[Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimum

[Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace]

Salut cozyns,

Ansgar réponde qe:

> > In that case, damn straight. Let the Society-level bureaucrats handle 
>it. I
> > don't see a down side to this.
>
>And I, respectfully, disagree.  It looks like this is sort of a state 
>rights issue.  I prefer to keep as much control and responsibility at the 
>kingdom level.  To be brutally honest, I've seen way too many problems with 
>power at the Society level to give them all my trust.
>

To put it simply, they already have control of the base level. We don't get 
to take that from them nor should we want to do so. Allow me to put on my 
mundane professional hat for a moment: I work in documentation quality. 
Single source, where possible, is the best model for control and oversight. 
I don't agree that this is a state rights versus federation issue. This is a 
complexity issue. Simple is better.

> > In the days when hardcopy roamed the earth, it
> > made more sense for the Ansteorran Participant's Handbook to be a 
>standalone
> > tome. Today, that's no longer true. Now, it makes more sense to use 
>pointer
> > links where possible and write our own marshals guides as addenda.
>
>Agreed with regard to history.  Also, an online version with links works 
>fine.  However, even in this day and age, not everyone has online access.  
>Try printing the rules out and then try to follow them flipping back and 
>forth between our rules and addenda and the copy of the Society rules.

No problem, cozyn. Living in the age of extensibility also means that 
combining multiple resources into a single document (or document set, since 
we're talking about PDFs) is also possible. Note, I'm talking about a single 
document as an output, not as a maintained conglomerate.

>I'm not against simplifying the rules, but I don't think this is the best 
>way to go.  I see as many disadvantages as advantages is all.

I don't want to be insulting, but I have not yet seen a single concrete 
example, from anyone, of a disadvantage to this proposed change.

lo vostre per vos servir
Meser Lyonel Oliver Grace
_________________________________
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 minimum
>Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 9:19:14 -0600
>
>
> >
> > From: "Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace" <sirlyonel at hotmail.com>
> > Date: 2006/11/08 Wed AM 08:45:08 CST
> > To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Armor standards and the SCA minimum
>
><snip>
>
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > In that case, damn straight. Let the Society-level bureaucrats handle 
>it. I
> > don't see a down side to this.
>
>And I, respectfully, disagree.  It looks like this is sort of a state 
>rights issue.  I prefer to keep as much control and responsibility at the 
>kingdom level.  To be brutally honest, I've seen way too many problems with 
>power at the Society level to give them all my trust.
>
><snip>
>
> > This seems like a good time to clarify another point. I have 
>occasionally
> > heard complaints about the current format of the Ansteorran 
>Participant's
> > Handbook. The complaint usually runs something like this: "Why the hell 
>did
> > they restate everything in the SCA Marshal's Handbook? We have to meet 
>the
> > SCA requirements as a minimum anyway. Why wasn't the Participant's 
>Handbook
> > written as a simple addendum? It would have been easier to use, easier 
>to
> > follow, easier to maintain."
>
>I think Dore answered this issue quit well.  If we have problems with 
>people simply looking at the Ansteorran Handbook, why should we think they 
>are going to look at multiple documents?
>
> >
> > Personally, I think these complaints lack a sense of history. Yes, on 
>the
> > internet, the Participant's Handbook would be easier to use and teach 
>and
> > maintain as an addendum. When this Kingdom began, however, the Internet 
>was
> > a tiny little defense department ghetto. Extensibility is a fairly new
> > concept in documentation. In the days when hardcopy roamed the earth, it
> > made more sense for the Ansteorran Participant's Handbook to be a 
>standalone
> > tome. Today, that's no longer true. Now, it makes more sense to use 
>pointer
> > links where possible and write our own marshals guides as addenda.
>
>Agreed with regard to history.  Also, an online version with links works 
>fine.  However, even in this day and age, not everyone has online access.  
>Try printing the rules out and then try to follow them flipping back and 
>forth between our rules and addenda and the copy of the Society rules.
>
>I'm not against simplifying the rules, but I don't think this is the best 
>way to go.  I see as many disadvantages as advantages is all.
>
> >
> > Lyonel
>
>Ansgar
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ansteorra mailing list
>Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us