From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 25 May 2000 20:09:34 EDT
Sir or Madame
Thee hae writ:
>Avery was scheduled to duel Drey on Sunday May 14, 4 days before the end of
>the allowed time period. On that day, Avery managed to send notice before
>the match he would be unavailable...
I defy thee, Master Starke or Master Evermeadow to produce such by Avery's own hand. The Community and the Baronial Council hast but Master Starke's word upon the matter.
I also defy thee to produce proof that Avery didst request of Master Valentine Evermeadow an extension?
Therefore, indeed, without such proof in the Overlord's hand, tis he indeed ist in forfeit of the duel, and didst become so upon the stroke of midnight upon the eighteenth day of the fifth month. It may also be argued that, fore in Master Starke wast seemingly nae apprised of said extension and fore in that he didst nae appear to face the Overlord either upon the fourteenth day nor upon the eighteenth day, he ast well stands in forfeit of his
challenge.
Jonalyn Starfare
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: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 25 May 2000 20:52:15 EDT
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont,
Sir, Master Valentine Evermeadow wast nae forthcoming unto the community with respect to his unilaterally granting an extension, and I shall state categorically, that to the best of mine knowledge ast commented upon by none less than Master Starke himself, neither the challenger, Master Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke, nor the Overlord, Avery Shiv Blade, were cognizant that such extension hae been made before the eve of the eighteenth.
Indeed, perhaps thee hae overlooked the fact that the Baron, Cletus Gandarfald didst state that he hae attempted to discover from Master Evermeadow what wast being done in this matter and that Master Evermeadow hae seemingly disregarded the Baron's inquiry.
Were it nae that I hae inquired of Master Evermeadow with regard to the matter, the community ast well ast the Baronial Council wouldst yet be in the dark with respect to the decision rendered by Master Evermeadow.
I must take into account, sir, thine previous comments with respect to matters having to do with decisions rendered by a Supervisor. Let us nae forget, sir, that thee held that Madame Jaycynda Ashleana's improper challenge for the Third Ring wast properly upheld in direct contradiction of the rules of engagement merely fore in that Madame Ashleana's servant didst seek to hae the proper ruiling o'erturned by the then Supervisor of the sport, one
Madame Helix Gilyan Deverrey Girvin.
Perhaps nae forfeiture hae been declared afore the eve of the eighteenth and e'en unto this day forein Master Starke hae yet to seek out an official to appear? One must ponder, whyfore hae the Renegade Baron so blithely chosen to prevent the Council from delving into the matter by refusing to seek out an official afore the extension issued by Master Valentine Evermeadow wast made known unto him.
Master Valentine Evermeadow may hae the right to cast aside the rules of engagement, yet, sir, having the right to do something nae makes such proper.
One must indeed ponder the unilateral actions of Master Evermeadow, One ast well must ponder whyfore, after the matter wast broached unto him by the Baron Cletus Ganderfald and then by mineself, that Master Evermeadow seemed reluctant to apprise the community until he wast called to task.
Tis clearly an attempt upon the part of Master Evermeadow to usurp the rights and privileges of the Baronial Council ast granted unto them by the charter of the duels. Such be the beginnings of tyranny, sir
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 25 May 2000 20:52:15 EDT
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont,
Sir, Master Valentine Evermeadow wast nae forthcoming unto the community with respect to his unilaterally granting an extension, and I shall state categorically, that to the best of mine knowledge ast commented upon by none less than Master Starke himself, neither the challenger, Master Drey D'erest Sanchez Starke, nor the Overlord, Avery Shiv Blade, were cognizant that such extension hae been made before the eve of the eighteenth.
Indeed, perhaps thee hae overlooked the fact that the Baron, Cletus Gandarfald didst state that he hae attempted to discover from Master Evermeadow what wast being done in this matter and that Master Evermeadow hae seemingly disregarded the Baron's inquiry.
Were it nae that I hae inquired of Master Evermeadow with regard to the matter, the community ast well ast the Baronial Council wouldst yet be in the dark with respect to the decision rendered by Master Evermeadow.
I must take into account, sir, thine previous comments with respect to matters having to do with decisions rendered by a Supervisor. Let us nae forget, sir, that thee held that Madame Jaycynda Ashleana's improper challenge for the Third Ring wast properly upheld in direct contradiction of the rules of engagement merely fore in that Madame Ashleana's servant didst seek to hae the proper ruiling o'erturned by the then Supervisor of the sport, one
Madame Helix Gilyan Deverrey Girvin.
