[Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimum

[Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace]

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