From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 25 May 2000 23:53:56 EDT
"Tis yet to be anna proof offered by either Master Valentine Evermeadow or by Master Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke that Avery Shiv Blade, Overlord, didst in fact make petition unto Master Evermeadow with respect to this matter."
Largely irrelevant. The ruling of a forfeit, as I continually am forced to repeat, is under the sole purview of the Supervisor or his appointed subordinates. More on this after this:
"Further, M'lord, in the matter of thine challenge, the Baronial Council hae nae been made a legal entity. Therefore, thee and all parties involved were subject to the rule of law ast interpreted unilaterally by the dwarf, Gloin."
Lord Evermeadow must be presumed to have an equal right to interpret rules unilaterally except for those rights which devolve unto the Council as written in the current rules. Those rules do not, anywhere, stipulate that the Council possesses any right whatsoever to declare a forfeit; therefore, the right still belongs solely and unchallengably to the Supervisor.
"Upon the making of the law granting official status and legal rights unto the Baronial Council, certain of those rights and privileges, devolved solely unto the Council, among those privileges, that being the adjudication of such matters ast be involved shouldst one or both of those personages what hae contracted to meet in combat do fail to appear."
You are interpreting over-broadly. They do not have the right to adjudicate "Upon the making of the law granting official status and legal rights unto the Baronial Council, certain of those rights and privileges, devolved solely unto the Council, among those privileges, that being the adjudication of such matters ast be involved shouldst one or both of those personages what hae contracted to meet in combat do fail to appear." They have the right to
adjudicate the resolution to a forfeit. At this point, there is no forfeit. The argument as to whether there SHOULD be a forfeit or not IS, indeed, valid; however, until that argument is resolved, the Council still possesses no right or responsibility.
It is much like a jury demanding the right to try someone for murder when the crown's attorney has not yet offered charges against the expected defendant.
"Let if be noted, M'lord, that those privileges and rights were and are specific unto the Council and its members. Let is also be noted, that the Supervisor ist charged with reviewing the decision of the Council after the fact, nae before."
The right to determine that a state of forfeit has occured is not within the Council's reach. It must be handed to them BY the Supervisor or a duly appointed official acting within the bounds of their duties. Therefore, the chain is Supervisor (or representative) -> Council -> Supervisor. It's quite clear.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
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: 26 May 2000 00:13:01 EDT
"And another point I must bring up because you're too stupid to understand the common tongue is that this is not Valentine's personal play ground. There is no proof he has received word from Avery, and is therefore giving Avery the right just because he feels like it."
Irrelevant. The right to determine whether a forfeit has occurred still rests with the Supervisor.
What you're failing to understand, Var, is that my objection is not to questioning the Supervisor. My objection is to emotionally-charged accusations that the Council's rights have been abrogated when they, in fact, have not.
"You seem to fail to grasp the simple idea of duty. It is Val's duty, in the case of a forfeit, that the matter be turned over to the council."
Val's duty is to determine whether a forfeit is in order. If he determines that it is, THEN the matter MUST be turned over to the Council. You have my full agreement on that point. However, it IS still HIS right to make that determination.
"A forfeit is to be declared when the Universal Terms of Challenge have been passed, and because Avery has gone past the three week period without getting a word from Avery, it is Val's duty to declare it a forfeit."
You yourself have already agreed that you can understand extenuating circumstances, which means you cannot hold to the above comments as a cast-iron truth. By agreeing that there may on occasion be just cause for an extension to be granted, you are by definition agreeing that the status of a forfeit is subject to review by the Supervisor before the issue becomes a Council matter.
Except in the case of those specific rights held by the Council, all other rights still devolve on the Supervisor just as they did before the Council's existence. The right to grant - or DEMAND - extensions, while not specifically laid out within the rules, has, by precedent, been determined to be among those rights.
Gloin requested that Overlord Gnimoi and I wait before concluding our challenge. That decision impacted the Overlordship and THREE different rings. Nothing in the current rules transfers the precedented right to grant or deny such extensions to the Council; therefore, that decision is fully and legally still under Lord Evermeadow's umbrella. Therefore, it is not a violation of his duty - even if Avery didn't request it!
I've stated that I have no objection to debating the merits of the extension itself. I also feel that the exact termination of the extension period must be made public. My objection is to the idea that you and your fellow Barons are being "wronged." You are not.
You quote a rule, and I must point something out:
"A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered an abdication."
"Where not specifically addressed." The Supervisor has specifically addressed this by granting the extension.
"Unless Val has proof that Avery has contacted him or Drey, requesting an extension, Val has no reason to not call the council to forfeit. He is simply breaking the rules, and I will believe this until he proves that he received word."
Avery's contact with Lord Evermeadow is irrelevant. He is not breaking the rules.
