The Armour Archive

Angusm0628 wrote:

Maeryk wrote:

But if there's gonna be a "rule" it needs to be overarching.. and from the top down.

It needs to involve THE WHOLE SOCIETY.. not just the kitchen, not just court, not just the battlefield.

Would I love to see everyone move towards medieval gear? Sure. But, as I've said before.. if you wanna wear hobnails, get hobnails. Don't cover modern cleats with an old purse and claim it's "an attempt" at medieval anything.. cause it's not. It's modern cleats with an old purse glued over them.

Ahh I got ya, We will have to agree to disagree. I consider my cleats covered to look like a turnshoe an attempt to look like a turnshoe. I don't call it a turnshoe however. I call it them Talun MkII's fighting shoes which is what they are. BUT, folks outside the SCA at demo's don't see the cleats, they see what appears to them to be a well done kit.
I consider a plastic churburg covered under surcoat and giving a proper profile an attempt at looking like period armour I don't call it period armour.
The appearance difference between a white sneaker and a white sneaker covered with some form of spat is actually significant. One is glaring the other not so much to someone who is not "In the know".
That is an easily achievable baseline for anyone. One can give the appearance of a proper kit, without using proper materials. And the only people who will know the difference is us.
It's actually cool when a new guy looks at some of the kits I've worked on over the years and realizes what looked damn hard to do is easily achievable when you know how to do the cheats without sacrificing the overall visual effect.
It's the overall visual effect we are looking for after all isn't it?

I guess some of us are. Some are trying to actually live in the correct stuff. Some just want to swing sticks and get glory.

and again, I say the problem with "The Dream (tm)" isn't "Dream" it's "THE".

If it's the charter we are trying to abide by, that keeps getting brought up like some mythical grail, in what way are cleats medieval? Because if our "goal" is to do research into medieval ways, and educate people on them, well, cleats don't fit the bill. Rattan I can grok for safety reasons. Stainless the same.. at least it's metal. But I keep getting answers all over the map as to why we "NEED" to do this.

I mean.. your appearance over the years, and it's transformation (along with a bunch of your shield brothers) has been pretty stunning. And it didn't require any rules or regulations.. just a desire on your part to look "better".

But think back to when we first met.. and how many of the folks fighting next to us would have been ousted by this "rule".

Sorry to jump in but if someone has blue jeans on under their armor then i have no problem with it. As they have them "covered" by armor. I mean how do you feel knowing that most of the folks at an event are wearing modern under wear (GASP) the horror.

You also say that your new rule drove no one away when you put them in. How do you know?

If the next King removes them is it your concern that the Madmaxians will mount an invasion?



[quote="dukelogan"]well that is your goal isnt it. anyway...... so i will ask you the same question im asking johnathan:

surely you dont think blue jeans conform to the requirements relating to appearance when attending an sca event do you?

logan

balin,

i am one of the few guys that read what you say and dont put emotion into it. thats why ive always commented on your side when people go crazy at you. i am able to do so because by reading what youre saying, and not how you "said" it (kinda hard to "say" anything in text) i am able to see your argument. when i agree with your argument, which is often, i am able to side with you.

but this one?? brother, come on now. you are really not trying to suggest that a pair of jeans with a leg harness over the front of them is covered? youre smarter than that and i know it.

and comparing that to my silk thong (which i wear under my cool linen pants) is not fair. lets leave my underwear out of it. man, i knew i never should have shown you them.

regards
logan

Balin50 wrote:Sorry to jump in but if someone has blue jeans on under their armor then i have no problem with it. As they have them "covered" by armor. I mean how do you feel knowing that most of the folks at an event are wearing modern under wear (GASP) the horror.

You also say that your new rule drove no one away when you put them in. How do you know?

If the next King removes them is it your concern that the Madmaxians will mount an invasion?

dukelogan wrote:well that is your goal isnt it. anyway...... so i will ask you the same question im asking johnathan:

surely you dont think blue jeans conform to the requirements relating to appearance when attending an sca event do you?

logan

Maeryk wrote:The two are not at odds with each other, Logan.

Only at odds with you.

Sorry Maeryk, but I have to disagree. The two are at very distinct odds with one another.

Unfortunately, there are many people that will do the bare minimum they need to in order to participate. Either they don't care or they don't get it. Whichever it is, some people just won't do it UNTIL you make a rule that it must be done.

Also, to Gorm, Maeryk, and any other people that are arguing that jeans, sneakers and blue plastic qualify as a reasonable attempt: please don't be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Just because you don't think legislation is needed (which is a totally fair opinion to have -- one that a number of people here share) doesn't mean that anyone with an ounce of sense can't tell a reasonable attempt. While everyone may have slightly different opinions on the finer details, the overwhelming majority will fall into a expected range that is commonly accepted as normal.

If someone honestly and truly feels that jeans and sneakers are a legitimate "reasonable attempt", I would very seriously encourage that person to see a psychologist. If that person's view of the situation is so far from the accepted norm, they should work on that with a trained professional.

I am not trying to attack anyone or suggest that someone is mentally ill, I am simply expressing that psychologists work with concepts like expected norm, and if someone finds themself out of that range, it may be a sign of dysfunction that can be worked on.

Jestyr wrote:

Maeryk wrote:The two are not at odds with each other, Logan.

Only at odds with you.

Sorry Maeryk, but I have to disagree. The two are at very distinct odds with one another.

Unfortunately, there are many people that will do the bare minimum they need to in order to participate. Either they don't care or they don't get it. Whichever it is, some people just won't do it UNTIL you make a rule that it must be done.

Also, to Gorm, Maeryk, and any other people that are arguing that jeans, sneakers and blue plastic qualify as a reasonable attempt: please don't be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Just because you don't think legislation is needed (which is a totally fair opinion to have -- one that a number of people here share) doesn't mean that anyone with an ounce of sense can't tell a reasonable attempt. While everyone may have slightly different opinions on the finer details, the overwhelming majority will fall into a normal range.

If someone honestly and truly feels that jeans and sneakers are a legitimate "reasonable attempt", I would very seriously encourage that person to see a psychologist. If that person's view of the situation is so far from the accepted norm, they should work on that with a trained professional.

I am not trying to attack anyone or suggest that someone is mentally ill, I am simply expressing that psychologists work with concepts like expected norm, and if someone finds themself out of that range, it may be a sign of dysfunction that can be worked on.

Except "reasonable attempt" doesn't appear anywhere in the government docs. "Attempt" does. That's it.

The impression I get from Maeryk's posts, and I could be reading it wrong, is that there's a difference between Joe Newbie who could get booted out of his first SCA event because he wears a t-tunic that he whipped up at home from polyester fabric and crappy trim, a pair of jeans and some sneakers. He might be excited to be there, he might even want to further his authenticity, but he's working with what he's got available at the moment (even if he's not going about it the best way possible) -- but rules that boot him out still have that effect.

Meanwhile, we have a ton of folks who blatantly ignore the "17th century attempt" rules but don't do so by way of jeans, sneakers and sunglasses (17th/18th century pirates, etc) and are thus NOT legislated out of existence. Instead, they're allowed to stick around in case they eventually See The Light, and the folks in the first paragraph get run off, though they might be more likely to come 'round.

actually it does appear once but only referring to handicap accesibility.

ok, so you think putting on blue jeans is an attempt at pre-1th century attire. gotcha....

logan

Maeryk wrote:

Jestyr wrote:

Maeryk wrote:The two are not at odds with each other, Logan.

Only at odds with you.

Sorry Maeryk, but I have to disagree. The two are at very distinct odds with one another.

Unfortunately, there are many people that will do the bare minimum they need to in order to participate. Either they don't care or they don't get it. Whichever it is, some people just won't do it UNTIL you make a rule that it must be done.

Also, to Gorm, Maeryk, and any other people that are arguing that jeans, sneakers and blue plastic qualify as a reasonable attempt: please don't be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Just because you don't think legislation is needed (which is a totally fair opinion to have -- one that a number of people here share) doesn't mean that anyone with an ounce of sense can't tell a reasonable attempt. While everyone may have slightly different opinions on the finer details, the overwhelming majority will fall into a normal range.

If someone honestly and truly feels that jeans and sneakers are a legitimate "reasonable attempt", I would very seriously encourage that person to see a psychologist. If that person's view of the situation is so far from the accepted norm, they should work on that with a trained professional.

I am not trying to attack anyone or suggest that someone is mentally ill, I am simply expressing that psychologists work with concepts like expected norm, and if someone finds themself out of that range, it may be a sign of dysfunction that can be worked on.

Except "reasonable attempt" doesn't appear anywhere in the government docs. "Attempt" does. That's it.

look, i know he gets blinded with his causes but surely he understands that this is about taking the field and not attending ones first event? i mean... right?

logan

Saritor wrote:The impression I get from Maeryk's posts, and I could be reading it wrong, is that there's a difference between Joe Newbie who could get booted out of his first SCA event because he wears a t-tunic that he whipped up at home from polyester fabric and crappy trim, a pair of jeans and some sneakers. He might be excited to be there, he might even want to further his authenticity, but he's working with what he's got available at the moment (even if he's not going about it the best way possible) -- but rules that boot him out still have that effect.

Meanwhile, we have a ton of folks who blatantly ignore the "17th century attempt" rules but don't do so by way of jeans, sneakers and sunglasses (17th/18th century pirates, etc) and are thus NOT legislated out of existence. Instead, they're allowed to stick around in case they eventually See The Light, and the folks in the first paragraph get run off, though they might be more likely to come 'round.

Maeryk wrote:Except "reasonable attempt" doesn't appear anywhere in the government docs. "Attempt" does. That's it.

M-W.com wrote:Definition of REASONABLE

1a : being in accordance with reason <a>
b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable>

Unless something is reasonable, it cannot be considered an attempt.

It appears to me that you are being contrary to be contrary. That is fine, but I won't further engage you in discussion. I wish you well in life.

dukelogan wrote:balin,

i am one of the few guys that read what you say and dont put emotion into it. thats why ive always commented on your side when people go crazy at you. i am able to do so because by reading what youre saying, and not how you "said" it (kinda hard to "say" anything in text) i am able to see your argument. when i agree with your argument, which is often, i am able to side with you.

but this one?? brother, come on now. you are really not trying to suggest that a pair of jeans with a leg harness over the front of them is covered? youre smarter than that and i know it.

and comparing that to my silk thong (which i wear under my cool linen pants) is not fair. lets leave my underwear out of it. man, i knew i never should have shown you them.

regards
logan

Balin50 wrote:Sorry to jump in but if someone has blue jeans on under their armor then i have no problem with it. As they have them "covered" by armor. I mean how do you feel knowing that most of the folks at an event are wearing modern under wear (GASP) the horror.

You also say that your new rule drove no one away when you put them in. How do you know?

If the next King removes them is it your concern that the Madmaxians will mount an invasion?

dukelogan wrote:well that is your goal isnt it. anyway...... so i will ask you the same question im asking johnathan:

surely you dont think blue jeans conform to the requirements relating to appearance when attending an sca event do you?

logan

[/quote


Really a pair of blue jeans under leg armor tucked into boots i really do not have a problem with that. Example If i wore blue jeans to fight in no one would be able to see them because of the rest of my kit. Much like your thong the blue jeans are not the attempt the Armor itself is that.

