From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 20:35:20 EDT
To the Overlord, Dalamar arD'aumon, Lord of the Dale:
Be aware that I, and others, take deep offense to your actions in testing the worthiness of a sitting Baron to challenge your person.
We have maintained our support for you over your reign, never questioning your use of the test against those of the Warlord rank. However, as you must be certain, a significant segment of those with influence in this sport entirely, without question, object to the use of the test against a sitting Baron.
We have also agreed with your policy of securing your position politically by arranging for renegade Barons to be challenged, and by defending your loyal Barons in order to retain their support. This is part of the workings of leadership, and cannot be disputed.
Such machinations, however, can be turned. Being of honor, I would advise you to consult with your loyal Barons, and urge them to preparedness. The board now alters, and the pieces move in different patterns.
With regret,
Iain MacKenzie
Lord Tynsdale
Warlord and Thrice-Baron of the Duel of Swords.
Tables Turning.
-
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: xjaycyndax@aol.com (XJaycyndaX)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:10:37 EDT
M'lord Iain,
Through it all, I've kept my mouth shut and my pen away from paper. Now, I cannot. I have a few things I feel the need to say, and a few questions to ask.
First of all, I admit, I'm not one for politics. Oh well, so be it. It's just never been anything I've been interested in. However, I find it remarkably silly you would punish innocents for the actions of someone. Why challenge the loyal barons en masse? Simply because they're loyal?
As for the test of a sitting baron. . . yes, it may have been a political blunder, but he does have the right to do it. However, did you ever ask Dal why he used the test in such a manner? Maybe because Evan had been untried as a baron, or even something outside of the rings. Honestly, Iain, look the the position at stake. The Overlordship. Would you want just anyone to serve as your Overlord, Iain? Evan has shown himself to be an impulsive
man, and that could be a danger, were he Overlord. That title is not about who has the most fancies or whatnot. There *are* political aspects to it, and if Dal felt Evan could not live up to those aspects, he had every right and more to bring in the Test. Personally, I don't want to serve under an Overlord who hasn't fully explored the political aspects of the title they hold. I mean, Evan challenged Dal simply because Dal wasn't his friend.
Because Evan didn't make a friend, proclaiming himself loyal under Dal. Is that a valid reason to challenge, and take the title? I don't think so, personally. It shows me a man who simply is angry that he's not in complete favor with the Overlord. Yes, I call Evan a friend, but I don't want to see him as Overlord, after all I have seen happen.
One last question. Why, instead of trying to remove those loyal to Dal, don't you explain your feelings to them, and let them decide for themselves what they should do on the matter. Have you asked any of the loyals? Maybe they're as unhappy about it as you. If you want to see Dal removed, do it yourself, Iain. Don't punish those Barons who've been tried and have proven themselves, simply because of loyalties. You want to see a change? Remove
Dal.
Just a few thoughts,
Jaycynda Shadowsbane
M@A, DoS
Member, HDT
CDR team member
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:10:37 EDT
M'lord Iain,
Through it all, I've kept my mouth shut and my pen away from paper. Now, I cannot. I have a few things I feel the need to say, and a few questions to ask.
First of all, I admit, I'm not one for politics. Oh well, so be it. It's just never been anything I've been interested in. However, I find it remarkably silly you would punish innocents for the actions of someone. Why challenge the loyal barons en masse? Simply because they're loyal?
As for the test of a sitting baron. . . yes, it may have been a political blunder, but he does have the right to do it. However, did you ever ask Dal why he used the test in such a manner? Maybe because Evan had been untried as a baron, or even something outside of the rings. Honestly, Iain, look the the position at stake. The Overlordship. Would you want just anyone to serve as your Overlord, Iain? Evan has shown himself to be an impulsive
man, and that could be a danger, were he Overlord. That title is not about who has the most fancies or whatnot. There *are* political aspects to it, and if Dal felt Evan could not live up to those aspects, he had every right and more to bring in the Test. Personally, I don't want to serve under an Overlord who hasn't fully explored the political aspects of the title they hold. I mean, Evan challenged Dal simply because Dal wasn't his friend.
