Given the school already has two rings in its inventory, I think adding a third will only serve to diminish the tradition and fellowship of the ring as originally established and developed over the years. Further, the ring as it exists now is easily recognizable and a non-gold ring would only damage and cheapen the rings current status.

While I understand the sentiment of the “Combat Ring” I am strongly opposed to any additional types of rings. The concept of the ring being damaged, lost, stolen is not new and is not unique to just combat roles. I work in a nuclear power plant and I would never where my ring into a radiological area for fear it would become radiological waste not to mention the possibility that my finger could come off with the ring in an accident. In any event this ever changing ring design concept cheapens the whole meaning of “one who wears the ring” and to go forward with this concept will cheapen The Citadel.

I think it minimizes the actual ring. I see no good in a combat ring. I'm with Tittle. A pin, a special patch, buckle, not another ring.

While I understand the sentiment of the “Combat Ring” I am strongly opposed to any additional types of rings. The concept of the ring being damaged, lost, stolen is not new and is not unique to just combat roles. I work in a nuclear power plant and I would never where my ring into a radiological area for fear it would become radiological waste not to mention the possibility that my finger could come off with the ring in an accident. In any event this ever changing ring design concept cheapens the whole meaning of “one who wears the ring” and to go forward with this concept will cheapen The Citadel. Sincerely, Tim Nance Columbia, SC Class 1975

Not a developed idea as far as I can tell. I don''t want a knockoff ring as an alternative to my real one.

We lead. To say XXXX is doing this so we should too is simply not a well developed case for this idea.

Okay, I'll say it.... the comabt ring idea is just gay.

Class of 1997