Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9596Re: [EKSouth] Changes to the Amror Standards

Expand Messages
  • Joel Doner
    May 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Lord Robert:
      First, let me say that you are right that I have real problem with how this was done.  I believe that SEM has exceeded his authority. I think everyone should be concerned with this point. This time he has done something you like, so it does not appear to be a problem. But what will do if the next SEM may do something you don't like? You will not be able to argue that he has exceeded his authority then, because this time you said it was okay. 
      You may be right that I speak for a minority.  Then again, you may be speaking for the opinion of a small but vocal minority.  However, don't you agree that this type of decision should have come from us and not from the SEM? Then, we would know how our Kingdom really feels.
      I am a monarchist at heart and I have to admit that if our Royalty wants this and says so, I will have no issue with their decision. However, they have not expressed their decision and silence is not an endorsement. 
      The worst kind of evil is when good men do nothing in the face of something they know is wrong. The way this was done is wrong and we should not stand for it.  This is not the first time the East has stood up to a society officer and has won.  I hope it is not the last time.  And yes, there was a price to be paid last time for opposing a society officer for what we believed in, but it was worth it.
      As for your point that Atlantia has done this for years. My response is, who cares what Atlantia or any other Kingdom does at their events. The Mid-Realm has an invitational Crown Tourney. The West has no equivalent of the OTC. I hear they call that award Viscount. Ansteorra has standardized scrolls for AOAs.  That might work well for them, but that has no bearing on how we should do things in the East.  We should do what works for us.
      I agree that it is no longer 1968, 1998 or even 2008.  But, that does not mean we give up the ideas that are at the heart of our Society and Kingdom. Some truths, even unwritten truths transcend time. Perhaps that is why were are anachronists to begin with and try to preserve the best ideas from times long ago.  I don't think my understanding or definition of what our society should be are no longer applicable as you suggested.
      We bend the definition of our game all the time. We allow non-European personas, pre-roman personas (The Spartans), roman personas (The Romans and Legio Draconis) and post 17th century personas, (Most of the fencing community is post 1600.) and the Tuchux. None of their armor even remotely fits into the Pre-17th Century European era. Will they be next to go? I know some have said they would defend thier right to stay. But if they allow this current marshal's policy to go unchallenged, they will have no tools to do so. 
      We have always been an inclusive society. This rule is exclusive in it's design. I hate to think that we are becoming an exclusive society.

      --- On Sat, 5/1/10, Bob Davis <bob@...> wrote:

      From: Bob Davis <bob@...>
      Subject: Re: [EKSouth] Changes to the Amror Standards
      To: EKSouth@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, May 1, 2010, 11:54 AM


      I'm not Jadwiga, but thought I'd opine.

      Joel Doner wrote:

      > I understand that you support the idea of better dressed fighters in
      > 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.

      Trouble is, the SCA appears to me to have moved beyond your definition
      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 I
      > 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.

      Neither do I. I don't understand why you have a problem with an
      appearance standard.

      > Will you be as comfortable with a ruling from a Society Officer about
      > 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?

      Yes. As a matter of fact, such a requirement already exists. I refer
      you to Corpora VII.A.1.

      > Whether you support or oppose this policy, shouldn't a decision like
      > this have been made by the Royalty in curia instead of the SEM?

      Well, since the guy in the hat on the chair can tell the KEM - who has
      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.


      R Fairfax

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic