Reasonable attempt

Aelric · Post by **Aelric** » Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:46 pm

Shouldnt the SCA "rule" that a reasonable attempt at pre 17th century clothing apply to armour or on field atire as well?

Aelric

Steve S. · Post by **Steve S.** » Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:53 pm

Frankly, for all the armour bashing that goes on (figuratively, not literally), I would say the general state of things in the armour community is better than in the clothing community.

I think the state of armour today is much better than it was even 5 years ago.

Steve

Dmitriy · Post by **Dmitriy** » Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:59 pm

Yes.
I think it actually says "appearance," not clothing

Chinua · Post by **Chinua** » Tue Jan 23, 2001 3:04 pm

I agree that it should but I seems VERY few in authoritive positions (Peers, Marshals, etc) are willing to try to "encourge" this "standard". At lest that is my perception in my short time playing.

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Tue Jan 23, 2001 3:53 pm

Absolutely. Yes. Correct.

No Smurfs! No Smurfs! No Smurfs!

Lodhur · Post by **Lodhur** » Wed Jan 24, 2001 5:54 pm

Yes, it says "reasonable attempt". It doesn't say anything about failing horribly at that attempt. Yes, its too broad, but their is nothing in place to truly, directly aid those who are undeniable failures. Without that, half my household would be SOL if decent standards were put in place! Oh, wait, did I say that last bit? was that my outside voice?

Richard Blackmoore · Post by **Richard Blackmoore** » Wed Jan 24, 2001 11:07 pm

There is a big difference between failing in an honest reasonable effort and not making a reasonable effort in the first place. In my opinion, trying to make armour out of exposed hunks of blue plastic is by itself an automatic failure to make a reasonable attempt in the first place. Blue plastic is just not an acceptable base material to start with.

If someone made a T-Tunic out of camoflage material, no one would think twice of saying that it is not a reasonable attempt due to the base materials used. There is absolutely no reason why fighters should be excused from the reasonable attempt standard. None.

losthelm · Post by **losthelm** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 12:20 am

Frankly, for all the armour bashing that goes on (figuratively, not literally), I would say the general state of things in the armour community is better than in the clothing community.

You miss spoke in the armour community it is (literally, not figuratively).

Now I'm off with the silly stick

chef de chambre · Post by **chef de chambre** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 5:31 am

Hi All,

Last time I was in an environment where such things were graded (school), a "reasonable attempt" was a passing grade - not abject failure.

------------------
Bob R.

jagatei · Post by **jagatei** » Thu Jan 25, 2001 11:15 am

well, in this kingdom at least our earl marshall added this to the marshall's handbook

9. Regarding appearance on the field:

a. All mundane clothing i.e. camouflage BDUâ€™s or fatigues, neon colored clothing, t-shirt, sweatpants or shirts that display logos of any type will
not be allowed on the field.

b. Armour should be of period appearance and glaring mundanities will not be allowed on the field. I.e. road signs, brightly colored kydex, plastic,
lexan, printed welcome mats, bumper stickers, ect.

c. Kydex is commonly used as armor but it should be covered or treated to alter its appearance so that it does not look like what it is. Plastic. A
rule of thumb should be if it looks like plastic, it will not be allowed on the field. An exception to thid would be Japanese armor. The kydex looks
very much like laqured leather. Use common sense, if it looks like plastic, alter it or cover it. When in doubt always lean to the conservative.