Decision of Daimyo (barons) Council

[DoS Archive]

From: oortael5@aol.com (OorTael5)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:36:06 EDT


Lord Favre,

Please tell me how I didn't address the situation correctly. It is all together possible that there was some detail to it that you saw that I did not. From what I read and talked to others about the subject, Ariadne failed to contact Magnus within a week of the peer wins verification about her acceptance of the challenge and any settings for the challenge to take place. She did, however, send a letter to the Council with her acceptance. This letter
was not sent to Magnus. After Ariadne was called in forfeit of the match, Magnus requested to face a champion because, according to him, to be assured so she no longer holds a ring.

Please, tell me what I missed. I don't think that it was a case in which it was justified to take the ring and let Magnus face a champion. Forgive me for desiring a challenge made to the Baroness to be faced by the Baroness. I am by no means trying to protect her. I'd much rather see Magnus as a Baron and definately be assured that she is not one. I'm not going to go against my judgment though to see those ends met. Once again, I await to hear how I
didn't address this correctly.

-Galin

[DoS Archive]

From: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 21:14:40 EDT

The entire point of Ariadne not responding to Magnus is irrelevant when she was declared in forfeit for having not responded to him at all. The fact that she sent a letter to the council does not matter, since she did not send a letter to Magnus. That is the violation of the rules, that was what she was called into forfeit for, and that is what should be the main focus, not the time it took her to reach Magnus.

She broke the rules. If someone breaking the rules is not justification for stripping them of their title, as Cas pointed out has been done many times beforehand with much better excuses, then why have rules at all?

-Rix

[DoS Archive]

From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 23:30:42 EDT

I'll be sure to not include whoever challenges me in my replies. In fact, I'll send copies out to extra parties, just to make my response more "valid." After all, if I spent the time to kindly inform so many parties as to the correct date and time of challenge, then I must be "formally accepting."
The issue is not whether or not Ariadne included Drake, the council, or her grandmother. The issue is she didn't send a letter to Magnus, of all people.
And I thought it was stupid that I forgot to send a copy of my peer wins to Devon during my very first challenge ever... okay, it was stupid, but issues like this don't make me feel so bad about it.


Var Medici-Giovanni


Proud Father, Proud Husband

[DoS Archive]

From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 01:09:19 EDT

"If you can automatically 'understand' that we all are biased against Ariadne--her extremely lame transgression couldn't have anything to do with it, now could it?--then forgive me if I 'understand' that your opinion of the matter is most likely biased as well-the Baroness in question and you are both Loyals, after all."

There is no "if" about it. I've seen this community question the Baron's character many times; even I have questioned it. But my vote would have been the same if it happened to be a Renegade in Ariadne's place. I don't like to see the Council, or the staff for that matter, butting in on affairs between certain members of the community. Magnus wants to rid the Baron of her ring; I'd like to see him take care of it personally; I'd like to see
Ariadne lose her ring the way it was meant to be lost. I feel the Council should only take action if the Baron shows signs of not intending to defend his or her station; I have yet to see a sign thus far, and that is the difference between this and other cases, from what I can tell.

"But hey, that was before we had Deluthan Ev'rt around to inform us of how wrong it was, was it?"

And if you'll notice, Cas, I have yet to result to sarcasm.

"P.S.: Why are you so fervent to defend Taylara, yet stood so diligently against someone like Avery?"

A fair enough question. It's simple, really: I felt Avery represented certain facets of the sport that I dislike. Taylara doesn't, and I regard her as a person.

Deluthan

[DoS Archive]

From: shadowrun@aol.com (Shadowrun)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 01:26:46 EDT

>A fair enough question. It's simple, really: I felt Avery represented
>certain facets of the sport that I dislike. Taylara doesn't, and I regard
>her as a person.

Pray tell sir, now that he is returned and may read firsthand:

How did you regard Avery, if not as a person?

Perplexed,
Fandral Kurgan

[DoS Archive]

From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 01:46:04 EDT

"How did you regard Avery, if not as a person?"

Poor wording on my part. Instead of "regard" I should have said "admire."

Del

[DoS Archive]

From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 01:58:04 EDT

Deluthan,

Can you answer me one simple question please.

Did Ariadne violate da DoS rules of challenge, yes or not?

If yes, how can you *not* support da penalty which is clearly outlined in our challege rules.

If no, how did she not break da rules when she *failed* ta set a time and place within da one week limit.


~J

[DoS Archive]

From: gimmzak@aol.com (Gimmzak)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:13:54 EDT



Ya know this amazes me..What is the point of having set rules if the set rules are going to be bent all the time.

If the rules were broken, the penalty should apply. It seems to me it's pretty cut and dry. I don't know the Baron of the 2nd at all, but a rule was broken, the penalty should be enforced.

