[ANSTHRLD] Ansteorran Gazette May 2011

[Bob Wade]

Postivive credit also goes to ACE and the way submitters are taking advantage of electronic open commentary.  Many are redrawing devices and badges in immediate response to identifiability concerns and revisng major/minor changes to onomastic concerns.
 
Tostig

--- On Wed, 5/4/11, Joseph Percer <jpercer at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Joseph Percer <jpercer at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Ansteorran Gazette May 2011
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011, 2:37 PM


I'd like to add that in the end, when it's decision meeting time, I
really prefer not to return items unless it's a sure deal thing that
they would be returned at Laurel. Sometimes that decision can be a
little bit difficult, but where possible I prefer to err on the side
of the submitter and let the item have a chance at Laurel. There's
many more resources at that level, particularly with some of the
commenters and their extensive experiences with some of the more
obscure naming practices out there. Though I can't speak for Alasdair,
my understanding is he worked mostly the same. So as a general rule,
I'd tend to agree with Emma, our pass rate is likely not artificially
increased by a higher than normal amount of returns.

Andrewe, who is going to go look at the statistics now, out of sheer curiosity.

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Jennifer Smith <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2011, Obelisk Herald <obelisk at herald.ansteorra.org> wrote:
>>> Ansteorra has enjoyed a spectacular pass/fail rate at Laurel the
>>> past year or so, including a 100% acceptance rate for all our
>>> submissions this past quarter.
>>
>> To descend into seriousness: I've seen it suggested that a prolonged
>> 100% pass rate is an indication that a kingdom may be rejecting too
>> much, not letting thru the borderline cases that could have gotten
>> thru with a shove and a wish.  But I've not read our returns to say.
>
> A prolonged rate, yes I certainly would agree. In this case, the wild
> 100% rate is due to two factors: only two LoARs came out in that
> quarter (and thus only covered two LoIs), and the ILoIs in question
> totalled only 24 items, 4 of which were returned in-kingdom. All
> armory, and all for good solid reasons (two return for redraws of
> really unidentifiable charges/fields, one violation of contrast, one
> conflict). Woo!
>
> -Emma
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>



-- 
Joseph M. Percer, AAS, LP
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org