Needs a champion

Forum for the discussion of proposals people would like to make.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lord Dubh
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 718
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Tarimstadt

Needs a champion

Post by Lord Dubh » 2013-11-12

The Board failed to tell me this did not pass in time for me to attend the last Senate meeting it was discussed, and since then I have all but quit Darkon. I still feel it is my duty to fulfill my promise to fix the problems found in the Crown War rules when we ran the Crown War last year.

The link to the proposal is here - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=771

I do not know why it did not pass Board, as I stated, I was not informed.

Will anyone champion it now? The Crown War is a good thing, it is fun and everyone gets to play. No reason the Board should be able to defeat such a measure as they did.

John
Sir Bendore Dubh of Dai-Dagan, CR, KR, OG, OR, CB, CC
Master Thief of Darkon


____

http://www.facebook.com/SirBendoreDubh/

User avatar
Lord Cailen Sendor
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Tarimsdadt conducting interviews for new members of the Royal Court
Contact:

Re: Needs a champion

Post by Lord Cailen Sendor » 2013-11-12

The board did not defeat it - the senate and the board did as there were several issues both bodies had issues with. I assumed you were informed but if you were not here is the break down.

1) It removed the NC direct ability to promote a title increase for a prince to fight in the ring against the sitting king and would allow a sitting king to say no pushing a prince that had NC approval to have to raise a army and call a crown war.

2) The senate and board did not wish crown wars to happen every 3 months both bodies wanted the crown war to be more special and have a 6 month between challenges time frame.

3) The senate and the board did not want to remove the ability after the official challenger won on the field in the first fight to be able to challenge at that time for a ring fight. The proposal stated once the official challenger is identified it would move to a siege event directly in the wording.

Those were the reason both bodies decided to not have it pass as written. I agree the crown war was and is awesome and I believe in everyone getting to play (hell I was the 1st person to call one) but I think both bodies would like to see those points addressed before resubmitting to senate for a vote. I am sorry that you did not see the official messages on this board stating that your proposal was not one of the proposals that passed and would become a rule change. The dates of those meetings were posted well in advance of the actual time they occurred. I agree 100% that the issues we encountered need to be addressed and I hope that you will be willing to be a part of the discussion on fixing it brother!

Patrick
++ Respect those above your station and train others under you to surpass your achievements - while you treat others with the respect you expect to receive in return! ++

User avatar
Lord Dubh
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 718
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Tarimstadt

Re: Needs a champion

Post by Lord Dubh » 2013-11-13

Lord Cailen Sendor wrote:The board did not defeat it - the senate and the board did as there were several issues both bodies had issues with. I assumed you were informed but if you were not here is the break down.

1) It removed the NC direct ability to promote a title increase for a prince to fight in the ring against the sitting king and would allow a sitting king to say no pushing a prince that had NC approval to have to raise a army and call a crown war.

2) The senate and board did not wish crown wars to happen every 3 months both bodies wanted the crown war to be more special and have a 6 month between challenges time frame.

3) The senate and the board did not want to remove the ability after the official challenger won on the field in the first fight to be able to challenge at that time for a ring fight. The proposal stated once the official challenger is identified it would move to a siege event directly in the wording.

Those were the reason both bodies decided to not have it pass as written. I agree the crown war was and is awesome and I believe in everyone getting to play (hell I was the 1st person to call one) but I think both bodies would like to see those points addressed before resubmitting to senate for a vote. I am sorry that you did not see the official messages on this board stating that your proposal was not one of the proposals that passed and would become a rule change. The dates of those meetings were posted well in advance of the actual time they occurred. I agree 100% that the issues we encountered need to be addressed and I hope that you will be willing to be a part of the discussion on fixing it brother!

Patrick


Pat,

The reality is you have been misinterpreting these rules to your favor all year. You also failed to inform me that the proposal did not pass the Board, thus I was not present to re-present to the Senate. This is all on you.

Numbers 2) and 3) are legit and I have no issues and would have easily modified the proposal had I been informed, which again I was not because you chose not to inform me.

Number 1) Is total * since the NC never had the right. More than that, the NC chose to NOT have the right when they changed and voted on the proposal when it was originally written before even going to the Senate. This one falls directly on your need to have the Princes be special snowflakes with their own privileges above and beyond what other Knights have.

Have a good rest of the year.
Sir Bendore Dubh of Dai-Dagan, CR, KR, OG, OR, CB, CC
Master Thief of Darkon


____

http://www.facebook.com/SirBendoreDubh/

User avatar
Lord Cailen Sendor
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Tarimsdadt conducting interviews for new members of the Royal Court
Contact:

Re: Needs a champion

Post by Lord Cailen Sendor » 2013-11-14

I intend to have or at least try to have a good year and hope you do the same.

John the things that passed eb approval were clearly posted and by posting them by default things that did not pass where again made public as they were not included in the list of passing proposals. I have not tried to hide anything from you and the idea you think I did disturbs me.

"Number 1) Is total * since the NC never had the right. More than that, the NC chose to NOT have the right when they changed and voted on the proposal when it was originally written before even going to the Senate. This one falls directly on your need to have the Princes be special snowflakes with their own privileges above and beyond what other Knights have."

The way title increases have always been in the past has been for a prince to request the right to fight in the ring against the sitting king if there was one. And in every case to date when the NC has approved that ring fight the sitting king can not refuse that challenge and must step in the ring at first opportunity normally at the next tourney. When you brought this before the NC to my knowledge they requested to keep this right of accession and that is why in the rules we currently have the wording we do in the section on title increases which I know you wish to separate from the ability to become king threw that route. Regardless of your and my individual beliefs on what is right the wording is there and the rules have not been changed.

That being said you are taking personal offence for how I have "ruled" on this issue when in reality I have made no ruling that has actually changed anything to date. I interpreted it incorrectly at the beginning of the year and it was pointed out to me so I adjusted my ruling to reflect that mistake. To be clear you are accusing me of making a ruling that favors me when in reality nothing to date has needed a actual ruling cause the whole time has been during the 1st year period. So you know, when it was brought to the eb I did not vote on it in the positive or the negative because to me that would have been a conflict of interests. Tim also did not vote on it as it affected him.... The other 3 members of the board said no for the reasons I stated above and they were the ones to point out why they said no... then it was brought to senate and again the only thing I did there was to actually bring it before senate (when I did not have to) I stated why the bd said no and let senate open discussions on it which they did and in the end for the reasons I clearly stated they said no to your proposal - I had no vote in this and the vote was nearly unanimous, discussed and decided by senate itself. Even now you have asked for a champion to bring this as written again before senate and not one person has said they will cosign or present.

You are correct in that the issues need to be worked out - the rules need better writing - and some issues need addressing. The NC is aware of this and has currently set up a group of three individuals to address the situation and to write a review on the subject and reword the section based on the full NC participation in deciding the new wording. When it is complete it will be brought before senate again for senates review and if senate likes what they see they will approve the changes then it will have to go again before the bd for its approval which will probably occur 1st part of next year. To make you feel any better at that time I will not be running senate or involved in the bd at all.

In all cases I have done what the position I was voted to serve required of me and when it directly involved me I removed myself from voting on it as again it was a conflict of interests. I think you do not fully understand these things and your anger with me is not justified... but I will respect your choice to blame this on me if you so choose even if that choice is unfounded and undeserved.

The person you are accusing me of being is so outside of how I am that there has to be some sort of misunderstanding here. When Tim challenged even though I had the right under the crown war rules to decline I chose to accept and do so willingly and without hesitation. I do not hide behind rules but I do try my best to understand the rules as they are written and regardless if they affect me positively or negatively I am honor bound to follow them to the best of my ability. I am sometimes wrong I am sometimes right but I always try to do the right thing regardless of its personal impact on me.

I look forward to seeing you once again field brother you are missed and your absence in my eyes lessens our club and its people.

In service,
Cailen
++ Respect those above your station and train others under you to surpass your achievements - while you treat others with the respect you expect to receive in return! ++

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests