From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 May 2000 14:56:00 EDT
"He requested an extension, and seeing as how he shall not be challenged now anyhow (24 day grace period) it won't effect
anything. Aside from Magnus who is trigger happy on challenging for the thirteenth, but by the time the grace period is over, so shall this be."
Drey said Avery wrote and said he could not make it. At no point have we been aware that Avery has specifically requested an extension or has suggested another date to fight on.
"Who Declared the Overlord Forfiet?"
It should be Val officially declaring him a forfeit, by the rules of engagement. He is failing to do this.
Because you seem to think I avoided your questions, when I felt I answered each one and/or the answer was fairly obvious, I will draw a picture for you for each one:
"#1. Did Avery miss a date?"
Yes, he missed the three week waiting period and was given an undetermined extension for no reason.
"#2. Is it not the Coordinator of the Sport who has the final say in everything?"
Obviously, yes, but per the rules of engagement, the Council has a right to convene in the case of a forfeit.
"#3. Did the Coordinator not already make a ruling?"
Again, obviously yes, but it's also quite apparent some (including myself) feel it is an unfair, baseless, and completely wrong decision. If Val decides to step in for this challenge, he will have to step in for every one of them and grant an extension.
"#4. Are those involved already not in agreement?"
Is not the community involved when the rules are being disregarded? Heck, Drey also knows that he's going to be challenged by Magnus. Maybe I'd find a way to keep a pending challenge going as long as I could too.
"#5. Why do you think the Baron's council is the end all, be all of every single challenge?"
It says in the rules we have the right to convene in the case of a retirement during a pending challenge, or in the case of a forfeit. Avery didn't fight the challenge within the three week waiting period, has not requested an extension, and to my knowledge is not working with Drey. That sounds like a forfeit.
"#6. Even if the Barons Council voted to strip Avery, do you not realize that as Coordinator of the Sport, Val can overrule that judgement, making the Council, in this matter, a waste of time."
Just like every other matter in which a council has convened, the ruling could have been overturned. Because Val wants to treat this like a personal playpen of his, and because I do not feel the council should convene until the coordinator gives us permission to, I am petitioning for him to allow us to convene, and to not overrule it without just cause.
Some seem to be unable to see the real effect this has. Avery has NOT requested an extension. According to Drey, he "just said he could not make it, therefore I cancelled it."
If anyone challenges in the future, how would you feel if the person you challenged told you he/she could not make it, did not give a reason, and did not give a general idea when he/she would be back? If it truly was an emergency, as Gunthar brings up, and if Avery did have time to write a letter, then he probably had time to explain it was a crisis. Just saying "I cannot make it" does not sound like an emergency.
In the future, is Val going to step in and give everyone else an indefinite set of time to handle the challenge? What about when someone challenges a loyal baron, and since the loyal baron can only be challenged once per month, does that allow the baron to keep a duelist waiting for a month, since nobody else can challenge in that time frame? The renegades and neutrals, of course, aren't allowed to have indefinite times, because they can be
challenged all the time.
Heck, if a Loyal baron can only be challenged once per month, why have a three week limit at all if the "only person affected" is the challenger? Why not wait until it sounds unreasonable to postpone the match.
There is a reason there is a three week limit; not so people can be given more time for no reason.
More than Drey, Avery, and Val are involved. The community's standards, precedence, rules, and duelers all get a slap in the face at this. What I find most amazing is that some are making accusations of "narrow mindedness" when they don't even think about what will happen in the future.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Petition for the Baron's Council
-
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: 24 May 2000 15:08:35 EDT
"It should be Val officially declaring him a forfeit, by the rules of engagement. He is failing to do this."
Var, am I understanding you to be claiming that under no circumstances should the Supervisor consider possible extenuating circumstances and allow a defender additional time due to whatever reason?
You continually harp on the "unexplained" or things you are not "aware of" in your complaints. I must point out that those very things you are unaware of might very well include the best of all possible reasons for Lord Evermeadow to have granted an extension.
In any event, the granting of such an extension is no more the council's concern than my taxation of the County of West Kintyre is the concern of Lady Jonalyn Starfare. It is not an issue which has ever before been under the purview of the Council, and your repeated demands that the Council have a say are arrogant power-seeking.
This debate is tiresome, and makes the Council look like not only like wailing children, but like foolish politicians seeking to increase their own influence. Cease this nonsense and comport yourselves with a little more dignity.
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 May 2000 15:08:35 EDT
"It should be Val officially declaring him a forfeit, by the rules of engagement. He is failing to do this."
Var, am I understanding you to be claiming that under no circumstances should the Supervisor consider possible extenuating circumstances and allow a defender additional time due to whatever reason?
You continually harp on the "unexplained" or things you are not "aware of" in your complaints. I must point out that those very things you are unaware of might very well include the best of all possible reasons for Lord Evermeadow to have granted an extension.
In any event, the granting of such an extension is no more the council's concern than my taxation of the County of West Kintyre is the concern of Lady Jonalyn Starfare. It is not an issue which has ever before been under the purview of the Council, and your repeated demands that the Council have a say are arrogant power-seeking.
This debate is tiresome, and makes the Council look like not only like wailing children, but like foolish politicians seeking to increase their own influence. Cease this nonsense and comport yourselves with a little more dignity.
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 May 2000 15:35:51 EDT
"Var, am I understanding you to be claiming that under no circumstances should the Supervisor consider possible extenuating circumstances and allow a defender additional time due to whatever reason?"
Avery wrote "I cannot make it," according to Drey. That is not even working to resolve the situation. When you tax people, do you grant them extensions on payment when they don't work or try to find a loan?
Avery has not suggested a time. He didn't even give Drey a reason. He just plays the disappearing trick.
Extensions, yes. Flouting of the rules just because it's most convenient, no.
"In any event, the granting of such an extension is no more the council's concern than my taxation of the County of West Kintyre is the concern of Lady Jonalyn Starfare. It is not an issue which has ever before been under the purview of the Council, and your repeated demands that the Council have a say are arrogant power-seeking."
Val is being arrogant and power-seeking, because his justification for granting the extension is because nobody else can issue challenge due to the grace period. If you consider that a good reason, that's you. Like I said, why even have a set time if loyals won't face another challenge for another month if they can just say "I can't make it" and wait until the one month waiting period is up.
I agree with granting extensions; I don't feel that the way the issue was handled by any parties warranted the extension.
"This debate is tiresome, and makes the Council look like not only like wailing children, but like foolish politicians seeking to increase their own influence. Cease this nonsense and comport yourselves with a little more dignity."
Interesting way you view dignity: people bending over and let others take charge, not saying a word in protest when those people feel the others are wrong.
I am saying my opinion. To call it "wailing" is amusing, considering all the "wailing" you sometimes do.
You may think we're trying to increase our influence, but I feel the council has a right to vote. You don't want us to have influence, fine. Until it's written that the council has no right to make judgment on any matter, I will feel this. The issue can be resolved easily, Ian. Have Val write up on the rules the Council may no longer make an official decision regarding any challenge. Until then, I am petitioning, for I feel it is the
council's right within the rules.
My biggest concern isn't holding a greater power over DoS. It's to make sure this doesn't become Val's playground where he can just toss the rules around for whatever reason.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 May 2000 15:35:51 EDT
"Var, am I understanding you to be claiming that under no circumstances should the Supervisor consider possible extenuating circumstances and allow a defender additional time due to whatever reason?"
Avery wrote "I cannot make it," according to Drey. That is not even working to resolve the situation. When you tax people, do you grant them extensions on payment when they don't work or try to find a loan?
Avery has not suggested a time. He didn't even give Drey a reason. He just plays the disappearing trick.
Extensions, yes. Flouting of the rules just because it's most convenient, no.
"In any event, the granting of such an extension is no more the council's concern than my taxation of the County of West Kintyre is the concern of Lady Jonalyn Starfare. It is not an issue which has ever before been under the purview of the Council, and your repeated demands that the Council have a say are arrogant power-seeking."
Val is being arrogant and power-seeking, because his justification for granting the extension is because nobody else can issue challenge due to the grace period. If you consider that a good reason, that's you. Like I said, why even have a set time if loyals won't face another challenge for another month if they can just say "I can't make it" and wait until the one month waiting period is up.
I agree with granting extensions; I don't feel that the way the issue was handled by any parties warranted the extension.
"This debate is tiresome, and makes the Council look like not only like wailing children, but like foolish politicians seeking to increase their own influence. Cease this nonsense and comport yourselves with a little more dignity."
Interesting way you view dignity: people bending over and let others take charge, not saying a word in protest when those people feel the others are wrong.
I am saying my opinion. To call it "wailing" is amusing, considering all the "wailing" you sometimes do.
You may think we're trying to increase our influence, but I feel the council has a right to vote. You don't want us to have influence, fine. Until it's written that the council has no right to make judgment on any matter, I will feel this. The issue can be resolved easily, Ian. Have Val write up on the rules the Council may no longer make an official decision regarding any challenge. Until then, I am petitioning, for I feel it is the
council's right within the rules.
My biggest concern isn't holding a greater power over DoS. It's to make sure this doesn't become Val's playground where he can just toss the rules around for whatever reason.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 24 May 2000 15:37:01 EDT
>"Who Declared the Overlord Forfeit?"
>
> It should be Val officially declaring him a forfeit, by the rules of
>engagement. He is failing to do this.
There is no forfeit to call, as there was an extension given.
>"#1. Did Avery miss a date?"
> Yes, he missed the three week waiting period and was given an undetermined
>extension for no reason.
Apparently not, as the extension was given before the three weeks were up.
>"#2. Is it not the Coordinator of the Sport who has the final say in
>everything?"
> Obviously, yes, but per the rules of engagement, the Council has a right
>to convene in the case of a forfeit.
Again, there was no forfeit to convene over.
>"#3. Did the Coordinator not already make a ruling?"
> Again, obviously yes, but it's also quite apparent some (including myself)
>feel it is an unfair, baseless, and completely wrong decision. If Val
>decides to step in for this challenge, he will have to step in for every one
>of them and grant an extension.
If circumstances call for it, why not grant an extension? It's only unfair to those because "Boo hoo, things aren't going the way I want them to!" It's a selfish thought.
>"#4. Are those involved already not in agreement?"
> Is not the community involved when the rules are being disregarded? Heck,
>Drey also knows that he's going to be challenged by Magnus. Maybe I'd find a
>way to keep a pending challenge going as long as I could too.
What rules are being disregarded? Magnus can challenge Drey at any point? What's stopping him? As for keeping a pending challenge going on as long as possible, I'm all for it. None should get a title easily.
>"#5. Why do you think the Baron's council is the end all, be all of every
>single challenge?"
> It says in the rules we have the right to convene in the case of a
>retirement during a pending challenge, or in the case of a forfeit. Avery
>didn't fight the challenge within the three week waiting period, has not
>requested an extension, and to my knowledge is not working with Drey. That
>sounds like a forfeit.
The extension was granted before the three weeks were up. Doesn't sound like a forfeit to me, so, therefore is not needed to go to the council.
I think you all are going to have to bite the bullet on this one and just sit back and wait. Because this is Not a Baronial Council Situation.
>"#6. Even if the Barons Council voted to strip Avery, do you not realize
>that as Coordinator of the Sport, Val can overrule that judgment, making the
>Council, in this matter, a waste of time."
> Just like every other matter in which a council has convened, the ruling
>could have been overturned. Because Val wants to treat this like a personal
>playpen of his, and because I do not feel the council should convene until
>the coordinator gives us permission to, I am petitioning for him to allow us
>to convene, and to not overrule it without just cause.
There's nothing for the council to convene over. There's No forfeit, there's no retirement, there's nothing the Council needs to be involved in.
> If anyone challenges in the future, how would you feel if the person you
>challenged told you he/she could not make it, did not give a reason, and did
>not give a general idea when he/she would be back?
Wouldn't bother me. I'm obviously not as self centered as some are around here. Drey doesn't seem to be complaining, does he? He must not be as self centered either.
>In the future, is Val going to step in and give everyone else an indefinite
>set of time to handle the challenge?
If it's needed, why not? Extensions aren't unheard of anyway.
>What about when someone challenges a loyal baron, and since the loyal baron
>can only be challenged once per month, does that allow the baron to keep a
>duelist waiting for a month, since nobody else can challenge in that time
>frame?
Month One: Challenge issued.
Month Two: Challenge fought
Month Two: Challenge Issued.
All perfectly legal. Challenges can be issued once per month to Loyal Barons. Doesn't say that they can't be challenged in the same month they fight the match.
>What I find most amazing is that some are making accusations of "narrow
>mindedness" when they don't even think about what will happen in the future.
