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

RE: [E_Rapier] More discussions from the moot.

Expand Messages
  • Greg Hounsell
    Hmm is this all that was posted? As I remember there was a lot more discussed at the moot _____ From: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hmm is this all that was posted? As I remember there was a lot more
      discussed at the moot



      _____

      From: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com [mailto:E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of John Enzinas
      Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:44 AM
      To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [E_Rapier] More discussions from the moot.



      *Forwarded Conversation*
      Subject: *[schermo] Skipping of Prizes*
      ------------------------

      * From: argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca* <argh@cogeco.
      <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca> Reply-To: schermo@yahoogroups
      <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 4:59 PM

      OK, I'm going to depart from our agenda order in order to cover the more
      black and white issues of definative policy.
      We have discussions about research projects and other larger philosophical
      ideas.... But I'd like to touch on them when
      we don't have these issues pressing and we can then worry about just those
      things.... At the rate thinbgs seem to be
      going it will be in February some time that we will start to cover those
      more ephemoral issues.

      MY SYSNOPSIS
      So in this there are two seperate points to be addressed, and some more
      abstract issues of acadmey principles. We need
      to dwell on the issues and not the abstracts right now.

      But it would seem the abstract ideas are getting opened by tyhe lively chat
      on the Rapier list.

      So

      1) The idea of abolishing the interpretation of the charter to mean that
      there is one year between prizes, and go with
      the "one year between ranks" to refer to the length of time as an authorized
      fencer. There might be a rewording of the
      charter here that is required.

      2) This would allow for the elimination of the system of skipping ranks.
      Thus permitting qualified candidates to in
      essence skip by being able to play the prizes in quick succession, and also
      giving a stamp of approval by all the ranks.
      Reducing the perception of favouritism that might come from a decision to
      allow someone to skip a rank.

      The balancing factor of suddenly having people zoom up ranks is the
      limitations of the system of publication and finding
      spaces / location to play prizes.

      THE DISUCCSION AT THE DEC 3RD MOOT
      6) Skipping of Prizes
      Archibald: Let us not allow any further skipping of prizes, that time has
      passed.

      Rusalka: What if some one very qualified (eg Don/Donna) comes in from
      somewhere else.

      Archibald: The one year wait time would also be eliminated, so they could
      move through the ranks quickly.

      Jocelyn: But then prize fights will take up the whoe fencing time at
      events-this should not happen, event marshals
      should have control

      Christobel W: This 'flooding' of prize fights could happen now if all
      persons who could fight a prize decide to do
      so.

      Nathaniel: Is it not insulting to have Don's play a cadet prize?

      Archibald: The Difference is this: a Don is made by the King, it is an
      award. The EAOD is ranked by their peers. If
      it is truly an issue for them, they could arrainge to play the prizes all in
      one day

      Christobel W.: Archibald's policy on this is not a law carved in stone, the
      Preceptor has a prerogative to choose
      policy with the consultation of high ranking members

      Rusulka: What if all the people move ahead- what if there are no peers left
      to fight against

      Archibald: A backlog at the event level should prevent this- there can still
      only be so many prizes fought at a given
      event.

      Rhys: Prize fights would become a 'feature'

      Christobel W.: If a Don is offended by not immediately being included, then
      perhaps they do not have the right attitude
      for the EAOD

      Jocelyn: If prize fights are limited by who publishes in advance of the
      event, this will limit things, so this is good.

      Lord Archibald Weatherford
      Praeceptor and Free Scholar
      Ealdormere Academy of Defense

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      --------
      * From: Nicholas J. Corkigian* <mobius@hwcn. <mailto:mobius%40hwcn.org> org>
      Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 5:33 PM

      Hold on a sec... doesn't point 2 contradict point 1? How can
      someone quickly skip ranks in quick succession if they have to wait a
      year between ranks? The advantage that I see out of the re-wording of
      point 1 is that if someone *fails* a prize, then they can attempt that
      same prize again within the year.

      -Nikolai

      > 1) The idea of abolishing the interpretation of the charter to mean
      > that there is one year between prizes, and go with
      > the "one year between ranks" to refer to the length of time as an
      > authorized fencer. There might be a rewording of the
      > charter here that is required.
      >
      > 2) This would allow for the elimination of the system of skipping
      > ranks. Thus permitting qualified candidates to in
      > essence skip by being able to play the prizes in quick succession, and
      > also giving a stamp of approval by all the ranks.
      > Reducing the perception of favouritism that might come from a decision
      > to allow someone to skip a rank.
      >

      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: govianus* <argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca> Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 5:28 PM

      > Hold on a sec... doesn't point 2 contradict point 1? How can
      > someone quickly skip ranks in quick succession if they have to wait
      a
      > year between ranks? The advantage that I see out of the re-wording
      of
      > point 1 is that if someone *fails* a prize, then they can attempt
      that
      > same prize again within the year.

      Well the problem is two fold, and not necessarily contradictory....
      there has been on occaision an issue of people permitted to play
      their Scholar's prize without every having been a Cadet.... this is
      the issue at hand....

      The new idea is that someone who has met the requirements of Scholar
      for example, they would have to play their Cadets prize, however, if
      they have met all the requirements for the next rank they don't have
      to wait a year before playing the next prize.

      This permits candidates with initiative and requirements to advance
      as their abilities, skills, and desires permit.

      And it means that all requirements are satisfied by the peers of each
      rank involved.

      The skipping of ranks was a personal call and as a result can bring
      no end of greif upon the Praeceptor in making such a decision.

      What is phrased in the Charter currently is ambiguous, it has been
      interpreted that one must spend a year at a particular rank before
      they could play a prize for the next ranks.

      However, it might equally refer to the fact that the requirements for
      the ranks involved being authorized for an additional year
      successively.

      The idea of skipping was one of those things that fell under
      the "Praeceptors Exception" Clause.

      Does this help?

      Archibald
      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: Nicholas J. Corkigian* <mobius@hwcn. <mailto:mobius%40hwcn.org> org>
      Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 7:00 PM

      > Well the problem is two fold, and not necessarily contradictory....
      > there has been on occaision an issue of people permitted to play
      > their Scholar's prize without every having been a Cadet.... this is
      > the issue at hand....

      Ok, this I understand ws meant to be for the original formation of
      the Academy to help fill out the initial ranks. I thought I saw in the
      moot minutes that it was proposed to do away with this and everyone now
      enters at the same level of Cadet. So that means people who think they
      should be at a higher rank than Cadet might now have issues with this,
      and this current thread of discussion is a means to try and solve the
      situation for those people that fall into that category, correct?

      > The new idea is that someone who has met the requirements of Scholar
      > for example, they would have to play their Cadets prize, however, if
      > they have met all the requirements for the next rank they don't have
      > to wait a year before playing the next prize.

      How soon could they play their next prize? Perhaps the length of
      time is takes to get the next one announced in the Tidings, and that's
      all? And does someone who doesn't meet the requirements still have to
      wait that full year?

      > What is phrased in the Charter currently is ambiguous, it has been
      > interpreted that one must spend a year at a particular rank before
      > they could play a prize for the next ranks.
      >
      > However, it might equally refer to the fact that the requirements for
      > the ranks involved being authorized for an additional year
      > successively.

      The phrasing might be ambiguous as to whether it's a year between
      ranks or a year between prizes, but in the end, don't they equate to the
      same thing?

      Unless, what you're suggesting is that if Lord Oldphaart has been
      authorized for 4 years and then joins the Academy, that entitles him to
      play four prizes in succession (provided he meets the requirements of
      each levels, and makes appropriate Tidings announcements). Those four
      years of being previously being authorized is effectively his 'wait
      time'? Whereas Lord Youngpup has just become authorized and is
      therefore required to progress at a year/rank pace.

