Fines to Brawlers

[DoS Archive]

From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 01 May 2001 23:15:55 EDT

I have seen some interesting statements made upon the boards of late. Some of them have a certain amount of merit while others make me want to laugh. Others make me want to argue rather vociferously. Let us begin with the last of said reactions. It was unsigned, so I do not know who made the statement.

"Lord Nycholas is well within his jurisdiction to levy fines in order to promote the good order of the Arena. Whether or not the profit from those fines is necessary in order to make repairs is irrelevant.

As caretaker of the sport, Lord Nycholas is exercising his right and proper powers to maintain order. Any who refuse to pay those fines, or seek to make other reparation, would be rightly subject to additional penalties."

This is just plain not true. To begin with, Nycholas is not the 'caretaker of the sport'. He is the senior member of a board of three, ys. However, while he is the senior official of the sport he does not have the authority that the supervisors possessed in the past. He is not the supervisor of the sport, his only
authority is based in the fact that no one else has attempted to take a leadership stance. The manner of the commision's formation was simple: the members of the commission were the only members of the staff left when the commission was formed. It is entirely possible, had I remained with the staff of this sport, I might be on the commission myself. It is also entirely possible, had more former staff members remained, there might not be a commission
but an entirely different form of management.
This is not to say that Nycholas has no authority whatsoever. Rather it is to point out that his authority is ambiguous and largely his by default. The patrons of the Duel of Swords seem to have accepted the commission as legitimate. Fine. The other members of the commission seem to recognize (or at least tolerate) Nycholas as their spokesman. Fine. The returned or newly recruited staff seem to be going along with the staus quo, understandably.
Fine.
However, no one should make the mistake of assuming Nycholas is in a position of absolute power. Nor should we simply assume that the commission itself has absolute power. The commission's duties, it would seem to me, cover enforcing the rules of the Sport. I have seen nothing in those rules giving anyone in any position of responsibility within the Sport the power to discipline individuals for their behavior outside the rings. In those few
instances of behavior that are covered by the rules (responses to challenges and failure to appear for challenges), who has or doesn't have discretion is rather specific. Therefore, one would assume, that those who crafted the rules had a reason for leaving other issues of conduct outside the rings out of said rules.
As my final response to these particular remarks, there are only two precedents for this sort of disciplinary action being taken against duelists. The first, the fine levied against Dalamar Ar'Daumon, was levied by the Baron's Council as a group in accordance of their right to discipline those who fail to appear to defend their title. While unique among such cases, it was not outside the rules.
The second precedent, the sanctions levied against the Warlord, briefly the Baron, Methous for his alleged destruction of a Baronial ring, was a grey area in the first place. The sanctions levied covered his dueling priveleges and were in response to a clear cut act of malicious vandalism, if the alleged destruction took place. Certain events which followed this alleged incident seemed to strongly suggest that the ring was not destroyed at all and
that Methous merely attempted to destroy it and may have failed.
Regardless, this decision was not announced without more than a bit of controversy at the time. Neither of these decisions, in fact, were announced without creating quite a bit of controversy.

The second statement was made by Var.

"Here's what I'd like to know: why is it that penalizing Methous when he
destroyed the baronial ring acceptable, yet all of a sudden we can't fine
people for damaging the arena? Is the disrespect to the sport not the same?"

Who said that the penalizing of Methous was acceptable? Frankly, it may not have been. It is too late now to research the rules and discover whether a mistake was made as the man is dead. I think the popularity of said decision may have been all or partly due to the fact that most individuals here found Methous personally objectionable. Sadly, the popularity of decisions made in the past by Baronial Council or supervisors has been heavily weighted
by the popularity of the indivudal being judged. I admit, myself, that I was glad at the time to see the last of Methous. At least temporarily. However, I believe several individuals did question the legality of the decision. I know that I questioned why Methous was being singled out when individuals such as Jesse Troyan, Agrenish Preescott, Skyler Chamberland, and Lupton est Dracoern were not sanctioned for their conduct.
Also, the case of Methous (from a legal point of view) could be seen as an act of willful and malicious vandalism. In a case such as the one Nycholas has passed judgement upon, at least some of the parties involved were acting in self-defense or in defense of innocent parties. Those who were acting in self-defense should not be penalized for choosing to defend themselves. The right of self-defense, especially when a notorious kindapper, sadist, and
slaver is involved, should not be infringed upon by anyone here. Those who were defending innocent parties from assault were acting according to their conscience. Such individuals should not be penalized either.
Simply put, if the officials of the Sport did have the right to levy and enforce sanctions in this instance (which I do not concede), then those sanctions can only be levied legally against those individuals who were acting out of willful malice. The officials have no right to limit, sanction, or punish the rights of self-defense or of aiding another in their own defense in good conscience.
However, I do not concede that the officials of the sport have the right or duty to sanction any of the individuals in question in anyway. In the past, if one reads the histories has ever been present in more interesting moments, everyone seems to have possessed the right to cause all the mayhem they pleased. As now laws, at least any enforceable laws, exist in this realm I would contend that the powers of the officials of the sport are confined to
the enforcement of the rules of the sport. In an instance entirely apart from the rules of the sport, I deny that any offical of the sport has any jurisdiction.
Finally, the Arena is still a part of the Red Dragon Inn to my knowledge. Structurally speaking, at the least. Whatever arrangement exists between the Duel of Swords and the Inn, I am almost entirely certain that Nycholas has no right to levy damages to property of a third party. I would suggest that if he does wish damages paid, he would have to have the owners of the property make this demand. Those who do not legally own the property in question
and are not responsible for its repair (as the Inn repairs itself) have no legal right to levy damages. Period.

I hope these two replies properly answer the the individuals who made the statements repeated above.







Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont

Warlord of the Duel of Swords

The White Duke

[DoS Archive]

From: elijahbasiauhr@aol.com (Elijah Basia Uhr)
Date: 02 May 2001 14:35:02 EDT

The magic of the Red Dragon Inn heals the damage to the Arena, the Ward of Gondar heals the damage to duelers within the rings.


~Elijah Basia-Uhr~

Warlord of Swords

[DoS Archive]

From: cletusgandrfald@aol.com (Cletus Gandrfald)
Date: 02 May 2001 14:53:50 EDT


I've seen people injured outside the ring then step into the ring to be healed.

Cletus

[DoS Archive]

From: nychdegyrlington@aol.com (NychDeGyrlington)
Date: 04 May 2001 01:33:02 EDT

>This is just plain not true. To begin with, Nycholas is not the 'caretaker of
>the sport'. He is the senior member of a board of three, ys. However, while
>he is the senior official of the sport he does not have the authority that the supervisors possessed in the past.

Percy,
your ignorance is showing,
Fish is the senior member of the Commision

He is not the supervisor of the sport,
>his only
>authority is based in the fact that no one else has attempted to take a
>leadership stance.

Where do you find this information?
How do you know I didn't slit the throats of any competitors for the job?

The manner of the commision's formation was simple: the
>members of the commission were the only members of the staff left when the
>commission was formed. It is entirely possible, had I remained with the staff
>of this sport, I might be on the commission myself.

Care to wager on that one frenchy?
We may be
It is also entirely
>possible, had more former staff members remained, there might not be a
>commission
>but an entirely different form of management.

::ponders::
Oh yeah, if they hadn't bailed ( you included), it would be the ole staus quo

> This is not to say that Nycholas has no authority whatsoever. Rather it is
>to point out that his authority is ambiguous and largely his by default. The
>patrons of the Duel of Swords seem to have accepted the commission as
>legitimate. Fine. The other members of the commission seem to recognize (or
>at least tolerate) Nycholas as their spokesman

I don't think they even tolerate me.
I am just goin to continue butting my head against the proverbial wall till I get tired of insignificant gnats buzzing in my ear and walk away
Which looms closer with each passing attack.

Nych

::wanders over to the edge of the cork in search of the classifieds::

[DoS Archive]

From: chrisgraziano31@aol.com (ChrisGraziano31)
Date: 04 May 2001 02:10:24 EDT


Hell, Nych's the best boss I ever worked for.

And uh, Percy. Do you do anything but whine and complain?

cg

[DoS Archive]

From: jakvaltrds@aol.com (Jakvaltrds)
Date: 06 May 2001 11:16:39 EDT

>Seamus,
> Whatever happend to that "old school" chilvary? Tell me you haven't
>turned into an old dog!
>
>::sighs before signing her name::Never know about some men...::smirking::

>~Lady Morgan E. Rynth~

::carefully reads then chuckles a bit::

Lady Rynth,
Tis sure tha' ya know, I was nerra the good student when I was a lad,Old school or otherwise.Was I not acting in yuir interests when I did offer tae pay the fine o' the lasses involved?
Ya try an do a favor an look wha' grief it brings ya.
::another chuckle as he pens his name::

Seamus

[DoS Archive]

From: cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Cassius Maxim)
Date: 06 May 2001 16:29:11 EDT

"Errrr, Nych, if the Commission requires legal representation, I'd be willing
to offer my services........ For a hefty fee, of course.....



Strallen"

You can't even get the rules of the Duel of Swords right. And you want someone to hire you as their attorney?




Cassius Gaius Maximius

Writing his own thinly veiled threats since 19 B.C.E.

[DoS Archive]

From: cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Cassius Maxim)
Date: 06 May 2001 16:31:58 EDT




"Get to hear me talk?!?!?

-Evan Rush Rynth
Baron of the 13th"

I think that's a pretty big incentive to pay up.





Cassius Gaius Maximius

Writing his own thinly veiled threats since 19 B.C.E.

[DoS Archive]

From: cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Cassius Maxim)
Date: 06 May 2001 16:39:34 EDT



"The question is not whether the Arena is self-healing through the magical
properties of the Red Dragon Inn, but rather whether it is just for Lord
Nycholas to levy penalties for behavior he wishes to discourage.

Lord Nycholas is well within his jurisdiction to levy fines in order to
promote the good order of the Arena. Whether or not the profit from those
fines is necessary in order to make repairs is irrelevant.

As caretaker of the sport, Lord Nycholas is exercising his right and proper
powers to maintain order. Any who refuse to pay those fines, or seek to make
other reparation, would be rightly subject to additional penalties."

A voice of reason.




Cassius Gaius Maximius

Writing his own thinly veiled threats since 19 B.C.E.

[DoS Archive]

From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 06 May 2001 16:45:28 EDT

> Strallen"
>
> You can't even get the rules of the Duel of Swords right. And you want
>someone to hire you as their attorney?
>

In Strallens defense. He is not at fault for the rules. As they currently stand, he was within his rights to challenge again in the same cycle. The oversight is not his fault, but an error of whomever rewrote the new edition of the rules.

*G*

[DoS Archive]

From: cassiusmaxim@aol.com (Cassius Maxim)
Date: 06 May 2001 17:02:53 EDT

"And uh, Percy. Do you do anything but whine and complain?

cg"

That is unfair, Chris. You should have been here in days past. Back then, Percival did much more than complain and whine.

Back then, he complained, whined, and lost challenge matches.





Cassius Gaius Maximius

Writing his own thinly veiled threats since 19 B.C.E.

[DoS Archive]

From: strallenv@aol.com (StrallenV)
Date: 07 May 2001 14:30:51 EDT

> You can't even get the rules of the Duel of Swords right. And you want
>someone to hire you as their attorney?

Technically, Cas, I had and still have the rules right, according to the current version of them.... And until the old rules are re-emplemented, I still have the right of them. Attorney's always follow the rules exactly as they stated, they go by what is written exactly as it is written, because that *is* all they have to go by...... The very fact that something might be mis-written in the laws is almost a guaranteed string of wins for any Attorney's
focused on such a thing. They have no reason, nor no need, to look into what used to be. That's not the way of law.
Strallen

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 08 May 2001 14:23:24 EDT

Master Strallen,

Do be certain ta remind me ne'er ta consider thee for anna judicial appointments within me lands.

JNS