[Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule

[Kynnyth Pyke]

Actually, my interpretation of rules are binding, pending appeal to society.  Further, there is nothing in my email that is contrary to the rules as written.

This rule is in place now.  I will, of course entertain suggestions and will be monitoring things as we move forward.
 
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Greg Christensen <gcjckc at hotmail.com> wrote:

FYI, everyone and anyone can post anything regarding what was posted in the ACORN, but it is not part of the "policy" until it is posted in the ACORN.  So, if an explanation of what the rule really should be is posted here, the explanation can not be relied upon as policy and if there is an injury or damage the marshal in charge could be libel.

So, since there are a lot of people are having trouble reading this rule change it needs to be rewritten and published again, and possibly with with notes/explanations.....

GREGGE the ARCHER

> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:59:44 -0800
> From: scacynwrig at yahoo.com
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
> 
> From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
> To: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 2:59:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
> 
> That isn't unreasonable at this point...
> 
> Practices that do not satisfy the basic rules must obtain a waiver. I recommend you contact Allen immediately if you are in this case. It is up to him to determine what level of documentation, if any, is required on his part to provide the authorization. For static sites, there is no expiration on the authorization. For sites where things change the waiver is valid for the configuration that is described to the KEM. I would clarify this by saying that you are receiving authorization for how you build out the safety zone. If you change target layout in such a way that you can still take advantage of the coverage, then that authorization will still be valid.
> 
> Kynny
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
> To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:33:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule
> 
> Noble friends,
> 
> I put in my two cents when this thread started and have watched it ever since, keeping my peace. I don't begrudge anyone having their say, and agree that a number of serious issues have been raised, but we're just spinning our wheels. It is time that Lord Kynneth and Lord Allen stepped and made their pronouncements, clarifications, etc., so we can all get our tape measures, transecs, whatever, go measure our respective ranges, and start writing our waiver requests.
> 
> Mungo the Grumpy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20100305/d08d51a3/attachment-0003.htm>