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

Rules Clarification for Gorgets

Expand Messages
  • Eve Harris & David Stamper
    Greetings! THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule: vi. Additional throat
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings!

      THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
      rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:

      vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
      rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
      backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
      (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
      vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
      combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)

      The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire neck
      requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required to
      cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
      the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
      carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
      cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered by
      puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.

      Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
      but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a view
      on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
      changed, please let me know.

      Yours in Service

      Albrecht
      KRM, Ealdormere
    • argh@cogeco.ca
      The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration. The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim from society rules. This picture falls
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration. The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim
        from society rules. This picture falls within the mandate of Kingdoms increasing armour and safety standards, but not
        reducing them. Perhaps its best to ask the KRM who instituted illustration as to their intention, it may have been one
        of those proof reading issues, or it may well have been an actual policy change, in which case it should be understood
        and articulated within the kingdom rules by an appropriate revision. Although this could all be academic as the
        revisions did pass the Earl Marshall, and any clarification will need to do the same.

        So, who was it.... Was it Eyrny?

        =)

        >
        > Greetings!
        >
        > THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
        > rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:
        >
        > vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
        > rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
        > backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
        > (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
        > vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
        > combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)
        >
        > The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire neck
        > requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required to
        > cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
        > the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
        > carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
        > cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered by
        > puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.
        >
        > Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
        > but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a view
        > on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
        > changed, please let me know.
        >
        > Yours in Service
        >
        > Albrecht
        > KRM, Ealdormere
        >
        >

        Aaron Miedema
        Lentus autem non celer sum.
      • Eve Harris & David Stamper
        I believe it was Mateo who added the diagram in the last major set of revisions. I think the diagram came from another Kingdom s set of rapier rules. Albrecht
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I believe it was Mateo who added the diagram in the last major set of
          revisions. I think the diagram came from another Kingdom's set of rapier
          rules.



          Albrecht





          _____

          From: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of argh@...
          Sent: November 11, 2009 12:24 PM
          To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets





          The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration.
          The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim
          from society rules. This picture falls within the mandate of Kingdoms
          increasing armour and safety standards, but not
          reducing them. Perhaps its best to ask the KRM who instituted illustration
          as to their intention, it may have been one
          of those proof reading issues, or it may well have been an actual policy
          change, in which case it should be understood
          and articulated within the kingdom rules by an appropriate revision.
          Although this could all be academic as the
          revisions did pass the Earl Marshall, and any clarification will need to do
          the same.

          So, who was it.... Was it Eyrny?

          =)

          >
          > Greetings!
          >
          > THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
          > rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:
          >
          > vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
          > rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
          > backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
          > (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
          > vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
          > combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)
          >
          > The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire
          neck
          > requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required
          to
          > cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
          > the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
          > carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
          > cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered
          by
          > puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.
          >
          > Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
          > but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a
          view
          > on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
          > changed, please let me know.
          >
          > Yours in Service
          >
          > Albrecht
          > KRM, Ealdormere
          >
          >

          Aaron Miedema
          Lentus autem non celer sum.





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • John Wyatt
          Sorry, nope this was me - Mateo.  I regret the confusion that this has caused.   I believe Albrecht, our KRM has made a just ruling on this in support of the
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry, nope this was me - Mateo.  I regret the confusion that this has caused.
             
            I believe Albrecht, our KRM has made a just ruling on this in support of the wording over the picture.  He's the one to make policy.
             
             
            To shed some light on the history of events associated with releasing version 5 as Albrecht and Archibald has rightly asked:
             
            The picture was created as a reference tool for Marshals and Combatants alike.  It was NOT intended as policy change with its inclusion.
             
