From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 08 Jul 2000 22:16:50 EDT
For those that are wondering what type of Baroness I will make, I will only state that time will tell on that score. I fight in a straightforward manner, and I regard most with a basic respect.
Whether the next is a boon or bane, I leave to others to decide, I speak my mind and there is little that will sway me from a view point I hold to be of highest merit. This does not mean I am close minded, but rather my thoughts are examined long before I choose to disclose them, and therefore compelling arguments need to be plied to reverse my decision; not an unheard of event, but rare.
I wish to briefly address the recent Tourney, indeed it still proceeds as I pen this note. Without judging any one individual competing, I wish to pose a question to the community.
If a non-Warlord rides on the skills of a Warlord-former or present-and after having defeated all the big boy competitors for the non-Warlord it comes down to a best of three ending. If the non-Warlord then defeats a man that has just recently fought the bigger battles, and is no doubt tired from such exertion ... does that make the non-Warlord truly worthy of a Baron's Ring?
My thoughts on the matter are currently in the process of coalescing into an opinion, but I find myself curious as to the general sentiment of the community.
Ellisa Morgan
A short commentary and question
-
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: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 08 Jul 2000 23:48:17 EDT
>If a non-Warlord rides on the skills of a Warlord-former or present-and after
>having defeated all the big boy competitors for the non-Warlord it comes down
>to a best of three ending. If the non-Warlord then defeats a man that has
>just recently fought the bigger battles, and is no doubt tired from such
>exertion ... does that make the non-Warlord truly worthy of a Baron's Ring?
>
>My thoughts on the matter are currently in the process of coalescing into an
>opinion, but I find myself curious as to the general sentiment of the
>community.
>
>Ellisa Morgan
Mon Capitan,
The fact that the Non-Warlord did not defeat a significant number of Warlords to gain possession of the title of Baron is reason enough.
The majoity of other Barons has had to defeat minimum of 10 equal to or greater in rank to achieve the title. A lesser rank did not earn it the same way. Especially if s/he rides the coattails of a Warlord in order to gain that spot. Luck has a huge amount to do with winning a title. And a lesser rank surely could defeat a Warlord 2 of 3, especially if that Warlord did all the work and is already tired out from the constant dueling.
A Warlord who earns the wins against Warlords or greater is indeed more worthy to wear the title of Baron than a lesser rank by way of skill alone.
Of course, this then brings up an arguement.. "Should lesser ranks be allowed to duel for peer wins?" I say no. Because no lesser rank has ever had that, and only Warlords have been allowed to take those wins. Therefore, a lesser rank should Have to prove themselves worthy by gaining the rank of Warlord, then go on to defeat ten peers in order to press challenge.
In closing, I don't feel a lesser rank really deserves to become a Baron until after they hold down the requirements of Warlord.
Thank you,
G
Date: 08 Jul 2000 23:48:17 EDT
>If a non-Warlord rides on the skills of a Warlord-former or present-and after
>having defeated all the big boy competitors for the non-Warlord it comes down
>to a best of three ending. If the non-Warlord then defeats a man that has
>just recently fought the bigger battles, and is no doubt tired from such
>exertion ... does that make the non-Warlord truly worthy of a Baron's Ring?
>
>My thoughts on the matter are currently in the process of coalescing into an
>opinion, but I find myself curious as to the general sentiment of the
>community.
>
>Ellisa Morgan
Mon Capitan,
The fact that the Non-Warlord did not defeat a significant number of Warlords to gain possession of the title of Baron is reason enough.
The majoity of other Barons has had to defeat minimum of 10 equal to or greater in rank to achieve the title. A lesser rank did not earn it the same way. Especially if s/he rides the coattails of a Warlord in order to gain that spot. Luck has a huge amount to do with winning a title. And a lesser rank surely could defeat a Warlord 2 of 3, especially if that Warlord did all the work and is already tired out from the constant dueling.
A Warlord who earns the wins against Warlords or greater is indeed more worthy to wear the title of Baron than a lesser rank by way of skill alone.
Of course, this then brings up an arguement.. "Should lesser ranks be allowed to duel for peer wins?" I say no. Because no lesser rank has ever had that, and only Warlords have been allowed to take those wins. Therefore, a lesser rank should Have to prove themselves worthy by gaining the rank of Warlord, then go on to defeat ten peers in order to press challenge.
In closing, I don't feel a lesser rank really deserves to become a Baron until after they hold down the requirements of Warlord.
Thank you,
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijahbasiauhr@aol.com (Elijah Basia Uhr)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 02:02:28 EDT
Captian Morgan,
A question of worth is always a matter of opinion in the eyes of the beholder in regards to whether someone deserves something, or a chance at something others may consider special. Perhaps a way to think of this in perspective is consider any team sport, and the championship game for that sport. Usually after the game is played not only is the team given the spoils of victory, but usually a single player is spotlighted as the one who most
affected the outcome of the victory. Should not his or her teammates be worthy of sharing that championship though probably without that one exceptionally skilled player as a member of their roster they might not be enjoying the spoils of victory? But consider that on their own, that one player, perhaps on a team with lesser depth of talent may not have been able to share the spoils of victory without a good combination of cohesion and chemistry to
make the "star" shine. Which one is left to consider what one finds more important, is it enough to be on the championship winning team, or is satisfaction reached by being the one singled out as being the determining factor of that team becoming champions. Whether seasoned veteran of the sport or greenest rookie, without the balance of it all in between, dreams may never come true.
As it relates to this sport, Swords, if once in awhile the officials who govern the running of tournements desire to sitr up the pot and offer a variety to how things are done once in awhile to determine the future of any title, then good for them. It gives us veterans something different to do, and for those newer to the sport, or those who have not been able to achieve the highest wins achieveable rank a chance to make a name for themselves. On
any given day in normal dueling I would have to say most often that those who have not toiled to reach the rank of Warlord don't deserve a shot at the titles. However, if by chance a lower ranked than Warlord dueler were to take advantage of such a situation as this particular tag-team tournment and actually win, then good for them. If anything it humbles some of the veterans of this sport and fuels the desires of lower ranked duelers to persue
their chacnes of achieving Warlord and perhaps a title. I am quite sure if such a lower ranked dueler were to win a title, they would be quickly beset by many to wrest the title from them as seeing them as unworthy because they did not achieve Warlord before reaching their title. If it was truely a fluke, then they would lose their title right away, and if they are the real deal, then they will hold their ground.
I would remind thee, Captian Morgan, of such duelers as Lord Prefect, Simini, and even our current Overlord, Taylara. All have achieved Warlord, all have slipped from the ranks of Warlord or Warlord status either during their reign as a title holder or before they got their titles. Yes, they acheived enough peer wins when challenging or by tournement prize, but then again would you consider someone worthy to hold title if not only they hadn't
reached Warlord, but couldn't even hold the rank or equivelent status in records?
Personally, I think the requirement for being able to press any challenge to any title should be that you have reached 25 WoLs as a Warlord, and do not fall below that number for atleast two full cycles, before being allowed to even begin start acquiring the needed qualifications to press challenge to any title. This at the very least would determine stability in their dueling skill ability as someone who was atleast worth title skill wise, though
character of a dueler is a whole other issue.
~Elijah Basia-Uhr~
Warlord of Swords
Date: 09 Jul 2000 02:02:28 EDT
Captian Morgan,
A question of worth is always a matter of opinion in the eyes of the beholder in regards to whether someone deserves something, or a chance at something others may consider special. Perhaps a way to think of this in perspective is consider any team sport, and the championship game for that sport. Usually after the game is played not only is the team given the spoils of victory, but usually a single player is spotlighted as the one who most
affected the outcome of the victory. Should not his or her teammates be worthy of sharing that championship though probably without that one exceptionally skilled player as a member of their roster they might not be enjoying the spoils of victory? But consider that on their own, that one player, perhaps on a team with lesser depth of talent may not have been able to share the spoils of victory without a good combination of cohesion and chemistry to
make the "star" shine. Which one is left to consider what one finds more important, is it enough to be on the championship winning team, or is satisfaction reached by being the one singled out as being the determining factor of that team becoming champions. Whether seasoned veteran of the sport or greenest rookie, without the balance of it all in between, dreams may never come true.
As it relates to this sport, Swords, if once in awhile the officials who govern the running of tournements desire to sitr up the pot and offer a variety to how things are done once in awhile to determine the future of any title, then good for them. It gives us veterans something different to do, and for those newer to the sport, or those who have not been able to achieve the highest wins achieveable rank a chance to make a name for themselves. On
any given day in normal dueling I would have to say most often that those who have not toiled to reach the rank of Warlord don't deserve a shot at the titles. However, if by chance a lower ranked than Warlord dueler were to take advantage of such a situation as this particular tag-team tournment and actually win, then good for them. If anything it humbles some of the veterans of this sport and fuels the desires of lower ranked duelers to persue
their chacnes of achieving Warlord and perhaps a title. I am quite sure if such a lower ranked dueler were to win a title, they would be quickly beset by many to wrest the title from them as seeing them as unworthy because they did not achieve Warlord before reaching their title. If it was truely a fluke, then they would lose their title right away, and if they are the real deal, then they will hold their ground.
I would remind thee, Captian Morgan, of such duelers as Lord Prefect, Simini, and even our current Overlord, Taylara. All have achieved Warlord, all have slipped from the ranks of Warlord or Warlord status either during their reign as a title holder or before they got their titles. Yes, they acheived enough peer wins when challenging or by tournement prize, but then again would you consider someone worthy to hold title if not only they hadn't
reached Warlord, but couldn't even hold the rank or equivelent status in records?
Personally, I think the requirement for being able to press any challenge to any title should be that you have reached 25 WoLs as a Warlord, and do not fall below that number for atleast two full cycles, before being allowed to even begin start acquiring the needed qualifications to press challenge to any title. This at the very least would determine stability in their dueling skill ability as someone who was atleast worth title skill wise, though
character of a dueler is a whole other issue.
~Elijah Basia-Uhr~
Warlord of Swords
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 03:06:14 EDT
Already we are questioning the worthiness of a baron who has yet to complete this weekend's tournament and receive title--a sad affair in mine eyes. Each baron earns his or her right to wear a ring, be it through an exercise of intelligence or pure physical brunt, and it will be no different for the soon-to-be winner.
Furthermore, worthiness and quality of a baron are not measured in numbers, and in no way can be determined until after the reign of that baron terminates. Instead, it comes down to how well the baron used his or her position of celebrity to drive other campaigns, or whether the baron lay plain like a window pane of passivity.
Everyone deserves a chance to wear a ring at least once. It only depends on how much each individual wants it.
Deluthan Ev'rt
Date: 09 Jul 2000 03:06:14 EDT
Already we are questioning the worthiness of a baron who has yet to complete this weekend's tournament and receive title--a sad affair in mine eyes. Each baron earns his or her right to wear a ring, be it through an exercise of intelligence or pure physical brunt, and it will be no different for the soon-to-be winner.
Furthermore, worthiness and quality of a baron are not measured in numbers, and in no way can be determined until after the reign of that baron terminates. Instead, it comes down to how well the baron used his or her position of celebrity to drive other campaigns, or whether the baron lay plain like a window pane of passivity.
Everyone deserves a chance to wear a ring at least once. It only depends on how much each individual wants it.
Deluthan Ev'rt
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: novagreys@aol.com (Nova GreyS)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 14:04:28 EDT
I'd rather have a respectable commoner holding title than some moron "warlord". Give the titles to the lower ranks, folks ... the upper ranks are making them look like a joke. A respectable warlord is tough to find these days. Of course, I guess the same could be said for the lower ranks as well. Glad I decided to take my kid to the beaches yesterday - I'd hate to have a chance at sullying a barony because I gave up
my rank.
Lighten up,
Nova Grey Shadow
Date: 09 Jul 2000 14:04:28 EDT
I'd rather have a respectable commoner holding title than some moron "warlord". Give the titles to the lower ranks, folks ... the upper ranks are making them look like a joke. A respectable warlord is tough to find these days. Of course, I guess the same could be said for the lower ranks as well. Glad I decided to take my kid to the beaches yesterday - I'd hate to have a chance at sullying a barony because I gave up
my rank.
Lighten up,
Nova Grey Shadow
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 14:07:45 EDT
Deluthan,
I am not questioning the worthiness of anyone yet. I was merely posing a question, for whether Lord Evermeadow intended to or not, precedent has been set. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth as I clearly stated I have not yet formed my opinion on the matter.
As to the issue, Val rightfully spoke that those that held reservations should have spoken sooner. As for why I did not speak sooner, I admit I read the original missive incorrectly. I was under the impression, by no fault of his, that in a team with a non-Warlord and a Warlord, that the Warlord would get the ring by default. Somewhat in the manner that Bishop would have won the ring by default if our team had been the victor.
Secondly, it would indeed be much different if the winner of this tourney were a non-Warlord. For all the Barons have won their titles by first achieving the rank of Warlord; for those that insist on bringing Ford, Simini, etc into this, what they did after such an achievement is a mote point for they did achieve the rank before challenging.