Whether he should call the forfeit... well, I'll go ahead and give up my opinion on the matter at this point. Frankly, yes, I think he SHOULD, but he is within his rights, both implied and explicitly stated, not to do so. That is why I have said debate the decision, but leave the fallacious arguments about "rights" out of it.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 26 May 2000 00:13:01 EDT
"And another point I must bring up because you're too stupid to understand the common tongue is that this is not Valentine's personal play ground. There is no proof he has received word from Avery, and is therefore giving Avery the right just because he feels like it."
Irrelevant. The right to determine whether a forfeit has occurred still rests with the Supervisor.
What you're failing to understand, Var, is that my objection is not to questioning the Supervisor. My objection is to emotionally-charged accusations that the Council's rights have been abrogated when they, in fact, have not.
"You seem to fail to grasp the simple idea of duty. It is Val's duty, in the case of a forfeit, that the matter be turned over to the council."
Val's duty is to determine whether a forfeit is in order. If he determines that it is, THEN the matter MUST be turned over to the Council. You have my full agreement on that point. However, it IS still HIS right to make that determination.
"A forfeit is to be declared when the Universal Terms of Challenge have been passed, and because Avery has gone past the three week period without getting a word from Avery, it is Val's duty to declare it a forfeit."
You yourself have already agreed that you can understand extenuating circumstances, which means you cannot hold to the above comments as a cast-iron truth. By agreeing that there may on occasion be just cause for an extension to be granted, you are by definition agreeing that the status of a forfeit is subject to review by the Supervisor before the issue becomes a Council matter.
Except in the case of those specific rights held by the Council, all other rights still devolve on the Supervisor just as they did before the Council's existence. The right to grant - or DEMAND - extensions, while not specifically laid out within the rules, has, by precedent, been determined to be among those rights.
Gloin requested that Overlord Gnimoi and I wait before concluding our challenge. That decision impacted the Overlordship and THREE different rings. Nothing in the current rules transfers the precedented right to grant or deny such extensions to the Council; therefore, that decision is fully and legally still under Lord Evermeadow's umbrella. Therefore, it is not a violation of his duty - even if Avery didn't request it!
I've stated that I have no objection to debating the merits of the extension itself. I also feel that the exact termination of the extension period must be made public. My objection is to the idea that you and your fellow Barons are being "wronged." You are not.
You quote a rule, and I must point something out:
"A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered an abdication."
"Where not specifically addressed." The Supervisor has specifically addressed this by granting the extension.
"Unless Val has proof that Avery has contacted him or Drey, requesting an extension, Val has no reason to not call the council to forfeit. He is simply breaking the rules, and I will believe this until he proves that he received word."
Avery's contact with Lord Evermeadow is irrelevant. He is not breaking the rules.
Whether he should call the forfeit... well, I'll go ahead and give up my opinion on the matter at this point. Frankly, yes, I think he SHOULD, but he is within his rights, both implied and explicitly stated, not to do so. That is why I have said debate the decision, but leave the fallacious arguments about "rights" out of it.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 26 May 2000 01:34:39 EDT
" And another point I must bring up because you're too stupid to understand the common tongue is that this is not Valentine's personal play ground."
Playing hypocrite, are we, Var?
You demand something that is not yours to demand and you claim that the *Supervisor* is treating this as his personal playground. It would seem, in fact, that you yourself are doing just such a thing with your power trips.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 26 May 2000 01:34:39 EDT
" And another point I must bring up because you're too stupid to understand the common tongue is that this is not Valentine's personal play ground."
Playing hypocrite, are we, Var?
You demand something that is not yours to demand and you claim that the *Supervisor* is treating this as his personal playground. It would seem, in fact, that you yourself are doing just such a thing with your power trips.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 26 May 2000 15:20:39 EDT
"Playing hypocrite, are we, Var?
You demand something that is not yours to demand and you claim that the *Supervisor* is treating this as his personal playground. It would seem, in fact, that you yourself are doing just such a thing with your power trips."
Playing ignorant, are we Sidartha?
I have stated that Val should go by the rules and call it a forfeit, since there is no proof Avery has contacted him. Val is deciding to grant Avery an extension for no reason. It IS quite relevant if Avery has not requested an extension, because at this point, why do we even need to have the Universal Terms of Challenge? If the Supervisor can give people extensions when they have no reason for going past the three weeks, what's the point?
"Hmm, Baron X hasn't been around for a couple months, he's one week overdue to have his challenge fought. Hell, I'm a good guy, give him another week... (insert passage of week) and another week... (insert passage) and another week."
Where does it end? Until the Supervisor is finally tired of waiting?
As Overseer for this matter, I do not believe I get a vote for this matter unless it is to break a tie. You tell me, Sid, how I am doing this to get what I want?
What power trips am I displaying for myself, when I am demanding Val follow the rules and allow the Council to vote on it?
