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
"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.