From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 05 Apr 2000 21:43:19 EDT
Jona,
While, of course, you are entitled to your opinion, I do at least think that the Elijah issue is improperly addressed. The others I don't remember too well, but I remember Elijah's case specifically.
Drake validated the peer wins because, upon seeing the standings up, had felt Elijah's wins were valid. It was later brought up that Elijah's challenge had been issued a very short time before the standings were posted. It is a mistake anyone could have made. The issue was then solved by Golden by sending a letter to Drake informing the exact time the standings were posted, so then a warlord sending the challenge even a minute before it was
posted could have the peer wins invalid.
I felt it was an honest mistake on Drake's part for that one. I just think that in all fairness, Drake should be given the benefit of the doubt for that instance. That's just me, though.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Challenge: retry
-
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: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 05 Apr 2000 23:38:13 EDT
Var,
Tis Madame Silvertree's duty to ascertain that a challenge be properly certified and nae ta guess that it might be. Merely seeing that the standings were available at the time Madame Silvertree deigned to look for them and nae ascertaining that the courier what delivered th' challenge hae arrived afore the public wast able to observe the list be simply another instance of her laxity in doing her duties.
Further, Madame Silvertree didst indeed attempt to withhold from the Council the missive delivered stating that Elijah hae tendered unto her his retirement. A matter that most certes wast the business 'o the Council, I wouldst opine.
Ast thee may hae noticed, Madame Silvertree eschews to e'en offer publicly to the community that she hast perused the bona fides offered by a challenger and hae found them to be proper.
What fears she, Var? That were she to do so, that more errors wouldst come to light? Mind thee, Var, Madame Silvertree's discovered tamperings may be but a mere drop in the proverbial bucket.
Jona
Date: 05 Apr 2000 23:38:13 EDT
Var,
Tis Madame Silvertree's duty to ascertain that a challenge be properly certified and nae ta guess that it might be. Merely seeing that the standings were available at the time Madame Silvertree deigned to look for them and nae ascertaining that the courier what delivered th' challenge hae arrived afore the public wast able to observe the list be simply another instance of her laxity in doing her duties.
Further, Madame Silvertree didst indeed attempt to withhold from the Council the missive delivered stating that Elijah hae tendered unto her his retirement. A matter that most certes wast the business 'o the Council, I wouldst opine.
Ast thee may hae noticed, Madame Silvertree eschews to e'en offer publicly to the community that she hast perused the bona fides offered by a challenger and hae found them to be proper.
What fears she, Var? That were she to do so, that more errors wouldst come to light? Mind thee, Var, Madame Silvertree's discovered tamperings may be but a mere drop in the proverbial bucket.
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 05 Apr 2000 23:43:02 EDT
Please refer to the Standings of four years ago to determine why I would pull the names of inactive Warlords after only one cycle.
For ease of reference, I will post the relevant sections here.
Names placed in Bold by myself for reference sake.
Duel of Swords Cycle for 02/01/96 - 03/31/96
Standings for the weekend ending 3/26/96 (Rev. 2)
Comments/Feedback/Errors to Standings Keeper: RDI Devon
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is the LAST WEEKEND of the CURRENT CYCLE. Those who HAVE NOT DUELED since the beginning of January will be DROPPED from the standings, as well as screen names which are no longer active.
---
News From The Rings:
Baron Daegarth challenges Overlord MorganCrow for his title!
They shall fight on Thursday, March 28 at 9PM EST in the Arena!
Warlord Valmion I challenges Baron WickedDeth for his newly-aquired ring!
Both men have claimed that the loser shall be banished from the Arena for four months!
Duel set for Sunday, March 31 at 7:00 PM EST.
Warlord Alais d NS challenges Baron Red zealot for her ring! Date TBD.
Warlords' Tournament CHANGED TO April 9-10. Contact RDI Marx for more information or to register.
---
The Standings:
* Currently involved in a challenge.