WHO the person is shouldn't mean squat, it could be anyone at all, pull out any name from the great history of this sport, if they broke a rule they would suffer the penalties.

Instead of that happening, we will have a continued debate with the Baron's supporters trying to explain why the rules should be bent. Rules are Rules. If we don't live by them....Why have them?


Gimzak Stonecutter
former Baron of the 11th

[DoS Archive]

From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:23:33 EDT

"If yes, how can you *not* support da penalty which is clearly outlined in our challege rules."

Yes, she did violate the rules, Jeff. But -- and you may call me an anarchist if you'd like -- I do feel that rules are meant to be bent. They are very abstract guidelines to dealing with unique situations, and inherently aren't going to solve every one. Especially when they begin outliving their founders.

Deluthan

[DoS Archive]

From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:35:21 EDT

Baron Ev'rt.

Rules are certainly not meant to be "bent". Otherwise they would not be Rules. Rules are not "Guildlines" for you to follow or not as to your whim.
If you wish to buck Tradition, so be it... you will find, as I have, there are many who will insult and deride you for doing so.
But if you break the Rules, then you should be punished. I can see no other path but that one.


Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.

[DoS Archive]

From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:56:21 EDT



First off, Del, I've diligently noticed that you declined to answer half of my missive.

Now onward...

"I don't like to see the Council, or the staff for that matter, butting in on
affairs between certain members of the community."

This passage, in direct connection with the current incident...sickens me. Deluthan, the moment a "certain member of the community" issues challenge to another "certain member of the community" who happens to hold title...it become the community's business. And it definitely becomes the community's business and the Council's business when a "certain member of the community" breaks a rule of engagement. To allow all members of the Community to do
as they please, regardless of the rules, because it's "not our business"..is a recipe for anarchy. Del, in your homeland, are murderers and thieves allowed to kill and steal because it's "not the authorities's business"? No Baron should ever feel that anything involving their ring and their barony is a private affair...because it's not their private property, they are merely the present guardians and caretakers of the titles. And the moment a Baron
starts feeling as if it is their private property, to do with as they please...is the moment that Baron should be removed posthaste.


" Magnus wants to rid the Baron of her ring; I'd like to see him take care of
it personally; I'd like to see
Ariadne lose her ring the way it was meant to be lost."

I've heard this argument before from other Barons who voted against stripping Ariadne of the 2nd Ring....it's just occured to me, that rather than taking the aggrieved party's wishes into consideration...some parties on the Council are voting to spite him! Tell me if I'm wrong here, because that's certainly what it sounds like. Oh, and Del...in the case of a rulebreaker, the way the ring was "meant to be lost" is by stripping.


" I feel the Council should only take action if the Baron shows signs of not
intending to defend his or her station; I have yet to see a sign thus far,
and that is the difference between this and other cases, from what I can
tell."


Ok, first off, if Ariadne had no intention of defending her ring, she would not admit it.
I'm not saying she doesn't, I believe she does, but that's a moot point, because she wasn't before the Council for cowardice. She was before it for breaking the rules. The Council judges rule infractions, it would only judge cowardice when cowardice leads to a rule infraction. By the way, you seem to be implying that past Barons who have been stripped of their rings were afraid to defend. I sincerely hope not, frankly, I will take this as an insult
to my friends Lucian and Zen Rising.
Those people, and other people, were unable to defend because of circumstance...not cowardice. But still, they broke the rules, and paid the proper consequences. Regardless, to claim that they were unwilling to defend is wrong. Only instances I can think of where a Baron was unwilling to defend is Gnort Dragoon Talanador recently, and Midnight Blue...and those were not strippings, as G and Blue vacated their rings.


"A fair enough question. It's simple, really: I felt Avery represented
certain facets of the sport that I dislike. Taylara doesn't, and I regard
her as a person."

Would you care to enlighten me and whoever cares to take the time to read this about those facets? I'd sure be interested in hearing this.

I left you with a question last missive, I will again: Where was this attitude to "let them fight" when Lucian was before Council for missing a challenge match against you-by the way, he had to handle a blood fued, if I remember correctly, Ariadne was just being vacantheaded-and you were demanding he be stripped? Are you of a different standard, as well as the people you challenge? I just hope you know, in addendum, I don't believe you've changed
over a year, and I think you've proven that.










Cassius Gaius Maximius

[DoS Archive]

From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 03:09:33 EDT



"Yes, she did violate the rules, Jeff. But -- and you may call me an
anarchist if you'd like -- I do feel that rules are meant to be bent. They
are very abstract guidelines to dealing with unique situations, and
inherently aren't going to solve every one. Especially when they begin
outliving their founders."

This is not a unique situation, it is in fact a very cut and dry one. Your blatant disregard for the rules of the sport is, in a word, dispicable.

There is no more wondering and speculating. Deluthan Ev'rt, in my mind, you are unworthy to be a Baron.








