RF - Fw: [SCA-Siege] bans and such (long)

[Cobalt60@lcc]

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Nogy <cnogy at dicksonstreet.com>
To: SCA-Siege at egroups.com <SCA-Siege at egroups.com>
Date: Thursday, 09 November, 2000 11:19 PM
Subject: [SCA-Siege] bans and such (long)


>Good gentles.
>
>I have been carefully considering the messages I have received over the
past week or so.  In reading them, I have found that I am in need of
clarifying many things.  So I will get to it.
>
>First, it is the goal of this Earl Marshal to achieve a balance in the
activities he oversees in the SCA - that is, combat and marshal activities.
Much of the work that has been done by Sir Eringlen is to try to define
exactly what a 'balance' is, but the idea that keeps returning is that a
balance occurs when a majority of participants are satisfied enough with a
weapon, tactic, scenario, etc... to be able to work with it on the field
without major difficulties.  This applies to safety concerns, philosophical
concerns, administrative concerns, and others, but these are the main three.
>
>Second, no final decision will be made without the input of the
participants.  Stated goals may already be in place for some items, but how
those goals are implemented and to what extent is up to the participants as
much as it is up to the marshallate.  True, mine is almost the final word,
but that word will not be given without careful consideration of the input I
get.
>
>So it falls upon me, as the deputy to Eringlen, to help bring about a
balance in the activity I am responsible for.
>
>I asked for input, and I got it.
>
>Now I will try to show people how my thoughts are working here.
>
>Everyone I have talked to would LIKE to see all the engines on the field
perfectly period and ultimately functional.  Nobody I know actually sets out
to build a less than perfect engine as a goal, but many engines fall short
of perfection because of skill or funding shortages on the part of their
builders.  That is OK, nobody has the ability to do everything and to afford
everything.
>
>Everybody WANTS the engines to be completely safe - nobody sets out
intentionally to build an unsafe engine.  (If they do, they are not
considered from that point on, they are not welcome).  But sometimes the
same restrictions as above cause materials use and design shortcuts that
actually make potentially dangerous instruments.
>
>Everybody WANTS to have their efforts on the field looked at with respect
and admiration - they want to feel like part of the game.  Those who build
something like an engine with the express intent of going outside the game,
going against the well established traditions of the field, well, they have
a few problems bigger than me threatening to ban their engines. But
sometimes the lack of funding and ability, and the lack of understanding of
the role of siege engines, causes actions that are not viewed well by
others.  And sometimes those restrictions cause the building of devices that
many of the participants do not see as 'reasonable' on the field (safe or
not)
>
>Everybody WANTS their engines to be easily administered on the field.  I
don't have much concern for those who want to make engines just to cause the
marshallate undue work.  But sometimes the amount of regulation that is
percieved as necessary to an activity causes just that.
>
>In short, I don't believe the intentions of any engineer are bad - but if
one group gets to call all the shots in an integrated environment, and they
set wide open standards, then other groups in the environment often have
complaints.  And such is the case here.
>
>Now, I don't directly represent those other folks, they have their own
administrators.  But i do indirectly represent them, as I hope they
indirectly represent me.  Only by compromise can we find the desired
balance.
>
>Weeks ago, we were discussing bungeelistas.  The general concensus seemed
to be a very liberal one - we generally don't like the t-bar surgical tubing
powered mini-guns, but because they meet the minimum standards we should
continue to allow them.  Well, many people think the scope of our standards
is just too large, and many have told me that they believe that some of the
devices we technically allow should not be considered for field use by
anyone with common sense.  They argue that there are reasonable alternatives
that are closer to the expected level of appearance and functionality.  They
argue that the use of some of these devices detracts from their enjoyment of
the game.  And as this is a hobby group, the most important aspect of our
time here is enjoyment, so the worst thing you can do is detract from the
enjoyment of a significant number of people.
>
>So in trying to achieve a balance, I made a pretty bold statement - I was
intent on decomissioning the rubber band guns, because these are the devices
which seem to be a common item in the complaints I have heard.  But that
turned out to be too broad a brushstroke.  My mistake.  I will try to narrow
it down.
>
>I am intent on re-classifying specific types of these devices so that they
are no longer included in the category of siege engines.  They might well
still be allowed by the combat archery marshallate to be used as the
equivalent of crossbows or handbows, but I do not believe they should be
allowed the extra effects of siege weapons.
>
>In the design of an engine, there are many things to look at.  From a
purist point of view, you can divide an engine into several pieces.  First,
the framework.  Second, the carriage.  Third, the release.  Fourth, the
cocking mechanism.  Fifth, the power source.
>
>Every engine will have these parts.  So how do you determine appropriate
engines and inappropriate engines?  What standard do you use?  Use the
standard set up in Corpora.  We are a pre 17th century recreation group.  So
use that as the baseline.
>
>It is common and beneficial to allow substitutions and modifications in our
projects, as long as the end result shows the form and function of the
original.  We allow substitutions of modern materials for mercury guilding
or felting, for example.  We allow local woods to be substituted for similar
period woods if they provide the same structural integrity and they don't
make the project something entirely out of period.  We allow modern
materials in place of period ones in armor, as long as they have the same
basic properties - this allows them to be 'equivalent' in function.  But the
final guideline we follow on making 'acceptable substitutions' is whether or
not the item will function in a way that the original would function.
>
>So in engine design, I propose this.  We need to establish a point where
substitutions in material and design create something unacceptable.  So I
would bring this to a discussion.  I believe that if you start out with a
median engine design (all 5 parts of the engine are period in design and
created with equivalent materials), then if you want to lower the level of
authenticity and functionality in one part, you should have to make a
corresponding increase in the level of another part.  If you choose to drop
all he parts out of the realm of period equivalency, then the engine may not
be acceptable.  If you choose to substitute something entirely out of period
for one part of the engine, then effort should be made to elevate the rest
of the engine enough to offset the 'offensive' (for lack of a better word)
element.
>
>In my mind, the t-bar, gate-latch release, eye-bolt and surgical tubing
ballista does not have enough period elements to make it acceptable within
the structure of a pre 17th century recreation group.  I am anxiously
awaiting Gulf to see examples for some of the more sophisticated elastic
cord strung engines in action - they may very well have enough period
elements to be considered a valid attempt at an engine.
>
>This is just one object, one specific type of engine, not a whole class of
materials or designs.  It has been the focus of many a disparaging remark
from players on the field (including other engineers).  There is ample cause
to question it's presence on the field as an engine.
>
>I am asking again for input - please be reasonable.  I have given everyone
the criteria I am using to try to achieve this balance, and achieving
balance is the one fixed value in this equation.  So please, what I need is
help to try to address the situation in a way that is beneficial to as many
people as possible, and that will require admitting that perhaps some of our
devices or tactics are not quite universally popular.  But we can improve
our lot by thoughtful application of 'good neighbor' policies.
>
>Looking forward to hearing your responses
>
>Kaz
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
>Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
>It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
>and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/0/_/581491/_/973833576/
>---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
>
>Get medieval at Mad Macsen's
>http://www.MedievalMart.com/
>
>Sponsored by House Wyvern Hall, BBM, East Kingdom, SCA
>[Email to SCA-Siege-unsubscribe at egroups.com to leave this list]
>
>