Balin

Uhh.. I "took the field" at my second whole event.. the third was Pennsic.

dukelogan wrote:look, i know he gets blinded with his causes but surely he understands that this is about taking the field and not attending ones first event? i mean... right?

logan

Saritor wrote:The impression I get from Maeryk's posts, and I could be reading it wrong, is that there's a difference between Joe Newbie who could get booted out of his first SCA event because he wears a t-tunic that he whipped up at home from polyester fabric and crappy trim, a pair of jeans and some sneakers. He might be excited to be there, he might even want to further his authenticity, but he's working with what he's got available at the moment (even if he's not going about it the best way possible) -- but rules that boot him out still have that effect.

Meanwhile, we have a ton of folks who blatantly ignore the "17th century attempt" rules but don't do so by way of jeans, sneakers and sunglasses (17th/18th century pirates, etc) and are thus NOT legislated out of existence. Instead, they're allowed to stick around in case they eventually See The Light, and the folks in the first paragraph get run off, though they might be more likely to come 'round.

Jestyr wrote:

Maeryk wrote:Except "reasonable attempt" doesn't appear anywhere in the government docs. "Attempt" does. That's it.

M-W.com wrote:Definition of REASONABLE

1a : being in accordance with reason <a>
b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable>

Unless something is reasonable, it cannot be considered an attempt.

It appears to me that you are being contrary to be contrary. That is fine, but I won't further engage you in discussion. I wish you well in life.

I think you need to see the pshrink dude.

My point is that people who have something to add to the SCA should be encouraged and applauded. Not turned away because they don't meet somebody with power and a danglies ideal of "What looks good".

Those who have nothing to add, and in fact, intentionally DETRACT from the SCA, by intentionally flouting it's very basic requirements, or using us simply for cheap camping and epic partying, should move along and find their own group.

A totally perfectly done GAOP kit is more of an affront, and LESS of an attempt, than a blue barrel plastic kit over jeans, a sweatshirt, and engineer boots, in our game.

If we are going to define "attempt to look medieval", then it cannot, logically, end at "jeans and blue plastic". People keep saying "baby steps" and the like.. if they are baby steps, then obviously there's bigger steps planned down the road. Perhaps "Sorry, Samurai aren't medieval!" or "sorry, your helmet is at LEAST 200 years apart from your leg armor.. get better kit and come talk to us".

the simple act of making something that works like armour and swinging a stick is an "attempt" at playing our game.

I have invested more in my camp than most people have in their armour. I urge no nylon tents, bag chairs, exposed tarps, etc. Because, see, it simply ruins the visual environment, and is in no way an "attempt". Right?

Reasonable just makes it an eye of the beholder type thing which is why they just said attempt. IMO

Balin

Edit My first garb i made a couthardie (spl) came out as more of a courthardly as i did not understand sewing or the patteren or what fabric was a good choice, but my 70's ish collar was the bomb:)

Jestyr wrote:

Maeryk wrote:Except "reasonable attempt" doesn't appear anywhere in the government docs. "Attempt" does. That's it.

M-W.com wrote:Definition of REASONABLE

1a : being in accordance with reason <a>
b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable>

Unless something is reasonable, it cannot be considered an attempt.

It appears to me that you are being contrary to be contrary. That is fine, but I won't further engage you in discussion. I wish you well in life.

Balin50 wrote:Really a pair of blue jeans under leg armor tucked into boots i really do not have a problem with that. Example If i wore blue jeans to fight in no one would be able to see them because of the rest of my kit. Much like your thong the blue jeans are not the attempt the Armor itself is that.

Balin

If fully covered and not visible, it is no different than sports gear (or Logan's silk thong *OH THE HORROR*)

But if you are wearing that with a pair of 3/4 articulated legs (so you see the back and bottom), I would personally be against it. I don't see the difficulty (or expense) in getting some $5 sweatpants from Walmart.

Jestyr wrote:

Balin50 wrote:Really a pair of blue jeans under leg armor tucked into boots i really do not have a problem with that. Example If i wore blue jeans to fight in no one would be able to see them because of the rest of my kit. Much like your thong the blue jeans are not the attempt the Armor itself is that.

Balin

If fully covered and not visible, it is no different than sports gear (or Logan's silk thong *OH THE HORROR*)

But if you are wearing that with a pair of 3/4 articulated legs (so you see the back and bottom), I would personally be against it. I don't see the difficulty (or expense) in getting some $5 sweatpants from Walmart.

No, _you_ don't. But not everyone lives your life.

Maeryk wrote:

Jestyr wrote:

Balin50 wrote:Really a pair of blue jeans under leg armor tucked into boots i really do not have a problem with that. Example If i wore blue jeans to fight in no one would be able to see them because of the rest of my kit. Much like your thong the blue jeans are not the attempt the Armor itself is that.

Balin

If fully covered and not visible, it is no different than sports gear (or Logan's silk thong *OH THE HORROR*)

But if you are wearing that with a pair of 3/4 articulated legs (so you see the back and bottom), I would personally be against it. I don't see the difficulty (or expense) in getting some $5 sweatpants from Walmart.

No, _you_ don't. But not everyone lives your life.

Blue Jeans are not an attempt at pre-17th century, period.

Balin50 wrote:Reasonable just makes it an eye of the beholder type thing which is why they just said attempt. IMO

Yes and no. There is (almost) always an expected range that psychologists define as normal. Of course there are differences within that normal range, but there is a range.

Consider the statement, "I attempted to compete in swimming at the Olympics." But then you learn that I never even learned how to swim, but rather signed up for swim classes and never went. It can be argued that I made an attempt by signing up, but in no way could that be considered a reasonable attempt. Reasonable is implicit in the veracity of an attempt.

Balin50 wrote:Edit My first garb i made a couthardie (spl) came out as more of a courthardly as i did not understand sewing or the patteren or what fabric was a good choice, but my 70's ish collar was the bomb:)

Like you said, it was your first garb. And you picked something somewhat complex! In that I am guessing that you didn't use a pirate print or neon green, you definitely qualify as a reasonable attempt under any normal guideline. Even if that attempt wasn't as successful as you may have liked.

Ulric wrote:

Maeryk wrote:

Jestyr wrote:

Balin50 wrote:Really a pair of blue jeans under leg armor tucked into boots i really do not have a problem with that. Example If i wore blue jeans to fight in no one would be able to see them because of the rest of my kit. Much like your thong the blue jeans are not the attempt the Armor itself is that.

Balin

If fully covered and not visible, it is no different than sports gear (or Logan's silk thong *OH THE HORROR*)

But if you are wearing that with a pair of 3/4 articulated legs (so you see the back and bottom), I would personally be against it. I don't see the difficulty (or expense) in getting some $5 sweatpants from Walmart.

No, _you_ don't. But not everyone lives your life.

Blue Jeans are not an attempt at pre-17th century, period.

Neither are cleats. Covered or otherwise. Which is my point. half the gear on the field is not "medieval". If we can agree that throwing a sheet over something makes it "dissapear" then I guess you might be right.. but I still think that blue plastic and blue jeans is NO LESS GLARING than a guy with a japanese helm, brig, and a sword and board.

Jestyr wrote:Also, to Gorm, Maeryk, and any other people that are arguing that jeans, sneakers and blue plastic qualify as a reasonable attempt: please don't be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

I defy you, or anyone, to find a quote of mine from any source where I have said that any of those items are "reasonable attempts" (although I can pull up the docs for something not all that different from blue denim fabric if challenged to...it helps when your wife is a GoA level weaver)

My contention, all along, despite Logan's constant Lies, Belittlements, Misstatements and Slanders regarding it, has been that the way to fix those problems is *not* through an arbitrary, difficult to enforce without drama, certain to be inconsistently applied, capricious, and non helpful law change, but through a system, formal or informal depending on local needs, of peer and Peer pressure, where folks lead by example, and cajole or convince those associating with them to step up their game in the areas they are interested in, offering assistance where appropriate, and refusing to recognize through awards those who consistently fail to make effort.

That sort of policy would work on or off the field, would require no judgment calls, would not cost us a single fighter, and would actually improve the quality *and* appearance on the field, as opposed to the thin veneer of paint or fabric that is in place currently due to Logan's Law.

Instead, as Logan fell in love with his idea to be more exclusive from the moment he came up with it and proceeded to ramrod it through, ignoring protest or alternative idea (As was his "right", as in the SCA, he who can win Crown Tourney gets to make these sort of decisions, regardless of the impact), we have lost fighters (and yes, Logan, we have, I know of some, and I'm not even all that active in the heavy fighting community any longer), and the quality of our game has improved not one whit.

The irony is that in a game where the winner of a fight is made so by a subjective test (calibration) that we have come to agree on, we can't seem to agree on a subjective test for appearance.

D. Sebastian wrote:The irony is that in a game where the winner of a fight is made so by a subjective test (calibration) that we have come to agree on, we can't seem to agree on a subjective test for appearance.

I think it's because so many have had bad experiences with "Subjective" judgements over the years. "Yes, it meets the letter of safety, but I still "don't like it", so no, you can't fight with it", etc etc etc.

Any time I see a "new rule" for the SCA I imagine it in the hands of the worst asshat peer or marshal or other "boss" I have ever run across, and try it on for size that way.

Gorm wrote: The SCA did perfectly fine from the late 60's until 2002 with an enforced ruleset that allowed lousy "attempts" at armor and garb. Nobody was injured as a result of ugly armor, at least not in any way that could be fixed with a tabard.

Perhaps you missed the point that Caid has had authenticity rules from about 1980 or thereabouts, and it grew just the same, perhaps even more.

We have fighters in a large age range and newbs that start out looking pretty darn good.

Perhaps there are just less a**hats.

D. Sebastian wrote:The irony is that in a game where the winner of a fight is made so by a subjective test (calibration) that we have come to agree on, we can't seem to agree on a subjective test for appearance.

Yes, but one's a subjective test you make for yourself regarding your opponent, and the other's a subjective test your opponent makes for you.

FrauHirsch wrote:

Gorm wrote: The SCA did perfectly fine from the late 60's until 2002 with an enforced ruleset that allowed lousy "attempts" at armor and garb. Nobody was injured as a result of ugly armor, at least not in any way that could be fixed with a tabard.

Perhaps you missed the point that Caid has had authenticity rules from about 1980 or thereabouts, and it grew just the same, perhaps even more.

We have fighters in a large age range and newbs that start out looking pretty darn good.

Perhaps there are just less a**hats.

And the point is no additional society level legislation was required for you guys to do it on your own at a local level.

Problem solved.

At this pont, is this thread really addessing it's original intent anymore?

Other than the usual flaming back and forth?



.

Well it seems as though both threads about rules changes are more "hi, these are the changes we are doing go ahead and talk about them"


Balin

now if someone just brings up CA in this thread it may be the mother of all bandwasting threads on the archive.

Jonathon More wrote:now if someone just brings up CA in this thread it may be the mother of all bandwasting threads on the archive.

Thanks for volunteering!

D. Sebastian wrote:The irony is that in a game where the winner of a fight is made so by a subjective test (calibration) that we have come to agree on, we can't seem to agree on a subjective test for appearance.

LOL- yeah, cuz nobody ever disagrees about calibration! Good thing, too- cuz then we'd be having arguments about people that don't call shots and making up names for people that do it like, I dunno... how about Rhino Hide?

There are a number of reasons why legislating things are difficult. Partly it has to do with how "large" the organization has become. By that I mean worldwide.

