"Jacobite" garb

[hylander]

From Rule #11:

(We define 'weapon' as anything that is used to inflict damage or harm to living beings. Weapons shown as components of traditional or historic kilt attire, or shown as components of a prescribed uniform, may be exempt as long as the discussion does not become about the weapon itself or its use.)

I think the rule is full of subjectivity here. The dirk and sgain, although being a potentially dangerous, I think can be accepted by many to be the "component of highland kilt attire" and so any discussion on this forum fo these could be seen as acceptable since it meets that requirement, even if the kilt is never mentioned. Most oftens post concerning dirks and sgians center on how, when and where they could or should be worn with the kilt. Even in the DIY section, where oftent the kilt is never mentioned specifically when discussing the making of sharp pointy things, I think the implication is that the intent on the dirk or sgain being made is intended, at some point, to be worn with a kilt. If I show up at a Burn's party dressed in "modern" kilt attire, sgian stuck in my sock, many in attendance will think "he's got the whole kit down to that sock knife thingy". If I show up to the same function, dressed the same, with a 17th century longarm I think total confusion would set in. My point being, "Weapons shown as components of traditional or historic kilt attire, or shown as components of a prescribed uniform" is the line.

But, you say, "Historical Kilt attire", most certainly could include the the 17th century firearm, expecially under the Historical Kilt category, especially in a thead entitled "Jacobit Garb", and I would agree with you wholeheartedly. For another example I remember a thread that was shut down on black powder hunting because is quickly devolved into a gun discussion devoid of any releavance to the kilt. That instance, I think, is a clearer example of what #11 is meant to address.

It is a fine subjective line, and I am glad I don't have to make the call. I thoroughly enjoyed the Jacobite Garb thread, it has loads of good info for those interested in historical kilt attire. Brian is a fount of knowledge, although I thought his parting remarks were unfortunate. Guns and gun regulation are a hot button topics more than ever here in the US and so I can understand the mods wanting to nip a potential issue in the bud. I think the current atmosphere may have also added to Brian's frustrations.

Maybe there could be a revision of #11 seperating firearms and sharp pointy things, addressing each more specifically. Or maybe the mods are perfectly happy with the rule as it stands and we the members just continue to abide by that.

[pbutts]

I need to be very careful how I phrase this as someone who is new to XMTS, but I also have over ten years of experience on other boards where the process of moderating and banning members has been a lot more rocky. Kudos to Steve and the moderators for keeping this place running as smoothly as it does.

Now in the spirit of what Steve has written about the evolution of the site, the rules, and the moderation process, I wonder (outloud, online) if it wouldn't be appropriate for members to propose that designated threads (such as this one) operate under a modified rule 11 that accounts for the gear that goes with historical reenactments.

I for one, found this a fascinating thread and the inclusion of some historical weapons seemed appropriate.

[Father Bill]

Re-enactments as Rule 11b?

[Steve Ashton]

Rule 11 is not subjective at all. It is quite specific.

If the discussion had been about the kilt or an kilt outfit there would not have been a problem.

That was not the case in the two instances cites. That's right, this was not an isolated case. It is implied that this was a first offense, It was not.

If you care to look back at post 395, you can plainly see that the purposeful intent was the weapon itself totally separate from anything else.



We really do try to allow threads to stay on their original topic. This one has now gone in a totally different direction.

If anyone would like to discuss Rule 11 or suggest a possible change to that rule may I ask that you start a new thread.

As the OP of this thread has left the forum I think it best to close this thread to preserve the fine discussion on historical garb that it was.