From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 10:25:00 EST
>I will defend your belief.
Where is it, then?
And your argument about taking words out so it says what you want it to say was really amusing.
The clause you think is so unecessary is actually a conditional statement, just like this one is (conditional clause bolded) "* No maneuver, except DISENGAGE, may be played twice in a row." If you take those words out, you completely change the meaning of the rule.
How about this one? "Challenges, if not properly served, will be voided by the Standings Keeper." Take out "if not properly served" what do you get? "Challenges will be voided by the Standings Keeper."
This is fun! How many more rules can we change using G'nort's and Drake's trick?
A call for Investigation: Official decision
-
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: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 14:43:44 EST
>This is fun! How many more rules can we change using G'nort's and Drake's
>trick?
Oh, I am sure at least one. After all, your trick has worked to change one even as we speak. Though it does seem that the official change to reflect the actual rule will not be effected.
Congratulations. You and Jona have just gotten the officials of the sport to make an official ruling overturning the literal enforcement of a rule!
I would tend to say that your remarks to G are the pot chiding the kettle, at the least.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 07 Mar 2000 14:43:44 EST
>This is fun! How many more rules can we change using G'nort's and Drake's
>trick?
Oh, I am sure at least one. After all, your trick has worked to change one even as we speak. Though it does seem that the official change to reflect the actual rule will not be effected.
Congratulations. You and Jona have just gotten the officials of the sport to make an official ruling overturning the literal enforcement of a rule!
I would tend to say that your remarks to G are the pot chiding the kettle, at the least.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 14:47:18 EST
>
>>I will defend your belief.
>
>Where is it, then?
Noone is attacking it, are they? Therefore, I've no reason to defend it, yet.
>This is fun! How many more rules can we change using G'nort's and Drake's
>trick?
Childish behaviour I thought was above you. Oh well.
G
Date: 07 Mar 2000 14:47:18 EST
>
>>I will defend your belief.
>
>Where is it, then?
Noone is attacking it, are they? Therefore, I've no reason to defend it, yet.
>This is fun! How many more rules can we change using G'nort's and Drake's
>trick?
Childish behaviour I thought was above you. Oh well.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 14:56:28 EST
>G'nort, I can understand defending a friend, but suggesting that it's ok to
>ignore words that are in the written rules is beyond belief.
>
>-Jake
First, let me make it totally clear that I -don't- in any way agree with Drake's decision in that matter, and I told her that.
Second, There was input from the remaining duelist, which I had been told by many others, not just one.
Third, you write:
>Hell...why don't we snip some more words?! Let's boil it down to "the HOST
>DFC (referee) will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss." Why
>bother with waiting for a duelist to punt? Let's just make it caller's
>prerogative to determine the outcome of *every* duel.
This cannot be done, as there are other rules that govern the result of a duel. Ones that state that the duel must be fought to 15 rounds, or 5 points, and the one ahead by a full point is the winner.
>You can't honestly be suggseting that it's alright to simply delete words
>from the rules. That's insane.
I'm not suggesting it. But you're all acting like Drake *did not* have Damien's input.
The rules have long been troublesome in regards to other people's interpretation of them. How many arguements have occured because of this? How many more will occur?
Other people defended those interpretations. Why must I be insulted because I defend one?(Not by you Jake, you seem to be very careful not to insult people, I like that. :) )
Again, Drake knows I disagreed with her on this decision. But, I can totally see how she can interpret the rule that way. And what I am strictly calling for is the immediate rewriting of not only that rule, But every rule in there so that these sorts of pointless arguements can be avoided.
G
Date: 07 Mar 2000 14:56:28 EST
>G'nort, I can understand defending a friend, but suggesting that it's ok to
>ignore words that are in the written rules is beyond belief.
>
>-Jake
First, let me make it totally clear that I -don't- in any way agree with Drake's decision in that matter, and I told her that.
Second, There was input from the remaining duelist, which I had been told by many others, not just one.
Third, you write:
>Hell...why don't we snip some more words?! Let's boil it down to "the HOST
>DFC (referee) will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss." Why
>bother with waiting for a duelist to punt? Let's just make it caller's
>prerogative to determine the outcome of *every* duel.
This cannot be done, as there are other rules that govern the result of a duel. Ones that state that the duel must be fought to 15 rounds, or 5 points, and the one ahead by a full point is the winner.
>You can't honestly be suggseting that it's alright to simply delete words
>from the rules. That's insane.
I'm not suggesting it. But you're all acting like Drake *did not* have Damien's input.
The rules have long been troublesome in regards to other people's interpretation of them. How many arguements have occured because of this? How many more will occur?
Other people defended those interpretations. Why must I be insulted because I defend one?(Not by you Jake, you seem to be very careful not to insult people, I like that. :) )
Again, Drake knows I disagreed with her on this decision. But, I can totally see how she can interpret the rule that way. And what I am strictly calling for is the immediate rewriting of not only that rule, But every rule in there so that these sorts of pointless arguements can be avoided.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 16:00:26 EST
>After all, your trick has worked to change one even as we speak.
Which trick is that? You think conditional clauses are "tricky"? You have been iller than I thought.
>Though it does seem that the official change to reflect the actual rule will
>not be effected.
What "official change" to what "actual rule" will "not be effected" and how do you know this?
>Congratulations. You and Jona have just gotten the officials of the sport to
>make an official ruling overturning the literal enforcement of a rule!
What flights of fancy are you partaking in today, Percy? Turi made the official announcement overturning Drakewyn's ruling on the fifth. I did not offer my opinion on the matter until the sixth. I did, however, ask on the first if Drakewyn acknowledged Damien's input. From the records I have received as a result of my inquiry, she never responded to him directly or indicated she even heard him.
So, tell me, Oh Brilliant One, how could I have gotten the officials to do anything when all I communicated on the matter before the ruling was given was asking if Drakewyn acknowledged the input? I am flattered you think I have that much influence to convince people to do my bidding before I even know for certain what my bidding would be.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 16:00:26 EST
>After all, your trick has worked to change one even as we speak.
Which trick is that? You think conditional clauses are "tricky"? You have been iller than I thought.
>Though it does seem that the official change to reflect the actual rule will
>not be effected.
What "official change" to what "actual rule" will "not be effected" and how do you know this?
>Congratulations. You and Jona have just gotten the officials of the sport to
>make an official ruling overturning the literal enforcement of a rule!
What flights of fancy are you partaking in today, Percy? Turi made the official announcement overturning Drakewyn's ruling on the fifth. I did not offer my opinion on the matter until the sixth. I did, however, ask on the first if Drakewyn acknowledged Damien's input. From the records I have received as a result of my inquiry, she never responded to him directly or indicated she even heard him.
So, tell me, Oh Brilliant One, how could I have gotten the officials to do anything when all I communicated on the matter before the ruling was given was asking if Drakewyn acknowledged the input? I am flattered you think I have that much influence to convince people to do my bidding before I even know for certain what my bidding would be.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 16:53:55 EST
"Congratulations. You and Jona have just gotten the officials of the sport to make an official ruling overturning the literal enforcement of a rule!"
Teflon Ian strikes again.
No, Percival, that is not what "they" accomplished. "They" got the officials to overturn the a rule enforcement which was contrary to the commonly known, traditional interpretation.
This insistence on defending the utter arrogance of someone who quite CLEARLY deems herself superior to the rest of the community, and feels it is her prerogative to instill her own morals and desires onto a community in which she is merely a cog and onto a sport she is not the overseer of, much less the creator, is sickening.
Ian Rex.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 16:53:55 EST
"Congratulations. You and Jona have just gotten the officials of the sport to make an official ruling overturning the literal enforcement of a rule!"
Teflon Ian strikes again.
No, Percival, that is not what "they" accomplished. "They" got the officials to overturn the a rule enforcement which was contrary to the commonly known, traditional interpretation.
This insistence on defending the utter arrogance of someone who quite CLEARLY deems herself superior to the rest of the community, and feels it is her prerogative to instill her own morals and desires onto a community in which she is merely a cog and onto a sport she is not the overseer of, much less the creator, is sickening.
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 17:23:11 EST
"This insistence on defending the utter arrogance of someone who quite CLEARLY deems herself superior to the rest of the community, and feels it is her prerogative to instill her own morals and desires onto a community in which she is merely a cog and onto a sport she is not the overseer of, much less the creator, is sickening."
Responding to myself, it will be amusing to see how many attempt to claim that I've just called Jonalyn sickening in the same argument.
I'll respond to it beforehand, so that I might quietly laugh at those who raise the point. Jonalyn, and others, can do no more than express their opinions and call for change. Drakewyn is in a position where she can (and has) act(ed) on her opinion.
I have said it before in regard to Lord Evermeadow the elder; I say it now in regard to his son: If Valentine wishes to grant Lady SIlvertree the authority to make rulings in his name, then that IS HIS prerogative; however, we have no sign that he has done so. Until such time, Lady Silvertree has no business "making rulings" or "interpreting the rules." Her job is to refer the situation to Lord Evermeadow and await his response, NOT to decide how
it should be handled as far as she is concerned and say "if Lord Evermeadow disagrees, then of course this will change." The position of standings keeper is not a policy-setting or adjudication position. It is a clerical position. Lady Silvertree's job is to update and check records, and that is ALL. Likewise, an official's job is to call a match, period. One's philosophies and interpretations of anything save their own interpretation of the
action they witness within the ring are wholly irrelevant to their job.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 17:23:11 EST
"This insistence on defending the utter arrogance of someone who quite CLEARLY deems herself superior to the rest of the community, and feels it is her prerogative to instill her own morals and desires onto a community in which she is merely a cog and onto a sport she is not the overseer of, much less the creator, is sickening."
Responding to myself, it will be amusing to see how many attempt to claim that I've just called Jonalyn sickening in the same argument.
I'll respond to it beforehand, so that I might quietly laugh at those who raise the point. Jonalyn, and others, can do no more than express their opinions and call for change. Drakewyn is in a position where she can (and has) act(ed) on her opinion.
I have said it before in regard to Lord Evermeadow the elder; I say it now in regard to his son: If Valentine wishes to grant Lady SIlvertree the authority to make rulings in his name, then that IS HIS prerogative; however, we have no sign that he has done so. Until such time, Lady Silvertree has no business "making rulings" or "interpreting the rules." Her job is to refer the situation to Lord Evermeadow and await his response, NOT to decide how
it should be handled as far as she is concerned and say "if Lord Evermeadow disagrees, then of course this will change." The position of standings keeper is not a policy-setting or adjudication position. It is a clerical position. Lady Silvertree's job is to update and check records, and that is ALL. Likewise, an official's job is to call a match, period. One's philosophies and interpretations of anything save their own interpretation of the
action they witness within the ring are wholly irrelevant to their job.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 19:51:26 EST
>G'nort, explain your justification for removing words from a document in
>order to make your argument. If you are unwilling to do this, then admit it.
Very well,
The justification for removing those words is to show where the possible interpretation can come from. I'll bold it for you in its entirety.
"
Date: 07 Mar 2000 19:51:26 EST
>G'nort, explain your justification for removing words from a document in
>order to make your argument. If you are unwilling to do this, then admit it.
Very well,
The justification for removing those words is to show where the possible interpretation can come from. I'll bold it for you in its entirety.
"
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 20:00:17 EST
(Hit send too soon, continuing...)
>G'nort, explain your justification for removing words from a document in
>order to make your argument. If you are unwilling to do this, then admit it.
Very well,
The justification for removing those words is to show where the possible interpretation can come from. I'll bold it for you in its entirety.
"If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss"
My arguement is strictly to try and show you where it easily seen that an interpretation of the rules can say that the caller can make the decision on the match if one disappears. I'd like to know how you can not see the possible interpretation Drake did.
My arguement is that -Any- caller, not just Drake, can see a match, and when one duelist disappears, can ask the remaining duelist if they prefer the win or the tie, then decide on their own, a decision different than the one that was requested by the duelist.
Also, I'd like to see a copy of the records you claim. I want to see for myself whether or not Drake did acknowledge Damien. I have been going on what I'm told, I would prefer direct proof.
I hope that you can see what I can. And I continue to ask that these rules be made absolutely clear as to avoid these continuous interpretations that cause these unneeded arguements.
