From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 27 May 2000 03:51:23 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"
Where not specifically addressed. It does not say "Where not specifically addressed in the rules." That being the case, the argument that the Supervisor "specifically addressed" this issue can only be held to be an invalid interpretation of the rule by one party....
The Supervisor.
Sorry, kids, but there's still no violation of the rules as written, no matter how badly you want there to be.
"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."
An absolutely inappropriate reading of the rules. The matter is only turned over to the council when a forfeit is ruled. Only the Supervisor or his subordinates can rule a forfeit.
What this really boils down to is this: there must be a party who has the authority to put off the ruling of a forfeit, because there WILL BE situations where it is justified. That party CANNOT be the Council, as the Council DOES NOT EXIST until a forfeit has already been ruled.
Precedent has held that the right to grant an extension, and thereby set aside a state of forfeiture, already belongs specifically to the Supervisor.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
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: 27 May 2000 03:58:49 EDT
"By whom, or what? The Supervisor, or the rules? I vote the latter."
Unfortunately, this is not a legislative session. You don't get to vote on it.
"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..."
With all due respect, Lord Ev'rt, don't you think the opinions of those who were involved in the crafting of these rules - not least of which being Lord Ar'Din, who practically wrote half of them himself - weigh just a tad more than your own?
"...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."
I again refer to the case of People vs. Gloin, MacKenzie, Ray, Gnimoi, and Ar'Din, where it was held that the Supervisor most certainly DID have this right, and then I refer you to the rules, where said right is not enumerated among those transferred from the Supervisor to any other entity.
If the right has not been transferred to someone else, then the Supervisor must still retain it. Surely you people are bright enough to grasp this simple concept.
"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."
A highly entertaining turn of phrase, as the logic of the situation seems to run through some of your minds like a colander. I am sure the public is weary of me having to explain simple and rudimentary things here, but as long as the people who clamor to be given the right to make rulings in this community continue to so grossly misunderstand the situation, I fear I'm forced to continue to correct them.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 27 May 2000 03:58:49 EDT
"By whom, or what? The Supervisor, or the rules? I vote the latter."
Unfortunately, this is not a legislative session. You don't get to vote on it.
"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..."
With all due respect, Lord Ev'rt, don't you think the opinions of those who were involved in the crafting of these rules - not least of which being Lord Ar'Din, who practically wrote half of them himself - weigh just a tad more than your own?
"...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."
I again refer to the case of People vs. Gloin, MacKenzie, Ray, Gnimoi, and Ar'Din, where it was held that the Supervisor most certainly DID have this right, and then I refer you to the rules, where said right is not enumerated among those transferred from the Supervisor to any other entity.
If the right has not been transferred to someone else, then the Supervisor must still retain it. Surely you people are bright enough to grasp this simple concept.
"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."
A highly entertaining turn of phrase, as the logic of the situation seems to run through some of your minds like a colander. I am sure the public is weary of me having to explain simple and rudimentary things here, but as long as the people who clamor to be given the right to make rulings in this community continue to so grossly misunderstand the situation, I fear I'm forced to continue to correct them.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 27 May 2000 15:08:06 EDT
I'd answer the ignorance of Deluthan, but it seems the MacKenzie has beaten me to the boards in this case. Perhaps the uneducated have finally learned something.
But then, I doubt it.
Date: 27 May 2000 15:08:06 EDT
I'd answer the ignorance of Deluthan, but it seems the MacKenzie has beaten me to the boards in this case. Perhaps the uneducated have finally learned something.
But then, I doubt it.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 27 May 2000 15:35:37 EDT
I don't think our point is being understood.
Without word from Avery, Val does not have proper justification to grant an extension. We are not saying Val does not have ANY right to grant an extension in any case, but in this case, when there appears to be no reason to grant an extension, he shouldn't.
Again, the Council is not to be convened until called upon by Val, as we recognize his right as a supervisor to tell us when we may begin. In this case, however, Val is doing it solely on whim, and in the future, other challenges don't have to be met within the three weeks, because now we don't even need a reason to go beyond the rules of engagement. We can just miss and "trust in our good ol' buddy Val" to grant us an extension while we go to
God knows where, doing God knows what.
I really hope this logic isn't misunderstood, because I can't think of a way to place it in more simple terms.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 27 May 2000 15:35:37 EDT
I don't think our point is being understood.
Without word from Avery, Val does not have proper justification to grant an extension. We are not saying Val does not have ANY right to grant an extension in any case, but in this case, when there appears to be no reason to grant an extension, he shouldn't.
Again, the Council is not to be convened until called upon by Val, as we recognize his right as a supervisor to tell us when we may begin. In this case, however, Val is doing it solely on whim, and in the future, other challenges don't have to be met within the three weeks, because now we don't even need a reason to go beyond the rules of engagement. We can just miss and "trust in our good ol' buddy Val" to grant us an extension while we go to
God knows where, doing God knows what.
I really hope this logic isn't misunderstood, because I can't think of a way to place it in more simple terms.
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: 27 May 2000 15:57:29 EDT
"I don't think our point is being understood."
I understand your point just fine, Var. Problem is, you're completely wrong, which is the point YOU don't understand.
Once again, I'll repeat myself in hopes that you'll actually pay attention to something other than your own navel for a change:
"Without word from Avery, Val does not have proper justification to grant an extension."
Gloin had no "word" from any of us when he requested that we extend the challenge back then, either. Having exercised the right to request an extension without a request from any involved dueler, and having had that right upheld, placed the Supervisor's right to do so in force. As that right has not been taken AWAY from the Supervisor by any subsequent ruling, then the Supervisor MUST still have that right. How can he NOT have it if it hasn't been
taken away?
"In this case, however, Val is doing it solely on whim, and in the future, other challenges don't have to be met within the three weeks, because now we don't even need a reason to go beyond the rules of engagement."
Your complaint, by my records, is about 15 Overlords late.
"I really hope this logic isn't misunderstood, because I can't think of a way to place it in more simple terms."
I'd understand it if it weren't built on ground which is faulty and brittle. You make the assumption that Lord Evermeadow is doing something which he has no precedent for. You fail to grasp my repeated statements regarding history. You fail to understand the simple concept that if neither he nor his predecessors relinquished a right which they previously held, then they must, by definition, still possess that right.
I can't think of a way to place THAT in more simple terms.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 27 May 2000 15:57:29 EDT
"I don't think our point is being understood."
I understand your point just fine, Var. Problem is, you're completely wrong, which is the point YOU don't understand.
Once again, I'll repeat myself in hopes that you'll actually pay attention to something other than your own navel for a change:
"Without word from Avery, Val does not have proper justification to grant an extension."
Gloin had no "word" from any of us when he requested that we extend the challenge back then, either. Having exercised the right to request an extension without a request from any involved dueler, and having had that right upheld, placed the Supervisor's right to do so in force. As that right has not been taken AWAY from the Supervisor by any subsequent ruling, then the Supervisor MUST still have that right. How can he NOT have it if it hasn't been
taken away?
"In this case, however, Val is doing it solely on whim, and in the future, other challenges don't have to be met within the three weeks, because now we don't even need a reason to go beyond the rules of engagement."
Your complaint, by my records, is about 15 Overlords late.
"I really hope this logic isn't misunderstood, because I can't think of a way to place it in more simple terms."
I'd understand it if it weren't built on ground which is faulty and brittle. You make the assumption that Lord Evermeadow is doing something which he has no precedent for. You fail to grasp my repeated statements regarding history. You fail to understand the simple concept that if neither he nor his predecessors relinquished a right which they previously held, then they must, by definition, still possess that right.
I can't think of a way to place THAT in more simple terms.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 27 May 2000 19:50:06 EDT
Thank you, G'nort and Sir MacKenzie. It truly elates me to know that these so-called Baronies of ours carry no significance or responsibility, except a medium through which to trash-talk. Whenever Valentine gets bored on waiting for Avery--be it after a month, a year--and decides to give the Barons in his nursery something to play with, someone be sure to let me know.
For the time being, as we sit idly by chewing on our lips and hanging on Valentine's every word, I ask you all to question what it is you'd like to be fighting for in this arena, and what bearing you'd like to see in our Baronies and Overlordship. . . . Finally I understand the reason behind the waning honor of this sport, and why certain Barons felt no hindrance in betting their tities on pointless duels.
My apologies go out to G'nort for accusing him of disgracing the Ninth ring, since I now find it impossible for anyone to disgrace such pieces of shrapnel with anything short of physical abuse. My apologies to the rest for ever thinking these titles meant something.
Frankly,
Deluthan Ev'rt
Date: 27 May 2000 19:50:06 EDT
Thank you, G'nort and Sir MacKenzie. It truly elates me to know that these so-called Baronies of ours carry no significance or responsibility, except a medium through which to trash-talk. Whenever Valentine gets bored on waiting for Avery--be it after a month, a year--and decides to give the Barons in his nursery something to play with, someone be sure to let me know.
For the time being, as we sit idly by chewing on our lips and hanging on Valentine's every word, I ask you all to question what it is you'd like to be fighting for in this arena, and what bearing you'd like to see in our Baronies and Overlordship. . . . Finally I understand the reason behind the waning honor of this sport, and why certain Barons felt no hindrance in betting their tities on pointless duels.
My apologies go out to G'nort for accusing him of disgracing the Ninth ring, since I now find it impossible for anyone to disgrace such pieces of shrapnel with anything short of physical abuse. My apologies to the rest for ever thinking these titles meant something.
Frankly,
Deluthan Ev'rt
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 27 May 2000 20:20:32 EDT
Well Del, since you think you're so smart.
Tell me, what do the Baronies mean? I'm ever so curious as to your thoughts on that subject.
From the impression I get, you think that a Baron's title is to give you free reign on voting and judging on every subject that comes into controversy within the Arena. That because you're above the rank of Warlord, you're entitled to special privilages. You make it appear that because you're a Baron, you can interpret the rules how you wish, and make claims of power over that of the Supervisor.
Do explain in detail whether my assumptions are close or not.
Date: 27 May 2000 20:20:32 EDT
Well Del, since you think you're so smart.
Tell me, what do the Baronies mean? I'm ever so curious as to your thoughts on that subject.
From the impression I get, you think that a Baron's title is to give you free reign on voting and judging on every subject that comes into controversy within the Arena. That because you're above the rank of Warlord, you're entitled to special privilages. You make it appear that because you're a Baron, you can interpret the rules how you wish, and make claims of power over that of the Supervisor.
Do explain in detail whether my assumptions are close or not.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 27 May 2000 21:29:41 EDT
>Tell me, what do the Baronies mean?
They mean nothing. Whatever I once felt they meant is obviously insignificant, but if you or anyone else is actually interested in my previous feelings, I'll do my best to express them.
Del
Date: 27 May 2000 21:29:41 EDT
>Tell me, what do the Baronies mean?
They mean nothing. Whatever I once felt they meant is obviously insignificant, but if you or anyone else is actually interested in my previous feelings, I'll do my best to express them.
Del
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 27 May 2000 23:33:01 EDT
>Whatever I once felt they meant is obviously insignificant, but if you or
>anyone else is actually interested in my previous feelings, I'll do my best
>to express them.
I would be interested, Del. We hear a great deal about "The Honor of the Rings (baronies)". We hear about the responsibility to the community that comes with the title, Baron.... Mostly we hear these this things from those in the community that aren't Barons, and never have been. I'm not saying that you would need to be a Baron to have strong feelings regarding the Baronies. I'm only wondering what the feelings are of the those that actually
hold the titles.
Khrys
Date: 27 May 2000 23:33:01 EDT
>Whatever I once felt they meant is obviously insignificant, but if you or
>anyone else is actually interested in my previous feelings, I'll do my best
>to express them.
I would be interested, Del. We hear a great deal about "The Honor of the Rings (baronies)". We hear about the responsibility to the community that comes with the title, Baron.... Mostly we hear these this things from those in the community that aren't Barons, and never have been. I'm not saying that you would need to be a Baron to have strong feelings regarding the Baronies. I'm only wondering what the feelings are of the those that actually
hold the titles.
Khrys
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 28 May 2000 00:02:48 EDT
As written to Val:
~~~~~~
Valentine Evermeadow,
I believe this is the fifth time I have written to you, demanding you turn the matter over to us if Avery has, indeed, not sent you word. I feel that if Avery has failed to abide by the Universal Terms of Challenge, it is your duty to call it a forfeit and hand the matter over to the council so they may decide.
Var Medici-Giovanni
~~~~~~
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 28 May 2000 00:02:48 EDT
As written to Val:
~~~~~~
Valentine Evermeadow,
I believe this is the fifth time I have written to you, demanding you turn the matter over to us if Avery has, indeed, not sent you word. I feel that if Avery has failed to abide by the Universal Terms of Challenge, it is your duty to call it a forfeit and hand the matter over to the council so they may decide.
Var Medici-Giovanni
~~~~~~
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: 28 May 2000 01:07:41 EDT
"Thank you, G'nort and Sir MacKenzie. It truly elates me to know that these so-called Baronies of ours carry no significance or responsibility..."
First, as I have mentioned previously - ironically enough, in public debate with Lord Evermeadow - I'm not "Sir" anything.
You may recall, Lord Ev'rt, that in past discussions on your maturity and fitness to hold title, I have defended you. Such childish and petulant comments as yours above can only serve to give me cause to question whether I offered that defense foolishly.
I have not said, implied, or even thought that the Baronies do not carry significance or responsibility. I am arguing that responsibility be placed where rule and precedent have clearly placed it. Your response, which is a wholly inaccurate characterization, serves only to further emotionally inflame the issue, to no purpose whatsoever.
"For the time being, as we sit idly by chewing on our lips and hanging on Valentine's every word, I ask you all to question what it is you'd like to be fighting for in this arena, and what bearing you'd like to see in our Baronies and Overlordship. . . "
As you sit there sarcastically responding rather than addressing the real issue, it might behoove you to go back and re-read my commentary.
I have stated that I don't necessarily agree that Lord Evermeadow's decision to postpone was the correct one. I have stated that he should inform the community when this extension expires. I also agree with Lord Ganderfald's point that it should expire in time for an active and available Overlord to be in place for the end of the Warlord Tourney.
The bearing I would like to see is one which respects the rules, as well as the precedents which cover issues which are not clearly outlined within the rules. In the absence of a rules amendment prohibiting the Supervisor from allowing an extension, we must grant - based on precedent - that he does, indeed, have that right.
In short, I am defending the Supervisor ONLY on charges of willfully violating the RULES; I have made no defense of the correctness of his actions. I'm afraid I must question the overall ability to render judgment on any issue of those of you who have failed to understand this, as I've been painfully clear on the matter.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 28 May 2000 01:07:41 EDT
"Thank you, G'nort and Sir MacKenzie. It truly elates me to know that these so-called Baronies of ours carry no significance or responsibility..."
First, as I have mentioned previously - ironically enough, in public debate with Lord Evermeadow - I'm not "Sir" anything.
You may recall, Lord Ev'rt, that in past discussions on your maturity and fitness to hold title, I have defended you. Such childish and petulant comments as yours above can only serve to give me cause to question whether I offered that defense foolishly.
I have not said, implied, or even thought that the Baronies do not carry significance or responsibility. I am arguing that responsibility be placed where rule and precedent have clearly placed it. Your response, which is a wholly inaccurate characterization, serves only to further emotionally inflame the issue, to no purpose whatsoever.
"For the time being, as we sit idly by chewing on our lips and hanging on Valentine's every word, I ask you all to question what it is you'd like to be fighting for in this arena, and what bearing you'd like to see in our Baronies and Overlordship. . . "
As you sit there sarcastically responding rather than addressing the real issue, it might behoove you to go back and re-read my commentary.
I have stated that I don't necessarily agree that Lord Evermeadow's decision to postpone was the correct one. I have stated that he should inform the community when this extension expires. I also agree with Lord Ganderfald's point that it should expire in time for an active and available Overlord to be in place for the end of the Warlord Tourney.
The bearing I would like to see is one which respects the rules, as well as the precedents which cover issues which are not clearly outlined within the rules. In the absence of a rules amendment prohibiting the Supervisor from allowing an extension, we must grant - based on precedent - that he does, indeed, have that right.
In short, I am defending the Supervisor ONLY on charges of willfully violating the RULES; I have made no defense of the correctness of his actions. I'm afraid I must question the overall ability to render judgment on any issue of those of you who have failed to understand this, as I've been painfully clear on the matter.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cletusgandrfald@aol.com (Cletus Gandrfald)
Date: 28 May 2000 01:52:11 EDT
So the community knows.
Avery has been declared in forfiet, the matter now lies with the Baron's council.
Cletus
Date: 28 May 2000 01:52:11 EDT
So the community knows.
Avery has been declared in forfiet, the matter now lies with the Baron's council.
Cletus
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 29 May 2000 05:47:53 EDT
For Khrys,
The Barons to me represented the sport, setting an example for those new to the arena and carrying a voice for those old. I suppose some of this is still true. My main reason for challenging Zafiroo was to question his worth as a public figure. The blind assumption followed that as true representives of the sport the Barons should hold equal if not higher power than a single supervisor who remains behind the scenes, since they should have a better
grasp on what works for the community through firsthand experience. They do not rise to power through election or appointment, but through their own sheer determination and conviction, which are what this sport embodies for me more so than the physical competition of, say, a foot race.
It was rash of me to proclaim that the Baronies mean nothing, but I currently struggle to reconstruct an idea of what they might. If anything, we have their histories.
I hope I satiated your curiosity a little.
Del
Date: 29 May 2000 05:47:53 EDT
For Khrys,
The Barons to me represented the sport, setting an example for those new to the arena and carrying a voice for those old. I suppose some of this is still true. My main reason for challenging Zafiroo was to question his worth as a public figure. The blind assumption followed that as true representives of the sport the Barons should hold equal if not higher power than a single supervisor who remains behind the scenes, since they should have a better
grasp on what works for the community through firsthand experience. They do not rise to power through election or appointment, but through their own sheer determination and conviction, which are what this sport embodies for me more so than the physical competition of, say, a foot race.
It was rash of me to proclaim that the Baronies mean nothing, but I currently struggle to reconstruct an idea of what they might. If anything, we have their histories.
I hope I satiated your curiosity a little.
Del
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 29 May 2000 13:42:12 EDT
>First, as I have mentioned previously - ironically enough, in public debate
>with Lord Evermeadow - I'm not "Sir" anything.
If I have offended you, I apologize. It's an old habit of mine to use "sir" when I'm unsure of how to address someone I've yet to meet. On a similar note, you may stop referring to me as "Lord" since I'm not a lord of anything, nor the center of any religious dogma. So, call me Del.
Now, as precedent always has validity in legal matters, I'm sure you are aware that precedent is not an immortal stature. A judicial body will often interpret the law differently to parallel the changing patterns of its community. Given, contradicting interpretations don't happen overnight, but they do happen progressively. The members of the Council today hadn't even stepped into the arena at the time of the lawsuit you mentioned, and most likely
the majority of today's patrons as well. The problem here, I assume, is that we have no separate judicial body, but rather the enforcer and the interpreter are one in the same, and can read the rules to his own liking.
So I must ask, in the case of People vs. Gloin, MacKenzie, Ray, Gnimoi, and Ar'Din, who actually interpreted that the Supervisor reserves the right of extension?
Del
Date: 29 May 2000 13:42:12 EDT
>First, as I have mentioned previously - ironically enough, in public debate
>with Lord Evermeadow - I'm not "Sir" anything.
If I have offended you, I apologize. It's an old habit of mine to use "sir" when I'm unsure of how to address someone I've yet to meet. On a similar note, you may stop referring to me as "Lord" since I'm not a lord of anything, nor the center of any religious dogma. So, call me Del.
Now, as precedent always has validity in legal matters, I'm sure you are aware that precedent is not an immortal stature. A judicial body will often interpret the law differently to parallel the changing patterns of its community. Given, contradicting interpretations don't happen overnight, but they do happen progressively. The members of the Council today hadn't even stepped into the arena at the time of the lawsuit you mentioned, and most likely
the majority of today's patrons as well. The problem here, I assume, is that we have no separate judicial body, but rather the enforcer and the interpreter are one in the same, and can read the rules to his own liking.
So I must ask, in the case of People vs. Gloin, MacKenzie, Ray, Gnimoi, and Ar'Din, who actually interpreted that the Supervisor reserves the right of extension?
Del
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 29 May 2000 13:47:01 EDT
"My main reason for challenging Zafiroo was to question his worth as a public figure. The blind assumption followed that as true representives of the sport the Barons should hold equal if not higher power than a single supervisor who remains behind the scenes, since they should have a better grasp on what works for the community through firsthand experience."
It will probably surprise you to know that I agree with this philosophy, Lord Ev'rt. Unfortunately, I also believe in strict legality, which means that while I may agree with one's sentiments and desires, I often have to argue against them attempting to act on the matter until the actual problem can be addressed.
In the midst of a controversy regarding an issue is no time to try and change the rules in order to do the "right" thing. Indeed, those civilizations which fall into that practice eventually find their rules and traditions to be absolutely meaningless, as the impression is given that they can be changed in order to suit people's whims.
Lord Evermeadow most certainly never should have granted this extension without clearly outlining why he did so; however, under the current rule structure, he had every right to do so. It's probably more proper to allow the Council to wield more power in these situations, but under the current rule structure, the Supervisor trumps them. Argue for the change there, if you wish, and you'll get no argument - at least on the general principle - from
me. However, just as it's wrong to charge someone with a crime for something they did two weeks ago when you only passed a law against it yesterday, it's equally wrong to attempt to force a ruling on a situation that is counter to the way the laws are when the situation occurs, just because the law should be different.
Hope you all understand why I argued so forcefully on the issue now.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 29 May 2000 13:47:01 EDT
"My main reason for challenging Zafiroo was to question his worth as a public figure. The blind assumption followed that as true representives of the sport the Barons should hold equal if not higher power than a single supervisor who remains behind the scenes, since they should have a better grasp on what works for the community through firsthand experience."
It will probably surprise you to know that I agree with this philosophy, Lord Ev'rt. Unfortunately, I also believe in strict legality, which means that while I may agree with one's sentiments and desires, I often have to argue against them attempting to act on the matter until the actual problem can be addressed.
In the midst of a controversy regarding an issue is no time to try and change the rules in order to do the "right" thing. Indeed, those civilizations which fall into that practice eventually find their rules and traditions to be absolutely meaningless, as the impression is given that they can be changed in order to suit people's whims.
Lord Evermeadow most certainly never should have granted this extension without clearly outlining why he did so; however, under the current rule structure, he had every right to do so. It's probably more proper to allow the Council to wield more power in these situations, but under the current rule structure, the Supervisor trumps them. Argue for the change there, if you wish, and you'll get no argument - at least on the general principle - from
me. However, just as it's wrong to charge someone with a crime for something they did two weeks ago when you only passed a law against it yesterday, it's equally wrong to attempt to force a ruling on a situation that is counter to the way the laws are when the situation occurs, just because the law should be different.
Hope you all understand why I argued so forcefully on the issue now.
Regards,
Ian Rex.