On the Truth of Change

[DoS Archive]

From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 14:37:51 EDT

The basis for the paper On the Truth of Honor and On the Truth of Alignment is to present a basis for a proposal to be presented here, you DoS to decide. Too long have cries of over politicking and lack or insult of honor, and a straight guideline and as well as the facts behind the proposal must be laid out clearly before a radical idea can be presented for the public to consider. I therefore lay out x main
points before moving on to my proposal.

1) Honor, like respect, is earned and not won. Just because one has won a title or two, they (the person) are not automatically entitled to be given honor.

2) The Duel of Swords is a political body, like it or not. I contend that as long as Barons have had alignment choice DoS has been a political. There are a few than can remember day before Barons and Alignment that can say if the sport was political then but I know that since such was adopted into the rules the argument that the sport should be skill alone is not only moot, it is futile.

3) Those in a position of power will do all they can to stay in power. This is the Iron Rule of Oligarchy. Since I have admitted that the Duel of Swords is a political body, it must be an oligarchy as the Overlord cannot maintain without the fevered support of his loyal barons. This sets, currently, 10 people to "rule" over 325 others. Of those 325 duelers, only about 80 are in a position to try and be a threat and the percentage of that group
depends on how accurate they have recorded defeating each other. This means 3% of DoS is currently ruling the remaining 97%. It also means that only 23% of the people can make a change in DoS, in this case leaving 77% with little to no say in what occurs at the highest ranks. As there will always be Commoners, Swordsmen, Masters-at-Arms, and Grandmasters, it is discriminatory to give them no official voice as the overlord is not held to being
concerned with these lower ranks.

As such, I believe that these are the main changes needed, from an official standpoint.

First: Official use of the word Honor should be limited. Not all of the duelers in the Duel of Sword are concerned with their honor (by the previously mentioned parameters in On the Truth of Honor) and should not be pressured officially to subscribe to these means. This does not preclude peer pressure by any means but eliminates organized discriminations by those that have code of ethics that clashes with the high price of Honor while not
changing the rules that they must follow to participate in the Duel of Swords.

Second: An official statement, mainly of clarification, relating to the political position in the DoS. One would think that a statement such as "The Overlord is the supreme ruler of DoS" is clearly political, but in light of recent arguments, it is obviously not so clear. A beef up of the language could be in order or even a sub-clause to make this clearer to all parties.

Third: A political body that gives all of the Ranks in DoS a say in the overall function of the Sport. This body should be selected in an appropriate and unbiased manner, and I believe chaired by a senior Renegade baron. It should include a cross section of ranks, and when one rises in Rank, they vacate their seat. This body would exist as a sort of watch dog for the body of DoS as the Baron's council is, as it should be, primarily concerned with
protecting its self. Thus a body, not beholden to the desire to further the cause of Barons and the Overlord alone, would be able to hear concerns and voice them to (a) the public of DoS and (b) the power of DoS in a sanctioned manner.

I wish to close this proposal and leave it to those who will tear it apart and those that will herald it by saying I bear no ill will to Dalamar, Seamus, Adeena, AJ, Huma, The Nameless Dueler, Jeff, Adonai, Sartan, or Luthien nor any of the other past Overlords or Barons. I simply feel that there is a voice that should be heard more clearly than it has been because they are no immediate threat to those in power.

Constant,
~Brian Girvin

[DoS Archive]

From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 16:00:04 EDT



The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity.

[DoS Archive]

From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 17:37:30 EDT

The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity.


Madame Nenshen,

I would thank you not to places words I have not written in defense.

If there are those wish ignore the masses as did King Louis XIV, then they will meet a similar fate. What I proposed was more of a republic than a democracy. The greatest example of a republic?

The Roman Empire.

I challenge you to find a *Less* mediocre nation, madame Nenshen.

Constant,
~Brian Girvin

[DoS Archive]

From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:10:55 EDT

"The tendency of democracies is, in all things, to mediocrity."

Actually, Brian...

Jonalyn is all but quoting me with this comment. This is not happyland where people should be treated equally. You earn influence here by skill with the blade and/or by being so skilled with the tongue and pen that everyone forgets you can't duel worth spit, if you can't.

I would point out that there is obvious problem with any concept wherein the prime position in the community is gained by combat, yet the community itself is supposedly ruled by the people.

I remain,

Iain MacKenzie
Lord Tynsdale
Warlord and Thrice-Baron of the Duel of Swords.

[DoS Archive]

From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 23 Apr 1998 18:57:03 EDT

I would point out that there is obvious problem with any concept wherein the prime position in the community is gained by combat, yet the community itself is supposedly ruled by the people.


Iain,

I have to ask where you saw me advocate that DoS should be ruled by the people?

I said the masses of DoS deserve a voice in the DoS. Power and an official body to here their complaints are two very different things. As it stands now there is no neutral body to hear such as complaints might arise. The Baron's counsel only exists to here those problems as might arise with the Baron's ranks or the Overlord. Their decisions may be vetoed by the Duel of Swords Supervisor.

What body shall hear the cases of those below the rank of Warlord? Or do you propose that such notable duelers as Tasselholf should have no place where as to make an official case.

Point of fact is that such a body would be, by necessity, limited from changing anyone's rank. However, it would allow the Dueling Supervisor to hear such complaints as come to that body.

All I want to see is something more than these boards where a lower ranking dueler can voice concerns. A body that will not dismiss them simply because they have not reached a certain level of Dueling skill/luck.

In stating this desired change, I full well realize that reality and what I desire are two very divergent things. I would think, MacKenzie, from our talks you would realize that I tend to shoot for the unattainable so that I may reach what is best.

Constant,
~Brian Girvin

[DoS Archive]

From: iainmacknz@aol.com (IainMacKnz)
Date: 24 Apr 1998 08:22:04 EDT

"What body shall hear the cases of those below the rank of Warlord? Or do you propose that such notable duelers as Tasselholf should have no place where as to make an official case."

A case as to what, Brian?

If they have a problem with the Overlord's actions - well, obviously someone without title can do something about that without challenging, now can't they?

A problem with the rules? Everyone has a voice in that instance, and equal at that.

A problem with bully Warlords using all their fancies on them? Come on.

I'm simply at a loss as to what it is you're looking for here.

~irm

[DoS Archive]

From: girvin@aol.com (GIRVIN)
Date: 24 Apr 1998 11:31:35 EDT

A problem with bully Warlords using all their fancies on them? Come on.

I'm simply at a loss as to what it is you're looking for here.


Iain,

In truth?

I'll not say here. There is enough arguing in public.

Constant,
~Brian Girvin