Announcement

Collapse

Skotos Forums Closing: September 30

The Skotos Forums are officially closing on September 30, 2020. They will go read-only on that date, and will be removed entirely sometime afterward.

We encourage the games that spun off of Skotos to create new discussion mediums of their own, and some have already done so. But the centralized discussions for Skotos will soon be a thing of the past (just as the centralized Skotos site is).

We've also posted a goodbye message to the community on our main page, which you can find here:
http://www.skotos.net/goodbye.php
See more
See less

Because I lost the duel last eve....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Impish
    replied
    I am truely disquieted by the constant falling apart of constructive discussions which wind up a degrading slinging of verbal mud. I Read back through this long list of scrawled thoughts and I see it steadily crumbling. Indeed, to see Ser Faruq's simple pointing out of a hypocrisy, as some would see it, turn into a bringing up of an entirely otherwise uninvolved issues..leaves me perplexed and speechless.
    And before all the nasty scorching snippets come my way, yes, this is the sera accused of such scandalous behavior ..that her own nature seems to have stalled her intentions.I flirt, I tease and joke in words, jesting in a manner that makes quite a few uncomfortable. I am maybe a bit too comfortable in my own feminine sensuality. I dare to speak my mind and refuse to cower for doing so. That to ME is my own personal code of honor. Being true to myself and not trying to pretend to appease the so called majority. As long as i do not offend Her Majesty or break the laws She has decided best for us..by any means of those she has chosen to list them..I harm no one. I may not advance like others that are willing to wear the masks of convention,or can truely be the superior and awe inspiring ones that live as a shining example of what should be.. but that is my choice. My Honor is not anyone else's idea of it necessarily, but i hold true to it. Some times I wonder if i had been born a ser..would it have made a difference?
    For one to swing the judgemental blade of What is honorable and what is not..they should not be surprised if it swings back and bites deep into their own self one of these days. For only those without flaws, sins, imperfections and past cares, or Her Majesty, Long may she reign.. and those she appoints to do as such have a right to even DARE stand in a general judgement of another. Otherwise it falls into the stinking filthy morass of what is commonly known as gossip and inuendo and 'tossing stones at a glass castle" as one could see it. ALL of us have something in our past we are not proud of..will this not end til all laundrey is aired and exposed for the population to judge? Bah, let's keep it to discussion of Honor in general, and not creep into yet another way to publicly shred each other.

    My simple codes?

    Respect each other as persons. Show the proper courtesy to those of Rank and station. You do not have to love them or personally respect them But show respect in your daily actions for their status. Carry yourself with truth in your heart, as you see it. Seek not to maliciously harm another. Be forgiving and just in your dealings with others, for one day you may need forgiveness.

    and please note this is not a judgement of anyone's personal codes, for in the end, we have to live with ourselves first and last.

    Simply treat others as you would have them treat you.

    ~Sera Addreama~
    ~Simply a Human, with flaws, dreams and aspirations~

    Leave a comment:


  • Gareth
    replied
    I have responded to the matters of the Quest of the Chivalrous Heart elsewhere, to allow this to remain a discussion focused on the topic of Honor.

    -Ser Gareth.
    President of the Quest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blade
    replied
    In defense of ser Martel, he did abandon the Quest in all honor. Opposing the Quest is not hypocrisy in his case.

    On the other hand, the rules as accepted by the Lord Chamberlain circumvent some of the regular rules of dueling. Such as requesting sanction directly from His honored self, if done under the charter, and if seconds are found and a day waited, then it is sanctioned. I believe that the Quest of the Chivalrous Heart is intended to provide a way for duels to be performed without the usual somberness of a normal duel, but remember that respect and propriety are needed even then.

    If you have issues with the duel itself, good ser, your concerns might be addressed to the Lord Chamberlain. As a member of the Court of Honor, he can advise you, and perhaps you are correct with some of your points. Then He might see fit to correct the way the Quest is being conducted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morte
    replied
    To the honorable ser Faruq:

    You have not answered my question... Which is more honorable?

    To betray ones own nature, for the sake of a point..

