RE: Elesina (those who don't care, don't read)

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

Sorry, gang, but I have to live by the edict handed to me on the matter
and publish my rebuttal publicly.  Please feel free to ignore this (unless
you are Steve, then please read on).

-----Original Message-----
From:	Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@ns1.cioe.com]

> Wow Matt. Did you miss the whole f^cking point here or what? This
> didn't start over if the adventurer actions were valid or not
> (though they were)... Lyle made a public innuenda that Kris was
> cheating (Is Elesina back? If so I'd like to know how...). Kris
> replied that it was a legitimate ressurection and it should have
> been dropped there. It wasn't... Lyle attempted to take it offline
> as is his usual style.

8-|  No, that just doesn't cut it.  I wish there were a good way to show
utter and complete surprise in an email.  Steve, if you are going to
quote me, please do so properly.  I do not appreciate my words being
embellished so as to support the manner in which they were taken, as
opposed to the manner in which they were meant.  My exact words
were (and I quote from the letter), "(was she brought back?  if so, how?)".
Actually, at the time, all I was curious about was whether this was, in fact,
another instance of the misuse of "Final Fling".  It is true that I could have 
worded the query a little differently, or perhaps I probably should have
sent a private email to someone other than Kris (since this is obviously
still a very sore spot for her).  I am sorry, to all of you on this list, that I did
not do so.

After Kris' reply about it being a legit resurrection, Steve sent out another
piece of mail to the public list that I took as a way for him to imply that I
was upset about Kris being brought back where Martin was not.  That is
when I took it off-line because I felt it was unnecessary to bog down the
list with my response to what I believed was innuendo.  I made a private
response to Steve, which I made the mistake of cc'ing Kris on so you
should be able to read the actual response if you haven't deleted it.

> If someone is going to make a public accusation they should be
> prepared for public rebuttal. I hate it when someone makes an
> accusation and then things get settled in private. All the public
> remembers is the accusation and the fact that no one seemed to
> deny the accusation (publically). That's crap. Be an adult for a
> second... RL has repercussions as well.

Perhaps you are right, Steve, but I did not want to place you on the "hot
seat" just because I felt you misunderstood my initial query.  Kris made
her rebuttal and I would have let it go at that (despite her thinly-veiled
name-calling of all those involved in Elesina's death as "A** Holes").
However, you brought my character into it as if I still harbored any hard
feelings.  The only hard feeling I hold from that situation is that I had a
friend take the game too personally and now I am minus one friend.  So,
Steve, I responded to you personally.  But, since you "hate it when
someone makes an accusation and then things get settled in private",
I guess you are glad that I did include Kris in that response so she could
make the whole matter public.  I guess things just have a way of working
out for you, Steve.  *note: wry cynicism*

> > 	I just thought I would throw in my two cents because this is
> > becoming a heated arguement as I see it.  I have no emotional claim in
> 
> And as you said it seemed to be between Lyle and Kris... why butt in?

Yes, Steve, why did you butt in in the first place?  Like I said, I would have
been fine with Kris' initial reply as it did, in fact, spark my memory of the
resurrection.

[please forgive the next minor deletion, I have not real comment on it]

> > 	2.  All resurrections should have the GM that officiated the death
> > of the character present.  This is because they may know of circumstances
> > that you may not be aware of.  
> 
> Why? Circumstances don't affect my spells at all. Zip, zero nada. All
> I have to do is meet the requirements of the spell. The presense of the
> GM just meancs they get to argue Dan out of a perfectly legal resurrection.
> Yeah right.

Actually, Steve, they do have a lot of affect on your spells; at least in the case
where what is explained to the adjudicating GM is erroneous.  I am not saying
anything about that being the case with regard to Elesina's death, so don't
anyone get the desire to twist my words and make me out to be throwing
innuendo around.  Steve, some players will cheat, pure and simple, especially if
it means that they can get the opportunity to continue playing a character they
are attached to that has recently died.  That is why the GM who officiated the
death should be present, or at least consulted by the GM adjudicating the
resurrection to make certain that all the details purported by the players are
correct.  You may continue to disagree if you wish, but no player who dies on
an adventure I moderate is going to get their card back for a resurrection until
I have explained the circumstances of the death to the officiating GM.  I _will_
not argue against a perfectly legal resurrection, Steve, but one that incorrectly
makes use of spells will be argued (after all, isn't it you, Steve, who states that
a GM should not be above question?  And why is it that when "Final Fling" was
tested for the first time under Dan as a method for bringing people back, that
you failed to question him?  You knew the wording of the spell; if you are so
gung-ho for the proper use of the rules, why did you not step forward then and
ask for final clarification as opposed to running off of a fruitful precedent?)

[I think I've made all the responsive points I care to make, so the rest of the
original post is removed for sake of brevity]

To sum up, Steve, after you implied that the whole thing was personal to me,
I took it off-line so as to spare the list of my response to you (and the possible
result of many more emails, particularly from those who had nothing to do with
the situation, yet have two cents to throw in anyway).  My biggest mistake there
was including Kris on my response to you.  Sorry.

Lyle