[Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman

Tue Oct 7 06:12:24 PDT 2008

And a golden acorn to boot!  Congratulations Brother Ironwyrm, it sounds
like a well earned and hard fought competition.  My warm wishes to all who
vied for this honor.

-JP

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:18 PM, William Black Dragon <ironwyrm at sbcglobal.net
> wrote:

> Aye he did!  I would also predict that shall soon become a
> reality.  Gavin the Younger will very likely become our
> youngest Royal Huntsman, especially if he continues to
> account himself as well as he did upon the target range
> yesterday.
>
> I only credit yesterday's win more to tricks of the wind and
> dumb luck then my own rusty skills.  Congratulations on a
> most impressive display of archery skill Gavin.  We expect
> great days ahead for archery within Ansteorra with archers
> such as you as it's future!
>
> Thanks to all for your kind words on the win, it was
> completely unexpected as I was sore and bruised from the
> melees, have spent little time at practice, and my equipment
> was in poor condition at best.  I guess even a blind pig does
> find an acorn some days!
>
> Regards,
>
> Ironwyrm
>
>
> --- On *Mon, 10/6/08, Wayne Law <dragonlaw1 at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> From: Wayne Law <dragonlaw1 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman
> To: "Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra" <
> ansteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 2:44 PM
>
>
>  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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra-archery mailing listAnsteorra-archery at lists.ansteorra.orghttp://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/20081007/80f66c8f/attachment-0001.htm>