Words and Hats

[jamesq]

Thanks to everyone for their feedback on the tri-cornered hat debate. Although calling it a debate is stretching my case way too far.

Part of my problem is language. If I hear someone say "We are going to ban X", then I expect that to mean "We're going to [forbid/prohibit/deprive you of] X". I'm getting the idea that what it actually means in an SCA context is "We're going to [condemn/disapprove of/curse] X".

In this way, it's like the ambiguity in the statement "God Hates Divorce". Does that mean "God Hates You for getting a divorce" or does it mean "God Hates Divorce because it really sucks for everyone involved" (Oh, and thank you Slacktivist, for that great analogy)

So if TRHs position is "Tri-corner hats are lazy and out-of-period, we disapprove of them and know that you can all do better with a little effort", then hey, I've got no problem with that. If they mean "You're getting escorted off the event site for wearing one" then I think they're out of line.

It's pretty much got to be the former because the latter is unworkable.

I still think 100% carrot and 0% stick would have been better though. But it seems I'm the only one who has issue with this. Lacking a tri-corner hat, I'll leave it be.

Comments

(frozen)

[jamesq]

I'm actually not a dumb person. If I interpreted your words the way I did, you might want to consider, for just a moment, that the words you choose are the problem, rather then my interpretation of them.

An Tir is a big place. If you call for a ban, somebody is going to take the most obvious interpretation of that word and act on it, even if that's not your intent.

My recommendation is to be super clear when you make your official proclamation. "We disapprove of non-period pirate garb, especially tri-corner hats. Therefore we will reward any historically accurate portrayal of pirates with a Letter of Marque".

Just imagine how much better that will sound.

(frozen)

[ya-inga.livejournal.com]

I never said you were dumb James. However since you appear to be the only person who has taken issue and no one actually affected by this proclaimation was at all vexed, I am rather inclined to feel that our message had the largely desired intent. You are the only person I have spoken to who took the word ban as you have BTW.

We are not dumb either - We had already every intention of tweaking the message to suit a broder audience when traveling outside of Avacal. We are quite familiar with the idea of pitching to the audience in front of us.

It's not exactly our first time to the rodeo : )

(frozen)

[jamesq]

So there was nothing wrong with what was said in court, and I'm just a crackpot.

Good to know.

(frozen)

[ishansonofbrand.livejournal.com]

It is a little unclear about who is affected by this proclamation, as my definition of period is a little different then yours.

My vexation is due to a lack of clarification, which should come in its due course.

I am also concerned when royalty use the B-word, or even the b-word.