From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 20:32:27 EDT
(also posted in DoS)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My friends,
For the ten months that Dalamar has held the title of Overlord, I have considered myself loyal to him. Though never holding a title during this time, my loyalty was as strong as any baron's, albeit unoffical.
With the outcome of the challenge issued by Baron Evan, and the Overlords answer thereto, I must now withdraw my loyalty. These thoughts of mine are not new and shall come as no surprise, for long have I considered it the utmost abuse of power for an Overlord to excercise the Test of Worthiness upon a Baron. I feel strongly that, by accomplishment of receiving the Barony itself, one is inherently worthy to challenge.
For all this, my challenge should be directed to Lord Ar'Daumon, but it is not. I am unable to issue challenge for his title, as it would break a vow I made when last I held that title to myself. As such, my remaining recourse is to join the ranks of those renegade to the Overlord and stand against him when I may.
Presumably all of the Barons loyal to Lord Ar'Daumon condone his abuse of our standards, so it makes little difference which of them I challenge. However, the Baron I have chosen has specifically said that he shall not question the rights of the Overlord. That baron is Adonai Uziel.
I had been surprised to read of such blind faith from Baron Uziel, but it was with mine own eyes I read these words. Even in loyalty a man (or woman) should question those in power just as in friendship one should point out the wrongs of another; if for no other reason than to allow them to see their own slights and assist them in personal growth and the achievment of glory.
And so, my reasons defined, I set forth my first challenge for a Barony. I've never used peer wins to challenge before, and had hoped never to do so, but alas.. there is a first time for everything.
I wish you well, Baron Uziel, and hope to hear your acceptance of this challenge to the 7th ring.
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
peer win list:
note that these peer wins may well not be valid. They all occured before my last reign as Overlord.. though that title was gained through a "free" challenge as result of a warlord tournament. I am uncertain as to the effect that would have on the peer wins I had accumulated. Rest assuered, I have peer wins from since that reign that should suffice.. simply contact me if they are required.
10/25/95
Kalamere def. RandReborn, 5 - 4 in 10 rounds. - RDI DrkElf
11/1/95
Kalamere def. Tukros, 5.5 - 2 in 13 rounds. - RDI Sweep
11/23/95
Kalamere def. Rennor111, 6-5 in 14 rounds - RDI Marx
Kalamere def. RAGNEROCK, 5 - 3 in 10 rounds. - RDI Phlag
12/04/95
Kalamere def. Alais d NS, 5 - .5 in 6 rounds. - RDI Phoenx
12/20/95
Kalamere def. Hadar Dule, 5-3 in 12 rounds - RDI Simini
01/24/96
Kalamere def. ZTModal, 5 - 2 in 6 rounds. - RDI Najiba
2/13/96
Kalamere def. Kickingit, 5 - 2 in 5 rounds. - RDI Simini
2/20/96
Kalamere def. Dark Axe, 5 - 4 in 8 rounds. - RDI Xeno
Kalamere def. RJ Wnston, 5 - 1 in 9 rounds. - RDI Amal
3/5/96
Kalamere def. DWARFKING1, 5 - 2 in 8 rounds. - RDI Simini
A Renegade's Challenge to the 7th
-
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: dukeuziei@aol.com (Duke UzieI)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:52:51 EDT
Lord Kalamere,
Your challenge, while unexpected in its author, was far from unexpected politically.
I will slow my hand in this challenge a bit from my last, as the officials tend to get a bit flustered when I accept and defeat a challenge all in a weeks time. Something about paperwork from what I understand.
But I do wish to address a few things you had stated...as a few things set wrongly with me.
You will pardon me if I paraphrase somewhat.
The first thing I wish to address is your statement of Dalamar's *abuse* of how we do things here and the traditions of the sport. I find your statement here to be, if not in error, to be very close minded and highly unlike you. When it truly comes down to the point. Lord Dalamar can throw the Test of Worthiness around like candy if it pleases him. There is no stricture in the UTC that states he must be morally correct, nor have to please
everyone, in its use. And as I recall. You had little if anything to say about Athlstans constant use of the Test and intercession during his reign, and if you did, I never saw your face among those of us that were doing something about it, so I truly do not see the difference here. You state that he *abuses* the traditions of the sport. I say that he is the Overlord. And if he wishes to do things in this fashion, that is his right as the supreme
dueler of the sport. Just as it was yours, and Ath's and Iain's.
You also state that you must switch your personal loyalty to the Overlord at this time because of his actions. Why so then challenge a Baron? Dost not the former Overlord have the mettle to cast his gauntlet into the teeth of the cause of his problem? Or is it...as I suspect it is. That another has been chosen to take the torch of war to the Overlord himself?
You have also stated that my *blind faith* is wrong, that I should question at all times. Well to that I say this. When, Kalamere, have you ever known me not to question? When have I not risked public crucifiction and castigation to stay true to what I believe in? When have I ever backed away from something I thought was wrong? If you know me at all...you will know I never have. And I would say that my faith is far from *blind*. I have many
things I base my faith in the present Overlord on. Our friendship for one. Dalamar has not once, in my entire career here in the Duels, ignored me, looked down upon me, nor has he ever insulted my intelligence or tried to make me into someone I am not. Which is far and away more than I can say for you or many of your era's duelists. But those are old wounds that I will not reopen. I also base my faith on this. Besides a few wrinkles....the present
Council of Barons and the Overlord is one of the most stable and active in the known history of the sport. We not only have one of the largest contigents of truly loyal Barons, but we also have, from my viewpoint, one of the most active contigents of Loyal Barons that I have ever seen in my time in this sport and mayhaps the most active since the inception of the Baronial Rings. Which is more than I can say for past Councils, which seemed to me to be
a loosely joined group of caretakers that were more interested in winning the title than using it for any kind of real purpose.
Dalamar uses his powers as Overlord as he sees fit. And to once more prove you to be speaking of things you know nothing of. I have questioned him many times. And every time he and I have settled it out in private debates. All the more my respect for him because of this...as others might do naught but shrug...because who cares...its only Adonai...now isn't it?
You will recieve acceptance of your challenge, honored sir, in due course after confirmation of your wins. And I will offer you quick justice after such time.
Regards,
~Adonai Uziel~
~DragonLord of RhyDin~
~Baron of the Seventh~
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:52:51 EDT
Lord Kalamere,
Your challenge, while unexpected in its author, was far from unexpected politically.
I will slow my hand in this challenge a bit from my last, as the officials tend to get a bit flustered when I accept and defeat a challenge all in a weeks time. Something about paperwork from what I understand.
But I do wish to address a few things you had stated...as a few things set wrongly with me.
You will pardon me if I paraphrase somewhat.
The first thing I wish to address is your statement of Dalamar's *abuse* of how we do things here and the traditions of the sport. I find your statement here to be, if not in error, to be very close minded and highly unlike you. When it truly comes down to the point. Lord Dalamar can throw the Test of Worthiness around like candy if it pleases him. There is no stricture in the UTC that states he must be morally correct, nor have to please
everyone, in its use. And as I recall. You had little if anything to say about Athlstans constant use of the Test and intercession during his reign, and if you did, I never saw your face among those of us that were doing something about it, so I truly do not see the difference here. You state that he *abuses* the traditions of the sport. I say that he is the Overlord. And if he wishes to do things in this fashion, that is his right as the supreme
dueler of the sport. Just as it was yours, and Ath's and Iain's.
You also state that you must switch your personal loyalty to the Overlord at this time because of his actions. Why so then challenge a Baron? Dost not the former Overlord have the mettle to cast his gauntlet into the teeth of the cause of his problem? Or is it...as I suspect it is. That another has been chosen to take the torch of war to the Overlord himself?
You have also stated that my *blind faith* is wrong, that I should question at all times. Well to that I say this. When, Kalamere, have you ever known me not to question? When have I not risked public crucifiction and castigation to stay true to what I believe in? When have I ever backed away from something I thought was wrong? If you know me at all...you will know I never have. And I would say that my faith is far from *blind*. I have many
things I base my faith in the present Overlord on. Our friendship for one. Dalamar has not once, in my entire career here in the Duels, ignored me, looked down upon me, nor has he ever insulted my intelligence or tried to make me into someone I am not. Which is far and away more than I can say for you or many of your era's duelists. But those are old wounds that I will not reopen. I also base my faith on this. Besides a few wrinkles....the present
Council of Barons and the Overlord is one of the most stable and active in the known history of the sport. We not only have one of the largest contigents of truly loyal Barons, but we also have, from my viewpoint, one of the most active contigents of Loyal Barons that I have ever seen in my time in this sport and mayhaps the most active since the inception of the Baronial Rings. Which is more than I can say for past Councils, which seemed to me to be
a loosely joined group of caretakers that were more interested in winning the title than using it for any kind of real purpose.
Dalamar uses his powers as Overlord as he sees fit. And to once more prove you to be speaking of things you know nothing of. I have questioned him many times. And every time he and I have settled it out in private debates. All the more my respect for him because of this...as others might do naught but shrug...because who cares...its only Adonai...now isn't it?
You will recieve acceptance of your challenge, honored sir, in due course after confirmation of your wins. And I will offer you quick justice after such time.
Regards,
~Adonai Uziel~
~DragonLord of RhyDin~
~Baron of the Seventh~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewynx@aol.com (Drakewyn x)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:02:33 EDT
::Pauses, pondering for a long moment before putting pen to paper.::
My most respected Lords...
While I have not searched out the ruling myself, is there not a ruling that states, "When a Baron or OverLord is defeated in a challenge, they return to the rank indicated by their record... and, if that Rank is WarLord, their PeerWins are reset"?
In addition, I believe there is a ruling that states, "Barons and the Overlord count as peers for the purposes of a WarLords Peer Wins, but do not collect Peer Wins of their own"?
Far be it from me to deny a challenge that has nothing to do with me... but I do believe all the proprieties must be observed.
Then again, maybe I should just walk away... but that has never been my way, has it?
Lady Drake.
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:02:33 EDT
::Pauses, pondering for a long moment before putting pen to paper.::
My most respected Lords...
While I have not searched out the ruling myself, is there not a ruling that states, "When a Baron or OverLord is defeated in a challenge, they return to the rank indicated by their record... and, if that Rank is WarLord, their PeerWins are reset"?
In addition, I believe there is a ruling that states, "Barons and the Overlord count as peers for the purposes of a WarLords Peer Wins, but do not collect Peer Wins of their own"?
Far be it from me to deny a challenge that has nothing to do with me... but I do believe all the proprieties must be observed.
Then again, maybe I should just walk away... but that has never been my way, has it?
Lady Drake.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dueier@aol.com (DueIer)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:15:28 EDT
To anyone reading this,
I feel that as a Loyal Baron, I have some need to respond to both Kalamere's challenge missive, and along the way, to Baron Uziel's response. I would do this in private, yet I feel this is something the whole community has interest in and so, like Baron Uziel, post my words here in public. Be aware before reading this that the main point lies in the distance, and I shall wade through a great deal of my opinions and history before reaching it.
First of all, I do not remember a time that I was here in which Dalamar was not Overlord. Perhaps Athlstan did reign for a bit while I was still in the lower ranks, that I do not remember. But my point here is this: Dalamar has been Overlord for an extremely long time. If one took his length of reign currently for all the Overlords, there would be barely any to speak of.
When Dalamar was asked last night I believe by Prince Fortenza what number defense it was, Dalamar indicated his 10th. I was astounded by that figure, and proceeded to ask how many he defended with his own hand. He replied that 9 were, meaning the Test of Worthiness was only successful in putting down a challenge once, and that Dalamar successfully his own title more than any Baron (and presumably Overlord, although the history of the
Overlords is not available to me), and nearly twice any Baron excluding Baron Bird.
In the little I have learned about the times before I was more prominently interested in this sport, it appears that Dalamar decided to challenge Overlord Athlstan due to the supposed abuse of the Test of Worthiness. Now one might say that Dalamar may be hypocritical for now using it himself, but I do believe Dalamar's use of it to be justified. Now, this is not to say that Athlstan's weren't justified, but at least I believe Dalamar does have
sufficient reason for envoking the Test as he does.
Let us try to remember what the test is for, or at least try to come up with one. Its main purpose is to lessen the liklihood((sp?)) of the challenger being successful in his bid for whatever title he is after. If the challenger is one not worthy of the title, he may still win by fluke, but winning two matches is twice as hard, and for an unskilled dueler, nearly impossible. The test is thus issued to prevent this. Using it on a worthy
dueler as just an attempt to put an obstacle in his way is less justified, but if the challenger is not well-liked, it may be, but I really do not wish to discuss that.
Which brings me to a couple questions that seem to be at the heart of this: Is Dalamar justified in issuing tests? Are all of the tested truly unworthy of the title? First of all, as I explained earlier, Dalamar has a long history of defenses of himself, as well as successful intercessions for Loyal Barons, often past a Renegade's intercession. Using the test with such a history is really not much of a problem for me, and I fail to see why
others see any sort of problem.
This, of course, leads to my second question. For many of the challengers, it is clear that is should be used, on "Slider", on myself in my first challenge, and others. Borderline calls are that on former Barons. Really borderline calls are actual Barons. In the first case, I take Steve Glowacki. Already passing intercession in his first challenge in which he succeeded, he was then tested again after he lost the ring and challenged again.
Lying on the borderline, I would support this due to the fact that the first intercession match was close, and that Steve lost his ring in the first defense. Perhaps he was/is not worthy to be a Baron. And the shutout in the test showed that he was not able to pass the test again. I would not be surprised, and would support such attempt, if Dalamar were to test him again if he were to challenge a renegade Baron. I am not sure if this situation
happened any other time Dalamar reigned (although I do remember reading of Athlstan testing a previous *Overlord* in his bid for a barony, but that is beside the point), but were it to happen again, I would support it if certain factors showed the possibility of the challenger being unworthy.
Now I seem to be beating around the bush here, but I think I am about to some to the point. These "certain factors" that I make mention of above may cause even a current Baron to be tested in a bid for the Overlord's crown. In Evan's case, I'm not really sure whether there is much a factor of worthiness from history. He already had one defense at the time of intercession. Looking at the two challenge matches Evan won, I see a short, semi-close
match (5-3 in 7) for the ring, and then a very long, close (6-5 in 14) match in the defense. What does this say? Clearly does not say this this is certainly a masterful dueler, although it does say that he is material for a Baron. But the real question is: is he worthy of being the Overlord? One may go both directions on this, but for me, the key lies in the fact that Evan has only been succesful in two challenge match previously, winnig by a
combined three points. To me, this puts it as a question of whether Evan is worthy or not, and therefore, I support the Overlord's choice.
Now that I have gone through that rather long discussion, what about Kalamere's challenge? I find no evidence that Dalamar is not justified in issuing the test. And as to Kalamere's insistence that Baron Uziel has a "blind faith", although I am unsure if he has all the thought out reasonings I have just laid out, I am sure that he has a large number of reasons behind his support of the Overlord, many of which are similar to mine. To suggest
that that someone has no real reasons behind his faith when one never has asked for reasons suggests to me that they are looking for excuses. If Kalamere truly did ask Baron Uziel before the challenge, I would find it hard to believe that Baron Uziel would give answers that would let his faith be questions. Though I know not if Kalamere has any ulterior reasons, or what any might be, I surely cannot support in any way the challenge to a fellow
Loyal Baron when made with reasons that I see little base in.
Although my remarks are long, I hope that everyone does see all the time I put into my thinking about them. I try to offer no baseless opinions, but ground what I believe in history and common sense. If for some reason anyone were to have contention with anything I say, please post something here, or drop me a note in my mailbox in the arena.
Thank you,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:15:28 EDT
To anyone reading this,
I feel that as a Loyal Baron, I have some need to respond to both Kalamere's challenge missive, and along the way, to Baron Uziel's response. I would do this in private, yet I feel this is something the whole community has interest in and so, like Baron Uziel, post my words here in public. Be aware before reading this that the main point lies in the distance, and I shall wade through a great deal of my opinions and history before reaching it.
First of all, I do not remember a time that I was here in which Dalamar was not Overlord. Perhaps Athlstan did reign for a bit while I was still in the lower ranks, that I do not remember. But my point here is this: Dalamar has been Overlord for an extremely long time. If one took his length of reign currently for all the Overlords, there would be barely any to speak of.
When Dalamar was asked last night I believe by Prince Fortenza what number defense it was, Dalamar indicated his 10th. I was astounded by that figure, and proceeded to ask how many he defended with his own hand. He replied that 9 were, meaning the Test of Worthiness was only successful in putting down a challenge once, and that Dalamar successfully his own title more than any Baron (and presumably Overlord, although the history of the
Overlords is not available to me), and nearly twice any Baron excluding Baron Bird.
In the little I have learned about the times before I was more prominently interested in this sport, it appears that Dalamar decided to challenge Overlord Athlstan due to the supposed abuse of the Test of Worthiness. Now one might say that Dalamar may be hypocritical for now using it himself, but I do believe Dalamar's use of it to be justified. Now, this is not to say that Athlstan's weren't justified, but at least I believe Dalamar does have
sufficient reason for envoking the Test as he does.
Let us try to remember what the test is for, or at least try to come up with one. Its main purpose is to lessen the liklihood((sp?)) of the challenger being successful in his bid for whatever title he is after. If the challenger is one not worthy of the title, he may still win by fluke, but winning two matches is twice as hard, and for an unskilled dueler, nearly impossible. The test is thus issued to prevent this. Using it on a worthy
dueler as just an attempt to put an obstacle in his way is less justified, but if the challenger is not well-liked, it may be, but I really do not wish to discuss that.
Which brings me to a couple questions that seem to be at the heart of this: Is Dalamar justified in issuing tests? Are all of the tested truly unworthy of the title? First of all, as I explained earlier, Dalamar has a long history of defenses of himself, as well as successful intercessions for Loyal Barons, often past a Renegade's intercession. Using the test with such a history is really not much of a problem for me, and I fail to see why
others see any sort of problem.
This, of course, leads to my second question. For many of the challengers, it is clear that is should be used, on "Slider", on myself in my first challenge, and others. Borderline calls are that on former Barons. Really borderline calls are actual Barons. In the first case, I take Steve Glowacki. Already passing intercession in his first challenge in which he succeeded, he was then tested again after he lost the ring and challenged again.
Lying on the borderline, I would support this due to the fact that the first intercession match was close, and that Steve lost his ring in the first defense. Perhaps he was/is not worthy to be a Baron. And the shutout in the test showed that he was not able to pass the test again. I would not be surprised, and would support such attempt, if Dalamar were to test him again if he were to challenge a renegade Baron. I am not sure if this situation
happened any other time Dalamar reigned (although I do remember reading of Athlstan testing a previous *Overlord* in his bid for a barony, but that is beside the point), but were it to happen again, I would support it if certain factors showed the possibility of the challenger being unworthy.
Now I seem to be beating around the bush here, but I think I am about to some to the point. These "certain factors" that I make mention of above may cause even a current Baron to be tested in a bid for the Overlord's crown. In Evan's case, I'm not really sure whether there is much a factor of worthiness from history. He already had one defense at the time of intercession. Looking at the two challenge matches Evan won, I see a short, semi-close
match (5-3 in 7) for the ring, and then a very long, close (6-5 in 14) match in the defense. What does this say? Clearly does not say this this is certainly a masterful dueler, although it does say that he is material for a Baron. But the real question is: is he worthy of being the Overlord? One may go both directions on this, but for me, the key lies in the fact that Evan has only been succesful in two challenge match previously, winnig by a
combined three points. To me, this puts it as a question of whether Evan is worthy or not, and therefore, I support the Overlord's choice.
Now that I have gone through that rather long discussion, what about Kalamere's challenge? I find no evidence that Dalamar is not justified in issuing the test. And as to Kalamere's insistence that Baron Uziel has a "blind faith", although I am unsure if he has all the thought out reasonings I have just laid out, I am sure that he has a large number of reasons behind his support of the Overlord, many of which are similar to mine. To suggest
that that someone has no real reasons behind his faith when one never has asked for reasons suggests to me that they are looking for excuses. If Kalamere truly did ask Baron Uziel before the challenge, I would find it hard to believe that Baron Uziel would give answers that would let his faith be questions. Though I know not if Kalamere has any ulterior reasons, or what any might be, I surely cannot support in any way the challenge to a fellow
Loyal Baron when made with reasons that I see little base in.
Although my remarks are long, I hope that everyone does see all the time I put into my thinking about them. I try to offer no baseless opinions, but ground what I believe in history and common sense. If for some reason anyone were to have contention with anything I say, please post something here, or drop me a note in my mailbox in the arena.
Thank you,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dukeuziei@aol.com (Duke UzieI)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:16:47 EDT
Viable point Lady Drake....I shall have Golden investigate this.
~Adonai
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:16:47 EDT
Viable point Lady Drake....I shall have Golden investigate this.
~Adonai
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:46:02 EDT
> The first thing I wish to address is your statement of Dalamar's *
> abuse* of how we do things here and the traditions of the sport. I find your
> statement here to be, if not in error, to be very close minded and highly
> unlike you.
On the contrary, Baron Uziel, I have been making this very statement for years. In times when I was a Baron, I have changed alignment from Loyal to Renegade and interceeded on behalf of other Barons in accordance with this belief. I have made clear this stance of mine to more than a single overlord.. If there be doubt of that I advise you to seek council from ex-Overlord Gnimish Gnimoi who might share with you just
how persistant in this belief I can be. In short, one could hardly say that this is unlike me.
> When it truly comes down to the point. Lord Dalamar can throw the
> Test of Worthiness around like candy if it pleases him. There is no stricture
> in the UTC that states he must be morally correct, nor have to please
> everyone, in its use. ...
> ......... You state that
> he *abuses* the traditions of the sport. I say that he is the Overlord. And
> if he wishes to do things in this fashion, that is his right as the supreme
> dueler of the sport.
This, sir, is exactly the type of comment from you that I had refered to as blindly following. How can a man with any self-respect say such a thing? Not in regards specifically to Evan or any other challenger specificlly, but as a general matter, can you really believe that just because some body of law allows a man to do a thing, that thing ought to be done? Abuse of those things that are allowed by law yet are
inherently wrong are the very things that wars arise from.
A King is within his power to tax his subjects to poverty, and yet is it right that he might do so? In civilizations where slavery is banned, people may look back on the institution and condemn the men who practiced it, and yet they were within their rights to do as much. No laws were broken, no standard disregarded.
Obviously, there are extreme examples, I use them not to compare Lord Ar'Daumon to a king or a slave trader. Rather I use them only for the proposition already mentioned: Simply because a man *may* do such a thing, does not mean he should.
Honor is a concept that transcends what the law allows a man to do. A code of honor consists of the very things that men will do in addition to what is required of them and what they will give up despite being entitled to it. An Overlord should have such a code for himself and should, at all times, abide by it.
This is not to say that Lord Ar'Daumon does not employ a code of honor. Rather to again point out that a man of honor could not abide by this statement you have made.
This challenge is about my code of honor, moreso than about Dalamar's. This action taken by the Overlord violates my beliefs and I am willing to brandish a blade and fight for what I hold to be the honor an Overlord ought to employ. Wars have been fought over less my friend, I merely seek a title so that I might be a hinderance to any future action of the sort.
> And as I recall. You had little if anything to say
> about Athlstans constant use of the Test and intercession during his reign,
> and if you did, I never saw your face among those of us that were doing
> something about it, so I truly do not see the difference here.
Either you have misread my challenge, or have been misinformed. I care not if an Overlord uses the test against a thousand warlords. It is only when employed against a Baron that I find it abusive. For those Overlords that have used the test against a Baron I challenge you to find one who has not heard my discontent.
On the other hand I must ask the same of you. You say that you have fought against the use of the test in the past, yet now have no issue with its use by Dalamar. Why is that?
> You also state that you must switch your personal loyalty to the
> Overlord at this time because of his actions. Why so then challenge a
> Baron? Dost not the former Overlord have the mettle to cast his gauntlet
> into the teeth of the cause of his problem? Or is it...as I suspect it is. That
> another has been chosen to take the torch of war to the Overlord himself?
I am aware that you suspect a challenge from Lord Tynsdale, and am amused that you think us working in tandem. The truth of the matter is that Iain, to my knowledge has no intent to challenge and further more, that we met each other on our way to the cork board, but had not discussed these issues before penning our missives. We simply share a few of the same beliefs.
As to why I do not challenge Dalamar directly, I shall disregard the ill aimed stone you have thrown and answer you this. I have made not one but two vows that prevent me from doing such. This is the concept of honor I attempted to reference earlier. Certainly I may challenge the Overlord directly, yet by my own had I have vowed to do so only if these conditions are met and I am a man who sticks strictly to his word.SIZE=3>
Although I doubt you have any true interest, I shall share these vows. The first, and older of the two, was a vow to never challenge for Overlordship unless first I won a barony or tournament. The second, made during my last reign, was that I would wait 2 years or 10 Overlords before I again sought that station. As you can see, these conditions remain unfullfilled.
> Well to that I say this. When, Kalamere, have you ever
> known me not to question?
Rarely, Baron Uziel, rarely. Which is why, as I stated, I was surprised to see you make such a statement.
> Which is far and away more than I can say for you or many of your era's duelists.
I can not help but be curious who you would consider duelists of my era. I'm also a bit surprised to see you employ this version of the old school vs. new gambit, calssifying duelists by their entry into the sport, I'd thought you'd learned by now that personalities differ regardless of how long one has been here.
As to my own misdeeds, I believe our only controversial discussion was when you were rather new to the sport and I suggested you pen your missives like the lord you claim to be rather than a gutter snipe. I'd note that, while I'm sure my advise alone did not make a difference, you have grown to do just that.
I fear I have gone on far longer than I had intended, though I must say that I enjoy the exchange.
Until I hear from you again,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:46:02 EDT
> The first thing I wish to address is your statement of Dalamar's *
> abuse* of how we do things here and the traditions of the sport. I find your
> statement here to be, if not in error, to be very close minded and highly
> unlike you.
On the contrary, Baron Uziel, I have been making this very statement for years. In times when I was a Baron, I have changed alignment from Loyal to Renegade and interceeded on behalf of other Barons in accordance with this belief. I have made clear this stance of mine to more than a single overlord.. If there be doubt of that I advise you to seek council from ex-Overlord Gnimish Gnimoi who might share with you just
how persistant in this belief I can be. In short, one could hardly say that this is unlike me.
> When it truly comes down to the point. Lord Dalamar can throw the
> Test of Worthiness around like candy if it pleases him. There is no stricture
> in the UTC that states he must be morally correct, nor have to please
> everyone, in its use. ...
> ......... You state that
> he *abuses* the traditions of the sport. I say that he is the Overlord. And
> if he wishes to do things in this fashion, that is his right as the supreme
> dueler of the sport.
This, sir, is exactly the type of comment from you that I had refered to as blindly following. How can a man with any self-respect say such a thing? Not in regards specifically to Evan or any other challenger specificlly, but as a general matter, can you really believe that just because some body of law allows a man to do a thing, that thing ought to be done? Abuse of those things that are allowed by law yet are
inherently wrong are the very things that wars arise from.
A King is within his power to tax his subjects to poverty, and yet is it right that he might do so? In civilizations where slavery is banned, people may look back on the institution and condemn the men who practiced it, and yet they were within their rights to do as much. No laws were broken, no standard disregarded.
Obviously, there are extreme examples, I use them not to compare Lord Ar'Daumon to a king or a slave trader. Rather I use them only for the proposition already mentioned: Simply because a man *may* do such a thing, does not mean he should.
Honor is a concept that transcends what the law allows a man to do. A code of honor consists of the very things that men will do in addition to what is required of them and what they will give up despite being entitled to it. An Overlord should have such a code for himself and should, at all times, abide by it.
This is not to say that Lord Ar'Daumon does not employ a code of honor. Rather to again point out that a man of honor could not abide by this statement you have made.
This challenge is about my code of honor, moreso than about Dalamar's. This action taken by the Overlord violates my beliefs and I am willing to brandish a blade and fight for what I hold to be the honor an Overlord ought to employ. Wars have been fought over less my friend, I merely seek a title so that I might be a hinderance to any future action of the sort.
