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

RE: [E_Rapier] Rules Clarification for Gorgets

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.