Rapier trends...

[James Crouchet]

So the rules say. In short, no authorization, no fighting. Now if you are 
asking if we actually ENFORCE this or if it SHOULD be this way, those are 
different questions.

Enforcement of this policy tends to bend a bit in a variety of 
circumstances. For example:

 - Authorizing marshals will often authorize those they know and fight 
with regularly without requiring a seperate "authorizing bout". Is this a 
bad thing? It seems the authorizing marshal should know if those he/she 
fights with regularly are safe or not.

 - I have been told most knights get signed off without difficulty. I 
don't know if that is true, but I have heard it from supposed eye 
witnesses. Perhaps the authorizing marshal(s) fight with those knights 
regularly.

 - I have seen Dons get signed off and I have seen them have to do the 
whole bit. Kinda depends on the marshal.

 - I notice we don't require authorizations for fighter practice.  if we 
did we could never assimilate new people, esp. in areas where there are 
no "backyard" practices. I am not sure what the rules say about this.

I have heard some interesting arguments about this. For example, there is 
the "Ever Changing Rules" argument.  Basically, it goes, "Dons and 
Knights may have known the rules at one time, but we must test them to 
make sure they know the latest stuff." In reality what I do on the field 
has not changed materially in the 10 years I have been fighting. In fact, 
you recently came back to fighting after a long absence. Have you noticed 
much change?

Now the rules certianly have changed. They have grown from a few pages to
a book of about 60 pages. But most of this has been details and minusha, 
and to rewrite the rules so only a lawyer can understand them. I think we 
need to do back to a few pages. When there are more rules than a fighter 
can remember while on the field the ones he can't remember are useless. 
And any rule a fighter can't understand is similarly useless. Consider 
the new fighter -- the one who needs the rules the most -- trying to 
remember dozens of pages of psudo-legal mumbo jumbo whild some one is 
trying to bash his brains out with a stick or stuff a rapier in his 
gullet. What are the odds?

In any case, if one is checking to see if a Don/Knight knows the CURRENT 
stuff you should be concentrating on the new stuff. I have seen a bunch 
of authorizations and I have never seen this done (well, maybe once).

Overall I don't think authorizations have made a hill of beans worth of 
difference in this kingdom anyway. Mostly they seem to be pretend 
authorizations anyway.  How often do you see someone required to fight 
with a dagger, a cloak and a case of rapiers before they pass 
authorization? We just pretend that if they can be safe for 2.5 minutes 
with a single rapier in a bout where they have nothing to gain by winning 
that they are safe with all weapons in all situations. Unless we get an 
authorization process that shows more than whether they guy knows not to 
put his helm on backwards it never will make a difference.

I guess it does keep the paperwork police happy though.


Savian (in a bad mood -- can you tell?)


On Thu, 27 Apr 1995 cmwalden at bga.com wrote:

> I am searching for some clarification here.  It is my understanding that a 
> White Scarf of Ansteorra does not necessarily have the authority to fight or 
> marshal.  Is this accurate?  If it is, were there some incidents where White 
> Scarves demonstrated that they could not be trusted with those duties?
> 
> Are there similary conventions for Armored Fighters?  Is it possible to be a 
> Knight who is not authorized to fight, or marshall?
> 
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding a subtlety in the paperwork or authorization 
> system, but that's how I understand it.  I would appreciate enlightenment.
> 
> I remain yours, etc.
> 
> Antonio
> or cmwalden at bga.com
> 
>