From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 14:56:10 EDT
Turi did not bend any rules. Daegarth has simply made a pre-emptive strike and cut through all the bureaucratic nonsense. The Barons who object to not being able to declare for themselves their alignment have a recourse they may take.
Good for Daegarth.
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: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 16:09:44 EDT
>Of what benefit is the initial claim of loyalty? So long as their right to
>challenge for banishment is not stripped (which wisely it hasn't been) then
>they have lost nothing at all.
Yes, the possibility for the right to challenge the banishment has been stripped from those who had yet to declare themselves Loyal or Renegade.
The only Barons who had declared Loyal by the time the Overlord issued his written declaration were Lucian and Ellisa. Baron Sartan declared himself Renegade and issued challenge, then Lucian was re-aligned Renegade and issued his challenge.
Due to precidents and Rules, Lucian's challenge is now given priority and must be met first.
The Barons Deluthan Ev'rt, Magnus Eques, Unagi Miyamoto, Leonardo De Lorenzo, Jeffery Oakenshield and Drey Starke; having never been Loyal; do not have the right to challenge until after Sartan's challenge has been met. Again, by the Rules.
I have so often been told that the Rights of the duelers must be preserved, even if they go against the concepts of Honor that we might hold.
In this case, the Right of a Baron to declare himself Loyal, even under false pretenses, has been trammeled into the dirt.
We may not like the idea of a Baron who declares Loyal, knowing they will be banished to Renegade, solely for the purpose of gaining the right to an immediate challenge of title.
In point of fact, the Rules themselves do cover the times when an Baron's alignment is set by the discretion of the Overlord.
"10. When unseated by a Baron the Overlord is aligned at the discretion of the new Overlord."
"5. When an Overlord is dethroned all Barons must declare alignment within one week, to the Standings Keeper, or their alignment is set by the new Overlord."
Now you are saying that the Baron's wishes are absolutely meaningless.
And yet, I was the one so oft accused of attempting to take rights away...
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 19 Sep 2000 16:09:44 EDT
>Of what benefit is the initial claim of loyalty? So long as their right to
>challenge for banishment is not stripped (which wisely it hasn't been) then
>they have lost nothing at all.
Yes, the possibility for the right to challenge the banishment has been stripped from those who had yet to declare themselves Loyal or Renegade.
The only Barons who had declared Loyal by the time the Overlord issued his written declaration were Lucian and Ellisa. Baron Sartan declared himself Renegade and issued challenge, then Lucian was re-aligned Renegade and issued his challenge.
Due to precidents and Rules, Lucian's challenge is now given priority and must be met first.
The Barons Deluthan Ev'rt, Magnus Eques, Unagi Miyamoto, Leonardo De Lorenzo, Jeffery Oakenshield and Drey Starke; having never been Loyal; do not have the right to challenge until after Sartan's challenge has been met. Again, by the Rules.
I have so often been told that the Rights of the duelers must be preserved, even if they go against the concepts of Honor that we might hold.
In this case, the Right of a Baron to declare himself Loyal, even under false pretenses, has been trammeled into the dirt.
We may not like the idea of a Baron who declares Loyal, knowing they will be banished to Renegade, solely for the purpose of gaining the right to an immediate challenge of title.
In point of fact, the Rules themselves do cover the times when an Baron's alignment is set by the discretion of the Overlord.
"10. When unseated by a Baron the Overlord is aligned at the discretion of the new Overlord."
"5. When an Overlord is dethroned all Barons must declare alignment within one week, to the Standings Keeper, or their alignment is set by the new Overlord."
Now you are saying that the Baron's wishes are absolutely meaningless.
And yet, I was the one so oft accused of attempting to take rights away...
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 16:24:48 EDT
> I think its more about ther ever-constant disregard for
> the rules of the sport that have been showing in the
> recent past. Once more we have to bow down to a
> person that bends the rules such as Turi did.
