From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 19 May 2000 20:03:19 EDT
The woman tacks a missive to the cork, sending couriers to deliver true copies to various personages.
Master Valentine Evermeadow, Barons, Gentles of the community,
Tis a matter what I feel shouldst be brought afore the community and afore the Council of Barons.
If I am nae in error, the Overlord, Avery Shiv Blade, had until the eighteenth day of the fifth month of the common era to meet his challenger, the Renegade Baron, Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke, in defense of the mantle.
Avery Shiv Blade, who didst ast well hold the supreme title of Archmage, ast well ast the supreme title of Diamond, wast removed ast Archmage, fore in he failed to appear for his challenge. The title of Archmage hast devolved without combat upon Melgarth Mithmellon.
I didst make query of Master Valentine Evermeadow and didst learn that he hae granted unto Avery Shiv Blade an extension of time in which he must face his challenger. Such an extension ist a blatant flouting of the rules of engagement and dost infringe mightily upon the rights, duties and privileges of the Barons Council.
I must express some concern that the Barons seem to be content to permit such infringement and usurpation of their rights.
I shall remind the community that nae such extension wast granted unto the former Overlord, Dalamar Ar'Daumon, nor unto the former Baron Zen Rising, nor unto the warlord Clutch, nor unto others. Though I am deeply concerned for the well being and safety of the Overlord, I must express my startlement in that the Barons Council hast nae been called into session to adjudicate the matter. Further, I must express more than a little startlement that the
Supervisor of this ancient bloodsport wouldst so blithely usurp the rights and privileges granted unto the Council. I do hold the Overlord, Avery Shiv Blade, in high esteem, yet he himself hast oft expressed his adherence unto the rules of engagement. Further, the granting of such an extension by Master Evermeadow, though perhaps within his purview, dost set a dangerous precedent.
I wouldst respectfully request of Master Evermeadow his reasons for such a blatant disregard for nae only the rules of engagement but ast well his justification for the usurpation of the rights and duties of the Barons. I do also respectfully request that the members of the Council apprise the community ast to their reasons for permitting their rights and privileges to be set aside.
Jonalyn Starfare
A call unto the Barons and the Community.
-
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: cletusgandrfald@aol.com (Cletus Gandrfald)
Date: 19 May 2000 23:00:56 EDT
I find myself in agreement with Lady Starfare's statements. I also wish to know why a rule that has long been upheld should be cast aside in this case. I had sent a letter a few days ago regarding this matter, to which I recieved no reply. I hope that Val will reply to this letter from Jonalyn and inform us as to why he has yet to bring this matter before the council.
I have long felt that the rules should always be upheld and I find this case to be no different.
Cletus
Baron of the 2nd
Cletus
Warlord
Captain of the 'Unemployed'
Date: 19 May 2000 23:00:56 EDT
I find myself in agreement with Lady Starfare's statements. I also wish to know why a rule that has long been upheld should be cast aside in this case. I had sent a letter a few days ago regarding this matter, to which I recieved no reply. I hope that Val will reply to this letter from Jonalyn and inform us as to why he has yet to bring this matter before the council.
I have long felt that the rules should always be upheld and I find this case to be no different.
Cletus
Baron of the 2nd
Cletus
Warlord
Captain of the 'Unemployed'
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: flavorlessgum@aol.com (Flavorless Gum)
Date: 20 May 2000 01:41:22 EDT
To the Baron dudes, Avery, Val, Jonalyn, and the community,
The lady Jonalyn brings up a good point. I feel strongly that Master Valentine Evermeadow was wrong in not bringing the situation to the coucil *before* making the decision to grant the Overlord, Avery Shiv Blade, and extension. I just hope this small infraction was made by Valentine because of his inexperience at supervising, and lets hope similar situations do not happen in the future.
~Dustin
Date: 20 May 2000 01:41:22 EDT
To the Baron dudes, Avery, Val, Jonalyn, and the community,
The lady Jonalyn brings up a good point. I feel strongly that Master Valentine Evermeadow was wrong in not bringing the situation to the coucil *before* making the decision to grant the Overlord, Avery Shiv Blade, and extension. I just hope this small infraction was made by Valentine because of his inexperience at supervising, and lets hope similar situations do not happen in the future.
~Dustin
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 20 May 2000 05:07:18 EDT
My letter to the Council concerning this matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My opinion on this matter is undecided until I am aware of all relevant facts and
issues, as is my usual wont. In researching these facts, I have been informed that there is indeed precedence to the issue of an extension being granted in a challenge match without notification of the Council. I refer to the Morgana LeFay-Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont challenge match for the 4th ring early last year. Research on the cork found proof that this is true. I have had the letter handcopied-not easy, as the age of the paper caused it
to yellow somewhat-and I will include it with this missive. It goes as following, marked February 14, 1999 A.D, posted my Morgana leFay.
On December 17th, Percival (LeDucBlanc) issued challenge to me. On December 19 (a Saturday, I believe), Bridgette verified his wins.
Throughout that holiday week, I sent message after message to Bridgette only to have the messages returned as refused. On or about December 25th, I finally sent a message to Golden describing my difficulty in answering the challenge and feared that I would be unable to get my acceptance notarized within a week's time so I hoped he could help me. He replied that this was acceptable as Bridgette was on a leave of absense.
Please note that no more than six days had passed since the verification of the Standings Keeper and it would have been answered sooner had I been apprised of Bridgette's leave of absense.
I began making preparations to get the challenge fought within the two week time frame as dictated by the rules despite the holiday season and so I suggested we arrange the duel to be fought the week of January 4th (January 5th was the date I put forth). Percival requested an extension for the next week. I asked Golden if we could do this for Percival in light of the holiday season and he agreed.
Percival and I fought on January 12th.
The day after Marzan defeated Dalamar, the coward Huma challenged me. Perhaps he thought I would not align myself loyal to my long time friend, I do not know.
That date was January 30th.
I, and many others I consulted with, were given to understand that a loyal baron need not defend their title but once per calendar month. Golden's interpretation at the time was that I would not have to accept the challenge until February 1st. I argued that if this were the case then what would stop someone from challenging a loyal baron immediately after a successful defense if the loyal baron need not answer it until the next calendar month?
In my opinion, and I believe it is also now Golden's opinion, a baron's defense of his/her title begins at the moment of challenge and ends after successful defense. I should not have been challenged and thereby forced to begin to defend my title until February 1st.
My defense against Huma's challenge started two days earlier than was necessary.
Huma chose to go around the rules to prevent someone else from waiting until the next calendar month. He then, like the hypocrite he is, charged that I was "hiding" behind my loyal status when in fact, I, personally, never stepped outside the time frames required for any baron. Any delays in the match between Percival and I were at his request, not mine.
I believe this letter, proof that there is, indeed, a precedent, valuable mainly in the fact that, as one can see, one party in the match requested extension, and the other agreed. Also, we see that the Supervisor did not suggest or impose the extension, the parties involved ask this of him. In my opinion, if, and only if, these same conditions are met in this instance, should the ruling remain as it stands, without the Council being brought
into it, for that is what precedent states. The only deviation I would accept is the scenario that Valentine suggested an extension to both parties, or to Drey, and they(or he) accepted. Here are the scenarios in my mind:
a) Avery requests an extension to Valentine, and Drey agrees.
b) Avery requests an extension to Valentine, and Valentine agrees without consulting Drey or seeking his approval.
c) Valentine , on his own, places an extension, without consultation and/or approval of either party.
d)Valentine suggests an extension on his own and Drey agrees.
My opinion: under scenario A, the decision is just, and that should be the end of it.
Under scenario B, the decision was injust, and the Council should be called.
Under scenario C, the decision was injust, and the Council should be called.
Under scenario D..that's a tougher call. I strongly do not believe the Supervisor needs to be going around and entering into challenge situations such as this and suggesting extensions, and definitely not granting them on his own without consultation and/or approval of the parties involved. However, if Drey agrees...it should be ok.
That's my opinion as it currently stands.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Baron of the 12th
Date: 20 May 2000 05:07:18 EDT
My letter to the Council concerning this matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My opinion on this matter is undecided until I am aware of all relevant facts and
issues, as is my usual wont. In researching these facts, I have been informed that there is indeed precedence to the issue of an extension being granted in a challenge match without notification of the Council. I refer to the Morgana LeFay-Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont challenge match for the 4th ring early last year. Research on the cork found proof that this is true. I have had the letter handcopied-not easy, as the age of the paper caused it
to yellow somewhat-and I will include it with this missive. It goes as following, marked February 14, 1999 A.D, posted my Morgana leFay.
On December 17th, Percival (LeDucBlanc) issued challenge to me. On December 19 (a Saturday, I believe), Bridgette verified his wins.
Throughout that holiday week, I sent message after message to Bridgette only to have the messages returned as refused. On or about December 25th, I finally sent a message to Golden describing my difficulty in answering the challenge and feared that I would be unable to get my acceptance notarized within a week's time so I hoped he could help me. He replied that this was acceptable as Bridgette was on a leave of absense.
Please note that no more than six days had passed since the verification of the Standings Keeper and it would have been answered sooner had I been apprised of Bridgette's leave of absense.
I began making preparations to get the challenge fought within the two week time frame as dictated by the rules despite the holiday season and so I suggested we arrange the duel to be fought the week of January 4th (January 5th was the date I put forth). Percival requested an extension for the next week. I asked Golden if we could do this for Percival in light of the holiday season and he agreed.
Percival and I fought on January 12th.
The day after Marzan defeated Dalamar, the coward Huma challenged me. Perhaps he thought I would not align myself loyal to my long time friend, I do not know.
That date was January 30th.
I, and many others I consulted with, were given to understand that a loyal baron need not defend their title but once per calendar month. Golden's interpretation at the time was that I would not have to accept the challenge until February 1st. I argued that if this were the case then what would stop someone from challenging a loyal baron immediately after a successful defense if the loyal baron need not answer it until the next calendar month?
In my opinion, and I believe it is also now Golden's opinion, a baron's defense of his/her title begins at the moment of challenge and ends after successful defense. I should not have been challenged and thereby forced to begin to defend my title until February 1st.
My defense against Huma's challenge started two days earlier than was necessary.
Huma chose to go around the rules to prevent someone else from waiting until the next calendar month. He then, like the hypocrite he is, charged that I was "hiding" behind my loyal status when in fact, I, personally, never stepped outside the time frames required for any baron. Any delays in the match between Percival and I were at his request, not mine.
I believe this letter, proof that there is, indeed, a precedent, valuable mainly in the fact that, as one can see, one party in the match requested extension, and the other agreed. Also, we see that the Supervisor did not suggest or impose the extension, the parties involved ask this of him. In my opinion, if, and only if, these same conditions are met in this instance, should the ruling remain as it stands, without the Council being brought
into it, for that is what precedent states. The only deviation I would accept is the scenario that Valentine suggested an extension to both parties, or to Drey, and they(or he) accepted. Here are the scenarios in my mind:
a) Avery requests an extension to Valentine, and Drey agrees.
b) Avery requests an extension to Valentine, and Valentine agrees without consulting Drey or seeking his approval.
c) Valentine , on his own, places an extension, without consultation and/or approval of either party.
d)Valentine suggests an extension on his own and Drey agrees.
My opinion: under scenario A, the decision is just, and that should be the end of it.
Under scenario B, the decision was injust, and the Council should be called.
Under scenario C, the decision was injust, and the Council should be called.
Under scenario D..that's a tougher call. I strongly do not believe the Supervisor needs to be going around and entering into challenge situations such as this and suggesting extensions, and definitely not granting them on his own without consultation and/or approval of the parties involved. However, if Drey agrees...it should be ok.
That's my opinion as it currently stands.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Baron of the 12th
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 20 May 2000 05:39:14 EDT
As mailed to the appropriate parties:
~~~~~
I do not understand how the Overlord, who apparently does have time to send a letter out to Drey saying he won't make it, doesn't have time to say why, or to have a lad make copies for the community's reference.
What I am confused about more is the fact that, while it is indeed the right of those held privy of the situation to keep the details or the facts a secret, it shows lack of consideration towards the community. I won't uphold an indignant manner because I wasn't told; I would only be rather annoyed if I was called to task on the situation and nobody else had the courtesy to inform me. However, when it involves the community in the sense
that it appears a rule is being broken or tossed around, then I feel notification should be sent out immediately.
The entire situation is disheartening, to say the least; considering Avery was once someone I respected, Val was a new Supervisor whom I was eager to see in action, and Drey's personality was once something tolerable. However, the community at large hasn't been respected by the said parties, which leads me to my disillusionment.
What will I do about it, if anything? I have, unfortunately, kept silent and thus hinted condonance of what is going on. I assure you that is not the case, and I do plan on making my voice heard, in one way or another.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Baron of the Tenth
~~~~~
Var Medici-Giovanni
Date: 20 May 2000 05:39:14 EDT
As mailed to the appropriate parties:
~~~~~
I do not understand how the Overlord, who apparently does have time to send a letter out to Drey saying he won't make it, doesn't have time to say why, or to have a lad make copies for the community's reference.
What I am confused about more is the fact that, while it is indeed the right of those held privy of the situation to keep the details or the facts a secret, it shows lack of consideration towards the community. I won't uphold an indignant manner because I wasn't told; I would only be rather annoyed if I was called to task on the situation and nobody else had the courtesy to inform me. However, when it involves the community in the sense
that it appears a rule is being broken or tossed around, then I feel notification should be sent out immediately.
The entire situation is disheartening, to say the least; considering Avery was once someone I respected, Val was a new Supervisor whom I was eager to see in action, and Drey's personality was once something tolerable. However, the community at large hasn't been respected by the said parties, which leads me to my disillusionment.
What will I do about it, if anything? I have, unfortunately, kept silent and thus hinted condonance of what is going on. I assure you that is not the case, and I do plan on making my voice heard, in one way or another.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Baron of the Tenth
~~~~~
Var Medici-Giovanni
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: hostdfcturi@aol.com (HOST DFC Turi)
Date: 20 May 2000 17:02:18 EDT
Jona an' e'eryone who's agreed wi' her,
I' has been common practice fer quite some time now tha', if the parties in a challenge cannae come ta an agreemen' o' a time an' date within the limits set by the rules, tha' an extention is granted wi'ou' involvin' the Council. Challenges are only turned o'er to the Council when one party is called in forfei' or the Challenged retires.
In shor', since a forfei' was ne'er called by the Challenger, the matter is nae at this time fer the Council ta decide. An' personally, my admiration goes ta Baron Drey fer bein' willin' ta settle this situation amiably wi' the O'erlord befer takin' stronger measures.
Fer another example o' this, please see the History o' the First Rin', when Baron Zafiroo dinnae appear fer his scheduled challenge, an' Warlord Daegarth di' nae call him in forfei'. Tha' matter was decided amon'st themselves, an' dinnae involve the Council.
Turi
Date: 20 May 2000 17:02:18 EDT
Jona an' e'eryone who's agreed wi' her,
I' has been common practice fer quite some time now tha', if the parties in a challenge cannae come ta an agreemen' o' a time an' date within the limits set by the rules, tha' an extention is granted wi'ou' involvin' the Council. Challenges are only turned o'er to the Council when one party is called in forfei' or the Challenged retires.
In shor', since a forfei' was ne'er called by the Challenger, the matter is nae at this time fer the Council ta decide. An' personally, my admiration goes ta Baron Drey fer bein' willin' ta settle this situation amiably wi' the O'erlord befer takin' stronger measures.
Fer another example o' this, please see the History o' the First Rin', when Baron Zafiroo dinnae appear fer his scheduled challenge, an' Warlord Daegarth di' nae call him in forfei'. Tha' matter was decided amon'st themselves, an' dinnae involve the Council.
Turi
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 20 May 2000 18:02:26 EDT
For reference, Turi, Dae was at least given the courtesy of being asked by the official present whether he wanted to call a forfeit or reschedule.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 20 May 2000 18:02:26 EDT
For reference, Turi, Dae was at least given the courtesy of being asked by the official present whether he wanted to call a forfeit or reschedule.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 20 May 2000 18:08:46 EDT
The woman tacks a missive to the cork.
Turi,
I must say, if'n it be 'common practice' to permit such extensions which exceed the limits set by the rules of engagement, whyfore hae nae such been made known unto the community? Further, may I inquire, if'n this be 'common practice', to what limit ist it 'common' to exceed the limits set by the rules of engagement? Further, I shouldst wish to know why such 'common practice' hast nae been applied even handedly?
I shall note, for thine perusal, that in the instance which thee hae cited, that of the matter of Daegarth Mithmellon's challenge unto the then Baron, Zafiroo Turidan, t'was within the rights of the challenger to offer to reschedule the match. T'was a courtesy offered by the Warlord. Thee shall note that the match didst take place within the time set by the rules of engagement.
Master Starke, himself, hae stated that he hae nae discussed the matter with Master Evermeadow, therefore, it wouldst appear that Master Valentine Evermeadow hae made a unilateral decision without consulting either the Overlord or the challenger.
Further, to the best of mine knowledge, Master Evermeadow hast yet to make known unto the Council of Barons or the community his reasons for the setting aside of the rules of engagement, nor hast he stated the length of this extension, nor hast he apprised the Barons when he dost intend to turn the matter over to the Council.
Further, in conversation with the Baron Cletus Gandarfald, I wast apprised that said Baron sent inquiry unto Master Valentine Evermeadow, and that Master Evermeadow hae nae deigned to reply unto the Baron.
The usurpation of the rights of the Baron's Council ast well ast the previous instance when the rights and privileges of the Overlord were set aside, sets a dangerous precedent.
Hast perhaps the power of his position set young Master Valentine Evermeadow upon the path of tyranny? Shall the community then be subject to his whims? Hast Master Evermeadow then perhaps taken it upon himself to make such rogue decisions, 'common practice'? Be it then that the community shall be ruled by the Duel of Evermeadow and nae by the rule of law, custom, precedent and tradition? Shall the community then suffer a budding tyrant in
silence?
Jonalyn Starfare
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.
Date: 20 May 2000 18:08:46 EDT
The woman tacks a missive to the cork.
Turi,
I must say, if'n it be 'common practice' to permit such extensions which exceed the limits set by the rules of engagement, whyfore hae nae such been made known unto the community? Further, may I inquire, if'n this be 'common practice', to what limit ist it 'common' to exceed the limits set by the rules of engagement? Further, I shouldst wish to know why such 'common practice' hast nae been applied even handedly?
I shall note, for thine perusal, that in the instance which thee hae cited, that of the matter of Daegarth Mithmellon's challenge unto the then Baron, Zafiroo Turidan, t'was within the rights of the challenger to offer to reschedule the match. T'was a courtesy offered by the Warlord. Thee shall note that the match didst take place within the time set by the rules of engagement.
Master Starke, himself, hae stated that he hae nae discussed the matter with Master Evermeadow, therefore, it wouldst appear that Master Valentine Evermeadow hae made a unilateral decision without consulting either the Overlord or the challenger.
Further, to the best of mine knowledge, Master Evermeadow hast yet to make known unto the Council of Barons or the community his reasons for the setting aside of the rules of engagement, nor hast he stated the length of this extension, nor hast he apprised the Barons when he dost intend to turn the matter over to the Council.
Further, in conversation with the Baron Cletus Gandarfald, I wast apprised that said Baron sent inquiry unto Master Valentine Evermeadow, and that Master Evermeadow hae nae deigned to reply unto the Baron.
The usurpation of the rights of the Baron's Council ast well ast the previous instance when the rights and privileges of the Overlord were set aside, sets a dangerous precedent.
Hast perhaps the power of his position set young Master Valentine Evermeadow upon the path of tyranny? Shall the community then be subject to his whims? Hast Master Evermeadow then perhaps taken it upon himself to make such rogue decisions, 'common practice'? Be it then that the community shall be ruled by the Duel of Evermeadow and nae by the rule of law, custom, precedent and tradition? Shall the community then suffer a budding tyrant in
silence?
Jonalyn Starfare
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Commoner, Duel of Swords
Regent of Auravia
Co-Chancellor of Starhaven
Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.
Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 20 May 2000 18:13:27 EDT
There has been no such "common practice." If there has been without our knowledge, an investigation is required.
What do we do when the highest two officials ignore the rules per their whim?
~ Lupton
Date: 20 May 2000 18:13:27 EDT
There has been no such "common practice." If there has been without our knowledge, an investigation is required.
What do we do when the highest two officials ignore the rules per their whim?
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 20 May 2000 19:50:11 EDT
Turi, Gentles of the community,
In further perusing yuir missive, Turi, unless there hast been some ruling made privily, tis ne'er ta right nor ta prerogative 'o either ta challenger or ta challenged ta declare a match ast bein' forfeit. Th' mayest only be declared by an' official 'o ta sport.
Ta question then remains, why hae nae ta highest official 'o th' sport, Master Valentine Evermeadow declared th' forfeit an' sent ta matter unta th' Council ast wouldst be right an' proper?
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 20 May 2000 19:50:11 EDT
Turi, Gentles of the community,
In further perusing yuir missive, Turi, unless there hast been some ruling made privily, tis ne'er ta right nor ta prerogative 'o either ta challenger or ta challenged ta declare a match ast bein' forfeit. Th' mayest only be declared by an' official 'o ta sport.
Ta question then remains, why hae nae ta highest official 'o th' sport, Master Valentine Evermeadow declared th' forfeit an' sent ta matter unta th' Council ast wouldst be right an' proper?
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 20 May 2000 20:01:53 EDT
Many of us have been left in the dark on the matter. In fact, if it hadn't been for Jonalyn, I doubt the situation would have ever been brought to our attention. Since Drey agrees with the extension, I see no problem. However, Drey has informed the council that he was never asked whether an extension was to his liking, and I have to wonder just how much favoritism the management gives this "boy wonder" of ours.
Deluthan
Baron
Date: 20 May 2000 20:01:53 EDT
Many of us have been left in the dark on the matter. In fact, if it hadn't been for Jonalyn, I doubt the situation would have ever been brought to our attention. Since Drey agrees with the extension, I see no problem. However, Drey has informed the council that he was never asked whether an extension was to his liking, and I have to wonder just how much favoritism the management gives this "boy wonder" of ours.
Deluthan
Baron
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: hostdfcval@aol.com (HOST DFC Val)
Date: 20 May 2000 23:46:46 EDT
Community,
I must admit, this vastly amuses me. Less than a month ago, I went against the exact wording of the rules and did not punish Baron Starke for his invalid challenge. And there was very little outcry towards that decision. Now I've offered some leniency towards the one he's challenged, and I've become the tyrant. Does that smack of hypocrisy on the part of my detractors? Maybe, but I'll let you figure it out for yourself.
Simply put, I have given the Overlord a few extra days, in the hopes he will resurface. At the end of that extra time, regardless of whether or not Avery has returned, Baron Starke will have his choice of where the matter is taken to, either to the ring or to the Baron's Council. Avery previously made an effort to meet this challenge, and then mysteriously disappeared. Had he not made any effort at all, I would not have granted any clemency. I
could care less if it pertains to Overlord Avery Blave or Overlord Jesse Troyan, my decision would be the same.
Have I gone against the direct letter of the rules? Yes. Have I done it before? Yes. I did it less than a month ago with Baron Starke. Will I do it again? More than likely. And I will continue to do so while I attempt to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
The Tyrannical Menace
Val Evermeadow
P.S. Lady Starfare, I do appreciate the full hour you granted me between the time you requested my public explanation until you posted your letter attempting to crucify me. Could you have possibly given me any less time to respond?
Date: 20 May 2000 23:46:46 EDT
Community,
I must admit, this vastly amuses me. Less than a month ago, I went against the exact wording of the rules and did not punish Baron Starke for his invalid challenge. And there was very little outcry towards that decision. Now I've offered some leniency towards the one he's challenged, and I've become the tyrant. Does that smack of hypocrisy on the part of my detractors? Maybe, but I'll let you figure it out for yourself.
Simply put, I have given the Overlord a few extra days, in the hopes he will resurface. At the end of that extra time, regardless of whether or not Avery has returned, Baron Starke will have his choice of where the matter is taken to, either to the ring or to the Baron's Council. Avery previously made an effort to meet this challenge, and then mysteriously disappeared. Had he not made any effort at all, I would not have granted any clemency. I
could care less if it pertains to Overlord Avery Blave or Overlord Jesse Troyan, my decision would be the same.
Have I gone against the direct letter of the rules? Yes. Have I done it before? Yes. I did it less than a month ago with Baron Starke. Will I do it again? More than likely. And I will continue to do so while I attempt to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
The Tyrannical Menace
Val Evermeadow
P.S. Lady Starfare, I do appreciate the full hour you granted me between the time you requested my public explanation until you posted your letter attempting to crucify me. Could you have possibly given me any less time to respond?
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 21 May 2000 02:11:33 EDT
I like Val... Really.
I've no qualms about the extension at all... I just wish I was told. But everything is fine on my side.
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
Date: 21 May 2000 02:11:33 EDT
I like Val... Really.
I've no qualms about the extension at all... I just wish I was told. But everything is fine on my side.
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 21 May 2000 05:34:07 EDT
Here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to the council, stating my change in alignment. The rest of the letter is rather filled with bluntness towards an individual, I find it fruitless to include unless the original letter I responded to is written up here, as well. Since it's not my place to put that letter up for the person, I will just leave those details out and include what it is that does concern the
community.
"... I hold no faith in the surpreme title of Overlord at this present time. Twice have I sworn allegiance to an Overlord who has received favoritism. No more will I allow myself to be set up for disillusionment. I cannot remain loyal to an Overlord who receives special treatment, and declare myself renegade. "
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 21 May 2000 05:34:07 EDT
Here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to the council, stating my change in alignment. The rest of the letter is rather filled with bluntness towards an individual, I find it fruitless to include unless the original letter I responded to is written up here, as well. Since it's not my place to put that letter up for the person, I will just leave those details out and include what it is that does concern the
community.
"... I hold no faith in the surpreme title of Overlord at this present time. Twice have I sworn allegiance to an Overlord who has received favoritism. No more will I allow myself to be set up for disillusionment. I cannot remain loyal to an Overlord who receives special treatment, and declare myself renegade. "
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 21 May 2000 13:50:09 EDT
Valentine Evermeadow needs to be removed immediately. His decision to perpetually ignore set rules defies the basis of law and order.
~ Lupton
Date: 21 May 2000 13:50:09 EDT
Valentine Evermeadow needs to be removed immediately. His decision to perpetually ignore set rules defies the basis of law and order.
~ Lupton