![[DrupalCon London icon]](http://sharonkrossa.com/sites/default/files/images/drupalcon-london.png){kind=small}
Help Sharon win a trip to attend DrupalCon London!
| Last updated 14 Sep 2009 (Roll of Honor: May 2009 LoAR) | Copyright ©2004-2007, 2009 by Sharon L. Krossa. All rights reserved. |
Name Uniqueness:
Name Uniqueness refers to the requirement that registered SCA names must be unique. That is, that no one may register a name with the SCA College of Arms that is "too similar" to any currently registered name.
The current rules specifying what is "too similar" are complex, and mastering them requires not only learning the Rules for Submissions but also keeping abreast of all the relevant interpretations and precedents set by Laurel Sovereign of Arms in the course of registering (or returning) names submitted to the College of Arms (which rulings are contained in the Letters of Acceptances and Returns; the most important of them for each Laurel tenure are also collected into Precedents). Suffice it to say that much more than minor spelling differences are required for two names to be considered "significantly different" (that is, not too similar) for SCA registration.
It really boils down to allowing and facilitating more historically accurate re-creation, both individually and in aggregate, and being nice to submitters:
Names were not unique in the medieval period, nor did medieval people expect them to be. Ending name uniqueness would help foster a more medieval attitude toward names by both individuals and the Society as a whole and permit and encourage a more medieval aggregate re-creation of names by the Society (that is, one that includes different people with the same name).
Current name conflict rules contribute to people registering less historically accurate names. Often when someone discovers they can't register the name they want because someone else already registered something too similar, they add a name element to clear that conflict and frequently the name element they add makes the whole name less historically accurate. For example, many people add a second given name (middle name) to clear conflict, even though second given names are not historically accurate for most periods and naming cultures before modern times. Likewise, conflict clearing is responsible for many of the unhistorical locatives added to otherwise historically accurate Gaelic names. And so on. Ending name uniqueness would help avoid the registration of many less historically accurate names.
Current name conflict rules prevent some new submitters from being able to register the names they want, no matter how historically accurate. Name uniqueness forces Laurel and the College of Arms to deny someone a registrable name they really want. Why not let them have it, just like the earlier submitter got the name they wanted? You don't need to deny them the name they want in order to have the name you want, so why do it? Ending name uniqueness would be being nice to future submitters.
The primary reason we have registered name uniqueness now and will continue to have name uniqueness for some time into the future is because currently too many people like name uniqueness for its own sake — that is, they like the idea of having a unique name themselves and like others having unique names (even if only among registered names) — and do not want to give it up. It's one of those modern fantasy notions many submitters (and heralds) want to hold onto.
When we not only persuade the majority that name uniqueness is not all that desirable, but get them to show their agreement in a concrete, countable way, then we can start to worry about other issues. But until then, nothing else really matters — not database design, not filing concerns, not past promises, not Corpora, nor anything else. These other issues are not why we have name uniqueness, nor are they what prevents us from ending name uniqueness.
One Blanket Permission to Conflict at a time. More specifically:
The first stage has already been achieved. The Administrative Handbook, in Appendix D, includes suggested text for a Blanket Permission to Conflict that allows someone to permit others to register a name that is almost exactly the same ("not identical to") their registered name:
I, Modern Legal Name, known in the SCA as Primary SCA Name, waive the full protection of my registered name "Name People May Conflict With". I grant permission to any future submitter to register a name that is not identical to my registered name. I understand that this permission can be withdrawn by written notice to the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, but that conflicting items registered while it is in force will remain registered.
Date Signature
(Above, text in italics to be replaced with relevant names, etc., in question.)
The next stage (that is, the current stage) is simply for people who want to get rid of name uniqueness (or just reduce conflict to "not identical to") to submit Blanket Permissions to Conflict for their registered names. (See stage 1, above, or, for the more radical, see the alternative form discussed at the end of stage 5, below.) Put your permissions where your opinion is! Persuade others to do likewise! It's easy — there's even a handy online Custom Blanket Permission to Conflict Generation Form available to generate a custom Blanket Permission to Conflict to print out and submit.
BTW, it is a good idea, when submitting a Blanket Permission to Conflict, to remind the external submissions herald that each Blanket Permission to Conflict should be included in a Letter of Intent (LoI) as its own clearly identified separate numbered item, which ideally should quote verbatim the full text of the submitted Blanket Permission to Conflict (with legal name omitted). E.g., if the above Blanket Permission to Conflict were for a primary name, its item on an LoI should look like:
XX. Primary SCA Name. Blanket Permission to Conflict with Name.
Primary SCA Name registered in Month Year via Kingdom.
Submitter's blanket permission specified: "I, [legal name redacted], known in the SCA as Primary SCA Name, waive the full protection of my registered name "Primary SCA Name". I grant permission to any future submitter to register a name that is not identical to my registered name. I understand that this permission can be withdrawn by written notice to the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, but that conflicting items registered while it is in force will remain registered."
If the above Blanket Permission to Conflict were for an alternate name, its item on an LoI should look like:
YY. Primary SCA Name. Blanket Permission to Conflict with Alternate Name Name People May Conflict With.
Primary SCA Name registered in Month Year via Kingdom.
Name People May Conflict With registered in Month Year via Kingdom.
