[Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman

Mike Wyvill wyvillmike at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 5 14:26:04 PDT 2008

Any word on the tourney?

 EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOODJoin me> From: kentheriot at ravenboymusic.com> To: ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:40:06 -0500> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Archery Discussion> > Eadric,> > You were in a better position than most to see things from a birds-eye view.> So if you say there were official reports of archers hitting bystanders, I> believe you. I apologize for the following, but I'm going to get a little> philosophical. > > I was in the Air Force for 24 years. Safety is a HUGE concern, so I saw> some good things in the name of safety, but I also see some really whacky> things not based at all on reality. Living with that for all those years,> combined with the fact that I was simultaneously teaching the proper use of> "metrics" to all ranks (using the scientific method...everyone's favorite> thing...probability and statistics:)) for better decision-making, led me to> an inescapable conclusion. Humans are really quick to see patterns and make> judgments. It was what kept us alive for centuries. If we have to THINK> when a tiger is running at us, we die. But it was also why women were burnt> to death when the neighboring farm's crops failed just a few hundred years> ago. The town thought the woman must have caused the plight because the> same year she moved in, the crops failed. In order to fill in the logic> gap, they had to make her a "witch." If I could give one piece of> life-advice to every child, it would be this: "understand the difference> between correlation and causation." THAT (relatively) simple concept, more> than any other, can change the world.> > Humans in general have more of a tendency to see patterns where they DON'T> exist, than to recognize them when they do. And when it comes to> safety...well you'd better not argue! There were many times in the AF when> formal reports would say "safety incidents are "up" so we must act," but the> real data did not show that safety incidents were actually trending in> EITHER direction. There was almost never any actual probabilistic data to> support saying "people are less safe this year than they were last year."> So any action to "correct" the problem was not likely to address any root> causes. Frequently the "action" actually made things worse for the> organization as a system (increasing costs for extra training, less> available time for value-added activities due to mandatory safety days,> etc.) but action there must be, even without a "statistically significant"> shift in the average number of incidents. It sure as heck made a lot of> people feel good inside to "act," especially if the action happened to> correspond to a random (i.e. without cause...not indicative of a systemic> change) down-swing in the number of safety incidents. > > If anyone dared suggest that the "corrective action" was ineffective> (probably even harmful), they were immediately painted with the "he doesn't> care about safety" brush. And that turns very quickly into "he can't be> trusted to look out for anyone's well-being," "he is unsafe," or worse. > > My point here is that people aren't very good at the whole> "cause-and-effect" analysis thing at the best of times. But bring the> entire equation into the realm of "safety" and "liability," and whatever> logic may still be in the mix goes out the window, and cries for the use of> simple analysis are met with "don't you dare suggest inaction in the face of> danger...regardless of the fact that it will solve NOTHING, and will> probably make other things worse! It makes us feel good, darn it. We DID> something. We ACTED."> > All I'm looking for is some reason to do what we do. Any one person can see> a pattern in, say, 4 or 5 people (the influence of the tiger again), that> will make them believe those folks are better archers BECAUSE we gave them> extra training. But there is literally NO WAY to prove that. Those people> may have been just as good/safe without the extra training. One would need> to set up blind trials with random samples large enough to make results> statistically significant in order to make any pronouncements based on> evidence. > > We run the risk of damaging or destroying the "system" (in this case Combat> Archery) by taking action well-beyond what is truly needed, all in the name> of safety. The systemic risk would be the reduction of interest in CA,> hence the reduction in archer-count, and eventual collapse of CA altogether,> due to unrealistically high barriers-to-entry. It may be that the barriers> are NOT too high, and even seem too low for some. But we won't know, we> CAN'T know, without proper data.> > So...if we're going to fly blind anyway, why not hit the "reset" button, and> set the bar where it SEEMS to strike a good balance between safety and the> encouragement of CA? Then we can adjust our methods....but only when based> on real evidence.> > YIS> Kenneth > > -----Original Message-----> From: Eadric Anstapa [mailto:eadric at scabrewer.com] > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:27 PM> To: Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Archery Discussion> > Sir Kenneth, there have been official reports of archers shooting out of > the battlefield. But mostly they don't get reported unless they hit > bystanders. The have been official reports of folks shooting off the > battlefield and hitting bystanders and I have personally had to revoke > authorizations for archers who repeatedly did this and have had sit > through more than one marshals court where we addressed the issue. > Every time it happens it adds much fuel to the folks who are fanning the > fire to do away with CA completely.> > There has never been any work that I am aware of to try and equate the > offenders and the structure of the authorization process they went > through. I can tell you that in my experience the repeat offenders tend > to be less experienced combatants.> > While we need not "require" a buddy system while authorizing folks I > have found it to be one of the most effective ways of training and > authorizing new archers. If I buddy them up with an experienced archer > on the field there is somebody right there watching them that can > hopefully keep them from doing anything dangerous and I believe that the > best way of learning most skills is experientially. While they are > paired up with an experienced archer that I know I can trust to watch > over then and give me good feedback that give me as the authorizing > marshal the freedom to stand back at watch them at a distance and see > how they act and react to the overall battle which is not something I > might not necessarily see if I was personally right here in armor > shooting with them.> > Regards,> > -EA> > Ken Theriot wrote:> > I honestly don't think there is any data on correlations between> situations> > where a bystander was hit, and the "strictness" of the shooter's> > authorization process. In fact, I'd like to see "official" data (as in> > officially filed SCA reports) where a bystander in a legal area was hit.> > I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'd just like to see it if it does. Then> > we can act from a position of real knowledge. If there is no correlation,> > then there is no logic to the presupposition that "more training and> > observation prior to authorization will reduce safety incidents."> >> > Will bystanders sometimes get hit by a stray combat arrow? Probably. The> > question we NEED answered before we assume it only (or even usually)> happens> > because the archer was not properly trained, is whether there is any data> to> > support that assertion.> >> > I'd be willing to bet large sums of cash that we would see no change in> the> > number of spectators hit if we err a little LESS on the side of caution.> > I'm absolutely not suggesting that we turn someone loose on the field whom> > we have not seen demonstrate the minimum requirements (as described> below).> > Both Eadric and I are saying that it needn't require participation in> > multiple melee/archery "wars," it needn't require a "buddy" separate from> > the authorizing marshal to observe all day, etc. Those are restrictions> > some have assumed are mandatory. > >> > If I have spent enough time talking to the candidate to ensure they can> > repeat the rules back to me and understand them, and observing their> actions> > in a few melee scenarios (enough to allow me to see if they can control> > their shots, not poke someone in the eye with their bow, and not shoot> > arrows toward the onlookers, etc.), then I'm gonna authorize.> >> > Reasonable assurance using logical procedures based on actual evidence is> > what we need. Any more than that and we DO make it too hard, especially> if> > it is merely a response to perceived political pressure.> >> > YIS,> >> > Kenneth> >> > > > _______________________________________________> Ansteorra-archery mailing list> Ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org> > _______________________________________________> Ansteorra-archery mailing list> Ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org/attachments/20081005/854e46e8/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ansteorra-archery mailing list