From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 15:01:44 EST
"Please correct me if I am wrong, but what Var is saying here is, that the letter went to Damien as acceptance, but was not copied to Drake. According to the rules, the Challenger and Standings Keeper must be informed of acceptance to the challenge, eh?"
Unfortunately (I say unfortunate due to the lack of consideration the rules suggest), it states that the baron or overlord and the standings keeper must be included in all notifications of challenge and acceptance of challenge. I feel this is a rule that should be amended, because in my opinion, it would show inconsideration to not include the challenger. Maybe it was tradition to include the challenger with the acceptance, this, I don't know
either. However, for those who question, here is where I draw my opinion from:
"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."
Daryl did send a letter to Drake, the officials, and the council of barons, stating the date of the challenge (I assume this was the acceptance, I don't know). In my opinion, there shouldn't have been a call to make an official decision in the first place. I admit it could have been handled differently to avoid the confusion, but because the council wasn't officially asked to vote, I didn't give it as much thought as I usually do.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Kept in the Dark
-
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: taylara@aol.com (Taylara)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 16:39:09 EST
::Nods:: THank you Var for the explanation...... ; )
Date: 09 Mar 2000 16:39:09 EST
::Nods:: THank you Var for the explanation...... ; )
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: hostdfcturi@aol.com (HOST DFC Turi)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 17:15:29 EST
The summaries given are for the most part correct. Just to summarize and correct misinterpretations:
1) Drake did not find Daryl at fault for improperly responding to the challenge. He did send a letter of acceptance to the Challenger, and he sent one to the Standings Keeper. They were two separate letters.
2) The decision to deny Baron Kyle the right to request Intercession by the Overlord was in response to his failure to officially inform his opponent of the finalized date and time. Though technically not a breach of the rules (since an acceptance letter had already been sent), it is neither acceptable action by either party in a challenge. There was an unofficial agreement between the two, but no official notice sent to the Challenger.
3) The Council was never asked for an official decision. They did debate the situation for several days, however, and one missive did state the idea which became the final decision on the situation, namely, that the challenge should go forth as scheduled, but that Baron Kyle should not be allowed to request Intercession.
Turi
Date: 09 Mar 2000 17:15:29 EST
The summaries given are for the most part correct. Just to summarize and correct misinterpretations:
1) Drake did not find Daryl at fault for improperly responding to the challenge. He did send a letter of acceptance to the Challenger, and he sent one to the Standings Keeper. They were two separate letters.
2) The decision to deny Baron Kyle the right to request Intercession by the Overlord was in response to his failure to officially inform his opponent of the finalized date and time. Though technically not a breach of the rules (since an acceptance letter had already been sent), it is neither acceptable action by either party in a challenge. There was an unofficial agreement between the two, but no official notice sent to the Challenger.
3) The Council was never asked for an official decision. They did debate the situation for several days, however, and one missive did state the idea which became the final decision on the situation, namely, that the challenge should go forth as scheduled, but that Baron Kyle should not be allowed to request Intercession.
Turi
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 18:59:32 EST
Gentles,
How verra interesting that the Lord Daryl Kyle made no announcement at the time of the challenge with regard to the involvement of either the Council, the Overlord or young Master Evermeadow, nor anna mention that the intercession hae been set aside by young Master Evermeadow's ruling
Lord Kyle announced that eve, "The challenge will go on tonight as planned...Avery's intention to intercede will not take place. I fight this battle for the 6th ring tonight instead of waiting to gain the Overlord's intercession."
I myself didst question the then Baron to whit, "An wast it thou wh' wished Avery ta intercede or didst th' Overlord offer ta, Baron?" Lord Kyle replied and I do quote, "The Overlord offered his intercession. I agreed to it but plans change."
I also add mine voice to those who hold that matters affecting challenges unto the title ranks ast well ast anna improprieties shouldst be brought before the community at large and am distressed that neither the challenged Baron, the Overlord nor other members of his Council nor the challenger nor Young Master Evermeadow brought this matter to light before the challenge.
Indeed, it be ast Ian hast commented, a ruling wast made, one that indeed couldst be construed ast penalizing a Baron for his failure. With respect to Cletus' comments, one must ponder that had indeed Lord Kyle nae wished his challenger to be aware that an intercession may hae been in the offing, whyfore didst the dolt simply nae avoid making comment upon that in his missives. Certes tis nae anna business of the officials, save perhaps the one
chosen to adjudicate the match ast to whether or nae there may be an intercession. Courtesy wouldst presume the one officiating the match wouldst be apprised though such ist nay required.
The rules be quite plain that all challenges and answers to said challenges must include nae only the Standings Keeper but the parties involved in said challenge. Indeed, Baron Medici-Giovanni, tradition and precedent ast well ast common courtesy, nae ta mention common sense, wouldst hae it that the challenger shouldst be made aware that the challenged hast accepted the gauntlet. How convenient wouldst it be for a one of titled rank to be
challenged and to name date and time and nae apprise the challenger, thereby being able to claim forfeiture of the match and lay penalty upon the challenger. If memory serves, Baron Medici-Giovanni, thou wert once placed in a situtation of getting but mere hours notice to appear for a challenge yuirself.
If the Baron did indeed fail in his duties, the matter shouldst hae come before the Council. Both Young Master Evermeadow's taking matters into his own hands and out of the hands of the Council ast well ast nae apprising the community of his ruling on the matter gives cause for some concern.
Ast to thine comments, Lord Kyle, save that thee wished to keep thine challenger unaware that he may hae faced intercession, one must ponder thine apparent wish to hae kept the community unaware of thine dealings with regard to this matter. What feared thee, sir?
I heartily agree with Rix, that tis well thee no longer hold a seat on the Council. I shall reiterate, sir. The Sixth be well rid of thee.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 09 Mar 2000 18:59:32 EST
Gentles,
How verra interesting that the Lord Daryl Kyle made no announcement at the time of the challenge with regard to the involvement of either the Council, the Overlord or young Master Evermeadow, nor anna mention that the intercession hae been set aside by young Master Evermeadow's ruling
Lord Kyle announced that eve, "The challenge will go on tonight as planned...Avery's intention to intercede will not take place. I fight this battle for the 6th ring tonight instead of waiting to gain the Overlord's intercession."
I myself didst question the then Baron to whit, "An wast it thou wh' wished Avery ta intercede or didst th' Overlord offer ta, Baron?" Lord Kyle replied and I do quote, "The Overlord offered his intercession. I agreed to it but plans change."
I also add mine voice to those who hold that matters affecting challenges unto the title ranks ast well ast anna improprieties shouldst be brought before the community at large and am distressed that neither the challenged Baron, the Overlord nor other members of his Council nor the challenger nor Young Master Evermeadow brought this matter to light before the challenge.
Indeed, it be ast Ian hast commented, a ruling wast made, one that indeed couldst be construed ast penalizing a Baron for his failure. With respect to Cletus' comments, one must ponder that had indeed Lord Kyle nae wished his challenger to be aware that an intercession may hae been in the offing, whyfore didst the dolt simply nae avoid making comment upon that in his missives. Certes tis nae anna business of the officials, save perhaps the one
chosen to adjudicate the match ast to whether or nae there may be an intercession. Courtesy wouldst presume the one officiating the match wouldst be apprised though such ist nay required.
The rules be quite plain that all challenges and answers to said challenges must include nae only the Standings Keeper but the parties involved in said challenge. Indeed, Baron Medici-Giovanni, tradition and precedent ast well ast common courtesy, nae ta mention common sense, wouldst hae it that the challenger shouldst be made aware that the challenged hast accepted the gauntlet. How convenient wouldst it be for a one of titled rank to be
challenged and to name date and time and nae apprise the challenger, thereby being able to claim forfeiture of the match and lay penalty upon the challenger. If memory serves, Baron Medici-Giovanni, thou wert once placed in a situtation of getting but mere hours notice to appear for a challenge yuirself.
