From: daedragonsblade@aol.com (Dae Dragonsblade)
Date: 04 Sep 2000 21:57:21 EDT
Taylara,
Are you trying to tell me that if someone doesn't send an acceptance and a date/time in the same letter, it isn't an acceptance? That's very observant of you. Thank you for writing the rules. Anyway, let's dissect the whole situation here, I've made it easy for you...but then, I'm such an idiot that it probably makes no sense..Of course, I wouldn't think someone like you would pass judgement on others since you so clearly told me not to...however,
like you and I have both said..It's beyond my comprehension.
1) Challenged issued.
2) Challenge accepted.
3) Date and Time offered.
4) Date and Time accepted.
5) Challenge fought.
Now.. You have to pass through them in sequence for the Challenge to take place. Now then..According to you..the order would be 1..then 2 and 3 must be together or it's invalid. That doesn't sit well. As a matter of fact...
Drake would this be correct? If a Baron or Overlord accepts in one letter, then sends a letter with a time of date (both being within a week of the challenge issuance) would they be in danger as per the rules? If they are, I pray this be rewritten because it is the most childish thing I have ever heard of. Of course, maybe this is why the Over"lady" stands by it.
Now then, on with the point. 1 leads to 2 then..either 2 and 3 are taken out at the same time or 2 is done, then 3..
>"Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place,
>shall be considered an abdication."
Where does this say it must be done at the same time? It says..a challenge must be responded to setting a time and place within one week. Let's put up an example.
You challenged me. I accepted the challenge. Within the week..I responded again, setting a time and place. Both were done seperately, however I was doing so wrongly?
Either way you look at it. The Baroness was incorrect totally omitting 3 (until she put it on the boards, but according to the above qoute that was incorrect since she didn't send the time and date to Magnus for approval).
Am I missing the point, dear "lady"? I think not. However..this is completely beyond my comprehension..thus, I better not pass judgement as you have clearly done to me.
Have a nice day.
~Daelin Dragonsblade
~XXXIX Overlord of the Duel of Swords
~Defender of the Blue Opal, IceDancer
Seconds Results
-
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: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 04 Sep 2000 23:19:01 EDT
> Though if Baroness Morgan would please check her records for me, I believe
>she will find that we did communicate on July 27th
>which was when the time and date was settled.
To clarify, and nothing else, no such missive was sent to me.
Ellisa
(Author's Note: Said letter was OOC...and as such is OOC. No IC letter was sent. )
Date: 04 Sep 2000 23:19:01 EDT
> Though if Baroness Morgan would please check her records for me, I believe
>she will find that we did communicate on July 27th
>which was when the time and date was settled.
To clarify, and nothing else, no such missive was sent to me.
Ellisa
(Author's Note: Said letter was OOC...and as such is OOC. No IC letter was sent. )
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 00:09:02 EDT
First to all,
My "crime" metaphor was just that, a figure of speech.
Daelin Dragonsblade,
"1) Ariadne didn't respond to the challenge, evidently she knew about it and was around but she (for whatever reasons) failed to answer it."
She did actually, just in her own messed-up way.
"2) Ariadne had a chronic history of shrugging off and being disrespectful to her challengers."
Not to sound cliché, but people have the capacity to change. Whether Ariadne has or hasn't I can't say, but I try not to focus on someone's past mistakes.
"But, you claim everyone elses opinion is biased. However, looking at your own words and actions, can you say that your own is not?"
I didn't say everyone's, I said a lot of people's. And I can say honestly that there was no bias in my decision here, which I believe I already did at some point prior.
Deluthan Ev'rt
Date: 05 Sep 2000 00:09:02 EDT
First to all,
My "crime" metaphor was just that, a figure of speech.
Daelin Dragonsblade,
"1) Ariadne didn't respond to the challenge, evidently she knew about it and was around but she (for whatever reasons) failed to answer it."
She did actually, just in her own messed-up way.
"2) Ariadne had a chronic history of shrugging off and being disrespectful to her challengers."
Not to sound cliché, but people have the capacity to change. Whether Ariadne has or hasn't I can't say, but I try not to focus on someone's past mistakes.
"But, you claim everyone elses opinion is biased. However, looking at your own words and actions, can you say that your own is not?"
I didn't say everyone's, I said a lot of people's. And I can say honestly that there was no bias in my decision here, which I believe I already did at some point prior.
