[Moo] [abhainniarthair] Topic for comment from Curia

[Maven]

Be careful what you ask for, as some of us are more bluntly outspoken than 
others....

One might wish for some common sense in applying the rulings. In particular, if 
something passes the "looks OK at 10 feet" test, it seems to me it should be 
common sense to leave it alone. Maybe add a word like "overtly" or "obviously" 
to the laws where common sense would expect it. (The duct tape example *might* 
be called a safety issue - duct tape doesn't always hold under extreme stress, 
e.g. combat.)

I would absolutely advise against banning sunglasses - too many of us wear 
prescription lenses and would not be able to attend outdoor events on even 
partly sunny days without them. Myself included. 


I reserve judgment on tennis shoes, as there are gentles for whom they  are a 
genuine medical necessity - anyone who has had to deal with  plantar fasciitis, 
for example, knows that lace-up shoes provide more  support and therefore more 
comfort than non-laced styles.( The same goes,  perhaps more so, for running 
shoes, support shoes, and so on.) Not all  of us - I would think not all that 
many of us, especially with the  mundane economy in a tailspin - can afford 
custom orthotics built into  custom-made period-looking shoes. I would consider 
it "reasonable" to require that tennis shoes and such be "unobtrusive", e.g. 
navy/dark denim, brown or black (not white, plaid or day-glo colors, and no 
flashing lights).

Some other kingdoms *do* require covering overtly mundane items such as coolers 
and soda bottles. But if this is taken to the extreme of concealing *all* 
mundanities, it would be much the same as, for instance, outlawing ALL 
photography at events. There just is no concealing a camera, not and still be 
able to use it with any ease. 


Applying the letter of the law - or applying new laws - too strictly  would also 
mean that we would have to choose between authenticity  (candle-lit tables) and 
safety regulations (no open flames - an all too common rule  nowadays). And by 
the strict letter of such a law, "fake" battery-powered candles would not be an 
acceptable substitute. We would either find our  choice of sites severely 
restricted, or would have to put up with  whatever mundane lighting the site 
provided - which would violate the  "spirit of the law" more blatantly than fake 
candles would.

The question that raises itself is, what kind of organization do we want to be? 
Do we want to be as restrictive and exclusionary as the historical re-enactment 
groups, some of which do not even allow prescription glasses in any kind of 
frame that is not absolutely authentic to their particular period? Do we really, 
really want to discourage or drive off people who might be interested but who 
can't meet restrictive standards for financial or medical reasons? *Is* there 
common ground between "authenticity" and common sense?


I sincerely hope there still is.

Maven the Grouch
Medhbhin Liadain (B Helms)








________________________________
From: "lady_esperanza at cox.net" <lady_esperanza at cox.net>
To: "abhainniarthair at yahoogroups.com" <abhainniarthair at yahoogroups.com>; 
"moo at lists.stierbach.org" <moo at lists.stierbach.org>; 
"Watchtower at sudentorre.atlantia.sca.org" 
<Watchtower at sudentorre.atlantia.sca.org>
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 9:24:14 PM
Subject: [abhainniarthair] Topic for comment from Curia

  
Their Highnesses (and their Majesties), asked for comment regarding changes to 
the current rules regarding the Appearance Law for the fighters of Atlantia.

The current law is in the Atlantian Great Book of Law, 10. Rights of Subjects, 
10.1 - Concerning Non-Period Items.

10.1.4   All plastic and/or modern sports equipment used by all participants on 
the field of combat must be covered in a manner to disguise the material in an 
attempt to display historical pre-17th Century accoutrements to the average 
passerby.

10.1.4.1   Plastic and other modern materials specifically required to promote 
safety or those that are medically required are exempt from this ruling. 
However, every attempt must be made, in good faith, to disguise those items.

10.1.4.2   Hand protection and shield edges may be made of plastic materials. 
However, it is the owner’s responsibility to attempt to disguise the appearance 
of those items to bring them into compliance with the spirit of this law.

10.1.4.3   Participants who are residents of another kingdom are to be 
considered our guests and are exempt from this ruling provided they meet Society 
minimum standards.

10.1.4.4   Newly transplanted citizens to Atlantia are to be granted a four 
month period of time to come into compliance with these laws.

Their stated intent was not to necessarily tighten the rules but to change the 
wording of the Law so that it would be more clearly defined. Their quandary was 
more how can the Law wording be changed to include what is wanted without taking 
a step back, something that their Highnesses would not like to see.

Some example of issues that were sited during Curia include:

1. Fighter X has made armor of plastic lamellar. This armor looks great, can't 
tell it's plastic from 10 feet away or even a foot away but by the letter of the 
law, all plastic needs to be covered.
2. Plastic and other modern materials specifically required to promote safety or 
those that are medically required are exempt from this ruling. Well, isn't all 
armor required to promote safety and therefore by the letter of the law exempt 
from this ruling?
3. Fighter X notices popped rivet on armor before fighting starts in the 
morning, armor temporarily fixed with duct tape, armor is safe to fight by 
marshal but by the letter of the law fighter should not be fighting if it does 
not meet the appearance rule.

They also asked for comments regarding expanding the Appearance Law to the 
populace of Atlantia. They spoke of not wearing tennis shoes, sunglasses, 
covering blatantly modern items,etc.

Feel free to discuss this on the e lists. If you would like your make your 
comments known to their Majesties and Highnesses please email: 
trh at atlantia.sca.org and trm at atlantia.sca.org. It was asked that comments be 
made before 12th Night, which is Jan 8th.

Lady Esperanza Susanna Flecha
Seneschal, Barony of Stierbach

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic 
Messages in this topic (1) 

Recent Activity:  
Visit Your Group 
 
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
. 

__,_._,___ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stierbach.org/pipermail/moo-stierbach.org/attachments/20101206/6d3c8ac7/attachment-0003.htm>