What rule was broken? Are you focussing on Gnort's bit about "You cannot change the alignment of Barons who have no alignment." Or are you making up a new rule on assumption as so many seem want to do?
As for Gnort's argument, I would propose that it is flawed. Going from no alignment to renegade is surely a change and therefore qualifies under the rule just as much as the switch from loyalty to renegade does.
Either way you want to look at it, you can't say that "a rule was broken" when the only thing either of us can argue is that this goes against our assumption on how the rules should be read.
One last thing that needs to be pointed out.. This ruling follows precedent. For all the uproar that came out when the Baron's council refused to follow precedent - I'm amazed to see people now calling this a bad decision when it does.
Fickle as always I suppose.
~Kal
Date: 19 Sep 2000 16:24:48 EDT
> I think its more about ther ever-constant disregard for
> the rules of the sport that have been showing in the
> recent past. Once more we have to bow down to a
> person that bends the rules such as Turi did.
What rule was broken? Are you focussing on Gnort's bit about "You cannot change the alignment of Barons who have no alignment." Or are you making up a new rule on assumption as so many seem want to do?
As for Gnort's argument, I would propose that it is flawed. Going from no alignment to renegade is surely a change and therefore qualifies under the rule just as much as the switch from loyalty to renegade does.
Either way you want to look at it, you can't say that "a rule was broken" when the only thing either of us can argue is that this goes against our assumption on how the rules should be read.
One last thing that needs to be pointed out.. This ruling follows precedent. For all the uproar that came out when the Baron's council refused to follow precedent - I'm amazed to see people now calling this a bad decision when it does.
Fickle as always I suppose.
~Kal
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 17:02:45 EDT
" In point of fact, the Rules themselves do cover the times when an Baron's alignment is set by the discretion of the Overlord.
"10. When unseated by a Baron the Overlord is aligned at the discretion of the new Overlord."
"5. When an Overlord is dethroned all Barons must declare alignment within one week, to the Standings Keeper, or their alignment is set by the new Overlord."
Now you are saying that the Baron's wishes are absolutely meaningless."
You also conveniently left out this little tidbit as to when an Overlord may realign barons...
" 8. Can, at anytime, switch the alignment of a Baron with reason given in
writing to all Barons and to the Standings Keeper provided a WoL
record of 15 is maintained."
Emphasis by me. The Overlord may alter the baron's alignment at any time as long as he provides the reason to paper, which he has done.
Now, who wants to take away whose rights here? Who wants to bend the rules?
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 19 Sep 2000 17:02:45 EDT
" In point of fact, the Rules themselves do cover the times when an Baron's alignment is set by the discretion of the Overlord.
"10. When unseated by a Baron the Overlord is aligned at the discretion of the new Overlord."
"5. When an Overlord is dethroned all Barons must declare alignment within one week, to the Standings Keeper, or their alignment is set by the new Overlord."
Now you are saying that the Baron's wishes are absolutely meaningless."
You also conveniently left out this little tidbit as to when an Overlord may realign barons...
" 8. Can, at anytime, switch the alignment of a Baron with reason given in
writing to all Barons and to the Standings Keeper provided a WoL
record of 15 is maintained."
Emphasis by me. The Overlord may alter the baron's alignment at any time as long as he provides the reason to paper, which he has done.
Now, who wants to take away whose rights here? Who wants to bend the rules?
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: deluthan@aol.com (Deluthan)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 17:49:16 EDT
"Who does this hurt the most? The barons who knew Daegarth was going to realign all to renegade and decided to align loyal just so he could get the first shot at the crown."
Good.
If Daegarth wants all Barons renegade, let's not waste his and our time. Allowing each Baron to choose an alignment that would just be switched anyway would not be practical.
Deluthan
Date: 19 Sep 2000 17:49:16 EDT
"Who does this hurt the most? The barons who knew Daegarth was going to realign all to renegade and decided to align loyal just so he could get the first shot at the crown."
Good.