I am not doing this for myself, which you seem to be trying to point out, Sid. I've already declared renegade and have made my point. This is for the sake of getting Val to not think this is just his place and to let the community see the importance of the rules. As you see, I have followed the rules, and not called the council to task before Val tells us to.
What do you do when you see something as wrong, Sid? You speak up, I imagine (at least you've spoken up on some of the posts). I am speaking up, too, and to consider it a power trip when I don't feel I should vote unless it's a tie breaker (I've never seen an Overlord, who most commonly acts as Overseer, make a vote unless to break a tie), seems painfully ignorant, or trying to get a weak argument in.
The Council is following the rules, Sid. What can you say for Val, when it comes to the rules? The way he is granting an extension with no proof, I'd say he likes to make his own rules.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 26 May 2000 15:20:39 EDT
"Playing hypocrite, are we, Var?
You demand something that is not yours to demand and you claim that the *Supervisor* is treating this as his personal playground. It would seem, in fact, that you yourself are doing just such a thing with your power trips."
Playing ignorant, are we Sidartha?
I have stated that Val should go by the rules and call it a forfeit, since there is no proof Avery has contacted him. Val is deciding to grant Avery an extension for no reason. It IS quite relevant if Avery has not requested an extension, because at this point, why do we even need to have the Universal Terms of Challenge? If the Supervisor can give people extensions when they have no reason for going past the three weeks, what's the point?
"Hmm, Baron X hasn't been around for a couple months, he's one week overdue to have his challenge fought. Hell, I'm a good guy, give him another week... (insert passage of week) and another week... (insert passage) and another week."
Where does it end? Until the Supervisor is finally tired of waiting?
As Overseer for this matter, I do not believe I get a vote for this matter unless it is to break a tie. You tell me, Sid, how I am doing this to get what I want?
What power trips am I displaying for myself, when I am demanding Val follow the rules and allow the Council to vote on it?
I am not doing this for myself, which you seem to be trying to point out, Sid. I've already declared renegade and have made my point. This is for the sake of getting Val to not think this is just his place and to let the community see the importance of the rules. As you see, I have followed the rules, and not called the council to task before Val tells us to.
What do you do when you see something as wrong, Sid? You speak up, I imagine (at least you've spoken up on some of the posts). I am speaking up, too, and to consider it a power trip when I don't feel I should vote unless it's a tie breaker (I've never seen an Overlord, who most commonly acts as Overseer, make a vote unless to break a tie), seems painfully ignorant, or trying to get a weak argument in.
The Council is following the rules, Sid. What can you say for Val, when it comes to the rules? The way he is granting an extension with no proof, I'd say he likes to make his own rules.
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: 26 May 2000 19:33:31 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
How verra typical of thee ta sway in ta wind. Perhaps, Madame, tis thee wh' shouldst take thine own oft administered advice an' grow up. Rather a difficult thin' fer thee ta accomplish ta be sure, an' ast be yuir usual wont thee be bu' yappin' an' babblin' much ast ist ta be expected 'o a senile, addled ole woman.
Thee long agon displayed yuir uncanny an' unerrin' ability ta nae be able ta grasp ta simplest 'o concepts. Tis thee agin display thine unerrin' sycophant penchant, 'ow verra unsurprising.
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
Date: 26 May 2000 19:33:31 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
How verra typical of thee ta sway in ta wind. Perhaps, Madame, tis thee wh' shouldst take thine own oft administered advice an' grow up. Rather a difficult thin' fer thee ta accomplish ta be sure, an' ast be yuir usual wont thee be bu' yappin' an' babblin' much ast ist ta be expected 'o a senile, addled ole woman.
Thee long agon displayed yuir uncanny an' unerrin' ability ta nae be able ta grasp ta simplest 'o concepts. Tis thee agin display thine unerrin' sycophant penchant, 'ow verra unsurprising.
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 26 May 2000 21:04:39 EDT
Var,
You are not the Council's Overseer.
~ Lupton
Date: 26 May 2000 21:04:39 EDT
Var,
You are not the Council's Overseer.
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 26 May 2000 21:24:18 EDT
Lup,
Once the Baronial Council ist free to exercise its duties, privileges and rights in this matter, indeed, the Senior Baron, Var Medici Giovanni shall be overseer.
Jona
Date: 26 May 2000 21:24:18 EDT
Lup,
Once the Baronial Council ist free to exercise its duties, privileges and rights in this matter, indeed, the Senior Baron, Var Medici Giovanni shall be overseer.
Jona
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 26 May 2000 22:32:41 EDT
"I have stated that Val should go by the rules and call it a forfeit, since there is no proof Avery has contacted him. Val is deciding to grant Avery an extension for no reason."
The Challenger agreed to the second extension. Who are you to say that one intimately involved in the challenge cannot allow the other time so that they can meet face-to-face?
"It IS quite relevant if Avery has not requested an extension, because at this point, why do we even need to have the Universal Terms of Challenge? If the Supervisor can give people extensions when they have no reason for going past the three weeks, what's the point?"