Submitter's blanket permission specified: "I, [legal name redacted], known in the SCA as Primary SCA Name, waive the full protection of my registered name "Name People May Conflict With". I grant permission to any future submitter to register a name that is not identical to my registered name. I understand that this permission can be withdrawn by written notice to the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, but that conflicting items registered while it is in force will remain registered."
The Custom Blanket Permission to Conflict Generation Form automatically generates such instructions, custom tailored.
When this becomes common enough — and this won't be until lots and lots of people submit Blanket Permissions to Conflict for their names — persuade Laurel and the College of Arms to include on the submission forms a Blanket Permission to Conflict option. (Of course, this would need to be done carefully so it doesn't get erroneously selected by accidental pencil mark — say by requiring an extra signature in the appropriate place.)
When a high enough percentage of submitters choose the Blanket Permission to Conflict option on their submissions forms, persuade Laurel and the College of Arms to reduce all name conflict to simple "not identical to" on the basis that that is the demonstrated will of the submitters.
Note that all of the above is almost certainly a process of many, many years, and to this point doesn't require changing the current paper filing system, database, or anything like that.
So, you've washed and rinsed, now repeat — this time for "identical to" rather than "not identical to":
Persuade Laurel and the College of Arms to allow exact duplicates with explicit permission — that is, add a new level of [Blanket] Permission to Conflict. (Note that only at this point do the database and filing issues so lovingly debated become an immediately relevant factor — but by this time, years in the future, most or all aspects of submitting may be fully computerized, with a modern database, thus making many of the current concerns irrelevant.) The text of this future blanket permission to conflict might be:
I, Modern Legal Name, known in the SCA as Primary SCA Name, waive the full protection of my registered name "Name People May Conflict With". I grant permission to any future submitter to register a name that is identical to my registered name. I understand that this permission can be withdrawn by written notice to the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, but that conflicting items registered while it is in force will remain registered.
Date Signature
Warning note! This kind of permission to conflict is not currently accepted by Laurel and the College of Arms! The maximum currently allowed is "not identical to", as in the blanket permission to conflict example in stage 1, above.
However, those wishing to anticipate the future may wish to follow the example of Reinholdt von Trollenhagen and submit a Blanket Permission to Conflict along the following lines:
I, Modern Legal Name, known in the SCA as Primary SCA Name, waive the full protection of my registered name "Name People May Conflict With". I grant permission to any future submitter to register a name that is not identical to my registered name. I also grant permission to any future submitter to register a name that is exactly identical to my registered name if and when the Rules for Submission allow registration of identical names. I understand that this permission can be withdrawn by written notice to the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, but that conflicting items registered while it is in force will remain registered.
Date Signature
For now, the exactly identical to clause won't be in effect because the if condition is not met, but it does put the permission on record for the future. Laurel has explicitly accepted at least two similar conditional future permissions. The Custom Blanket Permission to Conflict Generation Form includes an "also ... exactly identical to ... if" version as an option.
Get people who want to get rid of name uniqueness (or simply don't care either way) to submit Exact Duplicate Blanket Permissions to Conflict for their registered names.
When this becomes common enough — and this won't be until lots and lots of people submit Exact Duplicate Blanket Permissions to Conflict for their names — persuade Laurel and the College of Arms to include on the submission forms an Exact Duplicate Blanket Permission to Conflict option.
When a high enough percentage of submitters choose the Exact Duplicate Blanket Permission to Conflict option on their submissions forms, persuade Laurel and the College of Arms to get rid of name uniqueness altogether, on the basis that it is the demonstrated will of the submitters.
Of course, implicit in all the above is working to convince others to participate in each stage. And at some point there may be the need to make accommodations for old registrations. E.g., at stage 8 we may not be able to persuade Laurel and the College of Arms to get rid of name uniqueness altogether, but may only be able to get rid of it for all future registrations leaving old registrations protected (but only to the level of "not identical to") unless a Blanket Permission is submitted.
Right now ending name uniqueness is about submitting Blanket Permissions to Conflict and persuading others to do likewise. It's about at least persuading people that "not identical to" is difference enough, even if you can't persuade them that name uniqueness is Not Desirable — and then getting them to act on it.
So, again, put your permissions where your opinion is! It's not often that there is such a clear opportunity for grass roots activism on College of Arms issues, so take advantage of it! Change the College of Arms — end name uniqueness — one blanket permission to conflict at a time...
(There is even an online Custom Blanket Permission to Conflict Generation Form to generate custom Blanket Permissions to Conflict to print out and submit, complete with instructions to External Submission Heralds, to make it all even easier.)
The following are those who, as of the September 2007 LoAR, had submitted Blanket Permissions to Conflict for names that (except for Lindorm Eriksson's first noble effort) were accepted by Laurel (said names in bold):
I would like to thank the members of the SCAHrlds mailing list for the stimulating discussions, debates, and suggestions, especially in the years 2003-2005, that led to the formation and refinement of CENU. In addition, Tim McDaniel (ska Daniel de Lincoln) kindly reviewed this article for accuracy with regard to SCA heraldic administrative matters. However, any errors are my own and despite all their best efforts!
Medieval Scotland is published by Sharon L. Krossa (contact). Shopping online? How you can support this site.
© 1996-2008. All rights reserved. Copyright of individual articles belongs to their authors. Please do not copy or redistribute without proper permission!
http://MedievalScotland.org/sca/cenu.shtml
|
Shop Amazon.com  |
Shop Amazon.co.uk  |
Scottish Historical Workshops |
Drupal Training & Consulting |