[ANSTHRLD] Conflicting with a non player.

[Wendel Bordelon]

We have in the passed lessened the protection of historical persons, it was
the Modest Proposal.  In that change we put in place a way of determining
who was important enough to protect and stopped conflict checking against
all the other sources.  For example Papworth's book is a great source of
period armory and a huge source of conflicts until the Modest Proposal.

There will always be ways to get armory registered.  The question will be
how "period" it will be.  Unfortunately there really isn't a good way of
telling if someone in the SCA is really not playing any longer or just
taking a break, or may return.  The "important" armory could get rolled into
the same process used for protecting "important" historical arms.

Another option would be to change from one single heraldic jurisdiction into
multiple jurisdictions.  But that brings up a different set of issues.

--Francois

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Eldwin Nightowl <eldwin at loveshade.org>wrote:

> Personally, I did understand your point and I thought it a very good
> question.  But if we lessen the amount of acceptable conflict for SCA
> personas, then I think we have to do the same thing for historical
> personas.  It would radically change the level of SCA heraldry, and I don't
> necessarily think that's a good thing.
>
> I also understand your concern that at "some point there will be a wall
> that we hit when it comes to what can be registered."  Fortunately, this
> will never happen.  As just one example, some have estimated the number of
> possible chess positions as 10 to the 120th power.  And that's ignoring the
> board or, in heraldic terms, field.  There are a very limited number of
> chess pieces and only two tinctures.
>
> SCA heraldry, on the other hand, has seven tinctures and half a dozen
> furs.  And there are hundreds if not thousands of possible charges.
>
> There are many, many, many times more possible chess positions than there
> are atoms in the universe.  And that number is virtually nothing compared to
> the number of possible SCA devices.  We won't run out.  :-)
>
> Eldwin Nightowl
>
> --- On Fri, 11/12/10, Darnell Daniels <dmage121 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Darnell Daniels
> Date: Friday, November 12, 2010, 8:11 AM
>
>
>
> I think there may have been some misinterpretation of my intent. My intent
> is
> not to allow someone to assume someones device, but that the measures for
> signifying difference be relaxed if the person is non-contactable after a
> reasonable amount of time or deceased. In no way should anyone get the same
> arms
> as someone else. I am referencing an earlier post of the "gules three lions
> passant guardant". I do not wish to see everyone with the same device, nor
> am I
> using this as a platform to push for one submitter. This is just a problem
> that
> I saw that will soon be a bigger issue as our more venerable members pass
> on. At
> some point there will be a wall that we hit when it comes to what can be
> registered.
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>