The point is that it is not your place to make the decision until the Council has been put in place to *make* a decision.
"Where does it end? Until the Supervisor is finally tired of waiting?"
If we allow you to harrass the Supervision and if you are allowed to have your demands honored when they shouldn't be, where will *that* end? Until the role of Supervisor is nothing more than a courtesy title?
"As Overseer for this matter, I do not believe I get a vote for this matter unless it is to break a tie. You tell me, Sid, how I am doing this to get what I want?
What power trips am I displaying for myself, when I am demanding Val follow the rules and allow the Council to vote on it?"
You get the knowledge that you can push around the Supervisor and get whatever you want. It is a slippery slope, Var.
"The Council is following the rules, Sid."
As it has been *repeatedly* explained to you, Var...the Council does not exsist until convened.
"What can you say for Val, when it comes to the rules? The way he is granting an extension with no proof, I'd say he likes to make his own rules."
What proof does he require? It is HIS perrogative, not yours.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 26 May 2000 22:32:41 EDT
"I have stated that Val should go by the rules and call it a forfeit, since there is no proof Avery has contacted him. Val is deciding to grant Avery an extension for no reason."
The Challenger agreed to the second extension. Who are you to say that one intimately involved in the challenge cannot allow the other time so that they can meet face-to-face?
"It IS quite relevant if Avery has not requested an extension, because at this point, why do we even need to have the Universal Terms of Challenge? If the Supervisor can give people extensions when they have no reason for going past the three weeks, what's the point?"
The point is that it is not your place to make the decision until the Council has been put in place to *make* a decision.
"Where does it end? Until the Supervisor is finally tired of waiting?"
If we allow you to harrass the Supervision and if you are allowed to have your demands honored when they shouldn't be, where will *that* end? Until the role of Supervisor is nothing more than a courtesy title?
"As Overseer for this matter, I do not believe I get a vote for this matter unless it is to break a tie. You tell me, Sid, how I am doing this to get what I want?
What power trips am I displaying for myself, when I am demanding Val follow the rules and allow the Council to vote on it?"
You get the knowledge that you can push around the Supervisor and get whatever you want. It is a slippery slope, Var.
"The Council is following the rules, Sid."
As it has been *repeatedly* explained to you, Var...the Council does not exsist until convened.
"What can you say for Val, when it comes to the rules? The way he is granting an extension with no proof, I'd say he likes to make his own rules."
What proof does he require? It is HIS perrogative, not yours.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 26 May 2000 22:34:21 EDT
I stand absolutely corrected. My sincere apologies to Var.
~ Lupton
Date: 26 May 2000 22:34:21 EDT
I stand absolutely corrected. My sincere apologies to Var.
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 26 May 2000 22:36:18 EDT
"How verra typical of thee ta sway in ta wind. Perhaps, Madame, tis thee wh' shouldst take thine own oft administered advice an' grow up. Rather a difficult thin' fer thee ta accomplish ta be sure, an' ast be yuir usual wont thee be bu' yappin' an' babblin' much ast ist ta be expected 'o a senile, addled ole woman.
Thee long agon displayed yuir uncanny an' unerrin' ability ta nae be able ta grasp ta simplest 'o concepts. Tis thee agin display thine unerrin' sycophant penchant, 'ow verra unsurprising. "
Oh, aye, that was certainly sticking to the subject. Was there a point to this?
Amused,
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 26 May 2000 22:36:18 EDT
"How verra typical of thee ta sway in ta wind. Perhaps, Madame, tis thee wh' shouldst take thine own oft administered advice an' grow up. Rather a difficult thin' fer thee ta accomplish ta be sure, an' ast be yuir usual wont thee be bu' yappin' an' babblin' much ast ist ta be expected 'o a senile, addled ole woman.
Thee long agon displayed yuir uncanny an' unerrin' ability ta nae be able ta grasp ta simplest 'o concepts. Tis thee agin display thine unerrin' sycophant penchant, 'ow verra unsurprising. "
Oh, aye, that was certainly sticking to the subject. Was there a point to this?
Amused,
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 26 May 2000 23:07:51 EDT
"The Challenger agreed to the second extension. Who are you to say that one intimately involved in the challenge cannot allow the other time so that they can meet face-to-face?"
The rules say it. While admittedly it is courtesy for the challenger/challenged to allow some extension time, there is no time set given, and it penalizes others who would like to challenge. I know there is a 24-day grace period in this particular case, but we can't do the same for everyone, giving them an indefinite amount of time.
"The point is that it is not your place to make the decision until the Council has been put in place to *make* a decision."
And the Council has not made a decision yet. We are demanding Val pass the matter over to us so we CAN make the decision, as the rules state in a given situation.
"If we allow you to harrass the Supervision and if you are allowed to have your demands honored when they shouldn't be, where will *that* end? Until the role of Supervisor is nothing more than a courtesy title?"
The Supervisor would have been harassed if he didn't want to flex his proverbial muscle in the first place. When he thinks he is above the rules, he needs to be put in his place.
"You get the knowledge that you can push around the Supervisor and get whatever you want. It is a slippery slope, Var."
I don't see where I have ever displayed the fact that I "get whatever I want." In fact, this demand I'm issuing is because Val's trying to get whatever he wants. Besides, I don't need knowledge I can push the supervisor around. You may like to have knowledge you can boss people around, but I don't want or need it.
"As it has been *repeatedly* explained to you, Var...the Council does not exsist until convened."
The Council always exists, but they may not convene until officially called to task. You are to say I'm not part of a Baron's Council now, because we're not officially convened? Am I not a caller for the Duel of Swords until I call every Saturday? Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?
"What proof does he require? It is HIS perrogative, not yours."
No, it's not his prerogative. It's not his playground. It's not "Val's corner." Val answers to the rules, just like everyone else. If Val has no reason to grant an extension, then he is ignoring the rules where one forfeits a duel when the match is not fought within three weeks.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 26 May 2000 23:07:51 EDT
"The Challenger agreed to the second extension. Who are you to say that one intimately involved in the challenge cannot allow the other time so that they can meet face-to-face?"
The rules say it. While admittedly it is courtesy for the challenger/challenged to allow some extension time, there is no time set given, and it penalizes others who would like to challenge. I know there is a 24-day grace period in this particular case, but we can't do the same for everyone, giving them an indefinite amount of time.
"The point is that it is not your place to make the decision until the Council has been put in place to *make* a decision."
And the Council has not made a decision yet. We are demanding Val pass the matter over to us so we CAN make the decision, as the rules state in a given situation.
"If we allow you to harrass the Supervision and if you are allowed to have your demands honored when they shouldn't be, where will *that* end? Until the role of Supervisor is nothing more than a courtesy title?"
The Supervisor would have been harassed if he didn't want to flex his proverbial muscle in the first place. When he thinks he is above the rules, he needs to be put in his place.
"You get the knowledge that you can push around the Supervisor and get whatever you want. It is a slippery slope, Var."
I don't see where I have ever displayed the fact that I "get whatever I want." In fact, this demand I'm issuing is because Val's trying to get whatever he wants. Besides, I don't need knowledge I can push the supervisor around. You may like to have knowledge you can boss people around, but I don't want or need it.
"As it has been *repeatedly* explained to you, Var...the Council does not exsist until convened."
The Council always exists, but they may not convene until officially called to task. You are to say I'm not part of a Baron's Council now, because we're not officially convened? Am I not a caller for the Duel of Swords until I call every Saturday? Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?
"What proof does he require? It is HIS perrogative, not yours."
No, it's not his prerogative. It's not his playground. It's not "Val's corner." Val answers to the rules, just like everyone else. If Val has no reason to grant an extension, then he is ignoring the rules where one forfeits a duel when the match is not fought within three weeks.
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: 26 May 2000 23:24:22 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
Bluntly put, tis rather amusing that thee seem ta be dancing to a different tune once Ian hae made 'is stance known. So like thee, Madame, considering thee hae nae convictions of yuir own ta fall inta yuir usual 'abit.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 26 May 2000 23:24:22 EDT
Madame Elgarette,
Bluntly put, tis rather amusing that thee seem ta be dancing to a different tune once Ian hae made 'is stance known. So like thee, Madame, considering thee hae nae convictions of yuir own ta fall inta yuir usual 'abit.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 28 May 2000 12:48:17 EDT
"The rules say it."
Where? Where do the rules state EXACTLY what I have written? Don't interperet the rules how you wish, I want you to show those *exact* words.
"While admittedly it is courtesy for the challenger/challenged to allow some extension time, there is no time set given, and it penalizes others who would like to challenge."
Magnus had no problem challenging, did he?
"I know there is a 24-day grace period in this particular case, but we can't do the same for everyone, giving them an indefinite amount of time."
This sentence needs a bit more clarification. First you say that there is a twenty-four day grace period and then you say that it's an indefinite amount of time. Which is it?
"And the Council has not made a decision yet. We are demanding Val pass the matter over to us so we CAN make the decision, as the rules state in a given situation."
Your demands are ludicrous and against the rules.
"The Supervisor would have been harassed if he didn't want to flex his proverbial muscle in the first place. When he thinks he is above the rules, he needs to be put in his place."
This is a perfect example of the power trip I was referring to. You have *no* say as to when someone needs to be "put in his place". Val, according to his position in this place, has the right to "flex his muscle" as you put it. That's what makes him Supervisor.
"I don't see where I have ever displayed the fact that I "get whatever I want.""
Of course not...not yet. If you'll learn to read more carefully, what I wrote was in reply to your question as to what gain I thought you could make out of it.
"Besides, I don't need knowledge I can push the supervisor around. You may like to have knowledge you can boss people around, but I don't want or need it."
Then what are the needless hysterics for? What purpose do you serve in harrassing people?
"The Council always exists, but they may not convene until officially called to task. You are to say I'm not part of a Baron's Council now, because we're not officially convened? Am I not a caller for the Duel of Swords until I call every Saturday? Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?"
No, you are simply a Baron with no rights to make decisions on the outcome of your fellow duelers until you have been set to Council. The Council has the power of decision. To assume that you are at *all* times a member of the Council would mean that you have at *all* times the power of decision. Which you do not.
"No, it's not his prerogative. It's not his playground."
I never said it was his playground, but what part of SUPERVISOR do you not understand? He is NOT beholden to you and until the rules state that the Council is a permanent group that can make demands on the Supervisor, the Supervisor will *never* be beholden to you.
"It's not "Val's corner." Val answers to the rules, just like everyone else."
Where in the rules does it state that the Council has the right to make demands on the supervisor before it is even convened?
"If Val has no reason to grant an extension, then he is ignoring the rules where one forfeits a duel when the match is not fought within three weeks."
If the Challenger has given permission, I don't see where the rules state that you have the right to ignore his wishes. It is not your challenge, but his.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 28 May 2000 12:48:17 EDT
"The rules say it."
Where? Where do the rules state EXACTLY what I have written? Don't interperet the rules how you wish, I want you to show those *exact* words.
"While admittedly it is courtesy for the challenger/challenged to allow some extension time, there is no time set given, and it penalizes others who would like to challenge."
Magnus had no problem challenging, did he?
"I know there is a 24-day grace period in this particular case, but we can't do the same for everyone, giving them an indefinite amount of time."
This sentence needs a bit more clarification. First you say that there is a twenty-four day grace period and then you say that it's an indefinite amount of time. Which is it?
"And the Council has not made a decision yet. We are demanding Val pass the matter over to us so we CAN make the decision, as the rules state in a given situation."
Your demands are ludicrous and against the rules.
"The Supervisor would have been harassed if he didn't want to flex his proverbial muscle in the first place. When he thinks he is above the rules, he needs to be put in his place."
This is a perfect example of the power trip I was referring to. You have *no* say as to when someone needs to be "put in his place". Val, according to his position in this place, has the right to "flex his muscle" as you put it. That's what makes him Supervisor.
"I don't see where I have ever displayed the fact that I "get whatever I want.""
Of course not...not yet. If you'll learn to read more carefully, what I wrote was in reply to your question as to what gain I thought you could make out of it.
"Besides, I don't need knowledge I can push the supervisor around. You may like to have knowledge you can boss people around, but I don't want or need it."
Then what are the needless hysterics for? What purpose do you serve in harrassing people?
"The Council always exists, but they may not convene until officially called to task. You are to say I'm not part of a Baron's Council now, because we're not officially convened? Am I not a caller for the Duel of Swords until I call every Saturday? Am I the only one who thinks this is terrible logic?"
No, you are simply a Baron with no rights to make decisions on the outcome of your fellow duelers until you have been set to Council. The Council has the power of decision. To assume that you are at *all* times a member of the Council would mean that you have at *all* times the power of decision. Which you do not.
"No, it's not his prerogative. It's not his playground."
I never said it was his playground, but what part of SUPERVISOR do you not understand? He is NOT beholden to you and until the rules state that the Council is a permanent group that can make demands on the Supervisor, the Supervisor will *never* be beholden to you.
"It's not "Val's corner." Val answers to the rules, just like everyone else."
Where in the rules does it state that the Council has the right to make demands on the supervisor before it is even convened?
"If Val has no reason to grant an extension, then he is ignoring the rules where one forfeits a duel when the match is not fought within three weeks."
If the Challenger has given permission, I don't see where the rules state that you have the right to ignore his wishes. It is not your challenge, but his.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 28 May 2000 12:48:41 EDT
"Bluntly put, tis rather amusing that thee seem ta be dancing to a different tune once Ian hae made 'is stance known. So like thee, Madame, considering thee hae nae convictions of yuir own ta fall inta yuir usual 'abit."
Actually, I have done no such thing. In fact, I hadn't made any comment at *all* on the situation in my first posting. What I *had* decried was Valentines lack of professionalism in allowing himself to come down to your (and others') level of insults and petty namecalling. Not once did I agree or disagree with his position in the matter until I had looked through the Rules of Engagement and made my decision.
Perhaps both you and Var need lessons in reading comprehension. Or, at least, you both need to get out of the habit of reading more into someone's words than what are actually there.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 28 May 2000 12:48:41 EDT
"Bluntly put, tis rather amusing that thee seem ta be dancing to a different tune once Ian hae made 'is stance known. So like thee, Madame, considering thee hae nae convictions of yuir own ta fall inta yuir usual 'abit."
