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

[David W. James]

At 10:19 AM -0500 2/3/02, Logan wrote:
>think of it more as a clarification than a change.  most rules are written
>to prevent things that are felt to be detrimental.  to hire on thugs to win
>the crown would be detrimental on many aspects.  again, if it were to go
>that way you would see the same group simply handing off the crown to their
>own.  the purpose this clarification serves, in my opinion, is to make sure
>the politics are kept to a minimum and that a fighters ability and skill are
>put to the test.  the contest is judged on an individuals fortitude and
>strength and not on his marketability and campaigning.

>just an opinion,
>logan

	I definately view it as a change; so does the Board; they can 
issue a G&PD to 'clarify' a section of Corpora without member 
comment; they didn't feel that this is a clarification.  This is a 
change, period, end of story.

	I find your last sentence interesting.  'the contest is 
judged...'  yes, but only by the participants.  Those of us watching 
may form opinions on the merits of the contestants, but these 
opinions have no effect on the results of a fight (unless you happen 
to be the Marshall or the Crown...)  And, frankly, if 'fortitude and 
strength' are all that is being displayed we are definately going 
about this all wrong.  I'd rather see inspiration and chivalry carry 
the day than tireless use of a big shield and a heavy hand with a 
sword defeating opponents by battering their shields until they can't 
lift them any longer (been there, didn't enjoy it. :-)  Strength is a 
valuable talent for a knight; speed is often even more useful; 
neither is something that is used while sitting on the throne.

	A simple thought experiment: who was the greatest fighter in 
Arthur's kingdom?  It wasn't Arthur.

Kwellend-Njal
-- 
David W. James			vnendNOSPAM at adelphia.net
                     Remove spam block to send email.
   "Ignorance is the mother of adventure." Hagar the Horrible