The Armour Archive

Nobody said people can't wear tennis shoes. They just need to disguise them, which is really pretty easy. Been at least 3 tutorials here on the Archive.

Can you link us to them?

Better vs. Best:

Never make Perfect the enemy of Better. IOW, improving our look by a step should not be shunned just because we could go even farther. It is okay to ban sports logos, and keep bar grills.


Baby Steps:

I am against Baby Steps. When steps are too small, they don't accomplish much, and the issue needs to be addressed again almost immediately. It makes no sense to ban blue plastic, but keep sports equipment.


New Rules:

I advocate for taking the Atlantian rules and adopting them Society wide. I could see a 6 month 'break in' period, but only for now. Not for each new fighter.
It is much easier to build the correct armor in the first place, instead of building crap, and then having to build all new armor within 6 months.


Practices:

I am not sure. Perhaps 'public' practices need to follow the rule, but not private ones. hmmm.....

I advocate for taking the Atlantian rules and adopting them Society wide. I could see a 6 month 'break in' period, but only for now. Not for each new fighter.
It is much easier to build the correct armor in the first place, instead of building crap, and then having to build all new armor within 6 months.

So we are pretty much removing that "starter/tryout level" that many, if not all, of us had, and requiring a more substantial investment for something that many people drop within months or a year of starting?

Diglach mac Cein wrote:Nobody said people can't wear tennis shoes. They just need to disguise them, which is really pretty easy. Been at least 3 tutorials here on the Archive.

And on armor that looks bad looks bad. I DO encourage people to cover plastic, repair armor that is held together with duct tape (or just looks in total disrepair, and help point people tword improving their appearance in a unified, correct look (all the peices are for the same rough era / geography / etc.).

Now if a person doesn't want my help, that's cool. Most happily listen to me, and I let them decide on their own. But then I try to not sound superior or confrontational on it either.


.

Well that's good and commendable. I agree if they decline your assistance or suggestions that is on them but that's the thing. It is on them. Their gear makes them look less than stellar. I don't understand how people can have such an issue over other peoples appearance. They don't make me look bad and they don't ruin the game for me. I don't go to SCA so that I can step into a completely medieval environment. It just doesn't work like that. Our game is one of some twisted time warp anyway where Vikings battle against Samurai so the occassional blue plastic warrior doesn't harsh the authentic medieval environment for me because it isn't one anyway. Remove blue plastic warriors and we still have a mostly fantasy environment anyway.

Maeryk wrote:

I advocate for taking the Atlantian rules and adopting them Society wide. I could see a 6 month 'break in' period, but only for now. Not for each new fighter.
It is much easier to build the correct armor in the first place, instead of building crap, and then having to build all new armor within 6 months.

So we are pretty much removing that "starter/tryout level" that many, if not all, of us had, and requiring a more substantial investment for something that many people drop within months or a year of starting?

I ordered my my helm (not a $100 starter helm) after my 2nd fighter practice.

chris19d wrote:

Maeryk wrote:

I advocate for taking the Atlantian rules and adopting them Society wide. I could see a 6 month 'break in' period, but only for now. Not for each new fighter.
It is much easier to build the correct armor in the first place, instead of building crap, and then having to build all new armor within 6 months.

So we are pretty much removing that "starter/tryout level" that many, if not all, of us had, and requiring a more substantial investment for something that many people drop within months or a year of starting?

I ordered my my helm (not a $100 starter helm) after my 2nd fighter practice.

Good for you. I've seen 8 people start, build plastic armor, borrow a helm, be gung ho as all get out, and dissapear in under a year.

I wonder how many of them would even have tried, had they had to hit "the next level" right out of the gate? Alternately, I wonder how many would even have started (who are still out there, I might ad) had they had to do so?

One of the chief selling points of the SCA has always been it's really low bar and DIY-ability. You don't need a medieval pavilion. You don't need 400$ medieval boots. You need "an attempt". Now, do some abuse this? Absolutely. Do many appreciate it, and use it to get their feet wet? Absolutely as well.

I'm leery of doing a half-measure that does not, in reality, improve the overall authenticity of the group, but merely "hides" one person's personal bugaboos under an old bedsheet, literally.

I suspect an "outsider" can see a clearly roman helmet on a clearly late period armor as just as "wrong" as blue plastic.. _OR_ blue plastic with a bedsheet over it.

As Johnathan pointed out, if someone elses appearance is what harshes your mellow, perhaps you are playing the wrong game?

And before anyone jumps on me about "the charter".. the very BASIS of our combat is ahistorical. Removing blue plastic and still playing at one-shot kills with blades of grass is no more historical than blue plastic.

I'd rather not see anything enacted that cuts off the potential newb at the knees. Let him get in, and get his feet wet, as cheaply and easily as possible (even if it's ugly) and give him some time to figure out what it is he wants.

The cash outlay for plastic is minimal. Free, in may cases. And it can be tailored over and over to work better. The cash outlay for hardsuit in metal is not small, by any stretch of the imagination, it's difficult if not impossible for most people to tailor themselves, and the resale value of anything other than the absolute top level stuff is abysmal.

Palmam qui meruit ferat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_frond

Hm...after some thought, I'm in the "Grace Period" camp.

Joe Noob starts out, has loaner armor, and seems to having a good time. Give him a year. Is he still around? Awesome, how's his gear? Is he stickin' around? More awesome.

After that grace period (during which I would encourage gentle prodding and poking toward better gear) be a bit more forceful, with regards to his kit. After all, he's stuck around "this long"..lets get him into better looking stuff.

Of course, the tough part is being the encouraging voice. How far is too far?
Ask if they'd like help with new/better gear. Offer advice, or guidance in the patterning, making, or fitting, of the stuff.

Key in all this is to have or be the example. Don't blow off the new guy because he's in ugly gear. Encourage and help him along the way. My personal examples are both very good men, though neither are knights. I think one of them should be, but that's beside the point.

After all...that noob you just helped out? One day, he just might be King.

Count Johnathan wrote:\ It is on them. Their gear makes them look less than stellar.

The Society as a whole is only gauged by it's weakest link.


Ask someone outside of the SCA what they think of it. And you will soon learn how all of us are viewed.
I dress as close as I can get to the real thing, or at least I try to.
when I say I am in the SCA I get asked if I wear plastic and tennis shoes.

To think that it doesn't affect you is Blissful Ignorance at best, and Arrogance at worst.

[quote="Oscad"]Better vs. Best:

Never make Perfect the enemy of Better. IOW, improving our look by a step should not be shunned just because we could go even farther. It is okay to ban sports logos, and keep bar grills.
quote]

Since, by your statement, you'd like to see bar grills go, I guess you'd like to see open faced helms go too. Funny, an Anglo-Saxon, Norman or Viking don't look very good in a bascinet...Or would you rather earlier periods go away too?

Count Johnathan wrote: I don't understand how people can have such an issue over other peoples appearance. They don't make me look bad and they don't ruin the game for me.

By beauty I am not a star.
There are others more handsome by far.
My face I don't mind it.
because I'm behind it.
It's the people in front that I jar.

MJBlazek wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:\ It is on them. Their gear makes them look less than stellar.

The Society as a whole is only gauged by it's weakest link.


Ask someone outside of the SCA what they think of it. And you will soon learn how all of us are viewed.
I dress as close as I can get to the real thing, or at least I try to.
when I say I am in the SCA I get asked if I wear plastic and tennis shoes.

To think that it doesn't affect you is Blissful Ignorance at best, and Arrogance at worst.

And if you think the most egregious violations are on the field, you are insane. Also, MOST of the people IN the sca don't even fight. 25 to 30K registered members.. how many fighters? Well, out of 10K people at Pennsic, the MOST on the field was 3K.. that means 3 in 10 fight.. even at the grandest stage of them all.

I have a sneaking suspicioin that what keeps people away isn't the appearance on the field.. it's the off-field look, activities, pomposity, attitude, etc.

And, honestly, it DOESN'T affect me. Because if someone is that stuffy, this isn't the game for them. And it never WILL be. Let them go find another group to play with. Why should my hobby cut it's own throat to appeal to someone else, when what, 25 to 30K people seem to be fine with it as it is?

Maeryk wrote:

I advocate for taking the Atlantian rules and adopting them Society wide. I could see a 6 month 'break in' period, but only for now. Not for each new fighter.
It is much easier to build the correct armor in the first place, instead of building crap, and then having to build all new armor within 6 months.

So we are pretty much removing that "starter/tryout level" that many, if not all, of us had, and requiring a more substantial investment for something that many people drop within months or a year of starting?

Maeryk, this has been addressed several times already.

There is very minimal added effort needed to get beginners to look non-blatant. Especially if addressed from the beginning. We are currently working with 4 new people, and getting them into inexpensive, plastic armor. As each piece is made, we use spray adhesive and fabric to cover it. It looks pretty good.

If we let them just use plastic, then make them cover it in a few months, they either have to start all over, or use a large tabard, that will not look nearly as good.


And please stop with the Straw Man and Red Herring arguments. No one is advocating for allowing printed sheets as tabards or the like.




Hauoc:

Since, by your statement, you'd like to see bar grills go, I guess you'd like to see open faced helms go too. Funny, an Anglo-Saxon, Norman or Viking don't look very good in a bascinet...Or would you rather earlier periods go away too?

Not at all what I was trying to say. I have no problem with bar grills. I was simply using them as an example of being even 'more authentic'. Some posts on here seem hung up on the fact that we are trying to get rid of some modern items, but not all inauthentic items. I think that is a false argument.

MJBlazek wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:\ It is on them. Their gear makes them look less than stellar.

The Society as a whole is only gauged by it's weakest link.


Ask someone outside of the SCA what they think of it. And you will soon learn how all of us are viewed.
I dress as close as I can get to the real thing, or at least I try to.
when I say I am in the SCA I get asked if I wear plastic and tennis shoes.

To think that it doesn't affect you is Blissful Ignorance at best, and Arrogance at worst.

Yes yes. From now on every time I see a blue plastic warrior I am going to think about how bad they are making you look. My god your gear must be aweful because somebody else can't get it quite right.

It is so arrogant of me to think that somebody elses gear doesn't effect me. That's just plain weird man.

I like the differentiation between authenticity and appearance.

Comes under the "reasonable attempt" philosophy.

No one is advocating for allowing printed sheets as tabards or the like.

So your rules would prohibit that? Who is the authority on what is, or is not, a medieval pattern or print on fabric?

Just curious how deep down this rabbit hole you wanna go..

If it says "cover exposed plastic" fine. If it says that, plus "with one of these six vetted types of fabric, but please, no prints or colors we don't think we like" then you are biting off a much bigger mouthful.

Or will it be up to "marshal's discretion" and thence be WILDY variant depending on who you get on the way onto the field, where one guy doesn't care, and another nitpicks to the end of time?

Count Johnathan wrote:

MJBlazek wrote:

Count Johnathan wrote:\ It is on them. Their gear makes them look less than stellar.

The Society as a whole is only gauged by it's weakest link.


Ask someone outside of the SCA what they think of it. And you will soon learn how all of us are viewed.
I dress as close as I can get to the real thing, or at least I try to.
when I say I am in the SCA I get asked if I wear plastic and tennis shoes.

To think that it doesn't affect you is Blissful Ignorance at best, and Arrogance at worst.

Yes yes. From now on every time I see a blue plastic warrior I am going to think about how bad they are making you look. My god your gear must be aweful because somebody else can't get it quite right.

It is so arrogant of me to think that somebody elses gear doesn't effect me. That's just plain weird man.

It does affect you. Stop pissing in a cup and trying to pass it off as wine.

MJBlazek wrote:It does affect you. Stop pissing in a cup and trying to pass it off as wine.

