[Archers] Fw: Stierbach indoor archery practice and is new rule correctly numbered?

[Kynnyth Pyke]

That may be the case at Society, but that is not the manner in which things are handled in Kingdom.

Kynny


----- Original Message ----
From: Siegfried <siegfried at crossbows.biz>
To: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
Cc: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 11:53:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Archers] Fw: Stierbach indoor archery practice and is new rule correctly numbered?

Kynnyth.  I understand that interpretation is binding.  However, having
been in rule making positions in the SCA.  It has always been that such
interpretations are NOT binding until they are published in such a way
that makes them official and accessible to all marshals.

This would mean either having them posted in the Acorn, or placed on the
marshal.atlantia.sca.org domain.  Just as interpretations by the Society
marshal are placed on the sca.org domain.

In this policy has changed, forgive my ignorance of that changing, but
that was the case as little as a year ago when I was in a society level
position.

In Service,
Siegfried


On 3/8/10 10:27 AM, Kynnyth Pyke wrote:
> I'm happy to provide clarifying language, as I want to balance your needs and the needs of the marshallate.
> 
> However, given that this office, through Allen has stated that it does provide the coverage you need, go forward with that.  That is how this works.  An interpretation through this office is binding.  It is in the best interest of the Kingdom to move that interpretation into policy for clarity, but it is still binding.  If you have a structure that provides the protection described in 3.9.3.2.3 you are alleviated of the burden to grab a waiver.
> 
> Kynny
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Siegfried <siegfried at crossbows.biz>
> To: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 10:17:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Fw: Stierbach indoor archery practice and is new rule correctly numbered?
> 
>> So folks, 3.9.3.2.3 should address indoor sites...how does it affect your other event sites?
> 
> Actually, I'd state that it doesn't.  For the new rule 3.9.3.2.2
> specifically states:
> 
> "A waiver may be requested for shorter ranges provided there is a
> physical barrier, which will stop arrows."
> 
> Therefore clarifying 3.9.3.2.3 which gives examples/clarifications of
> physical barriers, but not does conflict with the new 3.9.3.2.2, which
> as written explicitly states that waivers will be needed in the case of
> physical barriers.
> 
> Siegfried
> 
> 

-- 
Barun Siegfried Sebastian Faust - Barony of Highland Foorde - Atlantia
http://hf.atlantia.sca.org/ - http://crossbows.biz/ - http://eliw.com/