Actually, I have done no such thing. In fact, I hadn't made any comment at *all* on the situation in my first posting. What I *had* decried was Valentines lack of professionalism in allowing himself to come down to your (and others') level of insults and petty namecalling. Not once did I agree or disagree with his position in the matter until I had looked through the Rules of Engagement and made my decision.
Perhaps both you and Var need lessons in reading comprehension. Or, at least, you both need to get out of the habit of reading more into someone's words than what are actually there.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 28 May 2000 13:37:53 EDT
"Where? Where do the rules state EXACTLY what I have written? Don't interperet the rules how you wish, I want you to show those *exact* words."
It's already been written that in the case a duelist doesn't abide by the three week challenge period, it is considered an abdication. Further, if you want to see the exact words, it doesn't say a Supervisor can grant an extension. It just says "where not specifically addressed." That could be anyone. Could be Turi, or Drake for all we know. You want to play the "exact words" ploy, show me the "exact words" where it says a Supervisor
can grant an extension, especially an extension with no contact from the Overlord, giving him little justification to grant the extension save for his whim. I know Ian has said Gloin already did it, but will someone tell me why we have the three week period if it can be overlooked?
Not that I now debate Val's right to make extensions, but merely playing your game of "show me the exact words where it says this."
"Magnus had no problem challenging, did he?"
Magnus also has to wait for Drey's challenge against Avery to finish before he can finish his challenge. Plus there are people who prefer not to issue challenge when another challenge is pending; granted, it is that person's problem, but already having a challenge pending sure is a good way to discourage others from challenging.
"This sentence needs a bit more clarification. First you say that there is a twenty-four day grace period and then you say that it's an indefinite amount of time. Which is it?"
It's really disturbing that you don't follow. Avery has a 24 day grace period, which is one of Val's reasons for giving the extension. However, Val never set a date for when the extension will end, which is effectively indefinite.
"Your demands are ludicrous and against the rules."
Let's play this game again. Where EXACTLY in the rules does it say that a baron, no, ANYONE can demand the supervisor do something. The supervisor's job is to address complaints. Or do you wish to give him all the power on a silver platter?
And how are my demands ludicrous? Because Avery has not only left the title of Archmage, but also Overlord, hasn't written to anyone (apparently not even to Val), and we feel the matter should be handed to the Council? Because we have the opinion that this is a matter the Council should address, it is ludicrous?
"This is a perfect example of the power trip I was referring to. You have *no* say as to when someone needs to be "put in his place". Val, according to his position in this place, has the right to "flex his muscle" as you put it. That's what makes him Supervisor."
Val is not above the rules, and when anyone thinks that, they need to be put in their place. Of course, you seem more interested in having a dictator who doesn't care about simple rules and can tell everyone what he wants and we all have to suck it up, simply because he can bend the rules at his whim. It's amusing I'm the one being called the bully here, with a power trip.
"Then what are the needless hysterics for? What purpose do you serve in harrassing people?"
One letter a day is hardly harassing or hysterical. I already said why I was writing to him, and you are telling me that I need to learn to read more carefully?
"No, you are simply a Baron with no rights to make decisions on the outcome of your fellow duelers until you have been set to Council. The Council has the power of decision. To assume that you are at *all* times a member of the Council would mean that you have at *all* times the power of decision. Which you do not."
The Council's power of decision does not count until officially convened, which is what we have been waiting for. Regardless, I am still a Baron of the Baron's Council, just as is everyone else who is a baron. Just because they do not have the power to make a decision doesn't mean they aren't part of the council.
This is funny. You are saying that because Val is supervisor, I have no rights to make demands of him. However, you demand (at least insist) the council does not exist unless officially called upon. I hold no power over Val, and when I try to demand he make a proper decision, I am on a power trip. You, however, can tell the Council when we do and do not exist, and you are not.
"I never said it was his playground, but what part of SUPERVISOR do you not understand? He is NOT beholden to you and until the rules state that the Council is a permanent group that can make demands on the Supervisor, the Supervisor will *never* be beholden to you."
You tell me what part of SUPERVISOR do YOU not understand. He serves the Duel of Swords, the community. The community has a right to demand he make proper decisions. It's not just the Council who can make demands, requests, suggestions, etc. It is anyone who cares about the Duel of Swords community.
"Where in the rules does it state that the Council has the right to make demands on the supervisor before it is even convened?"
Part of Val's job as supervisor of the Duel of Swords is to answer to any issues the patrons have. Are you truly this dense? Is the community now not allowed to make demands? Or are the Barons just not good enough to be a part of the community?
"If the Challenger has given permission, I don't see where the rules state that you have the right to ignore his wishes. It is not your challenge, but his."
