Commissions decison on the challenge for the 8th

[DoS Archive]

From: hostpcgreiver@aol.com (HOST PCG Reiver)
Date: 10 May 2001 00:05:24 EDT

Patrons of the Duel of Swords and Warlord Strallen Corackshnea,


Recently it was brought to our attention that an omission in the Universal Terms of Challenge was apparent. It seems that during a past revision of the wording, the section pertaining to Warlords Rights was added to the General Rules rather than the Universal Terms of Challenge. As well, the limitation clause, defining how many times per cycle a Warlord may challenge was omitted entirely.
We have amended the wording of the UToC to reflect the previous revision to whit: A warlord may challenge "only once per cycle."
The rights and restrictions have been added to the UToC as well.

We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused you, the members of the community, but more so, the challenging Warlord, whose challenge made us aware of this error.
The Warlords challenge will not be allowed to proceed based on the fact that the Rules and precedents of the past are clear in the matter.
The Warlord was acting in good faith, and since the current rules did not restrict him to one challenge per cycle he will not be held liable for a seeming invalid challenge.
By all rights, were the rules in place accurate, the challenge would go forth but as they were not accurate, the challenge is considered void.
All peerwins submitted will be allowed, should the Warlord wish to challenge after the end of this cycle. The new cycle begins, June 1st of 2001.
Again, we are sorry for this incident and hope such as this is not the case in the future.

The Duel of Swords Commission

Nycholas DeGyrlinton
Kingphisch
Stormi



Host PCG Reiver
HOST PCG Stormi
HOST PCG Fish
(( AOL Community Leader Volunteers))

[DoS Archive]

From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 10 May 2001 03:07:03 EDT

Well, as I have been very vocal when I have disagreed with the Commission, I am going to be very vocal in my agreement in this case. I think the Commission handled this in exactly the right way. This is not something that was Strallen's fault, and he should not be punished for the error of others. At the same time, there was no way this challenge could
legitimately be allowed to proceed. Under the circumstances, nixing the challenge without penalty was precisely the right thing to do.
Very well decided!







Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont

Warlord of the Duel of Swords

The White Duke

[DoS Archive]

From: elijahbasiauhr@aol.com (Elijah Basia Uhr)
Date: 10 May 2001 17:40:47 EDT

The right decision and action has been done.



~Elijah Basia-Uhr~

Warlord of Swords