[Ansteorra] Reply To Sir Robin

[Rose]

I'm not going to debate the merits of indoor/outdoor fighting in this e-mail, because I've already covered almost all of the points that I wish to make. (And I'm already starting to see ideas pop up. Yay!)

The point of this missive is to defend myself from what seems like an attack from Sir Robin. 

Sir Robin, it is very hard to read tone in the written word, and I hope that I am misreading your tone. If so, will you please explain the tone in which you wrote that letter?

Also, I am going to assume that you really did want me to reply to your statements, and do so now. In the meantime, I wish that you would listen to yourself. Your reply to me did many of the things that you're accusing me of doing. The e-mail that you're replying to did none.

You said:  Nobody's said or implied that.  It's not the worst possible scenario.

People have implied that, your lady wife included. That’s why I responded to it.

You said: I can't recall anyone claiming increased injuries.

Several people /have/ claimed increased injuries in regards to indoor fighting. Look back through the list and you'll see people stating that fighting on polished concrete, or the like, leads to more injuries. My statements about indoor injuries were in response to those statements, not in response to yours.

You said: Quite the contrary, I wrote: "As foolish as it is to fight outdoors, it's almost as foolish to fight indoors."  Note the word "almost".  Please don't mischaracterize this as a "claim of increased injuries".

As I previously stated, I was responding to other statements, which most certainly put forth the theory that fighting indoors is more dangerous. The only part directed to you was the paragraph that started with your name. The rest was responding to other statements, so I certainly was not mischaracterizing what you said. I'm sorry if you felt like I was responding to you directly, but that was certainly not the case.

You said: Please don't direct sneers like "makes the macho bone go 'Ting!'".

What you see as a sneer was a joke. I usually vet e-mails of this nature, and the two fighters in the room with me laughed uproariously, so I left it in for levity’s sake. You might not think its funny, but that doesn't make it snide. Please remember that the written word doesn't carry a tone, so when in doubt, assume that they said it nicely, as I do. When in serious doubt, ask. (It can't hurt, and it can certainly help.)

You said: Do you really believe that choice is driven by macho?

Yes, I do. That's why I said it. Macho isn't an insulting descriptive word, by the way, any more than brave is. Both can lead people to do and think silly things, and wonderful things, and neither of those descriptives are insulting.

You said: Sir Tomas wasn't stupidly saying he was going back out to fight in the heat.  When he said this, his lady was telling the Crown and the Prince/ss that they were yielding.  They'd rather lose the final round of Crown, rather than request a special rules change for his immediate benefit.  "If I can't win it under the rules, I won't win it at all" is an honorable statement, not macho posturing.

I wasn't speaking about Sir Tomas or his feelings, and I don't believe that anyone mentioned moving the tournament inside right then. If they did, I didn't see it and didn't comment on it.

The statement "If I can't win it under the rules, I won't win it at all" is honorable, but it wasn't what he said. His statement concerned future tournaments, which he said should be fought outside in Ansteorra. I know, because I was there and he was speaking to me.

Really, none of that matters, because I wasn't speaking on behalf of Sir Tomas. I was speaking on behalf of myself. I'm not disparaging his opinion, but I'm not claiming to speak for him, either. This discussion is about much more than Sir Tomas (and if I were him, I’d be tired of people mentioning me in regards to this discussion. :P)

You said: No fighter has suggested this, as far as I can recall, and I don't think it serves any purpose to suggest that "the fighters" are suggesting it.  I certainly didn't and never would.

Several fighters /have/ suggested that people who don't like the heat remove themselves to the hall. Maybe you haven't, but others certainly have. Your lack of recollection doesn't mean that it didn’t happen and I can't respond to it.

You said: I did not say the word coward, did not imply it, did not think it, do not believe it. I did not suggest running each other through with swords, did not imply it, did not think it, do not believe it. Please do not make things up and attribute them to me.

