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

RE: [EKSouth] Changes to East Kingdom Armor Standards

Expand Messages
  • Joel Doner
    Richard:   Thank you for your comments all of which are well thought out. Although, I disagree with some of them, it s nice when friends can disagree.  
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for your comments all of which are well thought out. Although, I disagree with some of them, it's nice when friends can disagree.

      --- On Fri, 4/30/10, James Peck <theregent1@...> wrote:

      From: James Peck <theregent1@...>
      Subject: RE: [EKSouth] Changes to East Kingdom Armor Standards
      To: EKSouth@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 4:18 PM


      Master Lawrence,

      As always, your perspective is welcome and your writing in recent days
      eloquent and precise. Responses below with # prefix.

      Richard Blackmoore


      From: EKSouth@yahoogroups .com [mailto:EKSouth@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of
      Joel Doner
      Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:40 PM
      To: EKSouth@yahoogroups .com
      Subject: Re: [EKSouth] Changes to East Kingdom Armor Standards


      You write about the "Intent" of the rule and about how there are fringe who
      try to be technically correct to get around the intent of the rule. But that
      is not the issue here.

      # You are apparently not on some of the other lists, including EK marshal,
      where that has been discussed either as a problem OR as a form of suggested
      protest by some. So it was not the original issue, but it is an issue, hence
      the comments in Lucan's post about how it is basically wrong to purposely
      wear something out of spite.

      As it has been pointed out to me by Istvan, tie-dyed is apparently period.

      # Yes, it is for some cultures and armour types.

      Would a fighter be asked to leave the field because his technically correct
      tabard is offensive to some?

      # If he is, I will defend him and that will be rectified. No one is asking
      for that.

      Not under this new rule.

      # Correct.

      I hope we would never ask the non-european personas to put tabards over
      their obvious non-Pre-17th Century European clothing or amror.

      # No, that is not the intent. The solutions allowed are not limited to
      tabards. Tabards are simply one of the easiest solutions that can be churned
      out for the vast majority of people who are European or who are visitors to
      the medieval European environment that is the SCA. It was made very, very
      clear, that there are a variety of solutions including tunics, Byzantine,
      Viking/Norse, dark ages pants & shirts, fighting gowns, surcoats with
      sleeves and a host of other coverings. Not to mention leather and textiles
      that can be glued on or used as coverings (such as gamboissed cuisses), cuir
      boilli, and a myriad of other solutions including fake fur for the African
      warriors (we have at least two) in the East. This has been discussed at
      extreme length.

      # So where we are churning out tabards and surcoats for those that need
      them, other solutions work. But it does not make sense to make 10 leopard
      skin armour coverings for Gold Key just in case 10 Africans show up in blue
      barrel plastic. Hence our outreach to help individuals with special needs
      get the covering appropriate to their culture/armour, etc.

      # But to be blunt, if someone is wearing blue barrel plastic safety gear, it
      isn't really armour identifiable as European or not European, so tossing a
      tabard over it does not take away from the armour's provenance in any way.

      But, that is where this policy is heading.
      # Respectfully, no, it is absolutely not. I will not allow that and neither
      will the chivalry or the marshals. That is not the intent nor is it written
      that way. The tabard is being given as a solution, others were listed
      including covering the plastic or painting it.

      I think that part of the problem with this policy is you can't just say just
      throw a tabard over it and it's medevial.

      # No, but you can put a medieval tabard over plastic safety armour and now
      say that it at least is hidden and on the outside a tabard, surcoat or 15th
      century fighting gown all are clearly medieval.

      The proposed solution is not a solution, but one man's idea about what he
      thinks is acceptable to imposed on a Kingdom he does not live in.

      # It is your opinion that it is not a solution. It is indeed a solution.
      Perhaps not a good solution or the best solution, but it is a solution. I
      will agree with you that protesting the SEM's decision is valid, I
      personally don't have a problem with it, but understand why you do. If he
      consulted the KEM's and they consulted their crown and fighters, it is not a
      big deal to me. If he did not do that, then I don't like the process. Your
      concerns that perhaps it should have gone through other channels and
      processes is duly noted, perhaps correct, in which case I will admit being
      wrong if I am. Others certainly share that concern including Lucan, Darius
      and others.

      The choice should be the East Kingdom's not the SEM's.

      # That is opinion, but OK. He DID actually give the SEM's the leeway to come
      up with a solution. This one is Padraig's who did consult the EK Marshals
      including any chivalry who choose to be on that and involved in the EK
      marshals discussions about fighting.

