Prez ruling please!

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Lord Malkin Campbell	Prez ruling please!	Lead	[-]
Posts: 2349 (Thu, May 18, 2006 10:42 AM) Prince of Darkon Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None OK ever since Ive been in the game, Nobles and noble surcoats have always counted toward country membership. Lately, someone has decided that they no longer count towards membership. What I mean is that noble surcoats are not counted toward country status, when they ALWAYS have in the past. This means that if only Keldar, Croaker, Slindar, and I show up to a battle, Mordom doesn't exsist as a country, because 3 of us don't count as surcoated members for Mordom. This means that Shafor does not count as a member of bloody axe and the King does not count as a member of Valdimar. This is obviously wrong and needs to be cleared up. Thanks, Malkin
anoc	Re: Prez ruling please!	#1	[-]
Posts: 616 (Thu, May 18, 2006 11:32 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Doesnt seem to be anything wrong with it to me. It seems the last Rulebook Commitee left it out of the rulebook, making the rule no longer exist since it was voted in as-is. There is a Senate meeting at the next event, I'd suggest writing it up to have it voted on to be readded. Shouldnt have much opposition since it was a long standing rule until taken out. And if you put it in at this Senate meeting chances are the EB will vote on it before the July 1 deadline for new rules incorporation into play. _________________________________ There are only 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that dont.
Sir Shafor	Re: Prez ruling please!	#2	[-]
Posts: 712 (Thu, May 18, 2006 11:07 PM) Darkonian Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hmm, this does seem to have been left out of the rulebook. If someone can point out the rule about Nobles being allowed to wear a personal surcoat, can you please post it here? Clearly, this needs to be put back in. And it would be my ruling that Nobles will still count toward their own countries' quarom, since it is clear that the personal symbol is intended to be worn in lieu of the country symbol. I'll be addressing Senate at the next battle on several issues and will add this to my agenda. Until then, I will instruct the Marshals to allow a Noble's personal surcoat to be counted toward his country total for the day. Thanks, Shafor Oh, and BTW, even though I do wear a dark blue tabbard with a white knotwork dragon as my Noble symbol, I also wear a BAMC belt sash
Tsukebe	Re: Prez ruling please!	#3	[-]
Posts: 1887 (Fri, May 19, 2006 12:15 PM) Pervert Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I thought you HAD to wear both...? But then again it still doesn't mention noble surcoats... Rulebook *Quote:* All members of a Country must wear a surcoat or they may be forced to fight as nomads. A surcoat can be a tabard that is worn from the neck and covers the torso, a small banner worn at the waist, or a shoulder to waist sash. Surcoats may not be stolen. Each Country must have its own symbol that is easily distinguished from any existing Country's symbol. Country members must bear their Country's symbol on their surcoats and/or shields. Also note that any character achieving 15th rank or higher may choose and wear a personal symbol from his belt. Personal symbols may not be larger than Country symbols and a player wearing a personal symbol must also wear his Country symbol.
anoc	Re: Prez ruling please!	#4	[-]
Posts: 616 (Fri, May 19, 2006 1:55 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The rule was an old one. It was removed during the last rulebook update commitee a few years ago. The Senate and EB voted the rulebook into being. And as such all rules left out were no longer valid. I disagree with Shafor as this is no longer a clarification, but a "New" rule to be added to the rulebook. _________________________________ There are only 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that dont.
HighHoIlya	Re: Prez ruling please!	#5	[-]
Posts: 143 (Fri, May 19, 2006 10:07 PM) Darkonian Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I don't see anywhere in the current online rules that Nobles are allowed a special personal symbol. There is the clause quoted earlier in this thread that any character of rank 15 or higher may wear a personal symbol on their belt in addition to their country surcoat, but that is all I could find, and its pretty specific. I have to agree with anoc that a proposal should be submited to Senate ASAP to re-establish the lost rules on Noble symbols. In the meantime, there simply appears to be no rule at all on this topic, so I don't see how this could be classified as a clarification. thanks, Leah
Socrates	Re: Prez ruling please!	#6	[-]
Posts: 5 (Sat, May 20, 2006 2:41 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Each Country must have its own symbol that is easily distinguished from any existing Country's symbol. Country members must bear their Country's symbol on their surcoats and/or shields. Are your noble surcoats a griffon? Because, it sounds like the ones that are are still 'country symbols'. If you were Elidorian, your stag might be rampant or laying down in the grass, facing either direction, eggshell white, chlorox white, antlers, no antlers, any size you like (large enough to see), or have three eyes and ten legs. As long as it's recognizable as a white stag, it's a country surcoat. There is no rule that says your surcoat has to be indistinguishable from its comrades. Few are. I guess it takes a reasonable amount of interpretation by the marshals, but a griffon is a griffon. The letter of the rule clearly dictates that even a reddish blob on a faded black square, if easily distinguishable as a Mordomian surcoat, would count.
shapwin669	hmm	#7	[-]
Posts: 306 (Sat, May 20, 2006 8:22 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	This has been a problem ever since the new rule book was made. there is this Idea that if its not in the book then its not a rule. what about tradition folks? many rules that have been in the game for years have been over looked. just because somthings not in the rule book dos'nt mean its not a rule.
anoc	Re: hmm	#8	[-]
Posts: 616 (Sat, May 20, 2006 9:26 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You'd be wrong. That is exactly what it means. If it isnt in the rulebook, it is NOT a rule. _________________________________ There are only 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that dont.
Psychopompos	Re: hmm	#9	[-]
Posts: 2841 (Sun, May 21, 2006 12:33 AM) Darkon President Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The single most important thing is to have Darkon be enjoyable for its participants. An uncompromising adherence to "it's not in there, it's not a rule" is not in the best interest of the game. However, if we're going to slip into rules lawyer mode, please note that the bylaws state, regarding the responsibilities of the President: 4. Final interpretation of game rules; Nowhere does it say that the President is limited to only interpreting only the printed version of the rulebook. The rulebook doesn't have something similar to an "entire agreement" clause, stating that it captures all of the rules of the game of Darkon. Note also that the previous Magistrate who worked on the rulebook revision was the original poster on this thread. He was unaware that the noble surcoat mention was omitted somehow. The existence of many noble surcoats, which continue to be worn, is evidence that an understanding has existed regarding them, and really, this has been a rule since the game started. The President gets to decide whether or not it's currently in force. If you don't like that, take it to Senate and get the bylaws written with more specificity. In the meanwhile, let's get back to making sure the game stays fun, and stop playing petty administrators with the minutiae. --Inox The Ebon Monk, Lord Inox Elsonge Thensiur, Force Commander of Elidor, Knight Bannerette - Member of the Warriors' Guild - email: inox@inox.org
The Buddah	Re: hmm	#10	[-]
Posts: 243 (Sun, May 21, 2006 11:48 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Go Inox, you hit the nail on the head. And just to let you all know just how rules can morph over time. The personal sash was not a sash at all it was a personal BANNER as far as I remember thats what Tarim and I fought over for years. When did it become a sash? As far as I knew only Nobles were aloud to where personal symbols. And were did the line about the rules being guide lines go, and why? What's all this and where did you hide my game..... ;-) The more rule Nazis you have the less fun the game will become. Just my 2 copper. Maybe I'm missing something. Buddah
Jayson Semonik	ORCS Rulebook	#11	[-]
Posts: 171 (Sun, May 21, 2006 9:35 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Okay according to the ORCS Rulebook which is an older version of the Darkon Rulebook with some changes we made one of the rights of a Noble is to: *Quote:* 2. The right to wear personal symbols on surcoat and shield. Jayson Gundlach http://www.orcslarp.com
Haffoc	Re: Rulebook	#12	[-]
Posts: 424 (Mon, May 22, 2006 12:01 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Defunct Countries Countries that allow six Darkon events to pass without fielding at least four Countrymen in surcoats, their banner, and Elder tunic will lose their status as a Country, and all assets, including land, structures, and monies (see Chapter Eight: Land Rules) will be lost. In such cases, hexes of land revert to being empty and coffers cease to exist; remaining Country members may continue to fight as Nomads (see below). Symbols and Surcoats All members of a Country must wear a surcoat or they may be forced to fight as nomads. A surcoat can be a tabard that is worn from the neck and covers the torso, a small banner worn at the waist, or a shoulder to waist sash. Surcoats may not be stolen. Each Country must have its own symbol that is easily distinguished from any existing Country's symbol. Country members must bear their Country's symbol on their surcoats and/or shields. Also note that any character achieving 15th rank or higher may choose and wear a personal symbol from his belt. Personal symbols may not be larger than Country symbols and a player wearing a personal symbol must also wear his Country symbol. Countries Individual player characters may join with others to form Countries. A Country is a 'team' of at least four players, with a banner and an Elder tunic (see Banners and Elder Tunics), which has registered with the Secretary. There is no maximum limit to the number of members a Country may have, but they must have a minimum of at least four members. Countries are free to trade with one another, establish alliances, and even wage war (see Chapter Eight: Land Rules).
Sir Bendore	Re: Rulebook	#13	[-]
Posts: 1083 (Mon, May 22, 2006 3:53 PM) Knight Baronet Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Fecking retarded people. You all know damn well Nobles Symbols can be worn in lew of COuntry Symbols. If you want to make it a rule get it to the Senate and added. This is another example of how freaking lazy and useless the Senate is....by passing a rulebook without reviewing it your screwing the game and don't deserve to serve it. As for how the rules got removed...talked to the Rulebook Committee and previous secretary.
Sir Bendore	Re: Rulebook	#14	[-]
Posts: 1083 (Mon, May 22, 2006 4:03 PM) Knight Baronet Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ok FOlks.... From the 2000 year book Someone please take it and get it added. SURCOATS AND BANNERS: Each Country must have an emblem or symbol that identifies them. A few examples of symbols are dragons, castles, bears, elephants, hawks, pyramids, crescent moons, etc.. This symbol is placed on the shields and surcoats of the country. A surcoat is more than just something that looks good; it can make your costume. All members of a Country are required to wear a surcoat as part of their costume, with the exception of Nobles. Nobles may wear their personal surcoat with their own colors & emblem. This is both to improve the appearance of the players and to facilitate quick and easy recognition of allies in the heat of battle.
Sir Bendore	Re: Rulebook	#15	[-]
Posts: 1083 (Mon, May 22, 2006 4:10 PM) Knight Baronet Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Also from the original proposal all three types of knights have the following right: 2. The Right to have a and wear Personal Symbols, on surcoat and shield
Kayote	Surcoats	#16	[-]
Posts: 107 (Mon, May 22, 2006 4:35 PM) Darkonian Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	What I find funny about this, is how some of the same problems and concerns seem to come up every X number of years, and talked about but never really fixed. This was address a few years back when a marshall was giving Gerard of Sarum crap for not wearing a country surcoat <though he was wearing his personal lord surcoat>. Though at the time there was also a loophole in the rules that allowed you to use your shield in its place, but that one was fixed. Though it was ruled back then that a noble needed to wear both, but I think since it is so rare for a country that a noble to be in needs to have him count as the 4, it took this long to come up again. Kayote Joe
Lord Malkin Campbell	Re: Surcoats	#17	[-]
Posts: 2349 (Mon, May 22, 2006 4:57 PM) Prince of Darkon Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Also note that any character achieving 15th rank or higher may choose and wear a personal symbol from his belt. Personal symbols may not be larger than Country symbols and a player wearing a personal symbol must also wear his Country symbol. Noble symbols do not apply to this part of the Rulebook, because Nobles generally wear Surcoats not belt sashes as is the rule for personal symbols. The President can make a ruling based upon precedence and the way the game has been played as this is a gray area. Lets say that the rules did not define the fact that armor is negated to any limb which takes a light wound. Because Darkon has played this rule for many years as such, the president would be within his rights to state that the rule applies, even though the rulebook does not state it as such. After that it would have to go through Senate to be verified and thus become a new rule but the president can make a ruling as such. I am certain that the ruling on Noble Surcoats has been played ever since I started in this game. It is only within the past couple of years that people have decided to not count them. Although I have worn my Mordom Surcoat maybe 5 or 6 times in the past 10+ years I have been a Noble and I have NEVER not counted towards my country membership. Same holds true for Slindar and Croaker. This is a ruling that needs to be clarified it simply does not make any sense.
shapwin669	Re: Surcoats	#18	[-]
Posts: 306 (Tue, May 23, 2006 12:16 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In that case should'nt the president rule on looting by non theives. this also has a long tradition in the game. It would just be fair. All gods tremble before the fist of tharros~ sammon profit of tharros
Psychopompos	Re: Surcoats	#19	[-]
Posts: 2841 (Tue, May 23, 2006 9:13 AM) Darkon President Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Sure, if he wants to rule on that, he can as well. I think it's important that we get a good no-contact rule in place regarding Looting, though, especially in the light of the incident at the last campout. The more new players we get, the more likely that is to happen, and the more potentially damaging it is to our rep. --Inox The Ebon Monk, Lord Inox Elsonge Thensiur, Force Commander of Elidor, Knight Bannerette - Member of the Warriors' Guild - email: inox@inox.org
Sir Shafor	ruling	#20	[-]
Posts: 712 (Sat, May 27, 2006 12:05 AM) Darkonian Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	While this technically isn't "in the rules," meaning "in the rulebook," it was definately a written rule for years. IT was unintentionally omitted during the editing/re-writing of the new rulebook. Senate never intended to remove it from the rules (to anyone's recollection). To me, this is little different from getting a batch of rulebooks back from the printer and realizing pages describing the thief class were missing from the rulebook. We certainly wouldn't stop playing the class. The omission of the Noble surcoat rule was nothing more than a similar type-o. I will be proposing that Senate officially add it back it to the rulebook (or keep it out, thus removing it as a rule, if they wish). In the meantime, I don't think I am overstepping my authority as the game's rules interpreter by allowing this rule to be played as it had been for well over the majority of the game's existence. Technically, the Magistrate, as by-laws interpreter could chose to determine that this exceeds my Presidential authority and trump my decision here, if he so chooses. Thanks for your understanding. I will be addressing this with Senate along with a host of other clarifications at the next event. Shafor

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Prez ruling please!

Prez ruling please!

Quick Reply