From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 27 Apr 1998 07:07:32 EDT
Well, having finally retrieved my dictionary from Kalamere (who seems to have underlined several words for me, including: pompous, pedantic, and pretentious, just for me), I decided to take a look at another DoS term that seems to stir up the hornets nest quite often. Worthy. I cannot say for sure, but I believe it is not so much the employment of a champion, as has been the case in most battle oriented
societies, but the name of that procedure. For the purpose of this, I will state that although the Test of Worthiness and an intercession on behalf of a loyal baron are technically two different things, we will, for purposes of this discussion, treat them as equal. Remember that they are not, as I well know, the same thing. Let us endeavor further...
wor*thy (adjective)
First appeared 13th Century
1 a : having worth or value : ESTIMABLE
b : HONORABLE, MERITORIOUS <~ candidates>
2 : having sufficient worth or importance
I believe that in most cases where the Test of Worthiness is issued, there is a degree of insult. Many believe the test to prove the Overlord believes such dueler as he tests is inherently *unworthy* strictly by issuing the test. I will readily admit that my conclusions could be false, nor do I believe that simply renaming the test will solve the problem, however I must reevaluate my personal beliefs as a result of looking further into this word.
The word worthy has to do with character, not skill. I have known many a fellow that was highly skilled, even a master, at his trade, but lacked the moral character to take a stance and hold to it, despite the consequences. This is proof of character and therefore indicative of a person who has the moral fiber to be a leader.
Allow me to indulge in a fictitious example. (Kalamere, Seamus, and Iain will, I trust, not take offense at my using them in said example).
Kalamere has been Overlord for a long and fruitful reign with little controversy (one can dream, no). I challenge a Loyal baron and take the ring from the baron who considers the duel a point of honor and meets me alone in the challenge. I take the ring and declare myself renegade that very night, then change my mind after a hot bath and time to reflect on my victory. After a quick explanation to Kalamere, he allows me to officially declare, by my
own hand, that I will be loyal. Then the trouble starts as Kalamere and I begin to disagree personally. I declare myself renegade to Kalamere and challenge him and all of this happens in the space of one month. In this case, I have proven that there should be doubts about my ability to hold the title I have already, no matter my defenses. I believe a questioning of my worthiness to move higher might be in order. That is according to the
definitions.
Now, let's say Kalamere does test (forgoing his personal belief that testing a baron is utterly wrong) and I fail in my challenge to the Overlords Chosen champion, Warlord Seamus, who then challenges me and takes my ring, declaring himself loyal. Incensed and outraged at a Baron being tested, Iain makes his challenge and a public outcry at my being tested. He does so on his belief that testing a Baron is wrong and always will be. As such, his case
is stated for the public to see, without question. As is the case with the reality of DoS, he receives no little heat from his open opposition with Kalamere's actions and the intent to declare Renegade upon his taking the ring. Iain has, therefore, made a decision on character. He has stated his position clearly and has not wavered from it in the least. As such, he has shown an iron clad strength of character and adherence to his personal
convictions. These are qualities a good leader must have. In this case I feel a test of worthiness or an intercession wholly unwarranted.
I now believe the test should be used on those whose example (by actions and history) should be the highest criteria for using the test. The first case, in my mind, showed someone with the the skill to win (which is all that is really required by rule) but lacking the moral fortitude to make a decision and stay with it come hell or high water. The second case, however, is far different. In the second case a strength of character was shown in the
brutal, even if unpopular, honesty in which the challenge was made. To test someone who is willing to fight for their convictions without falsehood or pretense is, in my mind, not only insulting, but demeaning to the strength of character shown by the person making the challenge.
In closing I will admit that my own personal interpretation of where the test should be used comes from the synonym honorable. Mostly from the last possible definition (characterized by integrity : guided by a high sense of honor and duty) but I will not say that mine is the only interpretation that can be applied. In looking at the definition, there is no way that I can say one side of the most recent debate has erred more in their view of the
test, although there are some cases where there is no clear adherence to the text book definition of worthy. Yet the rules do not state who is worthy and who is not.
A curious dilemma.
I for one would hate to see rules that demanded a certain set of values before one could challenge without interference.
Constant,
~Brian Girvin
Changing a stance on Worthiness
-
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: karnafexx@aol.com (Karnafexx)
Date: 27 Apr 1998 23:40:23 EDT
<<I now believe the test should be used on those whose example (by actions and history) should be the highest criteria for using the test.>>
Devil's Advocate time Girvin.
Since we're making examples of people I want you to give me your thoughts on another possibile senario....
Ulath Fici aquires fifteen peer win and wishes to challenge Dalamar for his title. Now Ulath is a former Overlord himself as well as a three time baron (I think). Ulath has also forfited his ring twice because of non involvement in the sport. With these facts, would Dalamar be justified in enacting the test of worthiness against Ulath? Dalamar states, by your own words, that he is testing Ulath based on his prior lack of commitment to his titles
(save the last) and has Jeff interceed.
Now we have an uproar because, although Ulath may have forfited two rings, he is a very popular dueler and many see this a an insult to the rank of both Overlord and Baron. What every do we do?!
Now I'm sure you already have *your* answer...apply it to this situation.
Shade 9 comes back full time to dueling and aquire 10 peer wins and wishes to challenge Huma for the ring he formerly owned. Shade 9 was the first warlord to ever hold the same ring twice, a feat in itself! However, Shade 9 is also the only person to forfiet the same ring twice. Huma ,( and we'll say he's loyal to Dalamar), doesn't want Shade to get the ring back without the test because he feel Shade was basically an insult to the ring and
*Judging by past actions*, Shade does not deserve the ring. Dalamar interceed and wins.
Funny, all's quiet on the Western front.....Shade was never that popular a dueler as some and therefore his past misdeeds color peoples judgement about him. Aside from the fact that he's just not as big a "name" dueler as some. Whatever do we do!?
The problem here folks is that *I* may think Ulath isn't worthy while *you* do and *you* may feel Shade isn't worthy while *I* do....who is right and who is wrong?! Do we let a persons popularity influence who should and who shouldn't be tested?! Most people wouldn't lift and eyebrow to Shade 9 being tested but most would flip if Ulath was. They both earned the rings they had and they both went down in near infamy for the way they lost them.
In closing, wordz is wordz and the only real meaning they have is to the individual. Dictionary meanings don't mean squat to an ever changing organism like the DoS, they'd work better in a static environment with little or no variables, unfortunately the makeup of this sport is way too complex to just drop definitions and expect them to truly apply to every situation.
Sorry if I actually made sense, I'll work on that.
::Written in choppy red crayola::
Billy Ray
AKA: Karnafexx
"Simply the Best"
Date: 27 Apr 1998 23:40:23 EDT
<<I now believe the test should be used on those whose example (by actions and history) should be the highest criteria for using the test.>>
Devil's Advocate time Girvin.
Since we're making examples of people I want you to give me your thoughts on another possibile senario....
Ulath Fici aquires fifteen peer win and wishes to challenge Dalamar for his title. Now Ulath is a former Overlord himself as well as a three time baron (I think). Ulath has also forfited his ring twice because of non involvement in the sport. With these facts, would Dalamar be justified in enacting the test of worthiness against Ulath? Dalamar states, by your own words, that he is testing Ulath based on his prior lack of commitment to his titles
(save the last) and has Jeff interceed.
Now we have an uproar because, although Ulath may have forfited two rings, he is a very popular dueler and many see this a an insult to the rank of both Overlord and Baron. What every do we do?!
Now I'm sure you already have *your* answer...apply it to this situation.
Shade 9 comes back full time to dueling and aquire 10 peer wins and wishes to challenge Huma for the ring he formerly owned. Shade 9 was the first warlord to ever hold the same ring twice, a feat in itself! However, Shade 9 is also the only person to forfiet the same ring twice. Huma ,( and we'll say he's loyal to Dalamar), doesn't want Shade to get the ring back without the test because he feel Shade was basically an insult to the ring and
*Judging by past actions*, Shade does not deserve the ring. Dalamar interceed and wins.
