From: rixfavre@aol.com (Rix Favre)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:14:40 EST
You'll pardon me, Seamus, if I believe that you began taking the easy way to challenge Dalamar. I never said it was against the rules, nor did I say it was dishonorable. Implied, perhaps, but my main pupose was to say there are better ways to go about things than the way you are.
Perhaps, instead of changing alignment and challenging the day before the Arena was closed in the same breath, you could have changed alignment, and waited until the reopening before challenging. At least then it wouldn't have been a cheap shot.
And the best of three is certainly a tougher option than just the singular duel. I have no idea why in the world this would be declined. In my eyes, the best of three truly shows who the better duelist is. But, in my opinion, you are going the easy way by choosing to duel one duel in which luck instead of skill could determine the outcome.
That is why I question your challenge.
-Rix
And, by the way, I don't call myself loyal or renegade to anyone. I'm just a third party looking in and saying what I feel.
Further OL Challenge Notes
-
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: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:25:00 EST
I stand with Sartan and Jeff. I, too, offer my blade in service and loyalty to my Overlord.
In my opinion, Dalamar's change in policy was conditional upon Kalamere changing his alignment to Loyal. Kalamare is not at the moment a Baron. The conditions of the policy change no longer apply.
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:25:00 EST
I stand with Sartan and Jeff. I, too, offer my blade in service and loyalty to my Overlord.
In my opinion, Dalamar's change in policy was conditional upon Kalamere changing his alignment to Loyal. Kalamare is not at the moment a Baron. The conditions of the policy change no longer apply.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:28:11 EST
>>Not sayin' I'm any more dangerous ta face dan Dal, but ya had yer shot ta face him and only him fer da title, so if he names me or anyone else Champ, hope ya don't complain <<
Jeff,
Why do you insist on attempting to turn Dalamar into the very thing you condemned Huma for being? If you were truly Loyal to Dalamar, you would not attempt to convince him to commit such a vile act. I can only guess that your motivation is from something other than mere Loyalty. Perhaps you have a reason for wanting Dalamar to be foresworn?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:28:11 EST
>>Not sayin' I'm any more dangerous ta face dan Dal, but ya had yer shot ta face him and only him fer da title, so if he names me or anyone else Champ, hope ya don't complain <<
Jeff,
Why do you insist on attempting to turn Dalamar into the very thing you condemned Huma for being? If you were truly Loyal to Dalamar, you would not attempt to convince him to commit such a vile act. I can only guess that your motivation is from something other than mere Loyalty. Perhaps you have a reason for wanting Dalamar to be foresworn?
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: maxim128@aol.com (Maxim128)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:31:29 EST
Morgan,
So what your saying is that Dalamar only changed his policy so he could have another loyal amongst him to do his will?
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:31:29 EST
Morgan,
So what your saying is that Dalamar only changed his policy so he could have another loyal amongst him to do his will?
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:37:15 EST
The commoner smiles as she peruses Kalamere's missive, pens a quick note tacks it up.
Kalamere
Indeed, thou hast the right of it.
Jona.
Date: 14 Nov 1998 15:37:15 EST
The commoner smiles as she peruses Kalamere's missive, pens a quick note tacks it up.
Kalamere
Indeed, thou hast the right of it.
Jona.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 17:19:07 EST
Magnus asks, "So what your saying is that Dalamar only changed his policy so he could have another loyal amongst him to do his will?"
It is not relevant to my statement what you think loyalty means or does not mean and it is in bad form to try to impose what you think loyalty means onto what I said about the conditions of the policy. Kindly deal with the statement rather than twisting it to what you want it to say.
I said, quite clearly, that Dalamar's change in policy was conditional upon Kalamere becoming a loyal baron. Kalamere is no longer a baron, therefore the conditions of the policy are no longer applicable.
Treaties are created for the benefit of both parties. When either side of the treaty is no longer able to meet their terms of the treaty, in this case, Kalamere is no longer able to claim loyalty as a baron, the treaty must be renegotiated or considered null. If both parties do not benefit from the treaty, then there is no point to the treaty. In this case, because Kalamere can no longer provide his loyalty as a baron (through no fault of
his own), Dalamar can no longer benefit, so why should Kalamere continue benefiting from the agreement that Dalamar will not test barons? Dalamar's agreement was with Kalamere, not with the populace of the Arena. Any reasonable ruler must reconsider a treaty from which they receive no benefit, and to do otherwise would be foolish.