    Or to stand for ones nature, and be reviled for it.

    I stand for my belifes, and am reviled for it. It is obvious which I belive is more honorable. I refuse to betray myself, or bow to popular opinion in matters of honor.


    I remain.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seidl
    replied
    Fickleness is not part of honor ser Faruq, but neither is mindless consistency. I was enamored of the ideals fo the quest. When I thought it might actually bring honor to those who participated. Now I see that is mostly a vechical for watchpeople to make themselves feel superior and to apparently flaunt the Court Of Honor's own posting of their rules. Have I mad mistakes in the past? I have. And I have acknowledged them and moved on. As I thought you had ser. Or should we again broach the affair with you atempting to join the duelists, which I thought left back in the mists of time.

    Striving to live up to the Court of Honor's decrees,

    Martel

    Leave a comment:


  • Faruq
    replied
    There was no sniping, ser Morte. I am merely interested in the complete reversal of opinion shown by ser Martel in this matter. Once he was the first to leap in and take up ser Gareth's Quest. Now he derides it at every opportunity.

    Is constancy not also an aspect of honour? Or has fickleness suddenly been made a virtue?

    Leave a comment:


  • Morte
    replied
    There is no place in this discussion..

    For simple sniping. Faruq. If you have something of value to add, please, do so, but if your comments are only ment to insult, defame, and otherwise lower the level of coversation, put your pen down, and remove yourself.



    I no doubt expect you will be sniping back at me, for said posts, unless you wish to be contrary, which is as it seems, your nature, and not snipe in this case, merely to prove me wrong. Now, Ser Faruq, which is more honorable? To betray ones own nature, for the sake of a point, or to stand for ones nature, and be reviled for it.


    I remain,

    Leave a comment:


  • Faruq
    replied
    A fascinating contradiction.

    Originally posted by Seidl

    [...] instead of your little game of duels. Duels are not a sporting event ser, but something to be reveared like a religion.

    [...] Keep to your games Gareth.
    Interesting words for one who said, not all that long ago:

    I will announce that tis my desire to take up this Quest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Seidl
    replied
    ser Gareth, having spoken to you at length, and read all your missives, I believe it would not "please and not vex me", in your own words. You can think what you wish, I can not stop that. But I have no wish to cross words with you any longer. You will not listen to reason, nor adjust your opinions. You can think what you will, and I will just continue to strongly oppose those things you say that I object to. I think there is little chance we will ever manage to agree on these topics, so for now should just seperate. As two who are to duel should do. So as not to cause either more pain. You are entitled to your opinions, no matter how wrong I find them.

    There are worse things afoot in the castle. Murderers, fell curses, and evil that stalks the halls. I will await you putting your honor and valor on the line in dealing with these things, instead of your little game of duels. Duels are not a sporting event ser, but something to be reveared like a religion.

    To quote from the Court of honor -

    "A duel is not a sporting event nor a performance. Duels are an important ritual in the lives of the participants, in the same manner as marriages or funerals." (Court of honor, 11/8/00)

    To this I would add -

    "Persons in an 'authority' relationship with each other may not fight a duel." (Court of honor 5/2/01)

    I hope you some day will understand that, but I doubt it. Even with the santion you have received, I wonder how the Lord Chamberlain would feel about Armsmen dueling Watchmen, and scores being kept across the duels. Keep to your games Gareth.

    Tired of senseless debate,

    Martel

    Leave a comment:


  • Gareth
    replied
    Originally posted by Seidl
    And I will admit, I still do not understand your list ser Gareth. Perhaps you would care to orginize something and let us all come and talk over these points?
    Good Ser Martel,

    I prithee forgive me when I use words or turns of phrase beyond the ken of common parlance. As others know, and as I do admit, others oft need translate what I wot as everyday speech into less archaic constructions in the common tongue.

    I entreat thee to seek me out in public or private, for I yearn to discuss Honor with one who would know more of it than I. Gladly would I seek to share civil and pleasant discourse, and learn anew from another in whose breast resides a commonly held, yet rare and greater Love for Honor than mine own!

    But soft, I entreat thee to do so if such rhetoric would please and not vex thee. For I am loath to needlessly cause anguish about a topic to which I hold worshipfully, or to pursue any act if it is seen as wasteful or idle of merit. Thou woulds't be the best judge of whether this would prove tiresome and needless, or be to thy pleasure and mine, and welcome to the sensibilities of any witnesses who would hear our discourse.

    If so, then gladly will I speak with thee. If not, then I respect any reasons spoken or not spoken.

    Likewise, I invite others to seek me out, or to raise the topic if it would be welcome in our casual conversings.

    With free franchise and fraternal admiration of the ideal of Honor,

    -Ser Gareth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kvalhion
    replied

    Ser Radorcha,

    Ye either have a talent at mixing words or ye deliberately misread what I have said. Either way, it is fairly obvious ye do not understand what it is I wish to convey. I think it is a bit premature for ye to be crying treason when I've said nothing treasonous. Yer constant pleas to others to see things as (warped) as ye do fall upon deaf ears, for no others have made the claims that ye make. How about this: Before ye call me out for being treasonous, quote exactly what I have said that is treasonous, not thy incorrect interpretation and not an entire passage, avoiding anything specific. Good luck on that fruitless persuit.

    Originally posted by Ra'Dorcha


    To claim she is not the absolute authority here?
    Laws are not ment to be followed?
    I said that the Queen is not the absolute MORAL authority here or anyplace else. Perhaps ye lack the intelligence to think for thyself, but I have no such drawback. As impressive and regal as the Queen is rumored to be (I have never met her myself), she cannot and does not tell me what I consider to be right and wrong. This is not a treasonous statement, for the Queen does not claim to be a deity, who created and controls us. The laws the Queen has put forth (and not to forget many long may she reigns) are guidelines that we should follow to benefit the castle as a whole. If we choose not to follow these laws, we submit ourselves to a debt that must be paid to the society of the castle. Indeed, the Queen is the final authority in deciding whether or not a law is just. I do not dispute that. However I am perfectly capable of deciding my own morals. Perhaps ye are not.

    Please, ser, tell me where I said laws were not meant to be followed? Perhaps thy pen is running out of ink, for ye left out a word: blindly. Aye, laws are not meant to be followed blindly, without thought. Is such a concept so revolutionary?

    Originally posted by Ra'Dorcha


    If the laws are changed, which I have no knowledge of her majesty changing any laws, there is but onw person whom can do such. One person who has that authority.
    Ah, because ye have no knowledge of her majesty changing laws, that means it must never have happened? Please. The point is, laws can be changed. Why? Because circumstances in which some laws are founded change over time. If we were to blindly obey the law at all costs then there would never be a need such a thing because we would be static, predictable, boring people.

    Originally posted by Ra'Dorcha


    Kvalhion, this is not the first time you have made similar comments.
    And this is not the first time ye have ignored key points, twisted words, and in general see things the way ye wish to see them, regardless of what is written. I strongly urge ye to dismiss whatever prejudice or self importance ye seem to have and read my thoughts objectively. Perhaps ye shall realize that they are not the treasonous works ye take them to be.

    Originally posted by Ra'Dorcha


    Else where upon this board you did accuse the Queen of stealing your memories. Now in a discussion held by two groups whom are perhaps the most loyal to the queen, do you again spout your tresonist ideals.
    I would advise ye to provide some direct evidence of this before ye make such a false, baseless claim in a public forum. I never said that the Queen stole our memories. What I did say, however, was that our memories are not available to us, and there is likely a reason for this to be so. Whatever ye feel that implies is up to ye; I shall not tell ye how to think. However to make unsubstantiated accusations is well.. not very honorable.

    Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ra'Dorcha
    replied
    Originally posted by Kvalhion

    Personally, I believe honor should be like the law. As ye said, the laws are a collection of..suggestions, if ye will... meant to serve the people as a whole. They are not absolute authority or morality. They are guidelines that say what ye agree to follow to participate within this society. If ye do choose not to follow a law, then ye owe the society a debt, which can be paid in various ways. Laws are not meant to be followed blindly by those who would follow it at all costs. This is why laws are constantly evaluated and amended as times and situations change.

    Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.
    I just wonder to those whom actually are loyal to her Majesty the Queen, long may she reign. How long shall this [you can't read the word that is scratched out here] person be allowed to write such treasonist comments as this?

    To claim she is not the absolute authority here?
    Laws are not ment to be followed?

    If the laws are changed, which I have no knowledge of her majesty changing any laws, there is but onw person whom can do such. One person who has that authority.

    Kvalhion, this is not the first time you have made similar comments. Else where upon this board you did accuse the Queen of stealing your memories. Now in a discussion held by two groups whom are perhaps the most loyal to the queen, do you again spout your tresonist ideals.

    Ra'Dorcha

    Leave a comment:


  • Seidl
    replied
    I think this discussion is getting fairly bizaar. Now we enumerate the tenats of Honor like we would count cows in the fields. And I will admit, I still do not understand your list ser Gareth. Perhaps you would care to orginize something and let us all come and talk over these points? I do not believe honor can be so enumerated, especially in so flowery a toungue that only scholors can understand it.

    In defense of the common Honor,

    Martel

    Leave a comment:


  • Kvalhion
    replied
    Perhaps it is easier to define dishonour. It is dishonourable to avoid doing what you believe to be the right thing, either through self-interest, fear or self-doubt.
    Perhaps. However, what about one who would poison another, and believe it to be the right thing to do? Would ye call such a one honorable? Or is there a double standard, such as do what ye feel is right, as long as it does not violate other invariable tenets of honor?

    Tell me this: How does one know what is honorable to oneself and what is not? Can honor be learned, or is it purely instinctive? While I agree that honor is a personal thing, I believe many feel that there are tenets of honor that all who are honorable would follow. Otherwise, wouldn't honor be a random collection of ideals varying from person to person? These universal traits of honor is what was originally discussed at the beginning of these postings. These are the traits that I feel serve little than to control how others think and what actions they take. It is these traits that people weigh their honor upon others, and delegate themselves superior or inferior to others.

    Personally, I believe honor should be like the law. As ye said, the laws are a collection of..suggestions, if ye will... meant to serve the people as a whole. They are not absolute authority or morality. They are guidelines that say what ye agree to follow to participate within this society. If ye do choose not to follow a law, then ye owe the society a debt, which can be paid in various ways. Laws are not meant to be followed blindly by those who would follow it at all costs. This is why laws are constantly evaluated and amended as times and situations change.

    Similarly, honor is something that is tested and adjusted constantly, as experiences and circumstances change. We learn through our experience and the experience of others (through observation) what works and what does not. What is beneficial and what is not. As we each have unique and dynamic experiences and circumstances, honor must remain on a personal level. To evaluate ones honor against another is folly. The list that Ser Gareth gives us regarding honor may indeed be full of good deeds towards others. Yet 'twould be impossible to adhere to such standards in every situation.

    The final moral authority to follow codes or honor and laws of society is ourselves. The depth in which we choose to adhere and follow such things does not elevate us beyond others. It is merely a choice, one path out of a myriad of paths.

    Ser Kvalhion, Forgetter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Davog
    replied
    Ser Kvalhion,

    You seem to be under a misapprehension about Honour. Honour is not like law, to be imposed on all. Honour, as has been stated many times, is a personal thing.

    If you will, the law is a set of rules which all should follow, as they have been deemed appropriate for the greater good of all. Honour is a set of rules that one must follow oneself, and should not be imposed on others, for such imposition itself would be dishonourable. Adherence to Honour must be a personal choice.

    I will not attempt to define Honour, as I do not believe that the same definition would necessarily hold for all. Suffice it to say that Honour is doing what you feel to be right in your heart, regardless of the cost.

    Perhaps it is easier to define dishonour. It is dishonourable to avoid doing what you believe to be the right thing, either through self-interest, fear or self-doubt.

    In all things, be true to your heart.

    Davog
    Counsellor and Duelist

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X

Debug Information