Funny, all's quiet on the Western front.....Shade was never that popular a dueler as some and therefore his past misdeeds color peoples judgement about him. Aside from the fact that he's just not as big a "name" dueler as some. Whatever do we do!?
The problem here folks is that *I* may think Ulath isn't worthy while *you* do and *you* may feel Shade isn't worthy while *I* do....who is right and who is wrong?! Do we let a persons popularity influence who should and who shouldn't be tested?! Most people wouldn't lift and eyebrow to Shade 9 being tested but most would flip if Ulath was. They both earned the rings they had and they both went down in near infamy for the way they lost them.
In closing, wordz is wordz and the only real meaning they have is to the individual. Dictionary meanings don't mean squat to an ever changing organism like the DoS, they'd work better in a static environment with little or no variables, unfortunately the makeup of this sport is way too complex to just drop definitions and expect them to truly apply to every situation.
Sorry if I actually made sense, I'll work on that.
::Written in choppy red crayola::
Billy Ray
AKA: Karnafexx
"Simply the Best"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: karyepezd@aol.com (Karye PezD)
Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:24:36 EDT
Since this little debate actually makes some sense, instead of just having a lot of mindless posturing, I've got something to ask.
I don't know Ulath, I don't know Shade. What I know about them comes from the history books. Those two did the exact same thing with their rings. The difference is, Ulath was an Overlord, and Shade wasn't. So, using the given examples, if Dal tested Shade and not Ulath, and used any other reason than the fact Ulath is an ex-Overlord as basis for not testing...
Wouldn't that make him a hypocrite?
Yeah, I still think this is really just a sport, but I wanted to throw that out before this becomes another pile of fifty mindless notes all saying the same thing.
Karye Pezdragon
Date: 28 Apr 1998 12:24:36 EDT
Since this little debate actually makes some sense, instead of just having a lot of mindless posturing, I've got something to ask.
I don't know Ulath, I don't know Shade. What I know about them comes from the history books. Those two did the exact same thing with their rings. The difference is, Ulath was an Overlord, and Shade wasn't. So, using the given examples, if Dal tested Shade and not Ulath, and used any other reason than the fact Ulath is an ex-Overlord as basis for not testing...
Wouldn't that make him a hypocrite?
Yeah, I still think this is really just a sport, but I wanted to throw that out before this becomes another pile of fifty mindless notes all saying the same thing.
Karye Pezdragon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 28 Apr 1998 21:26:55 EDT
Sorry if I actually made sense, I'll work on that.
It did make sense Billy but let me comment anyway.
Ulath Fici aquires fifteen peer win and wishes to challenge Dalamar for his title. Now Ulath is a former Overlord himself as well as a three time baron (I think). Ulath has also forfited his ring twice because of non involvement in the sport. With these facts, would Dalamar be justified in enacting the test of worthiness against Ulath?
In my opinion? Absolutely. While I realize words are words, there is a certain lack of popularity to adhering to one's moral code of ethics so the uproar that might ensue is understandable, but not an indication of being incorrect. That fact is public opinion changes more often than a prince's personality while seeking a mate. I can understand the allegation that Dalamar was wrong for testing a baron, but I can also see a point of order as to
why. Again I mean no slam to an individual, but that is my opinion.
Shade 9 comes back full time to dueling and aquire 10 peer wins and wishes to challenge Huma for the ring he formerly owned. Shade 9 was the first warlord to ever hold the same ring twice, a feat in itself! However, Shade 9 is also the only person to forfiet the same ring twice. Huma ,( and we'll say he's loyal to Dalamar), doesn't want Shade to get the ring back without the test because he feel Shade was basically an insult to the ring and
*Judging by past actions*, Shade does not deserve the ring. Dalamar interceed and wins.
Well, here is where my example is flawed (mostly because I could not work out twin challenges to the Overlord in my head correctly). I used the same example as Billy did of the Overlord interceding. Here is my take on Intercession (without dictionaries). While an intercession and a Test of Worthiness are the same in making a challenger face someone they did not challenge, an Intercession is a political maneuver. The motivation behind the
Intercession could be completely unpolitical (Jeff is my friend, I want to date Kappy, I just don't like Adonai, whatever) but the move is protecting a baron, period. So my own example was not the best I could hope for, because if the Overlord wants to ensure (as in my example) that someone who has made no big secret about their wish to declare renegade to him does not win a ring that is the best option available to him. This is of course providing
the Baron accepts.
Now then, I never said anyone at all had to accept my interpretations. I hold no great title. I am merely a dueler, not even of a noteworthy rank, my thoughts are merely my thoughts. If you find a bit of truth for yourself because you have read them, then it was worth it. If you disagree entirely with them, then so be it. I have no power in this sport other than these words. I do not believe my opinions to be popular. I know them only to be
mine. No one else must agree with them, just as no *must* agree with Iain's personal beliefs. To say words are *just* words however is wrong. How else could a challenge raise a heated debate then instant it is placed here, unless words have a deeper meaning? Why else would loyal Barons rush to the Defense of the Overlord if words have no meaning? If loyal was just a word, then why bother to pen any response to a question of Dalamar's policies?
Does his record *not* speak on its own? Aye, but therein lies the rub, the meaning of the words we use. Loyal does have meaning, a meaning that extends beyond what the rules of this sport outline. You have stood beside the Overlord to show your *loyalty* to his reign, or were those just words? The fact of the matter is for language to have any richness there must be meanings behind words. It has been said that a rose by any other name would
still smell as sweet, but words are much more than *just* words. They are how we express our soul, our beliefs, and our very essence. Without words with meaning, we would be little more than apes with swords (not that at times we do not act that way). Yes, the Duel of Swords always changes, but it also retains *tradition,* so that as much as it grows some things never change. Yes, the disagreements have grown a bit more civil (so many fewer
beheadings). You have only to cast your eyes across this board to see that we, as a community, still constantly fight and bicker over every tiny point of order. Is that wrong?
No.
It is the Duel of Swords.
Constant
~Brian Girvin
Date: 28 Apr 1998 21:26:55 EDT
Sorry if I actually made sense, I'll work on that.
It did make sense Billy but let me comment anyway.
Ulath Fici aquires fifteen peer win and wishes to challenge Dalamar for his title. Now Ulath is a former Overlord himself as well as a three time baron (I think). Ulath has also forfited his ring twice because of non involvement in the sport. With these facts, would Dalamar be justified in enacting the test of worthiness against Ulath?
In my opinion? Absolutely. While I realize words are words, there is a certain lack of popularity to adhering to one's moral code of ethics so the uproar that might ensue is understandable, but not an indication of being incorrect. That fact is public opinion changes more often than a prince's personality while seeking a mate. I can understand the allegation that Dalamar was wrong for testing a baron, but I can also see a point of order as to
why. Again I mean no slam to an individual, but that is my opinion.
Shade 9 comes back full time to dueling and aquire 10 peer wins and wishes to challenge Huma for the ring he formerly owned. Shade 9 was the first warlord to ever hold the same ring twice, a feat in itself! However, Shade 9 is also the only person to forfiet the same ring twice. Huma ,( and we'll say he's loyal to Dalamar), doesn't want Shade to get the ring back without the test because he feel Shade was basically an insult to the ring and
*Judging by past actions*, Shade does not deserve the ring. Dalamar interceed and wins.
Well, here is where my example is flawed (mostly because I could not work out twin challenges to the Overlord in my head correctly). I used the same example as Billy did of the Overlord interceding. Here is my take on Intercession (without dictionaries). While an intercession and a Test of Worthiness are the same in making a challenger face someone they did not challenge, an Intercession is a political maneuver. The motivation behind the
Intercession could be completely unpolitical (Jeff is my friend, I want to date Kappy, I just don't like Adonai, whatever) but the move is protecting a baron, period. So my own example was not the best I could hope for, because if the Overlord wants to ensure (as in my example) that someone who has made no big secret about their wish to declare renegade to him does not win a ring that is the best option available to him. This is of course providing
the Baron accepts.
Now then, I never said anyone at all had to accept my interpretations. I hold no great title. I am merely a dueler, not even of a noteworthy rank, my thoughts are merely my thoughts. If you find a bit of truth for yourself because you have read them, then it was worth it. If you disagree entirely with them, then so be it. I have no power in this sport other than these words. I do not believe my opinions to be popular. I know them only to be
mine. No one else must agree with them, just as no *must* agree with Iain's personal beliefs. To say words are *just* words however is wrong. How else could a challenge raise a heated debate then instant it is placed here, unless words have a deeper meaning? Why else would loyal Barons rush to the Defense of the Overlord if words have no meaning? If loyal was just a word, then why bother to pen any response to a question of Dalamar's policies?
Does his record *not* speak on its own? Aye, but therein lies the rub, the meaning of the words we use. Loyal does have meaning, a meaning that extends beyond what the rules of this sport outline. You have stood beside the Overlord to show your *loyalty* to his reign, or were those just words? The fact of the matter is for language to have any richness there must be meanings behind words. It has been said that a rose by any other name would
still smell as sweet, but words are much more than *just* words. They are how we express our soul, our beliefs, and our very essence. Without words with meaning, we would be little more than apes with swords (not that at times we do not act that way). Yes, the Duel of Swords always changes, but it also retains *tradition,* so that as much as it grows some things never change. Yes, the disagreements have grown a bit more civil (so many fewer
beheadings). You have only to cast your eyes across this board to see that we, as a community, still constantly fight and bicker over every tiny point of order. Is that wrong?
No.
It is the Duel of Swords.
Constant
~Brian Girvin
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: strider432@aol.com (Strider432)
Date: 03 May 1998 16:12:26 EDT
::Tacks a note to the boards::
Friends and fellow duelists....
I personally agree (for the most part) with everything sad by both Girvin and Billy Ray. Not that I'm anybody to agree with anything and it matter one way or another. My feeble grasp on the situation is that the test of worthiness and the right to interceed are both at the overlord's whim and may or may not be used by that person's desicion.
I may be completely off, and at least I have faith that if I am wrong in the least, someone will be glad to point that out for me. (He he he)
Basically, while the test of worthiness ( and the right of intercession) may or may not be an insult, and others may or may not agree with it's being used, I thought that the overlord made his own policy, and if that policy didn't fit another's standards, they would take the overlordship or attack his loyal barons. That's the glory of being able to side with or oppose the overlord.
This is the scheme as far as I can tell, and the rest of this talk is the politics about if the overlord was right or not in his policies, and politics makes my stomach churn. If I offended or did something really stupid by tacking this note up here, by all means get in touch with me and tell me as much.
- Strider Koei
Dueling Ninny
Date: 03 May 1998 16:12:26 EDT
::Tacks a note to the boards::
Friends and fellow duelists....
I personally agree (for the most part) with everything sad by both Girvin and Billy Ray. Not that I'm anybody to agree with anything and it matter one way or another. My feeble grasp on the situation is that the test of worthiness and the right to interceed are both at the overlord's whim and may or may not be used by that person's desicion.
I may be completely off, and at least I have faith that if I am wrong in the least, someone will be glad to point that out for me. (He he he)
Basically, while the test of worthiness ( and the right of intercession) may or may not be an insult, and others may or may not agree with it's being used, I thought that the overlord made his own policy, and if that policy didn't fit another's standards, they would take the overlordship or attack his loyal barons. That's the glory of being able to side with or oppose the overlord.
This is the scheme as far as I can tell, and the rest of this talk is the politics about if the overlord was right or not in his policies, and politics makes my stomach churn. If I offended or did something really stupid by tacking this note up here, by all means get in touch with me and tell me as much.
- Strider Koei
Dueling Ninny