If Daegarth wants all Barons renegade, let's not waste his and our time. Allowing each Baron to choose an alignment that would just be switched anyway would not be practical.
Deluthan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: flavorlessgum@aol.com (Flavorless Gum)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 18:12:48 EDT
Just to let everyone know, I originally declared myself renegade.
Dustin Manjahcapery
Baron of the Seventh Ring
Holder of the Yellow Opal, Moonberyl.
Date: 19 Sep 2000 18:12:48 EDT
Just to let everyone know, I originally declared myself renegade.
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: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 18:45:54 EDT
> Yes, the possibility for the right to challenge the
> banishment has been stripped from those who had
> yet to declare themselves Loyal or Renegade.
Pardon? Perhaps, as a member of the staff, you have some other letter or note that you are refering to for the above. However, that is not how I read the public notice.
Quoting from that notice:
Any Baron who had declared him or herself Loyal, or had
not yet declared his or her alignment as of that time are
considered Banished to Renegade and hold the right to
immediate challenge. All Barons who had declared
themselves Renegade before this time are aligned by
personal choice, and so have the right to challenge as per
a standard Challenge by a Renegade to the Overlord.
So again.. assuming that the latter quote is the actual case, no harm has been done here. The Barons who had not yet aligned have lost nothing.
> I have so often been told that the Rights of the duelers
> must be preserved, even if they go against the concepts
> of Honor that we might hold.
This isn't an issue of honor. It's an issue of the Barons and the Overlord having conflicting rights and duties in a given scenario. The Barons have the duty to align themselves while the Overlord has the right to turn them renegade. This is a conflict of laws situation and the most rational course has been followed.
~Kalamere
Date: 19 Sep 2000 18:45:54 EDT
> Yes, the possibility for the right to challenge the
> banishment has been stripped from those who had
> yet to declare themselves Loyal or Renegade.
Pardon? Perhaps, as a member of the staff, you have some other letter or note that you are refering to for the above. However, that is not how I read the public notice.
Quoting from that notice:
Any Baron who had declared him or herself Loyal, or had
not yet declared his or her alignment as of that time are
considered Banished to Renegade and hold the right to
immediate challenge. All Barons who had declared
themselves Renegade before this time are aligned by
personal choice, and so have the right to challenge as per
a standard Challenge by a Renegade to the Overlord.
So again.. assuming that the latter quote is the actual case, no harm has been done here. The Barons who had not yet aligned have lost nothing.
> I have so often been told that the Rights of the duelers
> must be preserved, even if they go against the concepts
> of Honor that we might hold.
This isn't an issue of honor. It's an issue of the Barons and the Overlord having conflicting rights and duties in a given scenario. The Barons have the duty to align themselves while the Overlord has the right to turn them renegade. This is a conflict of laws situation and the most rational course has been followed.
~Kalamere
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: rlupton@aol.com (RLupton)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 21:21:43 EDT
What, exactly, is the point?
This is trivial.
In the end, the Overlord decides who gets to be Loyal. Considering this debate, I can hardly blame Daegarth.
No Baron has the right to be Loyal. It's something he earns.
~ Lupton
Date: 19 Sep 2000 21:21:43 EDT
What, exactly, is the point?
This is trivial.
In the end, the Overlord decides who gets to be Loyal. Considering this debate, I can hardly blame Daegarth.
No Baron has the right to be Loyal. It's something he earns.
~ Lupton
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 21:53:09 EDT
Kalamere.
I am of the opinion that the ruling stating that "Any Baron who had declared him or herself Loyal, or had not yet declared his or her alignment as of that time are considered Banished to Renegade and hold the right to immediate challenge." also goes against the Rule that states this Right belongs to a Loyal Baron who is banished.
Why would the Rules state that any Baron who does not declare their alignment within one week is aligned by the discretion of the Overlord, when this ruling states that the Overlord can align them whenever they wish?