If the Baron did indeed fail in his duties, the matter shouldst hae come before the Council. Both Young Master Evermeadow's taking matters into his own hands and out of the hands of the Council ast well ast nae apprising the community of his ruling on the matter gives cause for some concern.
Ast to thine comments, Lord Kyle, save that thee wished to keep thine challenger unaware that he may hae faced intercession, one must ponder thine apparent wish to hae kept the community unaware of thine dealings with regard to this matter. What feared thee, sir?
I heartily agree with Rix, that tis well thee no longer hold a seat on the Council. I shall reiterate, sir. The Sixth be well rid of thee.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: clkdmenace@aol.com (ClkdMenace)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 20:31:48 EST
"Will that be soon enough?"
Assuming I'm not bedridden by then, sure.
Roland
Date: 09 Mar 2000 20:31:48 EST
"Will that be soon enough?"
Assuming I'm not bedridden by then, sure.
Roland
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 21:59:56 EST
"2) The decision to deny Baron Kyle the right to request Intercession by the Overlord was in response to his failure to officially inform his opponent of the finalized date and time. Though technically not a breach of the rules (since an acceptance letter had already been sent), it is neither acceptable action by either party in a challenge. There was an unofficial agreement between the two, but no official notice sent
to the Challenger."
I don't know about anyone else, but I find something *very* wrong with this. While it is wrong to keep your opponant in the dark about particulars such as Intercession, it is not against the rules and should *not* have been ruled on as if it was.
I'd say either make a rule stating that *all* Intercessions should be announced to the Challenger, reverse the ruling, or never again make rulings on something that isn't in the rules.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 09 Mar 2000 21:59:56 EST
"2) The decision to deny Baron Kyle the right to request Intercession by the Overlord was in response to his failure to officially inform his opponent of the finalized date and time. Though technically not a breach of the rules (since an acceptance letter had already been sent), it is neither acceptable action by either party in a challenge. There was an unofficial agreement between the two, but no official notice sent
to the Challenger."
I don't know about anyone else, but I find something *very* wrong with this. While it is wrong to keep your opponant in the dark about particulars such as Intercession, it is not against the rules and should *not* have been ruled on as if it was.
I'd say either make a rule stating that *all* Intercessions should be announced to the Challenger, reverse the ruling, or never again make rulings on something that isn't in the rules.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: hostdfcturi@aol.com (HOST DFC Turi)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 22:38:05 EST
>While it is wrong to keep your opponant in the dark about particulars such as
>Intercession, it is not against the rules and should *not* have been ruled on
>as if it was.
It was not for failing to inform the Challenger that there would be an Intercession, but for failing to inform the Challenger officially of the date and time of the match.
Date: 09 Mar 2000 22:38:05 EST
>While it is wrong to keep your opponant in the dark about particulars such as
>Intercession, it is not against the rules and should *not* have been ruled on
>as if it was.
It was not for failing to inform the Challenger that there would be an Intercession, but for failing to inform the Challenger officially of the date and time of the match.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 09 Mar 2000 23:18:07 EST
"It was not for failing to inform the Challenger that there would be an Intercession, but for failing to inform the Challenger officially of the date and time of the match."
My apologies on misstating the particulars, but the basic idea stands.
If something is not "technically" against the rules, either make it against the rules or don't punish someone when they don't break a rule.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 09 Mar 2000 23:18:07 EST
"It was not for failing to inform the Challenger that there would be an Intercession, but for failing to inform the Challenger officially of the date and time of the match."
My apologies on misstating the particulars, but the basic idea stands.
If something is not "technically" against the rules, either make it against the rules or don't punish someone when they don't break a rule.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganalefay@aol.com (Morgana le Fay)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 12:26:27 EST
I am with Sidartha for the most part on this one. The standings keeper does not need to know when the match will be fought, only needs to be notified of the challenge by the challenger and the acceptance of the challenge from the challenged.
This should not have been a council matter as the rules clearly state the council convenes only when a Baron or Overlord retires or is found in forfeit.
I also do not think the council or the supervisor had a right to deny the Intercession. If Damien and Daryl had spoken casually about a date and time that can still be considered official. Not everything has to be notarized and courtesy copied to a slew of people to be considered official.
Daryl has probably learned something about this, however. He should have learned to keep his strategies between he and those involved (in this case, he and the Overlord) and confirmed separately with Damien and the chosen caller that they could make the agreed upon time.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 12:26:27 EST
I am with Sidartha for the most part on this one. The standings keeper does not need to know when the match will be fought, only needs to be notified of the challenge by the challenger and the acceptance of the challenge from the challenged.
This should not have been a council matter as the rules clearly state the council convenes only when a Baron or Overlord retires or is found in forfeit.
I also do not think the council or the supervisor had a right to deny the Intercession. If Damien and Daryl had spoken casually about a date and time that can still be considered official. Not everything has to be notarized and courtesy copied to a slew of people to be considered official.
Daryl has probably learned something about this, however. He should have learned to keep his strategies between he and those involved (in this case, he and the Overlord) and confirmed separately with Damien and the chosen caller that they could make the agreed upon time.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 14:34:32 EST
>I also do not think the council or the supervisor had a right to deny the
>Intercession. If Damien and Daryl had spoken casually about a date and time
>that can still be considered official. Not everything has to be notarized and
>courtesy copied to a slew of people to be considered official.
I find myself, much to my surprise, in complete agreement with the above statement. If all the proper decisions were made and the proper people were notified, then it seems that Damien brought this matter to the officials for petty and self serving reasons. That the final decision, no matter who made it, did seem to aid in his challenge is rather disturbing as well.
Whether or not the 6th is well rid of Daryl, the change of hands certainly has not been for the better. It is now in the hands of an individual who seems to have no problems making official complaints about the conduct of others, and yet sees no reason to correct the problems with his own conduct.
Besides, forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't Intercession the right of the Overlord? I do not believe it says anywhere in the rules that anyone, either the officials or the Council, can deny the Overlord his right to intercede if he so chooses. If he truly wishes to intercede, the wishes of his Baron don't even prevent him from doing so if he so wishes.
I think this is a dangerous precedent. Whether or not I favor the idea of intercession, I certainly do not favor the rights of the Overlord being abridged. Now, if future individuals on the staff choose to see this so, there is a precedent allowing the staff to prevent an Overlord from using his own rights when the rules say he may use them at his discretion.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
Date: 11 Mar 2000 14:34:32 EST
>I also do not think the council or the supervisor had a right to deny the
>Intercession. If Damien and Daryl had spoken casually about a date and time
>that can still be considered official. Not everything has to be notarized and
>courtesy copied to a slew of people to be considered official.
I find myself, much to my surprise, in complete agreement with the above statement. If all the proper decisions were made and the proper people were notified, then it seems that Damien brought this matter to the officials for petty and self serving reasons. That the final decision, no matter who made it, did seem to aid in his challenge is rather disturbing as well.
Whether or not the 6th is well rid of Daryl, the change of hands certainly has not been for the better. It is now in the hands of an individual who seems to have no problems making official complaints about the conduct of others, and yet sees no reason to correct the problems with his own conduct.
Besides, forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't Intercession the right of the Overlord? I do not believe it says anywhere in the rules that anyone, either the officials or the Council, can deny the Overlord his right to intercede if he so chooses. If he truly wishes to intercede, the wishes of his Baron don't even prevent him from doing so if he so wishes.
I think this is a dangerous precedent. Whether or not I favor the idea of intercession, I certainly do not favor the rights of the Overlord being abridged. Now, if future individuals on the staff choose to see this so, there is a precedent allowing the staff to prevent an Overlord from using his own rights when the rules say he may use them at his discretion.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Warlord of the Duel of Swords
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 15:02:27 EST
>then it seems that Damien brought this matter to the officials for petty and
>self serving reasons.
Damien brought this matter forward because he had no idea of the final date and time of his challenge. I don't consider that a petty reason.
Date: 11 Mar 2000 15:02:27 EST
>then it seems that Damien brought this matter to the officials for petty and
>self serving reasons.
Damien brought this matter forward because he had no idea of the final date and time of his challenge. I don't consider that a petty reason.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: casmaxim@aol.com (Cas Maxim)
Date: 12 Mar 2000 23:37:16 EST
While the Intercession option is meant as a recourse for Loyal Barons, and is an option for them to request use of, in the end, it is ultimately the right and priviledge of the Overlord. A Loyal Baron can wish it if he wants, but if the Overlord refuses, then it simply doesn't happen-unlike the Test of Worthiness, where if a Loyal declines to champion a test, the Overlord can simply find another champion. As far as I know, these instances are very
rare. Probably because unless there are strong, complicated reasons, or the Loyal Baron is spineless, weak-minded, or both, refusing to champion an Intercession can be a very effective way to make a Loyal realign Renegade.
Then, there is the other extreme; an Overlord can intercede on behalf of a Loyal without their request, if he so desires. The histories state two instances of this, both in the reign of Dalamar Ar'Daumon. The latter instance, during a challenge between Gnort and Errol Faline, occured relatively early in his reign, and he did not do it again. Add this to the fact that none of the ten Overlords who have followed Dalamar have taken this action, and we
see that it hasn't happened in a longer period of time than most of the Council has even been dueling.
But that does not mean the right does not exist. Avery was punished by this decision as much as Daryl.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
Date: 12 Mar 2000 23:37:16 EST
While the Intercession option is meant as a recourse for Loyal Barons, and is an option for them to request use of, in the end, it is ultimately the right and priviledge of the Overlord. A Loyal Baron can wish it if he wants, but if the Overlord refuses, then it simply doesn't happen-unlike the Test of Worthiness, where if a Loyal declines to champion a test, the Overlord can simply find another champion. As far as I know, these instances are very
rare. Probably because unless there are strong, complicated reasons, or the Loyal Baron is spineless, weak-minded, or both, refusing to champion an Intercession can be a very effective way to make a Loyal realign Renegade.
Then, there is the other extreme; an Overlord can intercede on behalf of a Loyal without their request, if he so desires. The histories state two instances of this, both in the reign of Dalamar Ar'Daumon. The latter instance, during a challenge between Gnort and Errol Faline, occured relatively early in his reign, and he did not do it again. Add this to the fact that none of the ten Overlords who have followed Dalamar have taken this action, and we
see that it hasn't happened in a longer period of time than most of the Council has even been dueling.
But that does not mean the right does not exist. Avery was punished by this decision as much as Daryl.
Cassius Gaius Maximius
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 15:31:29 EST
Master Valentine Evermeadow,
I do call upon thee to apprise the community of yuir reasons for denying the Overlord Avery Shiv Blade the opportunity which ist permitted by the rules of engagement to intercede on behalf of his Loyal Baron, Lord Daryl Kyle in the matter of the challenge offered unto him by one Damien Mortis.
Further, I do request thine reasons for stepping in to make a decision which rightly wouldst fall unto the Council of Barons ast well ast yuir reasons for nae apprising the community before the challenge that the matter of the challenge and the behavior of both the challenger and the Baron wast being scrutinized.
Cordially,
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 13 Mar 2000 15:31:29 EST
Master Valentine Evermeadow,
I do call upon thee to apprise the community of yuir reasons for denying the Overlord Avery Shiv Blade the opportunity which ist permitted by the rules of engagement to intercede on behalf of his Loyal Baron, Lord Daryl Kyle in the matter of the challenge offered unto him by one Damien Mortis.
Further, I do request thine reasons for stepping in to make a decision which rightly wouldst fall unto the Council of Barons ast well ast yuir reasons for nae apprising the community before the challenge that the matter of the challenge and the behavior of both the challenger and the Baron wast being scrutinized.
Cordially,
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: zafiroo@aol.com (Zafiroo)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 01:24:47 EST
>Further, I do request thine reasons for stepping in to make a decision which
>rightly wouldst fall unto the Council of Barons
Jona,
Why do you assume this? Where did you get the idea she made this decision?
It appears you are just looking for a reason to attack Drake without any facts to back it up.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Date: 14 Mar 2000 01:24:47 EST
>Further, I do request thine reasons for stepping in to make a decision which
>rightly wouldst fall unto the Council of Barons
Jona,
Why do you assume this? Where did you get the idea she made this decision?
It appears you are just looking for a reason to attack Drake without any facts to back it up.
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
Zafiroo Turidan
Baron of the First
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 01:52:26 EST
Baron Zafiroo,
There yet remains some question where in the matter apparently wast first given unto the Council for adjudication by Madame Silvertree, then the matter wast removed from Council consideration and the Overlord denied his right and privilege to intercede for his Loyal Baron.
I assume nothing, sir, tis the reason I hae requested of young Master Evermeadow the particulars leading up to his decision since it appears on the surface that the former Baron Lord Daryl Kyle failed to comply with the rules of engagement.
Tis one must wonder that the Supervisor of the sport chose to take the matter from the hands of the Council BEFORE the Council hae the opportunity to deal with the matter. In doing so, the Supervisor may hae lain penalty upon the Baron whilst at the same time infringed upon the rights and privileges of the Overlord.
I must also admit to some amusement that thee wouldst consider such an attack on Madame Drakewyn. E'en more to the point, if' thee hae perused the cork, thee shall find another faulty ruling made by Madame Silvertree in the matter of the challenge unto the new Baron Damien Mortis by the warlord Xeric Mues.
Madame Silvertree's known penchant for making decisions which appear to be based on her whims, requires further enlightenment and elucidation of her involvement in this matter as well as requesting clarification and information from young Master Evermeadow.
I shall nae make the assumption, sir, that thou art one of those who wishes silence to surround a decision involving nae only the rights of the Overlord but perchance as well the rights of the seated Barons and which apparently hae the hand of Madame Silvertree involved.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 14 Mar 2000 01:52:26 EST
Baron Zafiroo,
There yet remains some question where in the matter apparently wast first given unto the Council for adjudication by Madame Silvertree, then the matter wast removed from Council consideration and the Overlord denied his right and privilege to intercede for his Loyal Baron.
I assume nothing, sir, tis the reason I hae requested of young Master Evermeadow the particulars leading up to his decision since it appears on the surface that the former Baron Lord Daryl Kyle failed to comply with the rules of engagement.
Tis one must wonder that the Supervisor of the sport chose to take the matter from the hands of the Council BEFORE the Council hae the opportunity to deal with the matter. In doing so, the Supervisor may hae lain penalty upon the Baron whilst at the same time infringed upon the rights and privileges of the Overlord.
I must also admit to some amusement that thee wouldst consider such an attack on Madame Drakewyn. E'en more to the point, if' thee hae perused the cork, thee shall find another faulty ruling made by Madame Silvertree in the matter of the challenge unto the new Baron Damien Mortis by the warlord Xeric Mues.
Madame Silvertree's known penchant for making decisions which appear to be based on her whims, requires further enlightenment and elucidation of her involvement in this matter as well as requesting clarification and information from young Master Evermeadow.
I shall nae make the assumption, sir, that thou art one of those who wishes silence to surround a decision involving nae only the rights of the Overlord but perchance as well the rights of the seated Barons and which apparently hae the hand of Madame Silvertree involved.
Jonalyn Starfare