I think it is narrow mindedness. It's basically jumping on someone for a decision, or basically attacking without seeing everything involved.
Open your minds, people. There's obviously a good reason why there was an extension, Avery's only mistake was that he didn't tell Drey. But everyone is so rushed to think the Worst of people, that they think some universal Wrong has been committed.
>More than Drey, Avery, and Val are involved. The community's standards,
>precedence, rules, and duelers all get a slap in the face at this.
The Communities standards are low as it is, Precedence has already played a part in this, the Rules weren't broken, and the Duelers all need a bit more than just a slap in the face.
There's nothing but negativity in that Arena. Try to think positive for once.
Date: 24 May 2000 15:37:01 EDT
>"Who Declared the Overlord Forfeit?"
>
> It should be Val officially declaring him a forfeit, by the rules of
>engagement. He is failing to do this.
There is no forfeit to call, as there was an extension given.
>"#1. Did Avery miss a date?"
> Yes, he missed the three week waiting period and was given an undetermined
>extension for no reason.
Apparently not, as the extension was given before the three weeks were up.
>"#2. Is it not the Coordinator of the Sport who has the final say in
>everything?"
> Obviously, yes, but per the rules of engagement, the Council has a right
>to convene in the case of a forfeit.
Again, there was no forfeit to convene over.
>"#3. Did the Coordinator not already make a ruling?"
> Again, obviously yes, but it's also quite apparent some (including myself)
>feel it is an unfair, baseless, and completely wrong decision. If Val
>decides to step in for this challenge, he will have to step in for every one
>of them and grant an extension.
If circumstances call for it, why not grant an extension? It's only unfair to those because "Boo hoo, things aren't going the way I want them to!" It's a selfish thought.
>"#4. Are those involved already not in agreement?"
> Is not the community involved when the rules are being disregarded? Heck,
>Drey also knows that he's going to be challenged by Magnus. Maybe I'd find a
>way to keep a pending challenge going as long as I could too.
What rules are being disregarded? Magnus can challenge Drey at any point? What's stopping him? As for keeping a pending challenge going on as long as possible, I'm all for it. None should get a title easily.
>"#5. Why do you think the Baron's council is the end all, be all of every
>single challenge?"
> It says in the rules we have the right to convene in the case of a
>retirement during a pending challenge, or in the case of a forfeit. Avery
>didn't fight the challenge within the three week waiting period, has not
>requested an extension, and to my knowledge is not working with Drey. That
>sounds like a forfeit.
The extension was granted before the three weeks were up. Doesn't sound like a forfeit to me, so, therefore is not needed to go to the council.
I think you all are going to have to bite the bullet on this one and just sit back and wait. Because this is Not a Baronial Council Situation.
>"#6. Even if the Barons Council voted to strip Avery, do you not realize
>that as Coordinator of the Sport, Val can overrule that judgment, making the
>Council, in this matter, a waste of time."
> Just like every other matter in which a council has convened, the ruling
>could have been overturned. Because Val wants to treat this like a personal
>playpen of his, and because I do not feel the council should convene until
>the coordinator gives us permission to, I am petitioning for him to allow us
>to convene, and to not overrule it without just cause.
There's nothing for the council to convene over. There's No forfeit, there's no retirement, there's nothing the Council needs to be involved in.
> If anyone challenges in the future, how would you feel if the person you
>challenged told you he/she could not make it, did not give a reason, and did
>not give a general idea when he/she would be back?
Wouldn't bother me. I'm obviously not as self centered as some are around here. Drey doesn't seem to be complaining, does he? He must not be as self centered either.
>In the future, is Val going to step in and give everyone else an indefinite
>set of time to handle the challenge?
If it's needed, why not? Extensions aren't unheard of anyway.
>What about when someone challenges a loyal baron, and since the loyal baron
>can only be challenged once per month, does that allow the baron to keep a
>duelist waiting for a month, since nobody else can challenge in that time
>frame?
Month One: Challenge issued.
Month Two: Challenge fought
Month Two: Challenge Issued.
All perfectly legal. Challenges can be issued once per month to Loyal Barons. Doesn't say that they can't be challenged in the same month they fight the match.
>What I find most amazing is that some are making accusations of "narrow
>mindedness" when they don't even think about what will happen in the future.
I think it is narrow mindedness. It's basically jumping on someone for a decision, or basically attacking without seeing everything involved.
Open your minds, people. There's obviously a good reason why there was an extension, Avery's only mistake was that he didn't tell Drey. But everyone is so rushed to think the Worst of people, that they think some universal Wrong has been committed.
>More than Drey, Avery, and Val are involved. The community's standards,
>precedence, rules, and duelers all get a slap in the face at this.
The Communities standards are low as it is, Precedence has already played a part in this, the Rules weren't broken, and the Duelers all need a bit more than just a slap in the face.
There's nothing but negativity in that Arena. Try to think positive for once.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 24 May 2000 16:00:02 EDT
"Var, am I understanding you to be claiming that under no circumstances should the Supervisor consider possible extenuating circumstances and allow a defender additional time due to whatever reason?"
Var replies:
"Avery wrote 'I cannot make it,' according to Drey."
Yet, you have no idea what communication may have transpired between the Overlord and Lord Evermeadow!
"When you tax people, do you grant them extensions on payment when they don't work or try to find a loan?"
If I tax people, is it any of your business to decry my collection practices as unfair when I do not make you privy to my communications with the taxed? Do you grasp how ignorant you sound here, Var?
"I agree with granting extensions; I don't feel that the way the issue was handled by any parties warranted the extension."
You are not aware of how the issue was handled by ALL the parties, meaning you cannot have a valid opinion on whether it was warranted or not.
"Interesting way you view dignity: people bending over and let others take charge, not saying a word in protest when those people feel the others are wrong."
I equally find it undignified to form a lynch mob to perform the police's job in a murder investigation when the mob has no idea of the evidence or the progress of the investigation. Apparently, you feel otherwise. Might I interest you in a cartload of torches, pitchforks, and tomatoes? Then you can express yourself in the manner appropriate to uninformed mobs.
"You may think we're trying to increase our influence, but I feel the council has a right to vote."
The council HAS NO RIGHT to vote on whether a match is in forfeiture. None. Your rights do not begin until such match HAS been ruled in forfeiture, and since it has not... get ready for the painful truth:
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS IN THIS MATTER.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 24 May 2000 16:00:02 EDT
"Var, am I understanding you to be claiming that under no circumstances should the Supervisor consider possible extenuating circumstances and allow a defender additional time due to whatever reason?"
Var replies:
"Avery wrote 'I cannot make it,' according to Drey."
Yet, you have no idea what communication may have transpired between the Overlord and Lord Evermeadow!
"When you tax people, do you grant them extensions on payment when they don't work or try to find a loan?"
If I tax people, is it any of your business to decry my collection practices as unfair when I do not make you privy to my communications with the taxed? Do you grasp how ignorant you sound here, Var?
"I agree with granting extensions; I don't feel that the way the issue was handled by any parties warranted the extension."
You are not aware of how the issue was handled by ALL the parties, meaning you cannot have a valid opinion on whether it was warranted or not.
"Interesting way you view dignity: people bending over and let others take charge, not saying a word in protest when those people feel the others are wrong."
I equally find it undignified to form a lynch mob to perform the police's job in a murder investigation when the mob has no idea of the evidence or the progress of the investigation. Apparently, you feel otherwise. Might I interest you in a cartload of torches, pitchforks, and tomatoes? Then you can express yourself in the manner appropriate to uninformed mobs.
"You may think we're trying to increase our influence, but I feel the council has a right to vote."
The council HAS NO RIGHT to vote on whether a match is in forfeiture. None. Your rights do not begin until such match HAS been ruled in forfeiture, and since it has not... get ready for the painful truth:
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS IN THIS MATTER.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: oortael5@aol.com (OorTael5)
Date: 24 May 2000 16:24:38 EDT
"If anyone believes otherwise, they're a fine case of why the Arena has degraded into such a pit of despair. "
G,
Just out of pure curiosity, if the Arena is such a pit of despair, why exactly are you wasting time and energy here on this issue?
Inquisitively,
-Galin
Date: 24 May 2000 16:24:38 EDT
"If anyone believes otherwise, they're a fine case of why the Arena has degraded into such a pit of despair. "
G,
Just out of pure curiosity, if the Arena is such a pit of despair, why exactly are you wasting time and energy here on this issue?
Inquisitively,
-Galin
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 24 May 2000 17:08:36 EDT
>Drey said Avery wrote and said he could not make it. At no point have we
>been aware that Avery has specifically requested an extension or has
>suggested another date to fight on.
Var, Val said directly in his ruling on the matter that Avery had specifically requested an extension. He repeated this direct statement after Jonalyn's initial post. Therefore we have been aware that Avery requested an extension practically since Val granted him one.
>It should be Val officially declaring him a forfeit, by the rules of
>engagement. He is failing to do this.
The fact that Val 'should' declare a forfeit is a matter of opinion and it, in and of itself, is as complicated an argument as whether or not the Council should have made the decision instead of Val. This argument, by the way, is also based in opinion. The fact is that the Supervisor is the final arbiter of the rules and his decisions are official and valid.
>"#2. Is it not the Coordinator of the Sport who has the final say in
>everything?"
> Obviously, yes, but per the rules of engagement, the Council has a right
>to convene in the case of a forfeit.
>
Yes Var, but no forfeit has been declared. Therefore, the Council has no more right than any other members of the Community until a forfeit IS declared. The Council has never had the right to declare a duelist in forfeit, only the duty to decide what should be done once a forfeit is official.
>"#3. Did the Coordinator not already make a ruling?"
> Again, obviously yes, but it's also quite apparent some (including myself)
>feel it is an unfair, baseless, and completely wrong decision. If Val
>decides to step in for this challenge, he will have to step in for every one
>of them and grant an extension.
Perhaps if individuals realize that they have a time constraint or availability problem and ask for an extension they will be granted. I believe that Val has said outright he will grant extensions again in the future if he feels they are warranted. He made that remark rather strongly in his response to much of Jonalyn's strongly worded initial post.
>"#4. Are those involved already not in agreement?"
> Is not the community involved when the rules are being disregarded? Heck,
>Drey also knows that he's going to be challenged by Magnus. Maybe I'd find a
>way to keep a pending challenge going as long as I could too.
Who decided that the rules were being disregarded? What rule specifically is being disregarded for that matter? When I first heard of the situation I agreed largely with Jonalyn, though I thought her words on the matter were somewhat stronger than appropriate. My feeling was basically that Avery and Val are both young men who had each made a young man's mistake.
Now, however, after both consideration of the rules and careful reading of the very intelligent and far more clear headed posts by Kalamere and Ian I have changed my mind. The Council has the duty to decide the consequences of a forfeit for the principles of the challenge. However, only the officials of the sport have the right to rule that a forfeit has taken place. This is not one of the rights, duties, or responsibilities of the Council.
By the same logic that only the officials of the sport can declare a forfeit it would follow that only they, and not the Council, could decide whether a forfeit was not appropriate and whether or not to grant an extension.
Do I think Val made a right or wrong decision? I have not decided yet. However, he was perfectly within his rights to make the decision and did not usurp any of the rights of either the Community or the Council. As in many situations, far too many people (of whom I initially was one) were persuaded by the heated emotions of those who most strongly opposed the decision rather than the logic or lack thereof in their arguments.
One individual has successfully managed to put a bee in the bonnet of a few of the Barons. One has to wonder about the motives of the individual who began the process. I would hope, to paraphrase Ian's comment to Var, that it is only a case of a good person reacting emotionally when they should react logically.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
Date: 24 May 2000 17:08:36 EDT
>Drey said Avery wrote and said he could not make it. At no point have we
>been aware that Avery has specifically requested an extension or has
>suggested another date to fight on.
Var, Val said directly in his ruling on the matter that Avery had specifically requested an extension. He repeated this direct statement after Jonalyn's initial post. Therefore we have been aware that Avery requested an extension practically since Val granted him one.
>It should be Val officially declaring him a forfeit, by the rules of
>engagement. He is failing to do this.
The fact that Val 'should' declare a forfeit is a matter of opinion and it, in and of itself, is as complicated an argument as whether or not the Council should have made the decision instead of Val. This argument, by the way, is also based in opinion. The fact is that the Supervisor is the final arbiter of the rules and his decisions are official and valid.
>"#2. Is it not the Coordinator of the Sport who has the final say in
>everything?"
> Obviously, yes, but per the rules of engagement, the Council has a right
>to convene in the case of a forfeit.
>
Yes Var, but no forfeit has been declared. Therefore, the Council has no more right than any other members of the Community until a forfeit IS declared. The Council has never had the right to declare a duelist in forfeit, only the duty to decide what should be done once a forfeit is official.
>"#3. Did the Coordinator not already make a ruling?"
> Again, obviously yes, but it's also quite apparent some (including myself)
>feel it is an unfair, baseless, and completely wrong decision. If Val
>decides to step in for this challenge, he will have to step in for every one
>of them and grant an extension.
Perhaps if individuals realize that they have a time constraint or availability problem and ask for an extension they will be granted. I believe that Val has said outright he will grant extensions again in the future if he feels they are warranted. He made that remark rather strongly in his response to much of Jonalyn's strongly worded initial post.
>"#4. Are those involved already not in agreement?"
> Is not the community involved when the rules are being disregarded? Heck,
>Drey also knows that he's going to be challenged by Magnus. Maybe I'd find a
>way to keep a pending challenge going as long as I could too.
Who decided that the rules were being disregarded? What rule specifically is being disregarded for that matter? When I first heard of the situation I agreed largely with Jonalyn, though I thought her words on the matter were somewhat stronger than appropriate. My feeling was basically that Avery and Val are both young men who had each made a young man's mistake.
Now, however, after both consideration of the rules and careful reading of the very intelligent and far more clear headed posts by Kalamere and Ian I have changed my mind. The Council has the duty to decide the consequences of a forfeit for the principles of the challenge. However, only the officials of the sport have the right to rule that a forfeit has taken place. This is not one of the rights, duties, or responsibilities of the Council.
By the same logic that only the officials of the sport can declare a forfeit it would follow that only they, and not the Council, could decide whether a forfeit was not appropriate and whether or not to grant an extension.
Do I think Val made a right or wrong decision? I have not decided yet. However, he was perfectly within his rights to make the decision and did not usurp any of the rights of either the Community or the Council. As in many situations, far too many people (of whom I initially was one) were persuaded by the heated emotions of those who most strongly opposed the decision rather than the logic or lack thereof in their arguments.
One individual has successfully managed to put a bee in the bonnet of a few of the Barons. One has to wonder about the motives of the individual who began the process. I would hope, to paraphrase Ian's comment to Var, that it is only a case of a good person reacting emotionally when they should react logically.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 24 May 2000 17:28:00 EDT
>G,
>
>Just out of pure curiosity, if the Arena is such a pit of despair, why
>exactly are you wasting time and energy here on this issue?
>
>Inquisitively,
>-Galin
A few reasons, actually Galin.
1) Sometimes the Noblemen will wander through peasant country to remind themselves of how better off they are. I do it to remember how much better I am than most people.
2) There are some people in the Arena who are a bright spot. Not just friends, either, though even some of my friends aren't the brightest, either.
3) I live in a world where I will always have hope. I hope that one day, perhaps, I will see the Arena rise to a better place. As low as it is now, it can get lower, but it can also get better.
4) Other people who hold the Arena with contempt often waste time and energy on equally pointless debate, and yet are held in high regard. I'm no different, though I'm working on not being held in high regard.
Often my arguments of late are laced with venom, and rude remarks, sometimes even crude. However, they are also all heavily filled with honesty and well meaning. Some people just can't get it through their thick skulls about how things either are, or should be, and if the only way to make them see a possibility of that is to be a bit crude, well, they'll understand basic common language, won't that?
Just be glad I can't speak troll, orcan, or ogre, cause then noone would understand.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though, in my departure, I said alot of things including I just didn't care anymore, it's mostly true.
I don't care totally. But there's still that part of me that did care, and still fights to see the Arena improve.
Date: 24 May 2000 17:28:00 EDT
>G,
>
>Just out of pure curiosity, if the Arena is such a pit of despair, why
>exactly are you wasting time and energy here on this issue?
>
>Inquisitively,
>-Galin
A few reasons, actually Galin.
1) Sometimes the Noblemen will wander through peasant country to remind themselves of how better off they are. I do it to remember how much better I am than most people.
2) There are some people in the Arena who are a bright spot. Not just friends, either, though even some of my friends aren't the brightest, either.
3) I live in a world where I will always have hope. I hope that one day, perhaps, I will see the Arena rise to a better place. As low as it is now, it can get lower, but it can also get better.
4) Other people who hold the Arena with contempt often waste time and energy on equally pointless debate, and yet are held in high regard. I'm no different, though I'm working on not being held in high regard.
Often my arguments of late are laced with venom, and rude remarks, sometimes even crude. However, they are also all heavily filled with honesty and well meaning. Some people just can't get it through their thick skulls about how things either are, or should be, and if the only way to make them see a possibility of that is to be a bit crude, well, they'll understand basic common language, won't that?
Just be glad I can't speak troll, orcan, or ogre, cause then noone would understand.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though, in my departure, I said alot of things including I just didn't care anymore, it's mostly true.
I don't care totally. But there's still that part of me that did care, and still fights to see the Arena improve.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 24 May 2000 19:43:26 EDT
" Var, Val said directly in his ruling on the matter that Avery had specifically requested an extension. He repeated this direct statement after Jonalyn's initial post. Therefore we have been aware that Avery requested an extension practically since Val granted him one."
Please do not lie in an attempt to make me look like a fool. I am sure I already look like one because others disagree, but it's a weak argument to use weak proof. Below is everything Val has tacked upon the boards. You will see that he only says he granted Avery an extension, and at no point did Avery specifically ask.
~~~~~
To the poor, neglected egos of the Barons,
I honestly could not care less how much you inundate me with your letters of protest. I'm currently in a shortage for kindling anyway, and could use the aid.
Simply put, the so-called rights of you Barons who have absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of this challenge do not supercede the rights of Baron Starke, one of the two that is directly involved. He could just as easily withdrawn his challenge a few days ago, and the lot of you would have nothing to whine about as you are doing. It is his choice, and it is his challenge, not yours.
As one post already mentioned, there is, in fact, precedent for this type of discussion. And this is coming from one who has never been a big supporter of mine. I have stated several times before, but will do so again for the benefit of you who have conveniently blocked it out. This extension has nothing to do with my relationship with Overlord Blade. I've met him exactly twice, and the only thing I remember is him whining about something that
he didn't like that I was not even a part of. If the Overlord was the outrageously obnoxious Jesse Troyan or even the stunning Lady Starfare, I would still have granted an extension for this special situation.
On a personal note, and this did not factor into my decision at the time, but I don't trust some members of the council to successfully pick their collectives noses, much less come to an informed and rational consensus. My decision stands.
The Tyrant of Evermeadow
~~~~~
>
>If this is the accepted practice, perhaps I should issue challenge to some
>friend of mine. They could deign to set a date, I could agree to an
>extension of their replial time.. and voila, they're free from direct
>challenge.
Miss Reynolds,
Apparently you're missing one of the points I made. One of the reasons I'm allowing this is because that no one else can challenge the Overlord due to the upcoming Warlord's Tournament, and the grace period for the Overlord that comes from it. If there was no Warlord Tournament scheduled within 24 days, this would be a different story. But that is not the case.
Val
~~~~~
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?
~~~~~
Community,
Below this short statement there will be copies two missives recently exchanged between Baron Starke and myself. I did get his permission to post a copy of what he has written to me. 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
First, my message to Baron Starke:
Baron Starke,
As the midnight hour approaches, the extension I've granted to Overlord Blade expires. Therefore the decision now lies in your hand. If you wish, you can give him a few more days to respond and possibly set up a match. Or, you can send this matter to the council and let them decide. If you choose neither, the matter will be sent to the council anyway. Let me know of your decision.
Val
And now Baron Starke's reply:
I want an extension for Avery so we can duel. I didn't challenge anybody else but Avery. That is my decision. Give him more time.
Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke
13th
~~~~~
If Val did exchange words with Avery, then he certainly didn't make it known here. Again, I don't appreciate you making up arguments. If I handed you money, does that mean you asked for it? Val does have the power of free will, and with his carefully worded posts, he has decided upon himself that he will give Avery the extension. Not a word about a request from Avery, an odd thing to forget, several times.
I am being told I'm not looking at "everything," and it seems much better to make assumptions based on the careful wording of someone who has on numerous posts omitted a few words specifically saying, "he requested it."
Avery from what has been known to us, did not ask for an extension. Val had decided to grant leniency out of the "goodness of his heart," when in all actuality, it insults those who do make it to the challenge on time.
While I already know Ian will say it's not my business, Val, I'm curious. Just what words have been exchanged between you and Avery? I'd like to see them. I also want to know why you have in your several posts conveniently left out the fact that he did request an extension, and instead, you gave him one. It's something like that that's hard to forget, especially consistently, which is why I feel there is no communication. In fact, I think
Val is as clueless as all of us regarding where Avery is or when he's coming back. It pretty much explains such himself when he says, "I have granted him a few days with hopes he will resurface."
Carefully chosen words... very carefully chosen.
I have a question though for anyone in general. There's a big argument that the council has no right to hold an opinion or wish to have a say when they haven't officially been called to task. Is this to say that whenever you disagree with a decision, that you don't want to have a say?
I think Val should turn the matter to us and call it a forfeit. That's an opinion. I have no reason to feel otherwise. Am I forming a lynch mob? I'm standing up for the feeling that this is a matter we should handle. I will, like I said, respect the boundaries of Val and not call the council to task. However, I want him to know how strongly I feel about this, that I feel Avery does not deserve the extension.
Not my business, you may say. However, I feel it's the right thing to do. Call it thinking with my heart and not my head, call it an ego, but I just call it doing what I think is right.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 24 May 2000 19:43:26 EDT
" Var, Val said directly in his ruling on the matter that Avery had specifically requested an extension. He repeated this direct statement after Jonalyn's initial post. Therefore we have been aware that Avery requested an extension practically since Val granted him one."
Please do not lie in an attempt to make me look like a fool. I am sure I already look like one because others disagree, but it's a weak argument to use weak proof. Below is everything Val has tacked upon the boards. You will see that he only says he granted Avery an extension, and at no point did Avery specifically ask.
~~~~~
To the poor, neglected egos of the Barons,
I honestly could not care less how much you inundate me with your letters of protest. I'm currently in a shortage for kindling anyway, and could use the aid.
Simply put, the so-called rights of you Barons who have absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of this challenge do not supercede the rights of Baron Starke, one of the two that is directly involved. He could just as easily withdrawn his challenge a few days ago, and the lot of you would have nothing to whine about as you are doing. It is his choice, and it is his challenge, not yours.
As one post already mentioned, there is, in fact, precedent for this type of discussion. And this is coming from one who has never been a big supporter of mine. I have stated several times before, but will do so again for the benefit of you who have conveniently blocked it out. This extension has nothing to do with my relationship with Overlord Blade. I've met him exactly twice, and the only thing I remember is him whining about something that
he didn't like that I was not even a part of. If the Overlord was the outrageously obnoxious Jesse Troyan or even the stunning Lady Starfare, I would still have granted an extension for this special situation.
On a personal note, and this did not factor into my decision at the time, but I don't trust some members of the council to successfully pick their collectives noses, much less come to an informed and rational consensus. My decision stands.
The Tyrant of Evermeadow
~~~~~
>
>If this is the accepted practice, perhaps I should issue challenge to some
>friend of mine. They could deign to set a date, I could agree to an
>extension of their replial time.. and voila, they're free from direct
>challenge.
Miss Reynolds,
Apparently you're missing one of the points I made. One of the reasons I'm allowing this is because that no one else can challenge the Overlord due to the upcoming Warlord's Tournament, and the grace period for the Overlord that comes from it. If there was no Warlord Tournament scheduled within 24 days, this would be a different story. But that is not the case.
Val
~~~~~
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?
~~~~~
Community,
Below this short statement there will be copies two missives recently exchanged between Baron Starke and myself. I did get his permission to post a copy of what he has written to me. 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
First, my message to Baron Starke:
Baron Starke,
As the midnight hour approaches, the extension I've granted to Overlord Blade expires. Therefore the decision now lies in your hand. If you wish, you can give him a few more days to respond and possibly set up a match. Or, you can send this matter to the council and let them decide. If you choose neither, the matter will be sent to the council anyway. Let me know of your decision.
Val
And now Baron Starke's reply:
I want an extension for Avery so we can duel. I didn't challenge anybody else but Avery. That is my decision. Give him more time.
Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke
13th
~~~~~
If Val did exchange words with Avery, then he certainly didn't make it known here. Again, I don't appreciate you making up arguments. If I handed you money, does that mean you asked for it? Val does have the power of free will, and with his carefully worded posts, he has decided upon himself that he will give Avery the extension. Not a word about a request from Avery, an odd thing to forget, several times.
I am being told I'm not looking at "everything," and it seems much better to make assumptions based on the careful wording of someone who has on numerous posts omitted a few words specifically saying, "he requested it."
Avery from what has been known to us, did not ask for an extension. Val had decided to grant leniency out of the "goodness of his heart," when in all actuality, it insults those who do make it to the challenge on time.
While I already know Ian will say it's not my business, Val, I'm curious. Just what words have been exchanged between you and Avery? I'd like to see them. I also want to know why you have in your several posts conveniently left out the fact that he did request an extension, and instead, you gave him one. It's something like that that's hard to forget, especially consistently, which is why I feel there is no communication. In fact, I think
Val is as clueless as all of us regarding where Avery is or when he's coming back. It pretty much explains such himself when he says, "I have granted him a few days with hopes he will resurface."
Carefully chosen words... very carefully chosen.
I have a question though for anyone in general. There's a big argument that the council has no right to hold an opinion or wish to have a say when they haven't officially been called to task. Is this to say that whenever you disagree with a decision, that you don't want to have a say?
I think Val should turn the matter to us and call it a forfeit. That's an opinion. I have no reason to feel otherwise. Am I forming a lynch mob? I'm standing up for the feeling that this is a matter we should handle. I will, like I said, respect the boundaries of Val and not call the council to task. However, I want him to know how strongly I feel about this, that I feel Avery does not deserve the extension.
Not my business, you may say. However, I feel it's the right thing to do. Call it thinking with my heart and not my head, call it an ego, but I just call it doing what I think is right.
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: 25 May 2000 00:20:27 EDT
"While I already know Ian will say it's not my business, Val, I'm curious. Just what words have been exchanged between you and Avery?"
On the contrary, Var, I have no problem with you requesting such information. The Supervisor is responsible to the community for the decisions he makes. You will note that I have not attempted to argue that the Overlord DID have a conversation with the Supervisor that you are unaware of; I merely point out that he may have. It is that, and that alone, which leads me to the conclusion that this is not the Council's business.
Even if Lord Evermeadow DID rule the extension without a request for same, it would not be the Council's business. It would, however, be the community's business. The problem is, your arguments have been not that the decision should be explained publicly, but that the Council should be handed the authority to rule on the issue.
"I have a question though for anyone in general. There's a big argument that the council has no right to hold an opinion or wish to have a say when they haven't officially been called to task."
Councils are different from individuals. As individuals, each and every one of you has a right to an opinion. The Council, however, is a body with the authority to rule in certain instances, and technically is not even supposed to be convened except when those instances arise. As such, while you most certainly have every right to voice and express your opinion on the matter of whether the postponement was proper, the COUNCIL has, indeed, no right
to an opinion at this time, as the circumstances which generate the convening of the Council have not yet occurred.
"I think Val should turn the matter to us and call it a forfeit. That's an opinion. I have no reason to feel otherwise. Am I forming a lynch mob? I'm standing up for the feeling that this is a matter we should handle."
But it isn't. It is not, never has been, and never should be the Council's right or responsibility to determine whether a forfeit has occurred.
Whether the extension was warranted is, indeed, a debatable position. Whether the Council currently has any rights whatsoever is not. I hope that you now see the difference between the two sentiments, and understand why my arguments have been solely related to whether the COUNCIL has any rights in this matter.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 25 May 2000 00:20:27 EDT
"While I already know Ian will say it's not my business, Val, I'm curious. Just what words have been exchanged between you and Avery?"
On the contrary, Var, I have no problem with you requesting such information. The Supervisor is responsible to the community for the decisions he makes. You will note that I have not attempted to argue that the Overlord DID have a conversation with the Supervisor that you are unaware of; I merely point out that he may have. It is that, and that alone, which leads me to the conclusion that this is not the Council's business.
Even if Lord Evermeadow DID rule the extension without a request for same, it would not be the Council's business. It would, however, be the community's business. The problem is, your arguments have been not that the decision should be explained publicly, but that the Council should be handed the authority to rule on the issue.
"I have a question though for anyone in general. There's a big argument that the council has no right to hold an opinion or wish to have a say when they haven't officially been called to task."
Councils are different from individuals. As individuals, each and every one of you has a right to an opinion. The Council, however, is a body with the authority to rule in certain instances, and technically is not even supposed to be convened except when those instances arise. As such, while you most certainly have every right to voice and express your opinion on the matter of whether the postponement was proper, the COUNCIL has, indeed, no right
to an opinion at this time, as the circumstances which generate the convening of the Council have not yet occurred.
"I think Val should turn the matter to us and call it a forfeit. That's an opinion. I have no reason to feel otherwise. Am I forming a lynch mob? I'm standing up for the feeling that this is a matter we should handle."
But it isn't. It is not, never has been, and never should be the Council's right or responsibility to determine whether a forfeit has occurred.
Whether the extension was warranted is, indeed, a debatable position. Whether the Council currently has any rights whatsoever is not. I hope that you now see the difference between the two sentiments, and understand why my arguments have been solely related to whether the COUNCIL has any rights in this matter.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 25 May 2000 03:28:20 EDT
" If Val honestly thinks "to hell with the council, I'm going to do what I want," then I want him to say exactly that. To say, "I'm sorry, I don't think this is the council's place" when he feels more strongly, then he would be putting daisies on the walls.
I would rather dislike someone for the truth, than to respect them due to false security. Maybe you don't want to have daisies on the Arena walls, but not wanting to hear the truth for what it is almost sounds as if you do."
Var, did you even read what I wrote? I did not call into question his saying "to hell with all of you, I'm going to do what I please". I called into question his namecalling and immaturity.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 25 May 2000 03:28:20 EDT
" If Val honestly thinks "to hell with the council, I'm going to do what I want," then I want him to say exactly that. To say, "I'm sorry, I don't think this is the council's place" when he feels more strongly, then he would be putting daisies on the walls.
I would rather dislike someone for the truth, than to respect them due to false security. Maybe you don't want to have daisies on the Arena walls, but not wanting to hear the truth for what it is almost sounds as if you do."
Var, did you even read what I wrote? I did not call into question his saying "to hell with all of you, I'm going to do what I please". I called into question his namecalling and immaturity.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 25 May 2000 06:18:52 EDT
::looks at the boards and blinks coming upon the stack of papers as large as his arm:: "Good god that is a lot of hot air in such a little space." ::shrugs and moves on through the next set::
Date: 25 May 2000 06:18:52 EDT
::looks at the boards and blinks coming upon the stack of papers as large as his arm:: "Good god that is a lot of hot air in such a little space." ::shrugs and moves on through the next set::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: skylercj@aol.com (Skyler CJ)
Date: 25 May 2000 11:37:47 EDT
Var, you and duelers like you are the reason the Baron's Council cannot be trusted to make important decisions. You are the complete antithesis of wisdom, judgment and leadership. Your sick craving for power is pathetic. You shouldn't stick your nose into a matter that isn't any of your business. You need to stay at home and bounce your kids on your knee all day long. You seem unfit for doing much else.
Why are you so power hungry? Why do you want to make the decision on everything? In the words of Curly Bill, "I tell you boys, even I'm worried what's gonna happen if Var ever runs this outfit. God have mercy!"
Evermeadow's power is absolute. I for one am eternally glad for that. Were the power of DoS wielded by the inept hands of the Baron's Council, the sport would quickly perish. We need a man like Master Evermeadow to run things effectively. We, as duelers, have to trust Val's superiority. He's an excellent leader, and as coordinator, the power is in his hands and his alone. If he wanted to, he could dissolve the whining Baron's Council once and for
all.
I hope he does.
The Barony is a disease that plagues the Duel of Swords.
Proudly,
-Skyler Jackson Chamberland
Date: 25 May 2000 11:37:47 EDT
Var, you and duelers like you are the reason the Baron's Council cannot be trusted to make important decisions. You are the complete antithesis of wisdom, judgment and leadership. Your sick craving for power is pathetic. You shouldn't stick your nose into a matter that isn't any of your business. You need to stay at home and bounce your kids on your knee all day long. You seem unfit for doing much else.
Why are you so power hungry? Why do you want to make the decision on everything? In the words of Curly Bill, "I tell you boys, even I'm worried what's gonna happen if Var ever runs this outfit. God have mercy!"
Evermeadow's power is absolute. I for one am eternally glad for that. Were the power of DoS wielded by the inept hands of the Baron's Council, the sport would quickly perish. We need a man like Master Evermeadow to run things effectively. We, as duelers, have to trust Val's superiority. He's an excellent leader, and as coordinator, the power is in his hands and his alone. If he wanted to, he could dissolve the whining Baron's Council once and for
all.
I hope he does.
The Barony is a disease that plagues the Duel of Swords.
Proudly,
-Skyler Jackson Chamberland
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 25 May 2000 15:04:40 EDT
"Var, did you even read what I wrote? I did not call into question his saying "to hell with all of you, I'm going to do what I please". I called into question his namecalling and immaturity."
Again, Sid, I would rather read him call people names than to make reference to them out of false respect. The "to hell with you" attitude was merely an example. Again, bluntness is what I'd prefer, even if it comes down to rude name calling. But that's just me.
And Skyler, I'm personally glad you don't like my mentality, logic, or leadership. I personally pity Valentine if he has sunk low enough to even meet your approval, because personally, I think you're trash and better off leaving the land altogether.
I personally wouldn't want to match the wisdom and logic of someone who wants to show his personal area to people in the Arena. If Val meets your cliche of good leaders, then that worries me only more.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 25 May 2000 15:04:40 EDT
"Var, did you even read what I wrote? I did not call into question his saying "to hell with all of you, I'm going to do what I please". I called into question his namecalling and immaturity."
Again, Sid, I would rather read him call people names than to make reference to them out of false respect. The "to hell with you" attitude was merely an example. Again, bluntness is what I'd prefer, even if it comes down to rude name calling. But that's just me.
And Skyler, I'm personally glad you don't like my mentality, logic, or leadership. I personally pity Valentine if he has sunk low enough to even meet your approval, because personally, I think you're trash and better off leaving the land altogether.
I personally wouldn't want to match the wisdom and logic of someone who wants to show his personal area to people in the Arena. If Val meets your cliche of good leaders, then that worries me only more.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 25 May 2000 15:52:22 EDT
As sent to Valentine:
~~~~~~~~~
Valentine Evermeadow,
This is the third time I have written to you with the hopes that you may relinquish the situation between Avery and Drey over to the Baron's Council, so we may have a chance at resolving the situation.
As of now, I have seen no proof you have kept contact with Avery, and until that proof is seen, I will believe you have not had any contact with him, and are as clueless as everyone else regarding his whereabouts. Therefore, you have no justification for granting the extension (save for the fact that there's a grace period anyways), which leads me to believe it as an abuse of power.
Again, I will not stop writing until either:
a) You give the community the proof that Avery has requested an extension, as they have the right to know the situation is being handled with care and consideration of the rules, and not your whim. Even if you exclude me and send a letter to everyone else, I do not care, as long as they see you have a good reason for the extension, namely, Avery requested it.
b) You hand the matter over to the council, because if Avery did not request an extension, he has gone past the rules of engagement, for there is no justifiable reason to grant him an extension.
I also ask that for the community's sake, you say the exact deadline you are extending this to. For all we know Avery could have left the realm, and I certainly don't want to be sitting forever, twiddlign my thumbs. I am sure the community does not wish to be sitting in a like position either.
Leave me out to spite me if you wish, but if anything, the community has a right to know by now.
Var Medici-Giovanni
~~~~~~~~~
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 25 May 2000 15:52:22 EDT
As sent to Valentine:
~~~~~~~~~
Valentine Evermeadow,
This is the third time I have written to you with the hopes that you may relinquish the situation between Avery and Drey over to the Baron's Council, so we may have a chance at resolving the situation.
As of now, I have seen no proof you have kept contact with Avery, and until that proof is seen, I will believe you have not had any contact with him, and are as clueless as everyone else regarding his whereabouts. Therefore, you have no justification for granting the extension (save for the fact that there's a grace period anyways), which leads me to believe it as an abuse of power.
Again, I will not stop writing until either:
a) You give the community the proof that Avery has requested an extension, as they have the right to know the situation is being handled with care and consideration of the rules, and not your whim. Even if you exclude me and send a letter to everyone else, I do not care, as long as they see you have a good reason for the extension, namely, Avery requested it.
b) You hand the matter over to the council, because if Avery did not request an extension, he has gone past the rules of engagement, for there is no justifiable reason to grant him an extension.
I also ask that for the community's sake, you say the exact deadline you are extending this to. For all we know Avery could have left the realm, and I certainly don't want to be sitting forever, twiddlign my thumbs. I am sure the community does not wish to be sitting in a like position either.
Leave me out to spite me if you wish, but if anything, the community has a right to know by now.
Var Medici-Giovanni
~~~~~~~~~
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband