From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 13:34:09 EDT
To Goldendust Evermeadow, Supervisor, Duel of Swords, and other interested parties:
A situation has come to my attention - two, actually - which I believe call for official protest of many, many things. I will be brief.
1) Due to poor rule structure, it appears that there is no legitimate reason, based on the rules as they are presented, why Baron Gaius Marius Colestae cannot press his challenge for the First Ring. Nowhere is it stated that an idividual may only hold one ring, and all the rules relating to issuing challenge relate to what is required to -issue- challenge, with the only restrictions on that challenge -proceeding- being the failure of one party to
respond to the challenge, or the Standings Keeper declining to verify the challenger's rights.
The Baron's challenge was verified. In the absence of any rule to the contrary, I submit that the challenge must proceed.
2) Though at some point, someone decided that Barons and the Overlord counted as "peer wins," the rules clearly state another situation entirely. From the Warlord section of the general rules, on Overlord challenges:
"Any Warlord must defeat 15 different Warlords. These are accumulated "Peer Wins" and do not have to be in succession."
Warlords. "Defeat 15 Warlords." Explicitly.
Again, from the Warlord section of the general rules, on Baronial challenges:
"Any Warlord must defeat 10 different Warlords. These are accumulated "Peer Wins" and do not have to be in succession."
Warlords. "Defeat 10 Warlords." Explicitly.
Clearly... any Warlord who has issued challenge using Barons or the Overlord as "peer wins" may, indeed, have failed to live up to these requirements. These rules are explicitly stated, and, as such, cannot be contravened without making the rules of the sport completely useless. As such, it would seem that all challenges since the time when the Standings Keepers began accepting Barons and Overlords as peer wins must be investigated, and, if
necessary, challenges overturned.
After all... the rules must mean something, else they're a useless scrap of paper.
Respectfully,
Ian Rex.
Official Protest
-
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: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 15:35:52 EDT
Ian,
While I agree that something must be done regarding Marius and Zafiroo, nobody should be allowed to hold two rings. Granted, it doesn't say that someone "can't" wear two rings, but it doesn't say they can, either. When this is the case, it's up to the supervisors; if they even allow someone to wear two rings (at least allow Marius to press challenge), then I will have very little faith with any judgement here.
The point is, Zaf broke a rule, and if this were brought up to our attention sooner, we would have had another ring up at the tourney. To allow Marius to earn the ring when he already has one, in my opinion, is a joke.
If Marius had acquired the ring before the week following the validation, then there would be no problem with Zaf. However, Marius has a ring already, his challenge is void; Zaf, on the other hand, should still face consequences.
For the barons and overlord, you can look them up in the warlord's standings and any wins against them are added to the warlord's wins against peers. From how they were listed in the warlord's area, I assumed that barons and the overlord were peers. In my challenge to Morn, 4 of my 11 peers were ranked baron at the time, including Khrysta. It's ironic that when she gained temporary holding of the twelfth, it was stated in a post that she
counted as a peer win. If I misread it, then that's my own blunder, but I can clearly remember that even though she was temporary baron, it was posted such. I guess it's my fault for dueling higher ranked peers instead of warlords.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't use barons as peers. All I can say is I assumed the wins would be valid, else I would have fought more warlords to make sure the wins were valid. My other challenges were allowed using barons as well, I believe. Right or wrong in the rules, I was left with the impression that barons and the overlord were peers.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 15 Sep 1999 15:35:52 EDT
Ian,
While I agree that something must be done regarding Marius and Zafiroo, nobody should be allowed to hold two rings. Granted, it doesn't say that someone "can't" wear two rings, but it doesn't say they can, either. When this is the case, it's up to the supervisors; if they even allow someone to wear two rings (at least allow Marius to press challenge), then I will have very little faith with any judgement here.
The point is, Zaf broke a rule, and if this were brought up to our attention sooner, we would have had another ring up at the tourney. To allow Marius to earn the ring when he already has one, in my opinion, is a joke.
If Marius had acquired the ring before the week following the validation, then there would be no problem with Zaf. However, Marius has a ring already, his challenge is void; Zaf, on the other hand, should still face consequences.
For the barons and overlord, you can look them up in the warlord's standings and any wins against them are added to the warlord's wins against peers. From how they were listed in the warlord's area, I assumed that barons and the overlord were peers. In my challenge to Morn, 4 of my 11 peers were ranked baron at the time, including Khrysta. It's ironic that when she gained temporary holding of the twelfth, it was stated in a post that she
counted as a peer win. If I misread it, then that's my own blunder, but I can clearly remember that even though she was temporary baron, it was posted such. I guess it's my fault for dueling higher ranked peers instead of warlords.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't use barons as peers. All I can say is I assumed the wins would be valid, else I would have fought more warlords to make sure the wins were valid. My other challenges were allowed using barons as well, I believe. Right or wrong in the rules, I was left with the impression that barons and the overlord were peers.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:05:28 EDT
Var:
According to the rules, there is NOTHING which says a challenge is void if someone somehow acquires a ring in the interim. NOTHING.
It DOES say when a challenge IS void, and this is not one of those instances. Therefore, it only stands to reason we must follow the rules as they stand.
This community's penchant for screaming "that's not fair, punish the fool who followed the rules" is growing tiresome. If we, the community, do not like the rules... then we, the community, must push to change those rules. But you cannot pass a law making something illegal and then arrest someone for having done it three years earlier; likewise, you cannot punish people for breaking rules which have not been made yet.
As to the Barons and Overlord... whether they are peers, according to the rules, is irrelevant. Nowhere in the rules are Barons and the Overlord referred to AS Warlords; therefore, when the rule says "beat Warlords," they aren't included. Cut and dried.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:05:28 EDT
Var:
According to the rules, there is NOTHING which says a challenge is void if someone somehow acquires a ring in the interim. NOTHING.
It DOES say when a challenge IS void, and this is not one of those instances. Therefore, it only stands to reason we must follow the rules as they stand.
This community's penchant for screaming "that's not fair, punish the fool who followed the rules" is growing tiresome. If we, the community, do not like the rules... then we, the community, must push to change those rules. But you cannot pass a law making something illegal and then arrest someone for having done it three years earlier; likewise, you cannot punish people for breaking rules which have not been made yet.
As to the Barons and Overlord... whether they are peers, according to the rules, is irrelevant. Nowhere in the rules are Barons and the Overlord referred to AS Warlords; therefore, when the rule says "beat Warlords," they aren't included. Cut and dried.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xxzenrisingxx@aol.com (Xx Zen Rising xX)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:14:04 EDT
"As to the Barons and Overlord... whether they are peers, according to the rules, is irrelevant. Nowhere in the rules are Barons and the Overlord referred to AS Warlords; therefore, when the rule says "beat Warlords," they aren't included. Cut and dried."
This is odd, because I do seem to remember a statement coming from the officials some time ago (possibly even a couple of years ago) that Barons and the Overlord were now eligible for use as peer wins. Why it wasn't added to the rules, I don't know. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:14:04 EDT
"As to the Barons and Overlord... whether they are peers, according to the rules, is irrelevant. Nowhere in the rules are Barons and the Overlord referred to AS Warlords; therefore, when the rule says "beat Warlords," they aren't included. Cut and dried."
This is odd, because I do seem to remember a statement coming from the officials some time ago (possibly even a couple of years ago) that Barons and the Overlord were now eligible for use as peer wins. Why it wasn't added to the rules, I don't know. Or maybe I'm just imagining things.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:15:25 EDT
>According to the rules, there is NOTHING which says a challenge is void if
>someone somehow acquires a ring in the interim. NOTHING.
>
>It DOES say when a challenge IS void, and this is not one of those instances.
>Therefore, it only stands to reason we must follow the rules as they stand.
I think I agree. Let Marius duel Zafiroo for the 1st. There is nothing in the rules that says his challenge is void because he won a ring in the Tourney. The challenge should be fought! It is extremely important that it be fought, in fact.
Unless Marius chooses to withdraw his challenge, there is nothing to stop him from fighting his match with Zafiroo. Nor should anything do so.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:15:25 EDT
>According to the rules, there is NOTHING which says a challenge is void if
>someone somehow acquires a ring in the interim. NOTHING.
>
>It DOES say when a challenge IS void, and this is not one of those instances.
>Therefore, it only stands to reason we must follow the rules as they stand.
I think I agree. Let Marius duel Zafiroo for the 1st. There is nothing in the rules that says his challenge is void because he won a ring in the Tourney. The challenge should be fought! It is extremely important that it be fought, in fact.
Unless Marius chooses to withdraw his challenge, there is nothing to stop him from fighting his match with Zafiroo. Nor should anything do so.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:21:37 EDT
"This community's penchant for screaming "that's not fair, punish the fool who followed the rules" is growing tiresome."
I would be honored to wear the ring AJ wore. If the one ring at a time isn't enough for Marius, or anyone else, then maybe they're not cut out to be a baron after all.
How would the council be convened? They get two votes?
But if Marius can push his challenge to Zaf, then maybe they should just switch rings. Or can barons who challenge the overlord hold both the mantle and the ring? Since when can one baron unseat another in an issuance of challenge?
No, Marius didn't issue challenge after he received the ring, but as soon as he obtained the ring, he obtained the title of baron. If barons can now challenge barons, then I have missed something very big.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:21:37 EDT
"This community's penchant for screaming "that's not fair, punish the fool who followed the rules" is growing tiresome."
I would be honored to wear the ring AJ wore. If the one ring at a time isn't enough for Marius, or anyone else, then maybe they're not cut out to be a baron after all.
How would the council be convened? They get two votes?
But if Marius can push his challenge to Zaf, then maybe they should just switch rings. Or can barons who challenge the overlord hold both the mantle and the ring? Since when can one baron unseat another in an issuance of challenge?
No, Marius didn't issue challenge after he received the ring, but as soon as he obtained the ring, he obtained the title of baron. If barons can now challenge barons, then I have missed something very big.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:28:30 EDT
"I think I agree. Let Marius duel Zafiroo for the 1st. There is nothing in the rules that says his challenge is void because he won a ring in the Tourney. The challenge should be fought! It is extremely important that it be fought, in fact."
So now barons can challenge other barons for a title? We can now hold two rings because we might end up being power mongers who just want to control the council?
Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic in allowing one baron to challenge another? Did something happen in the past twelve hours?
Utterly confused,
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:28:30 EDT
"I think I agree. Let Marius duel Zafiroo for the 1st. There is nothing in the rules that says his challenge is void because he won a ring in the Tourney. The challenge should be fought! It is extremely important that it be fought, in fact."
So now barons can challenge other barons for a title? We can now hold two rings because we might end up being power mongers who just want to control the council?
Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic in allowing one baron to challenge another? Did something happen in the past twelve hours?
Utterly confused,
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Phantom Scots Captain
Baron of the Tenth
Sorcerer of DoM
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:35:12 EDT
"I would be honored to wear the ring AJ wore. If the one ring at a time isn't enough for Marius, or anyone else, then maybe they're not cut out to be a baron after all."
I don't believe that's the point, Var, and making personal attacks on Marius is unfair when he hasn't done a single thing to warrant it. As far as I've seen, Marius has not *once* said "I deserve both rings".
Anyway, the point is that the rules are *sorely* in need of revamping because of all the vague terms in it. The rules *must* be made clear or arguments like these will always come up.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:35:12 EDT
"I would be honored to wear the ring AJ wore. If the one ring at a time isn't enough for Marius, or anyone else, then maybe they're not cut out to be a baron after all."
I don't believe that's the point, Var, and making personal attacks on Marius is unfair when he hasn't done a single thing to warrant it. As far as I've seen, Marius has not *once* said "I deserve both rings".
Anyway, the point is that the rules are *sorely* in need of revamping because of all the vague terms in it. The rules *must* be made clear or arguments like these will always come up.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:37:57 EDT
> The point is, Zaf broke a rule, and if this were brought up to our attention
>sooner, we would have had another ring up at the tourney.
Did I miss something? What rule did Zafiroo break?
Cletus
Loyal Baron of the 13th
Captain of 'The Unemployed'
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:37:57 EDT
> The point is, Zaf broke a rule, and if this were brought up to our attention
>sooner, we would have had another ring up at the tourney.
Did I miss something? What rule did Zafiroo break?
Cletus
Loyal Baron of the 13th
Captain of 'The Unemployed'
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:38:21 EDT
>Anyway, the point is that the rules are *sorely* in need of revamping because
>of all the vague terms in it. The rules *must* be made clear or arguments
>like these will always come up.
I am very proud of Sid for actually seeing the point of the argument.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:38:21 EDT
>Anyway, the point is that the rules are *sorely* in need of revamping because
>of all the vague terms in it. The rules *must* be made clear or arguments
>like these will always come up.
I am very proud of Sid for actually seeing the point of the argument.
Duc Percival Marchand de Clermont
Captain, Rising Stars
The White Duke
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:43:51 EDT
Var:
A Baron did not challenge a Baron. A Warlord challenged a Baron; that he happens to have become a Baron by other means in the interim is rather irrelevant in the scope of the rules.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:43:51 EDT
Var:
A Baron did not challenge a Baron. A Warlord challenged a Baron; that he happens to have become a Baron by other means in the interim is rather irrelevant in the scope of the rules.
Regards,
Ian Rex.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:45:46 EDT
"I am very proud of Sid for actually seeing the point of the argument."
::chuckles and writes::
Personally, I don't see how someone could *not* see the point.
~Sid
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:45:46 EDT
"I am very proud of Sid for actually seeing the point of the argument."
::chuckles and writes::
Personally, I don't see how someone could *not* see the point.
~Sid
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: ianmackenzie@aol.com (Ian MacKenzie)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:46:28 EDT
Percival comments, "I am very proud of Sid for actually seeing the point of the argument."
Well... she has an advantage, you know.
~irm
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:46:28 EDT
Percival comments, "I am very proud of Sid for actually seeing the point of the argument."
Well... she has an advantage, you know.
~irm
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthax@aol.com (Sidartha x)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:47:06 EDT
"Did I miss something? What rule did Zafiroo break?"
I may be wrong, but Zaf broke a rule by not responding to Marius' challenge.
~Sidartha Elgarette
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:47:06 EDT
"Did I miss something? What rule did Zafiroo break?"
I may be wrong, but Zaf broke a rule by not responding to Marius' challenge.
~Sidartha Elgarette
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:48:37 EDT
>Personally, I don't see how someone could *not* see the point.
>
I don't know, Sid. Ask Var.
Percy
Date: 15 Sep 1999 16:48:37 EDT
>Personally, I don't see how someone could *not* see the point.
>
I don't know, Sid. Ask Var.
Percy