Deluthan Ev'rt
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 00:46:10 EDT
Overlord Taylara,
I thank you for comprehending my argument and completely misunderstanding it. The fact of the matter is that ex-baroness Ariadne did not respond to Magnus within the one week's time. She sent only *one* letter, therefore the setting of a time and place must be contained within that one letter. Magnus made that very clear when he brought the matter before our council.
Often times, barons will respond, and in a later correspondence select an appropriate time and place for the duel to occur. This is completely within the rules of challenge, so long as the response and setting of time and place BOTH occur within one week's time.
Truely sad, the supreme dueler of a sport does not have a firm grasp upon its rules. A fine example for lower ranked duelers and newer duelers, indeed.
Vithrathien
Scribe for Baron Oakenshield
Date: 05 Sep 2000 00:46:10 EDT
Overlord Taylara,
I thank you for comprehending my argument and completely misunderstanding it. The fact of the matter is that ex-baroness Ariadne did not respond to Magnus within the one week's time. She sent only *one* letter, therefore the setting of a time and place must be contained within that one letter. Magnus made that very clear when he brought the matter before our council.
Often times, barons will respond, and in a later correspondence select an appropriate time and place for the duel to occur. This is completely within the rules of challenge, so long as the response and setting of time and place BOTH occur within one week's time.
Truely sad, the supreme dueler of a sport does not have a firm grasp upon its rules. A fine example for lower ranked duelers and newer duelers, indeed.
Vithrathien
Scribe for Baron Oakenshield
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 03:23:58 EDT
>
> I thank you for comprehending my argument and completely misunderstanding
>it. The fact of the matter is that ex-baroness Ariadne did not respond to
>Magnus within the one week's time.
Ok, Jeff...where in the rules does it say that the challenged party must respond to the challenger in one week's time? I believe it was Baroness Morgan that pointed this out wherein this is an implied aspect of the sport. A tradition if you wish.
> She sent only *one* letter, therefore the setting of a time and place must
>be contained within that one letter.
Interesting, I could have sworn that that was what I had explained to Daelin. That your beef was that she did not include a time and date within the one week time, eh? You can't be arguing about Magnus not getting an acceptance letter cause we covered that in the paragraph above.
>Magnus made that very clear when he brought the matter before our council.
What Magnus made clear in his first letter to the Council was that he didn't receive an acceptance letter from Ariadne and he wanted to know if his challenge had been accepted, period. When he was told it had been accepted he wrote a second letter stating that they could start discussing a time and place.
> Often times, barons will respond, and in a later correspondence select an
>appropriate time and place for the duel to occur. This is completely within
>the rules of challenge, so long as the response and setting of time and place
>BOTH occur within one week's time.
>
Again, I believe that is what I said that your beef was because Ariadne had not set a time and date within one week. You've been a Baron long enough to know that not everyone states a time and date in their acceptance letter. And it's highly doubtful that they send a second letter stating a time and date, whether it is or isn't within that one week time frame. By the way Daelin, the time and date, according to rules, must be set within one week
from the time you are challenged. Not from the time you send the acceptance letter.
> Truely sad, the supreme dueler of a sport does not have a firm grasp upon
>its rules. A fine example for lower ranked duelers and newer duelers,
>indeed.
>
>
Baron Oakenshield, by your own words in a missive tacked to this cork on the 31st day of August...
Clearly, setting a time and place, is very much a part of "responding", and must be done so within one week's time.
So, Baron Oakenshield it would seem that we are both saying the same thing here only in different terminology. I believe that would make our understanding of the rules pretty much equal.
~Taylara Locklorn Tyree~
XXXX Overlady of the Duel of Swords
Date: 05 Sep 2000 03:23:58 EDT
>
> I thank you for comprehending my argument and completely misunderstanding
>it. The fact of the matter is that ex-baroness Ariadne did not respond to
>Magnus within the one week's time.
Ok, Jeff...where in the rules does it say that the challenged party must respond to the challenger in one week's time? I believe it was Baroness Morgan that pointed this out wherein this is an implied aspect of the sport. A tradition if you wish.
> She sent only *one* letter, therefore the setting of a time and place must
>be contained within that one letter.
Interesting, I could have sworn that that was what I had explained to Daelin. That your beef was that she did not include a time and date within the one week time, eh? You can't be arguing about Magnus not getting an acceptance letter cause we covered that in the paragraph above.
>Magnus made that very clear when he brought the matter before our council.
What Magnus made clear in his first letter to the Council was that he didn't receive an acceptance letter from Ariadne and he wanted to know if his challenge had been accepted, period. When he was told it had been accepted he wrote a second letter stating that they could start discussing a time and place.
> Often times, barons will respond, and in a later correspondence select an
>appropriate time and place for the duel to occur. This is completely within
>the rules of challenge, so long as the response and setting of time and place
>BOTH occur within one week's time.
>
Again, I believe that is what I said that your beef was because Ariadne had not set a time and date within one week. You've been a Baron long enough to know that not everyone states a time and date in their acceptance letter. And it's highly doubtful that they send a second letter stating a time and date, whether it is or isn't within that one week time frame. By the way Daelin, the time and date, according to rules, must be set within one week
from the time you are challenged. Not from the time you send the acceptance letter.
> Truely sad, the supreme dueler of a sport does not have a firm grasp upon
>its rules. A fine example for lower ranked duelers and newer duelers,
>indeed.
>
>
Baron Oakenshield, by your own words in a missive tacked to this cork on the 31st day of August...
Clearly, setting a time and place, is very much a part of "responding", and must be done so within one week's time.
So, Baron Oakenshield it would seem that we are both saying the same thing here only in different terminology. I believe that would make our understanding of the rules pretty much equal.
~Taylara Locklorn Tyree~
XXXX Overlady of the Duel of Swords
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 03:44:14 EDT
>"By the logic of the sentence, you are stating the following: One must issue
>a letter of acceptance within one week of being
>challenged and must issue a letter which sets the date of said challenge
>within one week of issuing the aformentioned letter of acceptance."
>
What I am saying Daelin, which may not have been written for your understanding, is that a validated challenge must be responded to by the party challenged, in writing, within one week stating a time and date. If you want to respond in two separate letters that is fine as well, as long as it is within the one week time frame. The problem with the rule is that is does not state that the letter must be sent to the person challenging. That's where
the implied/tradition factor lies.
>Umm. I never said that at all, and in fact, if you read the missive, it says
>that I sent two letters. One of acceptance and one setting a date.
>I told Taylara that *both* my acceptance and my setting of date and time were
>within a week of said challenge.
Regretfully Daelin, my records only shows that I received one letter from you, the one I quoted. Maybe my name was inadvertently left off the Messenger Service order on that second letter.
~Taylara Locklorn Tyree~
XXXX Overlady of the Duel of Swords
Date: 05 Sep 2000 03:44:14 EDT
>"By the logic of the sentence, you are stating the following: One must issue
>a letter of acceptance within one week of being
>challenged and must issue a letter which sets the date of said challenge
>within one week of issuing the aformentioned letter of acceptance."
>
What I am saying Daelin, which may not have been written for your understanding, is that a validated challenge must be responded to by the party challenged, in writing, within one week stating a time and date. If you want to respond in two separate letters that is fine as well, as long as it is within the one week time frame. The problem with the rule is that is does not state that the letter must be sent to the person challenging. That's where
the implied/tradition factor lies.
>Umm. I never said that at all, and in fact, if you read the missive, it says
>that I sent two letters. One of acceptance and one setting a date.
>I told Taylara that *both* my acceptance and my setting of date and time were
>within a week of said challenge.
Regretfully Daelin, my records only shows that I received one letter from you, the one I quoted. Maybe my name was inadvertently left off the Messenger Service order on that second letter.
~Taylara Locklorn Tyree~
XXXX Overlady of the Duel of Swords
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 06:30:19 EDT
"Ok, Jeff...where in the rules does it say that the challenged party must respond to the challenger in one week's time?"
Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered an abdication. (Emphasis added)
I believe this adequately answers your question, Taylara. Setting a time and place are merely *part* of the total response. Or is your grasp of the common language so poor that you cannot comprehend the sentence?
"That your beef was that she did not include a time and date within the one week time, eh? You can't be arguing about Magnus not getting an acceptance letter cause we covered that in the paragraph above."
You're correct that my "beef" pertained to Ariadne's failure to set a time and place within the one week time period. At no time did I claim she failed to send an acceptance letter. However, I did point out that her response was incomplete, and she sent no further correspondance to Magnus. Thus, she broke the rules of challenge. What exactly were you trying to
say in this paragraph other than that you understood my "beef"?
"You've been a Baron long enough to know that not everyone states a time and date in their acceptance letter. And it's highly doubtful that they send a second letter stating a time and date, whether it is or isn't within that one week time frame"
Taylara, once again, you agree with me yet you try and use it against me. I *do* know that not everyone sets a time and place in their initial letter. While you may think its "highly doubtful" that a second letter is sent, I assure you, most times one is. If a second letter is not sent, setting a time and place, then the challenged is breaking the rules. YOU may condone
breaking the rules, Taylara, but I do not. You may justify your believe, calling it compassion, but one who has compassion for lawbreakers is no better than the criminal herself.
"So, Baron Oakenshield it would seem that we are both saying the same thing here only in different terminology"
Hardly, and if I were saying the same thing as you, I would be ashamed of myself. You are saying that it is okay to be a little lax on the setting of a time and place, I am not.
Twice in your response missive you agreed with what I am saying, but turned my words around attempting to make me look obtuse. Trust me, Taylara, the only one looking foolish here is you. How pitiful, an Overlord who believes breaking the rules is alright; so long as others have done it as well. You truely are an example for the masses.
Vithrathien
Scribe for Baron Oakenshield
Date: 05 Sep 2000 06:30:19 EDT
"Ok, Jeff...where in the rules does it say that the challenged party must respond to the challenger in one week's time?"
Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered an abdication. (Emphasis added)
I believe this adequately answers your question, Taylara. Setting a time and place are merely *part* of the total response. Or is your grasp of the common language so poor that you cannot comprehend the sentence?
"That your beef was that she did not include a time and date within the one week time, eh? You can't be arguing about Magnus not getting an acceptance letter cause we covered that in the paragraph above."
You're correct that my "beef" pertained to Ariadne's failure to set a time and place within the one week time period. At no time did I claim she failed to send an acceptance letter. However, I did point out that her response was incomplete, and she sent no further correspondance to Magnus. Thus, she broke the rules of challenge. What exactly were you trying to
say in this paragraph other than that you understood my "beef"?
"You've been a Baron long enough to know that not everyone states a time and date in their acceptance letter. And it's highly doubtful that they send a second letter stating a time and date, whether it is or isn't within that one week time frame"
Taylara, once again, you agree with me yet you try and use it against me. I *do* know that not everyone sets a time and place in their initial letter. While you may think its "highly doubtful" that a second letter is sent, I assure you, most times one is. If a second letter is not sent, setting a time and place, then the challenged is breaking the rules. YOU may condone
breaking the rules, Taylara, but I do not. You may justify your believe, calling it compassion, but one who has compassion for lawbreakers is no better than the criminal herself.
"So, Baron Oakenshield it would seem that we are both saying the same thing here only in different terminology"
Hardly, and if I were saying the same thing as you, I would be ashamed of myself. You are saying that it is okay to be a little lax on the setting of a time and place, I am not.
Twice in your response missive you agreed with what I am saying, but turned my words around attempting to make me look obtuse. Trust me, Taylara, the only one looking foolish here is you. How pitiful, an Overlord who believes breaking the rules is alright; so long as others have done it as well. You truely are an example for the masses.
Vithrathien
Scribe for Baron Oakenshield
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 17:19:03 EDT
"No, Var, but it would have been a crime if this duel never took place."
And how so, Deluthan? A rule was broken with *no* decent explanation and the rule-breaker was let off while there are those in the past who had *more* than a decent explanation for their rule-breaking and were punished, not only by those in authority, but by the Community at large who decried the punishment as not being enough for such an "insult" to the Sport.
The rules mean nothing now if you can break them and get away with it. THAT IS A CRIME.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 05 Sep 2000 17:19:03 EDT
"No, Var, but it would have been a crime if this duel never took place."
And how so, Deluthan? A rule was broken with *no* decent explanation and the rule-breaker was let off while there are those in the past who had *more* than a decent explanation for their rule-breaking and were punished, not only by those in authority, but by the Community at large who decried the punishment as not being enough for such an "insult" to the Sport.
The rules mean nothing now if you can break them and get away with it. THAT IS A CRIME.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 17:20:45 EDT
"That's the thing. She DID answer it."
That is a lie and you know it. If she had answered her Challenger, there wouldn't have been a problem.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 05 Sep 2000 17:20:45 EDT
"That's the thing. She DID answer it."
That is a lie and you know it. If she had answered her Challenger, there wouldn't have been a problem.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 17:51:48 EDT
>
>That is a lie and you know it.
It is not a lie. Would you like to call me a liar? Than you'd be as dumb as the next fool who attempts it.
She DID indeed, send an acceptance letter. But, she is dumb, so she never sent it to Magnus... Why should I, or anyone, stop a challenge from proceeding because she just made a stupid mailing mistake? It was just a name left off her list of mailings. Everyone knows Magnus is a nothing, and easily to be forgotten on any list.
What is this, Sidartha? Seventh year as a commoner? Congratulations. You're as dense as the next nobody to step in the Arena.
~ Derek
Date: 05 Sep 2000 17:51:48 EDT
>
>That is a lie and you know it.
It is not a lie. Would you like to call me a liar? Than you'd be as dumb as the next fool who attempts it.
She DID indeed, send an acceptance letter. But, she is dumb, so she never sent it to Magnus... Why should I, or anyone, stop a challenge from proceeding because she just made a stupid mailing mistake? It was just a name left off her list of mailings. Everyone knows Magnus is a nothing, and easily to be forgotten on any list.
What is this, Sidartha? Seventh year as a commoner? Congratulations. You're as dense as the next nobody to step in the Arena.
~ Derek
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 19:12:50 EDT
Drey~
I would explain the fact that if something is important enough, one does not forget to add in the single most important figure (besides ones self) in the list of recipiants. However, noticing your weak and totally pointless remarks as to my dueling skill (as if they had any weight in such a discussion), I'm sure such an explanation would simply be shrugged off by some sort of skewed logic, so I won't bother to continue with you on that.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 05 Sep 2000 19:12:50 EDT
Drey~
I would explain the fact that if something is important enough, one does not forget to add in the single most important figure (besides ones self) in the list of recipiants. However, noticing your weak and totally pointless remarks as to my dueling skill (as if they had any weight in such a discussion), I'm sure such an explanation would simply be shrugged off by some sort of skewed logic, so I won't bother to continue with you on that.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: chadwickvesmont@aol.com (ChadwickVesmont)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 20:00:16 EDT
One of the arguments seem to be that the ex-baroness didn't send a missive to now Baron Eques within the 1-week time frame of the sport. Well I have to ask what good is responding to a challenge at all if not all parties are involved?
Basically, the challenger decides if he wishes it placed before the council for viewing do they not? This being the case, and the Baron Eques didn't get the acceptance then the challenge was not properly served.
Since arriving in your halls but a week ago I have been reading the histories to learn as much as I can. Once I knew of the current situation a challenge not too long ago, earlier this year came to mine. A challenge that invovles the 6th ring, which Jeff Oakenshield now adorns. This match was between Baron Daryl Kyle and Challenger Damien Mortis. I hope all of you will read the history on this for it was decided that the Baron did accept the
challenge in the proper time frame which the Baroness Ariadne did not. I must ask two things. One, The baroness didn't respond to Eques, and the Baron Daryl Kyle did...Why did they get the same punishment if Daryl Kyle follows the rules and Ariadne does not? Two, This decision came so quickly with this challenge, from the council yet the histories state that the Supervisor of the sport had to rule on the Baron Kyle's match. What took the council
so long for his match and not for this one?
Chadwick Vesmont, Warrior of Muse
Date: 05 Sep 2000 20:00:16 EDT
One of the arguments seem to be that the ex-baroness didn't send a missive to now Baron Eques within the 1-week time frame of the sport. Well I have to ask what good is responding to a challenge at all if not all parties are involved?
Basically, the challenger decides if he wishes it placed before the council for viewing do they not? This being the case, and the Baron Eques didn't get the acceptance then the challenge was not properly served.
Since arriving in your halls but a week ago I have been reading the histories to learn as much as I can. Once I knew of the current situation a challenge not too long ago, earlier this year came to mine. A challenge that invovles the 6th ring, which Jeff Oakenshield now adorns. This match was between Baron Daryl Kyle and Challenger Damien Mortis. I hope all of you will read the history on this for it was decided that the Baron did accept the
challenge in the proper time frame which the Baroness Ariadne did not. I must ask two things. One, The baroness didn't respond to Eques, and the Baron Daryl Kyle did...Why did they get the same punishment if Daryl Kyle follows the rules and Ariadne does not? Two, This decision came so quickly with this challenge, from the council yet the histories state that the Supervisor of the sport had to rule on the Baron Kyle's match. What took the council
so long for his match and not for this one?
Chadwick Vesmont, Warrior of Muse
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: elijahbasiauhr@aol.com (Elijah Basia Uhr)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 20:32:17 EDT
Magnus is not a nothing, he is a multiple times Baron holder and former Overlord, who though no one would care, has atleast my respect. And should garner respect for his accomplishments, and should probably garner more respect for not being apart of the slinging of insults on this cork worth about the value of something to wipe my arse with.
What have you done lately, Derek? Whoopie your a baron too, wanna freaking cookie? Everyone and there mother has been a baron around here lately. In a match between you and Magnus I wouldn't have a problem in supporting Magnus in a heartbeat and watch him wipe the ring with your sorry arse. God you are pathetic, Derek. You are another wannabe Billy Ray type who is like those little yappy dogs rather than a beast to be afraid of.
~Elijah Basia-Uhr~
Warlord of Swords
Humanity is a virus, I just happen to be a feral strand in this very sick world.
Date: 05 Sep 2000 20:32:17 EDT
Magnus is not a nothing, he is a multiple times Baron holder and former Overlord, who though no one would care, has atleast my respect. And should garner respect for his accomplishments, and should probably garner more respect for not being apart of the slinging of insults on this cork worth about the value of something to wipe my arse with.
What have you done lately, Derek? Whoopie your a baron too, wanna freaking cookie? Everyone and there mother has been a baron around here lately. In a match between you and Magnus I wouldn't have a problem in supporting Magnus in a heartbeat and watch him wipe the ring with your sorry arse. God you are pathetic, Derek. You are another wannabe Billy Ray type who is like those little yappy dogs rather than a beast to be afraid of.
~Elijah Basia-Uhr~
Warlord of Swords
Humanity is a virus, I just happen to be a feral strand in this very sick world.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 22:42:07 EDT
>"Ok, Jeff...where in the rules does it say that the challenged party must
>respond to the challenger in one week's time?"
>
>Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place,
>shall be considered an abdication. (Emphasis added)
>
>I believe this adequately answers your question, Taylara. Setting a time and
>place are merely *part* of the total response. Or is your grasp of the
>common language so poor that you cannot comprehend the sentence?
>
You still haven't answered my question Jeff. Please show me in the rule where it says that the reponse must be sent to the Challenger. Kind'a hard to comprehend something that is not written in the rule, Jeff.
A reponse to the challenger is implied, but it is not stated.
~Tay~
Date: 05 Sep 2000 22:42:07 EDT
>"Ok, Jeff...where in the rules does it say that the challenged party must
>respond to the challenger in one week's time?"
>
>Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place,
>shall be considered an abdication. (Emphasis added)
>
>I believe this adequately answers your question, Taylara. Setting a time and
>place are merely *part* of the total response. Or is your grasp of the
>common language so poor that you cannot comprehend the sentence?
>
You still haven't answered my question Jeff. Please show me in the rule where it says that the reponse must be sent to the Challenger. Kind'a hard to comprehend something that is not written in the rule, Jeff.
A reponse to the challenger is implied, but it is not stated.
~Tay~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: verceterixfavre@aol.com (Verceterix Favre)
Date: 05 Sep 2000 22:55:38 EDT
Do you pay attention to the people who run the place, Taylara, or are you just ignoring previously posted information in an attempt to not look like a fool? Here is something written by Turi:
"For public record, I have ruled and informed the Council that, though the letter of the rules does not state the Challenger must be notified, the spirit of the rules certainly intends as much, and Baroness Ariadne is in forfeit on that matter."
It is especially not hard to comprehend when the assistant supervisor says that the letter must be sent to the challenger.
This is our Overlord?
-Rix
Date: 05 Sep 2000 22:55:38 EDT
Do you pay attention to the people who run the place, Taylara, or are you just ignoring previously posted information in an attempt to not look like a fool? Here is something written by Turi:
"For public record, I have ruled and informed the Council that, though the letter of the rules does not state the Challenger must be notified, the spirit of the rules certainly intends as much, and Baroness Ariadne is in forfeit on that matter."
It is especially not hard to comprehend when the assistant supervisor says that the letter must be sent to the challenger.
This is our Overlord?
-Rix