G
Date: 07 Mar 2000 20:00:17 EST
(Hit send too soon, continuing...)
>G'nort, explain your justification for removing words from a document in
>order to make your argument. If you are unwilling to do this, then admit it.
Very well,
The justification for removing those words is to show where the possible interpretation can come from. I'll bold it for you in its entirety.
"If a player is punted and unable to return, the HOST DFC (referee), with the input of the remaining player, will decide if the match is to be ruled a tie or a loss"
My arguement is strictly to try and show you where it easily seen that an interpretation of the rules can say that the caller can make the decision on the match if one disappears. I'd like to know how you can not see the possible interpretation Drake did.
My arguement is that -Any- caller, not just Drake, can see a match, and when one duelist disappears, can ask the remaining duelist if they prefer the win or the tie, then decide on their own, a decision different than the one that was requested by the duelist.
Also, I'd like to see a copy of the records you claim. I want to see for myself whether or not Drake did acknowledge Damien. I have been going on what I'm told, I would prefer direct proof.
I hope that you can see what I can. And I continue to ask that these rules be made absolutely clear as to avoid these continuous interpretations that cause these unneeded arguements.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 21:41:19 EST
We really didn't need any of da posts here, except an apology from Drakewyn saying she was wrong and it wouldn't happen again.
Also, everyone arguing over how da rule should read and be interpreted might as well stop too until someone with official capacity proclaims and objective reading of said rule.
I totally understand how people can and will defend friends, however I don't understand how da same people will defend wrong decisions. G, you said you don't agree with Drakewyn's decision, so why defend her interpretation of da rule?
Enough already....
~J
Date: 07 Mar 2000 21:41:19 EST
We really didn't need any of da posts here, except an apology from Drakewyn saying she was wrong and it wouldn't happen again.
Also, everyone arguing over how da rule should read and be interpreted might as well stop too until someone with official capacity proclaims and objective reading of said rule.
I totally understand how people can and will defend friends, however I don't understand how da same people will defend wrong decisions. G, you said you don't agree with Drakewyn's decision, so why defend her interpretation of da rule?
Enough already....
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 07 Mar 2000 22:44:27 EST
>I'd like to know how you can not see the possible interpretation Drake did.
>
Because the sentence is to be taken holistically, not piecemeal. It does not say the referee alone will decide the outcome. It says quite plainly that the referee, with the input of the remaining duelist, will decide the outcome. You cannot disregard a few words to misrepresent the rest. The duelist's input is REQUIRED. If it were not required then the clause would not be there, it is that simple.
If you do not get it by now, you never will, so I am done with this pointless discussion.
>Also, I'd like to see a copy of the records you claim. I want to see for
>myself whether or not Drake did acknowledge Damien. I have been going on
>what I'm told, I would prefer direct proof.
Get your best friend to give you the records she is required to keep. Or ask one of the people that were there. If they cannot provide you with the proof, then their claim is suspect.
>And I continue to ask that these rules be made absolutely clear as to avoid
>these continuous interpretations that cause these unneeded arguements.
The only unclear matter I see in the rule is what the true depth and limit of the word "input" entails. I believe this is being addressed elsewhere.
Date: 07 Mar 2000 22:44:27 EST
>I'd like to know how you can not see the possible interpretation Drake did.
>
Because the sentence is to be taken holistically, not piecemeal. It does not say the referee alone will decide the outcome. It says quite plainly that the referee, with the input of the remaining duelist, will decide the outcome. You cannot disregard a few words to misrepresent the rest. The duelist's input is REQUIRED. If it were not required then the clause would not be there, it is that simple.
If you do not get it by now, you never will, so I am done with this pointless discussion.
>Also, I'd like to see a copy of the records you claim. I want to see for
>myself whether or not Drake did acknowledge Damien. I have been going on
>what I'm told, I would prefer direct proof.
Get your best friend to give you the records she is required to keep. Or ask one of the people that were there. If they cannot provide you with the proof, then their claim is suspect.
>And I continue to ask that these rules be made absolutely clear as to avoid
>these continuous interpretations that cause these unneeded arguements.
The only unclear matter I see in the rule is what the true depth and limit of the word "input" entails. I believe this is being addressed elsewhere.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 08 Mar 2000 00:27:00 EST
>G, you said you don't agree with Drakewyn's decision, so why defend her
>interpretation of da rule?
>
Since you're the only one left asking me intellegent questions, Jeff, I'll answer you.
I'm not defending her interpretation of the rule. I'm defending the fact that she could have interpreted the rule that way. As well as it can be interpreted the traditional way.
It was said that the interpretation Drake took was impossible. I am saying it is.
Hope that helps.
G
Date: 08 Mar 2000 00:27:00 EST
>G, you said you don't agree with Drakewyn's decision, so why defend her
>interpretation of da rule?
>
Since you're the only one left asking me intellegent questions, Jeff, I'll answer you.
I'm not defending her interpretation of the rule. I'm defending the fact that she could have interpreted the rule that way. As well as it can be interpreted the traditional way.
It was said that the interpretation Drake took was impossible. I am saying it is.
Hope that helps.
G
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 08 Mar 2000 01:15:18 EST
Morgan.
Go back and read my posts again. At the time I declared the duel a tie, I had clearly indicated that I had heard Damien's wishes on the matter.
Ian.
I will state this once again, as I have before. When my request for a tie was not granted by the caller on the first match it occured, I took my case to the then supervisor. That person told me that the caller's decision was final.
Therefore, my decision was based upon precidence handed down by a person who was in charge of the sport at that time.
I do not offer excuses, I offer a basis for my actions... a reason, rather than being accused of doing things on a whim.
Lady Starfare.
Provide proof of me insulting Damien that night or any night in the Arena.
I will apologize to the Baron when I see him, as I said I would.
As for naming the members of the Staff involved in past incidents, I shall not. The situation has been explained to the current staff and trainees and that is enough. I will not give ammunition to be used in the castigation of people who may or may not be members of the Staff at this time.
I refuse to be party to such petty behavior.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 08 Mar 2000 01:15:18 EST
Morgan.
Go back and read my posts again. At the time I declared the duel a tie, I had clearly indicated that I had heard Damien's wishes on the matter.
Ian.
I will state this once again, as I have before. When my request for a tie was not granted by the caller on the first match it occured, I took my case to the then supervisor. That person told me that the caller's decision was final.
Therefore, my decision was based upon precidence handed down by a person who was in charge of the sport at that time.
I do not offer excuses, I offer a basis for my actions... a reason, rather than being accused of doing things on a whim.
Lady Starfare.
Provide proof of me insulting Damien that night or any night in the Arena.
I will apologize to the Baron when I see him, as I said I would.
As for naming the members of the Staff involved in past incidents, I shall not. The situation has been explained to the current staff and trainees and that is enough. I will not give ammunition to be used in the castigation of people who may or may not be members of the Staff at this time.
I refuse to be party to such petty behavior.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 17:43:25 EST
Madame Silvertree,
How very amusing for thee to continue yuir attempts to place thineself in a good light and make claim that thee aire nae but making excuses. Again, thine martyr act wears thine, Madame. Shall I provide thee with a tiny violin?
Madame, quite clearly thee nae 'eard Damien for at no time didst thee inquire of him wouldst he wish to accept the win or the tie. In reply to Damien's twice stated preference, Madame, thee didst first tell him wait, then pronounced the notorious "Caller's Prerogative", including the statement that one round dinna make a duel ast well ast that being the 'reason' thee wouldst nae grant him the option.
Ast to the claim yuir making unto Ian, Madame, tis amusing that thee now claim to hae made thine ruling based on previous precedent. Dinna thee state that "The rules of engagement" gave thee the right? Odd, Madame, that such 'precedent' wast nae revealed unto the officials and the duelists at the time by the one to whom thee state thee put the question. Or, perhaps, nae so odd afterall.
How interesting that thee refuse to name the personages, Madame. Ast to yuir offering insult unto Damien Mortis, Madame, dost really wish me to place the proof afore the eyes of all? Do thee declare now that thee dinna threaten to remove his match unto the queue? I shall quote thee precisely, "If you're not happy with the situation, Damien, we can always put you back in the queue." COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10> I shall also note for the community that Damien hae made no comment unto thee which would hae elicited such a statement, further, the warlord quite clearly apprised thee he wast nae e'en speaking with thee. Be it yuir paranoia or yuir arrogance what hast thee believing ye were being addressed by him? How verra amusing for thee to hae used the 'royal' we, when speaking, Madame. Or were thee perhaps in quiet
conference with someone when thee said, "we"? Dinna thee attempt to foist upon the warlord thine whim? Be it nae true, Madame, that thine 'igh 'anded, arrogant and clearly insulting behavior, didst bring the man to declare he wouldst avoid entering the basement were thee to be on duty?
Madame, tis be it yuir merely protecting those officials? How droll, Madame, closing ranks to perhaps the detriment of the community thee claim to serve. The only petty behavior herewith involved, Madame, ist quite clearly and unequivocally yuir own.
Bluntly,
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 09 Mar 2000 17:43:25 EST
Madame Silvertree,
How very amusing for thee to continue yuir attempts to place thineself in a good light and make claim that thee aire nae but making excuses. Again, thine martyr act wears thine, Madame. Shall I provide thee with a tiny violin?
Madame, quite clearly thee nae 'eard Damien for at no time didst thee inquire of him wouldst he wish to accept the win or the tie. In reply to Damien's twice stated preference, Madame, thee didst first tell him wait, then pronounced the notorious "Caller's Prerogative", including the statement that one round dinna make a duel ast well ast that being the 'reason' thee wouldst nae grant him the option.
Ast to the claim yuir making unto Ian, Madame, tis amusing that thee now claim to hae made thine ruling based on previous precedent. Dinna thee state that "The rules of engagement" gave thee the right? Odd, Madame, that such 'precedent' wast nae revealed unto the officials and the duelists at the time by the one to whom thee state thee put the question. Or, perhaps, nae so odd afterall.
How interesting that thee refuse to name the personages, Madame. Ast to yuir offering insult unto Damien Mortis, Madame, dost really wish me to place the proof afore the eyes of all? Do thee declare now that thee dinna threaten to remove his match unto the queue? I shall quote thee precisely, "If you're not happy with the situation, Damien, we can always put you back in the queue." COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10> I shall also note for the community that Damien hae made no comment unto thee which would hae elicited such a statement, further, the warlord quite clearly apprised thee he wast nae e'en speaking with thee. Be it yuir paranoia or yuir arrogance what hast thee believing ye were being addressed by him? How verra amusing for thee to hae used the 'royal' we, when speaking, Madame. Or were thee perhaps in quiet
conference with someone when thee said, "we"? Dinna thee attempt to foist upon the warlord thine whim? Be it nae true, Madame, that thine 'igh 'anded, arrogant and clearly insulting behavior, didst bring the man to declare he wouldst avoid entering the basement were thee to be on duty?
Madame, tis be it yuir merely protecting those officials? How droll, Madame, closing ranks to perhaps the detriment of the community thee claim to serve. The only petty behavior herewith involved, Madame, ist quite clearly and unequivocally yuir own.
Bluntly,
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 03:13:08 EST
Lady Starfare.
What purpose would be served by the naming of persons who may or may not be members of the staff at this time?
In exactly what way would it benefit anyone at all to make these names public when, as I stated previously, their actions at the time were upheld by the management?
How would the situation be improved by naming these people when the current membership of the staff, including the trainees, have been informed of the final ruling made by the supervisors and therefore know that if they fail to abide by this tradition, their decisions will be overturned?
As for the rest of your post, once again you prove your mastery at taking a person's words out of context.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 03:13:08 EST
Lady Starfare.
What purpose would be served by the naming of persons who may or may not be members of the staff at this time?
In exactly what way would it benefit anyone at all to make these names public when, as I stated previously, their actions at the time were upheld by the management?
How would the situation be improved by naming these people when the current membership of the staff, including the trainees, have been informed of the final ruling made by the supervisors and therefore know that if they fail to abide by this tradition, their decisions will be overturned?
As for the rest of your post, once again you prove your mastery at taking a person's words out of context.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.