Cassius Gaius Maximius

[DoS Archive]

From: sartanz@aol.com (Sartan Z)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 03:30:38 EDT

For those talking about precedent and the such, Barons have been given the chance to reschedule the match before, and they have also been stripped before. There is no cut and dry precedent for this situation.

Sartan

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 07:17:38 EDT

The woman paused before the ancient cork, one slim raven brow lifted as she perused the various missives. She heaved a soft, deep sigh, then, taking up her quill, she set it to parchment. She leaned back against one of the worm eaten wooden uprights supporting the ancient cork as she dictated.


Baron Unagi Miyamoto, bearer o' th' Third Ring, senior 'o th' Council.

Unagi san, thou hast remained silent wi' respect ta yuir decision in th' matter. Ah do 'umbly call 'pon thee ta pronounce publicly an' fer ta record yuir vote an' reasons fer yuir decision in ta matter at 'and.


Baron Lucian, bearer 'o ta Eleventh,

Lucian, thou ast well hae remained silent. Tis unlike thee, Baron, ta 'old silent in such matters. Ast Ah hae requested 'o ta Baron 'o ta Third, Ah also 'umbly request th' thou come forth an' pronounce publicly thine decision in th' matter.


Baron Dustin Manjahcapery, bearer 'o ta Seventh.
Baron Sartan, bearer 'o ta Ninth,
Baron Ellisa Morgan, bearer 'o ta Twelfth,
Baron Deluthan Ev'rt, bearer 'o ta First,
Baron Galin Taelca, bearer 'o ta Eighth,

Ah shouldst first offer unta each 'o thee mine compliments fer comin' forth an' placin' 'pon ta cork yuir decisions. Long hae Ah 'eld tis among ta responsibilities 'o those 'o title ta be forthright, ta show themselves ta hae ta 'onor ast well ast ta intestinal fortitude ta stand forth afore ta community when such matters come under advisement 'o ta seated Barons 'o ta Council.

Unto thee, Baroness Morgan, perhaps thou hast made thine choice ast one wh' 'olds th' all such matters mus' be settled by dint 'o combat.

Unta thee Baroness Morgan an' unto each Baron wh' chose ta permit ta Baroness Angeles ta defend 'er ring Ah canna 'old wi' neglectin' ta consider ta ramifications 'pon ta future 'o ta sport nor ta example thou hast chosen ta set in permittin' ta Baroness Ariadne Angeles ta defend ta Second when ta Baroness hast shown 'erself ta care naught fer up'oldin' ta verra rules by which all wh' seek title ast well ast all wh' 'old title shouldst be 'eld ta
abide.

When so simple an' unambiguous a rule 'o law wh' governs ta sport ist so cavalierly flouted by a seated Baron, an' be mindful tis a personage wh' hast 'eld title in past an' who hast repeatedly flouted ta self same laws 'o ta sport, nae only ist ta ring she dost bear tainted an' dis'onored, so ast well dost th' taint cast a blight upon th' ancient an' 'onorable sport.

Far more worthy personages th' ta Baroness hae suffered ta council's decision an' been stripped 'o ring an' title fer such failures ast ta Baroness'. Perhaps ta Baroness hae come ta believe th' nae matter 'er deeds she need nae fear censure nor action agin 'er from ta Council, for once more ta Council hae chosen ta turn a blind eye ta 'er perfidy an' 'er disrespect fer an' ta dis'onorin' 'o 'er title an' Ring.

Unto those Barons wh' chose th' course 'o action, be mindful th' thou hast chosen ta reward ta Baroness' dis'onor by grantin' 'er ta 'onor 'o championing 'er ring. Thou hast chosen ta reward dis'onor wi' 'onor, thou hast chosen ta reward a fool wi' 'onorable combat an' nae ta fools' cap wh' she more rightly shouldst bear.

Unto thee, Baron Deluthan Ev'rt,

Sirrah, hae thee so little intellect th' thee truly 'old th' ta rules 'o engagement be indeed writ wi' ta intent th' they shouldst be disregard at whim? Certes, sirrah, if'n thee indeed do 'old ta th' philosophy, thou dost 'old wi' lawlessness an' wouldst th' chaos be ta order 'o ta day. Perhaps, sirrah, since thee 'old ta rules 'o engagement so lightly, thee wouldst be willin' ta stand forth against mine blades wi' yuir ring an' title forfeit
shouldst Ah bes' thee? After all, sirrah, thee hae opined ta rules be meant ta be bent hae thee nae?

Thou hast made claim, sirrah, th' ta yuir understandin' ta titles be a celebration 'o th' duels an' sportsmanship 'o ta arena. Fie on thee, sirrah, where be ta celebration an' sportsmanship in condonin' ta acts 'o unsportsmanlike conduct perpetuated by ta Baroness? Hast nae thought, sirrah, th' such ast the decision thou hast chosen be robbin' true celebration an' sportsmanship ast well ast 'onor from ta verra fiber 'o ta sport?

Tis thee, sirrah, wh' ist ta be pitied, for tis plain th' thee neither understand ta meanin' 'o 'onor, thee hae nae understandin' 'o ta sport, nor dost hae anna understandin' 'o ta meanin' 'o sportsmanship. Thou were ta be expected ta use th' spurious claim th' t'was a mere simple mistake. One may excuse one mistake, Baron Ev'rt, yet ta Baroness' 'abit 'o nae only nae abidin' by ta rules bu' 'er penchant fer doin' it ast if she nae need concern
'erself wi' anna consequences finds in thee continuinin' support. May thee soon find thineself bereft o' ring an' title, sirrah.

Unto thee, Baron Taelca, ast well thou wouldst brush aside ast meaningless ta Baroness' deeds, an' by doin' so thee ast well support dis'onor. Tis each 'o titled rank bears manna a burden nae ta least 'o which ist ta abide by ta rules 'o engagement. Dost thee ast well support chaos an' anarchy, Baron? Perhaps thee hast forgotten th' magnanimity shown unta th' Baroness in past an' which she seemed ta take ast 'er due. Prithee, sirrah, 'ow manna
times wouldst permit ta Baroness ta do ast she pleases, castin' aside ta simplest 'o requirements, requirements Ah might add wh' hae nae changed in manna seasons? Or hast merely chosen ta path 'o turnin' a blind eye ta anna wh' so flout ta rules 'o engagement.

Thee hae indeed been cognizant 'o members 'o ta community questionin' ta Baroness' character, sirrah, an' assuredly such questions were raised fer cause. Clearly, sirrah, ta Baroness hae nae wish ta defend 'er ring for she nae bothered ta inform 'er challenger th' she accepted ta challenge. What more wouldst thee consider ast showin' she hae naae desire ta defend? Didst ta Baroness in 'er missive ta th' 'er peers 'pon ta Council e'en so much ast
offer a date an' time fer ta meet Magnus Eques? Methinks thee hae chosen ta o'er look much, Loyal Baron, in support 'o another Loyal ta th' detriment 'o both ta sport an anna 'onor wh' once shown so brightly 'pon those wh' formerly bore ta Second.

Baron Ev'rt, tis if'n thee truly 'old ta rules 'o engagement ta be merely abstract guidelines made ta deal wi' unique situations, perhaps thee might wander ta ta Rhydin Library an' peruse a dictionary fer ta meanin' 'o ta words abstract an' unique. Res' assured, sirrah, a challenge issued unta a Baron ist nae an unique circumstance, nor ist there annathin' in ta least abstract in ta portion 'o ta rules 'o engagement wh' placed th' Baroness in
forfeit an' sent ta matter ta Council.

Sirrah, thine unmitigated arrogance ist only superseded by thine unremitting ignorance. Ah canna recall when Ah hae read such an ignorant bi' 'o rubbish ast thine comment to whit, "Especially when they begin outliving their founders." Wh' ta bluidy 'ell be thee yammerin' 'bout, sir? Dost believe ta laws 'o th' sport shouldst pass inta oblivion shouldst ta author pass beyond th' plane 'o existence? Either, sirrah, thou hast lost control 'o thine
faculties or thee hae been nipping ta stale ale o'erlong.

Jonalyn Starfare


The woman tacked the missive to the cork, then returned her quill to her magical pouch. She wandered away from the cork, slowly shaking her head before she vanished in a soft azure shimmer

[DoS Archive]

From: jessetroyn@aol.com (JesseTroyn)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 13:07:51 EDT

I'm going with Deluthan on this one.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of all the rules bickering and technicality arguments that flood this place. Whether you like it or not, the point (or heart, if you prefer that term) of this sport is that people should succeed or fail based on their prowess within the ring in single combat.

I think Ariadne is a total moron. She's probably one of the least qualified people to ever hold the title Baron. She's clearly dumb as a rock, because she couldn't even do something as obvious as reply to the person who challenged her.

With that said, I agree with Deluthan. When there is any possibility that a challenge can be settled by the challenger and appropriate title holder, then the Council is upholding the best interests of the sport and community by ensuring that those two people fight it out for the title.

Did Ariadne break a rule? Sure. Did she do it out of malice or disrespect for the sport? Doubtful. She did it because she's a flat out idiot. Personally I don't think pure idiocy is a good enough reason to be stripped of a title. She won it by force, she should have the chance to lose it by force. On a side note, I'm all for the no intercession clause that Ellisa mentioned. Mostly because I think it's laughable when people hide behind intercession,
but that's a different topic entirely.

Later suckers.

-JT