[ANSTHRLD] Asterisk moving this weekend!

[tmcd at panix.com]

I have a few style notes on how to phrase an appeal.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, radei at moscowmail.com wrote:
> Unto the Ansteorra College of Heralds
...
> We kindly ask that the Ansteorran College of Herald reconsider the
> return, and forward the submission on to Laurel.  Thank you for your
> time and consideration in this matter.

The applicable part of the SCA College of Arms Administrative Handbook
is

    IV.E. Right of Appeal - A submitter shall have the right to appeal
        any return to Laurel.  All appeals must be supported by new
        documentation, other proof that the original submission was
        returned in error or by compelling evidence that the
        submission was not properly considered at the time of return.
        Appeals must be submitted through the appropriate heraldic
        officers specified for such actions by the submitter's kingdom
        of residence.  Such officers must forward the appeal in a
        timely manner, with or without recommendations, to Laurel.  If
        Laurel rules against the appeal, a second appeal may be made
        directly to the Board of Directors.

Note: "MUST forward the appeal".  Ansteorra has no ability to block,
return, or stall it.  "In a timely manner" means that Ansteorra can
run it through the normal internal commentary and decision process --
but Ansteorra can't return it: the most the kingdom college can do is
say something like "We support/oppose/take no position on the appeal"
and list reasons.  Or Ansteorra could fast-track it.  "Timely manner"
means that it can't be delayed any more than a normal armory
submission submitted at the same time.

So you wouldn't need to address the Ansteorran College; you might
instead address Laurel.

But actually, there's no need to address anyone.  The best wording is
something worded as for an LoI, so Asterisk can copy and paste it.
There are no saluations then.  There's submission history and then
documentation.

If I were writing the appeal, I'd word it like this.

    Radei Drchevich.  Device.  Quarterly gules and argent, on a
    lozenge throughout sable a mullet of four points Or.

    The submitter's name was registered in April 2005.

    He submitted this design in April 2007.  It was returned by
    Ansteorra June 2007: "Returned for conflict with Paul of Sunriver,
    'Azure, a compass star Or' with only one CD for the field, but
    nothing for the difference between a mullet of four points and a
    compass star."

    For the lack of difference of the mullet: "The overwhelming visual
    similarities between a mullet of four points and a mullet of four
    greater and four lesser points/compass star, both of which are
    non-period charges, mandates against granting a ... CD for this
    relatively minor difference." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR June 1995, p.
    24) [Also] (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR November 1995, p. 17)

I would not go into the details of RfS X.2 and X.4: the College of
Arms knows them very well.

    He appeals on these grounds.

    - RfS X.2 clears the conflicts: a lozenge substantially differs in
      type from a mullet (and both designs are X.2-simple).

    - RfS X.4 clears the conflicts, with CDs for changing a mullet to
      a lozenge and for adding the tertiary mullet.

    - He does not know of evidence that a field may be v{e^}tu
      quarterly; if it can't, it can only be a lozenge.

(I believe strongly in "intellectual honesty": providing the College
with all the pertinent data I know of.  So if I were writing the
appeal, I'd then append the evidence that a field *can* be v{e^}tu
quarterly, the 1991 precedent equating v{e^}tu and a lozenge, the
William Gordon ruling of April 2003 upholding it, the November 2002
ruling that was more explicit, and the argument that the November 2002
ruling was miswritten as being too strict.)

Danet de Lyncoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com