From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 22 May 2000 21:44:48 EDT
>With the upcoming Warlord's Tournament, there can be no futher challenges to
>the Overlord anyway, so his decision does not hinder anyone else from
>challenging the Overlord.
Val,
It hinders challenges to the 13th ring very much. When Drey asked a month or so ago for a challenge thinking his was invalid, I set out for peers to meet the wish. With all the chaos I have not pressed challenge, but the prolonging of the challenge makes it hard for me to issue such before the end of the cycle. This decision is unfair to me and the entire sport. Quit breaking the rules and send the
matter to the Council so they can make a decision.
It's just absurd.
~Magnus~
~Magnus~
Baron of the 13th
Guardian of Polaris
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: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 23 May 2000 10:46:32 EDT
"Laird MacKenzie, I could very well be wrong, but was that not before the formation of the Baron's Council?"
That's hardly relevant. I don't seem to recall any statement that the creation of the Baron's Council was intended to deprive the supervisor of this sport of his rights by any means.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 23 May 2000 10:46:32 EDT
"Laird MacKenzie, I could very well be wrong, but was that not before the formation of the Baron's Council?"
That's hardly relevant. I don't seem to recall any statement that the creation of the Baron's Council was intended to deprive the supervisor of this sport of his rights by any means.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 23 May 2000 13:15:20 EDT
>That's hardly relevant. I don't seem to recall any statement that the
>creation of the Baron's Council was intended to deprive the supervisor of
>this sport of his rights by any means.
>
Ian,
Wouldn't the creation of the Baron's Council have done precisely that, though? While I would tend to doubt that this was the purpose behind the Council, in effect, it has taken away some of the Supervisor's rights has it not? Were there no Council, the matters of an Overdue Baron or an Overlord who missed his match would go directly to the Supervisor, would they not? Instead, for the few years I've been here and what I've gleaned from the past,
since its inception, it has been the Council that has decided most, if not all, of the situations involving a title that have arisen.
While I doubt the supervisor has lost any powers due to the creation of the Council, it seems that the tradition has been to allow the Council to handle these matters. If we really wish to push this line of thinking, the simple question of "Why take a hand now?" could lead to a possible answer I would rather not consider, to be honest. Despite my personal feelings on that though, perhaps this question does need to be asked.
Sartan
Date: 23 May 2000 13:15:20 EDT
>That's hardly relevant. I don't seem to recall any statement that the
>creation of the Baron's Council was intended to deprive the supervisor of
>this sport of his rights by any means.
>
Ian,
Wouldn't the creation of the Baron's Council have done precisely that, though? While I would tend to doubt that this was the purpose behind the Council, in effect, it has taken away some of the Supervisor's rights has it not? Were there no Council, the matters of an Overdue Baron or an Overlord who missed his match would go directly to the Supervisor, would they not? Instead, for the few years I've been here and what I've gleaned from the past,
since its inception, it has been the Council that has decided most, if not all, of the situations involving a title that have arisen.
While I doubt the supervisor has lost any powers due to the creation of the Council, it seems that the tradition has been to allow the Council to handle these matters. If we really wish to push this line of thinking, the simple question of "Why take a hand now?" could lead to a possible answer I would rather not consider, to be honest. Despite my personal feelings on that though, perhaps this question does need to be asked.
Sartan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 23 May 2000 16:07:48 EDT
"Wouldn't the creation of the Baron's Council have done precisely that, though? While I would tend to doubt that this was the purpose behind the Council, in effect, it has taken away some of the Supervisor's rights has it not?"
By definition, an individial entity cannot pass "power" to a "subordinate" entity and at the same time relinquish their rights. None can argue that the Baron's Council, in the end, is not subordinate to the Supervisor of this sport. The Supervisor, at the time, created the Council and gave them certain authority.
By way of comparison, the Earl of Moorside has certain powers which I have granted him, yet in no way can he be said to have the authority to overrule me. This is not some form of republic where the entity in charge has given rights of authority away to a subordinate entity forever and in perpetuity. The Supervisor is still the ultimate authority.