I submit that the wording of the Rules was modified from an Overlord being able to re-align a Loyal Baron to being able to re-align Neutral and Loyal Barons. To avoid extra wording, this was changed to "any" Baron. I further submit that the wording of the Rules was meant to be and should be changed to state that the Overlord may re-align any Loyal Baron to Renegade, as the Neutral alignment no longer exists.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 19 Sep 2000 21:53:09 EDT
Kalamere.
I am of the opinion that the ruling stating that "Any Baron who had declared him or herself Loyal, or had not yet declared his or her alignment as of that time are considered Banished to Renegade and hold the right to immediate challenge." also goes against the Rule that states this Right belongs to a Loyal Baron who is banished.
Why would the Rules state that any Baron who does not declare their alignment within one week is aligned by the discretion of the Overlord, when this ruling states that the Overlord can align them whenever they wish?
I submit that the wording of the Rules was modified from an Overlord being able to re-align a Loyal Baron to being able to re-align Neutral and Loyal Barons. To avoid extra wording, this was changed to "any" Baron. I further submit that the wording of the Rules was meant to be and should be changed to state that the Overlord may re-align any Loyal Baron to Renegade, as the Neutral alignment no longer exists.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:18:18 EDT
" Why would the Rules state that any Baron who does not declare their alignment within one week is aligned by the discretion of the Overlord, when this ruling states that the Overlord can align them whenever they wish?"
A couple reasons I can think of:
1) So the baron is not consistently in this "no alignment" stage.
2) The rules state that at any time, an Overlord may banish a loyal baron to renegade status. After one week of no decision of alignment, the Overlord may make the alignment loyal. To my understanding, there is no time when an overlord can change a renegade baron's status to loyal without the petition from said baron first.
Therefore, the one week rule allows the Overlord to declare a baron loyal, when the other rule just allows the banishment to renegade. That's all I can think of.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:18:18 EDT
" Why would the Rules state that any Baron who does not declare their alignment within one week is aligned by the discretion of the Overlord, when this ruling states that the Overlord can align them whenever they wish?"
A couple reasons I can think of:
1) So the baron is not consistently in this "no alignment" stage.
2) The rules state that at any time, an Overlord may banish a loyal baron to renegade status. After one week of no decision of alignment, the Overlord may make the alignment loyal. To my understanding, there is no time when an overlord can change a renegade baron's status to loyal without the petition from said baron first.
Therefore, the one week rule allows the Overlord to declare a baron loyal, when the other rule just allows the banishment to renegade. That's all I can think of.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:45:02 EDT
To me, this ruling now means that Anyone who makes an Intent to Challenge now means that the intent to challenge can be considered an official challenge, and therefore should be treated as one no matter when it was given.
To me, this means that Lucian loses his right to challenge because his alignment was reset before he had been able to make an official alignment, since anything after that declaring Loyalty would mean that it's a petition and a petition can be refused without threat of immediate challenge.
To me, this is saying that the rules we have currently are not rules, but words we can bend to whatever meaning we feel like at the time simply because of something that happened before.
Precedence is NOT a rule. If it were, wouldn't Precedence mean the Barons Councils rulings would have to remain constant? That anything done in the past cannot be changed no matter what?
I'm not arguing specifically for this ruling, but that this has gotten to a point where rules are no longer rules, but just words to make things appear official instead of being adherred to.
A catering to the old school if you will.
Date: 19 Sep 2000 22:45:02 EDT
To me, this ruling now means that Anyone who makes an Intent to Challenge now means that the intent to challenge can be considered an official challenge, and therefore should be treated as one no matter when it was given.
To me, this means that Lucian loses his right to challenge because his alignment was reset before he had been able to make an official alignment, since anything after that declaring Loyalty would mean that it's a petition and a petition can be refused without threat of immediate challenge.
To me, this is saying that the rules we have currently are not rules, but words we can bend to whatever meaning we feel like at the time simply because of something that happened before.
Precedence is NOT a rule. If it were, wouldn't Precedence mean the Barons Councils rulings would have to remain constant? That anything done in the past cannot be changed no matter what?