Name W L T LastDuel
OVERLORD (6 Fancys)
MorganCrow 35: 4: 0 03/19/96 *
Baron (Loyal) (5 Fancys)
Athlstan 89: 12: 1 03/26/96
DUKELETO1 53: 16: 0 03/26/96
Lord Hrvst 24: 1: 2 03/19/96
Percival 129: 8: 1 03/26/96
Phlag X 97: 32: 4 03/19/96
Baron (Renegade) (5 Fancys)
Daegarth 87: 9: 2 03/26/96 *
Red zealot 39: 0: 0 03/26/96 *
Baron (Unaligned)(5 Fancys)
WickedDeth 66: 25: 4 03/26/96 *
Baron (5 Fancys)
VACANT 0: 0: 0 00/00/00
Warlord (4 Fancys)
Shadowrun 167: 0: 0 01/24/96
Falire 144: 15: 4 03/19/96
Hadar Dule 110: 31: 7 03/26/96
Luthien S 62: 0: 0 01/24/96
Karnafexx 59: 0: 0 03/19/96
Ecstacys 56: 1: 0 03/12/96
DazingHard 59: 7: 1 03/26/96
JSVRamirez 51: 0: 0 02/13/96
Kalamere 55: 8: 0 03/26/96
Alais d NS 57: 11: 5 03/26/96 *
Gnimish RW 50: 4: 0 02/13/96
PrinceFyre 48: 4: 0 03/19/96
Roustam 47: 3: 0 02/27/96
Merilsa 44: 3: 0 03/19/96
Rennor111 67: 29: 4 03/26/96
Fantasy RC 38: 0: 0 12/04/95
PsiMystic 36: 0: 0 01/24/96
CRYPTKlCKR 35: 0: 0 01/16/96
Tarl Cab0t 74: 42: 3 03/26/96
Xenograg 29: 0: 0 03/26/96
Osy Oz Oz 27: 0: 0 02/02/96
OIC Blank 29: 3: 0 03/19/96
Shade 9 26: 0: 1 03/19/96
MidnytBlue 25: 0: 0 02/02/96
Tukros 37: 13: 5 03/19/96
Valmion I 33: 8: 0 03/19/96 *
Duel of Swords Cycle for 04/01/96 - 5/31/96
Standings for the weekend ending 04/02/96 (Rev 2)
Comments/Feedback/Errors to Standings Keeper: RDI Devon
Note: This is the beginning of the new cycle. Inactive duelers have been removed, individual records have been zeroed out and invalid screen names have been removed. For more details, see Keyword: FFGF --> FFGF Messaging --> Red Dragon Innsights --> DUEL OF SWORDS!!! --> New Cycle Information, by RDI Devon. Or, to get the Cycle information E-mail to you, send E-mail to RDIDevon with 'Send January Cycle Information' in the _subject_ of the message for
an automated reply.
---
News From The Rings:
Baron Daegarth succeeds in his challenge against Overlord MorganCrow!
Daegarth is the new Overlord of DoS!
MorganCrow takes Daegarth's old Baron ring, and is granted loyal status.
Baron update: Barons Percival, Phlag X and Red zealot request and are granted loyal status.
Barons Athlstan and DUKELETO1 request and are granted Renegade status.
Barons WickedDeth and Lrd Hrvst do not declare their alignment, so Overlord Daegarth aligns them loyal!
Walord Valmion I and Baron WickedDeth postpone their challenge duel.
Warlords' Tournament on April 9-10. Contact RDI Marx for more information or to register.
NEWS FLASH: (4/5/96)
Baron Athlstan challenges Overlord Daegarth and wins!
Athlstan is crowned new Overlord, whilst Daegarth takes Athlstan's ring and is aligned loyal.
All the other Barons go Unaligned again, and must report their new alignment in one week's time.
---
The Standings:
* Currently involved in a challenge.
Name W L T LastDuel
OVERLORD (6 Fancys)
Athlstan 78: 0: 0 04/02/96
Baron (Loyal) (5 Fancys)
Daegarth 78: 0: 0 04/02/96
Baron (Renegade) (5 Fancys)
DUKELETO1 37: 0: 0 03/26/96
Lord Hrvst 23: 0: 0 03/19/96
MorganCrow 31: 0: 0 03/19/96
Percival 124: 0: 0 04/02/96
Phlag X 70: 0: 0 04/02/96
Red zealot 39: 0: 0 03/26/96
WickedDeth 42: 0: 0 04/02/96
Baron (Unaligned)(5 Fancys)
VACANT 0: 0: 0 00/00/00
Baron (5 Fancys)
VACANT 0: 0: 0 00/00/00
Warlord (4 Fancys)
Hadar Dule 81: 0: 0 04/02/96
Ecstacys 69: 0: 0 04/02/96
Karnafexx 59: 0: 0 03/19/96
DazingHard 52: 0: 0 03/26/96
JSVRamirez 51: 0: 0 02/13/96
Kalamere 48: 0: 0 04/02/96
Alais d NS 46: 0: 0 04/02/96
PrinceFyre 44: 0: 0 03/19/96
Merilsa 41: 0: 0 03/19/96
Rennor111 39: 0: 0 04/02/96
CRYPTKlCKR 33: 0: 0 04/02/96
Tarl Cab0t 33: 0: 0 04/02/96
Xenograg 29: 0: 0 03/26/96
Osy Oz Oz 27: 0: 0 02/02/96
OIC Blank 26: 0: 0 03/19/96
Shade 9 26: 0: 0 03/19/96
MidnytBlue 25: 0: 0 02/02/96
Tukros 25: 0: 0 04/02/96
JakeThrash 24: 0: 0 04/02/96
Sau Bau 24: 0: 0 04/02/96
Valmion I 24: 0: 0 04/02/96
While I am sure it is possible that a couple of the duelists who's names were listed in Bold retired... there is no mention of that fact. However, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that all of those duelists would have retired, all on the same week.
