[Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman

Mon Oct 6 14:18:47 PDT 2008

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

 EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Join me

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

 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

_______________________________________________
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/20081006/4c4ff4fa/attachment-0002.htm>