ANSTHRLD - ILoAR 0398

[Tim McDaniel]

On Thu, 14 May 1998, HL Larkin O'Kane <larkin at webstar.net>
wrote:
> Perhaps it's time to introduce another gap catching rule
> that would allow clearing an item that is very visually
> dissimilar though not clear by X.1-5.

Please Lord no.  We went to objective rules because the Old
Ways were worse.  I consider X.5 bad enough; adding a visual
clearing rule would reduce them to "they're clear or
conflict by these rules unless Laurel says otherwise, and
Laurel can say whatever they want".

> But still, used judiciously?  

How do you use an intrinsically undefined judgment call
judiciously?  Judgment differs so much.

> I still do not see how people would confuse the two items
> were they to appear together on the same battlefield.

Nobody says yea or nay on that.  *That's not the basis of
the Rules*.  *We don't do visual conflict* (except for the
verdammt X.5), saying that two sets of arms look alike.
There are things that look similar yet are clear, and things
that look different that conflict.

The basis of the rules is supposed to be *cadency
differences*, that one set of arms claims *close
relationship* to another.  Each of X.1, X.2, and X.4 were
devised to approximate (loosely) different ways that
differencing was done.  There is evidence (e.g., the Hays of
Scotland) that changing the field tincture could be used for
cadency.  Therefore, the changes to a field can be one CD.
Every return for conflict is not a visual confusion -- it's
an appearance of presumption call.

If you can do research that says that there were apparently
no cadency instances (or extremely few) of changing line of
partition and changing all the tinctures, for example, then
that's the basis of discussion for a rules change.

> O.K.  I believe it's dead horse time.

The crowd has swarmed out of the stands and is jumping up
and down on a greasy horse-shaped spot on the pavement ...

> Larkin - If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and
> quacks like a duck let's not say it resembles a condor -
> O'Kane

Sometimes, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck, it's a chicken in drag.

Daniel de Lincolia
- -- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at crl.com; if that fail, tmcd at austin.ibm.com
is work address.  tmcd at tmcd.austin.tx.us is wrong tool.  Never use this.
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.