[OOC: This "majority issue" is really going over the top as far I am
concerned:
>> [OOC: CdC applies as aide to NPC_OC ]
>
>
>[OOC: AdM doesn't think this is a particularly good idea under the
>circumstances]
Under the house rules I don't believe CdC has to announce his intention to
apply for a position as aide, is that not correct? However, we all write
_private_ mail to the list in order to brighten the game somewhat and to
follow all good role play customs we have to separate what we know as
players from what we know as characters, this has blatantly been ignored imho.
CdC mostly only no longer wished to remain as aide to OvS commanding the
1st Squadron RNHB on Assault! CdC doesn't have any expectations of gaining
such a post if AdM tries to throw any role play spanner in the works. :)
CdC may therefore without announcing his intentions to the press in future
apply for other aide posts, but isn't that to the detriment of the game?
So Paul, sincerely nothing personal, I would like to know how AdM came by
this knowledge, perhaps your new post should be "Witch-Finder Inspector
General ". =p
The circumstances of my majority were back in June, CdC has since
distinguished himself adequately in his command and if you may all recall
we were to submit orders for the whole of the summer in a matter of weeks
without knowing the results of any turn. I have always considered it was
prudent that should there be death, resignation or promotions that I should
be prepared for a differing structure of the DG regiment and submitted CdC
BR <next rank> as a matter of common sense for the summer turns.
AdM misquoted alleged orders taken from an internal DG memo regarding CAT's
*proposed* regimental structure (in and out of character), since it is a
proposal how can it also be a clearly defined order?
Paul, the correct version I'd like to quote to you:
>I propose the following change to the command structure and request
>comments from all of you Dragoon Guards.
>Col CAT*
>LtC PldE+ Maj OB Maj GlV*
>Cap QVDH Cap GdJ Cap LL+ Cap AdS+ Cap CdC+ Cap BDP
The structure is the same as in AdM's post but there was a clear omission,
the words "I propose" do not in my language indicate an order of any sort,
rather just what it actually says, "I propose".
Since we are on an issue of House Rules vs Role Play in gaining rank, just
how did AdM and CAT both manage to "leapfrog" over the Lt.Col to become CO
of the DG? As I read the house rules there is no provision for this at
all, it is clearly not allowed, right? So the rules were completely bent
or ignored, and nobody objected...
Why is it now when the House Rules are followed correctly is it turned into
a huge roleplay issue surrounding a gentlemans' behaviour and questions of
moral obligation?
Surely we have to accept that the House Rules are really the rules of the
game and they must be adhered to in all but the most extenuating
cases. Shouldn't we then try to fit our roleplay around those rules, isn't
the intention of rules in role play to provide a framework for role play?
If I am correct then neither CdC nor BDP have broken any rules or orders,
but AdM and CAT very clearly have broken the House Rules.
How can this be fair? More to the point how should it be amended?
If we accept that the rules were broken somehow justifiably for AdM then
perhaps he can argue he has a right to a roleplay motive for questioning
BDP's actions and preventing my career advancement if possible. What of
ungentlemanly conduct? We are playing gentlemen who debauch, insult, read
private mail, fight over ladies, duel, visit brothels and go to war with a
lust for blood. I'm quite sure that taking an opportunity to purchase a
rank is sufficiently gentlemanly enough for any other regiment, so why not
the DG?
There were never any _orders_ regarding BDP's purchase of a majority nor
mine, regardless of there relevance under the house rules, it is really a
question of good or bad form and that can hardly be the most dastardly
crime ever committed by a character! BDP's only crime is to have tried to
defend himself within the framework of the rules and against unsound
roleplay orders to resign his commission.
The difference between the current circumstance of BDP and that of CdC in
June are that at the time CdC got his majority he never had any official
line of questioning from GlV, CAT (then CO), or any other officer of the
Dragoon Guard OR even the then Inspector General of Cavalry (OvS) - that
situation has continued for four months, ample time for AdM to have had a
little sulk that his chum got left behind. Regardless, I feel I have
established CdC as major and prior to AdM's new hostilities CdC has had
four months of command in the field at this rank.
On the basis of anything that goes to the mail list, private or otherwise
is for public use does everybody feel they have some right to comment on
what they may have happened to have overheard in a private letter?? Is
General npc_OC an idiot? Can't he read to himself or does he have to read
the words of CdC's private mail aloud so that any Lt.Gen passing his door
can listen through the keyhole?
While I am sure AdM's mail was naturally private and meant to be in
character with good roleplay intentions I can't understand how AdM came to
read CdC's application - after all the npc can't have emailed him can he?
Whatever the reason I do not doubt that Paul will be able to explain just
how AdM came by this information and why he thought he needed to involve
himself in a regimental dispute that never occurs in any other regiment and
in fact as I have pointed out was similarly broken by himself when he was
"leapfrogging ranks" within the DG!
I have read so many emails on this subject that it was becoming a bore, to
the point where I was about to privately negotiate an arrangement for GlV
to take my majority in exchange for some assistance acquiring a suitable
commission within another regiment. However, under the circumstances I
will now only consider this if it is a very much more favourable move as I
now feel I genuinely have every right to my rank as does BDP and the truth
is AdM and CAT did not have a right to "leapfrog to CO" - at least under
the House Rules which I assume are the same set used by everybody??
I hope we can clear this mess up as I feel this has become a divisive and
boring issue which I hope to see resolved by rules and not rumour or opinion.
-Mark (aka CdC) ]
