StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mobiboros wrote:Don't get me started on combat archery or siege though. I'll politely say I don't think they should have a peerage of their own since they fall under heavy list (armoured combat).

RogueIce wrote: My friend said that, and in principle I have no problem with that. Though good luck getting Knights to vote in people who do primarily combat archery and/or siege weapons. But then maybe YMMV depending on Kingdom...apparently some are pretty bad about letting in female Knights even if they're better than a bunch of male Knights. I have no idea how you could ever 'fix' that though, at least not without more "open-minded" Knights being elevated.

Mobiboros wrote:For CA and Siege... honestly I don't think someone should be knighted for it. That's now what the Order of Chivalry is about. It's stated in the order rules that you must meet specific requirements of skill with "Tournament" weapons and combat archery and siege don't really meet that even if they are armoured combat. You can't even participate in singles combat with CA or siege. Hell, siege isn't even done alone almost ever, it's done in teams.

Mobiboros wrote:Female knights are another ball of wax that just blows. The East Kingdom finally just knighted our second female knight in the last two months. Which is just appalling.

RogueIce wrote:[Hence a new peerage to deal with this? I mean if they fall under heavy combat but aren't eligable for peerage then, well, I do think it should be changed. As was said before, you can be a peer by washing dishes and doing troll a whole lot. So why not somebody who prefers combat archery or siege weapons? Do they not deserve any type of peerage for what they do?

Mobiboros wrote:Plus some kingdoms may be removing CA (The East suspended it for a while after last pennsic until recently.).

Rogue 9 wrote:No, I'd say it's that the knights don't like getting shot by arrows. Crossbows were historically banned throughout much of the Middle Ages for precisely that reason.

RogueIce wrote:Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I suppose. Maybe I'm a little biased in that I'm one of those starting CA who is not at all interested in heavy weapons, so it kinda sucks I can't make peer with it like somebody who does sword and board. But oh well. I imagine it's all up to the Society now anyway.

I am interested, however, in this:

Mobiboros wrote:Plus some kingdoms may be removing CA (The East suspended it for a while after last pennsic until recently.).

Why is that? I've heard of some Knight "out west" who apparently loathes archers and always tries to make a big fuss and get them banned. But why are they removing CA? The Mighty Mega Arch Dukes don't like getting shot by arrows ( ) or is there some other reason?

The Yosemite Bear wrote:That's because two former servicemen shot him from quite a ways away, At leasst that's what Emmerson told me before he went all Alzhiemers and lost his memories, he used to be the Treasurer for the Kingdom of the West out here in CA, and was allegedly one of the withnesses to the "Incident" where the nobility got shot down by the lowly archers.

The alleged incident resulted in a Baron falling into a mud pile in full regalia, because his horse paniced at the incomming fire (even though it was soft tipped)

[aurearipae] anyone know the truth of this SCA story? wrote:>>"The candidate must be considered the equal of his or her prospective
>peers with the basic weapons of tournament combat.
>
>>doesn't say rattan anywhere, does it?
>
>
>Nope, it says "weapons of tournament combat". Later, in the section
>under Rapier, it states that (Paraphrasing) "Rapier, having not been
>used in formal tournament combat" in regards to the possibility of
>being used for crown. Thus, rapier is not one of the "weapons of
>tournament combat", and not eligible for consideratio0n for Chivalry.
>
>
>
>>It further says:
>
>>"To bestow the Accolade of Knighthood upon a candidate for the Order
>of Knighthood, as the sole right as Sovereign or acting directly for
>the Sovereign, for only a Knight can create a Knight."
>
>>*That's* what effectively keeps Rapier out of the Chivalry: finding a
>King who is already a Knight who is willing to do it.
>
>Nope. It has already happened. A King raised a Rapier fighter to the
>Chiv. The BOD refused to allow it.

>The story *I've* always heard is that a King of the Midrealm asked
>the Board if he could elevate a rapier fighter to the Chivalry--he
>didn't just do it--and the Board told him no, presumably citing the
>given above.

Is that the truth of the matter? or is there more? Just curious.

RogueIce wrote: Why is that? I've heard of some Knight "out west" who apparently loathes archers and always tries to make a big fuss and get them banned. But why are they removing CA? The Mighty Mega Arch Dukes don't like getting shot by arrows ( ) or is there some other reason?

Mobiboros wrote:

RogueIce wrote: Why is that? I've heard of some Knight "out west" who apparently loathes archers and always tries to make a big fuss and get them banned. But why are they removing CA? The Mighty Mega Arch Dukes don't like getting shot by arrows ( ) or is there some other reason?

Actually it was because of several equipment failures last penssic. Several guys had to be helped off the field when combat archery arrows went through their face-grills and hit them in the face. So a lot of people are now questioning the safety of it.

RogueIce wrote: And one of the Squires in my house damn near got a concussion thanks to some guy hitting too hard, and my friend had to be helped off because minimals really aren't that protective. But I don't think anybody would suggest getting rid of heavy weapons altogether?

RogueIce wrote: Equipment failures suck, but that's life and getting rid of the whole field of combat archery because of that is as silly to me as banning heavy weapons because you get some douchebags who won't call blows, or use excessive force.

Mobiboros wrote:To Rogue9: No idea if someone ever tried and was denied, but Rapier is definitely cited as not being classed as a "tournament weapon". Which means you can't be made Chiv or crown through rapier combat (SCA Corpora, Section 9, Subsection C. - delineates Rapier combat as non-tournament. Crown tourney and chiv define the rules as must be fought with tournament weapons)

Also, I know Pel and Laurel aren't singles combat oriented. But they are specifcially NOT combat peers (Along with the Order of the Rose). There is already precedence and standards for combat oriented peerage as well as Order of High merit in most kingdoms (In the east theres the Order of Tigers Combatant for heavy list, and Order of the Golden Rapier (White scarves in some other kingdoms)). So why should, for all intents, the standards be lowered to allow CA or Siege as peers?

Upon discussions with the Society Chirurgeon and our legal advisors, I
have requested the Board put a proposed change to the Corporate Policies
out for comment.

While the Board and Corporate Officers recognize that a number of people
in the SCA are trained in the use of automated external defibrillator or
AEDs, we are concerned about the continued maintenance and upkeep
obligations for groups that own these devices. If the SCA permits the
groups to own these devices, it would be putting the responsibility on
the group to continue to maintain the device, keeping it in good working
order, and and ensuring its availability at events and practies.

Accordingly, I have asked the Board to put the following out for
comment:

New Draft Corporate Policy (to be added to the corporate policies and
those policies renumbered accordingly):

There shall be no ownership or possession of the Medical Equipment
listed on Appendix A of these Corporate Policies by any branch or
recognized guild of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.

New Addition to Corporate Policies:

Appendix A:

1. Automated External Defibrillators (AED)

The Directors request comments from the membership regarding this
proposed revision no later than October 1st, 2009. Please send them
to:

Corpora Revision
SCA Inc.
Box 360789
Milpitas CA, 95036
email: comments@sca.org
--
Patrick Anderson
President
Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc.
president@sca.org
952-412-4112

Comments are strongly encouraged and can be sent to:
SCA Inc.
Box 360789
Milpitas, CA 95036

You may also email comments@lists.sca.org.

This announcement is an official informational release by the Society for Creative Anachronism , Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce this announcement in its entirety in newsletters, websites and electronic mailing lists.