From: cletusgandrfald@aol.com (Cletus Gandrfald)
Date: 05 May 2001 00:04:40 EDT
Earlier this morning, Warlord Strallen Corackshnea issued a challenge to the Baron Galin Taelca. Normally, this wouldn't bother me, but being as this is the Warlord's second issue of challenge this cycle, it does.
Stormi has said this second challenge is valid. Someone please tell me when this has been made a legal practice.
Cletus
Something of concern
-
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: hostpcgstormi@aol.com (HOST PCG Stormi)
Date: 05 May 2001 00:35:10 EDT
::As copied from the letter sent to Overlord Ganderfald, Baron Taelca and Warlord Crockshnea, she tacks it to the cork.::
Overlord, Baron and Warlord:
The challenge issued by Strallen to the Baron is in accodance with the rules set forth by DoS. An *Overlord* Challenge is the only challenge that may be issued once per cycle by a qualifying Warlord. Barons must meet challenges on a monthly basis. As per the UTC terms: (bolding by me)
Overlord
1. Challenges to the Overlord are subject to the "Universal Terms of Challenge" (see above) and may only be made once per cycle per qualified dueler where not specifically addressed within these rules.
Loyal Barons
7. Loyals need only defend their title once per calendar month.
Renegade Barons
11. Renegades 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.
And from the Rankings Rules of the sport:
Warlords
Warlords must maintain a Wins over Losses (WoL) record of at least 15. Warlords may challenge the Overlord or a Baron for their seats at any time subject to the "Universal Terms of Challenge."
If you have any other questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
HOST PCG Stormi
DFC/Caller of Swords and Standings Keeper
((AOL Community Leader Volunteer))
::Added for clarification purposes::
Peer Wins
"Peer Wins" are retroactive to the last time you challenged a Baron or the Overlord. Once a challenge is met, either against the Overlord or a Baron, the challenging Warlord's "Peer Wins" are zeroed out up to the date the challenge is issued. Baron's and the Overlord do NOT accumulate "Peer Wins" while holding title and start out with zero when unseated to the Warlord rank.
Baronial Challenges
A Warlord must provide a list of 10 Peer Wins, the dates of those matches, and the caller who officiated to the Standings Keeper when making a Baronial challenge. Upon verification, the challenge will proceed using the date of submission with regard to the "Universal terms of Challenge."
Date: 05 May 2001 00:35:10 EDT
::As copied from the letter sent to Overlord Ganderfald, Baron Taelca and Warlord Crockshnea, she tacks it to the cork.::
Overlord, Baron and Warlord:
The challenge issued by Strallen to the Baron is in accodance with the rules set forth by DoS. An *Overlord* Challenge is the only challenge that may be issued once per cycle by a qualifying Warlord. Barons must meet challenges on a monthly basis. As per the UTC terms: (bolding by me)
Overlord
1. Challenges to the Overlord are subject to the "Universal Terms of Challenge" (see above) and may only be made once per cycle per qualified dueler where not specifically addressed within these rules.
Loyal Barons
7. Loyals need only defend their title once per calendar month.
Renegade Barons
11. Renegades 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.
And from the Rankings Rules of the sport:
Warlords
Warlords must maintain a Wins over Losses (WoL) record of at least 15. Warlords may challenge the Overlord or a Baron for their seats at any time subject to the "Universal Terms of Challenge."
If you have any other questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
HOST PCG Stormi
DFC/Caller of Swords and Standings Keeper
((AOL Community Leader Volunteer))
::Added for clarification purposes::
Peer Wins
"Peer Wins" are retroactive to the last time you challenged a Baron or the Overlord. Once a challenge is met, either against the Overlord or a Baron, the challenging Warlord's "Peer Wins" are zeroed out up to the date the challenge is issued. Baron's and the Overlord do NOT accumulate "Peer Wins" while holding title and start out with zero when unseated to the Warlord rank.
Baronial Challenges
A Warlord must provide a list of 10 Peer Wins, the dates of those matches, and the caller who officiated to the Standings Keeper when making a Baronial challenge. Upon verification, the challenge will proceed using the date of submission with regard to the "Universal terms of Challenge."
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 05 May 2001 01:14:33 EDT
I'm gathering 145 peer wins to challenge all 13 barons and the overlord. Anyone want to help?
I cannot believe the rules were changed under our noses like this, and can't believe the "commission" chooses to insult the intelligence of the Arena and the participants within.
Put the old rules back up. This compilation is sick.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Date: 05 May 2001 01:14:33 EDT
I'm gathering 145 peer wins to challenge all 13 barons and the overlord. Anyone want to help?
I cannot believe the rules were changed under our noses like this, and can't believe the "commission" chooses to insult the intelligence of the Arena and the participants within.
Put the old rules back up. This compilation is sick.
Var Medici-Giovanni
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 05 May 2001 01:51:39 EDT
>Earlier this morning, Warlord Strallen Corackshnea issued a challenge to the
>Baron Galin Taelca. Normally, this wouldn't bother me, but being as this is
>the Warlord's second issue of challenge this cycle, it does.
>
>Stormi has said this second challenge is valid. Someone please tell me when
>this has been made a legal practice.
>
>Cletus
>
>
>
>
I told you all hell would break loose but what is the point of listening to me? ::snickers before writing again:: It IS fully legal in the rules. Just read them right. There is no arguement execpt for those that want to waste their breath.
-Evan Rush Rynth
"That which does not kill me ... missed."
Date: 05 May 2001 01:51:39 EDT
>Earlier this morning, Warlord Strallen Corackshnea issued a challenge to the
>Baron Galin Taelca. Normally, this wouldn't bother me, but being as this is
>the Warlord's second issue of challenge this cycle, it does.
>
>Stormi has said this second challenge is valid. Someone please tell me when
>this has been made a legal practice.
>
>Cletus
>
>
>
>
I told you all hell would break loose but what is the point of listening to me? ::snickers before writing again:: It IS fully legal in the rules. Just read them right. There is no arguement execpt for those that want to waste their breath.
-Evan Rush Rynth
"That which does not kill me ... missed."
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: hostpcgreiver@aol.com (HOST PCG Reiver)
Date: 05 May 2001 02:04:16 EDT
>
> I'm gathering 145 peer wins to challenge all 13 barons and the overlord.
>Anyone want to help?
Ummm, you can't var first of all you are not that good with a blade
Second, you can only use a peer once
Third, all the others save the ten used for the first challenege are voided at the time you issue it
The rules are as they were, Roundtable held years ago and I ask anyone to show me where it was ever actually written a warlord can't challenge twice in a cycle.
Bring me that proof and I will take it to the commission
Nych
Date: 05 May 2001 02:04:16 EDT
>
> I'm gathering 145 peer wins to challenge all 13 barons and the overlord.
>Anyone want to help?
Ummm, you can't var first of all you are not that good with a blade
Second, you can only use a peer once
Third, all the others save the ten used for the first challenege are voided at the time you issue it
The rules are as they were, Roundtable held years ago and I ask anyone to show me where it was ever actually written a warlord can't challenge twice in a cycle.
Bring me that proof and I will take it to the commission
Nych
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: xvevan@aol.com (XvEvan)
Date: 05 May 2001 02:14:19 EDT
>The rules are as they were, Roundtable held years ago and I ask anyone to
>show me where it was ever actually written a warlord can't challenge twice in
>a cycle.
>Bring me that proof and I will take it to the commission
For further reference, you cannot challenge the Overlord once the grace period is up and the prize winner for the shot at the crown has not challenged.
-Evan Rush Rynth
Date: 05 May 2001 02:14:19 EDT
>The rules are as they were, Roundtable held years ago and I ask anyone to
>show me where it was ever actually written a warlord can't challenge twice in
>a cycle.
>Bring me that proof and I will take it to the commission
For further reference, you cannot challenge the Overlord once the grace period is up and the prize winner for the shot at the crown has not challenged.
-Evan Rush Rynth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 05 May 2001 08:37:07 EDT
"Duke Uziel put forth his bid to challenge the elusive Adeena, but having challenged once already that cycle had to withdraw the challenge. "
That is under the history of the sixth ring. If there was not ever a rule for it, there would never have been a need to withdraw. Until I get my hands on the old rules that weren't jarbled up, that's the only proof I've got.
Again, I cannot believe the updated rules have important stipulations omitted, and I hope some of the "old folk" have hold of the old rules to help me here.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
Date: 05 May 2001 08:37:07 EDT
"Duke Uziel put forth his bid to challenge the elusive Adeena, but having challenged once already that cycle had to withdraw the challenge. "
That is under the history of the sixth ring. If there was not ever a rule for it, there would never have been a need to withdraw. Until I get my hands on the old rules that weren't jarbled up, that's the only proof I've got.
Again, I cannot believe the updated rules have important stipulations omitted, and I hope some of the "old folk" have hold of the old rules to help me here.
Var Medici-Giovanni
Proud Father, Proud Husband
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 05 May 2001 14:33:59 EDT
From the older rules before the last rules commission...
Warlords...
* Warlords have 4 fancy maneuvers and may use them without restriction.
* Warlords must maintain a Win over Lose (WoL) record of at least 15.
* Warlords may challenge the Overlord or Barons for there seats at anytime subject to the "Universal Terms of Challenge" but only once per cycle and with the following restrictions:
This is proof that it was indeed in the rules at one point, but has been changed more recently. There was a statement last evening that no such rule existed, so either it was an outright lie, or just a severe oversight.
I *strongly* recommend replacing that rule unless you wish for it to be abused in its absence.
*G*
Date: 05 May 2001 14:33:59 EDT
From the older rules before the last rules commission...
Warlords...
* Warlords have 4 fancy maneuvers and may use them without restriction.
* Warlords must maintain a Win over Lose (WoL) record of at least 15.
* Warlords may challenge the Overlord or Barons for there seats at anytime subject to the "Universal Terms of Challenge" but only once per cycle and with the following restrictions:
This is proof that it was indeed in the rules at one point, but has been changed more recently. There was a statement last evening that no such rule existed, so either it was an outright lie, or just a severe oversight.
I *strongly* recommend replacing that rule unless you wish for it to be abused in its absence.
*G*
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: hostpcgreiver@aol.com (HOST PCG Reiver)
Date: 05 May 2001 17:47:36 EDT
>
>This is proof that it was indeed in the rules at one point, but has been
>changed more recently. There was a statement last evening that no such rule
>existed, so either it was an outright lie, or just a severe oversight.
>
>I *strongly* recommend replacing that rule unless you wish for it to be
>abused in its absence.
>
>*G*
Having obtained the requested copy of the rules prior to the last two revisions, I will be taking this matter under advisement and discussing it with the commission
Nych
Date: 05 May 2001 17:47:36 EDT
>
>This is proof that it was indeed in the rules at one point, but has been
>changed more recently. There was a statement last evening that no such rule
>existed, so either it was an outright lie, or just a severe oversight.
>
>I *strongly* recommend replacing that rule unless you wish for it to be
>abused in its absence.
>
>*G*
Having obtained the requested copy of the rules prior to the last two revisions, I will be taking this matter under advisement and discussing it with the commission
Nych
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jonalyn@aol.com (Jonalyn)
Date: 05 May 2001 19:23:30 EDT
Cletus
Perhaps thee wouldst better be served in asking wherefore hast Stormi the intellect ta e'en be makin' anna such adjudications.
Jonalyn Starfare
Date: 05 May 2001 19:23:30 EDT
Cletus
Perhaps thee wouldst better be served in asking wherefore hast Stormi the intellect ta e'en be makin' anna such adjudications.
Jonalyn Starfare
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: jakvaltrds@aol.com (Jakvaltrds)
Date: 06 May 2001 11:49:52 EDT
>Having obtained the requested copy of the rules prior to the last two
>revisions, I will be taking this matter under advisement and discussing it
>with the commission
>
>Nych
::reading the sassenach's pronouncement, he strokes his beard thoughtfully a moment, then grins:::
Lord Nycholas,
This reminds me of a recent event o'er in New Mountainside.
I was shopping for a new kilt at the local haberdashery, when I spied a tartan o' great value. The price was less by some 80% of that verra same kilt in the emporium near the inn. Taken back by this good price I had tae have it. ( You know how I love a bargain )
I rolled up the great weave and lugged it to the counter and plopped it down with the 20gp. The clerked looked at me as if I were daft. He says tae me "Seamus, is this is a down payment? Shall I add the other 80gp tae yuir bill?"
I says tae the man," Wha' other 80gp? The weave comes from tha' bin there, and the price is fairly marked !"
Together we walked back tae the the bin and there, bold as brass is the price tag. Says clear as day, 20gp. "I can't sell that tae you for 20 gp, "says the clerk,"marked or otherwise.It cost the owner more than that to begin with!"
Well ya know me, I stood my ground and sent him to fetch the owner from his place at the bar. Upon arriving, the old shopkeeper looked at the kilt, he looked at the bin and he looked at the price tag. Then he looked again and told me my kilt was in the wrong spot.
I showed him there were three more of the same grand kilts still sitting under that tag. The first thing he did was remove the tag and place the proper one on the bin.
Then he clotted the clerk with his walking stick and fired him on the spot for the misplaced tag, thirdly, he rang up the sale for the 20gp and I strolled merrily home to Invercauld, feeling a bit richer. After all, twas no my mistake wha' placed the tag on the wrong bin.
:::signs his name, thinking that ought to give them something to ponder::
Seamus
Date: 06 May 2001 11:49:52 EDT
>Having obtained the requested copy of the rules prior to the last two
>revisions, I will be taking this matter under advisement and discussing it
>with the commission
>
>Nych
::reading the sassenach's pronouncement, he strokes his beard thoughtfully a moment, then grins:::
Lord Nycholas,
This reminds me of a recent event o'er in New Mountainside.
I was shopping for a new kilt at the local haberdashery, when I spied a tartan o' great value. The price was less by some 80% of that verra same kilt in the emporium near the inn. Taken back by this good price I had tae have it. ( You know how I love a bargain )
I rolled up the great weave and lugged it to the counter and plopped it down with the 20gp. The clerked looked at me as if I were daft. He says tae me "Seamus, is this is a down payment? Shall I add the other 80gp tae yuir bill?"
I says tae the man," Wha' other 80gp? The weave comes from tha' bin there, and the price is fairly marked !"
Together we walked back tae the the bin and there, bold as brass is the price tag. Says clear as day, 20gp. "I can't sell that tae you for 20 gp, "says the clerk,"marked or otherwise.It cost the owner more than that to begin with!"
Well ya know me, I stood my ground and sent him to fetch the owner from his place at the bar. Upon arriving, the old shopkeeper looked at the kilt, he looked at the bin and he looked at the price tag. Then he looked again and told me my kilt was in the wrong spot.
I showed him there were three more of the same grand kilts still sitting under that tag. The first thing he did was remove the tag and place the proper one on the bin.
Then he clotted the clerk with his walking stick and fired him on the spot for the misplaced tag, thirdly, he rang up the sale for the 20gp and I strolled merrily home to Invercauld, feeling a bit richer. After all, twas no my mistake wha' placed the tag on the wrong bin.
:::signs his name, thinking that ought to give them something to ponder::
Seamus
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: gnrtdrgoon@aol.com (GnrtDrgoon)
Date: 06 May 2001 14:20:56 EDT
Seamus et al..
It is for that similar reason that I do not recommend punishing Strallen in the least for the oversight. I would suggest leaving Strallen with his peer wins, and the right to challenge come next cycle. He should not be punished for the orversight of whomever it was that erred in the re-writings of the challenge rules.
However, Swords is not a business, and if you were attempting to suggest that Strallen be permitted to go along with his challenge, I, personally, would be against that, as it ends up setting more of a precedent. I feel it would make it seem "ok" to exploit the rules whenever possible.
I would like to avoid that at any cost.
Thank you.
*G*
Date: 06 May 2001 14:20:56 EDT
Seamus et al..
It is for that similar reason that I do not recommend punishing Strallen in the least for the oversight. I would suggest leaving Strallen with his peer wins, and the right to challenge come next cycle. He should not be punished for the orversight of whomever it was that erred in the re-writings of the challenge rules.
However, Swords is not a business, and if you were attempting to suggest that Strallen be permitted to go along with his challenge, I, personally, would be against that, as it ends up setting more of a precedent. I feel it would make it seem "ok" to exploit the rules whenever possible.
I would like to avoid that at any cost.
Thank you.
*G*
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: queenluthien@aol.com (Queen Luthien)
Date: 11 May 2001 11:10:35 EDT
Seamus!! I can't believe you were in my neighborhood and didn't even drop in for a drink. Bloody hell...
And give me a ring, would you? I need to talk to you about a horse.
@----`--,---{------Luthien
Date: 11 May 2001 11:10:35 EDT
Seamus!! I can't believe you were in my neighborhood and didn't even drop in for a drink. Bloody hell...
And give me a ring, would you? I need to talk to you about a horse.
@----`--,---{------Luthien