To be fair, it should be noted that none of these duelists were listed on any of the Standings pages for the 04/01/96 - 5/31/96 cycle. However, unless they had fully vanished from the Realm or announced their retirement... according to Lady Starfare they would not have been taken from the Standings.
I will have more on this as my research bears more fruit.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 05 Apr 2000 23:43:02 EDT
Please refer to the Standings of four years ago to determine why I would pull the names of inactive Warlords after only one cycle.
For ease of reference, I will post the relevant sections here.
Names placed in Bold by myself for reference sake.
Duel of Swords Cycle for 02/01/96 - 03/31/96
Standings for the weekend ending 3/26/96 (Rev. 2)
Comments/Feedback/Errors to Standings Keeper: RDI Devon
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is the LAST WEEKEND of the CURRENT CYCLE. Those who HAVE NOT DUELED since the beginning of January will be DROPPED from the standings, as well as screen names which are no longer active.
---
News From The Rings:
Baron Daegarth challenges Overlord MorganCrow for his title!
They shall fight on Thursday, March 28 at 9PM EST in the Arena!
Warlord Valmion I challenges Baron WickedDeth for his newly-aquired ring!
Both men have claimed that the loser shall be banished from the Arena for four months!
Duel set for Sunday, March 31 at 7:00 PM EST.
Warlord Alais d NS challenges Baron Red zealot for her ring! Date TBD.
Warlords' Tournament CHANGED TO April 9-10. Contact RDI Marx for more information or to register.
---
The Standings:
* Currently involved in a challenge.
Name W L T LastDuel
OVERLORD (6 Fancys)
MorganCrow 35: 4: 0 03/19/96 *
Baron (Loyal) (5 Fancys)
Athlstan 89: 12: 1 03/26/96
DUKELETO1 53: 16: 0 03/26/96
Lord Hrvst 24: 1: 2 03/19/96
Percival 129: 8: 1 03/26/96
Phlag X 97: 32: 4 03/19/96
Baron (Renegade) (5 Fancys)
Daegarth 87: 9: 2 03/26/96 *
Red zealot 39: 0: 0 03/26/96 *
Baron (Unaligned)(5 Fancys)
WickedDeth 66: 25: 4 03/26/96 *
Baron (5 Fancys)
VACANT 0: 0: 0 00/00/00
Warlord (4 Fancys)
Shadowrun 167: 0: 0 01/24/96
Falire 144: 15: 4 03/19/96
Hadar Dule 110: 31: 7 03/26/96
Luthien S 62: 0: 0 01/24/96
Karnafexx 59: 0: 0 03/19/96
Ecstacys 56: 1: 0 03/12/96
DazingHard 59: 7: 1 03/26/96
JSVRamirez 51: 0: 0 02/13/96
Kalamere 55: 8: 0 03/26/96
Alais d NS 57: 11: 5 03/26/96 *
Gnimish RW 50: 4: 0 02/13/96
PrinceFyre 48: 4: 0 03/19/96
Roustam 47: 3: 0 02/27/96
Merilsa 44: 3: 0 03/19/96
Rennor111 67: 29: 4 03/26/96
Fantasy RC 38: 0: 0 12/04/95
PsiMystic 36: 0: 0 01/24/96
CRYPTKlCKR 35: 0: 0 01/16/96
Tarl Cab0t 74: 42: 3 03/26/96
Xenograg 29: 0: 0 03/26/96
Osy Oz Oz 27: 0: 0 02/02/96
OIC Blank 29: 3: 0 03/19/96
Shade 9 26: 0: 1 03/19/96
MidnytBlue 25: 0: 0 02/02/96
Tukros 37: 13: 5 03/19/96
Valmion I 33: 8: 0 03/19/96 *
Duel of Swords Cycle for 04/01/96 - 5/31/96
Standings for the weekend ending 04/02/96 (Rev 2)
Comments/Feedback/Errors to Standings Keeper: RDI Devon
Note: This is the beginning of the new cycle. Inactive duelers have been removed, individual records have been zeroed out and invalid screen names have been removed. For more details, see Keyword: FFGF --> FFGF Messaging --> Red Dragon Innsights --> DUEL OF SWORDS!!! --> New Cycle Information, by RDI Devon. Or, to get the Cycle information E-mail to you, send E-mail to RDIDevon with 'Send January Cycle Information' in the _subject_ of the message for
an automated reply.
