9591RE: [EKSouth] Changes to the Amror Standards
- May 1, 2010I really was going to stay out of this but I have to speak up…
I am rather surprised that people are looking past the entire substance of Larry’s argument in what appears to be a defense of a ruling that they themselves like and thus do not want to see go away.
At no time has Larry said the rule is bad and evil. At no time has he said he would thumb his nose at it or the already existing rule that makes this rule redundant and pointless (IMO). At no time did he chastise anyone for having an opinion counter to his own.
Some of the replies have been very well thought out and polite and still didn’t really counter the real thrust of Larry’s argument. Several of the replies have been in fact rather rude and presumptuous of Larry’s intent. To those that decided to use ad hominem arguments I would ask that you stop and really look at yourself and your actions. Baron Larry is a peer of this realm and has a proven track record of doing what he feels is right and honorable for a kingdom he has loved for over 30 years. If you do not have the honor of knowing him then your SCA experience is lesser for it. Attacking his person or motivations to defend a rule change is poor judgment at best.
The point of this entire argument is not whether or not the rule should exist. It’s that the person who made it did not have the authority to do so.
This would be akin to an NBA ref assigning a fine to a player. Yes that ref (even the head ref for the league) has powers. Yes they might be doing what they think is right. Heck, they might even BE right. But assigning that fine is someone else’s job.
A marshals job revolves around safety of the list. In no way does this ruling even touch list safety. This rule (which I actually support in some ways, even if I think it’s very poorly worded) needs to come from either Curia or the BoD. Personally I would rather see it from Curia because in general the BoD goes way too far when they get involved.
From: EKSouth@yahoogroups.com [mailto:EKSouth@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Davis
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [EKSouth] Changes to the Amror Standards
I'm not Jadwiga, but thought I'd opine.
Joel Doner wrote:
> I understand that you support the idea of better dressed fighters inTrouble is, the SCA appears to me to have moved beyond your definition
> the list. I have heard some argue that this is part of the evolution
> of the game. However, change for the sake of change is not evolution.
> The SCA was created not to be re-creationist organization, but a
> celebration of the best ideas from that time. For decades we would
> say we are NOT like the Civil War or Revolutionary War groups. The
> direction this rule is taking is forcing us towards re-creationist
> goals. I find that to be contradictory to the original intent of
> being a creative anachronoist instead of being a re-creationist.
of it. It is no longer 1968, or even 1998 (when I came East from
AEthelmearc). This is not a rule "forcing us towards re-creationist
goals", to my mind; it is a codification of an already widespread trend,
a redefinition of what you consider the SCA to still be.
I submit to you the SCA has changed around you, and no longer can be
defined by your definition of it. By its own propaganda and governing
documents, the SCA has defined itself as a medieval-studies
organization. The SCA is no longer a themed garden party, and those who
persist in defining it as such are only fooling themselves.
> Also, do you believe that the ends justify the means? The reason INeither do I. I don't understand why you have a problem with an
> ask is that you don't seem to have a problem that the Marshal's
> Office is able to create a dress code that has nothing to do with
> safety in the lists.
> Will you be as comfortable with a ruling from a Society Officer aboutYes. As a matter of fact, such a requirement already exists. I refer
> dress codes for Court, in order to receive a scroll, or to receive an
> award in order to make Court more aesthetically pleasing as some want
> in the lists?
you to Corpora VII.A.1.
> Whether you support or oppose this policy, shouldn't a decision likeWell, since the guy in the hat on the chair can tell the KEM - who has
> this have been made by the Royalty in curia instead of the SEM?
the onus of implementing the new rule - to get stuffed, practically
speaking the decision has been made. The Crown has to approve any
changes made, and can set aside that which s/he doesn't like. There may
be consequences for that, of course.
For your information, this rule was implemented some several years ago
by a king in Atlantia, presumably with the blessing of their curia.
I'm thinking it's not the rule with which you have a problem; it's the
means by which the rule was disseminated.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5077 (20100501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>