From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 07:32:53 EDT
Community of DoS,
I, Jeffrey Oakenshield, sixth baron of DoS, do hereby apologize ta our entire community on behalf of da barons council. It is truely sad when one's leaders rule in such a confusing manner, DoS deserves better.
Apparently, our current council does not feel Ariadne is subject ta our sports rules and regulations. Nor does our council feel she is subject ta da same penalties as barons who failed before her. I could list a handful of barons who were stripped because of a failure ta respond within da *ample* one week limit.
Facts are facts. Ariadne did NOT respond ta Magnus, setting a time and place, within one week's time. I'm not even sure Ariadne knows her challenge was ruled forfeit. It must be utterly confusing fer lower ranks who seek ta understand DoS' standard when none appears present, so I apologize. Let me say, fer all aspiring barons, ya should expect ta follow da rules of challenge and tradition. However, as is painfully obvious, occassionally its
okay ta break da rules because yer leaders who are yer judges, have no standard of behavior.
I ask da officials of DoS ta create a new stance; Chaos Barons -- barons who do not follow rules or traditions, yet are allowed ta retain deir station.
Again, ta all of DoS, I apologize fer a poor council ruling. Mayhaps we should turn back time and award all previously stripped barons deir rings back.
~J
Pitiful Ruling
-
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: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 17:38:35 EDT
Actually, she did send an acceptance, because I did see it.
Just, somehow, Magnus didn't receive it. It's just a dumb mistake. She'll fight her own fight.
~ Derek
Date: 31 Aug 2000 17:38:35 EDT
Actually, she did send an acceptance, because I did see it.
Just, somehow, Magnus didn't receive it. It's just a dumb mistake. She'll fight her own fight.
~ Derek
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 17:38:35 EDT
Actually, she did send an acceptance, because I did see it.
Just, somehow, Magnus didn't receive it. It's just a dumb mistake. She'll fight her own fight.
~ Derek
Date: 31 Aug 2000 17:38:35 EDT
Actually, she did send an acceptance, because I did see it.
Just, somehow, Magnus didn't receive it. It's just a dumb mistake. She'll fight her own fight.
~ Derek
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: oortael5@aol.com (OorTael5)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:42:45 EDT
Jeff,
Has a Baron or Overlord ever dueled the same opponent twice in a row? I'm willing to wager the answer is yes, whether intentional or not. Well, damn, they broke a rule. Take their title, right? Using your logic of: they broke a rule, their title is forfeit, this would be the logical step to take then.
Now you may say, "this is nothing like the current situation. It's a minor, insignificant rule." Or, "it has nothing to do with a challenge." But it is a rule, still. I think not arranging a contact with Magnus within a week was inadvertent on the part of the Baroness. It was rude, disrespectful, and pathetic. It was not, in my mind, an offense which she deserved to have her right to defend her ring taken from her, however.
-Galin
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:42:45 EDT
Jeff,
Has a Baron or Overlord ever dueled the same opponent twice in a row? I'm willing to wager the answer is yes, whether intentional or not. Well, damn, they broke a rule. Take their title, right? Using your logic of: they broke a rule, their title is forfeit, this would be the logical step to take then.
Now you may say, "this is nothing like the current situation. It's a minor, insignificant rule." Or, "it has nothing to do with a challenge." But it is a rule, still. I think not arranging a contact with Magnus within a week was inadvertent on the part of the Baroness. It was rude, disrespectful, and pathetic. It was not, in my mind, an offense which she deserved to have her right to defend her ring taken from her, however.
-Galin
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:46:23 EDT
Jeffrey,
Tis indeed a dark day when ta Council dost condone ta blantant disregard fer so simple a concept ast abidin' by ta rules 'o engagment an' choses ta reward ta Baroness by permitting 'er ta retain 'er title. Perhaps, ignorance may be excused in those 'o lesser rank, bu' tis nae excuse fer such ast Ariadne Angeles who hast in pas' 'eld title ta again flout ta rules 'o engagement an' ta be so rewarded. Th' Second Ring be tainted in 'er possession.
Those 'pon ta Council wh' chose ta nae appoint a champion ta defend th' title an' hae instead condoned th' Baroness' acts hae again shown unto all th' 'onor an' respect for th' ancient sport need nae be considered somethin' ta strive fer.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:46:23 EDT
Jeffrey,
Tis indeed a dark day when ta Council dost condone ta blantant disregard fer so simple a concept ast abidin' by ta rules 'o engagment an' choses ta reward ta Baroness by permitting 'er ta retain 'er title. Perhaps, ignorance may be excused in those 'o lesser rank, bu' tis nae excuse fer such ast Ariadne Angeles who hast in pas' 'eld title ta again flout ta rules 'o engagement an' ta be so rewarded. Th' Second Ring be tainted in 'er possession.
Those 'pon ta Council wh' chose ta nae appoint a champion ta defend th' title an' hae instead condoned th' Baroness' acts hae again shown unto all th' 'onor an' respect for th' ancient sport need nae be considered somethin' ta strive fer.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: flavorlessgum@aol.com (Flavorless Gum)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:53:43 EDT
Jeff,
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Dustin Manjahcapery
Baron of the Seventh Ring
Holder of the Yellow Opal, Moonberyl.
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:53:43 EDT
Jeff,
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Dustin Manjahcapery
Baron of the Seventh Ring
Holder of the Yellow Opal, Moonberyl.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:58:33 EDT
So sue her. I don't really care. I want her to defend her own goddam title.
You don't like that? Come challenge me.
~ Derek
Best Baron On the Council
13th Ring over here!
Date: 31 Aug 2000 20:58:33 EDT
So sue her. I don't really care. I want her to defend her own goddam title.
You don't like that? Come challenge me.
~ Derek
Best Baron On the Council
13th Ring over here!
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:49:02 EDT
Galin,
Yer analogy is not valid, because da penalty fer duelin' da same opponent twice in a row is removal of a WoL or LoW (duel is void). In our present case, da penalty *is* abdication of title (i.e. stripped of ring).
My question ta ya and everyone else who voted fer Ariadne is:
Did Ariadne break da rules of challenge?
It is a very simple, yes or no answer. If yes, we ALREADY HAVE a penalty, clearly outlined in our rules, namely abdication of title. Da barons council should not need ta come up with a new colorful penalty when one already exists and has been enforced time and time again.
If no, *please* tell me how you can possibly believe Ariadne did not break da challenge rules of DoS. I'm all ears.
Derek,
If barons could challenge barons....
~J
Date: 01 Sep 2000 00:49:02 EDT
Galin,
Yer analogy is not valid, because da penalty fer duelin' da same opponent twice in a row is removal of a WoL or LoW (duel is void). In our present case, da penalty *is* abdication of title (i.e. stripped of ring).
My question ta ya and everyone else who voted fer Ariadne is:
Did Ariadne break da rules of challenge?
It is a very simple, yes or no answer. If yes, we ALREADY HAVE a penalty, clearly outlined in our rules, namely abdication of title. Da barons council should not need ta come up with a new colorful penalty when one already exists and has been enforced time and time again.
If no, *please* tell me how you can possibly believe Ariadne did not break da challenge rules of DoS. I'm all ears.
Derek,
If barons could challenge barons....
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:27:31 EDT
From the top.... Magnus issued challenge to Ariadne for the Second. Drake validated the peer wins. Ariadne wrote an acceptance letter, but inadvertently did not send Magnus a copy. Magnus wrote a letter of inquiry to the Council, Standings Keeper and Supervisors stating he had not received a letter from Ariadne accepting his challenge. That letter was
dated the 26th day of August.
Now I've been told, according to an Official of the sport, that she was asked by Ariadne if she could call a challenge match the evening of the 25th of August. I was also told that there is documentation verifying what was said. If that is the case it would seem that Magnus knew full well that his challenge had been accepted and plans were being made to complete the challenge.
The second reason I feel this challenge should go through is the letter written by Magnus on the 27th of August stating that he only wished to know if his challenge had been accepted and saw that it had. He expressed that there was no *situation* and he was sure that they (Ariadne and Magnus) could begin discussing arrangements.
In *my* opinion, Magnus was fully prepared to complete this challenge as issued and now has the opportunity to do so.
~Taylara Locklorn Tyree~
XXXX Overlady of the Duel of Swords
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:27:31 EDT
From the top.... Magnus issued challenge to Ariadne for the Second. Drake validated the peer wins. Ariadne wrote an acceptance letter, but inadvertently did not send Magnus a copy. Magnus wrote a letter of inquiry to the Council, Standings Keeper and Supervisors stating he had not received a letter from Ariadne accepting his challenge. That letter was
dated the 26th day of August.
Now I've been told, according to an Official of the sport, that she was asked by Ariadne if she could call a challenge match the evening of the 25th of August. I was also told that there is documentation verifying what was said. If that is the case it would seem that Magnus knew full well that his challenge had been accepted and plans were being made to complete the challenge.
The second reason I feel this challenge should go through is the letter written by Magnus on the 27th of August stating that he only wished to know if his challenge had been accepted and saw that it had. He expressed that there was no *situation* and he was sure that they (Ariadne and Magnus) could begin discussing arrangements.
In *my* opinion, Magnus was fully prepared to complete this challenge as issued and now has the opportunity to do so.
~Taylara Locklorn Tyree~
XXXX Overlady of the Duel of Swords
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:40:34 EDT
Jeff...
Perhaps one day you will be able to.
Galin...
I can recall no instance ever reported in my entire career as a caller and duelist of anyone dueling the same person twice in a row... even over the span of weeks, such as when a person goes on a vacation or some such thing.
Should such an event be provable, and such proof be provided, the duel would be immediately struck from the Standings.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 01 Sep 2000 02:40:34 EDT
Jeff...
Perhaps one day you will be able to.
Galin...
I can recall no instance ever reported in my entire career as a caller and duelist of anyone dueling the same person twice in a row... even over the span of weeks, such as when a person goes on a vacation or some such thing.
Should such an event be provable, and such proof be provided, the duel would be immediately struck from the Standings.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 07:59:58 EDT
Taylara Locklorn Tyree,
Madame, what thee may or may nae hae been told by an Official 'o th' sport wi' respect ta what Ariadne Angeles may or may nae hae said ta th' Official hast nae one whit 'o bearing 'pon ta th' matter. Whether or nae such a conversation betwixt an Official 'o th' sport an ta Baroness didst or didst nae take place dost not mitigate nor excuse th' fact that ta Baroness nae only failed ta apprise th' challenger 'o her acceptance of th' challenge, by th'
Baroness' own hand she placed a missive 'pon this cork which dinna contain e'en a suggestion 'o a time an' date wherein to meet 'er challenger. Th' only thin' here that seems ta be th' case, Madame, be that thou art seeking in someway ta attempt ta shield one o' yuir loyals an' excusin' her inability ta e'en manage so simple a task ast that 'o abiding by a simple, unambiguous requirement o' ta rules 'o engagement.
Madame, the Warlord Magnus Eques himself hast, by his own hand, denied that he received anna letter 'o acceptance directly from th' Baroness an' thee thineself hae stated th' ta warlord petitioned the Council upon the twenty sixth day. Dost truly expect th' community ta accept such hearsay ast a third 'and conversation ast proof th' ta Baroness indeed complied wi' th' rules 'o engagement an' th' ta Warlord mus' therefore hae been aware th' ta
Baroness hae nae only accepted bu' hae acknowledged ta th' warlord such acceptance an' further th' ta warlord wast aware th ta Baroness wast in ta process 'o arrangin' ta match wi' 'is full knowledge an' approval? Taylara, th' ist utter foolishness.
In th' matter 'o th' Warlord chosin' to rescind 'is original stance an' seeking 'o th' Council th' a champion shouldst be named to defend th' second, Madame, the Warlord wast nae only fully within 'is rights ta so chose, 'e hae ample reason ta desire th' ta rules be followed an' th' ta Baroness' abdication an' forfeiture 'o 'er title an' privileges wouldst be confirmed by ta Council. Thou hast chosen, Taylara, ta again stand in support 'o a Baron
who hast shown repeated an' utter disregard fer ta rules 'o engagement an' who hast dis'onored ta sport from ta verra first time she took it inta 'er 'ead ta seek title. Such a stance ast thee hae assumed merely further settles mine own stance, that being that ta sooner thou aire nae longer ta bearer 'o ta mantle, ta better.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 01 Sep 2000 07:59:58 EDT
Taylara Locklorn Tyree,
Madame, what thee may or may nae hae been told by an Official 'o th' sport wi' respect ta what Ariadne Angeles may or may nae hae said ta th' Official hast nae one whit 'o bearing 'pon ta th' matter. Whether or nae such a conversation betwixt an Official 'o th' sport an ta Baroness didst or didst nae take place dost not mitigate nor excuse th' fact that ta Baroness nae only failed ta apprise th' challenger 'o her acceptance of th' challenge, by th'
Baroness' own hand she placed a missive 'pon this cork which dinna contain e'en a suggestion 'o a time an' date wherein to meet 'er challenger. Th' only thin' here that seems ta be th' case, Madame, be that thou art seeking in someway ta attempt ta shield one o' yuir loyals an' excusin' her inability ta e'en manage so simple a task ast that 'o abiding by a simple, unambiguous requirement o' ta rules 'o engagement.