      Instead of creating a cookie cutter idea of what is acceptable, the better
      idea is to promote creative solutions.
      # It was not cookie cutter society wide. He let the individual KEM's go back
      to their kingdoms and come up with kingdom by kingdom decisions on how to
      enforce the existing rules and what if any needed to be done to clarify
      that. Cookie cutter would have been to pick a specific solution, make it a
      society wide standard, which would force all kingdoms to comply with that.
      He could for example have picked the standards of Atlantia, Calontir,
      Aethelmearc or any other kingdom with significantly higher minimums than the
      East's and made that the society standard. He did not do that.

      In the last, 3 years have you personally seen any armor in the lists that
      was so offensive that you felt the need to tell that person to get out of
      the list?

      #Yes. But instead I chose to talk to them privately rather than embarrass

      If you have not seen this, then there is no need for this rule. If you did
      see something, did you say anything to that person, the marshal or the

      #Yes. Numerous times, to the fighter. And I've commented on it to other

      The current rules allow you to do so. Did you ask the person with the
      offending armor if he needed help getting better gear?

      #Yes. A notable example was a very talented fighter last year at I think it
      was Southern Region war practice. All white hideous plastic, looked like a
      Star Wars storm trooper whose harness was run over by a road paver. And we
      sat him down with several people later who offered advice on ways to cover
      it or improve it. For which he was very appreciative.

      If yes, then again there is no need for this rule. unless he refused the
      help to be annoying.

      #There are those who refuse help and are wearing non-medieval armour or crap
      specifically to be annoying.

      If not, then we do not need a new rule when we are not enforcing the ones
      we have?

      #That is half the point, when confronted these people not making an attempt,
      sometimes claim that under the current rule they are and so nothing can be
      done. This recent clarification of what constitutes an attempt at pre-17th
      century appearance, simply provides clarity and guidelines/help for those
      trying to enforce pre-existing rules. When someone says "But my blue barrel
      plastic that has Gigantor and Mechagodzilla painted on it IS medieval and a
      reasonable attempt" we can simply point to the rule and he can't try to
      weasel around it anymore. So the poor marshal of zero rank, does not have to
      worry about whether he interpreted it right or not.

      As for writing the BOD, I have first requested Master Padraig to reconsider
      this policy.

      # OK. He can change his approach, but I don't see how he can ignore the
      SEM's directive. And frankly, this rule is such a very minor change, I just
      don't see why he would.

      If he will not, then I will appeal to the Royalty.

      # Cool.

      And if needed to the BOD.

      # Fine. The BOD generally has this stuff handled by the SEM & the kingdoms
      when it is a matter of interpretation of the rules of the list or the list
      fields, when it isn't a major change requiring new legislation. But go
      ahead. One problem with the board, is that the people on it sometimes are
      not all fighters. And even if they are, going to the BOD often results in a
      severe example of the law of unintended consequences. Complain about this
      and the board might decide they should make a decision. Their decision might
      be to implement Atlantia's minimums society wide, which really would upset a
      lot in the East as we are often way below Atlantian standards. I'm not, it
      won't affect me, most of VDK, etc. But then you are talking no exposed
      modern cleats, sneakers, hockey gloves, etc. Which would make me happy, but
      isn't what many in the East want.

      I have little problem if the BOD in an open meeting changes the rules, or
      if the Royalty hold curia on the topic, but I do have real problem when an
      officer exceeds his authority, even if he is doing it with the best

      # Sure. I agree. If you are right and he did that, then you have my support.
      Currently I don't agree, but I'm willing to be convinced.


      --- On Fri, 4/30/10, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@gmail.
      <mailto:Taranach% 40gmail.com> com> wrote:

      From: Taranach McLeod <Taranach@gmail. <mailto:Taranach% 40gmail.com> com>
      Subject: Re: [EKSouth] Changes to East Kingdom Armor Standards
      To: EKSouth@yahoogroups <mailto:EKSouth% 40yahoogroups. com> .com
      Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 6:37 AM

      Bottom line, Corpora very clearly states "Attempt at pre-17th century
      clothing"... . that does not mean the attempts to bypass the rule by using
      tie-dye or other means of subterfuge, that means making your best effort to
      look like a person from a pre-17th century culture. It is written into our
      highest standards and is derived into detail in the documents which follow
      and are subordinate to it. Notwithstanding your anecdotes of those who have
      done otherwise and pulled it off, they were individual instances and done as
      a joke or as a point, not as a general rule.

