From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 00:30:02 EST
( To avoid this post being pulled for simply stating the same thing another post already does, I provide this link: Re: challenge )
::Rather than saying anything on the subject, she simply takes a post she made before and places it on the new stack::
wut a dolt
-
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: daedragonsblade@aol.com (Dae Dragonsblade)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 12:11:56 EST
How come every time someone brings up Elijah they never....aww, nevermind.
::scrawled in blazing blue ink::
~Daelin Dragonsblade~
~Regent King of Dragonia~
~Twice Baron of the Seventh and Current Baron of the Eleventh~
~Bearer of the Blue Opal, IceDancer~
Date: 14 Mar 2000 12:11:56 EST
How come every time someone brings up Elijah they never....aww, nevermind.
::scrawled in blazing blue ink::
~Daelin Dragonsblade~
~Regent King of Dragonia~
~Twice Baron of the Seventh and Current Baron of the Eleventh~
~Bearer of the Blue Opal, IceDancer~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 13:00:10 EST
>::Rather than saying anything on the subject, she simply takes a post she
>made before and places it on the new stack::
From the original post>>
>>To the community.
It appears I made an error on my posting of Warlord Mues' duels. I stated that the Warlord had enough peer wins to challenge, when in fact he did not... for two of his listed wins were against opponents already counted.
I have given my appologies to the Warlord and hope to see his needed tenth win on an official report in my box soon.<<<
Just so I understand this correctly, I shall ask. Does this mean when Xericmues gets his tenth peer win, he will be allowed to challenge using the peer wins which were used on the improper challenge plus this *tenth* peer win on a official report?
Curiously,
~Taylara~
Date: 14 Mar 2000 13:00:10 EST
>::Rather than saying anything on the subject, she simply takes a post she
>made before and places it on the new stack::
From the original post>>
>>To the community.
It appears I made an error on my posting of Warlord Mues' duels. I stated that the Warlord had enough peer wins to challenge, when in fact he did not... for two of his listed wins were against opponents already counted.
I have given my appologies to the Warlord and hope to see his needed tenth win on an official report in my box soon.<<<
Just so I understand this correctly, I shall ask. Does this mean when Xericmues gets his tenth peer win, he will be allowed to challenge using the peer wins which were used on the improper challenge plus this *tenth* peer win on a official report?
Curiously,
~Taylara~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 16:59:51 EST
Do you actually need a summary, Tay?
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
Date: 14 Mar 2000 16:59:51 EST
Do you actually need a summary, Tay?
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 01:10:05 EST
>Do you actually need a summary, Tay?
>
>
>
>- Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke
>
Well Drey, I was askig a question so I guess I was requesting a reply. Cause you see, if a improper challenge was issued I believe the rules state that the one challenging loses all accumulated peers.
Now, ifn that be the rule, then I fail to understand where the challenger can send in that tenth peer, cause that tenth peer will now become his first peer win, eh?
That is why I asked for a clarification, is that hard to understand, Drey?
~Tay~
Date: 15 Mar 2000 01:10:05 EST
>Do you actually need a summary, Tay?
>
>
>
>- Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke
>
Well Drey, I was askig a question so I guess I was requesting a reply. Cause you see, if a improper challenge was issued I believe the rules state that the one challenging loses all accumulated peers.
Now, ifn that be the rule, then I fail to understand where the challenger can send in that tenth peer, cause that tenth peer will now become his first peer win, eh?
That is why I asked for a clarification, is that hard to understand, Drey?
~Tay~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sentryash@aol.com (Sentry Ash)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 01:25:12 EST
Madame Taylara,
I believe that isn't what Lord Starke intended, but rather it was an obvious circumstance that one such as you should know without someone translating it for a simpler mind.
~ A
Date: 15 Mar 2000 01:25:12 EST
Madame Taylara,
I believe that isn't what Lord Starke intended, but rather it was an obvious circumstance that one such as you should know without someone translating it for a simpler mind.
~ A
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 02:26:23 EST
>
> Madame Taylara,
>I believe that isn't what Lord Starke intended, but rather it was an obvious
>circumstance that one such as you should know without someone translating it
>for a simpler mind.
>
>~ A
>
>
>
>
Well then Master Ash, I'm rightly confused...let me tell you why.
Since I couldn't get a direct answer here, I spoke to a person that could give me a direct answer and it seems this challenge never took place. Xericmues retains his peer wins, he retains the right to challenge again, and therefore will nae suffer penalty.
If the challenge was revoked, that would mean it was issued. My understanding here is; the challenge was issued and the challenge was validated. Is a WL now permitted to revoke a challenge after issuance and after validation?
Aye, I understand an error was made, but does that mean the WL doesn't have to know the Universal Rules of Challenge? Until the error was pointed out to the challenger by someone else, this challenge *was* to proceed.
If by our own rules, when a challenge is issued and that challenge is found improper, the rules state:
~Challenges, if not properly served, will be voided by the Standings Keeper. In the case of a voided challenge, the challenger will have his or her right to challenge stripped for the remainder of the cycle as a penalty. This penalty will *not* take effect if the challenge is withdrawn before voided.~
Now, with that in mind and in my opinion, this challenge was not withdrawn before being voided. So that, Drey and Master Ash, was my reason for asking.
~Taylara~
Date: 15 Mar 2000 02:26:23 EST
>
> Madame Taylara,
>I believe that isn't what Lord Starke intended, but rather it was an obvious
>circumstance that one such as you should know without someone translating it
>for a simpler mind.
>
>~ A
>
>
>
>
Well then Master Ash, I'm rightly confused...let me tell you why.
Since I couldn't get a direct answer here, I spoke to a person that could give me a direct answer and it seems this challenge never took place. Xericmues retains his peer wins, he retains the right to challenge again, and therefore will nae suffer penalty.
If the challenge was revoked, that would mean it was issued. My understanding here is; the challenge was issued and the challenge was validated. Is a WL now permitted to revoke a challenge after issuance and after validation?
Aye, I understand an error was made, but does that mean the WL doesn't have to know the Universal Rules of Challenge? Until the error was pointed out to the challenger by someone else, this challenge *was* to proceed.
If by our own rules, when a challenge is issued and that challenge is found improper, the rules state:
~Challenges, if not properly served, will be voided by the Standings Keeper. In the case of a voided challenge, the challenger will have his or her right to challenge stripped for the remainder of the cycle as a penalty. This penalty will *not* take effect if the challenge is withdrawn before voided.~
Now, with that in mind and in my opinion, this challenge was not withdrawn before being voided. So that, Drey and Master Ash, was my reason for asking.
~Taylara~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 05:06:03 EST
Master Valentine Evermeadow, Gentles,
From all appearances, tis seemin' th' warlord Xeric Mues, issued challenge improperly. Said challenge wast validated by Madame Silvertree an' a missive apparently sent unto both the challenger an' th' Baron, affirming that th' challenge wast valid.
Th' challenge wast on its face invalid an' therefore void. One must question first how such a basic rule ast th' requirement th' th' list o' bona fides contain ten different peers couldst hae escaped th' notice o' both th' Keeper 'o th' Standings who be charged wi ta duty 'o validation an' ta warlord wh' issued said challenge.
Secondly, since th' challenge wast void on its presentation one mus' question how th' warlord mayest escape th' penalty declared for issuin' an' invalid challenge. Didst th' warlord perhaps revoke th' challenge afore t'was validated? If th' be ta case, one mus' question why Madame Silvertree proceded ta validate it. If ta challenge wast nae revoked afore th' validation, ta rules be clear th' ta warlord stands in forfeit 'o 'is bona fides an' shall
be stripped 'o 'is right ta challenge ast penalty.
Thirdly, Madame Silvertree again proves she canna 'andled ta duties 'o Standin's Keeper, havin' writ th' she felt nae reason ta re-verify ta bona fides for in she hae placed said bona fides 'pon th' cork a scant two days afore. One may opine th' Madame Silvertree dinna e'en take th' few moments needed ta peruse th' missive she mos' certes hae received listin' 'em.
