ANST - Fw: [SCA-MissileCombat] BoD ruling on the SEM policy change (APD/ABD)

j_smallw at j_smallw at
Mon Apr 23 08:45:50 PDT 2001

As Sir Burke stated, the BOD is prone to side on the side of safety.
Unfortunately, because of the way this was done, the archers will have to
conform to the ruling for 3 months prior to the review of the policy.
That or just not have CA for those months between Aug 1 and the October
BOD meeting.  In other words, why go to all the trouble of conforming to
the policy if it might be overturned 3 months later.

I had suggested to the members that they put a hold on the policy pending
review at their next meeting thus giving everyone time to make their
case prior to having the policy go into effect.

Ansgar von Aachen

PS.  Does anyone know what the vote was on this?

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Burke McCrory wrote:

> At 10:51 PM 4/22/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >This just in.  Why am I not surprized?
> >
> >Gilli
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "TLW" <tessathehuntress at>
> >To: <SCA-MissileCombat at>
> >Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 9:44 PM
> >Subject: [SCA-MissileCombat] BoD ruling on the SEM policy change (APD/ABD)
> >
> >
> > > Greetings!
> > >
> > > I received an email of the results, with a confirmation.  Here is the gist
> > > of the meeting:
> > >
> > > "The Board confirmed Eringlen's policy decision, and will review it at the
> > > October board meeting.  They left it open for kingdoms that have been
> > > successful with screens in helmets (like I guess An Tir has been) to make
> > > their case at that time.  This was the last item of business; they put it
> > > off because I gather they had received something like 300 pieces of e-mail
> > > on this topic just since Eringlin's letter came out, and they expected to
> >do
> > > a lot of debate on it."
> >(snip)
> This doesn't surprise me at all. The Board will often take a more cautious 
> note when a safety issue comes up. That appears to be what they have done 
> here. They have affirmed the decision but have scheduled a review of the 
> issue for the meeting six months from now. This gives everyone time to make 
> their case for why the ruling should or should not be made permanent. I 
> would strongly suggest that everyone work together on formulating a 
> presentation for the Board and the Society Marshal on why this is a bad 
> rule and give them good suggestions for alternative safety standards. This 
> has been presented as a safety issue so your arguments need to be well 
> thought out
> and presented calmly. This weekend we were discussing this and the 
> suggestion was made that if the concern is possible eye injury that people 
> could experiment with swimmers goggles. They are very small and are not 
> prone to fogging up but would protect the eyes.
> Sir Burke
> ============================================================================
> Go to to perform mailing list tasks.
Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list