      I too have been playing historical reenactments for over 30 years and there
      is always a fringe element that likes to try to get away with things that
      are "technically correct" but radically different in intent. The first thing
      those people do is to start "rules lawyering" to seem like there is a
      legitimate complaint. I like to have fun and "stretch" the rules
      occasionally too. It is an exception, not the rule.... all that is happening
      here is they are enforcing the rule that has existed from the beginning.just
      a little bit harder.

      Your attitude, your opinion, your choice.... does not change the rule or its
      legitimacy. Write to the BoD

      "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."

      On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Joel Doner <jmdoner@yahoo.
      <mailto:jmdoner% 40yahoo.com> com> wrote:

      > My Lord Taranach:
      > I would simply point out that your use of the Society Marshal's Handbook
      > subordinate to my points from Corpora. As you may be aware Handbooks do
      > take precedent over Corpora. I think that is part of the problem.
      > Significant changes in the Kingdom should not be made by an
      > officer's policy, but should be done through Curia. Significant Society
      > changes should go through the BOD. Not by a single person's idea of what
      > medieval and what is a legitimate attempt at medieval clothes.
      > I have been playing medieval for almost 30 years. I have seen that many
      > different people play medieval in very different ways. Perhaps that's why
      > are creative anachronists and re-creationists. I have known royal peers
      > have worn full Elizabethan made out of camouflage material and pulled it
      > off. There was a time at Pennsic when we had a Hawaiian tunic night and
      > countless other creative times at events. I guess we were more interested
      > in having fun at our hobby, then being told how to play it. At least in
      > East Kingdom we always seemed to tolerate different ideas of how to play
      > game. I don't see the urgency to change that open and welcome feeling.
      > Lastly, I would not presume to guess why you responded to my post as you
      > did. However, I ask that you not presume to tell me why I feel they way I
      > about this issue. As I said, I think the Earl Marshal has exceeded his
      > authority and I don't think you can legislate attitude.
      > Lawrence
      > --- On Fri, 4/30/10, Taranach McLeod <Taranach@gmail.
      <mailto:Taranach% 40gmail.com> com<Taranach% 40gmail.com> >
      > wrote:
      > From: Taranach McLeod <Taranach@gmail. <mailto:Taranach% 40gmail.com> com
      <Taranach%40gmail. com>>
      > Subject: Re: [EKSouth] Changes to East Kingdom Armor Standards
      > To: EKSouth@yahoogroups <mailto:EKSouth% 40yahoogroups. com> .com
      <EKSouth%40yahoogro ups.com>
      > Date: Friday, April 30, 2010, 12:33 AM
      > From the Society Marshal Handbook, Section 6
      > A. All participants on the field during adult armored combat shall meet
      > Society minimum armor standards for a fully armored combatant. This
      > includes, but is not limited to, combat archers, siege engineers and other
      > combatants. It does not include marshals, water-bearers, or chirurgeons.
      > Special attention should be paid to appearance and the atmosphere of a
      > medieval event should be maintained.
      > Perhaps you should read that last sentence a few times... this is NOT a
      > standard or policy by any means... it is a more stringent observation of
      > the
      > existing rules. These are the basic rules that you agree to obey when you
      > become an authorized fighter (in addition to specific Kingdom rules)
      > No matter how you argue and finagle your way around, this policy has
      > already
      > been in existence for well over a year at the least (since November 2008
      > according to the revision date). Your suggestion that tie dye, camouflage
      > or
      > Hawaiian print can be substituted is wrong... again read the last
      > At the very least we fall back on "an attempt at pre-17th century
      > Blue or white plastic and the other aforementioned substitutions do NOT
      > qualify as an attempt... they qualify as a blatant disregard for the
      > The only exceptions are those regarding safety.
      > Plastics were not in use in period. Metals, wood, and leather as well as
      > cloth or skins were all they used. We make allowances for safety standards
      > and even allow the USE of those plastics for durability and lightness...
      > all
      > that is asked is to cover those plastics with something that looks more
      > period. Whether that is with a tabard, cloth, leather, paint or other
      > is up to the individual. The idea is still to appear medieval instead of
      > like extras from a Mad Max or other post apocalyptic movie set.
      > The only reason I can see for your large amounts of very focused and
      > research into the rules to discredit this enforcement is that you do not
      > wish to play medieval. Do you really want to fight against Stormtroopers
      > instead?
      > Taranach
      > "Melior morior in nostrum pedis quam inservio in nostrum genua."
      > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Joel Doner <jmdoner@yahoo.
      <mailto:jmdoner% 40yahoo.com> com<jmdoner% 40yahoo.com> >
      > wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Greetings to the List:
      > > I normally don't write to the list, but the latest changes to the Earl
      > > Marshal's policies compel me to do so. I have had a chance to look over
      > the
      > > East Kingdom Earl Marshal's (EKM) decision to impose the aesthetic
      > > requirements as suggested by the Society Earl Marshal. My understanding
      > is
      > > that this is not a Society policy yet, but could be implemented if the
      > > kingdom did not do so. If it has become SEM's official policy my
      > > are not changed.
      > > First, let me say that I have deep respect for Master Padraig. I truly
      > > believe that he is doing what he thinks is best for the Kingdom. I just
      > > think he is wrong. I believe he has exceeded his authority and that the
      > > policy is substantively wrong. I do not know the SEM. I do not know
      > what
      > > the SEM's reasoning is for this policy. I would like to think it is
      > > honorable, but misguided.
      > > According to section F.3 of East Kingdom Law, (page 10) the Kingdom Earl
      > > Marshal is an advisor to the Crown and is responsible for setting the
      > safety
      > > standards of weapons and armor subject to the Crown's approval. He is
      > > responsible for enforcing the rules of the list, supervising the
      > > and local marshals. And finally he is responsible for authorizations.
      > > Nowhere does he have the authority to create rules or policies in
      > reference
      > > to aesthetics or realistic looking armor for participation in the list.
      > So
      > > this new policy clearly fall outside of his authority as Kingdom Earl
      > > Marshal since this rule has nothing to do with the actual armor
      > standards.
      > > If you want to argue that covering up what is otherwise safe armor falls
      > > within the terms of armor standards, and then he still has exceeded his
      > > authority. All changes to both weapons and armor standards are
      > specifically
      > > subject to the "Sovereign's Approval". Therefore, only the Royalty can
      > > implement this policy change.
      > > As for the SEM's authority, that too is limited by Corpora. Corpora on
      > > page 16 does give the SEM broad powers. However, he is to work with the
      > > Minister of Arts in reference to encouraging "research" in armor and
      > > weapons. He does not have the authority to dictate styles of armor on
      > his
      > > own. Passing an arbitrary policy as to appearance does not promote
      > > "research". Society Officers cannot make policies that conflict with
      > > Corpora. Section II.B of Corpora only requires an "attempt" at Pre-17th
      > > century clothing. His policy of requiring specific elements in the
      > > appearance of armor to participate in martial combat, conflicts with
      > > section of Corpora.
      > > If you argue that this is merely and expansion of the "attempt" or
      > > "research" into armor, then there would be nothing to stop the SEM or
      > > from saying that your armor cannot be made up of different styles or
      > mixed
      > > periods in order to encourage research in armor. They could ban black
      > and
      > > red fiberglass spears and we will have to use plastic that looks like a
      > wood
      > > shaft spears? Further, they could ban colored tape on swords and only
      > black
      > > lines on metallic tape would be allowed. And how do I put cloth over
      > > clamshell gauntlets?
      > > Substantively, I think the rule is wrong. The SEMs and EKM's policies
      > have
      > > historically been about safety. To allow such a broad interpretation of
      > the
      > > SEMs and EKMs powers to allow them to keep out perfectly safe fighters
      > > because of aesthetics seems well beyond the purpose of the rules.
      > > Would it be acceptable if the Minister of Arts passed a policy that you
      > > could not receive a scroll unless you garb was acceptable? Or, how
      > > the Minister of Arts determining whether your armor is a good attempt,
      > since
      > > Corpora requires the SEM to work with the SMOA on this issue?
      > > Lastly, it is difficult if not impossible to legislate attitude. If
      > > someone wants to be a jack ass about following the rules, you can't make
      > him
      > > a nice guy. Those people who will want to snub this rule can simply
      > > the most hideous material as a tabard. How about a nice tide dyed
      > > camouflage, or Hawaiian print material?
      > > If you want to promote looking better in the lists and the fields, then
      > do
      > > so through encouragement, teaching, and helping them make better armor.
      > > Don't madate rediculous rules that can easily be side stepped by those
      > who
      > > who are smart enough to do so.
      > > Please feel free to repost this letter to other lists.
      > > Yours in Service,
      > > Lawrence Thornguard, OP.
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > ------------ --------- --------- ------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ------------ --------- --------- ------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.