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.