I'm not arguing specifically for this ruling, but that this has gotten to a point where rules are no longer rules, but just words to make things appear official instead of being adherred to.
A catering to the old school if you will.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 20 Sep 2000 01:40:35 EDT
G'nort.
I have tried my best to argue that Precidents are not Rules. This is especially true when the Precidents are not written anywhere that can be referred to. We find ourselves held hostage to Precidents declared by the people who were there, when we have no written documentation of it.
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it now. If you wish a Precident to become a Rule, then make it a Rule.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 20 Sep 2000 01:40:35 EDT
G'nort.
I have tried my best to argue that Precidents are not Rules. This is especially true when the Precidents are not written anywhere that can be referred to. We find ourselves held hostage to Precidents declared by the people who were there, when we have no written documentation of it.
I've said it before, and I'll repeat it now. If you wish a Precident to become a Rule, then make it a Rule.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 20 Sep 2000 09:25:29 EDT
> To me, this ruling now means that Anyone who makes
> an Intent to Challenge now means that the intent to
> challenge can be considered an official challenge, and
> therefore should be treated as one no matter when it was given.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain this one to me.. I've missed the current issue involving an intent to challenge.
> To me, this means that Lucian loses his right to challenge
> because his alignment was reset before he had been able
> to make an official alignment, since anything after that
> declaring Loyalty would mean that it's a petition and a petition
> can be refused without threat of immediate challenge.
While a decent argument, that isn't what was held in this case nor what was held in the past. The current ruling sees an unaligned baron as a potential Loyal and awards that person the right of immediate challenge that would come with such loyalty.
> To me, this is saying that the rules we have currently are not
> rules, but words we can bend to whatever meaning we feel
> like at the time simply because of something that happened before.
It should be noted that you are as guilty as anyone else here when it comes to reading your own desires into the rules. The fact of the matter is that when something that comes up which is not entirely covered by the rules, it is the job of the supervisor(s) to decide what course should be followed.
> Precedence is NOT a rule. If it were, wouldn't Precedence
> mean the Barons Councils rulings would have to remain
> constant? That anything done in the past cannot be changed
> no matter what?
I don't think anyone has suggested that precedent is the same thing as a rule, though in many cultures they are very close. One shouldn't confuse the duties of the Baron's Council with the duties of the supervisory staff however, they are very different things. The supervisory staff is bound more closely to the precedent of their predecessors than is the council. In either case though, there will
always be times when precedent will be overruled. Times change. Here, we have a case where there is precedent and the staff felt inclined to follow it. That simple fact by itself doesn't make the decision the wrong one.
> I'm not arguing specifically for this ruling, but that this has
> gotten to a point where rules are no longer rules, but just
> words to make things appear official instead of being adherred to.
Once again, I'll note that you are reading past the rules as much as anyone else in this discussion. It seems to be a theme of late that people are claiming their own desires as "the rule". No rule has been broken here, nor has there been in a handful of other recent situations. The rules simply don't cover everything and probably never will. Instead of people making arguments based on some half read
clause, it would be nice if, every now and then, they faced the fact that it's their own opinion that they're truly relying on.
> A catering to the old school if you will.
Really? And how is that exactly? Because a ruling made ages ago was followed where you think it should have been overturned? Let's not turn this into more than it is. The scenario is one subject to interpretation, it has been ruled on in the past, the current staff decided to use the same (or similar) ruling. No one is being catered to.
~Kal
Date: 20 Sep 2000 09:25:29 EDT
> To me, this ruling now means that Anyone who makes
> an Intent to Challenge now means that the intent to
> challenge can be considered an official challenge, and
> therefore should be treated as one no matter when it was given.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain this one to me.. I've missed the current issue involving an intent to challenge.
> To me, this means that Lucian loses his right to challenge
> because his alignment was reset before he had been able
> to make an official alignment, since anything after that
> declaring Loyalty would mean that it's a petition and a petition
> can be refused without threat of immediate challenge.
While a decent argument, that isn't what was held in this case nor what was held in the past. The current ruling sees an unaligned baron as a potential Loyal and awards that person the right of immediate challenge that would come with such loyalty.
> To me, this is saying that the rules we have currently are not
> rules, but words we can bend to whatever meaning we feel
> like at the time simply because of something that happened before.
It should be noted that you are as guilty as anyone else here when it comes to reading your own desires into the rules. The fact of the matter is that when something that comes up which is not entirely covered by the rules, it is the job of the supervisor(s) to decide what course should be followed.
> Precedence is NOT a rule. If it were, wouldn't Precedence
> mean the Barons Councils rulings would have to remain
> constant? That anything done in the past cannot be changed
> no matter what?
I don't think anyone has suggested that precedent is the same thing as a rule, though in many cultures they are very close. One shouldn't confuse the duties of the Baron's Council with the duties of the supervisory staff however, they are very different things. The supervisory staff is bound more closely to the precedent of their predecessors than is the council. In either case though, there will
always be times when precedent will be overruled. Times change. Here, we have a case where there is precedent and the staff felt inclined to follow it. That simple fact by itself doesn't make the decision the wrong one.
> I'm not arguing specifically for this ruling, but that this has
> gotten to a point where rules are no longer rules, but just
> words to make things appear official instead of being adherred to.
Once again, I'll note that you are reading past the rules as much as anyone else in this discussion. It seems to be a theme of late that people are claiming their own desires as "the rule". No rule has been broken here, nor has there been in a handful of other recent situations. The rules simply don't cover everything and probably never will. Instead of people making arguments based on some half read
clause, it would be nice if, every now and then, they faced the fact that it's their own opinion that they're truly relying on.
> A catering to the old school if you will.
Really? And how is that exactly? Because a ruling made ages ago was followed where you think it should have been overturned? Let's not turn this into more than it is. The scenario is one subject to interpretation, it has been ruled on in the past, the current staff decided to use the same (or similar) ruling. No one is being catered to.
~Kal
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 20 Sep 2000 09:36:56 EDT
> I am of the opinion that.....
Your entitled to your opinion Drakewyn.. so long as you continue to recognize that is only an opinion.
I find interesting that one who is as against the use of precedent as you has fallen back to a "spirit of the rules" argument. What is spirit of rules other than a look at why they were written as they were and what the drafters intended? I ask you this as well.. what better way to see what they intended than to look at the decisions the drafters were involved in which interpreted those rules....... which is to say, precedent. And of course, we do
already know what the precedent on this is, don't we?
A staff member has finally made a ruling that makes sense. Rather than buck it in yet another display of your team player skills.. perhaps you should take a lesson from it.
~Kal
Date: 20 Sep 2000 09:36:56 EDT
> I am of the opinion that.....
Your entitled to your opinion Drakewyn.. so long as you continue to recognize that is only an opinion.
I find interesting that one who is as against the use of precedent as you has fallen back to a "spirit of the rules" argument. What is spirit of rules other than a look at why they were written as they were and what the drafters intended? I ask you this as well.. what better way to see what they intended than to look at the decisions the drafters were involved in which interpreted those rules....... which is to say, precedent. And of course, we do
already know what the precedent on this is, don't we?
A staff member has finally made a ruling that makes sense. Rather than buck it in yet another display of your team player skills.. perhaps you should take a lesson from it.
~Kal
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 20 Sep 2000 14:31:23 EDT
"To me, this means that Lucian loses his right to challenge because his alignment was reset before he had been able to make an official alignment, since anything after that declaring Loyalty would mean that it's a petition and a petition can be refused without threat of immediate
challenge."