Madame, the Warlord Magnus Eques himself hast, by his own hand, denied that he received anna letter 'o acceptance directly from th' Baroness an' thee thineself hae stated th' ta warlord petitioned the Council upon the twenty sixth day. Dost truly expect th' community ta accept such hearsay ast a third 'and conversation ast proof th' ta Baroness indeed complied wi' th' rules 'o engagement an' th' ta Warlord mus' therefore hae been aware th' ta
Baroness hae nae only accepted bu' hae acknowledged ta th' warlord such acceptance an' further th' ta warlord wast aware th ta Baroness wast in ta process 'o arrangin' ta match wi' 'is full knowledge an' approval? Taylara, th' ist utter foolishness.
In th' matter 'o th' Warlord chosin' to rescind 'is original stance an' seeking 'o th' Council th' a champion shouldst be named to defend th' second, Madame, the Warlord wast nae only fully within 'is rights ta so chose, 'e hae ample reason ta desire th' ta rules be followed an' th' ta Baroness' abdication an' forfeiture 'o 'er title an' privileges wouldst be confirmed by ta Council. Thou hast chosen, Taylara, ta again stand in support 'o a Baron
who hast shown repeated an' utter disregard fer ta rules 'o engagement an' who hast dis'onored ta sport from ta verra first time she took it inta 'er 'ead ta seek title. Such a stance ast thee hae assumed merely further settles mine own stance, that being that ta sooner thou aire nae longer ta bearer 'o ta mantle, ta better.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gimmzak@aol.com (Gimmzak)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 10:39:54 EDT
Once more I'll throw my hat into the ring and remind everyone that Rules are Rules.
If Magnus did not recieve a letter within one week, weather it be by accident or not, the RULES were broken. Rewarding someone for breaking the rules clearly is wrong.
I'm not the only one to see this, why is this so difficult to understand to everyone? You break a rule, you pay the penalty. I guess the rules don't apply to the all powerfull Loyaylist of this Overlord...(insert sarcasm here)
Gimzak
Date: 01 Sep 2000 10:39:54 EDT
Once more I'll throw my hat into the ring and remind everyone that Rules are Rules.
If Magnus did not recieve a letter within one week, weather it be by accident or not, the RULES were broken. Rewarding someone for breaking the rules clearly is wrong.
I'm not the only one to see this, why is this so difficult to understand to everyone? You break a rule, you pay the penalty. I guess the rules don't apply to the all powerfull Loyaylist of this Overlord...(insert sarcasm here)
Gimzak
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: khrystawlf@aol.com (KhrystaWlf)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 12:16:59 EDT
>Now I've been told, according to an Official of the sport, that she was asked
>by Ariadne if she could call a challenge match the evening of the 25th of
>August. I was also told that there is documentation verifying what was said.
>If that is the case it would seem that Magnus knew full well that his
>challenge had been accepted and plans were being made to complete the
>challenge.
Tay, hon....
This doesn't mean that Magnus knew anything. All it means is that Adriane talked with an official about calling a match. Nothing more.
I think its admirable that you stand by a loyal baroness. We hear in here often that Loyalty is reciprocal... that an overlord should show loyalty to a loyal baron(ess) and that said baron(ess) should show his/her loyalty as well. Often the added "No Matter What" is tacked on in there somewhere. It's too bad that those who constantly decry Overlords for not standing with their loyal barons can't see that this is what you are doing. Mayhaps they
refuse to see, heh?!
There is only one thing that mars that loyalty, Tay. Only one. Adriane is in the wrong here. She failed in the basic duties of any and all Barons in the her handling of her own challenge match. As so many have pointed out here there is a specified penalty according to the rules of the sport for what she has done. I think, Tay, that as Overlord your primary concern should be for the sport as a whole. I think as well, Tay, that in this instance
your whole hearted and enthusiastic support of Adriane is misplaced. According to the rules she should have been stripped of her ring and title. I hate to see a friend caught up in one issue and then completely fail to see the forest for the trees.
Khrys
Date: 01 Sep 2000 12:16:59 EDT
>Now I've been told, according to an Official of the sport, that she was asked
>by Ariadne if she could call a challenge match the evening of the 25th of
>August. I was also told that there is documentation verifying what was said.
>If that is the case it would seem that Magnus knew full well that his
>challenge had been accepted and plans were being made to complete the
>challenge.
Tay, hon....
This doesn't mean that Magnus knew anything. All it means is that Adriane talked with an official about calling a match. Nothing more.
I think its admirable that you stand by a loyal baroness. We hear in here often that Loyalty is reciprocal... that an overlord should show loyalty to a loyal baron(ess) and that said baron(ess) should show his/her loyalty as well. Often the added "No Matter What" is tacked on in there somewhere. It's too bad that those who constantly decry Overlords for not standing with their loyal barons can't see that this is what you are doing. Mayhaps they
refuse to see, heh?!
There is only one thing that mars that loyalty, Tay. Only one. Adriane is in the wrong here. She failed in the basic duties of any and all Barons in the her handling of her own challenge match. As so many have pointed out here there is a specified penalty according to the rules of the sport for what she has done. I think, Tay, that as Overlord your primary concern should be for the sport as a whole. I think as well, Tay, that in this instance
your whole hearted and enthusiastic support of Adriane is misplaced. According to the rules she should have been stripped of her ring and title. I hate to see a friend caught up in one issue and then completely fail to see the forest for the trees.
Khrys
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 13:54:24 EDT
First I will state that no one has the right to apologize for me. Second, I find it disheartening that people do not even bother to read the rules before crying foul.
There is no clause in the rule stating any penalty for one challenged not sending a private missive to the challenger. It is certainly implied ... but never stated.
I do not defend Ariadnes' forgetfulness to send the missive to Magnus, but rather as a point of information. She did post upon the boards, and a private missive was circulated.
If you disagree with my stance, that is your right ... and your opinion. Do not throw precedent at me, for that comes with the ruling that Huma be stripped of his right of challenge when Dalamar failed to show.
Each case needs to be treated as a separate event, as no two are the same.
Beyond all of this, it appears as though the Baroness does not intend to have the match scheduled within the allowable two weeks, at which point this case is clearly a forfeit.
I have a standard of behavior, just because it does not match your own does not mean you may haphazardly belittle my own. I do not do so for any others, for if you will look back at my missives, I rarely feel the need to demean others to bolster my own stance.
We disagree. If you wish to debate the stance further, by all means continue, but take no liberties on apologizing for my stance. I do not apologize for it, so any given would be a blatant lie in respects to myself, and I suspect the others that voted as they did.
Ellisa
Date: 01 Sep 2000 13:54:24 EDT
First I will state that no one has the right to apologize for me. Second, I find it disheartening that people do not even bother to read the rules before crying foul.
There is no clause in the rule stating any penalty for one challenged not sending a private missive to the challenger. It is certainly implied ... but never stated.
I do not defend Ariadnes' forgetfulness to send the missive to Magnus, but rather as a point of information. She did post upon the boards, and a private missive was circulated.
If you disagree with my stance, that is your right ... and your opinion. Do not throw precedent at me, for that comes with the ruling that Huma be stripped of his right of challenge when Dalamar failed to show.
Each case needs to be treated as a separate event, as no two are the same.
Beyond all of this, it appears as though the Baroness does not intend to have the match scheduled within the allowable two weeks, at which point this case is clearly a forfeit.
I have a standard of behavior, just because it does not match your own does not mean you may haphazardly belittle my own. I do not do so for any others, for if you will look back at my missives, I rarely feel the need to demean others to bolster my own stance.
We disagree. If you wish to debate the stance further, by all means continue, but take no liberties on apologizing for my stance. I do not apologize for it, so any given would be a blatant lie in respects to myself, and I suspect the others that voted as they did.
Ellisa
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 15:14:10 EDT
Baroness Ellisa Morgan,
I do beg to differ with thee on one verra important issue. Tis indeed a verra specific clause which the Baroness chose to disregard which indeed carries penalty.
Thou shalt certes correct me if I do err, but t'would seem that ast well ast her failure to offer the courtesy of acknowledging the challenge and the further courtesy of so informing the Warlord, Magnus Eques of her acceptance of the challenge, the Baroness likewise didst fail to offer a date and time ast well. Further she didst fail to apprise the Council, the challenger and the Keeper of the Standings such information ast ist required, thereby
abdicating her Ring and title.
Indeed, tis for the Council to confirm such abdication. The Council, by close decision, didst chose nay confirm the abdication, thereby rewarding the Baroness for her failures.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 01 Sep 2000 15:14:10 EDT
Baroness Ellisa Morgan,
I do beg to differ with thee on one verra important issue. Tis indeed a verra specific clause which the Baroness chose to disregard which indeed carries penalty.
Thou shalt certes correct me if I do err, but t'would seem that ast well ast her failure to offer the courtesy of acknowledging the challenge and the further courtesy of so informing the Warlord, Magnus Eques of her acceptance of the challenge, the Baroness likewise didst fail to offer a date and time ast well. Further she didst fail to apprise the Council, the challenger and the Keeper of the Standings such information ast ist required, thereby
abdicating her Ring and title.
Indeed, tis for the Council to confirm such abdication. The Council, by close decision, didst chose nay confirm the abdication, thereby rewarding the Baroness for her failures.
Jonalyn Starfare