I never attributed anything to you that you did not say. You did say that being gloriously stupid is what being a Lion of Ansteorra is about, and listed actions from movies to strengthen your claim.

I mentioned another stupid thing that we can do, that people do in movies, and suggested that it was also 'gloriously stupid'. You seem to agree that it would be stupid, so I see that my point was made.

Again, I never stated, nor implied, that you think that people should run others through with swords. That was entirely my example of glorious stupidity.

You said: Congratulations -- your voice is being heard.  People all over the kingdom are reading your words, many are replying, and nobody is telling you not to speak about how you want events to be run. Of course, my voice gets to be heard, too.  Or when you ask that your voice be heard, are you also asking that any disagreeing voice be stilled?  The reason I ask is that it seems silly to ask that your voice be heard when it's clear that people are hearing you.

Did I ask any disagreeing voice to be quiet, as I was told to do privately (as I'm sure you know)?  I highly value open discussions and the solutions that brainstorming can inspire. You can tell, because I've repeatedly mentioned that I think there are solutions that would work for everyone. I've never acted as though my way is the only way, the best way, or even the way that everyone wants. The most you can factually accuse me of doing is stating that it's sad that people are upset that we're even thinking of discussing solutions.

You said: I didn't think my honoring a blow well and graciously called would lead to accusations of macho and calling people cowards, either.  But sometimes we don't get what we expect.

I didn't say anyone was macho because they honored blows. Are you speaking of someone else's statements? If so, I missed it and can’t comment on it. I also didn't call anyone a coward, nor have I seen anyone outright called a coward. Have you? Did someone call you a coward and maybe I missed it?

If you are implying that I insinuated that you or someone else was being macho because they honored a blow well, or that I called anyone a coward, then you are mischaracterizing /me/, Sir Robin. Is that what you are implying, or are we misunderstanding one another?

(Ten points if you only had to read that paragraph once. [Again with the levity.])

You said: And for the record, nobody claimed you suggested a chess match.

I never said that anyone did, Sir Robin. That statement was, once again, entirely my own, and not taken from anything you or anyone else said. In fact, I made that statement, vocally, this morning, before your e-mail even hit the list. I just re-used it here. :)

To be clear, I said that some people were reacting as though my suggestion that we do something about the most extreme heat was as drastic as changing to a chess match, or that I was suggesting something that would gut the very way that we choose our Kings, like a change to a chess match would. I stand by that statement. Personally, I think it’s fairly apt.

You said: I try to write carefully, not imputing falsehoods about the people I'm disagreeing with.

I do that as well, but this response doesn't seem like proof that you do. I'm hoping that you thought that I was replying directly and almost totally to your e-mail, and that's why you keep accusing me of mischaracterizing you. (And do realize that by repeatedly accusing me of that, you are imputing falsehoods about me, a person with whom you are disagreeing. It's almost ironic, isn't it?)

If you did think that I was directly and almost totally replying to you, I can see how you might feel like I was mischaracterizing you. I made many statements in reply to what other people have said, and some their stances and statements were similar, but not the same, as yours.

Really, I can see you reading my e-mail and thinking to yourself, ‘That’s not quite what I said… And /that’s/ not what I meant. And I didn’t say that or that at all!’. But didn’t it occur to you, after so many places that were off, that I wasn’t responding to your missive alone? (That question only stands if you did, indeed, think that I was directly and almost totally replying to you.)

You said: By contrast, you claim that I made it sound like "anyone who doesn't agree is a coward".  Please re-read my post and tell me exactly in what sentence I made *any* characterization about people who disagree.

You said that being gloriously stupid was what Ansteorra was about, and that made the heart of a Lion. That makes it seem as though anyone who disagrees does not have the heart of a Lion, which is characterized as being brave. Anyone who does not have the heart of a Lion is, therefore, a coward. I read your post several times before I responded, and it sounded that way to me. You now state that you didn't mean it that way, but that is still how it sounded, Sir.

You said: It's a little crazy to ask to be heard in the middle of a kingdom-wide conversation being driven by people hearing you, though.

It's not crazy when people imply that only fighters should be heard on this topic, and are responding by only addressing the concerns of the average fighter.

You said: The "macho" sneer isn't helping you make your point.

There absolutely is macho. There is no sneer. :)

You said: Then don't.  Nobody goes to all events.  We pick and choose based on our own individual situations.  Right now I'm only working part-time, and I have Laurel duties at the arts events, White Scarf duties at the fencing events, Centurion and Pelican duties at still other events.  Crown has been low priority for me for the last few years.

Wow, that seems pretty callous to me. There are plenty of alternatives to telling people to exclude themselves. I'd like to work through those before I decide to stay home, thanks. And you previously stated that you wouldn’t tell people to spend an event in the hall. Is it better to tell them to stay home?

You said: And by the way, "the fighters" couldn't agree when to have lunch.  There is no great monolith called "the fighters".

I disagree. The fighting community has several groups that get together to decide standards, such as the Chivalry, the Centurions, and the much-talked-about Back Yard. I realize that individual fighters have their own opinions, but the group, as a whole, also has standards and opinions that they stick to as a group.

You said: OK -- here is a proposed happy medium.  I propose that events be run by individuals who volunteer to run them.  That these volunteers keep coming up with their ideas about what would make the event most rewarding.  That we never try to find the one true answer, so that anybody can come up with new ideas.  That we set up an Ansteorra e-list where anybody can speak and any voice can be heard.  That the kingdom calendar have lots of different kinds of events, in all kinds of conditions.  That people go to the events they want to go to.  That we not mischaracterize people just because we disagree with them.

That sounds good, doesn't it? Except that the choice of sites isn't entirely, or even mostly, up to the autocrat. As was pointed out on the Wiesenfeuer list, those decisions are up to Their Royal Majesties and the Royal Family. Indeed, I have autocratted previously, and have never gotten to choose the site.

I have also never mischaracterized you.

You said: I specifically urge everyone to listen to Lady Rose, and to consider what she has to say.  If I were an event steward right now, I'd be doing less talking and more listening, and I hope event stewards are doing so.  But I hope they are listening to all of us.

I agree, and I have repeatedly stated my hope that the people who get to influence the site decisions listen to all of us, including the people who disagree.



Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy marshmallows, which is kind of the same thing.

--- On Mon, 7/12/10, Jay Rudin <rudin at peoplepc.com> wrote:

From: Jay Rudin <rudin at peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Story from Crown Tourney
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Date: Monday, July 12, 2010, 10:46 PM

Lady Rose wrote:

>The proponents for outdoor fighting makes it sound as though indoor fighting is the worst possible scenario.

Huh?  Nobody's said or implied that.  It's not the worst possible scenario.  Fighting in lightning is worse.  Canceling the tourney is worse.  Fighting in insufficient armor is worse.  Being mischaracterized on the Ansteorra list is worse.  There are a lot of worse scenarios.  

We are saying that it's not the *best* scenario, but nobody has said or implied that it's the worst.

> Well, I've been to plenty of indoor fighting events, and seen even more indoor fighter practices. Do we have any statistics to back up the claim of increased injuries? If so, how to they compare to injuries by heat? Facts are good.

I can't recall anyone claiming increased injuries.  Quite the contrary, I wrote: "As foolish as it is to fight outdoors, it's almost as foolish to fight indoors."  Note the word "almost".  Please don't mischaracterize this as a "claim of increased injuries".

>I *know* that it's perfectly acceptable to fight indoors. Indeed, that was the backup plan for this Crown, if lightning decided to join us. 

That doesn't prove that it's "perfectly acceptable"; it shows that it's minimally acceptable, but not perfectly so.  The back-up plan isn't the ideal; it's what we do when we can't have the ideal.

> (Because it's okay to make accommodations for the worst
>rain, lightning, snow, or any other weather condition: it's apparently
>just heat that makes the macho bone go 'Ting!'.)

Please don't direct sneers like "makes the macho bone go 'Ting!'".  It doesn't add to your point, and will turn away more people than it convinces.

For the record, yes, I've fought in heat, rain, and snow, and I've pulled out of tourneys because of health reasons.  I've also helped set up a listfield indoors when it was decide that the day was too hot.  By contrast, I won't fight in lightning at all.  Do you really believe that choice is driven by macho?

And finally, Sir Tomas wasn't stupidly saying he was going back out to fight in the heat.  When he said this, his lady was telling the Crown and the Prince/ss that they were yielding.  They'd rather lose the final round of Crown, rather than request a special rules change for his immediate benefit.  "If I can't win it under the rules, I won't win it at all" is an honorable statement, not macho posturing.

>Yes, there was a wonderfully air-conditioned hall on-site. But I didn't drive all that way, pay my site fee, and do my share of volunteering to sit inside and read a book, which is what I spent most of Crown Tournament doing. Is that what the fighters are suggesting that we do?

No fighter has suggested this, as far as I can recall, and I don't think it serves any purpose to suggest that "the fighters" are suggesting it.  I certainly didn't and never would.  When I'm in the hall, I'm talking, listening to stories, telling stories, looking at costumes, trading research notes, getting work done.  I'd never suggest using event time to read.

>Robin of Gilwell, your e-mail was wonderfully eloquent. You make it sound as though we should all pick up metal swords and run each other through with them, for maximum glorious stupidity, and anyone who doesn't agree is a coward.

Then it wasn't eloquent, because you got messages that weren't in it, and didn't get the one that was.

I did not say the word coward, did not imply it, did not think it, do not believe it.

I did not suggest running each other through with swords, did not imply it, did not think it, do not believe it.

Please do not make things up and attribute them to me.

>As I'm sure you know, the rules for our hobbies aren't about mitigating *all* risk. They're about working toward *acceptable* risk. I propose that I don't find extreme heat to be acceptable and I'd like my voice to be heard.

Congratulations -- your voice is being heard.  People all over the kingdom are reading your words, many are replying, and nobody is telling you not to speak about how you want events to be run.

Of course, my voice gets to be heard, too.  Or when you ask that your voice be heard, are you also asking that any disagreeing voice be stilled?  The reason I ask is that it seems silly to ask that your voice be heard when it's clear that people are hearing you.

>(I didn't think that people would respond to my simple request to be considered as though I'd suggested that we choose a King by having a chess tournament. :P)

Yes, well, I didn't think my honoring a blow well and graciously called would lead to accusations of macho and calling people cowards, either.  But sometimes we don't get what we expect.

And for the record, nobody claimed you suggested a chess match.  I specifically said that you *didn't* go that far.  "And frankly, you're understating it."  I went on to suggest that miniatures wargames were even safer, but I did not state or imply that you were suggesting it.  I try to write carefully, not imputing falsehoods about the people I'm disagreeing with.

By contrast, you claim that I made it sound like "anyone who doesn't agree is a coward".  Please re-read my post and tell me exactly in what sentence I made *any* characterization about people who disagree.  As I recall, the only characterization I made of you was "based on all rational argument, you're right.  Your logic is valid."  That doesn't mean coward, and claiming it does serves no useful purpose.

>I may not be a fighter, but I've been in armor before, and I understand everything that Lady Helene mentioned except the desire to fight in extreme heat. There are fighters that don't understand it, either. And we are asking to be heard. Is that such a crazy thing?

No, it's not a crazy thing to want to be heard.  It's a little crazy to ask to be heard in the middle of a kingdom-wide conversation being driven by people hearing you, though.

>I've repeatedly stated that I understand that most of the fighters want to fight outside in the worst heat.

