Print

Print


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.