If everyone deserves a chance to wear a ring, why do the rules state only those that have achieved Warlord status may sue for possession of one?
Again, these are merely questions that I find curious, I have not formed an opinion on the matter, the first or this last. I am stating these questions here to get the thoughts of the community. So I bid you share if you wish, but do not assume to know my mind.
Ellisa Morgan
Date: 09 Jul 2000 14:07:45 EDT
Deluthan,
I am not questioning the worthiness of anyone yet. I was merely posing a question, for whether Lord Evermeadow intended to or not, precedent has been set. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth as I clearly stated I have not yet formed my opinion on the matter.
As to the issue, Val rightfully spoke that those that held reservations should have spoken sooner. As for why I did not speak sooner, I admit I read the original missive incorrectly. I was under the impression, by no fault of his, that in a team with a non-Warlord and a Warlord, that the Warlord would get the ring by default. Somewhat in the manner that Bishop would have won the ring by default if our team had been the victor.
Secondly, it would indeed be much different if the winner of this tourney were a non-Warlord. For all the Barons have won their titles by first achieving the rank of Warlord; for those that insist on bringing Ford, Simini, etc into this, what they did after such an achievement is a mote point for they did achieve the rank before challenging.
If everyone deserves a chance to wear a ring, why do the rules state only those that have achieved Warlord status may sue for possession of one?
Again, these are merely questions that I find curious, I have not formed an opinion on the matter, the first or this last. I am stating these questions here to get the thoughts of the community. So I bid you share if you wish, but do not assume to know my mind.
Ellisa Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cletusgandrfald@aol.com (Cletus Gandrfald)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 14:35:31 EDT
I'm curious as to what precendent has been set. It has been in the rules since well before Valentine was supervisor that a person could attain a barony before reaching the rank of Warlord. Of course, this is only under very special circumbstances.
Cletus
Date: 09 Jul 2000 14:35:31 EDT
I'm curious as to what precendent has been set. It has been in the rules since well before Valentine was supervisor that a person could attain a barony before reaching the rank of Warlord. Of course, this is only under very special circumbstances.
Cletus
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 15:31:35 EDT
>I'm curious as to what precendent has been set. It has been in the rules
>since well before Valentine was supervisor that a person could attain a
>barony before reaching the rank of Warlord
The precedent would be the allowing of non-Warlords into Tourneys. If they are worthy to enter into this Tourney, why not others?
As for a non-Warlord reaching the rank of Baron, they would need to go toe-to-toe with a Renegade Baron and win, not once but twice at the least, more than likely a third duel would take place between the Champion and the Renegades Barons Champion, not to mention have an Overlord evince the confidence that they could Champion them. Do I say that is impossible? No, but that would be a straight forward test between a non-Warlord and a Baron.
As you said, a very special circumstance, and one that has never seen the light of a ring yet.
What I am asking is if the community believes this to be a good precedent, and if so why not reflect it in the rules?
Personally, as I mentioned in another line of questioning, I believe the upcoming Letters of Mark, will address the issue in the best possible way.
I hope this clarifies specifically what I am asking here.
Ellisa
Date: 09 Jul 2000 15:31:35 EDT
>I'm curious as to what precendent has been set. It has been in the rules
>since well before Valentine was supervisor that a person could attain a
>barony before reaching the rank of Warlord
The precedent would be the allowing of non-Warlords into Tourneys. If they are worthy to enter into this Tourney, why not others?
As for a non-Warlord reaching the rank of Baron, they would need to go toe-to-toe with a Renegade Baron and win, not once but twice at the least, more than likely a third duel would take place between the Champion and the Renegades Barons Champion, not to mention have an Overlord evince the confidence that they could Champion them. Do I say that is impossible? No, but that would be a straight forward test between a non-Warlord and a Baron.
As you said, a very special circumstance, and one that has never seen the light of a ring yet.
What I am asking is if the community believes this to be a good precedent, and if so why not reflect it in the rules?
Personally, as I mentioned in another line of questioning, I believe the upcoming Letters of Mark, will address the issue in the best possible way.
I hope this clarifies specifically what I am asking here.
Ellisa
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 15:47:51 EDT
"The precedent would be the allowing of non-Warlords into Tourneys. If they are worthy to enter into this Tourney, why not others?"
