From: xjaycyndax@aol.com (XJaycyndaX)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 13:17:22 EDT
::wanders back from a weekend with her children, relaxed... until she sees the latest... discussion::
My own two cents, related to what others have said or not..
First of all, do I think Dal was right to use the Test of Worthiness? Yes, I *believe* he was. The Test is decided on a challenge-by-challenge basis... it all depends on who is challenging. Now, in the case of Rand, while he is not perfect, he is of sound mind and heart... thus making him worthy for the possibility of being the Overlord... in other words, I *believe* ( as in my opinion, people ) were Rand to become Overlord, DoS would not die.
However, look at the character of Seraph... I don't believe DoS would survive were he to be Overlord... however, I could be wrong. This is just based on what I know of the two mentioned.
Second, as to the banishment of Evan to Renegade... at first I agreed with Dal's decision, but having thought about it, I find myself thinking somewhat otherwise. There is talk of Evan dishonoring the role of neutraility by stepping in... ( at least that's what I gathered from reading all these posts ) I cannot see that to be so. Why? Simply because while Evan may be Neutral in his opinions of Dal, he might have stronger loyalties to Seraph... who
knows how he thinks? I think acting on behalf of a friend is not a sign of breaking neutraility, but a sign of honoring a friend by offering his blade... and that very well could have been Evan's motivation. I see it as no betrayal on Evan's part ( and here I am assuming it is because he has stronger loyalties to Seraph as a friend ) toward Dal, but an honorable showing of loyalty... but that's just my *opinion*.
Isn't it funny how where one might assume it was obviously a Renegade action, but another might assume it was simply done due to friendship to the challenger... simply because we don't know Evan's motivations? I think maybe Dal should have talked to Evan before the banishment, but that's just me.
-= Jaycy
::walks away, knowing she was rambling, but doesn't care... does care, however, to show her opinion on the matter::
· ·· ··· •••Jaycynda ••• ··· ·· ·
Eye of the tyger, it's the creed of the fight...
Rising up to the challenge of our rival.
"Facial expression is human experience rendered immediately visible."
Copyright J. Merritt, 1998
Overlord Challenge Result
-
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: baphelocl@aol.com (Bapheloc L)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 17:11:31 EDT
On the Test of Worthiness,
The ToW, is only a recent addition to the Duel of Swords. About two and a half years I believe, when the Baron ranks were also created back in Febuary of 1996. So to say it is a tradition of the sport, which has exsisted for over 6 years, I honestly can not agree. Again my philosophy on the subject is from old school days of when their was no choice in the matter.
My view on the subject of challenges is simple, you have to earn your self that which you want as the glory prize, and as well have to defend your own acheivments yourself. I have always beleived in that and so far for the majority of the Swords history, it was simply that way. You want to be a titled warrior, then you have to go get it yourself. And you have to defend it yourself with no one else championing you or wearing down the opponent
before the true defender steps up. That is why, regardless of the individuals involved, I believe it is every dueler's right to be able to face those they challenge in an one on one single fight with everything on the line without anything else or anyone else getting involved. IMHO, it is my beleif when it comes to the titles of this sport that duelers should meet on equal terms on equal ground so that their skill alone along with the fates of the
ring and the destiny of the sport shall determine who shall be known as one of our leaders. I shall enedevor to always try and make that possible for any dueler who asks such of me.
I agree that their are some people who I do not feel are "worthy" to be Overlord or Baron, but every dueler has the right to try and I will atleast see that they get their chance to do so on as equal terms as possible. And while to some degree I as well consider the use of ToW cowardly, I would not dare to assume that the persons involved are cowards as persons, or otherwise I doubt they would have acheived their titles to begin with.
Remember though, that often ToWs are unsuccessful and the titled holders usually end up having to fight the challenger anyway, albeit a bit worn out from the previous ToW match. It is also my beleif that title holders should be one of great skill, endurance, and consistency, as well as being responsible respectful active particpants of the duels. So why I don't think ToWs are neccessarily the most honorable option, I will have more respect for
anyone who can overcome them and acheive their titles, then turn around and defend themselves without testing those who challenge them.
The most important thing to remember though is that the Rules of Swords do allow for people to exercise many options, so regardless of my beleifs or anyone else's that is their right to do so. While, I might disagree with their use or abuse of those rights and priviledges, I recognize the fact that they acheived the right and priviledge to do so. The most important thing to remember is that while you may not always respect or like the person
holding a title, always respect the title.
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
Date: 03 Aug 1998 17:11:31 EDT
On the Test of Worthiness,
The ToW, is only a recent addition to the Duel of Swords. About two and a half years I believe, when the Baron ranks were also created back in Febuary of 1996. So to say it is a tradition of the sport, which has exsisted for over 6 years, I honestly can not agree. Again my philosophy on the subject is from old school days of when their was no choice in the matter.
My view on the subject of challenges is simple, you have to earn your self that which you want as the glory prize, and as well have to defend your own acheivments yourself. I have always beleived in that and so far for the majority of the Swords history, it was simply that way. You want to be a titled warrior, then you have to go get it yourself. And you have to defend it yourself with no one else championing you or wearing down the opponent
before the true defender steps up. That is why, regardless of the individuals involved, I believe it is every dueler's right to be able to face those they challenge in an one on one single fight with everything on the line without anything else or anyone else getting involved. IMHO, it is my beleif when it comes to the titles of this sport that duelers should meet on equal terms on equal ground so that their skill alone along with the fates of the
ring and the destiny of the sport shall determine who shall be known as one of our leaders. I shall enedevor to always try and make that possible for any dueler who asks such of me.
I agree that their are some people who I do not feel are "worthy" to be Overlord or Baron, but every dueler has the right to try and I will atleast see that they get their chance to do so on as equal terms as possible. And while to some degree I as well consider the use of ToW cowardly, I would not dare to assume that the persons involved are cowards as persons, or otherwise I doubt they would have acheived their titles to begin with.
Remember though, that often ToWs are unsuccessful and the titled holders usually end up having to fight the challenger anyway, albeit a bit worn out from the previous ToW match. It is also my beleif that title holders should be one of great skill, endurance, and consistency, as well as being responsible respectful active particpants of the duels. So why I don't think ToWs are neccessarily the most honorable option, I will have more respect for
anyone who can overcome them and acheive their titles, then turn around and defend themselves without testing those who challenge them.
The most important thing to remember though is that the Rules of Swords do allow for people to exercise many options, so regardless of my beleifs or anyone else's that is their right to do so. While, I might disagree with their use or abuse of those rights and priviledges, I recognize the fact that they acheived the right and priviledge to do so. The most important thing to remember is that while you may not always respect or like the person
holding a title, always respect the title.
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sonjasavge@aol.com (SonjaSavge)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 18:03:28 EDT
I was curious about why there was so much talk about Neutrals interceding when my understanding of the word neutral was that neutrals stay out of it. Period.
Lo and Behold, I found this in the rules:
"Neutral Barons...
-------------------------
1. "Right to Challenge":
(a) For the Overlord:
Neutrals can intercede on challenges to the Overlord provided the
Overlord accepts the intercession.
(b) Against the Overlord:
Neutrals may intercede on "Right of Challenge" made by the Overlord,
a Loyalist or a fellow Neutral. By doing so the Neutral must duel the
appointed champion at the designated time of the "Test of
Worthiness". If the Neutral wins then the original challenge must go
forward as if no "Right of Challenge" was made. If the Neutral is
defeated the "Test of Worthiness" will proceed immediately. Neutrals
may intercede at anytime up to, but not after the first round of a "Test
of Worthiness" has been called. Neutral Barons fall below Renegades
and renegade champions so that if either of the others voice an intent
to interceed the Neutral is outbid.
2. Neutrals who intercede for the Overlord may lose their title if defeated
by a Renegade Baron's champion, the Renegade Baron goes on to
defeat the Overlord, there are no currently empty baronies AND the
Renegade Baron chooses to award his/her champion the Neutral
Baron's ring as a reward for services. All of these conditions must be
met for the Neutral Baron to lose their title as the result of interceding
for the Overlord.
4. Neutrals may challenge the Overlord, but only once per cycle.
5. Neutral challenges to the Overlord will follow the "Universal Terms of
Challenge".
6. Neutral Barons are open to immediate challenge by the Overlord's
champion, regardless of queue's, if they are defeated in a "Test of
Worthiness"
7. Neutrals are open to any and all challenges from Warlords. A first
challenge must be fought within two weekends and any pending
challenges must be fought at a rate no less than one a week until the
pending challenges are depleted. This is the only case where a
challenge queue is possible."
