[Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimum
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
sirlyonel at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 7 13:32:10 PST 2006
Salut cozyns,
In addition to Jean-Paul's response to Ansgar's post, I'd like to address to
of Ansgar's statements regarding the proposed reduction of the armor
standards to SCA minimums.
Ansgar dit qe:
>Reason 1 does lead to a reduction in work. However it takes the
>responsibility away from the kingdom and puts the burden on the Society
>level.
Responsibility for what? Perhaps you could offer a concrete example. I for
one can think of none. Now, if you're referring to your hypothetical
situation, however,...well, let's look at that:
>Here's a hypothetical. Let's say we dafault to Society. Now they come
>back and say that they are
>reducing certain requirements. If we look at that and don't agree, then
>we're back to having our own rules. What have we saved? It could be said
>that going with the minimums we still have the option and flexibility to
>make our own at any time.
Well, yes, of course it could be said. The first point I'd make is that the
SCA minimum armor standards are unlikely to undergo a significant rollback.
The second is that, my proposal deletes all those pages of armor standards
in the Ansteorra Participant's Handbook and replaces them with a statement
like the following:
>>>>
Ansteorra recognizes the SCA minimum armor standards stated in section VI of
the SCA Marshal's Handbook without additions. Those standards can be found
at http://sca.org/officers/marshal/combat/armored/marshal_handbook.pdf
<<<<
If at any time in the future a rollback actually occurs and some whacko
Society Marshal decides to do his part in controlling the population, say,
and removes the requirements for groin protection, we add a minor
modification to our rules. We take out "without additions" and put in, "with
the following minor modifications:..."
Reducing our standards is not a contract to use the SCA minimums with no
future additions. We surrender nothing. We just clean out some cobwebs.
lo vostre per vos servir
Meser Lyonel
_________________________________
Dum doceo disco
>From: <bsmall at cox-internet.com>
>Reply-To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc."
><ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
>To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
>Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimuml
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 12:46:34 -0600
>
>
> >
> > From: "Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace" <sirlyonel at hotmail.com>
> > Date: 2006/11/06 Mon AM 11:42:06 CST
> > To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> > Subject: [Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimuml
> >
> > Salut cozyns,
> >
> > Several lately have asked what we lose and gain if we set our armor
> > standards to SCA minimums. The biggest gains are
> >
> > 1) A reduction in documentation update and oversight requirements. Less
> > versions of the rules means less to track, less to update, less reviews
>to
> > obtain.
> > 2) Simplification of the rules means simpler training and less chance of
>a
> > fighter or marshal applying the wrong rule with only one set.
> > 3) Greater flexibility for interkingdom fighting. New fighters moving
>into
> > Ansteorra from other kingdoms won't have to upgrade their armor or learn
>a
> > new standard.
>
>Greetings,
>
>Just to touch on a few things. Reason 1 does lead to a reduction in work.
>However it takes the responsibility away from the kingdom and puts the
>burden on the Society level. Personally, I don't think this is a good
>idea.
>
>Reason 2. I'm not sure this would actually result in a simplification of
>training. As far as applying wrong rules with only one set, we do have
>only 1 set. The Ansteorran set. Which also covers any Society regulation.
> There is no reason for a fighter or a marshal to be applying rules from
>both the Ansteorran rules and the Society rules.
>
>Reason 3. Yes, it might help new fighters moving into the kingdom, but it
>won't address actual interkingdom events like GW nor does it help
>Ansteorran fighters moving to another kingdom which doesn't default to
>Society minimums.
>
>I've been involved in several rewrites of our rapier rules as well as
>Society rapier rules. As long as the Society rules are incorporated into
>ours, and as they change, the changes are made in our rules in a timely
>manner (if changes are, indeed, needed), there's not a problem. And that's
>part of the kingdom marshal's job. In some cases, we might want greater
>clarification of a particular rule (the helm straps for example. Not all
>1/2" strapping is created equal, and our rules clarify that.)
>
>Here's a hypothetical. Let's say we dafault to Society. Now they come
>back and say that they are reducing certain requirements. If we look at
>that and don't agree, then we're back to having our own rules. What have
>we saved? It could be said that going with the minimums we still have the
>option and flexibility to make our own at any time.
>
>So, really, as I see it any way, there are advantages and disadvantages to
>defaulting to Society rules. I don't see that we've had major, glaring
>problems with having our own rules, so I don't see that the advantages
>significantly outweigh the disadvantages or vice versa.
>
>Ansgar
>former Kingdom Rapier Marshal
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ansteorra mailing list
>Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ansteorra mailing list
>Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
_________________________________________________________________
Use your PC to make calls at very low rates
https://voiceoam.pcs.v2s.live.com/partnerredirect.aspx
More information about the Ansteorra
mailing list