Because Evan didn't make a friend, proclaiming himself loyal under Dal. Is that a valid reason to challenge, and take the title? I don't think so, personally. It shows me a man who simply is angry that he's not in complete favor with the Overlord. Yes, I call Evan a friend, but I don't want to see him as Overlord, after all I have seen happen.
One last question. Why, instead of trying to remove those loyal to Dal, don't you explain your feelings to them, and let them decide for themselves what they should do on the matter. Have you asked any of the loyals? Maybe they're as unhappy about it as you. If you want to see Dal removed, do it yourself, Iain. Don't punish those Barons who've been tried and have proven themselves, simply because of loyalties. You want to see a change? Remove
Dal.
Just a few thoughts,
Jaycynda Shadowsbane
M@A, DoS
Member, HDT
CDR team member
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:31:55 EDT
Jaycynda:
The point is policy. Since Dalamar sees fit to test Barons, which Kalamere, myself, and others feel is an insult to the rank, then his own methods of remaining in power will be used against him to weaken his hold.
Kalamere has made a vow; he cannot challenge Dalamar without breaking that word. I have no personal desire to take the title myself. Others may, indeed, challenge Dalamar. We cannot, however, condone loyalty to someone who acts against a principle we hold dear.
~irm
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:31:55 EDT
Jaycynda:
The point is policy. Since Dalamar sees fit to test Barons, which Kalamere, myself, and others feel is an insult to the rank, then his own methods of remaining in power will be used against him to weaken his hold.
Kalamere has made a vow; he cannot challenge Dalamar without breaking that word. I have no personal desire to take the title myself. Others may, indeed, challenge Dalamar. We cannot, however, condone loyalty to someone who acts against a principle we hold dear.
~irm
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:32:00 EDT
Iain~
I have to agree with Jaycy. And not because of my affections for Dal. As he and I have agreed, relationships and politics don't mix well. You should well know of my dislike of the Test, as I made many loud protests to Leto's use (or rather...overuse) of it, but in this instance, I agree with his usage of the Test.
Evan, evan though I have considered him a friend, I believe his blatant disregard of his Baron's ring is only a precursor to the disregard he would show to the title of Overlord. And, as Jaycy said, his reasons for challenging were not because he *wanted* to be Overlord, but that he wanted to get back at Dal for not showing him what he thought was the proper amount of attention and friendship. Spite is not a good quality in an Overlord.
Think over your decision, Iain. Why is it just for you to punish those who really had no say in the matter of whether an Overlord does or doesn't use the Test, other than stating their disapproval beforehand and changing their alignment afterward? After considering the reasons why Evan was not a good candidate *yet* for the Overlordship, do you really think that it was wrong for Dal to put him to the Test?
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress@Arms
Journeywoman, TDL
Dracoern Highlands
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:32:00 EDT
Iain~
I have to agree with Jaycy. And not because of my affections for Dal. As he and I have agreed, relationships and politics don't mix well. You should well know of my dislike of the Test, as I made many loud protests to Leto's use (or rather...overuse) of it, but in this instance, I agree with his usage of the Test.
Evan, evan though I have considered him a friend, I believe his blatant disregard of his Baron's ring is only a precursor to the disregard he would show to the title of Overlord. And, as Jaycy said, his reasons for challenging were not because he *wanted* to be Overlord, but that he wanted to get back at Dal for not showing him what he thought was the proper amount of attention and friendship. Spite is not a good quality in an Overlord.
Think over your decision, Iain. Why is it just for you to punish those who really had no say in the matter of whether an Overlord does or doesn't use the Test, other than stating their disapproval beforehand and changing their alignment afterward? After considering the reasons why Evan was not a good candidate *yet* for the Overlordship, do you really think that it was wrong for Dal to put him to the Test?
~Sidartha Elgarette~
Mistress@Arms
Journeywoman, TDL
Dracoern Highlands
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:54:15 EDT
Sidartha:
Because unlike some, I am firm in my beliefs. A Baron should not be tested by the Overlord. Regardless of the person in question, it is an insult to the RANK, and to the effort required to attain it.
In this sport, the difference between the ability to challenge a Baron, and to challenge the Overlord, is essentially no more than two weeks worth of effort in the ring for any competent duelist. After that, the effort is generally equal. In other words, a Baron - generally - has had to run through a gauntlet more difficult than earning the right to challenge the Overlord directly... and the reward is the right to be able to challenge the Overlord
if they choose, as a renegade. In my mind, they've already passed a test of worthiness by defeating a Baron in an all-or-nothing combat, sometimes having to get PAST the Overlord to do so.
Further, in this specific instance, I am told Dalamar felt insulted by Evan. Call me strange, but when someone insults you, you don't send someone else to beat that person up. You meet them yourself, as a matter of honor. This argument does not strengthen Dalamar's position, but weakens it.
This is not about Evan. It is about the rank. It is about a long-held matter of principle, extending back to the days of Siera Redwin, which Kalamere, myself, and others have held to without alteration, and to expect us to alter our view now, simply because Dalamar is popular and Evan is not, is abhorrent.
~irm
Date: 16 Apr 1998 21:54:15 EDT
Sidartha:
Because unlike some, I am firm in my beliefs. A Baron should not be tested by the Overlord. Regardless of the person in question, it is an insult to the RANK, and to the effort required to attain it.
In this sport, the difference between the ability to challenge a Baron, and to challenge the Overlord, is essentially no more than two weeks worth of effort in the ring for any competent duelist. After that, the effort is generally equal. In other words, a Baron - generally - has had to run through a gauntlet more difficult than earning the right to challenge the Overlord directly... and the reward is the right to be able to challenge the Overlord
if they choose, as a renegade. In my mind, they've already passed a test of worthiness by defeating a Baron in an all-or-nothing combat, sometimes having to get PAST the Overlord to do so.
Further, in this specific instance, I am told Dalamar felt insulted by Evan. Call me strange, but when someone insults you, you don't send someone else to beat that person up. You meet them yourself, as a matter of honor. This argument does not strengthen Dalamar's position, but weakens it.
This is not about Evan. It is about the rank. It is about a long-held matter of principle, extending back to the days of Siera Redwin, which Kalamere, myself, and others have held to without alteration, and to expect us to alter our view now, simply because Dalamar is popular and Evan is not, is abhorrent.
~irm
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: drakewynx@aol.com (Drakewyn x)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:27:55 EDT
M'Lords and Ladies.
I may be entirely wrong here... I may be completely off base. But I believe I know why Dalamar allowed Billy Ray to Champion him against the Renegade, Evan.
Billy Ray had made a promise... a vow, if you will... to regain the ring that Evan had defeated Kaprielle to gain. Now perhaps he didn't work as hard as he could have to challenge the Baron, but who are we to say we know what was occupying his time?
Never-the-less, when Evan issued a challenge to Dalamar... it is my -opinion-, that Dal saw this as a way to assist a long-time friend. I know that I, myself, offered to champion the Overlord... and not because I knew if I won that I would have the opportunity to challenge Evan for his ring. Rest assured, I have more than enough Peer-Wins to challenge at any moment... I simply choose to wait.
Iain, I count you as a good friend, but I cannot stand by you in this instance... Then again, this isn't the first time we've been on the opposite sides of an arguement.
Lady Drake.
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:27:55 EDT
M'Lords and Ladies.
I may be entirely wrong here... I may be completely off base. But I believe I know why Dalamar allowed Billy Ray to Champion him against the Renegade, Evan.
Billy Ray had made a promise... a vow, if you will... to regain the ring that Evan had defeated Kaprielle to gain. Now perhaps he didn't work as hard as he could have to challenge the Baron, but who are we to say we know what was occupying his time?
Never-the-less, when Evan issued a challenge to Dalamar... it is my -opinion-, that Dal saw this as a way to assist a long-time friend. I know that I, myself, offered to champion the Overlord... and not because I knew if I won that I would have the opportunity to challenge Evan for his ring. Rest assured, I have more than enough Peer-Wins to challenge at any moment... I simply choose to wait.
Iain, I count you as a good friend, but I cannot stand by you in this instance... Then again, this isn't the first time we've been on the opposite sides of an arguement.
Lady Drake.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dueier@aol.com (DueIer)
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:39:53 EDT
To everyone,
I urge you all to first read my posting I made on another part of this board (if you already did not) before continuning.
Lord Tynsdale certainly brings up good, well thoughout points. But that does not make them correct. He says that the testing of a Baron is of insult to a rank, not just to the person. Now on this matter I am almost inclined to agree. However, the fact is that not all Barons are created equal. Getting one's means to challenge, then challenging, is a feat able to be accomplished by nearly every single Warlord out there. Not all do, but many
that would normally dubbed "unworthy" go ahead and make such challenge. In most circumstances, the Overlord will test the person if they go after a Loyal Baron.
But what happend if they go after a renegade? All of us have bad matches. Anyone can beat anyone in a given match. Barons will be able to defeat their challengers some percentage of the time, but this percentage cannot be 100. Therefore, there will be some Barons that have a lower level of skill that win their matches. When this Baron is challenged, the challenger will have a much greater chance to win this match than the Baron did when he
challenged for the ring, and it likely that the Overlord will not offer assistance. This challenger may even be from a group that may be deemed "unworthy". If it is a 50/50 (or worse) shot at a defense, when the supposedly "unworthy" Baron defends, it may come as little surprise, and proverbially will "help raise his stock".
Now when a Baron challenges the Overlord, presumably it is a Baron that has gone through many challenge matches, and has a good number of wins. When a Baron that has only won two challenge matches, it leads me to believe that there is still the possibility of this Baron being unworthy of his position, so why would there not be a question of whether he is worthy of being the Overlord?
I do not have the long history in the rings that Lord Tynsdale has, but I have been more involved with the sport recently than he has. Is it not a possibility that Lord Tynsdale has lost touch with the sport in which he became Baron three times? I mean no disrespect to his character, but I do believe that just having a history does not mean knowing anything of the present. It is more than just highly likely that all Barons are no
longer as worthy as they were in the days in which Lord Tynsdale. It is something I take for granted. I barely consider myself worthy of being a Baron. Were I not biased in my opinion, I would say that there is no reason to consider myself worthy of being a Baron save for the fact that I won one match. I would certainly not find it odd should I all of a sudden take a dislike to the Overlord, switch alignments, challenge the Overlord, and be
tested. That is exactly what Evan did, and add to that his motive of spite, and I fail to see why such a Baron is automatically considered worthy.
Thank you,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
Date: 16 Apr 1998 23:39:53 EDT
To everyone,
I urge you all to first read my posting I made on another part of this board (if you already did not) before continuning.
Lord Tynsdale certainly brings up good, well thoughout points. But that does not make them correct. He says that the testing of a Baron is of insult to a rank, not just to the person. Now on this matter I am almost inclined to agree. However, the fact is that not all Barons are created equal. Getting one's means to challenge, then challenging, is a feat able to be accomplished by nearly every single Warlord out there. Not all do, but many
that would normally dubbed "unworthy" go ahead and make such challenge. In most circumstances, the Overlord will test the person if they go after a Loyal Baron.
But what happend if they go after a renegade? All of us have bad matches. Anyone can beat anyone in a given match. Barons will be able to defeat their challengers some percentage of the time, but this percentage cannot be 100. Therefore, there will be some Barons that have a lower level of skill that win their matches. When this Baron is challenged, the challenger will have a much greater chance to win this match than the Baron did when he
challenged for the ring, and it likely that the Overlord will not offer assistance. This challenger may even be from a group that may be deemed "unworthy". If it is a 50/50 (or worse) shot at a defense, when the supposedly "unworthy" Baron defends, it may come as little surprise, and proverbially will "help raise his stock".
Now when a Baron challenges the Overlord, presumably it is a Baron that has gone through many challenge matches, and has a good number of wins. When a Baron that has only won two challenge matches, it leads me to believe that there is still the possibility of this Baron being unworthy of his position, so why would there not be a question of whether he is worthy of being the Overlord?
I do not have the long history in the rings that Lord Tynsdale has, but I have been more involved with the sport recently than he has. Is it not a possibility that Lord Tynsdale has lost touch with the sport in which he became Baron three times? I mean no disrespect to his character, but I do believe that just having a history does not mean knowing anything of the present. It is more than just highly likely that all Barons are no
longer as worthy as they were in the days in which Lord Tynsdale. It is something I take for granted. I barely consider myself worthy of being a Baron. Were I not biased in my opinion, I would say that there is no reason to consider myself worthy of being a Baron save for the fact that I won one match. I would certainly not find it odd should I all of a sudden take a dislike to the Overlord, switch alignments, challenge the Overlord, and be
tested. That is exactly what Evan did, and add to that his motive of spite, and I fail to see why such a Baron is automatically considered worthy.
Thank you,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qnluthien@aol.com (QnLuthien)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:01:56 EDT
::written with a soft hand::
~ I would rather hail an Overlord who looked at his Barons and his Challenges on an individual basis, rather than one who would see all Barons as of one entity. For at times the Baron's are of one accord, and at times they are not. At times they stand on equal ground, and truthfully, at times they do not. As a Baron of 10 months, I have felt the broad spectrum of honor and insult that has touched my rank. I know when I have been insulted, and in
those times I have spoken out against the wrongs as I have felt them personally. In this instance in relevance to Baron Evan, I cannot find an insult here. I have watched, and listened, and pondered and I see no fault in the Overlord's testing of he--our renegade 1st.~
I am,
Queen Luthien
Baron 9
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:01:56 EDT
::written with a soft hand::
~ I would rather hail an Overlord who looked at his Barons and his Challenges on an individual basis, rather than one who would see all Barons as of one entity. For at times the Baron's are of one accord, and at times they are not. At times they stand on equal ground, and truthfully, at times they do not. As a Baron of 10 months, I have felt the broad spectrum of honor and insult that has touched my rank. I know when I have been insulted, and in
those times I have spoken out against the wrongs as I have felt them personally. In this instance in relevance to Baron Evan, I cannot find an insult here. I have watched, and listened, and pondered and I see no fault in the Overlord's testing of he--our renegade 1st.~
I am,
Queen Luthien
Baron 9
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:45:35 EDT
::slaps up a slopily written letter::
To all who care to hear my opinion. I'l tell you what I'd like to see, I'd like to see Dalamar defend himself. One duel, win or lose, no test, no intercession, no best of three. I am yet to see our Overlord take any challenge head on. I feel the Overlord should not test any baron who issues challenge to him, even if we all think the man a buffon. Speaking about Evan, he *did* defeat Kaprielle to gain his position, and as it was put, that was a
test, if not then, then his first defense where Dalamar did not offer aid. Thus *two* wins to prove his worthiness as a *duelist*. Most are probly now wondering what I am getting at, well, for those of you who disagree with what Dalamar did, do something about ot, or just hush up. Whining and complaining on these boards wastes paper, and nothing gets resolved. I have no intentions of taking any actions against the Overlord, even tho I dissagree with
the test, I am content where I am.
Huma D™
Baron #4
don't accept any immitations, if you don't see the ™, it's not him
Date: 17 Apr 1998 00:45:35 EDT
::slaps up a slopily written letter::
To all who care to hear my opinion. I'l tell you what I'd like to see, I'd like to see Dalamar defend himself. One duel, win or lose, no test, no intercession, no best of three. I am yet to see our Overlord take any challenge head on. I feel the Overlord should not test any baron who issues challenge to him, even if we all think the man a buffon. Speaking about Evan, he *did* defeat Kaprielle to gain his position, and as it was put, that was a
test, if not then, then his first defense where Dalamar did not offer aid. Thus *two* wins to prove his worthiness as a *duelist*. Most are probly now wondering what I am getting at, well, for those of you who disagree with what Dalamar did, do something about ot, or just hush up. Whining and complaining on these boards wastes paper, and nothing gets resolved. I have no intentions of taking any actions against the Overlord, even tho I dissagree with
the test, I am content where I am.
Huma D™
Baron #4
don't accept any immitations, if you don't see the ™, it's not him
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: dueier@aol.com (DueIer)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:17:25 EDT
Baron Dragonbane,
You write thus:
<<Thus *two* wins to prove his worthiness as a *duelist*.>>
Now I have no doubts that Evan has most likely proven himself as a capable dueler, but I have qualms about any dueler that is given a free shot at the Overlord with only two challenge match wins. You may not, and it is your right to have a differing opinion, for that is what politics is about. I personally would base it on the Warlord Tourney. The winner (or runner-up) of that must win 5 or 6 times (or more), with at most one loss in between,
all against Warlords, at least half of those against fairly good Warlords. For all those wins, the dueler is given a shot at the Overlord. Now, for a dueler in my eyes to be ready for a shot at the Overlord is a good 3-4 wins or more in challenge matches with 1 or 0 recent losses, or a long history of doing very well at tourneys. However, it is merely my opinion, and you have no need to agree with it. However, I hope this discussion will help to
convert you.
Thank You,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:17:25 EDT
Baron Dragonbane,
You write thus:
<<Thus *two* wins to prove his worthiness as a *duelist*.>>
Now I have no doubts that Evan has most likely proven himself as a capable dueler, but I have qualms about any dueler that is given a free shot at the Overlord with only two challenge match wins. You may not, and it is your right to have a differing opinion, for that is what politics is about. I personally would base it on the Warlord Tourney. The winner (or runner-up) of that must win 5 or 6 times (or more), with at most one loss in between,
all against Warlords, at least half of those against fairly good Warlords. For all those wins, the dueler is given a shot at the Overlord. Now, for a dueler in my eyes to be ready for a shot at the Overlord is a good 3-4 wins or more in challenge matches with 1 or 0 recent losses, or a long history of doing very well at tourneys. However, it is merely my opinion, and you have no need to agree with it. However, I hope this discussion will help to
convert you.
Thank You,
~The Nameless DueIer~
~5th Baron of DoS~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:39:07 EDT
:;frowns and reposts::
Convert me? No I don't think so. You speak of the tourneys? Your trying to bark up the wrong tree pal, most who have been around including Billy Ray know me full well in both tournaments I have been in. having gone 8-3 in tourney action myself, once scoring what was figured as fourth out of thirty-six. Well, enough self gratification, I do however see your point, altho I do not agree with it. Lets look at the statistics shall we? To even be able to
challenge as you well know, one must defeat 10 peers to challenge a baron. It seems to me that in your mathematical configuring of what you feel a worthy person to be overlord, that you overlooked this number. Not to mention the fact that the Baron in question duels on a regular basis and from what I have seen, has continued to best a great many Warlords. Now, I ask you, just how can you honestly stand behind your numbers on who you feel to be
"worthy"? Shoot, you haven't even had the pleasue to defend that ring on your hand yet, unlike some of us who have defended thrice, or in the case of a good friend of mine who has withstood nine challenges. I do believe you should reconsider your opinion nameless one, for I feel it has poorly been thought out.
Huma
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:39:07 EDT
:;frowns and reposts::
Convert me? No I don't think so. You speak of the tourneys? Your trying to bark up the wrong tree pal, most who have been around including Billy Ray know me full well in both tournaments I have been in. having gone 8-3 in tourney action myself, once scoring what was figured as fourth out of thirty-six. Well, enough self gratification, I do however see your point, altho I do not agree with it. Lets look at the statistics shall we? To even be able to
challenge as you well know, one must defeat 10 peers to challenge a baron. It seems to me that in your mathematical configuring of what you feel a worthy person to be overlord, that you overlooked this number. Not to mention the fact that the Baron in question duels on a regular basis and from what I have seen, has continued to best a great many Warlords. Now, I ask you, just how can you honestly stand behind your numbers on who you feel to be
"worthy"? Shoot, you haven't even had the pleasue to defend that ring on your hand yet, unlike some of us who have defended thrice, or in the case of a good friend of mine who has withstood nine challenges. I do believe you should reconsider your opinion nameless one, for I feel it has poorly been thought out.
Huma
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: stevegx@aol.com (SteveG X)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:50:18 EDT
::smirks, finding his previous post would be much more suited over here, but shrugs and writes some more::
Dueler looks to the Warlord tourney as some kind of benchmark...something which I really can't agree with. First of all, I never attend them due to nearly pernament conflicts on the days they occur. This also means that other skillful are not there. And of the 5-6 wins, how many were really against good, Baron material, Warlords? Maybe 1 or 2, possibly 3, but not 4. There are way too many weak Warlords in the tourneys these days, especially
those that duel almost never except in the tourney.
So how do we equate Warlord tourneys with Baron challenges? We dont. I consider my two wins, one against Dal, the other against Rand (who had one or two defenses) pretty convincing of my ability as a dueler. Now, I won't say that I shouldn't be tested if I were to challenge the Overlord. But it is that a Baron that proved himself against one of the top Barons at the time (in my opinion), then getting a defense, he shouldnt be tested. ::looks at
that last sentence, thinking something's wrong in how its worded, but can't quite figure it out. Shrugs and continues writing:: A best of three would work fine. If Dal really had faith in his skill, he wouldn't use the test. But, as I think someone pointed out, it might have been just as much as an attempt to get Billy Ray Evan's ring than a true test of Evan's worthiness. To me, that's even worse. If you want to test, do it for the right
reason, especially when the test is under scruntiny to begin with.
That's enough rambling out of me for this post...I think I've been writing way to much tonite...
-Steve
Date: 17 Apr 1998 01:50:18 EDT
::smirks, finding his previous post would be much more suited over here, but shrugs and writes some more::
Dueler looks to the Warlord tourney as some kind of benchmark...something which I really can't agree with. First of all, I never attend them due to nearly pernament conflicts on the days they occur. This also means that other skillful are not there. And of the 5-6 wins, how many were really against good, Baron material, Warlords? Maybe 1 or 2, possibly 3, but not 4. There are way too many weak Warlords in the tourneys these days, especially
those that duel almost never except in the tourney.
So how do we equate Warlord tourneys with Baron challenges? We dont. I consider my two wins, one against Dal, the other against Rand (who had one or two defenses) pretty convincing of my ability as a dueler. Now, I won't say that I shouldn't be tested if I were to challenge the Overlord. But it is that a Baron that proved himself against one of the top Barons at the time (in my opinion), then getting a defense, he shouldnt be tested. ::looks at
that last sentence, thinking something's wrong in how its worded, but can't quite figure it out. Shrugs and continues writing:: A best of three would work fine. If Dal really had faith in his skill, he wouldn't use the test. But, as I think someone pointed out, it might have been just as much as an attempt to get Billy Ray Evan's ring than a true test of Evan's worthiness. To me, that's even worse. If you want to test, do it for the right
reason, especially when the test is under scruntiny to begin with.
That's enough rambling out of me for this post...I think I've been writing way to much tonite...
-Steve
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 02:06:17 EDT
::looks at this and frowns softly then posts::
Jaycy and others:
Will ye stop puting damn words in me mouth? Zeesh.......
-Evan
Date: 17 Apr 1998 02:06:17 EDT
::looks at this and frowns softly then posts::
Jaycy and others:
Will ye stop puting damn words in me mouth? Zeesh.......
-Evan
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 02:18:15 EDT
Huma,
Anyone can get lucky and win one duel. It takes skill ta beat someone 2 of 3. Dis is why Dal uses it. He's got more skill dan any challenger ta date and he's proved it by winnin' 2-1 or 2-0.
Ya wanna see him do one match winner ta all, cause ya know its da only way he's gonna lose.
~Jeffrey Oakenshield~
Date: 17 Apr 1998 02:18:15 EDT
Huma,
Anyone can get lucky and win one duel. It takes skill ta beat someone 2 of 3. Dis is why Dal uses it. He's got more skill dan any challenger ta date and he's proved it by winnin' 2-1 or 2-0.
Ya wanna see him do one match winner ta all, cause ya know its da only way he's gonna lose.
~Jeffrey Oakenshield~
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: humadragbn@aol.com (HumaDragbn)
Date: 17 Apr 1998 02:25:12 EDT
Jeff,
bearing no ill will towards you, but i have to say this. Spoken like a true loyalist. I have no desire to argue with you. I have to many other things to do. We all know Dal has not the skill to defend himself one time alone, which you did admit. With that, I drop the matter.
Huma
Date: 17 Apr 1998 02:25:12 EDT
Jeff,
bearing no ill will towards you, but i have to say this. Spoken like a true loyalist. I have no desire to argue with you. I have to many other things to do. We all know Dal has not the skill to defend himself one time alone, which you did admit. With that, I drop the matter.
Huma