choice
>of the duelist
>still standing in the ring whether it's a win or tie.
Sentry Ash,
I know this post is a little late and I am not saying I agree with Drake's decision, but I would like for you or anyone to show me where it clearly states it is the duelist choice.
"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"
That is exactly what the rule state. No where does it say the duelist will decide the outcome. It says he gives input not decision. It has never said the remaining duelist decides.
Again I am not saying I agree with Drakes ruling, but she was not blatantly disregarding the rules.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Date: 22 Mar 2000 18:04:15 EST
It's painfully obvious that it is the choice
>of the duelist
>still standing in the ring whether it's a win or tie.
Sentry Ash,
I know this post is a little late and I am not saying I agree with Drake's decision, but I would like for you or anyone to show me where it clearly states it is the duelist choice.
"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"
That is exactly what the rule state. No where does it say the duelist will decide the outcome. It says he gives input not decision. It has never said the remaining duelist decides.
Again I am not saying I agree with Drakes ruling, but she was not blatantly disregarding the rules.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First