I know you have, but it isn't true.  Speaking only for myself, I don't particularly want to fight in the worst heat.  I want to fight outdoors, on the grass, under the sky.  Sometimes this means it will be cold, or hot, but that's not the goal.  The goal is to fight in an arena in which I find it easiest to stay in persona, focus on heroism, and believe it's more than a game with sticks or thin metal.  To get this goal, I sometimes have to put up with the heat, just like I have to put up with uncomfortable armor.  But the goal is a mindset, which is somewhat hindered by the fighting indoors.  Yes, the heat is uncomfortable, but I'll put up with a lot of discomfort to fight on a beautiful field, or to perform on the Curtain theater at Castleton.

> So statements saying that fighters want to fight outside, fighters should just condition themselves, fighters should just learn to listen to their bodies, and accept that they may get heat stroke, anyway, don't carry any water.
>
>It's not about risk, it's not about telling fighters where and when they should fight, and my request for consideration isn't even about the damned fighters at all. (Whom I love and am proud of.) We get it. You want to be macho. That's fine.

The "macho" sneer isn't helping you make your point.

>But fighters who want to fight outside in the worst heat, no matter what, are asking the *entire populace* to condition themselves, to stay out in the worst heat, and to listen to their bodies. You are asking this of everyone from toddlers to the elderly. Quite of few of us are replying:
>
>We don't want to.

Then don't.  Nobody goes to all events.  We pick and choose based on our own individual situations.  Right now I'm only working part-time, and I have Laurel duties at the arts events, White Scarf duties at the fencing events, Centurion and Pelican duties at still other events.  Crown has been low priority for me for the last few years.

>And if we can talk about staying staying outdoors in the worst heat because some parts of our populace wants to, then we should be able to talk about making accommodations in the worst heat because some of our populace wants to.

Of course you can!  And you're doing so.  So why maintain otherwise?

>I mean, there are historical arguments for and against, there are health arguments for and against, there are moral arguments for and against, and all it comes down the fact that alot of us want indoor fighting during the worst heat, and alot of us don't want that.
>
>Are the fighters going to insist that we keep doing this
>exactly as we have been, and to hell with the rest of us?

No, they aren't.  No fighter in this thread has insisted that all tourneys fight exactly as we have been, and I doubt that no fighter ever would.  I particularly like the innovations at Lysts at Castleton.

Speaking for myself, I prefer an outdoors tourney, and I'll put up with a lot to get it.  If there's only one tourney available, and it's indoors, I'll go fight in it - and enjoy myself.  If there are two tourneys, equal in all other aspects, but one is inside and one is outside, I will go to the outdoor one.  I've certainly never insisted that an event steward couldn't put the list indoors.  

And by the way, "the fighters" couldn't agree when to have lunch.  There is no great monolith called "the fighters".  

> Or is it
>possible that the resourceful minds of our gloriously brilliant
>Kingdom can come up with a happy medium?

OK -- here is a proposed happy medium.  I propose that events be run by individuals who volunteer to run them.  That these volunteers keep coming up with their ideas about what would make the event most rewarding.  That we never try to find the one true answer, so that anybody can come up with new ideas.  That we set up an Ansteorra e-list where anybody can speak and any voice can be heard.  That the kingdom calendar have lots of different kinds of events, in all kinds of conditions.  That people go to the events they want to go to.  That we not mischaracterize people just because we disagree with them.

>This discussion makes it seem as though it would be disloyal to our warriors to even try to make everyone happy, or to even put forward a solution. And that's sad.

Beware of indirect subjects.  "This discussion makes it seem as though," followed by something nobody has said, nobody has implied, nobody believes.

And the result is that we are talking about these mischaracterizations, instead about how you want to run events.

I have called nobody coward, or disloyal.  I don't do so now.  I specifically urge everyone to listen to Lady Rose, and to consider what she has to say.  If I were an event steward right now, I'd be doing less talking and more listening, and I hope event stewards are doing so.  But I hope they are listening to all of us.

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com
_______________________________________________
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org