[ANSTHRLD] Conflicting with a non player.

[Tim McDaniel]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010, Jay Rudin <rudin at peoplepc.com> wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
>
>> I do not remember ever hearing a heraldic client asking how long the
>> registration was for, or how protected it was from conflict.  Nor do
>> the forms have any information about that.  If there is no meeting of
>> the minds on any sort of terms, there is no contract.
>
> The rules have said for decades that registration is effectively
> permanent.

You did not address my point.  I wrote about what I've heard from
clients, not about what is stated in a rarely-read manual.  The
clients are one party; the handbook is used almost entirely by the
other party.

>> Also, I question how important people think it is -- but: obviously
>> people are hearing about registration somehow, because I don't
>> remember hearing questions like "so what's this heraldry business?
>> what is registration?".  So I suspect people may hear it at a
>> newcomer's class or somewhere.
>
> The mere fact that people have opinions about it is proof that it's
> important to them.

Yes, but "them" is how many thems out of the whole population of
thems?

>> On another point, I want to point out "the rules".  ... more people
>> arriving at my desk, so I can't go into the point.  Rules changes.
>> Sometimes radically.  Some of the upcoming proposed changes are pretty
>> major.  Is that a violation of this purported "contract"?
>
> The rules when my name and device passed stated that the
> registration will be permanent despite any later changes in rules.
> Presumably, future rules could change what conflict is, reducing
> what it takes to clear conflict.  The SCA could legally say that
> conflict is cleared by any change whatsoever ... (It might even be
> possible to declare that zero points of difference with thirty years
> difference in submission date would clear conflict, and then in a
> year or two someone could also register my exact device.  ...)  But
> in any case, my name and device will still be registered, unless *I*
> (or my heirs and assigns) send a letter releasing it.

Indeed, I know of no Corpora prohibition against such a diminuation of
difference: as I recall, it just says that Laurel must establish
"suitable standards of difference" or some such.  It would answer the
wish expressed by some in the occasional eruptions of this topic, to
allow them to register their tattoo despite it conflicting with
someone else's tattoo from [N] years ago who [did|did not]
[leave|die|fail to renew ownership|fail to renew SCA membership].
(Bracketed terms vary between eruptions.)

Danielis Lindum Colonia
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com