You may question whether the Supervisor has made the right decision; you may question whether the Supervisor erred politically, as it were, in taking the decision away from the council. What cannot be argued is that he has the right to do so. It is that slander against the Supervisor's authority which I oppose, not the questioning of his decision.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 23 May 2000 16:07:48 EDT
"Wouldn't the creation of the Baron's Council have done precisely that, though? While I would tend to doubt that this was the purpose behind the Council, in effect, it has taken away some of the Supervisor's rights has it not?"
By definition, an individial entity cannot pass "power" to a "subordinate" entity and at the same time relinquish their rights. None can argue that the Baron's Council, in the end, is not subordinate to the Supervisor of this sport. The Supervisor, at the time, created the Council and gave them certain authority.
By way of comparison, the Earl of Moorside has certain powers which I have granted him, yet in no way can he be said to have the authority to overrule me. This is not some form of republic where the entity in charge has given rights of authority away to a subordinate entity forever and in perpetuity. The Supervisor is still the ultimate authority.
You may question whether the Supervisor has made the right decision; you may question whether the Supervisor erred politically, as it were, in taking the decision away from the council. What cannot be argued is that he has the right to do so. It is that slander against the Supervisor's authority which I oppose, not the questioning of his decision.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: hostdfcturi@aol.com (HOST DFC Turi)
Date: 23 May 2000 17:18:09 EDT
To one an' all,
First, my apologies on the poin' o' Baron Starke choosin' ta nae call the O'erlord in forfeit. I was unaware a' the time he ha' nae been offered the choise. Howe'er, as he agreed to the extention, an' when requested by Young Lord Evermeadow stated his preference ta continue to wait (as shown by the copies of letters posted), there seems little to protes' on tha' score besides havin' the curtesy in the future ta ask firs'.
As to the poin' o' extentions bein' granted, had I still copies o' the missives I wou' post them, with permission from the concerned parties. Bu' there ha'e been numerous Baronial challenges in which the two parties cou' nae fin' an agreemen' o' a time ta duel within the two-week timeframe, an' so an extention was granted wi' both parties in agreemen'. This wou' be in the case o' any challenge tha' was nae fough' within two weeks o' the time the
challenge was answered.
Las'ly, in response ta Jonalyn's commen', quoted here:
"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."
An' ye', when a dueler requested tha' a match be called in forfeit an' tha' reques' was denied by the official some months back, the official dinnae ha'e the righ' to declare the match as they saw fit, bu' onla to make a declaration conformin' wi' the dueler's request. Though tha' was a regular duel an' nae a challenge match, the same principle applies.
Had Drey protested the extention, or were the circumstances more pressin' for a swif' resolution ta this, t'would be a differen' matter. Bu' he dinnae, an' there are nae, so the matter remains as t'is.
Turi
Date: 23 May 2000 17:18:09 EDT
To one an' all,
First, my apologies on the poin' o' Baron Starke choosin' ta nae call the O'erlord in forfeit. I was unaware a' the time he ha' nae been offered the choise. Howe'er, as he agreed to the extention, an' when requested by Young Lord Evermeadow stated his preference ta continue to wait (as shown by the copies of letters posted), there seems little to protes' on tha' score besides havin' the curtesy in the future ta ask firs'.
As to the poin' o' extentions bein' granted, had I still copies o' the missives I wou' post them, with permission from the concerned parties. Bu' there ha'e been numerous Baronial challenges in which the two parties cou' nae fin' an agreemen' o' a time ta duel within the two-week timeframe, an' so an extention was granted wi' both parties in agreemen'. This wou' be in the case o' any challenge tha' was nae fough' within two weeks o' the time the
challenge was answered.
Las'ly, in response ta Jonalyn's commen', quoted here:
"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."
An' ye', when a dueler requested tha' a match be called in forfeit an' tha' reques' was denied by the official some months back, the official dinnae ha'e the righ' to declare the match as they saw fit, bu' onla to make a declaration conformin' wi' the dueler's request. Though tha' was a regular duel an' nae a challenge match, the same principle applies.
Had Drey protested the extention, or were the circumstances more pressin' for a swif' resolution ta this, t'would be a differen' matter. Bu' he dinnae, an' there are nae, so the matter remains as t'is.