Perhaps nae forfeiture hae been declared afore the eve of the eighteenth and e'en unto this day forein Master Starke hae yet to seek out an official to appear? One must ponder, whyfore hae the Renegade Baron so blithely chosen to prevent the Council from delving into the matter by refusing to seek out an official afore the extension issued by Master Valentine Evermeadow wast made known unto him.
Master Valentine Evermeadow may hae the right to cast aside the rules of engagement, yet, sir, having the right to do something nae makes such proper.
One must indeed ponder the unilateral actions of Master Evermeadow, One ast well must ponder whyfore, after the matter wast broached unto him by the Baron Cletus Ganderfald and then by mineself, that Master Evermeadow seemed reluctant to apprise the community until he wast called to task.
Tis clearly an attempt upon the part of Master Evermeadow to usurp the rights and privileges of the Baronial Council ast granted unto them by the charter of the duels. Such be the beginnings of tyranny, sir
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 25 May 2000 23:38:17 EDT
"Tis clearly an attempt upon the part of Master Evermeadow to usurp the rights and privileges of the Baronial Council ast granted unto them by the charter of the duels. Such be the beginnings of tyranny, sir."
Once again, Lady Starfare... until the Supervisor, or one of his appointed officials operating properly within the bounds of their appointed duties, has indeed ruled a forfeit, the rights of the Council have not been touched in the least. Until such ruling is made, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.
It is with some amusement that I find myself forced to note that I have not commented on whether this extension is or is not warranted - and I will not offer such comment, either in favor or in opposition, until the fallacious arguments cease. The point I am trying to get through to certain thick-headed individuals here is that you're arguing the wrong point. The Council, as an entity, has no business making ANY demand that a matter be turned over
to them; indeed, the Council, as an entity, does not exist until the Supervisor charges them with making a decision. There is a separation of power implicit in the rules themselves on this very issue, and it is there for a reason. By extension, one might also argue that it is improper for a member OF the Council to argue that a matter be turned over TO the Council, on grounds of conflict of interest. Simply put, the Council's rights and
responsibilities do NOT include determining whether a forfeit has occurred; as such, issuing public demands that a forfeit BE ruled because "The Council" thinks one should be is inappropriate.
Argue this issue all you want, but stop using fallacious arguments to do so. The Council exists on an ad hoc basis when their judgment is called for. The Council has not been convened, therefore it does not exist; an entity which does not exist cannot have its rights usurped. Period.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 25 May 2000 23:38:17 EDT
"Tis clearly an attempt upon the part of Master Evermeadow to usurp the rights and privileges of the Baronial Council ast granted unto them by the charter of the duels. Such be the beginnings of tyranny, sir."
Once again, Lady Starfare... until the Supervisor, or one of his appointed officials operating properly within the bounds of their appointed duties, has indeed ruled a forfeit, the rights of the Council have not been touched in the least. Until such ruling is made, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS.
It is with some amusement that I find myself forced to note that I have not commented on whether this extension is or is not warranted - and I will not offer such comment, either in favor or in opposition, until the fallacious arguments cease. The point I am trying to get through to certain thick-headed individuals here is that you're arguing the wrong point. The Council, as an entity, has no business making ANY demand that a matter be turned over
to them; indeed, the Council, as an entity, does not exist until the Supervisor charges them with making a decision. There is a separation of power implicit in the rules themselves on this very issue, and it is there for a reason. By extension, one might also argue that it is improper for a member OF the Council to argue that a matter be turned over TO the Council, on grounds of conflict of interest. Simply put, the Council's rights and
responsibilities do NOT include determining whether a forfeit has occurred; as such, issuing public demands that a forfeit BE ruled because "The Council" thinks one should be is inappropriate.
Argue this issue all you want, but stop using fallacious arguments to do so. The Council exists on an ad hoc basis when their judgment is called for. The Council has not been convened, therefore it does not exist; an entity which does not exist cannot have its rights usurped. Period.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 26 May 2000 01:21:28 EDT
M'lord Ian,
Among the duties of the officials of this ancient sport be the responsibility to abide by the rules of engagement. Indeed, Ian, the Council holds no privilege to declare the match to be in forfeit. That duty, privilege and responsibility resides with the uniformed officials of this sport. Master Valentine Evermeadow, hast by fait accompli, removed the right and privilege of the officials of this sport to come forth and declare a forfeiture.
Would thee then hae the Council sit in silence and nae demand of the highest official of this sport that he carry out his duties? Witness the declaration by the Baron Cletus Gandarfald that Master Evermeadow made no statement upon the matter either publicly or privily when the Baron first made inquiry.
I do hold that the actions of Master Valentine Evermeadow do but make a sham and farce of the Baronial Council, and do show an utter disregard for both the letter ast well ast for the spirit of the charter of laws which do govern the sport.
Ast long ast Master Valentine Evermeadow exercises his prerogatives in this manner, sir, indeed, such be the beginnings of tyranny.
Ast sovereign, thou art certes free to exercise thine prerogatives within thine own kingdom and within those lands whose nobles hae sworn unto thee their fealty. Yet, Ian, were thee to arbitrarily set aside the laws and charters granted unto Moorside, methinks thine nobles wouldst desire of thee thine reasons ast well ast request of thee, nae e'en to perhaps demand of thee to know what happenstance wouldst need must exist for thee to return unto
thine nobles and unto those of Moorside those rights, duties, privileges and judgements which hae previously devolved upon them. Were thee to refuse the requests of thine nobles and citizenry, sir, might thee nae find thineself soon faced with open rebellion?
Nay less, do thee find the Barons ast well questioning, nae e'en demanding of Master Evermeadow that he dost permit the natural course of events to occur in this matter.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 26 May 2000 01:21:28 EDT
M'lord Ian,
Among the duties of the officials of this ancient sport be the responsibility to abide by the rules of engagement. Indeed, Ian, the Council holds no privilege to declare the match to be in forfeit. That duty, privilege and responsibility resides with the uniformed officials of this sport. Master Valentine Evermeadow, hast by fait accompli, removed the right and privilege of the officials of this sport to come forth and declare a forfeiture.
Would thee then hae the Council sit in silence and nae demand of the highest official of this sport that he carry out his duties? Witness the declaration by the Baron Cletus Gandarfald that Master Evermeadow made no statement upon the matter either publicly or privily when the Baron first made inquiry.
I do hold that the actions of Master Valentine Evermeadow do but make a sham and farce of the Baronial Council, and do show an utter disregard for both the letter ast well ast for the spirit of the charter of laws which do govern the sport.
Ast long ast Master Valentine Evermeadow exercises his prerogatives in this manner, sir, indeed, such be the beginnings of tyranny.
Ast sovereign, thou art certes free to exercise thine prerogatives within thine own kingdom and within those lands whose nobles hae sworn unto thee their fealty. Yet, Ian, were thee to arbitrarily set aside the laws and charters granted unto Moorside, methinks thine nobles wouldst desire of thee thine reasons ast well ast request of thee, nae e'en to perhaps demand of thee to know what happenstance wouldst need must exist for thee to return unto
thine nobles and unto those of Moorside those rights, duties, privileges and judgements which hae previously devolved upon them. Were thee to refuse the requests of thine nobles and citizenry, sir, might thee nae find thineself soon faced with open rebellion?
Nay less, do thee find the Barons ast well questioning, nae e'en demanding of Master Evermeadow that he dost permit the natural course of events to occur in this matter.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 26 May 2000 01:23:17 EDT
"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."
Again I point to the fact that you can be blunt while *not* being a horse's arse about it.
~Sidartha
Date: 26 May 2000 01:23:17 EDT
"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."
Again I point to the fact that you can be blunt while *not* being a horse's arse about it.
~Sidartha
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 26 May 2000 01:26:04 EDT
"Tis clearly an attempt upon the part of Master Evermeadow to usurp the rights and privileges of the Baronial Council ast granted unto them by the charter of the duels. Such be the beginnings of tyranny, sir"
The only tyranny is that of the Baronial Council in demanding what is not theirs to demand. Nowhere in the Rules of Engagement does it state that the Baronial Council has *any* rights in this matter *before* a forfeit has been declared.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 26 May 2000 01:26:04 EDT
"Tis clearly an attempt upon the part of Master Evermeadow to usurp the rights and privileges of the Baronial Council ast granted unto them by the charter of the duels. Such be the beginnings of tyranny, sir"
The only tyranny is that of the Baronial Council in demanding what is not theirs to demand. Nowhere in the Rules of Engagement does it state that the Baronial Council has *any* rights in this matter *before* a forfeit has been declared.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 26 May 2000 07:14:27 EDT
"That duty, privilege and responsibility resides with the uniformed officials of this sport. Master Valentine Evermeadow, hast by fait accompli, removed the right and privilege of the officials of this sport to come forth and declare a forfeiture."
Excuse me, Lady Starfare? This is not Lady Silvertree you're conversing with here. Lord Evermeadow IS THE uniformed official of this sport. They all serve at his sufferance. That is why he is called "the supervisor." When the officials of this sport, as you put it, "come forth and declare a forfeiture," they are acting as Lord Evermeadow's spokespersons, not exercising their "rights and privileges." Good grief, I'd think this was patently
obvious to anyone.
"Would thee then hae the Council sit in silence and nae demand of the highest official of this sport that he carry out his duties?"
You're damned right I would. The Council does not exist except when called into being. They have no right to speak as a body otherwise. To flail and point at rules and blather on about rights and privileges, and then fail to accept that by the very rules as written, the Council doesn't actually have any rights at ALL at the moment, is hypocrisy.
"I do hold that the actions of Master Valentine Evermeadow do but make a sham and farce of the Baronial Council, and do show an utter disregard for both the letter ast well ast for the spirit of the charter of laws which do govern the sport."
I will again state: the right to extend the challenge window unilaterally as exercised by the venerable Gloin is not a right that the Supervisor has ever relinquished. Your continued assertion that Lord Evermeadow is disregarding the laws of this sport is tantamount to slander. I call upon you to retract it.
Remember, one may make a decision which is wholly legal, and yet still wholly wrong. I fully agree with questioning the PROPRIETY of this decision. I fully object to questioning the LEGALITY of it. The first question speaks to one's diplomacy, as it were, while the second is an accusation of misconduct and malfeasance.
Translation: No matter the circumstances here, it is my firm belief that Lord Evermeadow has acted within his rights, and did what he thought was best in the situation. Do remember, Lady Starfare, that - contrary to the worldview you have apparently become jaded to over the years - not every mistaken action can be attributed to tyranny, incompetence, or a lack of decency.
"Ast long ast Master Valentine Evermeadow exercises his prerogatives in this manner, sir, indeed, such be the beginnings of tyranny."
This argument is so ludicrous as to be laughable, Lady Starfare; by the same token, any time the Council exercises their prerogatives, such as they are, "such be the beginnings of tyranny." One has rights and prerogatives for a reason, and to complain because they are being used is the tactic of a weak activist.
"Yet, Ian, were thee to arbitrarily set aside the laws and charters granted unto Moorside..."
Your analogy is flawed in one specific direction: Moorside exists. The Council, until the Supervisor calls upon them, does not.
This is a very salient point that some people are having trouble grasping. The Council has no rights granted to it, because it has not been convened. It's a non-existent entity. It is a fiction. If, indeed, the Council has been gathered to contemplate action, I would be forced to call upon the populace to visualize the prospect of a military coup - because that's the exact nature of this current "Council" action.
The Barons, quite frankly, have expressed a vested interest in this issue. As such, they should be recusing themselves from public activism on the matter. Again, a jury has no business telling the state's counsel whom to charge with murder. And in the end, that's all the Baron's Council - once convened, of course - is. A jury.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 26 May 2000 07:14:27 EDT
"That duty, privilege and responsibility resides with the uniformed officials of this sport. Master Valentine Evermeadow, hast by fait accompli, removed the right and privilege of the officials of this sport to come forth and declare a forfeiture."
Excuse me, Lady Starfare? This is not Lady Silvertree you're conversing with here. Lord Evermeadow IS THE uniformed official of this sport. They all serve at his sufferance. That is why he is called "the supervisor." When the officials of this sport, as you put it, "come forth and declare a forfeiture," they are acting as Lord Evermeadow's spokespersons, not exercising their "rights and privileges." Good grief, I'd think this was patently
obvious to anyone.
"Would thee then hae the Council sit in silence and nae demand of the highest official of this sport that he carry out his duties?"
You're damned right I would. The Council does not exist except when called into being. They have no right to speak as a body otherwise. To flail and point at rules and blather on about rights and privileges, and then fail to accept that by the very rules as written, the Council doesn't actually have any rights at ALL at the moment, is hypocrisy.
"I do hold that the actions of Master Valentine Evermeadow do but make a sham and farce of the Baronial Council, and do show an utter disregard for both the letter ast well ast for the spirit of the charter of laws which do govern the sport."
I will again state: the right to extend the challenge window unilaterally as exercised by the venerable Gloin is not a right that the Supervisor has ever relinquished. Your continued assertion that Lord Evermeadow is disregarding the laws of this sport is tantamount to slander. I call upon you to retract it.
Remember, one may make a decision which is wholly legal, and yet still wholly wrong. I fully agree with questioning the PROPRIETY of this decision. I fully object to questioning the LEGALITY of it. The first question speaks to one's diplomacy, as it were, while the second is an accusation of misconduct and malfeasance.
Translation: No matter the circumstances here, it is my firm belief that Lord Evermeadow has acted within his rights, and did what he thought was best in the situation. Do remember, Lady Starfare, that - contrary to the worldview you have apparently become jaded to over the years - not every mistaken action can be attributed to tyranny, incompetence, or a lack of decency.
"Ast long ast Master Valentine Evermeadow exercises his prerogatives in this manner, sir, indeed, such be the beginnings of tyranny."
This argument is so ludicrous as to be laughable, Lady Starfare; by the same token, any time the Council exercises their prerogatives, such as they are, "such be the beginnings of tyranny." One has rights and prerogatives for a reason, and to complain because they are being used is the tactic of a weak activist.
"Yet, Ian, were thee to arbitrarily set aside the laws and charters granted unto Moorside..."
Your analogy is flawed in one specific direction: Moorside exists. The Council, until the Supervisor calls upon them, does not.
This is a very salient point that some people are having trouble grasping. The Council has no rights granted to it, because it has not been convened. It's a non-existent entity. It is a fiction. If, indeed, the Council has been gathered to contemplate action, I would be forced to call upon the populace to visualize the prospect of a military coup - because that's the exact nature of this current "Council" action.
The Barons, quite frankly, have expressed a vested interest in this issue. As such, they should be recusing themselves from public activism on the matter. Again, a jury has no business telling the state's counsel whom to charge with murder. And in the end, that's all the Baron's Council - once convened, of course - is. A jury.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 26 May 2000 15:21:37 EDT
"Again I point to the fact that you can be blunt while *not* being a horse's arse about it."
I'd rather see someone as a horse's arse if that's what they really are. Again, that's just me.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 26 May 2000 15:21:37 EDT
"Again I point to the fact that you can be blunt while *not* being a horse's arse about it."
I'd rather see someone as a horse's arse if that's what they really are. Again, that's just me.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 26 May 2000 19:56:11 EDT
No one is above the law. Not even the Supervisor. I remind you all of this as I quote directly from the Duel of Swords's rules of engagement in response to G's question/comments.
"And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response."
-Universal Terms of Challenge
Implicitly, it follows that when the two-week limit is surpassed, the challenged is held in forfeit.
"1. A Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit."
-Baron's Council
As you can tell, the underlines within the quotes are for my emphasis. Valentine directly violated the rules by contorting an exact time limit stated within. The matter should have been turned to the Council once the deadline stated in the rules was surpassed, and the Council should have been the decider in whether or not an extension should be granted.
It's in the rules, kid. There are no first or second forfeits, just one. And one is all it takes.
Del
Date: 26 May 2000 19:56:11 EDT
No one is above the law. Not even the Supervisor. I remind you all of this as I quote directly from the Duel of Swords's rules of engagement in response to G's question/comments.
"And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response."
-Universal Terms of Challenge
Implicitly, it follows that when the two-week limit is surpassed, the challenged is held in forfeit.
"1. A Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit."
-Baron's Council
As you can tell, the underlines within the quotes are for my emphasis. Valentine directly violated the rules by contorting an exact time limit stated within. The matter should have been turned to the Council once the deadline stated in the rules was surpassed, and the Council should have been the decider in whether or not an extension should be granted.
It's in the rules, kid. There are no first or second forfeits, just one. And one is all it takes.
Del
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 26 May 2000 20:27:33 EDT
For the obviously slow minded.
>
>"And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within
>one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks
>of the response."
>-Universal Terms of Challenge
Bold Emphasis mine.
It was specifically addressed that there would be an extension by the Supervisor, therefore, there is NO Forfeit to call on.
>"1. A Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the
>Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit."
Gee, since there is NO reason for a forfeit, there's -NO- reason for there to be a Baron's Council.
Do you, can you, see why those screaming about this whole thing are wrong?
The Supervisor granted the extension, there's -NO- Forfeit to call upon.
And some people think I'm dense.
There are No Forfeits, apparently. Nor are there going to be. So stop whining about how your rights are being trampled on because there's no Barons Council being convened. You're just showing everyone how thick headed you all are.
God, there needs to be some smart people made Barons again, instead of these thick headed fools who don't know their place.
Date: 26 May 2000 20:27:33 EDT
For the obviously slow minded.
>
>"And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within
>one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks
>of the response."
>-Universal Terms of Challenge
Bold Emphasis mine.
It was specifically addressed that there would be an extension by the Supervisor, therefore, there is NO Forfeit to call on.
>"1. A Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or the
>Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a forfeit."
Gee, since there is NO reason for a forfeit, there's -NO- reason for there to be a Baron's Council.
Do you, can you, see why those screaming about this whole thing are wrong?
The Supervisor granted the extension, there's -NO- Forfeit to call upon.
And some people think I'm dense.
There are No Forfeits, apparently. Nor are there going to be. So stop whining about how your rights are being trampled on because there's no Barons Council being convened. You're just showing everyone how thick headed you all are.
God, there needs to be some smart people made Barons again, instead of these thick headed fools who don't know their place.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 26 May 2000 20:43:12 EDT
Let's hope a forfeit comes soon, Gnort. Unless this challenge can be fought before Tuesday night, that is. Otherwise we're going to run into a serious mess once a challenger comes from the Warlord Tournament.
-Rix
Date: 26 May 2000 20:43:12 EDT
Let's hope a forfeit comes soon, Gnort. Unless this challenge can be fought before Tuesday night, that is. Otherwise we're going to run into a serious mess once a challenger comes from the Warlord Tournament.
-Rix
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 26 May 2000 21:59:40 EDT
"And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response."
-Universal Terms of Challenge
By whom, or what? The Supervisor, or the rules? I vote the latter. Allow me to point out that the Universal Terms of Challenge were the first to be written in the rules of challenge, and that this loophole was written in case specific circumstances regarding Baronial or Overlord challenges and time restraints were discussed later as the remaining rules were being written. This is just my opinion, but the total vagueness of the referred clause
strongly backs it, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. And I especially have no reason to believe it refers to a power held by the Supervisor.
And if you are going to build your entire argument on those four vague, obsolete words, I highly--I repeat--highly suggest you take a different approach, otherwise it doesn't hold water. As for your insults, I invite more. Each one you throw further entangles you with that rabble of patrons you so enjoy to complain about. Hypocrite.
Date: 26 May 2000 21:59:40 EDT
"And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation (by the Date/Time stamp) and dueled within two weeks of the response."
-Universal Terms of Challenge
By whom, or what? The Supervisor, or the rules? I vote the latter. Allow me to point out that the Universal Terms of Challenge were the first to be written in the rules of challenge, and that this loophole was written in case specific circumstances regarding Baronial or Overlord challenges and time restraints were discussed later as the remaining rules were being written. This is just my opinion, but the total vagueness of the referred clause
strongly backs it, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. And I especially have no reason to believe it refers to a power held by the Supervisor.
And if you are going to build your entire argument on those four vague, obsolete words, I highly--I repeat--highly suggest you take a different approach, otherwise it doesn't hold water. As for your insults, I invite more. Each one you throw further entangles you with that rabble of patrons you so enjoy to complain about. Hypocrite.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 26 May 2000 21:59:46 EDT
Well Rix,
If a Forfeit -does- come, then we can turn it over to the council and let them badger each other about it, instead of hearing their stupidity strewn over the boards.
But that's just if the forfeit does come, otherwise, it's in No Way in the Barons hands, and it shouldn't be.
Agreed? :)
G
Date: 26 May 2000 21:59:46 EDT
Well Rix,
If a Forfeit -does- come, then we can turn it over to the council and let them badger each other about it, instead of hearing their stupidity strewn over the boards.
But that's just if the forfeit does come, otherwise, it's in No Way in the Barons hands, and it shouldn't be.
Agreed? :)
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 26 May 2000 22:17:03 EDT
"I'd rather see someone as a horse's arse if that's what they really are. Again, that's just me."
I would rather someone in a supervisory position behave in a professional manner, rather than acting like a child having a temper-tantrum.
Again I will ask that if he cannot even control himself to a modicum of professionalism in *this* situation, how will he react to a greater problem?
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 26 May 2000 22:17:03 EDT
"I'd rather see someone as a horse's arse if that's what they really are. Again, that's just me."
I would rather someone in a supervisory position behave in a professional manner, rather than acting like a child having a temper-tantrum.
Again I will ask that if he cannot even control himself to a modicum of professionalism in *this* situation, how will he react to a greater problem?
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 26 May 2000 22:59:09 EDT
Agreed. I would just like to see this whole matter taken care of soon and one way or another so worse situations are avoided.
-Rix
Date: 26 May 2000 22:59:09 EDT
Agreed. I would just like to see this whole matter taken care of soon and one way or another so worse situations are avoided.
-Rix