      I don't see a problem with this type of situation, but I think the
      charter would need to phrased a little clearer if this is the intent
      because I didn't read that as the immediate interpretation. Possibly
      provide an example application of it, as I did above with Lords
      Oldphaart and Youngpup. Although it doesn't allow Lord Oldphaart to be
      able to jump into the Academy immediately above several other people, it
      does allow them the opportunity to progress faster based on their prior
      experience. I suppose the next problem is going to be, how does one
      track how many years someone has been authorized for to see how many
      levels they are entitled to progress at the accelerated rate?

      -Nikolai
      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: John Wyatt* <jwyatt2@yahoo. <mailto:jwyatt2%40yahoo.com> com>
      Reply-To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:29 AM

      I would have to agree with Nikolai's comments and in
      doing so second them as my comments on this topic. I
      like what he has written here and I believe it would
      meet the needs of the Fencers in Ealdormere (both the
      prospective canidate and the rest of the populace).
      Now how to track the length of his Authorizations, I
      would suggest we simply request the information from
      the KRM of Ealdormere and other Kingdom's should it
      apply. The prospective Canidate would probably be
      willing to submit written release to the KRM's in
      question should that be required, and the KRM's have
      this information (usually) on file and available.

      In Service,

      Mateo
      [Quoted text hidden]
      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com
      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: govianus* <argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca> Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 1:49 PM

      > I would have to agree with Nikolai's comments and in
      > doing so second them as my comments on this topic. I
      > like what he has written here and I believe it would
      > meet the needs of the Fencers in Ealdormere (both the
      > prospective canidate and the rest of the populace).
      > Now how to track the length of his Authorizations, I
      > would suggest we simply request the information from
      > the KRM of Ealdormere and other Kingdom's should it
      > apply. The prospective Canidate would probably be
      > willing to submit written release to the KRM's in
      > question should that be required, and the KRM's have
      > this information (usually) on file and available.
      >
      > In Service,
      >
      > Mateo

      Unfortunately due to privacy issues I have to do it myself, and I
      have been keeping a roster of primary authorizations etc....

      A regular Big Brother I am.....

      For instance you got you primary authorization in September of 2003.

      =)

      Anyone scared yet?

      Aaron / Archibald
      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: Garry Campbell* <garrycampbell@ <mailto:garrycampbell%40gmail.com>
      gmail.com> Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 3:43 PM

      nope...

      ------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      - Visit your group "schermo <http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/schermo> yahoo.com/group/schermo>"
      on the web.

      - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      schermo-unsubscribe <mailto:schermo-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
      @yahoogroups.com<schermo-unsubscribe
      <mailto:schermo-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
      @yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

      - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service<http://docs. <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
      yahoo.com/info/terms/>
      .

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

      --------
      * From: John Wyatt* <jwyatt2@yahoo. <mailto:jwyatt2%40yahoo.com> com>
      Reply-To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 4:13 PM

      "Ummm, not yes. I am not scared."

      Okay so that's all I can vaguely remember of Newspeak
      if I did it right. :>

      If you have a list Archibald, and each Praceptor
      maintains it and all new applicants provide this
      information (we will have to trust in the honour of
      the applicant, and if we can't I don't believe they
      meet the chivalry intended/required by the Academy.),
      then we should be able to follow through with the
      proposal provided by Nikolai.

      Mateo
      [Quoted text hidden]
      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com

      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: Kathleen Gormanshaw* <kgormanshaw@ <mailto:kgormanshaw%40rogers.com>
      rogers.com> Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 4:57 PM

      govianus wrote:
      > Unfortunately due to privacy issues I have to do it myself, and I
      > have been keeping a roster of primary authorizations etc....
      >
      > For instance you got you primary authorization in September of 2003.

      When did I get mine?

      > Anyone scared yet?