Morgan
Date: 14 Nov 1998 17:19:07 EST
Magnus asks, "So what your saying is that Dalamar only changed his policy so he could have another loyal amongst him to do his will?"
It is not relevant to my statement what you think loyalty means or does not mean and it is in bad form to try to impose what you think loyalty means onto what I said about the conditions of the policy. Kindly deal with the statement rather than twisting it to what you want it to say.
I said, quite clearly, that Dalamar's change in policy was conditional upon Kalamere becoming a loyal baron. Kalamere is no longer a baron, therefore the conditions of the policy are no longer applicable.
Treaties are created for the benefit of both parties. When either side of the treaty is no longer able to meet their terms of the treaty, in this case, Kalamere is no longer able to claim loyalty as a baron, the treaty must be renegotiated or considered null. If both parties do not benefit from the treaty, then there is no point to the treaty. In this case, because Kalamere can no longer provide his loyalty as a baron (through no fault of
his own), Dalamar can no longer benefit, so why should Kalamere continue benefiting from the agreement that Dalamar will not test barons? Dalamar's agreement was with Kalamere, not with the populace of the Arena. Any reasonable ruler must reconsider a treaty from which they receive no benefit, and to do otherwise would be foolish.
Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: agrenish@aol.com (Agrenish)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 17:33:03 EST
So what you're sayin' Morgan is that Dalaber only wants Loyal Barons, doesn't care about his own beliefs and is willing to negociate them in order to streangthen his hold on the political chain rather than streagthen the community by doing what is the majority right? Hmm, mabye Dal's not so bad after all...
Agrenish Preescott
~It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at him~
Date: 14 Nov 1998 17:33:03 EST
So what you're sayin' Morgan is that Dalaber only wants Loyal Barons, doesn't care about his own beliefs and is willing to negociate them in order to streangthen his hold on the political chain rather than streagthen the community by doing what is the majority right? Hmm, mabye Dal's not so bad after all...
Agrenish Preescott
~It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at him~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 18:21:19 EST
Agrenish,
Who is Kally?
Colleen Lasher
Date: 14 Nov 1998 18:21:19 EST
Agrenish,
Who is Kally?
Colleen Lasher
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 18:23:40 EST
>>In my opinion, Dalamar's change in policy was conditional upon Kalamere changing his alignment to Loyal. Kalamare is not at the moment a Baron. The conditions of the policy change no longer apply.
<<
Perhaps so, Morgan, however... that condition was not noted in his open letter and was not known to me.
Date: 14 Nov 1998 18:23:40 EST
>>In my opinion, Dalamar's change in policy was conditional upon Kalamere changing his alignment to Loyal. Kalamare is not at the moment a Baron. The conditions of the policy change no longer apply.
<<
Perhaps so, Morgan, however... that condition was not noted in his open letter and was not known to me.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 18:41:08 EST
Agrenish asks, "So what you're sayin' Morgan is that Dalaber only wants Loyal Barons, doesn't care about his own beliefs and is willing to negociate them in order to streangthen his hold on the political chain rather than streagthen the community by doing what is the majority right?"
No, that is what you are saying, though I am not precisely certain what you are saying. What is "the majority right?" What is your point in supporting your argument on a faulty either/or dichotomous statement (Dalamar either wants loyal barons/political chain or he wants a strong community)? Is that the best you can do to prove your point (without resorting to emotional hothead kneejerk responses)? I am trying to understand why a
person would employ such weak, faulty rhetoric in order to contribute.
What you would like to think are Dalamar's motivations are not really relevant to the fact he made a pact with Kalamere. Sorry, I cannot even give you style points for using humor. Fallacious reasoning technique makes for a very weak argument and does not make your position any sounder. I wonder who you are trying to win over by using such bad form in this discussion.
Let me know when you get this all out of your system and are ready to discuss what I actually said about the agreement between Dalamar and Kalamere and the nature of treaties and pacts. Until then, I leave you to your diatribe.
