[Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman

Mike Gideon mg1m at swbell.net
Sun Oct 5 15:01:16 PDT 2008

William Blackdragon called Ironwyrm is the new Royal Huntsman, in a close sudden death tie breaker with Gavin the Younger


----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Wyvill <wyvillmike at hotmail.com>
To: Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra <ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2008 4:26:04 PM
Subject: [Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman

Any word on the tourney?

Join 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.
> 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/20081005/06e3c578/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Ansteorra-archery mailing list