      Nah

      Eyrny
      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: Kathleen Gormanshaw* <kgormanshaw@ <mailto:kgormanshaw%40rogers.com>
      rogers.com> Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 4:55 PM

      John Wyatt wrote:
      > Now how to track the length of his Authorizations, I
      > would suggest we simply request the information from
      > the KRM of Ealdormere and other Kingdom's should it

      You can come over and look through that file if you like, but I'm not
      digging through an over-flowing file box with no organization to it for
      this purpose. And the data file doesn't include an authorization year.

      You could simply ask the person and trust them to answer you honestly.

      Eyrny
      KRM
      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca* <argh@cogeco.
      <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca> Reply-To: schermo@yahoogroups
      <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 5:11 PM

      Suffice it to say back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I had been in for
      alomst 2 years.

      =)

      Aaron

      > govianus wrote:
      > > Unfortunately due to privacy issues I have to do it myself, and I
      > > have been keeping a roster of primary authorizations etc....
      > >
      > > For instance you got you primary authorization in September of 2003.
      >
      > When did I get mine?
      >
      > > Anyone scared yet?
      >
      > Nah
      >
      > Eyrny
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      [Quoted text hidden]

      --------
      * From: govianus* <argh@cogeco. <mailto:argh%40cogeco.ca> ca> Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 10:15 AM

      > nope...

      While I do appreciate the idea of more matter and less art, this is
      perhaps going a little to far.

      What is it precisely that you object to Gareth?

      Aaron / Archibald

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      --------
      * From: Garry Campbell* <garrycampbell@ <mailto:garrycampbell%40gmail.com>
      gmail.com> Reply-To:
      schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      To: schermo@yahoogroups <mailto:schermo%40yahoogroups.com> .com
      Date: Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 7:45 PM

      You asked if we was scared... I said nope

      SPONSORED LINKS
      Society for creative
      anachronism<http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Society+for+creative+anachronism&w1=Soc
      iety+for+creative+anachronism&w2=Culture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+c
      ulture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=106&.sig=-lSkeziKo0cCmCkO5pDsoA>
      yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Society+for+creative+anachronism&w1=Society+for+creati
      ve+anachronism&w2=Culture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c
      =5&s=106&.sig=-lSkeziKo0cCmCkO5pDsoA>
      Culture<http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Culture&w1=Society+for+creative+anachro
      nism&w2=Culture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=106&.
      sig=RpRxmtiZ0pBuJbQrR_Dcew>
      yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Culture&w1=Society+for+creative+anachronism&w2=Culture
      &w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=106&.sig=RpRxmtiZ0pB
      uJbQrR_Dcew>
      Culture
      club<http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Culture+club&w1=Society+for+creative+an
      achronism&w2=Culture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=
      106&.sig=hIT0NdWrgnBMJXVPssSlTw>
      yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Culture+club&w1=Society+for+creative+anachronism&w2=Cu
      lture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=106&.sig=hIT0Nd
      WrgnBMJXVPssSlTw>
      Organizational
      culture<http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Organizational+culture&w1=Society+for+c
      reative+anachronism&w2=Culture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=
      Sca&c=5&s=106&.sig=jSAt8550UYdyvD9WWlBNJA>
      yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Organizational+culture&w1=Society+for+creative+anachro
      nism&w2=Culture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=106&.
      sig=jSAt8550UYdyvD9WWlBNJA>
      Sca<http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sca&w1=Society+for+creative+anachronism
      &w2=Culture&w3=Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=106&.sig=
      dZ-8aUY88vFWOpO0ueaYvw>
      yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Sca&w1=Society+for+creative+anachronism&w2=Culture&w3=
      Culture+club&w4=Organizational+culture&w5=Sca&c=5&s=106&.sig=dZ-8aUY88vFWOpO
      0ueaYvw>
      ------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      - Visit your group "schermo <http://groups.
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/schermo> yahoo.com/group/schermo>"
      on the web.

      - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      schermo-unsubscribe <mailto:schermo-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
      @yahoogroups.com<schermo-unsubscribe
      <mailto:schermo-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>
      @yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

      - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
      Service<http://docs. <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
      yahoo.com/info/terms/>
      .

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

      --------

      [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.