Morgan
Date: 14 Nov 1998 18:41:08 EST
Agrenish asks, "So what you're sayin' Morgan is that Dalaber only wants Loyal Barons, doesn't care about his own beliefs and is willing to negociate them in order to streangthen his hold on the political chain rather than streagthen the community by doing what is the majority right?"
No, that is what you are saying, though I am not precisely certain what you are saying. What is "the majority right?" What is your point in supporting your argument on a faulty either/or dichotomous statement (Dalamar either wants loyal barons/political chain or he wants a strong community)? Is that the best you can do to prove your point (without resorting to emotional hothead kneejerk responses)? I am trying to understand why a
person would employ such weak, faulty rhetoric in order to contribute.
What you would like to think are Dalamar's motivations are not really relevant to the fact he made a pact with Kalamere. Sorry, I cannot even give you style points for using humor. Fallacious reasoning technique makes for a very weak argument and does not make your position any sounder. I wonder who you are trying to win over by using such bad form in this discussion.
Let me know when you get this all out of your system and are ready to discuss what I actually said about the agreement between Dalamar and Kalamere and the nature of treaties and pacts. Until then, I leave you to your diatribe.
Morgan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 19:03:29 EST
Collie stated, "Perhaps so, Morgan, however... that condition was not noted in his open letter and was not known to me."
That is not really relevant. No one needs to know any of the reasons behind the agreement or the fact that it was conditional, nor were Dalamar or Kalamere under any obligation to disclose the nature of the agreement with anyone, least of all, you. The only people who it is relevant to are Dalamar and Kalamere - the two who entered into the negotiation process. A person not involved in the negotiations may ask for more information or think they
deserve more information; no one is under any obligation to meet the person's request. If the request is met, do not read more into it than is really there. It was a courtesy that Dalamar stated his change in policy to the public. I do not understand why you would take advantage of that courtesy and insist it is your right to know more information than you are entitled to have and then complain about it not being addressed when it really was of no
concern to you.
Date: 14 Nov 1998 19:03:29 EST
Collie stated, "Perhaps so, Morgan, however... that condition was not noted in his open letter and was not known to me."
That is not really relevant. No one needs to know any of the reasons behind the agreement or the fact that it was conditional, nor were Dalamar or Kalamere under any obligation to disclose the nature of the agreement with anyone, least of all, you. The only people who it is relevant to are Dalamar and Kalamere - the two who entered into the negotiation process. A person not involved in the negotiations may ask for more information or think they
deserve more information; no one is under any obligation to meet the person's request. If the request is met, do not read more into it than is really there. It was a courtesy that Dalamar stated his change in policy to the public. I do not understand why you would take advantage of that courtesy and insist it is your right to know more information than you are entitled to have and then complain about it not being addressed when it really was of no
concern to you.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 19:38:38 EST
"Least of all me, eh?"
That is correct. You have a history of being critical toward Dalamar and make no secret of your disapproval on how he handles things. Why should he offer the slightest courtesy to you above anyone else? .
"Fine.. if this is the path we are taking here then I remind you that Dalamar has a tendency to not let principle parties in his agreements know of his change of mind of policies. He knows, I know.. half of DoS knows.. need I go on?"
Yes, you do need to "go on". I do not know, apparently, what you think I know. In this instance of Dalamar and Kalamere's agreement, they are the only principals.
If two countries are at war, say England and Germany, and England needs support that only France can provide, England might enter into negotiations and form a treaty. The details of the treaty might be that France will provide food to England if England can help France build ships. Neither England or France is under any obligation to disclose the nature of their agreement with Germany or, for that matter, any other curious country not involved in
the war. In addition, if either England or France is unable to meet their end of the deal and the treaty is considered void, neither country is under any obligation to inform anyone else that the treaty is no longer valid. It simply is not anyone else's business despite how much someone might wish it should be.
Date: 14 Nov 1998 19:38:38 EST
"Least of all me, eh?"
That is correct. You have a history of being critical toward Dalamar and make no secret of your disapproval on how he handles things. Why should he offer the slightest courtesy to you above anyone else? .
"Fine.. if this is the path we are taking here then I remind you that Dalamar has a tendency to not let principle parties in his agreements know of his change of mind of policies. He knows, I know.. half of DoS knows.. need I go on?"
Yes, you do need to "go on". I do not know, apparently, what you think I know. In this instance of Dalamar and Kalamere's agreement, they are the only principals.
If two countries are at war, say England and Germany, and England needs support that only France can provide, England might enter into negotiations and form a treaty. The details of the treaty might be that France will provide food to England if England can help France build ships. Neither England or France is under any obligation to disclose the nature of their agreement with Germany or, for that matter, any other curious country not involved in
the war. In addition, if either England or France is unable to meet their end of the deal and the treaty is considered void, neither country is under any obligation to inform anyone else that the treaty is no longer valid. It simply is not anyone else's business despite how much someone might wish it should be.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qxz137@aol.com (QXZ137)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 19:48:29 EST
<<In addition, if either England or France is unable to meet their end of the deal and the treaty is considered void, neither country is under any obligation to inform anyone else that the treaty is no longer valid.>>
And if Russia nukes both of them, then Germany will sit back, smile, and shake hands with Russia... at least, until America gets there...
--Commander Quizxs<FONT
COLOR="#0000E0"> Xysar Zzaasdp
Commoner, 7-6-1
Once Swordsman
If Dalamar asked you to jump off a cliff:
A true Loyal would jump off immediately.
A Neutral would consider his own safety.
A Renegade would ask Dalamar to do it first.
Date: 14 Nov 1998 19:48:29 EST
<<In addition, if either England or France is unable to meet their end of the deal and the treaty is considered void, neither country is under any obligation to inform anyone else that the treaty is no longer valid.>>
And if Russia nukes both of them, then Germany will sit back, smile, and shake hands with Russia... at least, until America gets there...
--Commander Quizxs<FONT
COLOR="#0000E0"> Xysar Zzaasdp
Commoner, 7-6-1
Once Swordsman
If Dalamar asked you to jump off a cliff:
A true Loyal would jump off immediately.
A Neutral would consider his own safety.
A Renegade would ask Dalamar to do it first.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: mredheart@aol.com (M Redheart)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 20:08:59 EST
::Morgan smirks a little as he filters through the notes, then he writes his own.::
Not one too dabble in Politics, which is all this is mind ye. But it comes down ta one simple thing. Kalamere's current Rank before he retired, doesn't nullify anything. Once a pact is made, then it is eternal until one party or both break it. It was never said that if Kalamere didn't retain Rank as Baron and or such that it wouldn't be honored.
As far as Seamus's challenge, i'm all for you Saemus. I've heard and read, even in my off time about the complaints of Dalamar's 'supposed' privy too test all his challengers. Personally, its the Overlords right. Just as it was Seamus's right too refuse the best of three challenge Personally, if this was me I would have done the same thing. Besides the fact i'm getting older and couldn't go for three straight matches, i'd rather do a one straight
shot.
I wish you luck Seamus.
Date: 14 Nov 1998 20:08:59 EST
::Morgan smirks a little as he filters through the notes, then he writes his own.::
Not one too dabble in Politics, which is all this is mind ye. But it comes down ta one simple thing. Kalamere's current Rank before he retired, doesn't nullify anything. Once a pact is made, then it is eternal until one party or both break it. It was never said that if Kalamere didn't retain Rank as Baron and or such that it wouldn't be honored.
As far as Seamus's challenge, i'm all for you Saemus. I've heard and read, even in my off time about the complaints of Dalamar's 'supposed' privy too test all his challengers. Personally, its the Overlords right. Just as it was Seamus's right too refuse the best of three challenge Personally, if this was me I would have done the same thing. Besides the fact i'm getting older and couldn't go for three straight matches, i'd rather do a one straight
shot.
I wish you luck Seamus.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: agrenish@aol.com (Agrenish)
Date: 14 Nov 1998 20:20:57 EST
No Morgan, if I was saying that I would of said it. Please discontinue stuffing words into my mouth princess. I was merely asking you for a clerification on what you were attempting to say behind a masqurade, that's all.
Agrenish Preescott
~It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at him~
Date: 14 Nov 1998 20:20:57 EST
No Morgan, if I was saying that I would of said it. Please discontinue stuffing words into my mouth princess. I was merely asking you for a clerification on what you were attempting to say behind a masqurade, that's all.
Agrenish Preescott
~It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at him~