It is now the challenger's right to ignore the basics of the rules? What about other people who wish to issue challenge? We can always have a renegade go past the three weeks, and as long as the challenger agrees, everyone else who enters the que has to wait until the renegade gets off his tail and duels the first challenge. More people are always affected than just the two fighting the challenge, Sid, and you seem not to even consider that.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 28 May 2000 13:37:53 EDT
"Where? Where do the rules state EXACTLY what I have written? Don't interperet the rules how you wish, I want you to show those *exact* words."
It's already been written that in the case a duelist doesn't abide by the three week challenge period, it is considered an abdication. Further, if you want to see the exact words, it doesn't say a Supervisor can grant an extension. It just says "where not specifically addressed." That could be anyone. Could be Turi, or Drake for all we know. You want to play the "exact words" ploy, show me the "exact words" where it says a Supervisor
can grant an extension, especially an extension with no contact from the Overlord, giving him little justification to grant the extension save for his whim. I know Ian has said Gloin already did it, but will someone tell me why we have the three week period if it can be overlooked?
Not that I now debate Val's right to make extensions, but merely playing your game of "show me the exact words where it says this."
"Magnus had no problem challenging, did he?"
Magnus also has to wait for Drey's challenge against Avery to finish before he can finish his challenge. Plus there are people who prefer not to issue challenge when another challenge is pending; granted, it is that person's problem, but already having a challenge pending sure is a good way to discourage others from challenging.
"This sentence needs a bit more clarification. First you say that there is a twenty-four day grace period and then you say that it's an indefinite amount of time. Which is it?"
It's really disturbing that you don't follow. Avery has a 24 day grace period, which is one of Val's reasons for giving the extension. However, Val never set a date for when the extension will end, which is effectively indefinite.
"Your demands are ludicrous and against the rules."
Let's play this game again. Where EXACTLY in the rules does it say that a baron, no, ANYONE can demand the supervisor do something. The supervisor's job is to address complaints. Or do you wish to give him all the power on a silver platter?
And how are my demands ludicrous? Because Avery has not only left the title of Archmage, but also Overlord, hasn't written to anyone (apparently not even to Val), and we feel the matter should be handed to the Council? Because we have the opinion that this is a matter the Council should address, it is ludicrous?
"This is a perfect example of the power trip I was referring to. You have *no* say as to when someone needs to be "put in his place". Val, according to his position in this place, has the right to "flex his muscle" as you put it. That's what makes him Supervisor."
Val is not above the rules, and when anyone thinks that, they need to be put in their place. Of course, you seem more interested in having a dictator who doesn't care about simple rules and can tell everyone what he wants and we all have to suck it up, simply because he can bend the rules at his whim. It's amusing I'm the one being called the bully here, with a power trip.
"Then what are the needless hysterics for? What purpose do you serve in harrassing people?"
One letter a day is hardly harassing or hysterical. I already said why I was writing to him, and you are telling me that I need to learn to read more carefully?
"No, you are simply a Baron with no rights to make decisions on the outcome of your fellow duelers until you have been set to Council. The Council has the power of decision. To assume that you are at *all* times a member of the Council would mean that you have at *all* times the power of decision. Which you do not."
The Council's power of decision does not count until officially convened, which is what we have been waiting for. Regardless, I am still a Baron of the Baron's Council, just as is everyone else who is a baron. Just because they do not have the power to make a decision doesn't mean they aren't part of the council.
This is funny. You are saying that because Val is supervisor, I have no rights to make demands of him. However, you demand (at least insist) the council does not exist unless officially called upon. I hold no power over Val, and when I try to demand he make a proper decision, I am on a power trip. You, however, can tell the Council when we do and do not exist, and you are not.
"I never said it was his playground, but what part of SUPERVISOR do you not understand? He is NOT beholden to you and until the rules state that the Council is a permanent group that can make demands on the Supervisor, the Supervisor will *never* be beholden to you."
You tell me what part of SUPERVISOR do YOU not understand. He serves the Duel of Swords, the community. The community has a right to demand he make proper decisions. It's not just the Council who can make demands, requests, suggestions, etc. It is anyone who cares about the Duel of Swords community.
"Where in the rules does it state that the Council has the right to make demands on the supervisor before it is even convened?"
Part of Val's job as supervisor of the Duel of Swords is to answer to any issues the patrons have. Are you truly this dense? Is the community now not allowed to make demands? Or are the Barons just not good enough to be a part of the community?
"If the Challenger has given permission, I don't see where the rules state that you have the right to ignore his wishes. It is not your challenge, but his."
It is now the challenger's right to ignore the basics of the rules? What about other people who wish to issue challenge? We can always have a renegade go past the three weeks, and as long as the challenger agrees, everyone else who enters the que has to wait until the renegade gets off his tail and duels the first challenge. More people are always affected than just the two fighting the challenge, Sid, and you seem not to even consider that.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband