[Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman

[ld.blackmoon]

greetings 

un -official word is that 
william ironwyrm called blackdragon is our newest royal huntsman .  ( yay !! )

still no official word as to the winner , or the challenges he faced .

be safe, be happy, have fun
arthur
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mike Wyvill 
  To: Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra 
  Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 4:26 PM
  Subject: [Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman


  Any word on the tourney?
   
  EdV


         EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
        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.
  > 
  > 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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Ansteorra-archery mailing list
  Ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org
  http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org



------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1709 - Release Date: 10/5/2008 9:20 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org/attachments/20081005/e670d58f/attachment.htm>