[MR] the real petitions are now online

[Kelly Keck]

(I've cut bits and pieces from Duke Logan's post to put my replies in
context and have labeled comments with "LOGAN" or "ADRIANA" as appropriate.)

LOGAN - first, the rule changes were done by fiat. [snip] in this case we
had no real representation, no real review, just the opinion of one man who
happens to think we need meaningless rules and that man happens to be in
charge.  and, i will add, was not elected to be in charge but rather
appointed the position.

ADRIANA - I definitely agree that those in power should not make rules by
fiat without considering the needs and wants of those who are affected by
the rule, and it bothers me every time I see it.  Whether the rules end up
changing or not, I hope the petitions will convince the SEM to take the
populace's opinions into account and to have strong reasons before making
changes.

But, I still think that we've agreed as marshals to enforce the rules as
written, and anyone who is marshalling is obligated to do that.  For those
who have serious problems with the rules, I suppose what you do depends on
how strongly you feel about them, versus how strongly you feel about
supporting our sport by marshalling.  Some people are choosing to resign,
others are enforcing the rules under protest, others might just take a break
from marshalling for a while without resigning their warrants.  I just can't
see refusing to follow the rules as a valid or honorable option.  At least,
not in this case--you bring up Rosa Parks as a good example of times when
rules are clearly *wrong* and shouldn't be followed.  But this situation
strikes me more as a difference of opinion on what's safe, practical, and
reasonable to expect than as a moral issue of right versus wrong.

LOGAN - and finally, we are opening the world of sca sport combat up to more
litigation.  as we keep adding rules on top of rules we give this smoke
screen that says our sport is safe.  well, you can never guarantee safety
in  anything.  but as long as we keep writing rules that are so
micro-specific as we have over the last decade we give that impression.

ADRIANA - That's a good point.  I'd be willing to bet money that the new
rules exist in the hopes of keeping our insurance company happy or
preventing lawsuits, but it might end up doing the opposite, as you said,
implying that we can guarantee safety in a sport where people beat on each
other with sticks.  As fighters, we do all have to accept the fact that it's
a rough, physical sport, and we could get hurt, maybe seriously.  Martial
artists and football players accept that risk, with a lot less protection
than we wear. And, you're right that no rule will ever make us completely
safe on the field.

LOGAN - there are a number of reasons that have been cited as to why its
unsafe to
wear an elbow behind some shields (lack of control for me) and wearing
redundant throat protection (heat build up for a lot of people, actual neck
injury for me since i roll my head side to side at an extreme range).

ADRIANA - Thanks very much for clarifying the safety concerns with the added
armor requirements (both Logan and others, like Muirghen, who replied).
The lack of shield control, the potential to overheat, and the potential for
neck injury are all serious possible problems.

However, I wonder how much these safety issues are caused by the new
requirements and how much it's a case where some constructions that fit the
requirements have problems, while others are safe (the same way you could
have other pieces of armor that are technically legal but still not safe).
For example, if I take an elbow that was never designed to go under a shield
and slap it on my left arm and throw my shield on, especially without
readjusting any of the strapping of the shield,  it can certainly mess up my
control of the shield.  But, an elbow specifically designed to go under a
shield, and a shield strapped to take that elbow into account, wouldn't
necessarily have that problem.

As far as the issue of overheating, if an individual has that particular
problem, nothing says they can't make their paddng from something other than
foam (which doesn't breathe, and can certainly get hot against your skin) or
even wrap the foam in a layer of fabric to move some of the sweat away from
their neck.  (Incidentally, I'm glad this was mentioned. I *do* fight with a
foam padded gorget, and I *do* tend to overheat quickly; it occurs to me
that that might be part of the problem, and I may want to experiment with
different padding.)

Of course, rather than putting these rules out as mandatory, I think it
would've been a much better idea to include them as "strongly encouraged"
for a year or so.  That would give armorers time to experiment with designs
that actually work for the new requirements, while allowing people who've
had the problems described to either fight without those additions or to
work on getting the kinks out so that they can do so without a problem.

As it is now, we've gotten about three months to prepare for the changes.
So, come December, a lot of people will probably toss something together
quickly to comply with the new rules, and we'll probably see more of the
problems mentioned.

LOGAN -  i applaud your willingness to enforce rules even if you don't
understand them fully.

ADRIANA - If I'm going to enforce them (even if I'm just going to fight), I
had *better* understand the rules.  (I assume you're referring to my not
being aware of the safety concerns that had come up regarding these new
rules, rather than the rules themselves.)

Again, thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to my reply; it's
been a very interesting discussion.

YIS,
Adriana

On 10/20/06, Logan <logan at ebonwoulfe.com> wrote:
>
> thanks for responding adriana,
>