Fiat Lux

Right. A quick warning. Many people seem to be finding this blog due to its kooky climb up Google page rankings, for which I blame either Lorenzo, since he linked me from his highly ranked blog, or a scary number of cyber stalkers. If it's the latter, hi! Keep drinking the herbal tea!

The upshot is that people outside my original demographic are reading this, which is all cool, except that you may violently disagree with what I am about to write. That's your right, but I make two demands at this point. Read the whole lot before you comment, and comment in reasonable language. Because I swear to the gold bunny that anyone who writes "You shouldn't be on the field unless you're prepared to get hit," will have me making up little songs about their lack of genitalia from now until Ragnarok, and I will sing them regularly in my surprisingly carrying voice.

And for anyone who is actually thinking "But it's true!" let me put it to you like this. I am a costume laurel. If I started to rant that "You shouldn't be in the SCA unless you're prepared to handsew all your garb!" you would all look at me askance. It is exactly the same. Oh, and this is long, no surprises there ...

Okay, to the meat of it. Fiat Lux is a petition started by Baron Bartholomew about the "Lights Issue". You can trot off now and read the comments that hundreds of people have made here, or you can sign it yourself here. I want to talk a little bit about the issue and its repercussions, and then address some specific points that have come up from all this.

To read this, you need to know that Lochac has a number of unarmoured combat classifications that have traditionally taken our warfields. The first is light archers. These are archers wearing minimal body armour (a helm, elbow and knee protection which need not be rigid, and neck , groin and kidney protection). Their armour is designed to take one blow from a 'heavy' fighter in a worst-case scenario. Light archers are authorised and have tests for competency and safety regarding shooting and taking deaths, they must be at least 16 years old. Then there are light siege crew, who are similarly armoured and authorised. They crew the siege engines, of which we have a startling number these days. Finally there are banner bearers. Banner bearers only have to be 14 years old. They are also armoured with plumes, and have a separate authorisation have safety drills that include being shot with arrows from minimum range (because they're going to get shot at some point, and exposing them to the worst-case scenario at the beginning means they know whether they can cope or not.) All of these combatants wear plumes on their helms.

Our light archers shoot fibre-tape-wrapped wooden arrows with blunts on the ends, and in mixed combat scenarios all participants wear mesh. There are also heavy-only scenarios at all of our wars for people who hate mesh.

The "Lights Issue", as we have been referring to it around Casa Erko, is actually two law changes that have come together. The first of these is the ruling from the Society Earl Marshall (SEM) that all archers must wear heavy minimum armour. This ruling came from the previous SEM, Sir Robert Osborne (I think that's his name). It was not discussed with the Lochac Kingdom Earl Marshall (KEM), who at that time was Daemon Morrison.

So what? You might ask. Under the terms of the SCA/SCAA affiliation agreement, all policy changes at Society Officer level must be explicitly sent to the corresponding Lochac officer for comment. The exact wording is:

"All Society officers shall explicitly solicit comment from the corresponding officers of Lochac before imposing Society-wide policy decisions."

By 'explicitly solicit', the framers of the document intended that – as it says – the officers get in direct touch with the corresponding officer. They were not bound to abide by any dissent from Lochac, but they were bound under the terms of the agreement to directly approach the specific officer. Knowing that officer was on a list that they were chatting about the issues on was NOT enough.

How do I know what the people who framed the agreements meant? I was one of them. I quote here from an email that I sent to the SCA Inc team when we were negotiating the agreement:

[Miss D]
>Comment: We do need a necessary consultation with International Groups
>> from the>> Marshall of the Society. This has been happening on an ad hoc basis with
>> the>> last few incumbents of this role, however, it should be formalised,
since>> US>> law and custom deviates (at times substantially) from the rest of the
>> world in>> marshallate matters. The suggestion for SCAA opinion to be solicited
>> explicitly>> for all changes in Corpora (see below) covers part of this.

To which Meg Baron, who I think was then Chair of the SCA Inc, although she may have already begun her term as President, replied on March 8, 2002:

"Yes. There MUST be close communication between the worldwide
members of the Marshallate, probably more than in any other office or area
of activity."

Now Meg is a wonder, and she did her very best to make sure that this part of the agreement was adhered to. For nearly two years after we signed the agreement I was the Chair of the SCAA, then I reigned as queen for the first time, by then Meg was President of the SCA Inc. During that time we had several issues where Society Officers completely failed to get in touch with their Lochac counterparts before imposing Society-wide rule changes. Her response was always the same: If they haven't followed the conditions for the rules, then the rules do not exist for you guys.

So, when Daemon Morrison rang us as Crown in a bit of a flap and said that he'd just been told that there was a Society law change that all Lights must go to minimum heavy armour, he was asked if he had had his comment explicitly solicited. No, he replied. The first rumours he had heard about it were on an email list that he belonged to, but it wasn't until the SEM had sent him the new standards that he found out about them.

Right, we said, and got in touch with Meg. Same thing, she replied. If he wants to make them law in Lochac he can rescind them and then solicit comment and impose them if he still thinks they're a good idea. If he doesn't, they don't exist because they have been illegally imposed.

At the same time in Drachenwald, the Barony of Aarnimetsa were fuming. They also have an affiliation agreement with the SCA which has the exact same clause except that it says Marshall of the Barony of Aarnimetsa in the obvious spot. Not only did they not have comment explicitly solicited on this change, they have never had any comment solicited on any change. Like many Finns, they have been stoic about it all, but are not happy.

Unlike Lochac, our Finnish friends did not have a tight relationship between the Crown, Corporations and Kingdom Officers, so they just went with things, because they are tough and pleasant. We stuck by our legal rights to not be affected by an illegally imposed policy change.

That year, 2004, Mistress Margie of Glen More, the then-Lochac KEM went to Pennsic. She spent about three hours and several beers talking with the SEM who was defintely Sir Robert Osborne at that point. She believes they talked at length about the Lochac conventions with arrows and mesh, and also about the need to maintain light armour standards. He is in agreement with her on the first part and semi-formalised the Lochac exemption for arrows and mesh, but disputes the second.

This is why you should a. Never discuss important policy with beer, and b. Never discuss unless you're also recording in minute detail, preferably to an electronic device.

Fast-foward two years. Very late in our most recent reign, June 2006, our new KEM, Sir Gregory of Loch Swan, contacted us, rather upset. He had just been told that the current SEM, Duke Hrothgar, was not only insisting that Lochac impose heavy minimum armour standards, but also banning the category of light (non-contact) combatant from all warfields of the Laurel Kingdoms.

Banning non-contact combatants meant that every person on the field could now be hit. As Duke Hrothgar wrote about the change:
"And if implemented properly, I strongly believe that it will have very little impact on everyone's actual participation. Archers who don't want to be struck may always choose to yield, and any fighters found abusing archers (hitting them after they've yielded, striking them excessively, etc) should be dealt with in the same manner as they would for any other infraction"

While I can see where he might have been going in theory, in practise it's a different story. Sixty per cent of Lochac's fighters are authorised as Lights, 25 per cent of those are exclusively light. This affects hundreds of people in this Kingdom.

And while His Grace may have every faith in fighters accepting yields, I have seen people struck as they came of the warfield dead with their shields held over their heads. I once saw Sir Gregory, co-incidentally, have his rib broken after yelling "GOOD" three or four times. He had been backed up against a star picket and could not fall. His opponent genuinely could not hear him, and so just assumed he could not have been hitting hard enough and ramped up the strength between each call of good. It was sickening, and it was on a tournament field.

While I think very highly of our fighters, I do not think it safe or sensible to rely on them hearing a yield on the warfield. Countess Aeron of the West was nearly mangled when she was backed up against a tree one Pennsic and a heavy fighter laid into her repeatedly until (again!) Sir Gregory came to her rescue. One cannot always fall. And if one is carrying an expensive bow and arrows, one needs to fall really carefully. This is Lochac. We have big stones, big spiders, big snakes and really big bull ants. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be falling on any of those.

Back to the process. Sir Gregory then wrote to the SEM and hoped that he could garner a Lochac exemption to this new rule. If not, he planned to speak with him directly at Pennsic this August past. We spoke with him a few days after he first contacted us when we visited Aneala, and were quietly confident that he would succeed. We asked him if he had had his comment explicitly sought on the matter. He replied that the rule change had been formulated before he stood up as KEM.

Later we spoke with the previous KEM, Margie, she also replied that she had not had her comment explicitly sought on this matter. It had come about well after her discussions with Sir Robert at Pennsic 2004. She had seen it bandied about on the Society Marshall's list, but had believed that the exemptions for Lochac's style of archery that she had gained from Sir Robert would cover this, too.

I should emphasise here that the SCA/SCAA agreement puts the onus of explicitly seeking comment on the SEM. It is not up to the KEM to ask if something might affect us.

I also asked the SKA (Finland) whether they had been contacted. No. Still never heard a word from the SCA Inc. That affiliation effort was apparently a bit of a waste for Meg and me. Good thing I got to know her out it, or there'd be no upside.

We had several people contact us, as Crown, to weigh in on the matter. We wrote one letter to the SEM at that time. In that letter we wrote:

"As you know, this particular change in Society standards was never put forward to our our Earl Marshall for explicit comment as required in the SCA/SCAA agreement of 2001. This invalidates the change in Lochac under our operating agreement.

Had the change been put forward for comment before being implemented, that comment would have been robust and determined in the negative. While this change may have very little impact on participation in the American Kingdoms, it would have a massive impact on the state of play in Lochac."

We also commented on the reasons that he had stated for pursuing this rule change. In the email that our populace members forwarded, Duke Hrothgar wrote: "The goal making this change is twofold, in order to simplify our rules and fighting conventions as well as make them universally consistent." It was also reported by those people that it was seen as improving safety on the field.

We stated that we saw very few fighters from other Kingdoms in Lochac, and that those we did see were often regulars and always able to adapt to our style of play quickly and effectively. Our lights do not travel to other Kingdoms to shoot as they loathe the poxy golf tubes passed off as arrows in the rest of the Known World, and if our heavies don't hit an archer at Pennsic, well, good. They're lovely heavies.

We stated that we believed that having Lochac's archery style maintained did not cause a problem because there is no confusion here. We have one standard of play and everyone manages it. There is little cross-over of our fighters and we do not have inter-Kingdom wars such as Pennsic and Estrella where there could be problems of inter-Kingdom differences.

Moreover, our style of archery has an excellent 20-year-long safety record, and allowing archers to be struck would make our warfields less safe, not more safe.

We finished by saying:

"By seeking to impose 'consistency' here, you would be killing of not just diversity, but a rare experience for SCA fighters from other Kingdoms. We would invite you to attend next year's Rowany Festival and to take the field with our troops before you make any decisions regarding imposing this change on Lochac. If you can honestly say that the experience is not worth preserving, we will be very surprised indeed. We would be happy to host you at the event, should you be able to attend. "

We never heard back from him.

We did hear back from the President of the SCA. He told us that since there was no clause in the agreement about what would happen if Society Officers did not explicitly solicit comment, then under US law it would mean that the contract had been breached and therefore terminated. Said termination would mean that the SCAA would be required to cease using the SCA's intellectual property, including the Kingdom and branch names and heraldry.

Yes, punters, you read that right. If we complain about the agreement not being followed, then not only does the SCA Inc not give a rat's, but we can no longer call ourselves SCA and lose not only all of our titles and membership rights, but items that are actually the intellectual property of Lochac, including our names and heraldry.

I have actually been too furious to respond to this yet. But Patrick, I will get over my fury and you and I will have a long, long talk. Perhaps after I hit the pell a lot more, because I am really really cranky.

At the same time as all this was going on, I heard from our friends in Finland that a SCA Inc Board member had stated on the Grand Council List that members of affiliated organisations could not ever serve on the SCA Inc. I have since seen a copy of the email and that is what was said. Whether she was authorised to say it and whether it is true remains to be seen, see above comment about crankiness with BoD and delayed writing.

It it is true, it means that not only are we at the mercy of any oficer decisions they want to make, we can do smeg-all about it. Ever. While at the moment this just pisses off Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden, it will one day extend to every country in the SCA outside America as legal changes oblige us to make more interanational affiliations.

At the root of the problem is the fact that there is no SCA International. There is only the SCAUS who deal with everyone else as an afterthought (and that includes you, Canada, I'm sorry to say.) Now in one way that's entirely fair and reasonable. They need to make sure that they are legally protecting their American members as much as anyone else. And even if there was an SCAUS and SCA International, the International body would still be a majority US group due to numbers. But it would be made up of people that included other SCA countries and it would be acting with a global view, which would be better as it would be less prone to being hijacked by small interest groups.

Back at the Lights Issue, Sir Gregory has drafted a Kingdom Law that would see our plumed non-contact combatant classes preserved under Kingdom law, which Corpora says can be stronger than Society-level law. It is not certain that this will succeed, since the SEM has said elsewhere that he will allow no exemptions and it can be argued that it is a weakening, not a strengthening of the Society law.

At the same time, Baron Bartholomew Baskin of Southron Gaard began Fiat Lux, a petition seeking the reinstatement of lights, in Lochac at least. The last time I checked it had over 300 signatories and 200 comments, which is quite good in one week.

I have been quite amazed at many of the comments, and the number coming from other Kingdoms. There is a genuine sense of good will towards archers that makes me quite happy, and a lot of interesting Inter-Kingdom Anthropology.

I have also been enjoying many of the photos. For instance, this woman is just gorgeous. She has one of those faces that makes you pause and just appreciate the prettiness. Like crocuses. She's Adriana Michaels, a heavy fighter from Atlantia. I do hope she's not one of the people who consider heavy to be an un-PC term, she looks friendly and reasonable, I'm going to assume that she is comfortable with her clearly quite appropriate Body Mass Index and just accept that Heavy and Light make useful shorthand terms. And she writes very nicely, too.




Then there was this guy, Titus Antonius Archelaus, from An Tir. I feel sure that I must know someone who knows him, because he is ringing one of those bells. You know, the type that end up with one of your friends saying "No, that's Titus! You know, the guitar-playing, red bear-boot-wearing Baron I was always going on about. I can't believe you don't remember!"

Hell, I feel sure I'd want to know him because he's managed to combine SCA bling with Lounge Lizard chic (NB the floral arrangement). The man has style.

Two of the people who I just wanted to hug were Sir Rhys and the Widow Montoya from Caid. their comments were sensible and generous. They were so delightful at Festival, and I really wanted to stomp up to them and pathetically ingratiate myself with the plying of chocolate. Unfortunately, I had no idea how to do that while still being terribly Queenly and decorous. And they ran away the one time I was close enough. They may have actually hated me on sight, I suppose. Probably best that I continue to believe it was a potential friendship missed by my ineptitude.

So far there has only been one snark. Amusingly, because of the way that the site is set up, he's had to sign on as a signatory to the petition to tell everyone he hates the idea. BB is tricksy.

"I see a common set of themes running through this whole thread None of which make a great deal of sense to me. 1) We are Lochac and our tradition are diferant and we don't have to play play by the same rules as every one else. Well then Leaves the SCA you obviously don't want to part of the same game the rest of us play. 2) I don't wanna get hit, But I wanna have the right to hit anyone I choose! I should not have to even comment on the lack of chivalry of that concept. 3) I am to weak, disabled etc to play heavy. Tell That to our local Knight with just 1 leg, Tell that to the Lords who fight from wheel chairs every year at gulf wars. If you Can't be in combat, don't expect to be in combat and treated special. "

I've deleted the guy's name (you can look it up if you want) because he's probably a nice and decent person, but his argument is crap. The whole rationale for removing lights was to fit in with the vocal Kingdoms who do not have them and who do not want to have to fight by other Kingdom's conventions at inter-kingdom wars. We have NO inter-kingdom wars in Lochac. We have a handful of overseas visitors each year who are smart and capable and they manage our rules very well. Our lights do not play in the US, and if our heavies do not hit archers when they play in the US, there is no downside to that.

I don't wanna get hit, But I wanna have the right to hit anyone I choose! I should not have to even comment on the lack of chivalry of that concept

This bit doesn't even make any sense. Archers shoot people not hit them. They are quite happy to be shot by anyone else. They frequently are. How the hell is that non-chivalric?

As to his point three, you know what, I hate that crap. I think it's brilliant when people overcome their disabilities. For example; I have brain damage but I can still construct rational and grammatical arguments. I really do know quite a bit about getting over adversity, aside from brain damage I shattered my right foot, but bashed away at physio until I could walk on it without a stick, which the surgeon who rebuilt it had said I would not manage. And you know what I've learned from overcoming my physical adversities? That it's hard. I'm a tough old bugger and I chose to do it to the level that I did. But I would never judge someone who chooses to take things a bit easier.

Beyond that, I am a tough old bugger. And I bet this guy's one-legged knight is, too. But not everyone is physically tough. Not everyone can be. Some people are simply not as physically robust. Others have already used up their mental reserves. My foot still hurts with every step I take, but it hurts like someone kicking it casually with a trainer on. If it hurt like someone hitting it with a hammer, I'd probably still be bloody-minded enough to walk, but I'm damned if I'd have enough energy left after that to want to fight.

This chap has suffered from a big empathy failure, and I think that is what has propelled this whole issue. I completely accept and understand that there are people out there who hate lights, hate archers, hate being shot, hate mesh, whatever. And there are plenty of options for you to all fight heavy and hit lots and lots of people, even the Archer-mad Kingdom of Lochac has had had many heavy-only scenarios at every war I have attended. But we are bound by our duty as peers, officers or simple SCAdians who believe in justice and other chivalric virtues, to empathise with the people who will be affected by this ruling.

To them it is not a trivial thing in any way. It is the core of their enjoyment to the game, as much as if someone were to say to me that I could only play if I wore brown T-tunics because bad tailors are tired of me making them look bad, or to tell J, Alfar, Berengar and Corney that they were not allowed to fight again because it's boring for other people to die to them all the time.

Quite aside from the fact that this has all been done in a fashion that infringes the very agreement the SCA Inc signed, it's against the spirit of our game. And that offends me deeply.

The SCA is a place for encouraging period practices. It is a place for inclusion. It is a place for families. It is a place for everyone to excel. And if you feel that you need to get rid of a large part of the SCA's war traditions in order for you to excel, then you should also remember the last and most important thing that the SCA is. It is a place where courtesy and humility are still virtues.