[Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimum

[bsmall at cox-internet.com]

> 
> From: "Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace" <sirlyonel at hotmail.com>
> Date: 2006/11/07 Tue PM 03:32:10 CST
> To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimum
> 
> 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.

I have not seen his response come across.  If someone could send it to me privately, I would greatly appreciate it.

> 
> 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.

Actually, I was referring to the issues you specifically raised in your reason #1 (Just like I said in my response<G>).  To clarify...repsonsibility for tracking, updating and reviewing the rules.
 
> Now, if you're referring to your hypothetical 
> situation, however,...well, let's look at that:
<snip>

Yes, yes.  It was a hypothetical and I realize that decreasing armor standards is unlikely.  But not impossible as it seems that there is a fair number of people that feel that they know this is a combat activity and it should be up to them to decide how safe they want to be.

As for your proposed change, we have done something similar to that in the rapier rules if you look at the legal blades portion.  The difference is the reference is a table maintained at Society level that lists what's legal in all the kingdoms.  With regard to armor standards, such an entry still would not address clarifications about said armor should the kingdom want them.

> 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.

It's a matter of opinion as to what constitutes cobwebs, isn't it?<G>  I would point out that, should we, in the future, add the additions you suggest, we would still be back to someone having to go look up 2 separate documents (the Society for the basics) and ours for the additions.  Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the proposal?
(Or at least your reason 2?)
 
> lo vostre per vos servir
> Meser Lyonel

Ansgar
(who, believe it or not has some experience on the chivalric field.  It may have been when dinosaurs roamed, but it was there.<G>)