            During the Rapier Moot held on Feb 16 2008 at Silk Slippers and Crossed Swords, the populace asked that we include a picture to help marshals and combatants interpret the words.  It was also determined that we wished to use Society Minimum protective gear requirements.  (Albrecht will have the notes - in hardcopy) 
             
            This is what I presented to the Earl Marshal in our discussions.  The revision notes in version 5 are the only "minutes" I took from those discussions.  You will see the revisions I made as a result of our Moots during my term under "Draft for KEM Review" and the comments back from Earl Marshal under "Privy Council Review".  In my submission to the Earl Marshal I merely added Figure 1, pictorial reference of rules requirements - no changes made to the gorget rules.  The Earl Marshal did request some changes to the protective gear section for submission to the Privy Council, but here again no changes were made to gorgets.  As you can see the picture was just treated as a piece of reference for the reader rather than a policy making device.
             
            I hope this history helps clarify things.  Please let me know if I can assist further in this matter.
             
            Mateo de Merida
             
             
             
             
             
            I regret that this error could cause issue, but

            --- On Wed, 11/11/09, argh@... <argh@...> wrote:


            From: argh@... <argh@...>
            Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets
            To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 5:24 PM


             



            The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration. The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim
            from society rules. This picture falls within the mandate of Kingdoms increasing armour and safety standards, but not
            reducing them. Perhaps its best to ask the KRM who instituted illustration as to their intention, it may have been one
            of those proof reading issues, or it may well have been an actual policy change, in which case it should be understood
            and articulated within the kingdom rules by an appropriate revision. Although this could all be academic as the
            revisions did pass the Earl Marshall, and any clarification will need to do the same.

            So, who was it.... Was it Eyrny?

            =)

            >
            > Greetings!
            >
            > THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
            > rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:
            >
            > vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
            > rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
            > backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
            > (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
            > vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
            > combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)
            >
            > The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire neck
            > requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required to
            > cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
            > the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
            > carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
            > cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered by
            > puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.
            >
            > Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
            > but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a view
            > on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
            > changed, please let me know.
            >
            > Yours in Service
            >
            > Albrecht
            > KRM, Ealdormere
            >
            >

            Aaron Miedema
            Lentus autem non celer sum.











            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John Wyatt
            The picture was made in reference to another Kingdom s rules, which I will check at home to see if they too have the same apparent contradiction we have.  I
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              The picture was made in reference to another Kingdom's rules, which I will check at home to see if they too have the same apparent contradiction we have.  I believe so, but I will check for anyone that wishes to know.
               
              Mateo

              --- On Wed, 11/11/09, Eve Harris & David Stamper <evedave1@...> wrote:


              From: Eve Harris & David Stamper <evedave1@...>
              Subject: RE: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets
              To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 6:12 PM


               



              I believe it was Mateo who added the diagram in the last major set of
              revisions. I think the diagram came from another Kingdom's set of rapier
              rules.

              Albrecht

              _____

              From: E_Rapier@yahoogroup s.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf
              Of argh@cogeco. ca
              Sent: November 11, 2009 12:24 PM
              To: E_Rapier@yahoogroup s.com
              Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets

              The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration.
              The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim
              from society rules. This picture falls within the mandate of Kingdoms
              increasing armour and safety standards, but not
              reducing them. Perhaps its best to ask the KRM who instituted illustration
              as to their intention, it may have been one
              of those proof reading issues, or it may well have been an actual policy
              change, in which case it should be understood
              and articulated within the kingdom rules by an appropriate revision.
              Although this could all be academic as the
              revisions did pass the Earl Marshall, and any clarification will need to do
              the same.

              So, who was it.... Was it Eyrny?

              =)

              >
              > Greetings!
              >
              > THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
              > rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:
              >
              > vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
              > rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
              > backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
              > (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
              > vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
              > combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)
              >
              > The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire
              neck
              > requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required
              to
              > cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
              > the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
              > carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
              > cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered
              by
              > puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.
              >
              > Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
              > but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a
              view
              > on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
              > changed, please let me know.
              >
              > Yours in Service
              >
              > Albrecht
              > KRM, Ealdormere
              >
              >

              Aaron Miedema
              Lentus autem non celer sum.

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











              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Eve Harris & David Stamper
              Thank you very much for the clarification, your memory is much better than mine. I don t believe there is any need to change the rules as currently written
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 11, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Thank you very much for the clarification, your memory is much better than
                mine. I don't believe there is any need to change the rules as currently
                written though we may want to clarify the diagram and perhaps add a more
                detailed image of the neck area. I will continue to wear my gorget that goes
                right the way around, that's made of steel :-)



                Albrecht





                _____

                From: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of John Wyatt
                Sent: November 11, 2009 1:17 PM
                To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets





                Sorry, nope this was me - Mateo. I regret the confusion that this has
                caused.

                I believe Albrecht, our KRM has made a just ruling on this in support of the
                wording over the picture. He's the one to make policy.


                To shed some light on the history of events associated with releasing
                version 5 as Albrecht and Archibald has rightly asked:

                The picture was created as a reference tool for Marshals and Combatants
                alike. It was NOT intended as policy change with its inclusion.

                During the Rapier Moot held on Feb 16 2008 at Silk Slippers and Crossed
                Swords, the populace asked that we include a picture to help marshals and
                combatants interpret the words. It was also determined that we wished to
                use Society Minimum protective gear requirements. (Albrecht will have the
                notes - in hardcopy)

                This is what I presented to the Earl Marshal in our discussions. The
                revision notes in version 5 are the only "minutes" I took from those
                discussions. You will see the revisions I made as a result of our Moots
                during my term under "Draft for KEM Review" and the comments back from Earl
                Marshal under "Privy Council Review". In my submission to the Earl Marshal
                I merely added Figure 1, pictorial reference of rules requirements - no
                changes made to the gorget rules. The Earl Marshal did request some changes
                to the protective gear section for submission to the Privy Council, but here
                again no changes were made to gorgets. As you can see the picture was just
                treated as a piece of reference for the reader rather than a policy making
                device.

                I hope this history helps clarify things. Please let me know if I can
                assist further in this matter.

                Mateo de Merida





                I regret that this error could cause issue, but

                --- On Wed, 11/11/09, argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca
                <argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca> wrote:

                From: argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca <argh@cogeco.
                <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca>
                Subject: re: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets
                To: E_Rapier@yahoogroup <mailto:E_Rapier%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
                Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 5:24 PM



                The big question here is the provenance and authority of the illustration.
                The rules on gorgets is largely verbatim
                from society rules. This picture falls within the mandate of Kingdoms
                increasing armour and safety standards, but not
                reducing them. Perhaps its best to ask the KRM who instituted illustration
                as to their intention, it may have been one
                of those proof reading issues, or it may well have been an actual policy
                change, in which case it should be understood
                and articulated within the kingdom rules by an appropriate revision.
                Although this could all be academic as the
                revisions did pass the Earl Marshall, and any clarification will need to do
                the same.

                So, who was it.... Was it Eyrny?

                =)

                >
                > Greetings!
                >
                > THL Wilhelm has pointed out to me a contradiction in our current rapier
                > rules concerning gorgets. Here is the current rule:
                >
                > vi. Additional throat protection is also required; it shall consist of
                > rigid material, as noted above, covering the entire throat, and shall be
                > backed by either puncture resistant material (as a hood), one-quarter inch
                > (1/4") (6 mm) of open-cell foam, or their equivalents. The cervical
                > vertebrae shall also be protected by rigid material, provided by some
                > combination of gorget, helm, and/or hood insert. (Note 9)
                >
                > The diagram in version 5 of the rapier rules currently shows the entire
                neck
                > requiring coverage. As written, the rigid part of the gorget is required
                to
                > cover the throat, which I understand, anatomically, includes the trachea,
                > the oesophagus, the larynx, the pharynx and both the jugular vein and
                > carotid artery, basically the front part of the neck. At the back, the
                > cervical vertebrae must be covered. The rest of the neck must be covered
                by
                > puncture resistant material as defined by the rules.
                >
                > Now, it may be the original intention of the rule to cover the entire neck
                > but that is not how it currently reads. I would ask that anyone with a
                view
                > on this please contact me. If people wish the wording of the rule be
                > changed, please let me know.
                >
                > Yours in Service
                >
                > Albrecht
                > KRM, Ealdormere
                >
                >

                Aaron Miedema
                Lentus autem non celer sum.

                [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.