Curiouser and curiouser. Who had the real influence in the creation of these supposed "neutral" Barons and why didn't they use a dictionary? I know it's been about three months since these rules were updated, but I don't remember this actually being seriously contemplated in the rules discussion. Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but this looks as if it wasn't thought all the way through.
If this is the role "the powers that be" would like for a group of Barons, then perhaps another word rather than Neutral should be used to describe them. Loyals are loyal to the Overlord, Renegades stand against the Overlord and supporters, Neutral's STAY OUT OF IT (stand outside the Overlord's sphere, influence, support, or politics) or risk alignment changes. Barons with the ability to intercede for or against the Overlord have a lot more power
at their disposal than being neutral. If anything, they are balancers, certainly not neutral.
-S
Date: 03 Aug 1998 18:03:28 EDT
I was curious about why there was so much talk about Neutrals interceding when my understanding of the word neutral was that neutrals stay out of it. Period.
Lo and Behold, I found this in the rules:
"Neutral Barons...
-------------------------
1. "Right to Challenge":
(a) For the Overlord:
Neutrals can intercede on challenges to the Overlord provided the
Overlord accepts the intercession.
(b) Against the Overlord:
Neutrals may intercede on "Right of Challenge" made by the Overlord,
a Loyalist or a fellow Neutral. By doing so the Neutral must duel the
appointed champion at the designated time of the "Test of
Worthiness". If the Neutral wins then the original challenge must go
forward as if no "Right of Challenge" was made. If the Neutral is
defeated the "Test of Worthiness" will proceed immediately. Neutrals
may intercede at anytime up to, but not after the first round of a "Test
of Worthiness" has been called. Neutral Barons fall below Renegades
and renegade champions so that if either of the others voice an intent
to interceed the Neutral is outbid.
2. Neutrals who intercede for the Overlord may lose their title if defeated
by a Renegade Baron's champion, the Renegade Baron goes on to
defeat the Overlord, there are no currently empty baronies AND the
Renegade Baron chooses to award his/her champion the Neutral
Baron's ring as a reward for services. All of these conditions must be
met for the Neutral Baron to lose their title as the result of interceding
for the Overlord.
4. Neutrals may challenge the Overlord, but only once per cycle.
5. Neutral challenges to the Overlord will follow the "Universal Terms of
Challenge".
6. Neutral Barons are open to immediate challenge by the Overlord's
champion, regardless of queue's, if they are defeated in a "Test of
Worthiness"
7. Neutrals are open to any and all challenges from Warlords. A first
challenge must be fought within two weekends and any pending
challenges must be fought at a rate no less than one a week until the
pending challenges are depleted. This is the only case where a
challenge queue is possible."
Curiouser and curiouser. Who had the real influence in the creation of these supposed "neutral" Barons and why didn't they use a dictionary? I know it's been about three months since these rules were updated, but I don't remember this actually being seriously contemplated in the rules discussion. Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but this looks as if it wasn't thought all the way through.
If this is the role "the powers that be" would like for a group of Barons, then perhaps another word rather than Neutral should be used to describe them. Loyals are loyal to the Overlord, Renegades stand against the Overlord and supporters, Neutral's STAY OUT OF IT (stand outside the Overlord's sphere, influence, support, or politics) or risk alignment changes. Barons with the ability to intercede for or against the Overlord have a lot more power
at their disposal than being neutral. If anything, they are balancers, certainly not neutral.
-S
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: baphelocl@aol.com (Bapheloc L)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 18:15:54 EDT
As I have stated before, IMHO, you can be nuetral and simply seek to maintain the balance of power.
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
Date: 03 Aug 1998 18:15:54 EDT
As I have stated before, IMHO, you can be nuetral and simply seek to maintain the balance of power.
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 20:52:12 EDT
"First of all, do I think Dal was right to use the Test of Worthiness? Yes, I *believe* he was. The Test is decided on a challenge-by-challenge basis... it all depends on who is challenging. Now, in the case of Rand, while he is not perfect, he is of sound mind and heart... thus making him worthy for the possibility of being the Overlord... in other words, I *believe* ( as in my opinion, people ) were
Rand to become Overlord, DoS would not die.
However, look at the character of Seraph... I don't believe DoS would survive were he to be Overlord... however, I could be wrong. This is just based on what I know of the two mentioned."
Balderdash!
Speaking as one present for the reigns of MadMadMax, Siera Redwin, and two of Xeno's reigns, I MUST disagree. The sport will survive no matter WHO is Overlord. Siera Redwin was the absolute pinnacle of honor in the minds of many of us back then, and MadMadMax was a psychotic. Two very different extremes. Neither really had that much effect on the DoS as a whole. If an Overlord is a serious threat to DoS, he is toppled. If he manages to hold his
title, no matter how disliked and dishonorable he is, he serves a purpose. The constant challenges such an Overlord will attract willm eventually cause him to fall. The idea that DoS would not survive simply becauase someone we don't like or disapprove of takes the throne is ridiculous.
The White Duke
Date: 03 Aug 1998 20:52:12 EDT
"First of all, do I think Dal was right to use the Test of Worthiness? Yes, I *believe* he was. The Test is decided on a challenge-by-challenge basis... it all depends on who is challenging. Now, in the case of Rand, while he is not perfect, he is of sound mind and heart... thus making him worthy for the possibility of being the Overlord... in other words, I *believe* ( as in my opinion, people ) were
Rand to become Overlord, DoS would not die.
However, look at the character of Seraph... I don't believe DoS would survive were he to be Overlord... however, I could be wrong. This is just based on what I know of the two mentioned."
Balderdash!
Speaking as one present for the reigns of MadMadMax, Siera Redwin, and two of Xeno's reigns, I MUST disagree. The sport will survive no matter WHO is Overlord. Siera Redwin was the absolute pinnacle of honor in the minds of many of us back then, and MadMadMax was a psychotic. Two very different extremes. Neither really had that much effect on the DoS as a whole. If an Overlord is a serious threat to DoS, he is toppled. If he manages to hold his
title, no matter how disliked and dishonorable he is, he serves a purpose. The constant challenges such an Overlord will attract willm eventually cause him to fall. The idea that DoS would not survive simply becauase someone we don't like or disapprove of takes the throne is ridiculous.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 21:36:18 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
Although no insult was intended when I made the observation as to your length of tenure in the arena, I realize the many to use such a statement to do so. Rather, the point I was attempting to make was that as a newcomer you had yet to see those things which cause many patrons to see the Duel of Swords as more than a sport. Regardless of the reasoning, however, I must apologize for my mistaken assumption. I only recall one duelist by name of
Percival and he retired some months ago. I'll be sure to check my facts before making such an assumption in the future.
If I might return to the issues of our debate. To say DoS is naught but a sport implies that each participant is attempting to win not only the duel, but some higher prize. By looking around the arena, I'm sure you can easily locate those who have no desire to hold the highest ranks. Some consider it to be practice for their lives work, others view as an art, like dancing. Is dancing a sport? To my eyes, the only time that DoS beomes strictly a
sport is in a tournament, when all contestants are truly there to do nothing but duel and all have their eyes on a prize.
As far as separating community and sport, I fear it is not so easy to separate them in this case. Without one, the other would surely cease to exist. Many duelists would leave if the community were to evaporate, and many more would cease to come around if there were no duels.
Moving now to your thoughts on politics. I would agree that statecraft is the act of ruling, however statecraft is also just another form of politics. Politics exist in all levels of our existence, it is only when the act is practiced by the ruling class that we refer to it as statecraft. Regardless, the point was not to say that you called the Overlord honorless. What you did say was "FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Since when has anyone heard honor and politics used in the same breath by anyone intelligent?" to which I would respond that, some Kings deal in "sportsmanship" but all of them deal in politics. Many a man would say that his King acts with honor and be considered no less intelligent for having said it.
You have accused me for calling you to account because you disagreed with the Overlord. You have misinterpreted my words. Your opinion of Dalamar and of whether DoS be a sport or not is of no concern to me. What I call you on is the statement that ideas other than yours are "ridiculous" and the implication that those who would hold such ideas are of a lesser intelligence.
Certainly, Duc de Clermont, you are entitled to you opinion on the matter. I consider it your loss if you can see the Duel of Swords as only a sport, but I certainly shall not insult you for it. I merely ask for the same courtesy from you for those of us who hold the opposite view.
Respectfully,
~Kalamere Ar'Din
Date: 03 Aug 1998 21:36:18 EDT
Duc de Clermont,
Although no insult was intended when I made the observation as to your length of tenure in the arena, I realize the many to use such a statement to do so. Rather, the point I was attempting to make was that as a newcomer you had yet to see those things which cause many patrons to see the Duel of Swords as more than a sport. Regardless of the reasoning, however, I must apologize for my mistaken assumption. I only recall one duelist by name of
Percival and he retired some months ago. I'll be sure to check my facts before making such an assumption in the future.
If I might return to the issues of our debate. To say DoS is naught but a sport implies that each participant is attempting to win not only the duel, but some higher prize. By looking around the arena, I'm sure you can easily locate those who have no desire to hold the highest ranks. Some consider it to be practice for their lives work, others view as an art, like dancing. Is dancing a sport? To my eyes, the only time that DoS beomes strictly a
sport is in a tournament, when all contestants are truly there to do nothing but duel and all have their eyes on a prize.
As far as separating community and sport, I fear it is not so easy to separate them in this case. Without one, the other would surely cease to exist. Many duelists would leave if the community were to evaporate, and many more would cease to come around if there were no duels.
Moving now to your thoughts on politics. I would agree that statecraft is the act of ruling, however statecraft is also just another form of politics. Politics exist in all levels of our existence, it is only when the act is practiced by the ruling class that we refer to it as statecraft. Regardless, the point was not to say that you called the Overlord honorless. What you did say was "FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Since when has anyone heard honor and politics used in the same breath by anyone intelligent?" to which I would respond that, some Kings deal in "sportsmanship" but all of them deal in politics. Many a man would say that his King acts with honor and be considered no less intelligent for having said it.
You have accused me for calling you to account because you disagreed with the Overlord. You have misinterpreted my words. Your opinion of Dalamar and of whether DoS be a sport or not is of no concern to me. What I call you on is the statement that ideas other than yours are "ridiculous" and the implication that those who would hold such ideas are of a lesser intelligence.
Certainly, Duc de Clermont, you are entitled to you opinion on the matter. I consider it your loss if you can see the Duel of Swords as only a sport, but I certainly shall not insult you for it. I merely ask for the same courtesy from you for those of us who hold the opposite view.
Respectfully,
~Kalamere Ar'Din
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 22:06:11 EDT
Kalamere, I believe that you and I have slightly different definitions of politics, and we will have to agree to disagree about them. However, I accept your apology in regard to my tenure here, as there are so many faces and names that it can be difficult to remember all of them.
I did not mean to insult anyone,a nd wish to apologize if it sounded as if I did. The major gist of my argument was to point out that we need more sportsmanship, and less bad feeling. If I communicated this badly, I wish to apologize.
The White Duke
Date: 03 Aug 1998 22:06:11 EDT
Kalamere, I believe that you and I have slightly different definitions of politics, and we will have to agree to disagree about them. However, I accept your apology in regard to my tenure here, as there are so many faces and names that it can be difficult to remember all of them.
I did not mean to insult anyone,a nd wish to apologize if it sounded as if I did. The major gist of my argument was to point out that we need more sportsmanship, and less bad feeling. If I communicated this badly, I wish to apologize.
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xjaycyndax@aol.com (XJaycyndaX)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 22:39:13 EDT
"Balderdash!
Speaking as one present for the reigns of MadMadMax, Siera Redwin, and two of Xeno's reigns, I MUST disagree. The sport will survive no matter WHO is Overlord. Siera Redwin was the absolute pinnacle of honor in the minds of many of us back then, and MadMadMax was a psychotic. Two very different extremes. Neither really had that much effect on the DoS as a whole. If an Overlord is a serious threat to DoS, he is toppled. If he manages to hold his
title, no matter how disliked and dishonorable he is, he serves a purpose. The constant challenges such an Overlord will attract willm eventually cause him to fall. The idea that DoS would not survive simply becauase someone we don't like or disapprove of takes the throne is ridiculous."
M'lord...