---
News From The Rings:
Baron Daegarth succeeds in his challenge against Overlord MorganCrow!
Daegarth is the new Overlord of DoS!
MorganCrow takes Daegarth's old Baron ring, and is granted loyal status.
Baron update: Barons Percival, Phlag X and Red zealot request and are granted loyal status.
Barons Athlstan and DUKELETO1 request and are granted Renegade status.
Barons WickedDeth and Lrd Hrvst do not declare their alignment, so Overlord Daegarth aligns them loyal!
Walord Valmion I and Baron WickedDeth postpone their challenge duel.
Warlords' Tournament on April 9-10. Contact RDI Marx for more information or to register.
NEWS FLASH: (4/5/96)
Baron Athlstan challenges Overlord Daegarth and wins!
Athlstan is crowned new Overlord, whilst Daegarth takes Athlstan's ring and is aligned loyal.
All the other Barons go Unaligned again, and must report their new alignment in one week's time.
---
The Standings:
* Currently involved in a challenge.
Name W L T LastDuel
OVERLORD (6 Fancys)
Athlstan 78: 0: 0 04/02/96
Baron (Loyal) (5 Fancys)
Daegarth 78: 0: 0 04/02/96
Baron (Renegade) (5 Fancys)
DUKELETO1 37: 0: 0 03/26/96
Lord Hrvst 23: 0: 0 03/19/96
MorganCrow 31: 0: 0 03/19/96
Percival 124: 0: 0 04/02/96
Phlag X 70: 0: 0 04/02/96
Red zealot 39: 0: 0 03/26/96
WickedDeth 42: 0: 0 04/02/96
Baron (Unaligned)(5 Fancys)
VACANT 0: 0: 0 00/00/00
Baron (5 Fancys)
VACANT 0: 0: 0 00/00/00
Warlord (4 Fancys)
Hadar Dule 81: 0: 0 04/02/96
Ecstacys 69: 0: 0 04/02/96
Karnafexx 59: 0: 0 03/19/96
DazingHard 52: 0: 0 03/26/96
JSVRamirez 51: 0: 0 02/13/96
Kalamere 48: 0: 0 04/02/96
Alais d NS 46: 0: 0 04/02/96
PrinceFyre 44: 0: 0 03/19/96
Merilsa 41: 0: 0 03/19/96
Rennor111 39: 0: 0 04/02/96
CRYPTKlCKR 33: 0: 0 04/02/96
Tarl Cab0t 33: 0: 0 04/02/96
Xenograg 29: 0: 0 03/26/96
Osy Oz Oz 27: 0: 0 02/02/96
OIC Blank 26: 0: 0 03/19/96
Shade 9 26: 0: 0 03/19/96
MidnytBlue 25: 0: 0 02/02/96
Tukros 25: 0: 0 04/02/96
JakeThrash 24: 0: 0 04/02/96
Sau Bau 24: 0: 0 04/02/96
Valmion I 24: 0: 0 04/02/96
While I am sure it is possible that a couple of the duelists who's names were listed in Bold retired... there is no mention of that fact. However, I find it extraordinarily unlikely that all of those duelists would have retired, all on the same week.
To be fair, it should be noted that none of these duelists were listed on any of the Standings pages for the 04/01/96 - 5/31/96 cycle. However, unless they had fully vanished from the Realm or announced their retirement... according to Lady Starfare they would not have been taken from the Standings.
I will have more on this as my research bears more fruit.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 06 Apr 2000 12:46:08 EDT
"Previously, Drakewyn made an error when she told Xeric that he had enough legitimate peer wins to challenge."
Lord Evermeadow:
The confusion here, of course, is that's it's not common practice for the Standings Keeper to tell a Warlord any such thing before challenge has actually been issued. Therefore, forgive us for not assuming that which we'd no reason to assume; when you said "previously," I took it to mean "before the challenge was withdrawn."
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 06 Apr 2000 12:46:08 EDT
"Previously, Drakewyn made an error when she told Xeric that he had enough legitimate peer wins to challenge."
Lord Evermeadow:
The confusion here, of course, is that's it's not common practice for the Standings Keeper to tell a Warlord any such thing before challenge has actually been issued. Therefore, forgive us for not assuming that which we'd no reason to assume; when you said "previously," I took it to mean "before the challenge was withdrawn."
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 06 Apr 2000 12:55:44 EDT
>Names placed in Bold by myself for reference sake.
Shadowrun and Gnimish did, indeed, retire.
Luthien and PsiMystic had, indeed, vanished from the realm entirely and completely by such time.
I do not consider it a stretch to assume that FantasyRC and Roustam also retired; indeed, I think it likely that Roustam did, on recollection.
As far as the failure to mention retirements, I will remind you that you, yourself, have failed to announce same on occasion, most recently a time when you removed no fewer than 11 Warlords from the standings over a two week period who had retired in protest of a management decision. You did so without making mention of their departure, so I think you'll understand when the failure to mention four retirements in one week isn't exactly evidence that
they didn't...
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 06 Apr 2000 12:55:44 EDT
>Names placed in Bold by myself for reference sake.
Shadowrun and Gnimish did, indeed, retire.
Luthien and PsiMystic had, indeed, vanished from the realm entirely and completely by such time.
I do not consider it a stretch to assume that FantasyRC and Roustam also retired; indeed, I think it likely that Roustam did, on recollection.
As far as the failure to mention retirements, I will remind you that you, yourself, have failed to announce same on occasion, most recently a time when you removed no fewer than 11 Warlords from the standings over a two week period who had retired in protest of a management decision. You did so without making mention of their departure, so I think you'll understand when the failure to mention four retirements in one week isn't exactly evidence that
they didn't...
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: karnafexx@aol.com (Karnafexx)
Date: 06 Apr 2000 13:35:16 EDT
::Looks at the boards::
Geez, Val called me asinine....
::Chews on his lower lip and then turns and walks away::
Date: 06 Apr 2000 13:35:16 EDT
::Looks at the boards::
Geez, Val called me asinine....
::Chews on his lower lip and then turns and walks away::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 06 Apr 2000 20:14:29 EDT
Ian,
Indeed, Roust hae requested 'is reinstatement ta rank afore ta comin' warlord tourney, an then didst tendered 'is retirement a wee while after th' tourney.
Ast well thou art correct, Ian, in th' ta Bishop an' th' Gnome hae tendered their retirements. Ta retirement 'o th' Bishop wast announced in ta list dated ta twentieth day 'o ta second month 'o th' common year nineteen 'undred ninety an' six.
T'was at ta turnin' 'o th' year th' a tourney 'o barons wast 'eld ta fill ta title 'o Overlord followin' ta retirement 'o ta Gnome ast Overlord. Ta title wast won by th' Knights Marshall 'o Clatterbridge, Martigan Crow.
Ah wast well cognizant 'o th' disappearance 'o Luthien from ta realms ast well ast th' disappearance 'o th' Mystical One, whose name hae again appeared 'pon ta mos' recent lists. Ah hae nae yet hae ta chance ta catch sight 'o 'im nor ta speak wi' 'im.
An' ta retirement 'o th' Sweep wast ast well known an' a saddenin' event. T'was Roust oft joshed th' 'e wast Falire Fodder.
Tis mos' interestin' yuir commentin' 'pon th' removal 'o eleven warlords wh' didst retire in protest 'o a management decision. How interestin' th' Madame Silvertree chose ta keep th' infermation from ta official lists an' then ta state she wouldst consider it extraordinarily unlikely th' seven warlords wouldst vanish or retire.
There may nae be mention 'o ta retirements in ta official list, 'owe'er, mos' 'o th' infermation wast either placed 'pon ta cork or announced within' ta basement an' missives sent unta th' keeper.
I shall remind Madame Silvertree 'o 'er removal 'o th' names 'o th' Lord 'o Questrion, Valmion an' 'o th' keeper 'o ta Garden, th' Lady Blue when both hae dueled an' whose names should nae hae been stricken from ta lists. An were Ah ta hae me scribes do further research, tis mos' likely Ah canst show further instances wherein warlords were removed improperly.
