[ANSTHRLD] Permission to conflict??

[Jay Rudin]

Alden wrote:

> What about this...
> If someone wants to register a piece of armory that has a conflict, and
> the person exhausts all reasonable attempts to contact the person for a
> Letter of Permission to Conflict, they could apply for a waiver from
> Laurel (which may have some preliminary steps, like the Principal Herald
> must sign off on the application) allowing them to forgo the Letter of
> Permission to Conflict?

Well, that's one possibility.  Here's another:
What about this...
We protect in good faith what we told people we would protect, the way they 
were led to believe it would be protected.

I was not told that my armory and name would only be protected if I 
continued to pay money to the corporation.
I was not told that my armory and name would only be protected if I 
answered all mail promptly.

I was told that my armory and name would be protected if I paid the fee and 
it passed.  I was told that nobody else could register my armory without my 
consent.  That's what I paid for.  Why are we looking for a way to not 
protect armory that people paid good money to protect?  The act of 
registration for a fee is a valid legal contract.

I realize that there's a lot of armory from people who joined, registered 
something and then left forever.  I recognize the frustrations in trying to 
avoid conflict , but we said we would protect it, and we have to do it. 
The technical term for accepting money for a service and then changing the 
conditions of service unilaterally is "fraud".

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin