Official Protest

[DoS Archive]

From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 19:06:50 EDT

>Of course I have, Sid. I need to move out of the GIT soon anyway, it smells
>you know, and my master bedroom in the new castle isn't quite done yet. Where
>was I supposed to sleep?

Heh..

Yes, Percy, you need to move out.

[DoS Archive]

From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 19:11:43 EDT

>Yes, Percy, you need to move out.
>


You can even keep the extra rubies, G. My bedroom should be done tomorrow.


Percy

[DoS Archive]

From: shivblade@aol.com (SHIV BLADE)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 20:28:13 EDT

The point I made is still valid. Even if the question is only done to give the chance to back out, it still is valid. If you say yes to it, then you are accepting that it is a challenge. You are issuing the challenge. Now you may be saying yes to it because you do not want to back out of the challenge, but that just means that you are wanting to challenge. If you are challenging then you must be a Warlord. If you are a
baron, you can't possible answer yes to that question, because you will be saying you do not wish to take back the challenge, and thus push it forward.

Ian, I agree with you though. I wanted to make that clear. I have thought for a long time now that the rules needed some fixing up. We were told that soon a discussion would be held, but to this day I have never seen the likes.

As written by Christopher

Avery Shiv Blade
Baron of the 12th
Diamond

[DoS Archive]

From: unagim@aol.com (Unagi M)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 20:38:08 EDT

::reads the sheaf of posts and rolls his eyes::

::mutters::

For that matter, when do winners of tournament and winners of cha'rrenges become barons? I had heard not unti'r standings come out. So... any of new barons cou'rd make cha'rrenge as warlords to other baron between end of tourney and new standings being posted. Or I cou'rd have fought in tournament as warlord after defeating daimyo-Jaycynda, because standings not yet out. But bushido makes taking advantage of rules in such a way
unthinkab're.

::spits once in the sand and stalks out::

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 21:40:40 EDT

Ian

Indeed, due to poor rules structure, tis it dost appear tis nae annathin' preventing the new Baron, Gaius Marius Colestae from pressing challenge unto the Baron Zafiroo Turidan. Yet do note the following in the matter of the hypothetical possibility 'o whether or nae a Baron may challenge another Baron under other circumstances. Tis clearly stated in th' rules 'o engagement to whit:

Ranking

Duelists rise in rank, according to their success with the sword. (Emphasis added) Ranks are assigned according to the number of wins over losses.
.....
Rank Needed number of wins over losses
Baron By challenge from a Warlord (Emphasis added)

Tis be it that those wh' garner their wins nae using a sword shall be deprived 'o their successes? Fie, I dinna believe annaone hae been denied wins fer nae wielding a sword.
Ast well, tis per th' rules 'o engagement ast currently writ, a Baron canna issue challenge unta another Baron.

In the matter 'o the new Baron Gaius Marius Colestae's challenge unta th' holder of the First,
Baron Zafiroo Turidan, indeed, Laird Ian MacKenzie hae the right 'o it, tis nae annathin' stated in th' rules 'o engagement wh' prevents a new Baron wh' issued challenge ast a warlord from pressin' said challenge upon attainin' title in the Warlord's Tourney. Tis Gaius Marius Colestae didst, upon garnering th' Second Ring in th' Warlord's Tourney, attain th' title 'o Baron, though, until tis announced in th' official standings 'e may nae be
challenged, nor may 'e wield blade wi' earned skills, though he may take his seat upon the Council, for in the Second wast vacant. Tis indeed nae annathing stated in the rules wherein the Overlord may nae act ast his own champion and thereby perhaps garner a Baron's Ring ast well ast wearing the mantle.

Further tis stated in th' rules 'o engagement, warlords may challenge the Overlord or Barons ast well ast stating that a list of defeated peers (Emphasis added) shall be presented. Further t'was once stated that the Overlord and Barons shall be considered peers though t'would seem tis nae longer so stated in the currently extant rules of engagement. T'was ast of the beginning of the tenth month of the common year nineteen hundred and
ninety six t'was stated in the then extant rules of engagement that victories over the Overlord and Barons shall count towards a warlord's total peer wins. Tis perhaps become tradition in that ast thee hae rightly noted tis nae longer writ, in that it hast held true unto this verra day. Witness the situation where in Krysta and Ron Strude didst garner the title of temporary Barons with all that the title entails, save that they couldna be
held to defend the title were challenge issued unto them.

In the matter of Lupton est Dracoern particpating in a previous warlord's tourney, Lupton hae garnered the Sixth Ring prior to the Warlord Tourney and wast properly denied participation.

In the matter of Gaius Marius Colestae's unanswered challenge unto the Baron Zafiroo Turidan, the question yet remains. Didst the Baron acknowledge the challenge within the prescribe time and didst the Baron set the time and date to meet the then warlord within the prescribed time? Tis the Standings Keeper, Madame Silvertree, didst state that the challenge wast valid. Baron Gaius Marius Colestae, the Standings Keeper, the Baron Zafiroo Turidan and
perhaps the seated Barons wouldst hae the missives what wouldst answer that question. Tis this mayhap be a matter that the Council shouldst properly look into yet, the Council ist seemingly hamstrung by the verra rules 'o engagement. Perhaps the Senior Baron, Var Medici Giovanni should request the Council convene and request of the Baron Zafiroo Turidan, the newly seated Baron Gaius Marius Colestae and the Standings Keeper, Madame Drakewyn
Silvertree to supply the Council with the pertinent documents.

Ian, I do beg to differ in that the rules do state who may fight a challenge match ast well ast who may issue challenge.

In the matter of Ulath n Fici's challenge unto the Overlord, indeed he wast a Grandmaster, having fallen in the ranks prior to meeting the Overlord, but after he had issued proper challenge.

Tis further been instances wherein during the Warlord's Tourney where it had been announced ast a double elimination Tourney, t'was permitted during the finals that a duel which, per the announced criteria should hae been dueled, wast nae dueled.


Percival,

Tis rather amusing that thee suddenly notice the, to use thine word, absurdity, yet thee held that Madame Jaycynda Ashleana shouldst nae be held to the a simply standard rule that her peer wins shouldst be publicly available afore she wast permitted to press her challenge. Perhaps thee dinna notice that particular absurdity. Tis also vastly amusing that thee resort to that childish cliche "mud-slinging" when questions where placed with regard to
Marius' challenge unto the Baron Zafiroo. I shall reminded thee, Percival, that tis already been accepted that placing an announcement upon the cork hast nae been determined to be an official and proper announcement of acceptance. The failure of a challenger to apprise the one challenged properly hast been held to be reason to invalidate a challenge, so in the same holds for the one challenged who fails to properly accept said challenge wouldst
render said challenge invalid and forfeit.

Gaius Marius Colestae,

Thou hold the storied Second Ring, and didst say thee wouldst do all within thine ability to nae disgrace thineself, the duels or that ring. Thee didst state that thee washed thine hands of the entire matter, thereby condoning the seeming flouting of the rules of engagement by another Baron. Wast it nae thee what didst claim thee were put upon for following the proper issuance of challenge, and didst decry those what questioned the propriety? Yet
thee what cried out that thee hae nae done annathin' improper, wash thine hands of the matter, when a question yet stands ast to the conduct of what is now a fellow Baron. Thee hae withdrawn thine challenge, indeed, sirrah, yet the mere withdrawal of thine challenge perhaps shields the Baron Zafiroo Turidan from facing the Council and the Community should it be discovered that indeed, the Baron dinna properly deal with thine challenge. Perhaps,
though shalt come to be remembered in the same light ast he that thee didst emulate when thee didst wash thine hands of the matter.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 22:11:02 EDT

Jonalyn~

Please, don't attack Marius over this. Marius has stated more than once that he has no intention of pressing the challenge..and his Challenge was only used as an example of how vague the rules are, *not* that Marius had pressed the Challenge.

~Sidartha Elgarette

[DoS Archive]

From: ajaybird2@aol.com (AJaybird2)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 22:25:28 EDT

Marius,
Your position 'pon this matter is well noted. Already, ye demonstate that ye be most deservin' o' the Second Ring. I will sleep well knowing it be gracing your finger.

Warbird

[DoS Archive]

From: mariusix@aol.com (Marius IX)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 22:55:55 EDT

Ian: If you get all the Roman's killed now, what will you hunt next season? :p

Sid: Thank you for sticking up for me Sidarthata, you are a true friend. You have shown your loyalty and cool head many times and if you ever need a favor. Anything, feel free to ask and if it be in my humble power to grant it... ::Smiles:: Ian is a very lucky man and I know you two will be verry happy together.

Warbird: Although I have yet to meet you, I bear tremendous respect for your history and the untarnished legacy which you left upon the second baronial ring. I only hope that I can wear it with the grace, class, and passion it must have become accustomed to. Perhaps then my name shall be added to the long list of great men and women who adorn her history.

Respectfully to all,


Gaius Marius Colestae'

Magnus Centurion of Imperial Rome.

Commander of Legions at Lugdunum, Carthago, Capua, & Ravenna.

Sword Baron of the Second.

Civus Romanus.

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 00:17:40 EDT

Madame Elgarette,

Perhaps thee might speak with Ian. Perhaps he canst cure thee of believing that questions are an attack. Tis rather amusing, though nae a surprise, that thee hae suddenly seemed t' alter thine stances t' conform wi' Ian's. Perhaps, he canst enlighten thee further. Perhaps also he may explain t' thee th' tis more th' one issue th' needs be addressed.

Jonalyn Starfare

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 00:38:04 EDT

Chortling softly she tacks a note to the cork.

Senior Baron Favre

Mind apology fer demotin' thee.

Jona

[DoS Archive]

From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 00:50:29 EDT

"If you get all the Roman's killed now, what will you hunt next season?"

I'll go back to hunting Englishmen. (Hadn't you noticed how few of them there are?)

Barring that, I'll try and track down some Frenchmen, or perhaps some pesky Spaniards. Or maybe I'll do the community a real favor and hunt down uncontrolled mages...

Regards,
Ian Rex.

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 01:42:20 EDT

Jonalyn~

My position has never strayed from the idea that the rules should have the vagueness removed from it. I am not sure what exactly you are talking about my "altering stances" and, since I wrote my missive to you bearing no ill will, knowing that you are not the first to make the mistake in thinking that this was specifically about Marius' challenge, rather than a simple protest against the fact that the rules have far too many vague concepts in it.

Again, Marius has done nothing wrong. I know your ways, Madame, and I know what your intentions are when you begin with the list of "Was it not thee who..."

Aye, perhaps Ian should explain things to me, like why you insist on attacking people who have yet to speak ill towards you in this whole discussion.

Dismayed,
~Sidartha Elgarette

[DoS Archive]

From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 01:47:34 EDT

"I am not sure what exactly you are talking about my "altering stances" and, since I wrote my missive to you bearing no ill will, knowing that you are not the first to make the mistake in thinking that this was specifically about Marius' challenge, rather than a simple protest against the fact that the rules have far too many vague concepts in it..."

::catches her mistake just after she finishes it, adding in the correct words at the end::

"...I am not quite certain as to *why* you choose to address me in the manner you have."

[DoS Archive]

From: tinytopaz@aol.com (TinyTopaz)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 12:04:12 EDT

Dear Jona,

In a previous post into this thread you have stated, "The failure of a challenger to apprise the one challenged properly hast been held to be reason to invalidate a challenge, so in the same holds for the one challenged who fails to properly accept said challenge wouldst
render said challenge invalid and forfeit."
l feel the need to correct you on this. when l made challenge months ago, and the standigs keeper had validated said challenge, the title holder had failed to properly accept by never officially replying to it. It was Golden's ruling then, a reply, even without being made proper (meaning sent to the standings keeper as well) would be ruled valid by him. So it would seem the same standarts do not apply to both.

Topaz

[DoS Archive]

From: karnafexx@aol.com (Karnafexx)
Date: 16 Sep 1999 13:38:48 EDT

What you snapper heads fail to realize is that upon become a baron, Marius will not have valid peer wins come his challenge. You could argue the point that his challenge was already validated, you could also argue the point that upon become baron, his peer wins are no longer valid because they are stripped from him upon gaining the rank of baron. It would be just as if the standings keeper had made an oversight and
could therefore invalidate his challenge to Zaf.

Fortunately this will fall under the saving clause and be denied by Golden. At least it SHOULD be denied under the saving clause.
I find it strange that Ian, an adversary for any kind of baronial monopolies, would even support such a damn preposterous idea.

Let's get real people, the idea is a stupid one and no amount of "gray area digging" is going to make it anything else. One person, one title, that's the way it was meant to be. Stop trying to screw the system for the sake of few jollies.

Damn bone heads.

Billy