 |
 |
On Jan 19, 2015 9:40 PM, "Jessica Ackerman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Forwarding the official announcement re: the Rapier only peerage and text > changes to Corpora. > > > > ~Shandra > > > > *From:* Announcements [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On > Behalf Of *via Announcements > *Sent:* Monday, January 19, 2015 9:14 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* [Announcements] Proposed Corpora Change Results - 4th Peerage > > > > > > At the January 17, 2015 Board of Directors meeting in Milpitas, CA, the > Board voted against revising Corpora to establish a rapier peerage. The > Board also voted to delete wording that labeled rapier as an ancillary > activity of the SCA and replace it with wording that unambiguously > established rattan as the only permitted weapons in a Royal List. The > ramifications of the two votes has generated quite a bit of discussion on > social media about a number of things, but the Board did not make any > decisions concerning anything at all except turning down the rapier peerage > proposal and adding a statement that Royal Lists may only be fought with > rattan weapons. This letter is intended by the Board to respond to the most > prevalent rumors circulating in response to the Board actions of Saturday. > > > > The Board Votes. > > > > The Board was split on the question of the rapier peerage. Three directors > voted to approve the Corpora changes and the resulting establishment of a > rapier peerage because they believe that while rapier should really be > recognized by the Chivalry, trying to force inclusion in the Chivalry by > Board fiat would not work, and they were willing to vote yes on the > proposal as a good compromise. Two directors felt rapier should be > recognized as part of a peerage that recognizes all non-rattan martial arts > and not a separate peerage. Two directors believed rapier should be > recognized in the Chivalry. So, with a 4-3 vote against the proposed > Corpora changes, which would have established a separate rapier peerage, no > change will take place at this time. > > > > The only other action the Board took concerning rapier in the SCA was > removing language dating from 1979 saying that rapier was an "ancillary" > activity of the SCA and, to make it clear that we are not discarding the > traditions of Crown Tourney, the Board then made it very clear that only > rattan combat may be used in a Royal list. This change to Corpora received > the unanimous approval of the Board. > > > > Response to Social Media Discussions. > > > > First, the Board received commentary from less than 2% of the membership > over the entire 3 years and all requests for comments on the rapier peerage > issue. Many people wrote in more than once, but repeating an opinion > doesn't count as a separate opinion. However, it was not the lack of > commentary that influenced some Board members to vote against the proposal; > it was the fact that the small amount of commentary the Board did receive > trended against a separate rapier peerage. The majority of comments > received in favor of recognizing rapier with a peerage said that rapier > should either be included in the Order of the Chivalry or in a new peerage > that included all non-rattan combat. The result of such a relatively small > number of people commenting is that the opinions the Board did receive were > given greater weight - if a larger number of those who supported the > separate rapier peerage had commented, a different result might very well > have resulted. There’s no way to know that for sure, but it underscores the > importance of writing in to let the Board know your opinions about proposed > changes to Corpora. > > > > Second, the Board did not open the Order of the Chivalry to inclusion of > rapier fighters. There is a 1999 policy interpretation from the Society > Seneschal (upheld by the Board at that time) specifically stating that the > Order of the Chivalry is intended for rattan combatants only. It would take > a new policy interpretation (which would need to be upheld by the current > Board) or other Board action to change that fact. The Board’s intention in > removing the "ancillary activity" language had nothing to do with making > rapier knights. The Board removed the "ancillary activity" language because > it was simply no longer accurate or true. It may have been true long ago > when it was added to Corpora, but times have definitely changed. Rapier has > permeated the fabric of the Society, and the Board felt that the language > needed to be removed. However, in order to clarify that we weren’t changing > the rules regarding Crown Tourneys by the deletion of the “ancillary > activity” language, the Board added language restricting Crown Tourneys to > rattan weapons. > > > > The Board discussed removal of the “ancillary activity” language months > ago and sent it out for comment at the same time as the additional peerage > language. We understand that some people are unhappy the various changes > weren’t put out in separate announcements, but it never occurred to us to > send out multiple announcements on the same general subject at the same > time. The Board received commentary on that section, as well as the rapier > peerage sections, and we can’t recall any comments that disagreed with the > deletion. > > > > People will always understand what they read through the filter of their > own opinions and biases, and the fact that some have made certain > interpretations and raised them on social media does not make those > interpretations factual. Also, a strongly expressed opinion by one or two > Board members does not constitute the opinion of the entire Board of > Directors of the SCA, so any assumptions made based on one or two such > opinions are also not based in fact. It takes a vote of 5 out of 7 > directors to make changes to Corpora, individual director opinions > notwithstanding. Any official opinion of the Board of Directors will always > be labeled as such, will always come through the approved communication > channels and will always be posted on the corporate web site. > > > > We welcome your comments which can be sent to: SCA Inc. Box 360789 > Milpitas, CA 95036. > > You may also email comments at lists.sca.org. > > > > > -- 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 thier DMARC policies.