Pitiful Ruling

[DoS Archive]

From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 15:22:08 EDT

> Da barons council should not need ta come up
> with a new colorful penalty when one already
> exists and has been enforced time and time again.

I would argue that, in fact, this is precisely what the barons council should be doing and exactly why the body was created in the first place. If we were to do nothing but follow black letter law, the role of the council could be relegated to nothing more than selecting champions to fight challengers. Forget all the debate and decision making. Who needs it? We'll just codify the whole bloody thing and get rid of the council.

Does anyone think this couldn't all be codified? Of course it could be.. once upon a time it was. A title holder defaulted and it was a done deal. The ring went vacant into the next tournament. The council was created because it was determined that was not fair.

The issue is that such a black and white result is inequitable. It is unjust to the people involved as well as to the sport itself. We hear the reasoning so that we can form our judgments on what happened and decide what is best. We sometimes decide against those reasons when a differing outcome might be better for the sport. There are judgments to be made and it is the duty of the council to make them.

Jeff, it seems to me you understood that back when Huma challenged Dal. Is this simply the most convenient argument for you to make since you didn't get your way, or do you truly think we should be getting rid of the council's power to do anything other than choose champions?

~Kalamere Ar'Din

[DoS Archive]

From: novagreys@aol.com (Nova GreyS)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 18:34:18 EDT

To me, this is just as bad as challenging someone and "forgetting" to let them know you challenged them. Only in this case, someone's forgetting to let them know they accepted the challenge.

We're here to participate in a sport. Follow the rules or get out before someone throws you out. And if I have to throw you out, it will be done with extreme prejudice regardless of who you are. This has shot beyond the ridiculous and careened into the downright stupid. This kind of idiocy cannot be allowed to continue.

-Nova Grey Shadow

[DoS Archive]

From: dreystarke@aol.com (DreyStarke)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 18:36:47 EDT

It's not like you duel enough to gain enough peer wins anyway, Jeff.

Tsk.

~ Derek

[DoS Archive]

From: anfir@aol.com (Anfir)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 18:45:06 EDT



I would argue that, in fact, this is precisely what the barons council should be doing and exactly why the body was created in the first place.

Kalamere, I would have to disagree with you here. I would prolly agree with you if this rule was new, and had not been enforced before. Then it could be expected to be debated, but this rule has been around for quite a while, and has been enforced in many, ver similar, almost identical cases. I know not why this rule has been abandoned for the sake of Ariadne. I feel that she broke the rule, plain and simple, and should be punished accordingly, that
is to be stripped of the ring, and Magnus face a champion appointed by the council, I whole heartedly agree with you on this Jeff.

Anfer

[DoS Archive]

From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 19:32:23 EDT

Kalamere,

While yer opinion of what da barons' council should be is a valid one, I do not hold it in da same regard. I believe in our rules, and dat da barons' council should step in when our officials are faced with an ambiguity and cannot rule without further advice (from da council).

If da barons had free will ta create any rules on a whim, we would have chaos within our sport. Imagine a popular baron, one whose popularity is so great no one would ever rule against him. How would you dethrone such a man if barons could rule however dey wished? Everytime he was challenged, he'd just fail ta show and let da council rule on his fate. By your definition of da barons' council, dey could simply void each and every challenge ta da
popular baron.

If you remember back correctly, when Huma faced Dal, I put my ring on da line so Huma would recind his challenge. I knew full well Dalamar would be found in forfeit of his station if da challenge went ahead. I won my match *and* Huma recinded his challenge. It was Lady Helix, who exercised her power ta void our honor match. She declared da challenge in forfeit anyway, and so da council had ta step in. In dat particular case, da council took
pity on Dalamar in light of his champion (me) winning an honor duel ta protect his station.

If I was not so firmly a believer dat our challenge rules would be enforced, why would I risk my own ring on Dalamar's behalf? I'd just let it goto da council and lobby on his behalf in council rather dan in da rings. Rather, I knew full well what da consequences of breaking da challenge rules are, which is why I risked my ring.

We've had da rules enforced upon many barons, why not Ariadne?


Ellisa,

While I may not be able ta apologize fer ya, I can point out a section of our rules you missed. If da challenged baron does not set a time and place within one week, he or she IS in forfeit of his or her station. Ariadne DID NOT set a time or place in her acceptance letter, so she is in forfeit of her position.



~J

[DoS Archive]

From: cptellisamorgan@aol.com (Cpt EllisaMorgan)
Date: 01 Sep 2000 22:05:30 EDT


For those that would bring the time/date clause into this, I can show at least three challenges where an acceptance of the challenge was sent within the weeks' time, but without time and date. That being only within the last two months.

Further, I can recall a dozen others, this was never enforced. It is "tradition" to accept the challenge and then work on a mutual time-- although Taylara did not even do me this courtesy, and in fact never sent the time of the match to me directly but rather placed it on the corkboard.

I find it somewhat hypocritical to bring that up in this instance when literally dozens of challenges have been done in such a manner.

Ellisa

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 02 Sep 2000 00:02:02 EDT

Interesting...

A man forfeits his challenge match because of the death of his father and he is given a punishment that some decried as being not enough. And then, a woman ruins her own challenge for no other reason than she is a brainless lackwit and she is allowed a chance.

Disgusting, utterly disgusting.

~Sidartha Elgarette

[DoS Archive]

From: ringwraith03@aol.com (RingWraith03)
Date: 02 Sep 2000 00:09:47 EDT

Wow, some of you guys sound like communists. I know that opinions aren't worth the two pennies that you throw into the pile, so I cut one in half and tossed it in the street.

Number Eight

[DoS Archive]

From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 02 Sep 2000 00:36:24 EDT

Ellisa,

A *vast* difference between our current situation and past ones is da challenger has rarely stepped forward and asked da rule be enforced.

Magnus specifically asked da challenge be held in forfeit and Ariadne stripped of her ring (as is da appropriate penalty). His concern was more dat she is no longer baron, rather dan dat he attain a ring.

If Ariadne had been stripped, and Magnus had his challenge voided and peer wins returned, I imagine he would be happy. Magnus specifically stepped forward and asked da rule be enforced.

Ya can't say, just because a rule isn't enforced on occassion, it never should be. It *is* a rule, and Magnus asked it be enforced.


~J

[DoS Archive]

From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 02 Sep 2000 10:14:09 EDT

Simply put.

I believe that Lord Ar'Din has struck the nail on the head.

Baron Oakenshield... the Assistant Supervisor clearly needed no guidance from the Council to find the Baroness to be in default... therefore your argument that the Council was asked to step in because the officials were faced with an ambiguity is in error.
Lord Ar'Din is correct. If the Rules did indeed state what punishments were to be applied, there would be no need for the Baron's Council at all.
Any time a Baron was found in default or forfeit, they would automatically be stripped of their Ring and, by Tradition, the Council would appoint a Champion.

While the Rules are clear and immutable, each case must be viewed on it's own merits. Incorrect decisions in the past should not be included in establishing some sort of precedent.
Finally, Precedents, like Traditions, are not Rules.


Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon.

[DoS Archive]

From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 02 Sep 2000 10:35:39 EDT

Ok Jeff.. let's talk rules then...

As to your defense of Dalamar:
1. Loyalist Barons may intercede on challenges to the Overlord,
provided the Overlord accepts the intercession.
Your intercession was never accepted by Dalamar, you knew full well before the match even began that it was not official and would not count as an intercession. This is the very reason you made it an honor match, trusting (foolishly in retrospect, though I supported you at the time) that Huma would stick to his word. For all intents and purposes, that duel was nothing more than two guys practicing after hours.

> In dat particular case, da council took pity on Dalamar in light
> of his champion (me) winning an honor duel ta protect his station.

Two things on this. Firstly, please do not take it upon yourself to speak for me. I was on that council and indeed I was in the majority of the vote. The above, however, does not adequately reflect my reasoning. When speaking of why things were decided the way they were, I'll thank you to speak for yourself alone.

Secondly, and more to the point, by your current logic the Council should not have had the right to take pity upon Dalamar. You are arguing now that there is no room to rule outside of your vision of the rules. The argument you put forth says that forfeiture equates a stripped title in every case [unless there's an ambiguity in the rules]. If the council in the current scenario is not permitted to think freely, then they should not
have been permitted to do so for Dalamar because there was no ambiguity there. Dal was challenged, he accepted and then failed to show.

That said, let us look back to the rules. This sport (since the institution of the council.. and that mostly because the rules weren't updated properly) does not follow the same definition of forfeit as it once did. A forfeit, since the council came into existence, no longer means that you give up your title. All a forfeit does is place the matter into the hands of the council. Examine the clauses:

1. A Baron's Council shall be convened in the occurrence of a Baron or
the Overlord retiring while a challenge is pending or in the case of a
forfeit.

You'll note it says nothing about any ambiguity in the rules.. this is in every case of forfeiture or retirement during challenge.

5. When necessary, the DoS Supervisor may step in to further guide the
council and lie out their choices. Choices will include, but not be
limited to;
(a) Granting the challenger the victory by default
(b) Appointing another to fight against the challenger in place of
the person challenged
(c) Voiding the challenge and returning the challenger's peer wins
(emphasis added)

The council has free will. Please recall that if the council were bound by precedent and black letter law, there would be no such scenario as a council elected duelist championing a title. The council created that tradition. Just as they were free to break from old tradition and create that ruling, they are free to break from it as well and craft something other.

> If da barons had free will ta create any rules on a whim,
> we would have chaos within our sport.

see above...

> Imagine a popular baron, one whose popularity is so
> great no one would ever rule against him. How would
> you dethrone such a man if barons could rule however
> dey wished?

While a scary thought, it is also a very real danger. You will recall, I trust, past scenarios where both House Questrion and House Llewys-Lathadoscia were accused of attempting to take over the council. If there was no power to be gained in this, I ask you, why would they attempt such a thing (assuming they did) and why would anyone care? If the day ever comes that a majority of council seats is held by one unified group of people, those people
will have the power to pick and choose their battles at will and remain in power for as long as they choose. As I said, a scarey thought, but a very real danger.

In closing I wish to point out a few simple facts.
- The council has ruled.
- They decided in a way that does not wholely match tradition
or some people's interpretation of the rules.
- This is not the first time a council has ruled "on a whim"
so to speak.
- A council decision has never been overturned by those who
run the sport... the people who wrote the rules we're debating.
- The decision we're discussing has not, nor will be, overturned.

Examine those facts. Those things considered I don't see how anyone can claim that the council does not have the right nor power to do what they've done. They did it. The ruling stands. Hence, they do have the power to do it.

~Kalamere Ar'Din

[DoS Archive]

From: jeffoakenshield@aol.com (Jeff Oakenshield)
Date: 03 Sep 2000 02:06:00 EDT

This is the very reason you made it an honor match, trusting (foolishly in retrospect, though I supported you at the time) that Huma would stick to his word. For all intents and purposes, that duel was nothing more than two guys practicing after hours.

Indeed, it was a honor match, nothing more. Nor, at any time, did I claim it ta be an official match. However, Huma did keep his side of da bargin, and Lady Helix overruled us. I am well aware of da rules regarding challenge matches, and I am equally well aware Overlords must accept intercession.

The argument you put forth says that forfeiture equates a stripped title in every case [unless there's an ambiguity in the rules]. If the council in the current scenario is not permitted to think freely, then they should nothave been permitted to do so for Dalamar because there was no ambiguity there. Dal was challenged, he accepted and then failed to show.

My argument follows from da fact dat most rulings on forfeitures result in da baron bein' stripped, which I feel is a correct ruling. I knew dere was a high probability Dalamar would be stripped, so I put my ring at risk in a hope ta prevent what was a likely result (abdication of title). While da match itself had no official standing, it definitely provided a reason ta rule against
abdication, albeit a weak one in yer opinion. While I cannot speak fer ya, I remember da situation and one of da prevailing reasons Dalamar was "let off" was because of my honor match with Huma.

This sport (since the institution of the council.. and that mostly because the rules weren't updated properly) does not follow the same definition of forfeit as it once did.

Granted. Otherwise, Ulath Fici or other past barons would have been given a hearing by peers.

Please recall that if the council were bound by precedent and black letter law, there would be no such scenario as a council elected duelist championing a title. The council created that tradition. Just as they were free to break from old tradition and create that ruling, they are free to break from it as well and craft something other.

I obviously have ta grant yer point, because da council is obviously deviating from past precidents. However, I strongly disagree with da deviation in our current situation because baroness Ariadne brought ta light no extenuating circumstances. She simply was ignorant ta our rules and should face da same penalty past barons have.

Furthermore,

A council decision has never been overturned by those who run the sport... the people who wrote the rules we're debating. The decision we're discussing has not, nor will be, overturned.

"The council's decisions shall be final and may be overturned only by the DoS Supervisor" ((remainder of clause removed because it is OOC))

Ya support dat councils have free will and need not follow precident, so why must DoS supervisors? True, no ruling has ever been overturned, but what's ta stop Val from stepping in on our current situtation? In other words, claiming I have no grounds fer complaint, because da council has free will is absurd when my complaints would not go ta da council but ta da Supervisor who also has free will.

I can only hope, Val does not let a similar situation ever occur again. Also, my argument still holds da precident can (and in my opinion, should) hold as a ruling fer all forfeitures. Ya do not agree with me, Kalamere, but Valentine Evermeadow just might.

Finally, as ta why I don't write a private letter ta Val, I feel my facetious posting more adequately conveys my disgust with how da situation was handled. I'm sure Val reads our boards, and I'd wager he has enough mail on his desk without my gripe.


~J

[DoS Archive]

From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 03 Sep 2000 10:05:11 EDT

> In other words, claiming I have no grounds fer complaint,

I do not believe I've said at any point that you do not have grounds for complaint. My issue, more to the point, is the way in which you have stated your complaint. You've made the argument that the council essentially overstepped their bounds when making this ruling. The objective of my arguments was to point out that they did not.

Personally, with what knowledge of the facts I have at my disposal, I applaud the ruling. I feel that it was well done and served the best interests of the community. I've no desire to force you into that same belief, however.

The council could well have stripped Magnus of his right to challenge and not punished Ariadne in the slightest. Such a ruling would still have been within their power and, though admittedly weak, they could point at precedent for it if they felt such a need.

Please note that I do not believe such a ruling would have been fitting. It simply seems to me that too many people want to hold up the rules and say that the Barons don't have the power to make a decision like that... however, it states quite clearly that they do.

If you'd like to continue a plea to Val, then please do not let me stop you. Argue that this ruling is detrimental to the community and to the sport, that perhaps the rules should be changed to force the council to adhere to precedent. You might even state that you believe the rules should be altered so that the council is brought together only in times of ambiguity. I would fault none of those arguments, even though I might disagree with them.

Where I believe you are wrong however, and why I've become involved in the matter at all, is in your statement that the council disregarded the rules and the insinuation that they've broken the rules themselves.

> my complaints would not go ta da council but ta da
> Supervisor who also has free will.

The issue of the Supervisor having free will is one open to debate. I believe that the Supervisor has a significantly different duty than does the council. I shall leave it that however, because I do not believe it relevant. As I've said, I've no intention to keep you from making a case to Val.

~Kal

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 03 Sep 2000 21:13:07 EDT

Baroness Ellisa Morgan,

Were Ah to be so inclined, Ah couldst present numerous instances where in ta challenge itself wast nae presented accordin' ta either ta rules nor tradition an' nae penalty 'o anna kind wast lain 'pon th' offendin' party.

Were thee merely ta rely 'pon tradition in th' instance, thou wouldst be aware th' Ariadne Angeles failed ta follow e'en tradition fore in she failed ta apprise 'er challenger 'o 'er acceptance 'o 'is challenge.

Thou hast made mention 'o Taylara Locklorn Tyree's cavalier disregard fer ta amenties wi' respect unto thineself, Baroness Morgan. Yet thou chose ta disregard ta matter seemingly wi' respect ta both Ariadne Angeles an' Taylara Tyree. Thou shalt certes correct me if Ah err, Baroness, bu' didst thou make known th' lack 'o courtesy ast well ast th' cavalier manner in which thou hast stated th' Overlord didst deal wi' thee, publicly?

Perhaps tis th' thou findest such behavior ta be 'o nae import an' ta carry nae weight, an' perhaps th' explains why thee, ast a member 'o th' Council chose ta 'old thine silence?

Baroness Morgan, wh' ist good fer ta goose be good fer ta gander. Be it th' certain members 'o th' Council set nae store by either ta laws wh' govern th' sport nor ta traditions? Or be it th' those whose duty it be ta see th' th' simplest laws 'o ta sport hae chosen ta apply said laws willy nilly?

If'n th' indeed be true, then, Baroness, lawlessness shall reign, ignorance shall be lauded an' ta darkness 'o th' Abyss shall 'old sway.

Jonalyn Starfare
Jonalyn Nenshen Starfare

Commoner, Duel of Swords

Regent of Auravia

Co-Chancellor of Starhaven

Queen of Westridge, and the Provinces.

Regent for the heirs to Auravia and Westridge.