Print

Print


I also really hate the idea of a fourth peerage, But establishing an
AoA/GoA structure for cut and thrust is a separate issue, and there is no
reason on Earth to link the two.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Patrick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  Logan (and all),
>
> I have spoken to various Board members about this. I don't give complete
> assurances often (I'm a lawyer, I check to see if the sky is blue if
> someone tells me it is), but I can say with confidence that the Board has
> very much not accepted that they are going to create this peerage.
>
> Previous boards created the committees based on information provided in
> the census done a few years ago. While this Board could simply say "no",
> they put it out to the populace, with the draft language created by the
> various committees. A great deal of this is because the Board is not sure
> if this is something they wish to do or not.
>
> At the end of the day, on this thing more than any other, comments matter.
>
> And I have said before and will repeat, comments that are polite,
> explanatory, and as well written as possible are better than not. The Board
> will get a lot of "I like this" and "I hate this" comments without anything
> else. They need reasons. For me, the magic word is going to be ubiquitous
> and my explanation flow from there.
>
> Further, personally I believe that even if you object to this peerage, you
> might want to also fix the language in the proposal. Language changes are
> going to require the Board to put this out for comment again, which may
> also modify the chances of this passing the Board (good or bad, I admit,
> but it will give people more reasons to comment).
>
> At the end of the day, yes, comment. This is one of the, admittedly rare,
> situations where comments do matter a great deal because the Board's
> collective minds are not made up.
>
> Gabriel
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014, at 08:06 AM, Clayton Neff wrote:
>
> Tibor -
>
>
> The Board has recently circulated potential language for changes
> to Corpora to support a possible new Peerage for Rapier.  They
> are asking for commentary.
>
> I have responded once, and will probably do so again. However, the fact
> that they are asking for commentary on the wording tells me they have
> already accepted as fact that they are going to create one. They just want
> blessing on their wording.
>
>
> One of the codicils at the end (I'll quote it below), seems to move
> rapier from an ancillary activity that Kingdoms may or may not
> choose to support, to one that they must support.
>
> I think that "must" is too strong a word. As a kingdom, we don't HAVE to
> do anything, except have an armored combat tournament periodically to
> choose a new crown. We don't HAVE to recognize anyone for anything else, if
> we choose not to. Granted, that would be kind of pointless, but if that is
> what the majority of people want...
>
>
> How would this impact Calontir?
>
> I don't think it will at all, to start. Assuming this new peerage is
> created, there will be almost immediate pressure to implement an award
> structure similar to those we have for other activities. That pressure will
> be met with a HUGE backlash, setting back the entire practice of Calon
> Steel across the kingdom. The fact that the bulk of the pressure would come
> from outside the kingdom is irrelevant. We will see a repeat of the fiasco
> that happened two decades ago when fencing was first proposed here.
>
> I personally am so opposed to this new peerage that _I_ will do everything
> I can to not acknowledge it.
>
> -- Logan --
> Warranted Calon Steel Marshal & Combatant
> Warranted Armored Combat Marshal & Combatant
> KSCA
>
>  -- Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu. listserv.unl.edu
> lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com
> due to their DMARC policies.
>
>
> --
> Patrick Anderson
> [log in to unmask]
> "No matter how much you feed the wolf,
> he keeps looking at the forest." --Ilse Lehiste
>
>  -- Manage your subscription at http://listserv.unl.edu. listserv.unl.edu
> lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com
> due to their DMARC policies.
>

--
Manage your subscription at  http://listserv.unl.edu.
listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.