Maybe somene can help me here, but I do believe Lucian declared his alignment before Daegarth put his banishment to paper. Furthermore, when I reread Turi's decision, she wrote:
Any Baron who had declared him or herself Loyal, or had not yet declared his or her alignment as of that time are considered Banished to Renegade and hold the right to Immediate challenge. All Barons who had declared themselves Renegade before this time are aligned by personal choice, and so have the right to challenge as per a standard Challenge by a Renegade to the Overlord.
I will be honest when I say I misread her ruling, but her ruling seems to be in favor of people who declared loyalty beforehand and those who have yet to declare an alignment. I don't see what part of the ruling you are arguing, G'nort.
"To me, this is saying that the rules we have currently are not rules, but words we can bend to whatever meaning we feel like at the time simply because of something that happened before."
If it's one thing I don't like that happens in DoS, G'nort, you know it's people who bend and break the rules. However, this was not an instance of rules being broken, but merely a crossover of powers between the Overlord and Baron, and a rational decision was made where both sides had the rights preserved.
This is not about precedent. The only remote argument where precedent is involved in this decision is that a few people began discussing what happened before. I wasn't around when Feadur made all barons renegade, but I have a feeling that the two sides weren't accomodated as much compared to this ruling.
In other words, you are bringing more into this argument when your words seem to match with Turi's decision.
Drake and G'nort, what is it in this decision you don't like? Please don't answer "Precedence (or) the old school is being catered to," because I am honestly confused what your issues are, and am hoping more specific answers can be given. I then ask you to read the following points:
- The Overlord may, at any time, change a baron's alignment as long as it is provided in writing.
- Any loyal or non-aligned baron has the right to immediate challenge since the Overlord banished him to renegade. For the sake of not having Sartan wait forever for each baron to finally press challenge, Turi asks that all barons who wish to press challenge, do so before Sartan's challenge with the Overlord takes place.
Again, please tell me what is not fair with all this.
Ending rant here,
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 20 Sep 2000 14:31:23 EDT
"To me, this means that Lucian loses his right to challenge because his alignment was reset before he had been able to make an official alignment, since anything after that declaring Loyalty would mean that it's a petition and a petition can be refused without threat of immediate
challenge."
Maybe somene can help me here, but I do believe Lucian declared his alignment before Daegarth put his banishment to paper. Furthermore, when I reread Turi's decision, she wrote:
Any Baron who had declared him or herself Loyal, or had not yet declared his or her alignment as of that time are considered Banished to Renegade and hold the right to Immediate challenge. All Barons who had declared themselves Renegade before this time are aligned by personal choice, and so have the right to challenge as per a standard Challenge by a Renegade to the Overlord.
I will be honest when I say I misread her ruling, but her ruling seems to be in favor of people who declared loyalty beforehand and those who have yet to declare an alignment. I don't see what part of the ruling you are arguing, G'nort.
"To me, this is saying that the rules we have currently are not rules, but words we can bend to whatever meaning we feel like at the time simply because of something that happened before."
If it's one thing I don't like that happens in DoS, G'nort, you know it's people who bend and break the rules. However, this was not an instance of rules being broken, but merely a crossover of powers between the Overlord and Baron, and a rational decision was made where both sides had the rights preserved.
This is not about precedent. The only remote argument where precedent is involved in this decision is that a few people began discussing what happened before. I wasn't around when Feadur made all barons renegade, but I have a feeling that the two sides weren't accomodated as much compared to this ruling.
In other words, you are bringing more into this argument when your words seem to match with Turi's decision.
Drake and G'nort, what is it in this decision you don't like? Please don't answer "Precedence (or) the old school is being catered to," because I am honestly confused what your issues are, and am hoping more specific answers can be given. I then ask you to read the following points:
- The Overlord may, at any time, change a baron's alignment as long as it is provided in writing.
- Any loyal or non-aligned baron has the right to immediate challenge since the Overlord banished him to renegade. For the sake of not having Sartan wait forever for each baron to finally press challenge, Turi asks that all barons who wish to press challenge, do so before Sartan's challenge with the Overlord takes place.
Again, please tell me what is not fair with all this.
Ending rant here,
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband