Invitational?

[Rand alTan]

Unless I'm missing something there's still no date tagged to the event, which would indicate no one has actually set the time aside or would be terribly inconvenienced by having their invitation withdrawn.

Ah, you are correct. I made an assumption that it was more solid than displayed. A moot point now, of course.

[Jaycy Ashleana]

I play the martyr card because it was given to me. We all can't be a part of the coven can we?

Yes, yes we can.

Definition of COVEN
1
: a collection of individuals with similar interests or activities <a coven of intellectuals>
2
: an assembly or band of usually 13 witches


(ETA source for definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coven)

[MurOllavan]

I also offer a fool's advice. Stop now, that particular circle will take turns twisting every word you say until even you aren't sure what you said. They will do their best to make you look the bad guy because you dared to 'Challenge the actions of one of their own'.

As she was quoting me, this was pretty funny.

[Xavior Mues]

I play the martyr card because it was given to me. We all can't be a part of the coven can we?

Yes, yes we can.

Definition of COVEN
1
: a collection of individuals with similar interests or activities <a coven of intellectuals>
2
: an assembly or band of usually 13 witches


(ETA source for definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coven)

Remember what I said about this circle twisting people's words? LET THE TWISTING BEGIN!

[Wyheree]

Xeric, do you have anything constructive to add to the topic at hand? If not, then please cease derailing the thread - it's difficult enough to follow without hidden meanings and innuendos.

As to the topic at hand, if it comes to a baronial vote that's a private ballot, I would not object to it. I do, however, object to any sort of public ballot, as those have proven to cause more hurt feelings than any sort of invitational ever could. Any voting, if used, should be done with a PM, not a public thread.

[PrlUnicorn]

Xeric, these long discussions can be hard enough to follow without having to backtrack to see who was quoting who. Please note who you quote.

I don't think G acted improperly when making this decision. There is nothing in the rules that states how long after a ring is retired, vacated, etc. that a tournament may be held to determine the new Baron nor what type of tournament must be held. Traditionally, rings are offered at a WLT, but there is nothing that says they must be. There are specific rules covering the retirement of an Overlord, but not a Baron unless s/he was under challenge and retired before it was completed.

However, this was never removed from the rules and has been there for ages:

Saving Clause

Any dispute that is not clearly covered under the preceeding rules shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Duel of Swords Supervisor. This Judgment shall be considered final and may only be overturned by the Dueling Coordinator.

There is no Dueling Coordinator as noted there anymore, but the point stands. G, or anyone else in the driver's seat has the right to make the choice as per the rules. It might be a good idea update that clause to reflect the present staff structure.

I have a fairly new Warlord character. The slap in face to me is not the list of people that G chose because most of them I have seen on the recent standings updates. The slap in the face was looking forward to the possibilities of a challenge match then the SoA was put in place without the proposed clause of new warlords getting one freebie unless I missed that in the rules. However, that's another subject entirely.

[Kalamere]

There is no Dueling Coordinator as noted there anymore, but the point stands. G, or anyone else in the driver's seat has the right to make the choice as per the rules. It might be a good idea update that clause to reflect the present staff structure.

Of course they do. I mean, who else is going to?

The fact that the power is obviously his doesn't remove our right to point out he chose poorly.

[Harris]

There is no Dueling Coordinator as noted there anymore, but the point stands. G, or anyone else in the driver's seat has the right to make the choice as per the rules. It might be a good idea update that clause to reflect the present staff structure.

Of course they do. I mean, who else is going to?

The fact that the power is obviously his doesn't remove our right to point out he chose poorly.

No, it simply clarifies the fact that as coordinator he doesn't have to ask "Mother May I?" when it comes to *every* decision like other people have suggested in this thread.

[Amaltea]

Any dispute that is not clearly covered under the preceeding rules shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Duel of Swords Supervisor. This Judgment shall be considered final and may only be overturned by the Dueling Coordinator.

G -- and all Coordinators and other admin staff -- report to me, the Forum Supervisor. That part of the rules is out of date, thank you for bringing it up.

[Kattria Minx]

I'm sorry, Katt, but I never said I preferred tournament dueling to regular dueling. I prefer regular dueling, in fact. What I said in this case was: "I entered a tournament on Sunday. I had fun. I would like to do it again."

Secondly, to be perfectly clear I don't say that I want to win a Barony via the "established WLT avenue." While I'm sure you meant it to say that just you wanted that, I want to make sure that everyone else knows I in no way said it.

Fine. I inferred too much from an earlier statement you made, likely over at ME, about not wanting to duel lately, and I misunderstood that.

As to your second point, you did say that you don't want to challenge, in general, and specifically, you like who is currently a baron. You also said you do use the tools available. I mistakenly assumed you meant the conventional tools, one of which traditionally means a warlord tourney.

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems, Katt, that you're the only person upset that there's a tournament to fill the vacancy outside of the WLT. Everyone else seems just concerned about the format of participant selection. Not only that, but there is precedent for special tournaments to find barony holders. It goes to show that there's no discrepancy between his actions and the rules but that your choice of interpretation is what causes your confusion.

I'm not so much all about the WLT, except that's the only one I know of that allows for all warlords--even those retired--to take part in. I don't remember the Dockside 06 incident; I may not have been very active during that time, but I don't remember. My fault for not being clear: what I think is fair is for all warlords to have an opportunity to vie for the vacated barony. That is the prevailing tradition I care about. Like I said, WLT is what I'm accustomed to. But after reading how it was handled in 2006, I thought that was good too. I'm sure there's other ways to handle it that lets all warlords who are interested take part.

I post only to clarify. And to acknowledge that I misrepresented what Jaycy said. For that I am sorry. Any argument I have is moot as G has made his final decision.


And Xavior, despite my objections and disagreements with a few people on this thread, there is not one of them I would not love to meet face to face and enjoy a fun geeky get together. And in fact, most of them I HAVE met and genuinely like and would love to hang out with them again. That INCLUDES G. He may not reciprocate, but that's my problem, not yours.

[Jake]

For the record, I am content with G's decision.

It isn't a perfect resolution. But a perfect resolution (one that would make everyone happy) in this instance probably wasn't possible.

I would like to commend G on his receptivity to argument. It's never easy to be put into the spotlight and still remain open to critique.