Perhaps Madame Silvertree ist nae cognizant 'o th' fact th' Devon wast named ta th' duties 'o Keeper 'o ta Standin's in th' lists wh' bear ta date ta sixth day 'o ta second month in th' common year nineteen 'undred ninety an' six. Ta previous keeper 'o ta list wast ta Moriquendi, Feadur Feamegil. Ta news 'o 'is resignation an' th' ta dwarf, Gloin, wouldst 'andle ta lists until such time ast a new keeper 'o ta lists wast announced, wast writ in ta
listin's dated ta twenty third day 'o ta first month 'o th' same year.
In ta lists dated 'pon ta thirteenth day 'o th' second month 'o th' same year, t'was reiterated th' anna 'oldin' rank less th' th' 'o warlord mus' arrange wi' ta bodacious one, Kairee, th' then Supervisor, if'n they wished ta hae their records reinstated an' none other th' ta bodacious one hae th' discretion ta grant such reinstatement.
Perhaps Madame Silvertree hae nae yet come 'pon th' infermation placed in ta official list dated 'pon ta twenty sixth day 'o th' third month 'o th' same year.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 06 Apr 2000 20:14:29 EDT
Ian,
Indeed, Roust hae requested 'is reinstatement ta rank afore ta comin' warlord tourney, an then didst tendered 'is retirement a wee while after th' tourney.
Ast well thou art correct, Ian, in th' ta Bishop an' th' Gnome hae tendered their retirements. Ta retirement 'o th' Bishop wast announced in ta list dated ta twentieth day 'o ta second month 'o th' common year nineteen 'undred ninety an' six.
T'was at ta turnin' 'o th' year th' a tourney 'o barons wast 'eld ta fill ta title 'o Overlord followin' ta retirement 'o ta Gnome ast Overlord. Ta title wast won by th' Knights Marshall 'o Clatterbridge, Martigan Crow.
Ah wast well cognizant 'o th' disappearance 'o Luthien from ta realms ast well ast th' disappearance 'o th' Mystical One, whose name hae again appeared 'pon ta mos' recent lists. Ah hae nae yet hae ta chance ta catch sight 'o 'im nor ta speak wi' 'im.
An' ta retirement 'o th' Sweep wast ast well known an' a saddenin' event. T'was Roust oft joshed th' 'e wast Falire Fodder.
Tis mos' interestin' yuir commentin' 'pon th' removal 'o eleven warlords wh' didst retire in protest 'o a management decision. How interestin' th' Madame Silvertree chose ta keep th' infermation from ta official lists an' then ta state she wouldst consider it extraordinarily unlikely th' seven warlords wouldst vanish or retire.
There may nae be mention 'o ta retirements in ta official list, 'owe'er, mos' 'o th' infermation wast either placed 'pon ta cork or announced within' ta basement an' missives sent unta th' keeper.
I shall remind Madame Silvertree 'o 'er removal 'o th' names 'o th' Lord 'o Questrion, Valmion an' 'o th' keeper 'o ta Garden, th' Lady Blue when both hae dueled an' whose names should nae hae been stricken from ta lists. An were Ah ta hae me scribes do further research, tis mos' likely Ah canst show further instances wherein warlords were removed improperly.
Perhaps Madame Silvertree ist nae cognizant 'o th' fact th' Devon wast named ta th' duties 'o Keeper 'o ta Standin's in th' lists wh' bear ta date ta sixth day 'o ta second month in th' common year nineteen 'undred ninety an' six. Ta previous keeper 'o ta list wast ta Moriquendi, Feadur Feamegil. Ta news 'o 'is resignation an' th' ta dwarf, Gloin, wouldst 'andle ta lists until such time ast a new keeper 'o ta lists wast announced, wast writ in ta
listin's dated ta twenty third day 'o ta first month 'o th' same year.
In ta lists dated 'pon ta thirteenth day 'o th' second month 'o th' same year, t'was reiterated th' anna 'oldin' rank less th' th' 'o warlord mus' arrange wi' ta bodacious one, Kairee, th' then Supervisor, if'n they wished ta hae their records reinstated an' none other th' ta bodacious one hae th' discretion ta grant such reinstatement.
Perhaps Madame Silvertree hae nae yet come 'pon th' infermation placed in ta official list dated 'pon ta twenty sixth day 'o th' third month 'o th' same year.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 07 Apr 2000 03:25:45 EDT
Laird MacKenzie.
Would you name these eleven Warlords please? And the approximate date as well, please.
I ask so that I might prepare a full statement of events, in as much as I have information to do so.
As for not posting of the retirement of other Warlords... there have been no less than eight Warlords in recent months who have asked that their retirement not be publically announced upon the Standings.
It has always been my policy to honor such requests, as well as honor requests that a return from retirement not be announced upon the Standings.
In that very statement, you may find your question answered concerning at least a few of the eleven Warlords.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 07 Apr 2000 03:25:45 EDT
Laird MacKenzie.
Would you name these eleven Warlords please? And the approximate date as well, please.
I ask so that I might prepare a full statement of events, in as much as I have information to do so.
As for not posting of the retirement of other Warlords... there have been no less than eight Warlords in recent months who have asked that their retirement not be publically announced upon the Standings.
It has always been my policy to honor such requests, as well as honor requests that a return from retirement not be announced upon the Standings.
In that very statement, you may find your question answered concerning at least a few of the eleven Warlords.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 07 Apr 2000 10:20:54 EDT
"Would you name these eleven Warlords please? And the approximate date as well, please."
I don't recall the date, nor all of the eleven; I simply remember that there were eleven.
Among the eleven were myself, Jesse Troyan, Morgan le Fay du Cornwall, Jake Thrash, and Wrut. Memory fails as to the others.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 07 Apr 2000 10:20:54 EDT
"Would you name these eleven Warlords please? And the approximate date as well, please."
I don't recall the date, nor all of the eleven; I simply remember that there were eleven.
Among the eleven were myself, Jesse Troyan, Morgan le Fay du Cornwall, Jake Thrash, and Wrut. Memory fails as to the others.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 08 Apr 2000 05:03:10 EDT
Lady Morgan le Fay du Cornwall never sent me a letter of retirement, nor did Jake Thrash, Jesse Troyan or Wrut.
Thus, there were no retirements to announce.
( Please see the note on the OOC board. )
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 08 Apr 2000 05:03:10 EDT
Lady Morgan le Fay du Cornwall never sent me a letter of retirement, nor did Jake Thrash, Jesse Troyan or Wrut.
Thus, there were no retirements to announce.
( Please see the note on the OOC board. )
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 08 Apr 2000 14:41:56 EDT
"Lady Morgan le Fay du Cornwall never sent me a letter of retirement, nor did Jake Thrash, Jesse Troyan or Wrut.
Thus, there were no retirements to announce."
Yet they were removed from the standings BY YOU - for reasons other than inactivity.
Yet you claim that because other duelers were removed from the standings without retirements being announced, it MUST have been because they were inactive, justifying your decision to alter the way inactive duelers have been removed under your authority.
Since (a) you know that duelers can be removed without retirements being announced despite still being active, and (b) you've had it explained to you that the example you apparently looked to to get the idea that your decision was correct was, in fact, an improper assumption, why do you insist on trying to divert the discussion toward whether I was precisely correct? Indeed, in your paranoid ecstacy, you apparently are unable to grasp that my
mention of the eleven warlords was in no way an indictment of your proper handling of THAT situation. It would be nice, for once, if you would understand the POINT of what's being said to you - in this case, that being that duelers have been removed on your own watch for reasons other than "official retirement" or "inactivity," and therefore it's fairly dense of you to assume that if it happened before, it's because of the inactivity rules.
I do not expect perfection from you, Lady SIlvertree - neither now, nor before I determined that my faith in you as an official of this sport and as a person were wholly misguided. I do, however, expect a little basic intelligence. Defending your actions by pointing to an example in the past which your own similar example disproves on its face is not intelligent.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 08 Apr 2000 14:41:56 EDT
"Lady Morgan le Fay du Cornwall never sent me a letter of retirement, nor did Jake Thrash, Jesse Troyan or Wrut.
Thus, there were no retirements to announce."
Yet they were removed from the standings BY YOU - for reasons other than inactivity.
Yet you claim that because other duelers were removed from the standings without retirements being announced, it MUST have been because they were inactive, justifying your decision to alter the way inactive duelers have been removed under your authority.
Since (a) you know that duelers can be removed without retirements being announced despite still being active, and (b) you've had it explained to you that the example you apparently looked to to get the idea that your decision was correct was, in fact, an improper assumption, why do you insist on trying to divert the discussion toward whether I was precisely correct? Indeed, in your paranoid ecstacy, you apparently are unable to grasp that my
mention of the eleven warlords was in no way an indictment of your proper handling of THAT situation. It would be nice, for once, if you would understand the POINT of what's being said to you - in this case, that being that duelers have been removed on your own watch for reasons other than "official retirement" or "inactivity," and therefore it's fairly dense of you to assume that if it happened before, it's because of the inactivity rules.