It's not a precedent. It was a special case, clearly outlined as a special case; that specifically precludes its use as a precedent in the future.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 09 Jul 2000 15:47:51 EDT
"The precedent would be the allowing of non-Warlords into Tourneys. If they are worthy to enter into this Tourney, why not others?"
It's not a precedent. It was a special case, clearly outlined as a special case; that specifically precludes its use as a precedent in the future.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 18:15:46 EDT
Precedent, in the legal sense, is defined as the sum total of the body of previous rulings related to a matter under deliberation, when taken into account under a system of common law.
While the duels are not governed by any such common law system, and rather administrated in a fairly autocratic manner, in the past matters of precedent have repeatedly been cited by administrators and supervisors of many levels of the duels and its attendant tournaments. In this sense, despite the fact that there exists no black letter law forcing precedent upon any proceeding, the common result is that rulings are made with an eye towards what came
before them.
This was indeed noted to be a special, one-time tournament to be regarded as unique and setting no precedent. I would respectfully note that one may protest its unusual or aberrant (as one prefers) nature from dawn until dusk, and it shall still be called upon as precedent in the future where the events of said tournament, being similar to those of the future matter and preceding it by some span, are called upon as a guideline, framework or point of
reference in deciding a difficult point.
We are in agreement as to the letter of the law, but I cannot believe that the outcome of this tournament will not color future thinking on the matter of Baronies won by those ranked below Warlordship.
Ellisa
Date: 09 Jul 2000 18:15:46 EDT
Precedent, in the legal sense, is defined as the sum total of the body of previous rulings related to a matter under deliberation, when taken into account under a system of common law.
While the duels are not governed by any such common law system, and rather administrated in a fairly autocratic manner, in the past matters of precedent have repeatedly been cited by administrators and supervisors of many levels of the duels and its attendant tournaments. In this sense, despite the fact that there exists no black letter law forcing precedent upon any proceeding, the common result is that rulings are made with an eye towards what came
before them.
This was indeed noted to be a special, one-time tournament to be regarded as unique and setting no precedent. I would respectfully note that one may protest its unusual or aberrant (as one prefers) nature from dawn until dusk, and it shall still be called upon as precedent in the future where the events of said tournament, being similar to those of the future matter and preceding it by some span, are called upon as a guideline, framework or point of
reference in deciding a difficult point.
We are in agreement as to the letter of the law, but I cannot believe that the outcome of this tournament will not color future thinking on the matter of Baronies won by those ranked below Warlordship.
Ellisa
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijahbasiauhr@aol.com (Elijah Basia Uhr)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 18:34:01 EDT
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
*Paid for by the "We don't need no stinkin' precedent in Swords" commitee
Date: 09 Jul 2000 18:34:01 EDT
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
Anarchy in the DoS!
*Paid for by the "We don't need no stinkin' precedent in Swords" commitee
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 18:47:56 EDT
Here's the deal. The tournament was just a special, once in a blue moon circumstance. I don't find anyone more worthy of a ring than a Warlord, because they wouldn't really earn the title. Who cares if they won a Tag Team Tournament? Taylara won a Warlord's Tournament, and that's a miracle in itself. I really don't want a commoner wearing a ring. That's just stupid.
Why should I even bother becoming a Warlord? The rank is worthless, then. Just a sum of wins for your own private dignity. The rank of Warlord is suppose to be special all in itself, and if somehow the Supervisor changes his mind into allowing low rankers into the quarterly Warlord Tournaments... Then Warlord will just be dumb, useless rank where you can collect peer wins.
I think of Tournaments as a gift to Warlord's for making it as far as they have. A place to show a real, true Warlord's skill... What's so special about a Tournament if commoners get to enter?
I think Ellisa is just mad that her team lost to another team with a low ranker.
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
Date: 09 Jul 2000 18:47:56 EDT
Here's the deal. The tournament was just a special, once in a blue moon circumstance. I don't find anyone more worthy of a ring than a Warlord, because they wouldn't really earn the title. Who cares if they won a Tag Team Tournament? Taylara won a Warlord's Tournament, and that's a miracle in itself. I really don't want a commoner wearing a ring. That's just stupid.
Why should I even bother becoming a Warlord? The rank is worthless, then. Just a sum of wins for your own private dignity. The rank of Warlord is suppose to be special all in itself, and if somehow the Supervisor changes his mind into allowing low rankers into the quarterly Warlord Tournaments... Then Warlord will just be dumb, useless rank where you can collect peer wins.
I think of Tournaments as a gift to Warlord's for making it as far as they have. A place to show a real, true Warlord's skill... What's so special about a Tournament if commoners get to enter?
I think Ellisa is just mad that her team lost to another team with a low ranker.
- Drey D'erest Sanchez SIZE=5 PTSIZE=16>Starke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 19:44:39 EDT
Baron Starke,
While your ability to "press buttons" in others has grown near-legendary, you shall find your considerable talent hard-pressed in this case.
I have taken pains to point out that my question was not accompanied by a conclusion on my part -- I was, and still am, grappling with this issue and weighing the merits of wise words spoken on both sides of the debate.
I do not get "mad" over trifles, especially not in a match well-dueled and well-won.
Date: 09 Jul 2000 19:44:39 EDT
Baron Starke,
While your ability to "press buttons" in others has grown near-legendary, you shall find your considerable talent hard-pressed in this case.
I have taken pains to point out that my question was not accompanied by a conclusion on my part -- I was, and still am, grappling with this issue and weighing the merits of wise words spoken on both sides of the debate.
I do not get "mad" over trifles, especially not in a match well-dueled and well-won.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gunthrodw@aol.com (Gunthr ODW)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 19:52:50 EDT
I love you Elissa, really, I mean it. I mean, I know we don't know each other or anything, but will you marry me?
Gunthar O'dwyer
::drooling over how this woman carries herself, he walks off with an inward chuckle::
Date: 09 Jul 2000 19:52:50 EDT
I love you Elissa, really, I mean it. I mean, I know we don't know each other or anything, but will you marry me?
Gunthar O'dwyer
::drooling over how this woman carries herself, he walks off with an inward chuckle::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 09 Jul 2000 22:46:37 EDT
"Precedent, in the legal sense, is defined as the sum total of the body of previous rulings related to a matter under deliberation, when taken into account under a system of common law."
That is correct.
"While the duels are not governed by any such common law system, and rather administrated in a fairly autocratic manner, in the past matters of precedent have repeatedly been cited by administrators and supervisors of many levels of the duels and its attendant tournaments."
Yet never before have we had an administrator with the good sense to state quite clearly that "this is a special case for a special event." All those arguments about precedent are pinioned upon rulings which were made off-the-cuff, generally with little forethought, and often against the better advice of those who made the specific argument that a bad precedent was being set.
"I would respectfully note that one may protest its unusual or aberrant (as one prefers) nature from dawn until dusk, and it shall still be called upon as precedent in the future where the events of said tournament, being similar to those of the future matter and preceding it by some span, are called upon as a guideline, framework or point of
reference in deciding a difficult point."
If, in the future, someone points at this tournament as "precedent," rest assured I will repeat this entire argument in order to dissuade them from the notion.
Simply put, if the argument is that "you shouldn't do something that's different because people might think they're owed a similar opportunity later," then the argument is to NEVER do anything different. My dear Captain, I prefer not to live in a boring, unchanging vacuum, and I truly would suspect you feel similarly.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 09 Jul 2000 22:46:37 EDT
"Precedent, in the legal sense, is defined as the sum total of the body of previous rulings related to a matter under deliberation, when taken into account under a system of common law."
That is correct.
"While the duels are not governed by any such common law system, and rather administrated in a fairly autocratic manner, in the past matters of precedent have repeatedly been cited by administrators and supervisors of many levels of the duels and its attendant tournaments."
Yet never before have we had an administrator with the good sense to state quite clearly that "this is a special case for a special event." All those arguments about precedent are pinioned upon rulings which were made off-the-cuff, generally with little forethought, and often against the better advice of those who made the specific argument that a bad precedent was being set.
"I would respectfully note that one may protest its unusual or aberrant (as one prefers) nature from dawn until dusk, and it shall still be called upon as precedent in the future where the events of said tournament, being similar to those of the future matter and preceding it by some span, are called upon as a guideline, framework or point of
reference in deciding a difficult point."
If, in the future, someone points at this tournament as "precedent," rest assured I will repeat this entire argument in order to dissuade them from the notion.
Simply put, if the argument is that "you shouldn't do something that's different because people might think they're owed a similar opportunity later," then the argument is to NEVER do anything different. My dear Captain, I prefer not to live in a boring, unchanging vacuum, and I truly would suspect you feel similarly.
Regards,
Ian Rex.