[Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman

Wayne Law dragonlaw1 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 6 12:44:06 PDT 2008


What NEWS... Appears that Gavin the Younger ALMOST became the youngest Royal
Huntsman....

Way to Go GAVIN...
Keep on practicing.  You have less than 6 months before the next Royal
Huntsman Tourney.

Leofwine


On 10/6/08, Mike Wyvill <wyvillmike at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> thank you your Excellency.
>
> Huzzah to Ironwyrm!!
>
> EdV
>
>
>   [image: i'm] EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
> Join me<http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:01:16 -0700
> From: mg1m at swbell.net
> To: ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman
>
>  William Blackdragon called Ironwyrm is the new Royal Huntsman, in a close
> sudden death tie breaker with Gavin the Younger
>
> Michel
>
>
> ----- 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?
>
> EdV
>
>
>   [image: i'm] EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
> Join me<http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood>
>
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org/attachments/20081006/57c672a5/attachment.htm>


More information about the Ansteorra-archery mailing list