I also find th' Baron G'nort's comment interestin' to whit: Madame Silvertree 'normally' sends out missives ta th' Barons statin' th' a challenge hae been validated. Again, I mus' question why Madame Silvertree fails ta apprise ta community th' a challenge th' hae been announced ast pendin' hast been validated.
Madame Silvertree seems ta continue ta play fast an' loose wi' ta rules 'o engagement ast well ast performin' 'er duties in a manner which continues ta be a blight 'pon these ancient halls?
Master Valentine Evermeadow, how much longer shall th' community be subjected ta such blatant arrogance an' incompetence, pray tell.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 15 Mar 2000 05:06:03 EST
Master Valentine Evermeadow, Gentles,
From all appearances, tis seemin' th' warlord Xeric Mues, issued challenge improperly. Said challenge wast validated by Madame Silvertree an' a missive apparently sent unto both the challenger an' th' Baron, affirming that th' challenge wast valid.
Th' challenge wast on its face invalid an' therefore void. One must question first how such a basic rule ast th' requirement th' th' list o' bona fides contain ten different peers couldst hae escaped th' notice o' both th' Keeper 'o th' Standings who be charged wi ta duty 'o validation an' ta warlord wh' issued said challenge.
Secondly, since th' challenge wast void on its presentation one mus' question how th' warlord mayest escape th' penalty declared for issuin' an' invalid challenge. Didst th' warlord perhaps revoke th' challenge afore t'was validated? If th' be ta case, one mus' question why Madame Silvertree proceded ta validate it. If ta challenge wast nae revoked afore th' validation, ta rules be clear th' ta warlord stands in forfeit 'o 'is bona fides an' shall
be stripped 'o 'is right ta challenge ast penalty.
Thirdly, Madame Silvertree again proves she canna 'andled ta duties 'o Standin's Keeper, havin' writ th' she felt nae reason ta re-verify ta bona fides for in she hae placed said bona fides 'pon th' cork a scant two days afore. One may opine th' Madame Silvertree dinna e'en take th' few moments needed ta peruse th' missive she mos' certes hae received listin' 'em.
I also find th' Baron G'nort's comment interestin' to whit: Madame Silvertree 'normally' sends out missives ta th' Barons statin' th' a challenge hae been validated. Again, I mus' question why Madame Silvertree fails ta apprise ta community th' a challenge th' hae been announced ast pendin' hast been validated.
Madame Silvertree seems ta continue ta play fast an' loose wi' ta rules 'o engagement ast well ast performin' 'er duties in a manner which continues ta be a blight 'pon these ancient halls?
Master Valentine Evermeadow, how much longer shall th' community be subjected ta such blatant arrogance an' incompetence, pray tell.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 09:55:39 EST
>Master Valentine Evermeadow, how much longer shall th' community be subjected
>ta such blatant arrogance an' incompetence, pray tell.
Depends. When are you leaving?
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Date: 15 Mar 2000 09:55:39 EST
>Master Valentine Evermeadow, how much longer shall th' community be subjected
>ta such blatant arrogance an' incompetence, pray tell.
Depends. When are you leaving?
Cassius Gaius Maximius
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 12:04:40 EST
You were correct, Ash.
Taylara,
I only meant that what you were saying was absolutely correct. Don't overstep yourself, hon. :)
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
Date: 15 Mar 2000 12:04:40 EST
You were correct, Ash.
Taylara,
I only meant that what you were saying was absolutely correct. Don't overstep yourself, hon. :)
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 16:44:08 EST
>Taylara,
>I only meant that what you were saying was absolutely correct. Don't overstep
>yourself, hon. :)
::Steps back with a chuckle:: Thanks for the warning, Drey...
Date: 15 Mar 2000 16:44:08 EST
>Taylara,
>I only meant that what you were saying was absolutely correct. Don't overstep
>yourself, hon. :)
::Steps back with a chuckle:: Thanks for the warning, Drey...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: karenwilder@aol.com (Karen Wilder)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 23:04:07 EST
>I also find th' Baron G'nort's comment interestin' to whit: Madame
>Silvertree 'normally' sends out missives ta th' Barons statin' th' a
>challenge hae been validated. Again, I mus' question why Madame Silvertree
>fails ta apprise ta community th' a challenge th' hae been announced ast
>pendin' hast been validated.
>
>Madame Silvertree seems ta continue ta play fast an' loose wi' ta rules 'o
>engagement ast well ast performin' 'er duties in a manner which continues ta
>be a blight 'pon these ancient halls?
Ain't nothin' in da rules dat says da Standin's Keeper's gotta tell anybody but da dueler an' da challenged person anythin'.
Date: 15 Mar 2000 23:04:07 EST
>I also find th' Baron G'nort's comment interestin' to whit: Madame
>Silvertree 'normally' sends out missives ta th' Barons statin' th' a
>challenge hae been validated. Again, I mus' question why Madame Silvertree
>fails ta apprise ta community th' a challenge th' hae been announced ast
>pendin' hast been validated.
>
>Madame Silvertree seems ta continue ta play fast an' loose wi' ta rules 'o
>engagement ast well ast performin' 'er duties in a manner which continues ta
>be a blight 'pon these ancient halls?
Ain't nothin' in da rules dat says da Standin's Keeper's gotta tell anybody but da dueler an' da challenged person anythin'.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 00:26:23 EST
Sir or Madame, ast th' case may be.
What an' interesting comment, considering that Madame Silvertree apparently told both th' challenger an' ta challenged th' ta bona fides were valid. Tis seem ta wench canna e'en go by wh' be in ta rules, let alone hae ta common sense ta verify a challenge when it be her required duty ta.
Shall I also add th' Madame Silvertree apparently hast so little understanding of either th' rules 'o engagement, th' she declared th' one round dinna constitute a duel. An' certes, she seems completely oblivious ta th' long standin' tradition 'o th' community bein' apprised th' a challenge hae been validated, much ast she seems ta be oblivious ta much wh' hae long nae only been wi'in ta rules bu' known ta manna, this despite 'er claims ta uphold
tradition, ta hae knowledge 'o th' 'istories an' mos' amusing 'o her peccadillos be ta one where she seems ta blithely an' wi' deliberation tamper wi' ta challenge process.
I might add th' tis nae annathin' in ta rules 'o engagement requirin' ta Standin's Keeper ta do 'er job wi' competence either. Perhaps th' shall be 'er next excuse fer 'er incompetence.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 16 Mar 2000 00:26:23 EST
Sir or Madame, ast th' case may be.
What an' interesting comment, considering that Madame Silvertree apparently told both th' challenger an' ta challenged th' ta bona fides were valid. Tis seem ta wench canna e'en go by wh' be in ta rules, let alone hae ta common sense ta verify a challenge when it be her required duty ta.
Shall I also add th' Madame Silvertree apparently hast so little understanding of either th' rules 'o engagement, th' she declared th' one round dinna constitute a duel. An' certes, she seems completely oblivious ta th' long standin' tradition 'o th' community bein' apprised th' a challenge hae been validated, much ast she seems ta be oblivious ta much wh' hae long nae only been wi'in ta rules bu' known ta manna, this despite 'er claims ta uphold
tradition, ta hae knowledge 'o th' 'istories an' mos' amusing 'o her peccadillos be ta one where she seems ta blithely an' wi' deliberation tamper wi' ta challenge process.
I might add th' tis nae annathin' in ta rules 'o engagement requirin' ta Standin's Keeper ta do 'er job wi' competence either. Perhaps th' shall be 'er next excuse fer 'er incompetence.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: karnafexx@aol.com (Karnafexx)
Date: 16 Mar 2000 01:27:15 EST
::Getting Excedrine headache #666::
::Staggers off from the boards to drink the pain away::
Date: 16 Mar 2000 01:27:15 EST
::Getting Excedrine headache #666::
::Staggers off from the boards to drink the pain away::