Official Protest

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 20:30:41 EDT

Madame Elgarette,

Tis certes thee dinna know every single person in Rhydin. Ast usual thee fall back on hyperbole an' fallacious comments t' present yuir argument.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 21:08:09 EDT

Madame Elgarette,

Tis I what am curious ast ta why thee wouldst ask 'o me wh' th' Lady Topaz's personal affairs hae t' do wi' t' subject, considerin' t'was Madame Silvertree wh' chose t' opine 'pon t' matter. Further, considerin' tis thee wh' so stridently hae stated tis nae somethin' wh' hae a bearin' thee do agin comment, "However, I'm curious as to what Topaz's love affairs had to do with a Challenge match." Madame, ast hae oft been thine penchant t' stick thine
nose inta family matters, tis yuir continuin' curiousity ast t' th' Lady Topaz's private life be nae a surprise.

Aire thee completely illiterate, Madame, or hae thine senility agin come t' th' fore? Th' matter hae been brought t' Master Evermeadow's attention. Tis 'e hae been conspicuously silent save fer a single missive 'pon t' cork or hae th' escaped thine notice.

I do trust thine bairns aire educated by their father, lass. One shouldst gi' a child every advantage. T'would be a shame were thine bairns t' hae only thee t' see t' their comprehension an' readin' abilities. Do wipe th' egg off'n yuir face, lass, perhaps thine eyesight be impaired by' t' dribblin'.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 22:28:23 EDT

"Tis I what am curious ast ta why thee wouldst ask 'o me wh' th' Lady Topaz's personal affairs hae t' do wi' t' subject, considerin' t'was Madame Silvertree wh' chose t' opine 'pon t' matter."

I understand that you are not the only person to discuss this. That is why I directed the first missive to both of you and why I said "all of you" in my missive to Drakewyn.

" Further, considerin' tis thee wh' so stridently hae stated tis nae somethin' wh' hae a bearin' thee do agin comment, "However, I'm curious as to what Topaz's love affairs had to do with a Challenge match." Madame, ast hae oft been thine penchant t' stick thine
nose inta family matters, tis yuir continuin' curiousity ast t' th' Lady Topaz's private life be nae a surprise."

Actually, the specifics of her personal live are unimportant to me. In my opinion, from what I have seen in the posts between you and Drakewyn, I have yet to find a single shred of evidence that Topaz's personal life has *anything* to do with the Challenge. I find it odd that you would come to the conclusion you have.

"Aire thee completely illiterate, Madame, or hae thine senility agin come t' th' fore? Th' matter hae been brought t' Master Evermeadow's attention. Tis 'e hae been conspicuously silent save fer a single missive 'pon t' cork or hae th' escaped thine notice."

Ah, I see..well then, until he makes further comment, isn't the subject closed? You can argue back and forth about it, but until he contributes more to the discussion, nothing will be accomplished, other than hostility.

I wish you'd just leave the insults out of it. Or have you forgotten the situation in the Arena that night? Please, just stop.

"I do trust thine bairns aire educated by their father, lass. One shouldst gi' a child every advantage. T'would be a shame were thine bairns t' hae only thee t' see t' their comprehension an' readin' abilities."

You are stepping over the line, Nenshen. Keep my children out of your pettiness, for I will *not* tolerate it, nor will Lupton, I am sure. Their education is none of your affair, and I'll ask you to kindly leave them alone.

"Do wipe th' egg off'n yuir face, lass, perhaps thine eyesight be impaired by' t' dribblin'."

I am curious. Why, after what happened the other week, would you continue to harp at me when I have done nothing except ask that the discussion move back to the subject at hand?

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 22 Sep 1999 23:32:04 EDT

Madame Elgarette,

Wh' in t' Nine 'ell's hae t' incident in t' basement ta do wi' annathin'? Save that thee didst prove agin yuir utter foolishness ast well ast thine utter lack 'o intelligence. Rest assured I hae nae forgotten ta incident.

Madame, kindly direct thine missives ta someone wh' gives a bluidy damn wh' thee hae ta say. Thee ta th' bes' 'o me knowledge hae nae been named ast arbitrator in th' matter. Ast ta comin' ta conclusions, Madame, th' only conclusion Ah canst draw from thine latest jotting's be th' thee hae somehow gone utterly blind ast well ast thine memory be seemin' t' fail thee agin. If'n th' Lady Topaz's personal affairs be 'o nae interest ta thee, whyfore
dost indulge thineself in askin' 'bout it?

Tis amusin' th' thee wouldst opine th' ta subject be closed. Tis nae closed, lass, until Master Evermeadow deigns ta offer 'is comments, neh?

Madame, considerin' th' ye certes lack ta intelligence ta school adults tis certes thee lack ta wit ta school yuir bairns. Tis at least their father ist nae such a lackwit. Tis frankly, Madame I dinna care wh' thee will or willnae tolerate, tis 'o little import. Tis amusin' thee claim thee aire put upon, th' usual "pity me" comment from thee, Madame. Yuir martyr complex be peepin' through agin, ye poor misunderstood, pitiful thin'. Shall thee
breakdown inta tears an' weepin'? Tis thee canst find a linen 'anky ta still t' flood, or perhaps Ah shall conjure fer thee a wee violin ta accompany thine piteous bemoanin's.

Run along, Madame, find someone who ist susceptible ta thine bleatin's.

Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 10:09:34 EDT

Sidartha,

You fell into the same trap Percival did. I am not speaking of one person's dislike over anyone else. Had I made that argument, then your comments would be relevant. Embarrassingly for you, they are not, so perhaps it is time to put your distracting tactic to rest.

Topaz's love life is also not the topic here, though for some reason you keep thinking that is what others want it to be. The topic here is certain staff members' inability to be impartial when it comes to doing their job, and the matter of Drakewyn's opinion on Topaz's love life was used as an example of that. When one person who holds a position of control over many others, and that person speaks rather openly and in a derogatory manner about one
of those people she has a measure of control over, that is unethical. Simply, by virtue of Drakewyn's position, she should keep her personal opinions in check as they very much affect the way her position is viewed. If she so chooses to flaunt her personal opinions with no regard to her position, then she must bear the consequences of that choice.

On another level, Golden is obviously biased in favor of Drakewyn, as she is to him. Drakewyn has made several large mistakes that have been noticed by plenty more than just myself, yet it is clear that Golden has made no efforts to rein her in, rather, he defends her mistakes and so she continues to make them.

Drakewyn, in turn, speaks on Golden's behalf more often than is appropriate, thereby that defense further instills in Golden that his inactivity does not have much of an impact on the community.

I do question if Golden and Drakewyn were not so much in each other's pockets if perhaps the inappropriate behaviors would have been tolerated by others in power. The rules are rife with ambiguities that no one has made efforts to amend and both Golden and Drakewyn have discarded rules when it suits them and benefited their friends. Do not ask me to find proof for you because the proof has been on these boards for at least a year. In anticipation of
your demand, I remind you that in argumentative debate if you choose to challenge my argument (that Drakewyn and Golden have made more mistakes/taken more liberties with the rules/acted unethically to favor those they like than would be normally tolerated by impartial authority figures), then the burden of proof is upon you.

Cheers.

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 13:11:24 EDT

Var, Var, Var...

There is no listed penalty for failing to notify the Standings Keeper; therefore, Golden's ruling could not have been "against" the Terms.

Hmm. Yet another problem, I suppose.

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 14:00:44 EDT

Jonalyn~

I will not ask you again. Leave my children out of this.

~Sidartha

[DoS Archive]

From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 14:25:27 EDT

Percival,

You commented, "I also have to add that I in no way apologize to Morgan."

Who thought you did? What was the point in bringing this up?

"Your personal opinion of someone, and your track record for making rather serious and often rather baseless accusations based on your dislike of people, affects your credibility when you make an accusation."

Selective reading at its finest. How convenient for you to disregard facts placed before you when it concerns someone you have regard for, though it is certainly within your pattern of operating. Have you missed all the posts detailing the numerous mistakes Drakewyn has been called on? Have you missed how many times she inserts her personal opinion into matters calling into question her bias toward or against certain people? Or perhaps you think it
is acceptable, since she is your friend, and I am not, that she be allowed to carry on as is simply because the person bringing up her shortcomings is someone you do not like.

How wonderfully two dimensional of you. It must be refreshingly simple to get by in this world judging things by dichotomy--Morgan believes A, Percival believes not-A; Morgan says B, Percival says not-B; Morgan asserts C, Percival assumes not-C, for never the two shall meet.

When you get a bit more depth to your woefully lacking reasoning process, you will be able to intuit the finer degrees of process observation and in turn formulate more complex conclusions rather than automatically contradicting whatever is said simply because I am the one to say it.

[DoS Archive]

From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 15:10:09 EDT

"There is no listed penalty for failing to notify the Standings Keeper; therefore, Golden's ruling could not have been "against" the Terms."

Sorry, Ian, but I disagree. Like I quoted from the rules specifically:

"All challenges and answer to challenge must be sent to both the Standings Keeper and Baron or Overlord being challenged for purposes of notification and validation."

It says in the rules specifically that an answer must be sent to the standings keeper and baron.

"A challenge is not considered complete until the results are posted in the Standings. And where not specifically addressed all challenges must be answered within one week of validation and dueled within two weeks of the response. Any challenge not responded to within one week, setting a time and place, shall be considered an abdication."
In Jaycy's case, the challenge was responded to, but only after the challenge was fought. Thus, the challenge would have to have been fought within two weeks following the response.
There are probably some who may think "what's the big deal whether or not she did send the acceptance after?" Here's why: If someone loses a challenge without sending an acceptance, they could argue they never officially accepted the challenge and thus the duel they lost is invalid. That's why it makes a difference.
While we can't go back and change this, in my opinion, Jaycy's failure to send a response to the standings keeper is considered a forfeit.
To reflect it onto a personal story (though slightly different circumstances)... My first challenge was to Daegarth. I sent him and a few of my friends notification of challenge; because I didn't take extra care in checking with the rules to make sure the challenge was correct, I neglected to send the peer wins to the standings keeper.
The challenge was never valid. I lost rank and my peers before I could reissue the challenge. However, I learned a few lessons after that. In this case, the challenge fought shouldn't be considered valid, because nothing was sent to the standings keeper when it specifically says in the rules "failure to reply within one week and setting a time and place is considered an abdication."
On a side note, I know my invalid challenge is a lot different than Jaycy's, but it's the best analogy I could think of. Back to the topic however; I do feel that Golden's ruling is against what is written in the rules, Ian. That's just me, though.

((On a side note: I removed references to "Dueling Forum" and "Date and Time stamp" because although they may be incorporated IC, it was a bit too shady for me to feel comfortable leaving it in there. After all, I'm assuming when they say date/time stamp, it's referring to AOL's E-Mail feature that allows you to see when you sent it. If it is considered IC, fine, but I wasn't sure enough.))

Var Medici-Giovanni

Proud Father, Proud Husband

Phantom Scots Captain

Baron of the Tenth

Sorcerer of DoM

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 20:03:24 EDT

Madame Elgarette,

I am so verra glad I shall nae hae ta 'ear askin' th' again, thank ye.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 23 Sep 1999 21:59:13 EDT

Var:

On further review, I see that you're quite correct. My apologies.

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 26 Sep 1999 08:21:08 EDT

Lady Morgan.

Forgive the lateness of my reply to your postings. After my shift dragged later than normal, I went directly home and spent the weekend with my family.

Though you will undoubtedly proclaim the irrelevancy of my next few statements, I will make them anyway.
Very early in my dueling career, I saw you were a very vocal and active duelist... but what caught my attention was the fact that you were careful to avoid giving unnecessary insult. I recall one specific incident where you publicly said that you had noticed a statement of yours might be seen as an insult, and you wished to be sure that it was known that it was not.
When I eventually became a volunteer here in the Duel of Swords {yes, I am a volunteer here... I certainly do not require any sort of salary the job would pay.} you would often request that I officiate your duels. You were not as vocal as you had been, but you were still as unfailingly polite.
More recently, this has changed. I believe it was shortly after your husband Rand challenged Dalamar that I first noticed the change in the tone of your public missives. The change became even more marked after Dalamar's apparent death in the ring... something which has yet to be confirmed or denied by the three people who took him from the Annex.

You state: "I, for one, will never trust her to be impartial where it concerns the dueling career of someone she does not like." Is this why you retired from the Rankings and refuse to duel? If so, you ascribe to me a dislike that is not there. Further, I have made my dislike of a certain Warlord very well known... and yet his challenge to a Baroness
I do like, as well as his current record, both stand as they should.

You further state: "She would be best served keeping her personal opinions of others to herself. One never knows when she may have to deal with that person on a professional level." For my own part, I would prefer that anyone who does not like me say so... I am more than capable of keeping my personal and professional opinions separate. And I am also
more than capable of knowing when my personal opinions might be seen by others as potentially effecting my judgment calls, and therefore removing myself from the situation to avoid the claim of bias.

In another post, you ask Percival: "Have you missed how many times she inserts her personal opinion into matters calling into question her bias toward or against certain people?" At least now you admit that I have always made it clear when I give a personal opinion... and yet, I cannot help but ask where this can be shown to have effected the duties I
have performed... but hold off on that until you have read the rest of this posting.

In a third posting, you state: "If she {referring to myself} so chooses to flaunt her personal opinions with no regard to her position, then she must bear the consequences of that choice." And I most certainly do bear the consequences of that choice. I have
never hidden from any claims made against myself, but always been very public in my stance.
Hencefore, however, I must admit that this will no longer be true in the case of a single person... Hencefore, I shall never acknowledge any words penned, spoken or otherwise delivered by Lady Starfare. I have stated my reasons for this in a previous posting.

Later in that same posting you state: "Drakewyn has made several large mistakes that have been noticed by plenty more than just myself, yet it is clear that Golden has made no efforts to rein her in, rather, he defends her mistakes and so she continues to make them." And yet, the challenge that caused this entire controversy was only able to occur
because Golden did in fact correct a mistake I had made... a fact which I posted on the public board. Further, in a missive posted on this board, I made it very clear that I did not wish to make a judgment on the matter of Topaz and Jaycynda's duel... and I also made the public statement that Golden did not inform me of any statements he made to Topaz or Jaycynda.
If you refer to my error on allowing Elijah's challenge to Daelin go forth, it was Golden who corrected me on the timing of the challenge letter and the posting of the Standings. Furthermore since that time, as I have publicly posted, he has informed me of the exact time of the posting of the Standings so that such errors will not be repeated.

You go on to claim: "Drakewyn, in turn, speaks on Golden's behalf more often than is appropriate, thereby that defense further instills in Golden that his inactivity does not have much of an impact on the community." I have never claimed to speak on anyone's behalf but my own. If you feel otherwise, that is your own mistaken impression.

Lastly, you make the following statement: "Do not ask me to find proof for you because the proof has been on these boards for at least a year. In anticipation of your demand, I remind you that in argumentative debate if you choose to challenge my argument (that Drakewyn and Golden have made more mistakes/taken more liberties with the rules/acted unethically to favor those they like than would be
normally tolerated by impartial authority figures), then the burden of proof is upon you." A trick that has been used time and again by Lady Starfare. While this statement may have been true concerning Sidartha, it is not true concerning myself.
As the accused, I ask you to show proof of your accusations here and now. Feel free to copy any previous posts and place them here, but be sure to take note of any answers given to those posts... for I certainly will.


Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 26 Sep 1999 12:58:33 EDT

"The change became even more marked after Dalamar's apparent death in the ring... something which has yet to be confirmed or denied by the three people who took him from the Annex."

It was confirmed to me by Morgan several months ago. Unless, of course, I mistook Morgan's words, which she will most likely (and hopefully without insult) correct me.

~Sidartha Elgarette

[DoS Archive]

From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 27 Sep 1999 11:44:29 EDT

"When I eventually became a volunteer here in the Duel of Swords {yes, I am a volunteer here... I certainly do not require any sort of salary the job would pay.} you would often request that I officiate your duels."

You are clearly addled. I can count on one hand the times I have intentionally requested a certain person to officiate my duels, and without any doubt in my mind, your name never fell from my lips concerning these preferences unless I considered you the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

"More recently, this has changed. I believe it was shortly after your husband Rand challenged Dalamar that I first noticed the change in the tone of your public missives. The change became even more marked after Dalamar's apparent death in the ring... something which has yet to be confirmed or denied by the three people who took him from the Annex."

This is amusing to read; however, I have to wonder, Drakewyn, what does this have to do with your performance and the charges leveled against you? Just how many fallacious arguments can you make? Last time it was straw man, today, red herring. Anyone who uses fallacious reasoning deserves this: mocking and repudiation.

"For my own part, I would prefer that anyone who does not like me say so... I am more than capable of keeping my personal and professional opinions separate. And I am also more than capable of knowing when my personal opinions might be seen by others as potentially effecting my judgment calls, and therefore removing myself from the situation to avoid the claim of bias.SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>"

Just because you have convinced yourself of this does not mean it is either true or that you have convinced the rest of us.

" At least now you admit that I have always made it clear when I give a personal opinion... "

What is with your penchant to believe someone is paying your a compliment or a regard whenever they mention your name? Get over yourself, Drakewyn.

"As the accused, I ask you to show proof of your accusations here and now."

Ah, two fallacious reasoning tactics for the price of one post! I do not know where you get this notion that the accuser bears more burden of proof. Is this how things are done in your fanciful world of dreams and delusions? Regardless of your fallacious tactics, my proof is contained within this cork board. Get off your high horse and research it for yourself. I am not going to recopy something that is readily available for all to see and find on
their own.

OOC/Author's note--please comment on Debate board, but this deserves to be attached to Morgan's post:

1. Leesa might have requested Karen as a caller, but I doubt Morgan did.
2. Burden of Proof: Only in courtrooms (U.S.A. at least--the only country I have some knowledge on ;) ) does the accuser bear more burden of proof than the accused. In fact, the accuser bears ALL of the burden; the defendant doesn't need to say a word in his/her defense. Outside of the criminal court justice system; however, the burden of proof shifts depending on the argument/claim.

[DoS Archive]

From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 27 Sep 1999 23:17:48 EDT

Morgan.

With this post, you only prove my points further. I stated in my post that you would attack my statements, and you performed admirably.
Again and again I have asked for proof of the claims against me, and again and again my accusers have fallen back on the old "find it yourself" line.

Until you can furnish proof of your accusations, I can only assume they are spurious and baseless.


Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.