Turi
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 23 May 2000 18:25:02 EDT
>By way of comparison, the Earl of Moorside has certain powers which I have
>granted him, yet in no way can he be said to have the authority to overrule
>me. This is not some form of republic where the entity in charge has given
>rights of authority away to a subordinate entity forever and in perpetuity.
>The Supervisor is still the ultimate authority.
Very well then, using this as an example, let's say you granted the Earl of Moorside rulership over a small area of land which had only a few occupants, but they were there. For quite a while, any problems that the people had were brought before the Earl, since he is the person with the immediate power over them, though this power was granted by you.
Now, much time has passed and another problem arises, and you suddenly decide to take a hand. Similar problems have arisen before and have gone through the normal channels, but for whatever reason you decide to take a hand and make the decision for the Earl. Has he not some reason at the least to issue a complaint over this? And if he does not, don't the people who he's made past decisions for then, perhaps? Even as King, or Supervisor, you are
answerable to the people, and should something not be done for those people who are upset by the circumvention of normal channels?
If the Earl of Moorside was granted these powers merely to be a figurehead, then there is no problem, I suppose, but if these powers were in truth granted, then why would you suddenly decide to overrule him and make him look powerless in the area you'd granted him control?
My personal feeling is that if the Supervisor wishes for the Baron's Council to continue in the manner it has, he should give them reign over this and future decisions of the kind. If he doesn't, I'd imagine that anyone who thought they'd have a better chance with him would immediately take their chances and go speak with the kind Supervisor, going around the Council entirely.
In my opinion, half-hearted decisions are not decisions at all. The Supervisor must allow the Council to always handle matters such as these, or simply disband the Council entirely and end the farce.
This situation has made it apparent that perhaps it's time for a final decision as to what powers the Council of Barons and Baronesses do and do not have.
Sartan
Date: 23 May 2000 18:25:02 EDT
>By way of comparison, the Earl of Moorside has certain powers which I have
>granted him, yet in no way can he be said to have the authority to overrule
>me. This is not some form of republic where the entity in charge has given
>rights of authority away to a subordinate entity forever and in perpetuity.
>The Supervisor is still the ultimate authority.
Very well then, using this as an example, let's say you granted the Earl of Moorside rulership over a small area of land which had only a few occupants, but they were there. For quite a while, any problems that the people had were brought before the Earl, since he is the person with the immediate power over them, though this power was granted by you.
Now, much time has passed and another problem arises, and you suddenly decide to take a hand. Similar problems have arisen before and have gone through the normal channels, but for whatever reason you decide to take a hand and make the decision for the Earl. Has he not some reason at the least to issue a complaint over this? And if he does not, don't the people who he's made past decisions for then, perhaps? Even as King, or Supervisor, you are
answerable to the people, and should something not be done for those people who are upset by the circumvention of normal channels?
If the Earl of Moorside was granted these powers merely to be a figurehead, then there is no problem, I suppose, but if these powers were in truth granted, then why would you suddenly decide to overrule him and make him look powerless in the area you'd granted him control?
My personal feeling is that if the Supervisor wishes for the Baron's Council to continue in the manner it has, he should give them reign over this and future decisions of the kind. If he doesn't, I'd imagine that anyone who thought they'd have a better chance with him would immediately take their chances and go speak with the kind Supervisor, going around the Council entirely.
In my opinion, half-hearted decisions are not decisions at all. The Supervisor must allow the Council to always handle matters such as these, or simply disband the Council entirely and end the farce.
This situation has made it apparent that perhaps it's time for a final decision as to what powers the Council of Barons and Baronesses do and do not have.
Sartan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 23 May 2000 21:16:24 EDT
To my understanding, there was no disagreement of time between Drey and Avery. Drey said Avery wrote and said he could not make it. That is not suggesting a future time, nor is it even requesting an extension.
Avery is being given an extension for no reason. He has gone past the rules of engagement, giving nobody a reason why, giving no suggested date to resolve the situation, and giving me, at least, a headache.
I remember when I challenged Morn in return, we fought the duel during a Warlord's Tourney; of course, the tourney was not fought in the Arena or Annex, I think it was on the Isle or Outback.