Affect, effect, whatever. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that somebody else doesn't dress as well as others. I've been bringing people into ths game and greeting new people in this game for decades. I've never heard the kinds of complaints from new people that some of you guys talk about. Never. I've only ever heard people like you guys complain about somebody elses appearance and how it negatively impacts your pastime.

Perhaps when dealing with new people your issue is in the manner in which you present what this organization is (or what you think it should be) rather than what it truly is. I dunno. Just a guess based on how you guys talk about it.

Perhaps when dealing with new people your issue is in the manner in which you present what this organization is (or what you think it should be) rather than what it truly is.

What it truely is? That's been argued for how many decades?

MJBlazek's vision of what the SCA "truely is" is just as valid as yours. Or Logan's Maeryk's, mine, and Nissan's. We all are free to share our vision as we see fit, which is kind of what the AA is about anyway.

.

its the only way to deal with this silliness. but then you would need to actually communicate with folks before acting on things. such as trying to enforce rules that already exist which, regardless of what some folks here suggest isnt the role of the marshallate when it clearly is. or those that suggest that the sem isnt as much a part of warranting kems, again they are mistaken.


logan

Sir Omarad wrote:I like the differentiation between authenticity and appearance.

Comes under the "reasonable attempt" philosophy.

Maeryk wrote:Good for you. I've seen 8 people start, build plastic armor, borrow a helm, be gung ho as all get out, and dissapear in under a year.

I wonder how many of them would even have tried, had they had to hit "the next level" right out of the gate? Alternately, I wonder how many would even have started (who are still out there, I might ad) had they had to do so?

It doesn't matter does it?

Legislating armor appearance at a practice is going to be difficult. Loaner gear is usually awful, and our shires gear is alot of plastic. I doubt that anyone will be buying all new loaner gear to meet a new rule set. Most likely, it will cause the cast off and no longer worn pile of loaner gear to gradually improve. This is a good thing, but to make the current stuff instantly illegal will make recruitment difficult.

No one will be authorized in it, however, since their first event will require their own, better gear, to meet the requirements.

We currently dont require anyone to cover plastic at practice, but all of them are covering it if their own gear is made of plastic, before they authorize. This seems to work fine, and I cant think of a single person at our practice who wears exposed plastic armor, and we have alot of new people.

Spuntops are still the norm, but that is a cost issue.

Hedinn wrote:Legislating armor appearance at a practice is going to be difficult. Loaner gear is usually awful, and our shires gear is alot of plastic. I doubt that anyone will be buying all new loaner gear to meet this new rule set. Most likely, it will cause the cast off and no longer worn pile of loaner gear to gradually improve. This is a good thing, but to make the current stuff instantly illegal will make recruitment difficult.

No one will be authorized in it, however, since their first event will require their own, better gear, to meet the requirements.

All of our canton's "loaner gear" is my older armor. I want it to look good for when we have someone trying it. But then again, that's just me.

Thats great for you. We have plastic stuff that was donated.

So do I need to go buy all new gear so I can donate my old armor?

Joseph wrote:

Nobody said people can't wear tennis shoes. They just need to disguise them, which is really pretty easy. Been at least 3 tutorials here on the Archive.

Can you link us to them?

Sir Uric (Blackoak here on the Archive) had a good tutorial.

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... ght=cleats

By no means am I advocating that we should make the SCA a living history group. But really, all this hand wringing over minimum costume requirements is laughable to anyone who has done living history.

Yes, in a significant way they have it much easier, because they usually focus on a specific time period and thus can make a checklist for what is the allowed gear. But it should not be difficult, even for a group like the SCA, to make a list of disallowed gear.

But the real humor here is not the difficulty of the process, it's the difficulty of people's attitudes.

Steve

Broadway wrote:

Maeryk wrote:Good for you. I've seen 8 people start, build plastic armor, borrow a helm, be gung ho as all get out, and dissapear in under a year.

I wonder how many of them would even have tried, had they had to hit "the next level" right out of the gate? Alternately, I wonder how many would even have started (who are still out there, I might ad) had they had to do so?

It doesn't matter does it?

It absolutely matters.

this presents an excellent opportunity for folks to get together with this loaner gear and come up with easy ways to bring it into compliance. that would help "not new folks" that need to cover something up see how easy it is to do so. it also gets new folks involved in more than just showing up to learn our sport. not to mention teaching them that we have a responsibility to the society to visually enhance it.

regards
logan

Hedinn wrote:Legislating armor appearance at a practice is going to be difficult. Loaner gear is usually awful, and our shires gear is alot of plastic. I doubt that anyone will be buying all new loaner gear to meet a new rule set. Most likely, it will cause the cast off and no longer worn pile of loaner gear to gradually improve. This is a good thing, but to make the current stuff instantly illegal will make recruitment difficult.

No one will be authorized in it, however, since their first event will require their own, better gear, to meet the requirements.

We currently dont require anyone to cover plastic at practice, but all of them are covering it if their own gear is made of plastic, before they authorize. This seems to work fine, and I cant think of a single person at our practice who wears exposed plastic armor, and we have alot of new people.

Spuntops are still the norm, but that is a cost issue.

New postPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Broadway wrote:
Maeryk wrote:

Good for you. I've seen 8 people start, build plastic armor, borrow a helm, be gung ho as all get out, and dissapear in under a year.

I wonder how many of them would even have tried, had they had to hit "the next level" right out of the gate? Alternately, I wonder how many would even have started (who are still out there, I might ad) had they had to do so?


It doesn't matter does it?


It absolutely matters.

I don't think it matters.

If they didn't stick it out with minimal effort, they weren't going to stick around anyway. In the end, it would not have mattered if they quit 2 days in or 365.

Steve

When my Shires current KM took a brief move to California, I took his position for a short time. While there I put it to the populace to enact our own rules on how we delt with the loaner garb, and the "Cover Up" ruling that came out earlier this year.

We enacted this for the loaner gear.

"All New fighters may use the loaner gear for 1 year. During this year they are to be encouraged and assisted in putting together thier own armor. If by their own doing they fail to compile the necessary armor to fight in this time span they forfit thier right to the exclusive use of the loaner gear. "

After the "Cover Up" ruling came out we ammended.
"When knew fighters take the field, they will be supplied with a shire tabard to cover any blatent modernity. (To include but not limited to sports gear, obvious plastic etc.) If the new fighter is able (with guidance and assistance) create thier own armor within the previously stated 1 Year period, as a token of thier achivement they would be supplied with a New tabard/tunic of thier design from the Shire.
If said new fighter is unwilling to comply with creating thier own armor ni the previously stated 1 year period they forfeit thier right to the use of the Shire Tabard and must return it to the stock of loaner gear. They also forfiet the gift of the custom tabard/tunic and must obtain one on thier own."


So far we have no uncovered plastic/sports gear. (I actually don't think we have anyone fighting in barrel plastic) and only 1 of the 3 sets of lonaer gear is being used out of 4 new and unauthorized fighers.


YMMV
MJ

Steve -SoFC- wrote:

New postPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Broadway wrote:
Maeryk wrote:

Good for you. I've seen 8 people start, build plastic armor, borrow a helm, be gung ho as all get out, and dissapear in under a year.

I wonder how many of them would even have tried, had they had to hit "the next level" right out of the gate? Alternately, I wonder how many would even have started (who are still out there, I might ad) had they had to do so?


It doesn't matter does it?


It absolutely matters.

I don't think it matters.

If they didn't stick it out with minimal effort, they weren't going to stick around anyway. In the end, it would not have mattered if they quit 2 days in or 365.

Steve

The second part of my question is what matters. Not those who walked away, but those who got in, stuck around, and are still out there. How many would _not_ have had they not been able to do it on a literal, in many cases, shoestring?

dukelogan wrote:this presents an excellent opportunity for folks to get together with this loaner gear and come up with easy ways to bring it into compliance. that would help "not new folks" that need to cover something up see how easy it is to do so. it also gets new folks involved in more than just showing up to learn our sport. not to mention teaching them that we have a responsibility to the society to visually enhance it.

regards
logan

Hedinn wrote:Legislating armor appearance at a practice is going to be difficult. Loaner gear is usually awful, and our shires gear is alot of plastic. I doubt that anyone will be buying all new loaner gear to meet a new rule set. Most likely, it will cause the cast off and no longer worn pile of loaner gear to gradually improve. This is a good thing, but to make the current stuff instantly illegal will make recruitment difficult.

No one will be authorized in it, however, since their first event will require their own, better gear, to meet the requirements.

We currently dont require anyone to cover plastic at practice, but all of them are covering it if their own gear is made of plastic, before they authorize. This seems to work fine, and I cant think of a single person at our practice who wears exposed plastic armor, and we have alot of new people.

Spuntops are still the norm, but that is a cost issue.

Yup. It also presents the opportunity to repair and clean it up. It's not that hard, and it's not even that expensive, depending on the gear.

Also, I believe that the rules are for events, not for practices.

So, do you need help?

Mord.

Maeryk wrote:

Steve -SoFC- wrote:

New postPosted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Broadway wrote:
Maeryk wrote:

Good for you. I've seen 8 people start, build plastic armor, borrow a helm, be gung ho as all get out, and dissapear in under a year.

I wonder how many of them would even have tried, had they had to hit "the next level" right out of the gate? Alternately, I wonder how many would even have started (who are still out there, I might ad) had they had to do so?


It doesn't matter does it?


It absolutely matters.

I don't think it matters.

If they didn't stick it out with minimal effort, they weren't going to stick around anyway. In the end, it would not have mattered if they quit 2 days in or 365.

Steve

The second part of my question is what matters. Not those who walked away, but those who got in, stuck around, and are still out there. How many would _not_ have had they not been able to do it on a literal, in many cases, shoestring?

Not many (if any) people have ever tried to get started fighting in the SCA on a smaller budget than I had when I began. My very first non-loaner kit was really a joke - the body part was a car tire. I don't recall how long I wore that, but I don't believe it ever saw an event, just some practices.

My second kit lasted me for years, met the no visible plastic standards, was assembled on the same near zero budget and, in fact, did not use plastic anyplace at all.

My point ? It's entirely possible to meet higher appearance standards while still "on a shoestring", it's just a question of direction. It's not necessarily even a matter of making a greater effort - just a different effort.

Count Johnathan wrote:

MJBlazek wrote:It does affect you. Stop pissing in a cup and trying to pass it off as wine.

Affect, effect, whatever. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that somebody else doesn't dress as well as others. I've been bringing people into ths game and greeting new people in this game for decades. I've never heard the kinds of complaints from new people that some of you guys talk about. Never. I've only ever heard people like you guys complain about somebody elses appearance and how it negatively impacts your pastime.

Perhaps when dealing with new people your issue is in the manner in which you present what this organization is (or what you think it should be) rather than what it truly is. I dunno. Just a guess based on how you guys talk about it.

It's fascinating, in a fashion, to watch the way that some people dismiss the experience of others because their experience is not the same.

We don't all have the same experiences, we've not all had the same problems, nor the same successes. We don't all see things the same way.

But some people appear to believe that the only experiences that matter are their own.

I would say that is a strong indication of arrogance.

And the difference in the meaning of the words "affect" and "effect" is not trivial. Treating it that way is genuinely ignorant, not to mention the disrespect being quite intentionally displayed.

What I see way too much of in my area is seasoned fighters/long term members encouraging the new guys to use plastic and other not period materials because it's the way they did it.

I can knock out a set of ugly mild elbows just as fast as anyone can heat some blue plastic and form it. Unfortunately here it's part of the culture to go with a crappy looking kit.

Other than when Josh W was living here I was the only one who had a semi-cohesive kit. Now I have a kit that is getting where I want it to be and I'm catching crap from others saying that I'll sacrifice prowess for looks.

Maybe I do but what does it say about them when I beat 'em?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnMKbKk6CBc

"It's hard damned work lookin this pretty"