From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 14 Sep 2000 22:58:22 EDT
A copy of a missive sent is tacked upon the boards:
Overlord Mithmellon, Keeper in the Standings, and fellow Barons,
I was never good at listening, nor do I appreciate others attempting to refuse me something before I have decided my mind upon a thing. Therefore I declare myself Loyal to the new Overlord, I believe he has great potential, and I am well aware of what the near future will hold.
I would like to mention, before the inevitable occurs, that I have never hidden behind any alignment. Nor do I fear a greater stream of challenges, for this is not the peak of the Duel of Swords, as evidenced by the Overlord that preceeded Lord Mithmellon.
With all sincerity,
Ellisa Morgan
You know my name, look up the number
A copy of an official document
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 00:24:15 EDT
"I would like to mention, before the inevitable occurs, that I have never hidden behind any alignment."
And, indeed, it's hardly relevant in any event, as this is an instance where, having already declared all Barons Renegade, the Overlord must actively accept your loyalty for it to "count."
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 15 Sep 2000 00:24:15 EDT
"I would like to mention, before the inevitable occurs, that I have never hidden behind any alignment."
And, indeed, it's hardly relevant in any event, as this is an instance where, having already declared all Barons Renegade, the Overlord must actively accept your loyalty for it to "count."
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 02:51:13 EDT
Ian...
I hate to dispute it with you, but the simple fact of the matter is that Daegarth could only "Banish" a Baron to Renegade if they were Loyal in the first place.
It is clearly written in the Rules that a new Baron, or a Baron holding title at the time a new Overlord is crowned, declares their own alignment.
The Overlord may banish any Baron that declares Loyal, but he may not stop any Baron from declaring loyal.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 15 Sep 2000 02:51:13 EDT
Ian...
I hate to dispute it with you, but the simple fact of the matter is that Daegarth could only "Banish" a Baron to Renegade if they were Loyal in the first place.
It is clearly written in the Rules that a new Baron, or a Baron holding title at the time a new Overlord is crowned, declares their own alignment.
The Overlord may banish any Baron that declares Loyal, but he may not stop any Baron from declaring loyal.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 03:05:38 EDT
"It is clearly written in the Rules that a new Baron, or a Baron holding title at the time a new Overlord is crowned, declares their own alignment."
Puffery and nonsense.
Despite having had the details of Feadur's ascension to the Overlordship given to you on several occasions, you never seem to learn.
Gloin's ruling regarding my challenge to Feadur was somewhat vague on this issue, but one thing was perfectly clear: All Barons were declared Renegade. Whether it is presumed that all Barons were forcibly realigned and therefore able to issue immediate challenge, or that the Overlord has the ability to refuse Loyal alignment, is a question which must be decided; however, as this is not an issue which is under the purview of the Baron's Council,
precedent is, therefore, relevant.
Barring Daegarth's acceptance of individual petitions for loyalty, and based on established precedent, it must be presumed that there are no Loyal Barons.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 15 Sep 2000 03:05:38 EDT
"It is clearly written in the Rules that a new Baron, or a Baron holding title at the time a new Overlord is crowned, declares their own alignment."
Puffery and nonsense.
Despite having had the details of Feadur's ascension to the Overlordship given to you on several occasions, you never seem to learn.
Gloin's ruling regarding my challenge to Feadur was somewhat vague on this issue, but one thing was perfectly clear: All Barons were declared Renegade. Whether it is presumed that all Barons were forcibly realigned and therefore able to issue immediate challenge, or that the Overlord has the ability to refuse Loyal alignment, is a question which must be decided; however, as this is not an issue which is under the purview of the Baron's Council,
precedent is, therefore, relevant.
Barring Daegarth's acceptance of individual petitions for loyalty, and based on established precedent, it must be presumed that there are no Loyal Barons.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 06:19:31 EDT
I like my renegade rank anywho. It's cute and cuddly.
~ Derek
Date: 15 Sep 2000 06:19:31 EDT
I like my renegade rank anywho. It's cute and cuddly.
~ Derek
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 19:36:08 EDT
>Barring Daegarth's acceptance of individual petitions for loyalty, and based
>on established precedent, it must be presumed that there are no Loyal Barons.
This could be a very interesting legal point. In many cases, precedents have failed to stand when similar issues have arisen again. I think I would far rather allow Ellisa to test the exact rules and see what an official ruling may be than to simply sit back and argue that the precedent is binding. Did any of the Barons under Feadur actually attempt to become Loyal? If so, there might be a precedent stopping Ellisa. If not, it might be possible that
no applicable precedent exists.
I do, I must admit, think that it would have been more suitable for Ellisa to talk to Daegarth and see if he might accept her Loyalty. However, I do believe that as Ellisa was already a Renegade, she has the right to delcare her loyalty to the new Overlord. He may, of course, decline or immediately banish her. However, I think I would like to see the situation played out.
If nothing else, it will be an interesting decision to see. Moreso, it will be nice to see a certain amount of discussion and controversy over something that doesn't involve insults and hatred for a change.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
Date: 15 Sep 2000 19:36:08 EDT
>Barring Daegarth's acceptance of individual petitions for loyalty, and based
>on established precedent, it must be presumed that there are no Loyal Barons.
This could be a very interesting legal point. In many cases, precedents have failed to stand when similar issues have arisen again. I think I would far rather allow Ellisa to test the exact rules and see what an official ruling may be than to simply sit back and argue that the precedent is binding. Did any of the Barons under Feadur actually attempt to become Loyal? If so, there might be a precedent stopping Ellisa. If not, it might be possible that
no applicable precedent exists.
I do, I must admit, think that it would have been more suitable for Ellisa to talk to Daegarth and see if he might accept her Loyalty. However, I do believe that as Ellisa was already a Renegade, she has the right to delcare her loyalty to the new Overlord. He may, of course, decline or immediately banish her. However, I think I would like to see the situation played out.
If nothing else, it will be an interesting decision to see. Moreso, it will be nice to see a certain amount of discussion and controversy over something that doesn't involve insults and hatred for a change.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 19:59:43 EDT
I have thought about this for a while, and in the long run, I don't think it makes a difference. For the sake of courtesy, Daegarth could wait for all the barons to announce alignments.
However, this is how it boils down...
-If the baron was going to be renegade in the first place, then he merely don't need to announce his rank and wait until the week comes up for when Daegarth declares them renegade.
-If the baron was planning to be loyal, and wishes to challenge because Daegarth banished, then it's merely a race as to who has the quicker pen to challenge - in that case, it would have been a race when Daegarth writes a week later that all barons are banished to renegade anyways.
I think the only issue here is the courtesy of allowing a baron to declare his rank. While I am a strong follower of the rules, I do not think this is one of those issues where someone can take advantage of in the future.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 15 Sep 2000 19:59:43 EDT
I have thought about this for a while, and in the long run, I don't think it makes a difference. For the sake of courtesy, Daegarth could wait for all the barons to announce alignments.
However, this is how it boils down...
-If the baron was going to be renegade in the first place, then he merely don't need to announce his rank and wait until the week comes up for when Daegarth declares them renegade.
-If the baron was planning to be loyal, and wishes to challenge because Daegarth banished, then it's merely a race as to who has the quicker pen to challenge - in that case, it would have been a race when Daegarth writes a week later that all barons are banished to renegade anyways.
I think the only issue here is the courtesy of allowing a baron to declare his rank. While I am a strong follower of the rules, I do not think this is one of those issues where someone can take advantage of in the future.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:30:11 EDT
"Did any of the Barons under Feadur actually attempt to become Loyal?"
Oh, one in particular. You may be familiar with him; bellicose Scotsman, about 6'8", large and usually drunk.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:30:11 EDT
"Did any of the Barons under Feadur actually attempt to become Loyal?"
Oh, one in particular. You may be familiar with him; bellicose Scotsman, about 6'8", large and usually drunk.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:33:00 EDT
>Oh, one in particular. You may be familiar with him; bellicose Scotsman,
>about 6'8", large and usually drunk.
>
>Regards,
>Ian Rex.
Kyle? He was a Baron?
G
Yes, this was in humor.
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:33:00 EDT
>Oh, one in particular. You may be familiar with him; bellicose Scotsman,
>about 6'8", large and usually drunk.
>
>Regards,
>Ian Rex.
Kyle? He was a Baron?
G
Yes, this was in humor.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:34:10 EDT
>Oh, one in particular. You may be familiar with him; bellicose Scotsman,
>about 6'8", large and usually drunk.
Fyn McTege?
Teasingly, Cassius Gaius Maximius
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:34:10 EDT
>Oh, one in particular. You may be familiar with him; bellicose Scotsman,
>about 6'8", large and usually drunk.
Fyn McTege?
Teasingly, Cassius Gaius Maximius
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:49:59 EDT
First, let me say that it is one of a Barons few rights to declare alignment when a new duelist has become Overlord. That, at the least, is there in black and white, and no other situations preceding this 41st Overlord can take that right from me, nor any other Baron.
So I must politely, and completely, disagree with Lord MacKenzie, for it states quite clearly that I was well within my rights to declare, rather than beg permission, to stand Loyal.
It is also clearly writ that Daegarth may then, after I have declared myself Loyal, banish me. Indeed, I did state that was the inevitable.
Var, I must point out an option you neglected, that being declaring oneself Loyal as a show of support for the newest of our Overlords, with no intention of challenging when, not if, he realigned the Baron to Renegade.
I find it disheartening, as I have found much around the Arena of late, that the Overlord felt it necessary to treat those of us that exercised a basic right of Barony, as though we were learning impaired children. I hold hope that he will, in the future, recall that we are adults and attempt to treat us thusly.
Sincerely,
Ellisa Morgan
Date: 16 Sep 2000 01:49:59 EDT
First, let me say that it is one of a Barons few rights to declare alignment when a new duelist has become Overlord. That, at the least, is there in black and white, and no other situations preceding this 41st Overlord can take that right from me, nor any other Baron.
So I must politely, and completely, disagree with Lord MacKenzie, for it states quite clearly that I was well within my rights to declare, rather than beg permission, to stand Loyal.
It is also clearly writ that Daegarth may then, after I have declared myself Loyal, banish me. Indeed, I did state that was the inevitable.
Var, I must point out an option you neglected, that being declaring oneself Loyal as a show of support for the newest of our Overlords, with no intention of challenging when, not if, he realigned the Baron to Renegade.
I find it disheartening, as I have found much around the Arena of late, that the Overlord felt it necessary to treat those of us that exercised a basic right of Barony, as though we were learning impaired children. I hold hope that he will, in the future, recall that we are adults and attempt to treat us thusly.
Sincerely,
Ellisa Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 06:30:52 EDT
"Var, I must point out an option you neglected, that being declaring oneself Loyal as a show of support for the newest of our Overlords, with no intention of challenging when, not if, he realigned the Baron to Renegade. "
I will admit that it was an oversight on my behalf to address it specifically, but once again I believe this falls upon the category of mere courtesy that the overlord should show to the barons to declare an alignment. At the risk of going on a tangent, it could be compared to Taylara refusing Ariadne's wish that she not intercede. Are the situations identical in meaning or spirit? I will concede they aren't.
However, you did show your support to Daegarth by still trying to declare loyal. You put it to paper. While I agree that it is your right to do so, I also do not think it is completely wrong what Daegarth's doing. I simply think it would have been courteous of Daegarth to allow those barons to show support before writing a letter out to the council and banishing them all to renegade.
I can only guess he figured it wouldn't make a difference anyways. What he did wrong was not allowing those barons to declare his or her alignment.
I will close my thoughts with this: back when I stepped into the Arena that night after the challenge and heard Daegarth banished all the barons to renegade, I said I needed to sit down and think because I understood both sides of the matter. I still do, and apologize if it came across otherwise. Right now, it all comes down to if this can be abused or taken advantage of in a future incident. I simply cannot see where it would be. If you wish
to bring up a case in point I could have overlooked, where this could set precedent for something horrible, I'm open to ideas.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 16 Sep 2000 06:30:52 EDT
"Var, I must point out an option you neglected, that being declaring oneself Loyal as a show of support for the newest of our Overlords, with no intention of challenging when, not if, he realigned the Baron to Renegade. "
I will admit that it was an oversight on my behalf to address it specifically, but once again I believe this falls upon the category of mere courtesy that the overlord should show to the barons to declare an alignment. At the risk of going on a tangent, it could be compared to Taylara refusing Ariadne's wish that she not intercede. Are the situations identical in meaning or spirit? I will concede they aren't.
However, you did show your support to Daegarth by still trying to declare loyal. You put it to paper. While I agree that it is your right to do so, I also do not think it is completely wrong what Daegarth's doing. I simply think it would have been courteous of Daegarth to allow those barons to show support before writing a letter out to the council and banishing them all to renegade.
I can only guess he figured it wouldn't make a difference anyways. What he did wrong was not allowing those barons to declare his or her alignment.
I will close my thoughts with this: back when I stepped into the Arena that night after the challenge and heard Daegarth banished all the barons to renegade, I said I needed to sit down and think because I understood both sides of the matter. I still do, and apologize if it came across otherwise. Right now, it all comes down to if this can be abused or taken advantage of in a future incident. I simply cannot see where it would be. If you wish
to bring up a case in point I could have overlooked, where this could set precedent for something horrible, I'm open to ideas.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leodelorenzo@aol.com (Leo De Lorenzo)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 12:10:25 EDT
I personally think that Daegarth should be allowed to set the alignments. I think of it this way: if he can not set the alignments, someone he hates could go Loyal just so he will be banished and get the immediate challenge. Yet, if he can set the alignments, Loyalty can be petitioned.
Simply,
General Leonardo De Lorenzo
Date: 16 Sep 2000 12:10:25 EDT
I personally think that Daegarth should be allowed to set the alignments. I think of it this way: if he can not set the alignments, someone he hates could go Loyal just so he will be banished and get the immediate challenge. Yet, if he can set the alignments, Loyalty can be petitioned.
Simply,
General Leonardo De Lorenzo
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leodelorenzo@aol.com (Leo De Lorenzo)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 12:10:25 EDT
I personally think that Daegarth should be allowed to set the alignments. I think of it this way: if he can not set the alignments, someone he hates could go Loyal just so he will be banished and get the immediate challenge. Yet, if he can set the alignments, Loyalty can be petitioned.
Simply,
General Leonardo De Lorenzo
Date: 16 Sep 2000 12:10:25 EDT
I personally think that Daegarth should be allowed to set the alignments. I think of it this way: if he can not set the alignments, someone he hates could go Loyal just so he will be banished and get the immediate challenge. Yet, if he can set the alignments, Loyalty can be petitioned.
Simply,
General Leonardo De Lorenzo
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 2000 13:32:40 EDT
You're all missing a very important logical point.
The Overlord has the ability to name any Baron Renegade at any time for any reason. The Overlord does NOT have the ability to name any Baron Loyal, under ANY circumstances.
Therefore, I submit to you that, in these instances, the only Barons who have the actual "right" to determine their own alignment are those who (a) choose no alignment, allowing the Overlord to choose for them, or (b) choose to align themselves Renegade.
A "right" is not a right if it can be pulled out from under one's feet though no actionable fault of one's own. To go back to the Feadur situation, I was deprived of my "right" to declare loyalty, AND my "right" to issue immediate, uninterruptable challenge to the Overlord. This, it should be noted, was after I had publicly declared my loyalty in Feadur's presence, BEFORE he made his declaration.
The issue would be moot, except that it has impacts as regards who gets first shot at the Overlord. Indeed, this is my major concern, and I mean no offense to Baron Morgan, whose motives in this matter I know to be sincere:
If a Baron is allowed to declare their loyalty after the Overlord announces his intent to align all Barons to Renegade, you have a situation where a Baron who FULLY INTENDS, right from the outset, to challenge said Overlord, to make a mock declaration of Loyalty after the fact in order to trigger an immediate priority challenge, which takes precedence over one issued by a Warlord or a Baron who initially declared Renegade.
I prefer not to see the rules of our sport in a position where they can be manipulated in such a manner. Either we must prevent an Overlord from doing this, or we must accept that they have a right to align all Barons Renegade upon ascending to the title, and such right supercedes a Baron's right to choose.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 16 Sep 2000 13:32:40 EDT
You're all missing a very important logical point.
The Overlord has the ability to name any Baron Renegade at any time for any reason. The Overlord does NOT have the ability to name any Baron Loyal, under ANY circumstances.
Therefore, I submit to you that, in these instances, the only Barons who have the actual "right" to determine their own alignment are those who (a) choose no alignment, allowing the Overlord to choose for them, or (b) choose to align themselves Renegade.
A "right" is not a right if it can be pulled out from under one's feet though no actionable fault of one's own. To go back to the Feadur situation, I was deprived of my "right" to declare loyalty, AND my "right" to issue immediate, uninterruptable challenge to the Overlord. This, it should be noted, was after I had publicly declared my loyalty in Feadur's presence, BEFORE he made his declaration.
The issue would be moot, except that it has impacts as regards who gets first shot at the Overlord. Indeed, this is my major concern, and I mean no offense to Baron Morgan, whose motives in this matter I know to be sincere:
If a Baron is allowed to declare their loyalty after the Overlord announces his intent to align all Barons to Renegade, you have a situation where a Baron who FULLY INTENDS, right from the outset, to challenge said Overlord, to make a mock declaration of Loyalty after the fact in order to trigger an immediate priority challenge, which takes precedence over one issued by a Warlord or a Baron who initially declared Renegade.
I prefer not to see the rules of our sport in a position where they can be manipulated in such a manner. Either we must prevent an Overlord from doing this, or we must accept that they have a right to align all Barons Renegade upon ascending to the title, and such right supercedes a Baron's right to choose.
Regards,
Ian Rex.