Golden was disappointed that we had the duel then, and said we could have fought the duel after the two weeks if we could not agree to an acceptable time for the challenge to take place within those two weeks. That is if we could not agree to an acceptable time.
Avery said he could not make it. He isn't working with Drey on finding a better time. He only says "I can't make it, and that's that."
Likewise, how long is Magnus supposed to wait before he can challenge Drey? If the challenge isn't fought within this cycle, and Magnus loses to Drey, does he have to wait until the cycle after next before he can challenge again?
There are more people affected by this decision than Drey and Avery. There seems to be a failure at seeing this.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 23 May 2000 21:16:24 EDT
To my understanding, there was no disagreement of time between Drey and Avery. Drey said Avery wrote and said he could not make it. That is not suggesting a future time, nor is it even requesting an extension.
Avery is being given an extension for no reason. He has gone past the rules of engagement, giving nobody a reason why, giving no suggested date to resolve the situation, and giving me, at least, a headache.
I remember when I challenged Morn in return, we fought the duel during a Warlord's Tourney; of course, the tourney was not fought in the Arena or Annex, I think it was on the Isle or Outback.
Golden was disappointed that we had the duel then, and said we could have fought the duel after the two weeks if we could not agree to an acceptable time for the challenge to take place within those two weeks. That is if we could not agree to an acceptable time.
Avery said he could not make it. He isn't working with Drey on finding a better time. He only says "I can't make it, and that's that."
Likewise, how long is Magnus supposed to wait before he can challenge Drey? If the challenge isn't fought within this cycle, and Magnus loses to Drey, does he have to wait until the cycle after next before he can challenge again?
There are more people affected by this decision than Drey and Avery. There seems to be a failure at seeing this.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cletusgandrfald@aol.com (Cletus Gandrfald)
Date: 23 May 2000 23:15:43 EDT
How long is this second extension that Avery has been given? To my knowledge, the last letter from Avery to Drey was written on May 14th, over a week ago. Just how much longer do we have to wait to realize Avery isn't going to be back for quite a while?
The Warlord tournament is less than a week away. It would be nice to know that there is an Overlord who will be able to accept the challenge and duel it.
Cletus
Date: 23 May 2000 23:15:43 EDT
How long is this second extension that Avery has been given? To my knowledge, the last letter from Avery to Drey was written on May 14th, over a week ago. Just how much longer do we have to wait to realize Avery isn't going to be back for quite a while?
The Warlord tournament is less than a week away. It would be nice to know that there is an Overlord who will be able to accept the challenge and duel it.
Cletus
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 23 May 2000 23:38:55 EDT
The most troubling part of this situation resides in the Supervisor ignoring the rules for a specific party.
The Overlord, like any other, should be held to all rules always. Just as the Overlord cannot duel the same person twice in a row, nor should he be allowed to go beyond the time allotted for completing a challenge.
~ Lupton
Date: 23 May 2000 23:38:55 EDT
The most troubling part of this situation resides in the Supervisor ignoring the rules for a specific party.
The Overlord, like any other, should be held to all rules always. Just as the Overlord cannot duel the same person twice in a row, nor should he be allowed to go beyond the time allotted for completing a challenge.
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 24 May 2000 14:00:46 EDT
> Likewise, how long is Magnus supposed to wait before he can challenge Drey?
Why is he waiting at all?
Has Magnus issued his challenge as yet?
Until said challenge is issued and denied due to the pending overlord match, I cannot agree that he is an injured party. At this point, it is Baron Starke who has agreed to the extension and he should not be able to benefit from that by retaining his present title without challenge.
If Magnus (or anyone else desiring to challenge Drey) issues his challenge, either: (a) That challenge is allowed to proceed according to the Universal Terms, or
(b) We do have a second injured party and there is cause for this complaint.
Until that happens, however, I would agree that Baron Starke is the only person with standing on this matter.
~Kal
ps: please forgive me if the challenge has been issued and denied already.. I've simply not read anything as yet that has given me that impression.
Date: 24 May 2000 14:00:46 EDT
> Likewise, how long is Magnus supposed to wait before he can challenge Drey?
Why is he waiting at all?
Has Magnus issued his challenge as yet?
Until said challenge is issued and denied due to the pending overlord match, I cannot agree that he is an injured party. At this point, it is Baron Starke who has agreed to the extension and he should not be able to benefit from that by retaining his present title without challenge.
If Magnus (or anyone else desiring to challenge Drey) issues his challenge, either: (a) That challenge is allowed to proceed according to the Universal Terms, or
(b) We do have a second injured party and there is cause for this complaint.
Until that happens, however, I would agree that Baron Starke is the only person with standing on this matter.
~Kal
ps: please forgive me if the challenge has been issued and denied already.. I've simply not read anything as yet that has given me that impression.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 May 2000 14:45:48 EDT
>Now, much time has passed and another problem arises, and you suddenly decide
>to take a hand. Similar problems have arisen before and have gone through
>the normal channels, but for whatever reason you decide to take a hand and
>make the decision for the Earl. Has he not some reason at the least to issue
>a complaint over this?
Only if, for some reason, the Earl has gotten it into his head that he is more important than the King.
I trust you see my point.
>If the Earl of Moorside was granted these powers merely to be a figurehead,
>then there is no problem, I suppose, but if these powers were in truth
>granted, then why would you suddenly decide to overrule him and make him look
>powerless in the area you'd granted him control?
The point here is that the council has not been overruled. Contrary to the bleating complaints of some of its members, a forfeit is not ruled until someone actually rules it a forfeit. The Overlord, in effect, petitioned the Supervisor BEFORE any time at which the match might automatically have been declared forfeit; therefore, it is most CERTAINLY within the Supervisor's rights - both legally and morally - to rule that no forfeit has yet taken
place. In such case, the Council has no jurisdiction whatsoever at this point; there is no forfeit to be ruled upon.
>This situation has made it apparent that perhaps it's time for a final
>decision as to what powers the Council of Barons and Baronesses do and do not
>have.
We can start with one that they do not: to demand that the Supervisor refuse to accept and rule on timely petitions before the precise legal conditions for a forfeit have been met.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 May 2000 14:45:48 EDT
>Now, much time has passed and another problem arises, and you suddenly decide
>to take a hand. Similar problems have arisen before and have gone through
>the normal channels, but for whatever reason you decide to take a hand and
>make the decision for the Earl. Has he not some reason at the least to issue
>a complaint over this?
Only if, for some reason, the Earl has gotten it into his head that he is more important than the King.
I trust you see my point.
>If the Earl of Moorside was granted these powers merely to be a figurehead,
>then there is no problem, I suppose, but if these powers were in truth
>granted, then why would you suddenly decide to overrule him and make him look
>powerless in the area you'd granted him control?
The point here is that the council has not been overruled. Contrary to the bleating complaints of some of its members, a forfeit is not ruled until someone actually rules it a forfeit. The Overlord, in effect, petitioned the Supervisor BEFORE any time at which the match might automatically have been declared forfeit; therefore, it is most CERTAINLY within the Supervisor's rights - both legally and morally - to rule that no forfeit has yet taken
place. In such case, the Council has no jurisdiction whatsoever at this point; there is no forfeit to be ruled upon.
>This situation has made it apparent that perhaps it's time for a final
>decision as to what powers the Council of Barons and Baronesses do and do not
>have.
We can start with one that they do not: to demand that the Supervisor refuse to accept and rule on timely petitions before the precise legal conditions for a forfeit have been met.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 May 2000 15:18:57 EDT
"Only if, for some reason, the Earl has gotten it into his head that he is more important than the King.
I trust you see my point."
We do not say we are more important than Val. We feel it is our right to make a ruling, because we feel it is Val's job to rule it a forfeit when Avery has simply said "I will not make it" and has, to our knowledge, made no attempt to help the situation by suggesting a reason or a time.
Of course, it is Val's right to overrule our decision, but we feel we are entitled to make a decision in the first place.
I feel Avery has crossed the boundaries as Overlord, and Val's condonation and taking away the Baron's right to even TRY to make an official decision sets a horrible precedence.
