Sebastien
Has a lot to say...
Posts:207
 |
| 08/31/2006 11:07 PM |
 Alert
|
And speaking as the Western Regional Marshal I can state that nothing you have done or said would cause your card to be pulled. Authorizing is just one part of being a Senior. And for the record I prefer the Senior who takes a hard look at someone before they are willing to put their name on the dotted line.
Monseignor Sebastien de Caen
Wester Regional Marshal |
|
Sebastien de Caen
There is no kill like overkill. |
|
|
Mat
Provost
Posts:123
|
| 09/01/2006 12:17 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By SimonFencer on 08-30-2006 8:04 PM
To beat a dead horse some more (helps make the meat tender, and I hear that horse steak isn't too bad),
I had raw horse once...It wasn't that bad actually. Now that I think about it, I had a lot of wierd stuff in Japan. The rule of thumb: As long as you don't ask what it is, you'll be fine! 
I can see where you're coming from man; better to be safe, than sorry! |
|
Git-r-dun! |
|
|
lord liam
Scholar
Posts:10
|
| 09/07/2006 1:07 AM |
Alert
|
oh simon,
cause it's always been my life long dream to be on your list. when i was auth'd my sr marshall actually asked questions to make sure that i knew my armour requirements, they didn't just check that i had all of my own gear because unfortuneatly, not all the world can afford a $75-150 mask, $75-150 dagger, $120-360 sword, a doublet, gauntlets, pants, boots, the jock or the jill, the buckler, the gorget, or any of it all at once cause we have you know, bills, and minimum wage jobs and such that it could take a couple of years to actually be able to buy all the gear. especially now that fiberglass blades are going out. give people a break. seriously, you need to sit back and look at the bigger picture. and nobody said anywhere that you had to authorize everybody, it just says that you can't descriminate against them because they don't have their own gear. |
|
|
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:682
|
| 09/08/2006 9:00 AM |
Alert
|
Actually - nowhere in the rules does it state that someone can not choose to discriminate against a fighter for not having their own gear. It just says that you do not need to own gear to authorize (although, I would reccomend that you buy your own cup).
|
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
Draven
Free Scholar
Posts:65
|
| 09/21/2006 11:36 AM |
Alert
|
Justin,
Are you willing to put that discrimination to the test? I mean in terms of the legal liabililty of the possibility of someone bringing forth a case against a Sr. Marshal that discriminates against someone.
Example:
If fighter A goes to a Sr. Marshal and does not own his own gear and asks to be tested (no assumption that authorization is a given). Fighter A borrows some of the gear, a sword or a secondary for the authorization. Fighter A is from the Shire where the Sr. Marshal comes and regularly attends practice. Fighter A is refused an authorization test based on the fact they do not own all of their equipment. The marshal explains the reason is that they do not own their own equipment and that they will not even test Fighter. This is discrimination plain and simple.
Fighter A checks the rule books and finds that he/she is in the right and confers with a Sr. Marshal. He/she confirms that according to the rules she was correct in following procedure.
Fighter A lawyers up and files a suit with the Sr. Marshal in question and SCA listed as a organization (as Sr. Marshal's are appointed by the Crown through an intensive procedure and adhere to written guidlines or duties that are quite clear).
I won't even go into details of what happens next, but the fact of the matter is this puts the Sr. Marshal at risk and possibly the SCA of liability.
Despite the fact that we are a private society, we still have to adhere to laws which protect such freedoms in both the US and Canada.
|
|
Draven Mac Raith
Cadet to Monseigneur Prospere de Montsegur
"Scar of Tir Righ" Principality Rapier Champion |
|
|
jgreywolf
Hai Gioco?
Posts:682
|
| 09/21/2006 3:30 PM |
Alert
|
Including the freedom to deny service for any reason.
See - I think you missed a step. Fighter A does not own their own gear, and asks a Sr. Marshal to authorize them. Sr. Marshal says no. Fighter A asks why, and Sr. Marshal explains that they do not feel comfortable doing such.
However, you do bring up an interesting point when you refer to the "intensive" procedure to become a "warranted" marshal. What intensive procedure is this? I will start a thread elsewhere  |
|
Justin Greywolf (SCA: Ramon Diaz de la Vega)
Director
Old World Martial Arts - Teaching Historical Italian Swordplay in the Pacific Northwest |
|
|
Morleigh
Free Scholar
Posts:61
|
| 10/23/2006 8:20 PM |
Alert
|
Draven -
Simon's behavior is not a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen as he also refuses to authorize people for other safety-related issues. He is, in fact, trying to prevent a liability lawsuit. |
|
|
|
|
Draven
Free Scholar
Posts:65
|
| 10/25/2006 7:04 PM |
Alert
|
| Must be a Canadian thing about rights in reference to discrimination. I understand and couldn't figure for the life of me why in plain it says something in the rules yet the powers that be choose to say otherwise to protect their otherwise liable butts. I don't understand and hope that I never do to a point that I would degrade some new fighter who comes to me to get authorized and I don't even think they are worth the right to breathe the same air that I breathe. Again, must be a Canadian thing. |
|
Draven Mac Raith
Cadet to Monseigneur Prospere de Montsegur
"Scar of Tir Righ" Principality Rapier Champion |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 10/25/2006 7:13 PM |
Alert
|
| Dunno... I'm fairly Canadian but I agree with the Americans. Discrimination isn't a blanket thing that we can apply to any behaviour we happen to disagree with. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Sevrin
FALSE
Free Scholar
Posts:39
|
| 10/26/2006 12:43 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Draven on 10-25-2006 7:04 PM
... rights in reference to discrimination.
... degrade some new fighter who comes to me to get authorized and I don't even think they are worth the right to breathe the same air that I breathe.
First, being authorized to fight Rapier in the SCA is not a right. Read the ruleset - it states that in plain language.
Second, I do not recall anyone "degrading" someone for being new, nor using insulting language about not having the right to breath anyone's air. I know you're passionate about this topic, Draven, but your response is way out of proportion to the viewpoints presented to you.
Just to throw this out there for thought; One marshal may look at someone who doesn't own their own equipment as someone who might be financially challenged, while another may see them as someone who isn't serious enough to invest in the sport. And if they aren't invested in the sport, why should a marshal be invested in authorizing them? |
|
Yours in Service,
Sevrin de Savage
Cadet to Don Enoch Jacobsz. van Zuidland
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
luaithrenn
Free Scholar
Posts:55
|
| 10/26/2006 2:42 PM |
Alert
|
Folks, in order to bring a discrimination suit, Fighter A would first have to show that he or she is part of a "protected class," and second would have to prove that he or she was being denied a fundamental right because of discrimination.
As has already been pointed out, Rapier Combat in the SCA is not a fundamental right. And "fighters without gear" are not in any protected class. Now, if the fighter were being refused because of gender, or race, or sexual orientation, or maybe even age (we're getting closer to that one in US case law) a law suit would be more of a possibility. But, even if the rules set were changed to require that fighters own gear in order to become authorized, I don't see any risk of law suits.
~~akilah (formerly luaithrenn, mundanely attorney) |
|
Luaithrenn the Falconer's Wife
|
|
|