> And as I recall. You had little if anything to say
> about Athlstans constant use of the Test and intercession during his reign,
> and if you did, I never saw your face among those of us that were doing
> something about it, so I truly do not see the difference here.
Either you have misread my challenge, or have been misinformed. I care not if an Overlord uses the test against a thousand warlords. It is only when employed against a Baron that I find it abusive. For those Overlords that have used the test against a Baron I challenge you to find one who has not heard my discontent.
On the other hand I must ask the same of you. You say that you have fought against the use of the test in the past, yet now have no issue with its use by Dalamar. Why is that?
> You also state that you must switch your personal loyalty to the
> Overlord at this time because of his actions. Why so then challenge a
> Baron? Dost not the former Overlord have the mettle to cast his gauntlet
> into the teeth of the cause of his problem? Or is it...as I suspect it is. That
> another has been chosen to take the torch of war to the Overlord himself?
I am aware that you suspect a challenge from Lord Tynsdale, and am amused that you think us working in tandem. The truth of the matter is that Iain, to my knowledge has no intent to challenge and further more, that we met each other on our way to the cork board, but had not discussed these issues before penning our missives. We simply share a few of the same beliefs.
As to why I do not challenge Dalamar directly, I shall disregard the ill aimed stone you have thrown and answer you this. I have made not one but two vows that prevent me from doing such. This is the concept of honor I attempted to reference earlier. Certainly I may challenge the Overlord directly, yet by my own had I have vowed to do so only if these conditions are met and I am a man who sticks strictly to his word.SIZE=3>
Although I doubt you have any true interest, I shall share these vows. The first, and older of the two, was a vow to never challenge for Overlordship unless first I won a barony or tournament. The second, made during my last reign, was that I would wait 2 years or 10 Overlords before I again sought that station. As you can see, these conditions remain unfullfilled.
> Well to that I say this. When, Kalamere, have you ever
> known me not to question?
Rarely, Baron Uziel, rarely. Which is why, as I stated, I was surprised to see you make such a statement.
> Which is far and away more than I can say for you or many of your era's duelists.
I can not help but be curious who you would consider duelists of my era. I'm also a bit surprised to see you employ this version of the old school vs. new gambit, calssifying duelists by their entry into the sport, I'd thought you'd learned by now that personalities differ regardless of how long one has been here.
As to my own misdeeds, I believe our only controversial discussion was when you were rather new to the sport and I suggested you pen your missives like the lord you claim to be rather than a gutter snipe. I'd note that, while I'm sure my advise alone did not make a difference, you have grown to do just that.
I fear I have gone on far longer than I had intended, though I must say that I enjoy the exchange.
Until I hear from you again,
~Kalamere Ar'Din...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:53:29 EDT
My Dear Lady Drake,
You are more than likely correct in this summary of the guidelines. As such, I sent an addition 12 peer wins to Golden that I did not attach to this challenge. Those wins were acquired after my second reign as Overlord, so I am sure they shall qualify.
I used these mostly in an attempt to get a ruling from those who govern the sport on exactly how free of charge a "free" challenge is.
~Kalamere
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:53:29 EDT
My Dear Lady Drake,
You are more than likely correct in this summary of the guidelines. As such, I sent an addition 12 peer wins to Golden that I did not attach to this challenge. Those wins were acquired after my second reign as Overlord, so I am sure they shall qualify.
I used these mostly in an attempt to get a ruling from those who govern the sport on exactly how free of charge a "free" challenge is.
~Kalamere
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:15:13 EDT
To the Baron of No Name,
I believe I have addressed the majority of your questions and comments in my response to Baron Uziel. In case it was not clear, however, allow me to restate this.
It is not for fact of anything Baron Uziel has done specifically that brings this challenge. I challenge because I can not agree with the actions of Lord Ar'Daumon and yet, due to my own vow, can accomplish nothing against him directly, other than to remove, or rather, attempt to remove, a loyal baron.
At the onset I considered all 7 of the Barons that claim this alignment and then began to narrow the field by re-reading those missives on the cork that have come before now. I will say that I consider you as much a target as any other for remaining loyal in support of the Overlord's action. However, in light of this response I am glad not to have chosen you.
The reason I chose Baron Adonai was his stated belief that the Overlord may do whatever he wants within the rules, being bound by no other code. This is a stance that I simply can not respect and one that you, sir, do not appear to hold. This in itself would not have been sufficient reason to draw my challenge. Adonai is certainly not the first baron to state such a belief. But when already seeking an opponent, it was certainly enough to draw my
attention.
~Kalamere...
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:15:13 EDT
To the Baron of No Name,
I believe I have addressed the majority of your questions and comments in my response to Baron Uziel. In case it was not clear, however, allow me to restate this.
It is not for fact of anything Baron Uziel has done specifically that brings this challenge. I challenge because I can not agree with the actions of Lord Ar'Daumon and yet, due to my own vow, can accomplish nothing against him directly, other than to remove, or rather, attempt to remove, a loyal baron.
At the onset I considered all 7 of the Barons that claim this alignment and then began to narrow the field by re-reading those missives on the cork that have come before now. I will say that I consider you as much a target as any other for remaining loyal in support of the Overlord's action. However, in light of this response I am glad not to have chosen you.
The reason I chose Baron Adonai was his stated belief that the Overlord may do whatever he wants within the rules, being bound by no other code. This is a stance that I simply can not respect and one that you, sir, do not appear to hold. This in itself would not have been sufficient reason to draw my challenge. Adonai is certainly not the first baron to state such a belief. But when already seeking an opponent, it was certainly enough to draw my
attention.
~Kalamere...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:25:35 EDT
::posts::
To all,
A challenge was put forth. Take it and duel it. So what if the Overlord does not follow old ways, at least some one is tring to set things stright once more. Stop yelling at each other and do some thing. Endless bickering at these boards is getting rather boring and should be keep privite to the poeple in it. Zeesh, do all need to show how far they have gone or have fancy thier writing is?
Duel well Kalamere.
-Evan
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:25:35 EDT
::posts::
To all,
A challenge was put forth. Take it and duel it. So what if the Overlord does not follow old ways, at least some one is tring to set things stright once more. Stop yelling at each other and do some thing. Endless bickering at these boards is getting rather boring and should be keep privite to the poeple in it. Zeesh, do all need to show how far they have gone or have fancy thier writing is?
Duel well Kalamere.
-Evan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dukeuziei@aol.com (Duke UzieI)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:30:26 EDT
Once again Kalamere.
I state this for the record once more as I have in the past.
NO ONE. Not you, not Iain, not Dalamar, not ANYONE can tell me how I or another should act. You may hold me by your code in your mind. And Dalamar also. But that is YOUR code.
If it is within the rules. Then it is. Plain and simple. And I believe attempting to make people live by your code, under threat of force is....as I have stated. The worst form of fascisim known to man.
Rejoice as you fall to the level of oppressor Kalamere, I now know that diversity of honor and person is not truly appreciated by those here. Even if you defeat me, your own goose step mentality is what will do you in eventually........Your well worded replies are giving me naught but want and need to dispatch you in the same fashion I did my other challenges. Quickly and Skillfully.
~Adonai
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:30:26 EDT
Once again Kalamere.
I state this for the record once more as I have in the past.
NO ONE. Not you, not Iain, not Dalamar, not ANYONE can tell me how I or another should act. You may hold me by your code in your mind. And Dalamar also. But that is YOUR code.
If it is within the rules. Then it is. Plain and simple. And I believe attempting to make people live by your code, under threat of force is....as I have stated. The worst form of fascisim known to man.
Rejoice as you fall to the level of oppressor Kalamere, I now know that diversity of honor and person is not truly appreciated by those here. Even if you defeat me, your own goose step mentality is what will do you in eventually........Your well worded replies are giving me naught but want and need to dispatch you in the same fashion I did my other challenges. Quickly and Skillfully.
~Adonai
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:35:18 EDT
::walks up and wonders why this must go on and why each puts words in the others mouth:: ::shrugs and walks off wondering::
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:35:18 EDT
::walks up and wonders why this must go on and why each puts words in the others mouth:: ::shrugs and walks off wondering::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dueier@aol.com (DueIer)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:06:34 EDT
::reads Adonai's post and shakes his head::
Baron Uziel, and anyone else for that matter,
You state that no one has the right to tell you how to act. And certainly this is a most basic right that everyone has. However, we do have laws and other moral codes that bind all people. I do not wish to say that you have overstepped any boundaries that have been set by all people, but do not think that you can get away with anything you wish. I certainly will support you in this defense, but do not think that you can always get everyone's
support all the time. Everyone has to allow certain actions and beliefs, but not everyone has to agree with them. All challenges, or most at least, are done with the knowledge with what the challenged was allowed to do what ever led to the challenge, but he reason for the challenge lies in the fact that the action or belief was disgreed with.
Remember that Dalamar can legally test, offer best of three, or have a straight up match for a challenge to himself. Some just don't agree fully with him doing one of them. The question he becomes whether he "should have" done it, not if he was "able to do it". Perhaps you understand this, but your postings make you seem like all you care about is the primary "able to do" side, and not the "should do" side.
Thank you,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:06:34 EDT
::reads Adonai's post and shakes his head::
Baron Uziel, and anyone else for that matter,
You state that no one has the right to tell you how to act. And certainly this is a most basic right that everyone has. However, we do have laws and other moral codes that bind all people. I do not wish to say that you have overstepped any boundaries that have been set by all people, but do not think that you can get away with anything you wish. I certainly will support you in this defense, but do not think that you can always get everyone's
support all the time. Everyone has to allow certain actions and beliefs, but not everyone has to agree with them. All challenges, or most at least, are done with the knowledge with what the challenged was allowed to do what ever led to the challenge, but he reason for the challenge lies in the fact that the action or belief was disgreed with.
Remember that Dalamar can legally test, offer best of three, or have a straight up match for a challenge to himself. Some just don't agree fully with him doing one of them. The question he becomes whether he "should have" done it, not if he was "able to do it". Perhaps you understand this, but your postings make you seem like all you care about is the primary "able to do" side, and not the "should do" side.
Thank you,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:15:36 EDT
Lord Uziel:
Once again, you take umbrage at someone standing up for their principles and taking action, by crying that none have the right to tell you what to do or how to behave.
In this case, once and for all, you will see how wrong you are. Kalamere disagrees with your behaviour and words, and is using his right to take action against you. His right - just as much as it is your right to say what you wish, and just as it is his right to choose this action for his reasons, and just as it is my right to hold to my principles and speak my mind.
Fascism? A laughable comment, Adonai. Ever since the beginnings of this sport, people have issued challenge precisely because they have disagreed with the thoughts and policies of others, and you have the unmitigated gall to bleat like a child over the "use of force"? This is the nature of the contest, man! If you wished to have opinions and not risk losing something, then why did you seek title in this arena?
How typical. A man holds true to a specific principle for his entire career in this arena, and you wish to tear him down as some sort of oppressor. You chose your ground; you spoke your piece; you hold your principles - but you're becoming incensed that someone is forcing you to fight for them. Someone who has repeatedly - in his intercession against (lo and behold) Billy Ray, when I was a Baron and Gnimish tested me upon my challenge to him - in
his contest against Leto Covington, which he sought due to Leto's pattern of testing Barons - fought for his beliefs in this manner.
I'd be interested to hear, Adonai, how complaining about being made to answer for your beliefs qualifies as honor, while fighting for one's beliefs does not.
Iain MacKenzie
Lord Tynsdale
Warlord and Thrice-Baron of the Duel of Swords.
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:15:36 EDT
Lord Uziel:
Once again, you take umbrage at someone standing up for their principles and taking action, by crying that none have the right to tell you what to do or how to behave.
In this case, once and for all, you will see how wrong you are. Kalamere disagrees with your behaviour and words, and is using his right to take action against you. His right - just as much as it is your right to say what you wish, and just as it is his right to choose this action for his reasons, and just as it is my right to hold to my principles and speak my mind.
Fascism? A laughable comment, Adonai. Ever since the beginnings of this sport, people have issued challenge precisely because they have disagreed with the thoughts and policies of others, and you have the unmitigated gall to bleat like a child over the "use of force"? This is the nature of the contest, man! If you wished to have opinions and not risk losing something, then why did you seek title in this arena?
How typical. A man holds true to a specific principle for his entire career in this arena, and you wish to tear him down as some sort of oppressor. You chose your ground; you spoke your piece; you hold your principles - but you're becoming incensed that someone is forcing you to fight for them. Someone who has repeatedly - in his intercession against (lo and behold) Billy Ray, when I was a Baron and Gnimish tested me upon my challenge to him - in
his contest against Leto Covington, which he sought due to Leto's pattern of testing Barons - fought for his beliefs in this manner.
I'd be interested to hear, Adonai, how complaining about being made to answer for your beliefs qualifies as honor, while fighting for one's beliefs does not.
Iain MacKenzie
Lord Tynsdale
Warlord and Thrice-Baron of the Duel of Swords.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: stevegx@aol.com (SteveG X)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:37:42 EDT
::smiles a bit::
Perhaps we have all come to realize how much the Overlord is overusing the test? Hmm? When I first returned from my hiatus and read over all the old messages, I noted that Dal hadn't used his testing that much. When I remarked that to him, he just said there were fewer that requested it. And now...was Evan really worthy? I really don't know how worthy Evan was to really get a shot at Dal, but I do know I oppose the testing of Barons, especially
ones that already have a defense. Heck, I am still a bit angered from that time Dueler mentioned when Dal tested me the second time after already passing it once, and getting the ring. I really never asked why he thought I was unworthy then...but since I got shutout I really shouldn't complain.
Where the heck am I going? Really...I don't know. My ramblings are generally this bad, so...well, all I can really say is that I wasn't surprised by this slight uprising. That it is leaded by some old time duelers kinda sparks my interest. Maybe they know how the place should be since they've had a bit more experience? Well...that's enough outa me..
-Steve Glowacki
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:37:42 EDT
::smiles a bit::
Perhaps we have all come to realize how much the Overlord is overusing the test? Hmm? When I first returned from my hiatus and read over all the old messages, I noted that Dal hadn't used his testing that much. When I remarked that to him, he just said there were fewer that requested it. And now...was Evan really worthy? I really don't know how worthy Evan was to really get a shot at Dal, but I do know I oppose the testing of Barons, especially
ones that already have a defense. Heck, I am still a bit angered from that time Dueler mentioned when Dal tested me the second time after already passing it once, and getting the ring. I really never asked why he thought I was unworthy then...but since I got shutout I really shouldn't complain.
Where the heck am I going? Really...I don't know. My ramblings are generally this bad, so...well, all I can really say is that I wasn't surprised by this slight uprising. That it is leaded by some old time duelers kinda sparks my interest. Maybe they know how the place should be since they've had a bit more experience? Well...that's enough outa me..
-Steve Glowacki
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dukeuziei@aol.com (Duke UzieI)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:48:44 EDT
Lord Mackenzie,
You my verbose adversary have once again placed yourself in business that is not yours. I complain not. You wish me to answer for yours and Kalameres distaste with Dalamar's practices and my faith in a friend then by all means DO SO.
Come....bring your challenges. I fear thee not. Nor does thy twisted literism sway me. You challenge me for loyalty. While I find that contemptable. I find facing you or Kalamere for it to be the least of my concerns.
These people here...all in a whole...have had their fill of negative politics and the games played within them. As you can see your warning to the Overlord and the Loyals has not been well recieved. And naught to matter how you try...you cannot try and turn the minds of the public against those that have proven themselves time and time again to not only be worthy of their title by word and action....but worthy by deed as well.
Enough with these words, churl...speak to me not of thy opinions as I have heard them before..and they have changed not since your last condemnation of me. And since then...nothing has changed. I am here....I exist and I do as I wish. Baron of the Seventh.
As I said......crucify me for loyalty. It will not change me nor sway me.
~Adonai Uziel~
~DragonLord of RhyDin~
~Baron of the Seventh~
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:48:44 EDT
Lord Mackenzie,
You my verbose adversary have once again placed yourself in business that is not yours. I complain not. You wish me to answer for yours and Kalameres distaste with Dalamar's practices and my faith in a friend then by all means DO SO.
Come....bring your challenges. I fear thee not. Nor does thy twisted literism sway me. You challenge me for loyalty. While I find that contemptable. I find facing you or Kalamere for it to be the least of my concerns.
These people here...all in a whole...have had their fill of negative politics and the games played within them. As you can see your warning to the Overlord and the Loyals has not been well recieved. And naught to matter how you try...you cannot try and turn the minds of the public against those that have proven themselves time and time again to not only be worthy of their title by word and action....but worthy by deed as well.
Enough with these words, churl...speak to me not of thy opinions as I have heard them before..and they have changed not since your last condemnation of me. And since then...nothing has changed. I am here....I exist and I do as I wish. Baron of the Seventh.
As I said......crucify me for loyalty. It will not change me nor sway me.
~Adonai Uziel~
~DragonLord of RhyDin~
~Baron of the Seventh~