[ANSTHRLD] Conflicting with a non player.

Joseph Percer jpercer at gmail.com
Fri Nov 12 07:45:20 PST 2010


Hmmmmmm..... 1st I'd like to say that, I've discusssed this sort of
situation with some former Sovereigns of Arms and I can tell you
that the corporate level of SCA Heraldry is very much aware of this
type of situation. The problem is, there is no easy way to address it.
We
protect important real-world arms because we do not want issues of
presumption, as noted by Sir Lochlan. The other issue is that there
are
certainly notable persons in the SCA, and even if we choose not to
indefinitely protect every piece of arms, I would definitely object to
removing
protection from significant society players. The problem then becomes,
how do you decide who is significant enough to indefinitely protect
versus not?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's really no viable
solution that addresses and meets the "important" arms conundrum for
SCA registrations. Even the Modest Proposal was controversial at it's
time. I think if there was an acceptable solution, it would have
already been put into play. For now, the only thing you can do, is
difference your arms accordingly, or obtain permission to conflict in
some way.

Jayme

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Brandon McDermott
<brandonsmcd at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is there no clause stating "Rules subject to change with or without notice" in Corpora? If not, we are all still operating on the rules and regulations laid down 44 years ago and all subsequent rules should be eliminated....
>
> What I mean to say is that we all to often say "We can't change that because that is how it is".... That is a falsehood. Our rules, regulations, laws, bi-laws, and even "The Game" change daily. Just as rules and laws of the people and places we are reenacting changed before, during, and after that time, so shall ours.
>
> All of that said, I don't think we should allow for the removal of a devise or name from those who have passed either from the SCA or this mortal coil. What value would the "gules three lions passant guardant" have if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had it as their personal devise?
>
> Sir Lochlan
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 11/12/10, Kevinkeary at aol.com <Kevinkeary at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Kevinkeary at aol.com <Kevinkeary at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Conflicting with a non player.
> To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> Date: Friday, November 12, 2010, 8:27 AM
>
>
> This argument comes up every now and then. I see it as a problem. I don't
> think there is a solution. When the CoA accepts money for a registration,
> they  are selling a product. That product is permanent and inheritable. Even
> if NEW  registrations carried a disclaimer of 'for the lifetime of the
> Holder' or  REQUIRED a 'Heraldic Will' be filed with the registration, it would
> not change  the fact that the products sold to everyone up until now is theirs
> for their  lifetime unless they willingly give that ownership up in one way
> or another,  whether they play or not, and then passes on to their
> designated or legal  default heir, whether they KNOW it or not. Some of these people
> are already deceased. Short of disbanding the registering entity, I don't
> think  there is a way to fix this.
> Kevin
>
>
> In a message dated 11/12/2010 8:11:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> dmage121 at yahoo.com writes:
>
> My good  heralds,
>
> I know that there is no shelf life on name and devices, but  what happens
> when we
> have a submitter who has a device that conflicts and  makes every effort to
> get
> in touch with the conflicting gentile, only to  find that the person is no
> longer
> active in the SCA? Is there some way  that we can document or some process
> where
> we can place that persons name  and device in an inactive status for a time
> where
> it will be released  after a predetermined time of inactivity on the
> inactive
> list? I think  that it would make life easier in the long run if the
> process ran
> as  follows:
>
> 1. An inquiry is made and it is found that the person is no  longer active.
> 2. An inquiry is sent to the person asking if they would  like to release
> their
> name and device (response time 1 month).
>
> 3.  If there is a response, and it is so wished the name and device are
> immediately released, or a permission to conflict can then be attained.
>
> 4. If there is no response the name is placed in an "Inactive" status  for
> a set
> time (say 3 to 6 months). This gives the holder of the name and  device
> ample
> time to respond to periodic inquiries.
> 5. After the time  period has lapsed the name and device are placed in a
> "Deceased" status.  This designates that the PERSONA, not the person, is
> diseased
> and the name  and device may now be in conflict with another.
>
> 6. The new device must  still be different from the "Deceased" device, but
> with a
> less stringent  "CD" criteria.
> 7. Names must also differ, but can be  similar.
>
> My intent in this is not to penalize those that  are inactive because of
> various reasons. I am trying to target those that  have no contact with the
> SCA
> at all, i.e. they have left the game entirely  and have no desire to play
> anymore. I await the various  responses.
>
> For the Shire!
> Robert of Coleford
> Herald, Shire of  Gate's Edge
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing  list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>



-- 
Joseph M. Percer, AAS, LP



More information about the Heralds mailing list