Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Frank Gilson]

I have worked and played in many formal, competitive tournament
situations. Some of these have been and are played for millions of
dollars in prize money.

You are either administrative staff, umpire, or player in these
settings. None of these may mix.

Why? Mixing status in a tournament is a conflict of interest. That
you wouldn't misuse such conflict is NOT a reason to permit mixed
status.

Our corporations have recently been stung with many cases of
wrongdoing for crossing conflict of interest lines.

You would never suggest that someone could both be a floor manager
AND a player in the World Series of Poker.

Why would we want to hold Warrior tournament events to a lesser
standard?

Aren't our events at a high level of intellectual competition?

Don't they deserve to have the same rules of conduct bind the
participants as other such formal events?

The general rules of behavior are such that:

a) A player in an event has no say whatsoever about how it is
administered or umpired. Such a player may make testimony from their
perspective, but that is merely a point of data for an umpire or
organizer, and most often self serving.

b) An umpire's carefully considered final ruling is FINAL. If it is
wrong, and not caught while the ruling is made, it still stands for
that game, to be corrected outside of that game. If wrongness is not
caught throughout the event, it is corrected after the event. We
don't go back in time.

c) If the rule's author is available, that author's intent can ONLY
be a valid data point if that author is NOT playing, and that author
is in fact part of the umpiring staff.

If you want to play, Jon, you are free to take note of things played
incorrectly, but not to correct them until after the event has
completed.

Frank Gilson

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Ok, Terry. And that is the method we use. Scott gets to say and
my intent does not matter. and that is the way it will be -
especially given that is what the players seem to want. The only
thing I might do is continue to canvass playes to make sure that is
what the whole playership wants, not just folks like us who post
here. I appreciate you taking the time to pass along your
preference and it is important to us.
>
> I think, though, that none of the fixes I posted earlier have been
voided by this view, so we will go with those in any case to try and
make as consistent a game as we can.
>
> J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Dix <notalent@p...>
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:10:38 -0000
> Subject: [WarriorRules] Re: Time for gripes and complaints to Jon
and Scott
>
>
>
>
> Greetings Jon,
> The difference is the perception of partiality. When you are a
player in a
> tournament you have to take off the author hat for the duration of
your
> parcipitation. I understand that you want the game played to your
intent. When
> you involved in the outcome
> you must trust the ref and his decission. For you to offer your
intent gives
> the perception of partiality. If a rule is writen in such a way
as to be
> different from your intent it is unfair for you to effectively
rewrite the rule
> ingame. If you were there and were not playing in that competetion
(say this had
> occured in the 15mm tourney) you could offer your intent, but that
ruling only
> works because you no dog in the fight. I would still say that you
shouldn't go
> with your intent until you get a chance to actualy post a change
someplace.
>
> TD
> -- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> > <<As Phil used to state: players are entitled to an impartial
umpire. not
> > an infallible one. It's like sport: even if the video *proves*
that
> > you're not out, too bad - the umpire said that you were.
Against the
> > intent for a strike to be called (see, I can use US analogies!)
when the
> > pitch is outside the zone? Sure. So?>>
> >
> > I would agree. An umpire judging for the players whether or not
a certain
> unit is behind the flank or upslope or in the woods is making an
impartial
> judgment call on the game situation - as in a ball in or out of a
strike zone.
> >
> > That, to me, is different than an umpire reading a rule in the
book and saying
> that his reading is X when X is both counter to the intent of the
rule and, in
> this case, a mechanics-breaker.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]