"The point here is that the council has not been overruled. Contrary to the bleating complaints of some of its members, a forfeit is not ruled until someone actually rules it a forfeit. The Overlord, in effect, petitioned the Supervisor BEFORE any time at which the match might automatically have been declared forfeit; therefore, it is most CERTAINLY within the Supervisor's rights - both legally and morally - to rule that no forfeit has yet taken
place. In such case, the Council has no jurisdiction whatsoever at this point; there is no forfeit to be ruled upon."
I feel there is. I haven't officially called the Council to task, because I will not take it upon myself to have the council rule when we do not have Val's okay. We feel Val is not handling this properly by not having us handle it by now.
I am petitioning for the council to have jurisdiction. You may call it "bleating," but I feel I am well within my rights to request the right to convene when I feel Avery has gone past his boundaries.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 May 2000 15:18:57 EDT
"Only if, for some reason, the Earl has gotten it into his head that he is more important than the King.
I trust you see my point."
We do not say we are more important than Val. We feel it is our right to make a ruling, because we feel it is Val's job to rule it a forfeit when Avery has simply said "I will not make it" and has, to our knowledge, made no attempt to help the situation by suggesting a reason or a time.
Of course, it is Val's right to overrule our decision, but we feel we are entitled to make a decision in the first place.
I feel Avery has crossed the boundaries as Overlord, and Val's condonation and taking away the Baron's right to even TRY to make an official decision sets a horrible precedence.
"The point here is that the council has not been overruled. Contrary to the bleating complaints of some of its members, a forfeit is not ruled until someone actually rules it a forfeit. The Overlord, in effect, petitioned the Supervisor BEFORE any time at which the match might automatically have been declared forfeit; therefore, it is most CERTAINLY within the Supervisor's rights - both legally and morally - to rule that no forfeit has yet taken
place. In such case, the Council has no jurisdiction whatsoever at this point; there is no forfeit to be ruled upon."
I feel there is. I haven't officially called the Council to task, because I will not take it upon myself to have the council rule when we do not have Val's okay. We feel Val is not handling this properly by not having us handle it by now.
I am petitioning for the council to have jurisdiction. You may call it "bleating," but I feel I am well within my rights to request the right to convene when I feel Avery has gone past his boundaries.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 May 2000 15:32:51 EDT
I commented: "In such case, the Council has no jurisdiction whatsoever at this point; there is no forfeit to be ruled upon."
Var replied: "I feel there is."
Your feelings are wrong, Var.
Put quite simply, there is a reason why one party is responsible for ruling a forfeit BEFORE the council is tasked with determining the issue. That, perhaps, is what is most frustrating about your argument; it is NOT the Council's job, responsibility, right, or business determining WHEN a forfeit has occured! Indeed, you are specifically denied the right to make determinations UNTIL such a ruling has been passed down TO you. As such, it is
completely inappropriate for you to make demands of the Supervisor. You are infringing upon HIS rights and responsibilities by demanding that he declare a forfeit at your whim, when your job is to wait for a forfeit to be declared in the first place.
That, my friend, is why I consider your entire position in this matter to be arrogant and self-serving. It is not the Supervisor who is mislaying the boundaries of his responsibility here; it is you and your fellow council members.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 May 2000 15:32:51 EDT
I commented: "In such case, the Council has no jurisdiction whatsoever at this point; there is no forfeit to be ruled upon."
Var replied: "I feel there is."
Your feelings are wrong, Var.
Put quite simply, there is a reason why one party is responsible for ruling a forfeit BEFORE the council is tasked with determining the issue. That, perhaps, is what is most frustrating about your argument; it is NOT the Council's job, responsibility, right, or business determining WHEN a forfeit has occured! Indeed, you are specifically denied the right to make determinations UNTIL such a ruling has been passed down TO you. As such, it is
completely inappropriate for you to make demands of the Supervisor. You are infringing upon HIS rights and responsibilities by demanding that he declare a forfeit at your whim, when your job is to wait for a forfeit to be declared in the first place.
That, my friend, is why I consider your entire position in this matter to be arrogant and self-serving. It is not the Supervisor who is mislaying the boundaries of his responsibility here; it is you and your fellow council members.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 May 2000 15:47:45 EDT
" it is NOT the Council's job, responsibility, right, or business determining WHEN a forfeit has occured! Indeed, you are specifically denied the right to make determinations UNTIL such a ruling has been passed down TO you."
You are now saying that the Council does not have the right to hold an opinion on a matter? I am stating my opinion, I think Val should call us to task. I respect Val's boundaries, where I will not call the Council to task without getting word from him first. To call the barons to task when I have not received word from Val is abuse of power. However, I am exercising my right to tell Val I think it's the council's turn to handle the matter,
and I do demand he turns it over to us.
As a baron, we are supposed to represent the community. I always believed that, at least. If we feel the community is being wronged by this, would we truly be doing our job by sitting silently? I have dueled here for over three years, a much shorter time than some of the legends, but I do care about this place. It is my belief the community is being wronged, and I will not sit down and shut up when I feel this way.
Normally, Ian, I would not make demands of the supervisor. However, I do make this demand because like I've said many times before, I feel the community is being wronged by granting this extension, primarily for the reason because there is a grace period for the Overlord.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 May 2000 15:47:45 EDT
" it is NOT the Council's job, responsibility, right, or business determining WHEN a forfeit has occured! Indeed, you are specifically denied the right to make determinations UNTIL such a ruling has been passed down TO you."
You are now saying that the Council does not have the right to hold an opinion on a matter? I am stating my opinion, I think Val should call us to task. I respect Val's boundaries, where I will not call the Council to task without getting word from him first. To call the barons to task when I have not received word from Val is abuse of power. However, I am exercising my right to tell Val I think it's the council's turn to handle the matter,
and I do demand he turns it over to us.
As a baron, we are supposed to represent the community. I always believed that, at least. If we feel the community is being wronged by this, would we truly be doing our job by sitting silently? I have dueled here for over three years, a much shorter time than some of the legends, but I do care about this place. It is my belief the community is being wronged, and I will not sit down and shut up when I feel this way.
Normally, Ian, I would not make demands of the supervisor. However, I do make this demand because like I've said many times before, I feel the community is being wronged by granting this extension, primarily for the reason because there is a grace period for the Overlord.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 May 2000 16:06:47 EDT
"You are now saying that the Council does not have the right to hold an opinion on a matter? I am stating my opinion, I think Val should call us to task."
You have every right to your opinion. I have a moral responsibility to point out that your opinion is factually, legally, and historically screwed up.
Again, in response to your claims that the community is being wronged:
You do not know the reasons for the Overlord's inability to appear. You do not know what communication has passed between the Overlord and the Supervisor. Yet you have made statements against the Overlord in this action, amidst your other complaints. You have proferred accusations of bias, unfair preference, and all but accused the Supervisor of this sport of violating all manner of rules -- yet you yourself said that you can agree with extensions
should the circumstances warrant.
I submit that this is not about what is right for the community, but about what is right for Baron Var Medici-Giovanni. Were you truly speaking for the community in the matter, you could not state that you can agree with an extension for cause, yet decry this action with no knowledge of what has transpired between the Overlord and the Supervisor.
Barring that, perhaps this is merely another case where a normally good man speaks from his heart and not his head.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 May 2000 16:06:47 EDT
"You are now saying that the Council does not have the right to hold an opinion on a matter? I am stating my opinion, I think Val should call us to task."
You have every right to your opinion. I have a moral responsibility to point out that your opinion is factually, legally, and historically screwed up.
Again, in response to your claims that the community is being wronged:
You do not know the reasons for the Overlord's inability to appear. You do not know what communication has passed between the Overlord and the Supervisor. Yet you have made statements against the Overlord in this action, amidst your other complaints. You have proferred accusations of bias, unfair preference, and all but accused the Supervisor of this sport of violating all manner of rules -- yet you yourself said that you can agree with extensions
should the circumstances warrant.
I submit that this is not about what is right for the community, but about what is right for Baron Var Medici-Giovanni. Were you truly speaking for the community in the matter, you could not state that you can agree with an extension for cause, yet decry this action with no knowledge of what has transpired between the Overlord and the Supervisor.
Barring that, perhaps this is merely another case where a normally good man speaks from his heart and not his head.
Regards,
Ian Rex.