I do not expect perfection from you, Lady SIlvertree - neither now, nor before I determined that my faith in you as an official of this sport and as a person were wholly misguided. I do, however, expect a little basic intelligence. Defending your actions by pointing to an example in the past which your own similar example disproves on its face is not intelligent.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 09 Apr 2000 09:35:38 EDT
Laird MacKenzie.
It is a simple fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to have their names stricken from the records with no announcements made there-of.
It is also a fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to be re-instated with no announcements made of doing so.
I will refrain from naming these people in continued respect for their wishes.
As for the rest of this, the original complaint was of the removal of names from the Standings of inactive Warlords at the end of the cycles. When the length of the dueling cycle was expanded, this was placed into effect.
At this point, I will cease my involvement in this discussion. Any further queries into this matter should be directed to the Supervisor. If he requests that I answer any questions, I shall do so.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 09 Apr 2000 09:35:38 EDT
Laird MacKenzie.
It is a simple fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to have their names stricken from the records with no announcements made there-of.
It is also a fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to be re-instated with no announcements made of doing so.
I will refrain from naming these people in continued respect for their wishes.
As for the rest of this, the original complaint was of the removal of names from the Standings of inactive Warlords at the end of the cycles. When the length of the dueling cycle was expanded, this was placed into effect.
At this point, I will cease my involvement in this discussion. Any further queries into this matter should be directed to the Supervisor. If he requests that I answer any questions, I shall do so.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 10 Apr 2000 16:57:39 EDT
" It is a simple fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to have their names stricken from the records with no announcements made there-of.
It is also a fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to be re-instated with no announcements made of doing so.
I will refrain from naming these people in continued respect for their wishes."
Isn't that precisely what I said in my last response? Are you so wrapped up in defending yourself that you're too thick-headed to note that I already agreed that you had done the proper thing in regard to those Warlords? Why do you feel the need to defend it again?
"As for the rest of this, the original complaint was of the removal of names from the Standings of inactive Warlords at the end of the cycles. When the length of the dueling cycle was expanded, this was placed into effect."
Was this change in policy announced to the public? No, unless you made some mention of it in your defense of having done so in the first place. I don't recall you having done so; rather, I recall you defending your actions on the basis of your reading of the rules.
Do the rules now reflect this policy? Let's look, shall we? I quote directly:
"Warlords who retire or "are inactive for more than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standings Keeper."
No, it doesn't appear so. More than one cycle does, indeed, mean MORE THAN one cycle. There's no room for "interpretation" there.
The point remains, Lady Silvertree, that you pointed to a situation in which prior Warlords were missing from the standings, in some cases only a couple of weeks since their last duel, as "evidence" that you were following the way of things. Now, you seem to be contradicting even that, claiming that a new policy was placed into effect without proper notification to the public. If such a policy change was indeed made, please provide us with the name
of the supervisor who implemented it, insofar as it's not within your power to do so yourself.
You may cease your involvement in the discussion, Lady Silvertree, but that does not alter that which is readily apparent to all.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 10 Apr 2000 16:57:39 EDT
" It is a simple fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to have their names stricken from the records with no announcements made there-of.
It is also a fact that certain warlords in the past have asked to be re-instated with no announcements made of doing so.
I will refrain from naming these people in continued respect for their wishes."
Isn't that precisely what I said in my last response? Are you so wrapped up in defending yourself that you're too thick-headed to note that I already agreed that you had done the proper thing in regard to those Warlords? Why do you feel the need to defend it again?
"As for the rest of this, the original complaint was of the removal of names from the Standings of inactive Warlords at the end of the cycles. When the length of the dueling cycle was expanded, this was placed into effect."
Was this change in policy announced to the public? No, unless you made some mention of it in your defense of having done so in the first place. I don't recall you having done so; rather, I recall you defending your actions on the basis of your reading of the rules.
Do the rules now reflect this policy? Let's look, shall we? I quote directly:
"Warlords who retire or "are inactive for more than one cycle" MAY be removed from the Standings and their records archived at the discretion of the Standings Keeper."
No, it doesn't appear so. More than one cycle does, indeed, mean MORE THAN one cycle. There's no room for "interpretation" there.
The point remains, Lady Silvertree, that you pointed to a situation in which prior Warlords were missing from the standings, in some cases only a couple of weeks since their last duel, as "evidence" that you were following the way of things. Now, you seem to be contradicting even that, claiming that a new policy was placed into effect without proper notification to the public. If such a policy change was indeed made, please provide us with the name
of the supervisor who implemented it, insofar as it's not within your power to do so yourself.
You may cease your involvement in the discussion, Lady Silvertree, but that does not alter that which is readily apparent to all.
Regards,
Ian Rex.