Print

Print


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.