Lemme ask this... how many duelers have left, because of boredom? How many do you think would just leave in disgust were someone they didn't like take the crown? Are Max, Sierra, and Xeno still dueling? How many of the respected duelers have left for other adventures? How many have left, feeling no one can defeat Dalamar, and see no reason to try? How many believe the DoS is dying, and don't wish to see such a death? How many see all this
power-dueling and know all many people care about these days are ranks? How many new duelers have done nothing but duel all five days in order to make Warlord in a week, then dueled all five days again so they could have ten peer wins to challenge a week later? How many have we seen? Not many... but how many are trying? A lot more than you might think, m'lord.
How many challenges today are not for much more than warlords needing something to do with their peer wins? How many duelers do you see in there every night, dueling all night, trying to gain rank as fast as possible?
Because of all this power dueling... rank, and gaining it... beating someone on a given night... has become the main goal in DoS. And because of this, the Overlordship has a VERY important role in the dueling world today. Wouldn't you love to be the one to be able to say "I defeated Dalamar?" If all dueling is, is a sport, then that is the ultimate goal... to dethrone the Overlord... but DoS is more than that. DoS is a family, and has a spirit
and tradition... those very same traditions and ideals the former Overlords upheld. When those die out, when no one is concerned for them anymore, and when no one cares to try to uphold these beliefs, and challenges for such a reason, then the spirit of DoS is gone. That is why I believe the Duel of Swords would die.
I welcome you to your opinions... I am just explaining, here, mine.
Respectfully,
· ·· ··· •••Jaycynda Ashleana ••• ··· ·· ·
Copyright J. Merritt, 1998
Date: 03 Aug 1998 22:39:13 EDT
"Balderdash!
Speaking as one present for the reigns of MadMadMax, Siera Redwin, and two of Xeno's reigns, I MUST disagree. The sport will survive no matter WHO is Overlord. Siera Redwin was the absolute pinnacle of honor in the minds of many of us back then, and MadMadMax was a psychotic. Two very different extremes. Neither really had that much effect on the DoS as a whole. If an Overlord is a serious threat to DoS, he is toppled. If he manages to hold his
title, no matter how disliked and dishonorable he is, he serves a purpose. The constant challenges such an Overlord will attract willm eventually cause him to fall. The idea that DoS would not survive simply becauase someone we don't like or disapprove of takes the throne is ridiculous."
M'lord...
Lemme ask this... how many duelers have left, because of boredom? How many do you think would just leave in disgust were someone they didn't like take the crown? Are Max, Sierra, and Xeno still dueling? How many of the respected duelers have left for other adventures? How many have left, feeling no one can defeat Dalamar, and see no reason to try? How many believe the DoS is dying, and don't wish to see such a death? How many see all this
power-dueling and know all many people care about these days are ranks? How many new duelers have done nothing but duel all five days in order to make Warlord in a week, then dueled all five days again so they could have ten peer wins to challenge a week later? How many have we seen? Not many... but how many are trying? A lot more than you might think, m'lord.
How many challenges today are not for much more than warlords needing something to do with their peer wins? How many duelers do you see in there every night, dueling all night, trying to gain rank as fast as possible?
Because of all this power dueling... rank, and gaining it... beating someone on a given night... has become the main goal in DoS. And because of this, the Overlordship has a VERY important role in the dueling world today. Wouldn't you love to be the one to be able to say "I defeated Dalamar?" If all dueling is, is a sport, then that is the ultimate goal... to dethrone the Overlord... but DoS is more than that. DoS is a family, and has a spirit
and tradition... those very same traditions and ideals the former Overlords upheld. When those die out, when no one is concerned for them anymore, and when no one cares to try to uphold these beliefs, and challenges for such a reason, then the spirit of DoS is gone. That is why I believe the Duel of Swords would die.
I welcome you to your opinions... I am just explaining, here, mine.
Respectfully,
· ·· ··· •••Jaycynda Ashleana ••• ··· ·· ·
Copyright J. Merritt, 1998
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewyni@aol.com (Drakewyn I)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 22:56:54 EDT
Baron Rynth.
So as to not take your comments out of line, I quote you here...
I never said any thing about over using the Test, but using the Test to keep some one who Dal thinks is not worthy of the crown away from it, though he would gladly let a friend try and take it. That was my point and next time when you want to post, don't take my text out of line.
What in the name of the Gods is the point of a "Test of Worthiness", if you do not "Test" those you do not think are "Worthy"? The test is something that is used at the choice of the OverLord.
It's been said before, and it will be said many times in the future... if you don't like it, challenge and try to change it.
Forgive me for being so pointedly harsh here, but it seems to be the only way to get -my- point across.
Thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
Date: 03 Aug 1998 22:56:54 EDT
Baron Rynth.
So as to not take your comments out of line, I quote you here...
I never said any thing about over using the Test, but using the Test to keep some one who Dal thinks is not worthy of the crown away from it, though he would gladly let a friend try and take it. That was my point and next time when you want to post, don't take my text out of line.
What in the name of the Gods is the point of a "Test of Worthiness", if you do not "Test" those you do not think are "Worthy"? The test is something that is used at the choice of the OverLord.
It's been said before, and it will be said many times in the future... if you don't like it, challenge and try to change it.
Forgive me for being so pointedly harsh here, but it seems to be the only way to get -my- point across.
Thank you for your time.
Lady Drake, aka the Gryphon
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: baphelocl@aol.com (Bapheloc L)
Date: 03 Aug 1998 23:08:28 EDT
To the lady, Jacy,
I would like to think my interest in the higher ranks and challenges are more worth the merit then you describe of the general populance of the duelers of Swords.
I challenged Ajay for he was one of the greatest challenges of his time, and still is actually. I lost. I entered a Warlord's Tourney specifically to try and get the 1st Baron's Ring that a dear friend and a former member of my House had retired. That was Ford Prefect's ring, and while I did not hold it for nearly as long or successful, it meant alot to me to set out to regain Ford's ring for my House and for myself. I have challenged Lupton
for reasons that can be easiy read into today's current events.
Some of us are not here simply to seek personal glory of titles, WoLs, or such statistical things. And while some may leave for the reasons you stated, some of us have decided to stay and try to make it a better place.
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
Date: 03 Aug 1998 23:08:28 EDT
To the lady, Jacy,
I would like to think my interest in the higher ranks and challenges are more worth the merit then you describe of the general populance of the duelers of Swords.
I challenged Ajay for he was one of the greatest challenges of his time, and still is actually. I lost. I entered a Warlord's Tourney specifically to try and get the 1st Baron's Ring that a dear friend and a former member of my House had retired. That was Ford Prefect's ring, and while I did not hold it for nearly as long or successful, it meant alot to me to set out to regain Ford's ring for my House and for myself. I have challenged Lupton
for reasons that can be easiy read into today's current events.
Some of us are not here simply to seek personal glory of titles, WoLs, or such statistical things. And while some may leave for the reasons you stated, some of us have decided to stay and try to make it a better place.
Honor to thyself, Respect to others,
Baphelocutis est Lathadoscia
::sealed in wax by the signet ring stamp of the royal family Lathadoscia::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 06:49:34 EDT
::walks up and reads Drake's post, a shake in his head:: "Seems now adays, I am the only one tring to change it ... and I did not even mean for it to happen." ::turns about in the crowded Arena and walks off::
Date: 04 Aug 1998 06:49:34 EDT
::walks up and reads Drake's post, a shake in his head:: "Seems now adays, I am the only one tring to change it ... and I did not even mean for it to happen." ::turns about in the crowded Arena and walks off::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: silentcris@aol.com (SilentCris)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 09:52:50 EDT
From the Desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaeology, Black Friday, Inc.
Drakewyn,
"What in the name of the Gods is the point of a "Test of Worthiness", if you do not "Test" those you do not think are "Worthy"?"
- I believe what the young baron was attempting to say is that we will never see the Test of Worthiness used on a personal friend of the Overlord, no matter how unworthy that friend may be. But, then again, worth is in the eye of the beholder, much like beauty... and it is a fickle thing at best. It is all a matter of perspective here. One man's worth is another man's unworth... as the new rank sets new precedents, we cannot know if the Overlord
would have banished a more well-known or well-respected baron (or, a baron that doubled as a friend to the Overlord) from Neutral merely for stepping in to see a challenger meet the person he or she truly challenged. I am of mind to say that he would, no matter what, though I don't know him very well.
Sincerely,
Cristian de Oro
Date: 04 Aug 1998 09:52:50 EDT
From the Desk of Cristian de Oro
Director of Archaeology, Black Friday, Inc.
Drakewyn,
"What in the name of the Gods is the point of a "Test of Worthiness", if you do not "Test" those you do not think are "Worthy"?"
- I believe what the young baron was attempting to say is that we will never see the Test of Worthiness used on a personal friend of the Overlord, no matter how unworthy that friend may be. But, then again, worth is in the eye of the beholder, much like beauty... and it is a fickle thing at best. It is all a matter of perspective here. One man's worth is another man's unworth... as the new rank sets new precedents, we cannot know if the Overlord
would have banished a more well-known or well-respected baron (or, a baron that doubled as a friend to the Overlord) from Neutral merely for stepping in to see a challenger meet the person he or she truly challenged. I am of mind to say that he would, no matter what, though I don't know him very well.
Sincerely,
Cristian de Oro
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 23:20:30 EDT
>>I never said any thing about over using the Test, but using the Test to keep some one who Dal thinks is not worthy of the crown away from it, though he would gladly let a friend try and take it. <<
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the Test is supposed to be...to test the worthiness of the challenger to wear the crown?
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Swordslady (again)
All-Star, TDL
Captain, Dracoern Highlands
Duchess of the Eastern Duchy
New Mountainside
Date: 04 Aug 1998 23:20:30 EDT
>>I never said any thing about over using the Test, but using the Test to keep some one who Dal thinks is not worthy of the crown away from it, though he would gladly let a friend try and take it. <<
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the Test is supposed to be...to test the worthiness of the challenger to wear the crown?
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Swordslady (again)
All-Star, TDL
Captain, Dracoern Highlands
Duchess of the Eastern Duchy
New Mountainside
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 04 Aug 1998 23:24:16 EDT
Hm...If a Warlord has to earn 15 peer wins just to challenge the overlord, I feel that that should make that Warlord worthy enough...No other test of worthyness whould be needed. <<
As I've said before, the ability to whack 15 fellow upper-ranker's one more time than they whack you does not constitute worthiness of holding such an esteemed rank (and one with such power) as the Overlordship. It takes more...a lot more.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Swordslady (again)
All-Star, TDL
Captain, Dracoern Highlands
Duchess of the Eastern Duchy
New Mountainside
Date: 04 Aug 1998 23:24:16 EDT
Hm...If a Warlord has to earn 15 peer wins just to challenge the overlord, I feel that that should make that Warlord worthy enough...No other test of worthyness whould be needed. <<
As I've said before, the ability to whack 15 fellow upper-ranker's one more time than they whack you does not constitute worthiness of holding such an esteemed rank (and one with such power) as the Overlordship. It takes more...a lot more.
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Swordslady (again)
All-Star, TDL
Captain, Dracoern Highlands
Duchess of the Eastern Duchy
New Mountainside
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: prlunicorn@aol.com (PrlUnicorn)
Date: 05 Aug 1998 19:34:28 EDT
>> What in the name of the Gods is the point of a "Test of Worthiness", if you do not "Test" those you do not think are "Worthy"? The test is something that is used at the choice of the OverLord.<<
::mussing over the note by Drake::
Ney offense, Drake, but Evan's point, I believe, was that a challenger's worthiness shouldn't depend on his friendship or lack of to Dalamar or any OverLord.
On the subject of neutrality, I would like to say that it means not supporting, yet not turning your back on either side. In my opinion this means evening the odds when needed. If you read over the rules of our sport as quoted earlier, the baron may chose to defend a challenger or champion the Overlord.. If baron's of neutral rank are not allowed to use the privileges of that alignment without repercussion by the overlord when it comes into play
then what is the point of this alignment in the first place?
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher
Date: 05 Aug 1998 19:34:28 EDT
>> What in the name of the Gods is the point of a "Test of Worthiness", if you do not "Test" those you do not think are "Worthy"? The test is something that is used at the choice of the OverLord.<<
::mussing over the note by Drake::
Ney offense, Drake, but Evan's point, I believe, was that a challenger's worthiness shouldn't depend on his friendship or lack of to Dalamar or any OverLord.
On the subject of neutrality, I would like to say that it means not supporting, yet not turning your back on either side. In my opinion this means evening the odds when needed. If you read over the rules of our sport as quoted earlier, the baron may chose to defend a challenger or champion the Overlord.. If baron's of neutral rank are not allowed to use the privileges of that alignment without repercussion by the overlord when it comes into play
then what is the point of this alignment in the first place?
Colleen MacLeod-Lasher