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)

[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.