[MR] Comments on Proposed revision of Corpora IV.A.1.

[MR W]

I agree with HRH, some very bad scenario's could come out of this.

1.) I hire the three biggest, baddest figthers to fight in crown for me. Very Roman, but not anyway fair. In effect the crown would be worn by who could buy it.

2.)Me and my friends agree that we are going to win crown for me no mater what, and it turns into a real ugly "Bop till you drop."  

3.)The Ducal Death Squad continually fights and takes turns being King.

4.)We go to a scenario "One step better" of who can raise the largest Army and fight the other, civil war style. This would raise emotions to a new high level, hiring mercs to up the anty, and we become Italy in the middle ages. Chaos as each group fights it out for the crown.

One on one fighting shows the character of the individual, skills, and heart. Yes, the King may not be the best tactician on the battle field, but so what. That is why He apoints generals.  

At any given Crown, anyone can win.
----- Original Message -----
From: Logan
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 3:28 PM
To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: RE: [MR] Comments on Proposed revision of Corpora IV.A.1.

creating a crown list in which the heir is he who wins a popularity contest
allows for nothing save politics.  removing the pressure and weight of
single combat between honorable men to allow team melee also removes the
heroic accomplishments that a crown victory provides.  additionally you
would also need to pick out and discriminate individuals and disallow their
participation in crowns or run the very real possibility of a select few
deciding who the next 13 kings shall be.  picture in your mind a friendly
game of darts between michael, logan, anton, cuan and havorc (or whomever,
im just using names i see fit) in which we all fight for the winner in the
next crown.  then we do it again in 6 months.  that situation would be a
real possibility in any and every kingdom that adopted such an idea.  wow
that would be fun.

single combat fights are also easier to manage whereas a field of 10 men
fighting over such an emotional issue as crown would have a dramatically
increased possibility of being somewhat "ugly".  and then what?  what if one
guy steps over the line during this popularity contest to ensure victory for
his buddy.  how do you punish that behavior?  it also removes the heroic
atmosphere that the best man won the day on his courage and abilities and
will leave many feeling as though they have been handed a plastic leader,
one who accomplished nothing without the aid of his friends.

no thanks, sounds 'unfun' to me and reeks of politics.  the same can be said
about most any form that is not single combat, which is far from boring in
my opinion.

regards,

logan

-----Original Message-----
From: atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org
[mailto:atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org]On Behalf Of David W. James
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 10:08 AM
To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: [MR] Comments on Proposed revision of Corpora IV.A.1.


[ The following are my comments to the Board concerning a
proposed change to
Corpora.  Commentary by the members and interested parties is
requested and
may be sent until July 1, 2002.  The proposal (at
http://www.sca.org/BOD/announcements/royal-lists.html) is:

Proposed revision of Corpora IV.A.1.

The Board requests commentary from the membership regarding
the following
proposed revision of Corpora IV.A.1.:

Change from: "Royal Lists must be conducted at a tournament
announced in the
kingdom newsletter as being for that purpose."

Change to: "Royal Lists must be conducted at a tournament
announced in the
kingdom newsletter as being for that purpose. All Combat in
Royal Lists must
be single combat."

Please send your comments no later than July 1, 2002, to
Corpora Revision,
SCA Inc., Box 360789, Milpitas, CA 95036, or email comments at sca.org.
]

I would like to register my strong disapproval of this proposed
change to Corpora.

The format of Crown Tourney is disgustingly mundane as it is usually
held, and this does nothing to address that.  It removes an avenue
for expression of Kingdom policy, individuality and possibly even
growth and improvement.

I would be surprised if allowing tournament forms other than single
combat, if they were used, did not result in an increase in
participants in Crown Tourney, with a resulting feeling of greater
participation and satisfaction with the process used to select our
rulers.  Tournaments where the actual entrant for the Crown was
leader of a team of 2-5 fighters, for example, is one possible avenue
that this would eliminate that I believe would be entirely fair and
as equitable as single combat.  Doubtless there are other alternative
methods that would be equally fair and reasonable.

I just as strongly support selection of the Crown's successors by
chivalric combat alone.  This is one of the defining characteristics
of the SCA, and is strongly tied to our unique charm.  But lets try
not to start down the road that has us restricted to yet another
boring, ahistorical double-elim tourney.

David W. James
Lord Kwellend-Njal Kollskeggsson
Atlantia

Cc rec.org.sca, atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
--
David W. James vnendNOSPAM at adelphia.net
                     Remove spam block to send email.
   "Ignorance is the mother of adventure." Hagar the Horrible
========================================================================
                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
  Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia

========================================================================
                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
  Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020202/36ea4a12/attachment-0021.htm>