If we legislate what an attempt is we will always run into interpretation of it. That can be better than saying so and so MUST be done. I know that this is mostly about armour but where does it end? I believe a good impression should be attempted. I try to improve mine all the time and have invested a lot of money in it. But... what about when we want to attend large wars? What are the people from kingdoms far away from Pennsic/Estrella/Gulf/Lillies wars etc supposed to do? I can't send my medieval camping supplies from Germany. I can't always afford to send all my armour either. I have to make short cuts. I may have plastic to cut weight on the airplane, I may have to sleep in a dome tent, I may have bag chairs and a sleeping bag..... etc etc etc

If we wish to continue as we have been by being inclusive, we need to be understanding of an "attempt"

I do agree that modern jeans is not the best look, I also believe exposed, obviously "safety" equipment (plastic or otherwise) should not be our goal or norm. We are supposedly conducting Armoured combat, please wear some or hide the fact that you are wearing safety equipment under a tunic of some sort. Viking/Saxon/houplande<sp>/whatever......(I also personally don't like the mixed look either, the Kabuto, heater shield, sword with viking tunic...) But I will still fight them.

regards
ThorvaldR

I quit reading after 10 pages.

The proposed rules help get new players looking better than Road Warrior extras from the get go. Money is demonstrably *NOT* a valid argument. The folks who rules lawyer and twist rules to say FU to the rest of the SCA are better left behind. The rest is simply obstructionism, by people who will argue up is down and split hairs because they have nothing better to do with their lives.

I am for the rules changes.

Without getting into any of the interpersonal conflicts that seem to have taken over the discussion, I'll just point out the following:

The period of time that is included within the SCA's range is greater than the period of time between the latest cutoff date and the present day.

So it is entirely possible to have two excellent representations of period personae standing side by side, have a 21st century person walk up to them and have one of the "period" people be closer chronologically to the 21st century person than to the other "period" person.

What's my point ?

Well, if the plastic, or the blue jeans, or the sneakers are so jarring and disruptive that you can't enjoy the event - how long before the morion, or the spangen, or the armet......

We encompass such a wide range of time that there is no possible way for most of us to have been familiar with one another - the only way to get away from the jarring anachronisms is to narrow focus to a period of a few years.

Now, who really wants to try and push *that* agenda ?

Everyone is given the chance to freely display their quality.
If you choose to dress like a bum then dress like one, but you have no right to complain when you are regarded as one.

i disagree. we are supposed to, in any polite society, treat people fairly regardless of appearance (to an extent of course). now if you mean "act like a bum" then yes, by all means, you should be treated as such. but just because someone refuses to comply with the demands clearly stated regarding appearance when attending an sca event and chooses to snub those requirements and wears sneakers doesnt mean they should be treated poorly. just because they dont care enough to comply doesnt mean we lower our standards in comportment and treat them badly.

i think very few folks wear blue jeans and lacross pads without attempting to disguise them because they are saying "fuck you" to the sca. i think most of them are just going with the flow and since they were allowed to authorize while violating the rules of appearance (because nobody wants to be a "bad guy") they dont see a problem with what they are doing. ive not run into a single person that was told they could not authorize or take the field because of atlantias blatantly modern policy that had an issue with it. in fact the few folks that i have had that discussion with have all been plesant and interested in what they could do to comply. in each case they also said "oh yeah.... that makes sense and i will get right on it". or words to that effect.

regards
logan

white mountain armoury wrote:Everyone is given the chance to freely display their quality.
If you choose to dress like a bum then dress like one, but you have no right to complain when you are regarded as one.

I was thinking more on this, and discussing it with my wife, when she reminded me of a couple of (IMO) good points, regarding SCA as theater -
Outside of the size of the audience, is there any real difference between seeing blatently modern and visible armor, garb, and other equipment at an SCA event, and the inaccuracies we (SCA people) harp on in various movies?

If we look at what we do as at least in part providing atmoshpere for the people around us (both in the SCA, vistors and prospective members), then adding to that theater in a positive way, even if we are just a "bit player", is a good thing, isn't it?

Otherwise, then the plastic sunshades, katana wearing guys in kilts, sunglasses, visible IPods, cell phones and the like shouldn't be a big deal either.

How important IS the "Medieval Atmosphere" to the SCA?


.