<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE>.hmmessage P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY.hmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1586" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY class=hmmessage bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>greetings </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>un -official word is that </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>william ironwyrm called blackdragon is our newest
royal huntsman . ( yay !! )</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>still no official word as to the winner , or the
challenges he faced .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>be safe, be happy, have fun</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=3>arthur</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=wyvillmike@hotmail.com href="mailto:wyvillmike@hotmail.com">Mike
Wyvill</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org
href="mailto:ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org">Archery within the Kingdom
of Ansteorra</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 05, 2008 4:26
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Ansteorra-archery] Royal
Huntsman</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Any word on the tourney?<BR> <BR>EdV<BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE
style="BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-FAMILY: 'Segoe UI',Tahoma,san-serif">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD><A style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: #0184cb; TEXT-DECORATION: none"
href="http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=EML_WLHM_GreaterGood"
target=_blank><IMG
style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
alt="i'm" src="http://gfx1.hotmail.com/mail/w3/pr01/ltr/i_charity.gif">
EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD<BR><SPAN
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 24px; PADDING-LEFT: 24px; FONT-SIZE: 8pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; COLOR: #3fb555; PADDING-TOP: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline">Join
me</SPAN></A></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:kentheriot@ravenboymusic.com">kentheriot@ravenboymusic.com</A><BR>>
To: <A
href="mailto:ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org">ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org</A><BR>>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 17:40:06 -0500<BR>> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery]
Archery Discussion<BR>> <BR>> Eadric,<BR>> <BR>> You were in a
better position than most to see things from a birds-eye view.<BR>> So if
you say there were official reports of archers hitting bystanders, I<BR>>
believe you. I apologize for the following, but I'm going to get a
little<BR>> philosophical. <BR>> <BR>> I was in the Air Force for 24
years. Safety is a HUGE concern, so I saw<BR>> some good things in the name
of safety, but I also see some really whacky<BR>> things not based at all
on reality. Living with that for all those years,<BR>> combined with the
fact that I was simultaneously teaching the proper use of<BR>> "metrics" to
all ranks (using the scientific method...everyone's favorite<BR>>
thing...probability and statistics:)) for better decision-making, led me
to<BR>> an inescapable conclusion. Humans are really quick to see patterns
and make<BR>> judgments. It was what kept us alive for centuries. If we
have to THINK<BR>> when a tiger is running at us, we die. But it was also
why women were burnt<BR>> to death when the neighboring farm's crops failed
just a few hundred years<BR>> ago. The town thought the woman must have
caused the plight because the<BR>> same year she moved in, the crops
failed. In order to fill in the logic<BR>> gap, they had to make her a
"witch." If I could give one piece of<BR>> life-advice to every child, it
would be this: "understand the difference<BR>> between correlation and
causation." THAT (relatively) simple concept, more<BR>> than any other, can
change the world.<BR>> <BR>> Humans in general have more of a tendency
to see patterns where they DON'T<BR>> exist, than to recognize them when
they do. And when it comes to<BR>> safety...well you'd better not argue!
There were many times in the AF when<BR>> formal reports would say "safety
incidents are "up" so we must act," but the<BR>> real data did not show
that safety incidents were actually trending in<BR>> EITHER direction.
There was almost never any actual probabilistic data to<BR>> support saying
"people are less safe this year than they were last year."<BR>> So any
action to "correct" the problem was not likely to address any root<BR>>
causes. Frequently the "action" actually made things worse for the<BR>>
organization as a system (increasing costs for extra training, less<BR>>
available time for value-added activities due to mandatory safety
days,<BR>> etc.) but action there must be, even without a "statistically
significant"<BR>> shift in the average number of incidents. It sure as heck
made a lot of<BR>> people feel good inside to "act," especially if the
action happened to<BR>> correspond to a random (i.e. without cause...not
indicative of a systemic<BR>> change) down-swing in the number of safety
incidents. <BR>> <BR>> If anyone dared suggest that the "corrective
action" was ineffective<BR>> (probably even harmful), they were immediately
painted with the "he doesn't<BR>> care about safety" brush. And that turns
very quickly into "he can't be<BR>> trusted to look out for anyone's
well-being," "he is unsafe," or worse. <BR>> <BR>> My point here is that
people aren't very good at the whole<BR>> "cause-and-effect" analysis thing
at the best of times. But bring the<BR>> entire equation into the realm of
"safety" and "liability," and whatever<BR>> logic may still be in the mix
goes out the window, and cries for the use of<BR>> simple analysis are met
with "don't you dare suggest inaction in the face of<BR>>
danger...regardless of the fact that it will solve NOTHING, and will<BR>>
probably make other things worse! It makes us feel good, darn it. We
DID<BR>> something. We ACTED."<BR>> <BR>> All I'm looking for is some
reason to do what we do. Any one person can see<BR>> a pattern in, say, 4
or 5 people (the influence of the tiger again), that<BR>> will make them
believe those folks are better archers BECAUSE we gave them<BR>> extra
training. But there is literally NO WAY to prove that. Those people<BR>>
may have been just as good/safe without the extra training. One would
need<BR>> to set up blind trials with random samples large enough to make
results<BR>> statistically significant in order to make any pronouncements
based on<BR>> evidence. <BR>> <BR>> We run the risk of damaging or
destroying the "system" (in this case Combat<BR>> Archery) by taking action
well-beyond what is truly needed, all in the name<BR>> of safety. The
systemic risk would be the reduction of interest in CA,<BR>> hence the
reduction in archer-count, and eventual collapse of CA altogether,<BR>> due
to unrealistically high barriers-to-entry. It may be that the barriers<BR>>
are NOT too high, and even seem too low for some. But we won't know,
we<BR>> CAN'T know, without proper data.<BR>> <BR>> So...if we're
going to fly blind anyway, why not hit the "reset" button, and<BR>> set the
bar where it SEEMS to strike a good balance between safety and the<BR>>
encouragement of CA? Then we can adjust our methods....but only when
based<BR>> on real evidence.<BR>> <BR>> YIS<BR>> Kenneth <BR>>
<BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Eadric Anstapa
[mailto:eadric@scabrewer.com] <BR>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:27
PM<BR>> To: Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra<BR>> Subject: Re:
[Ansteorra-archery] Archery Discussion<BR>> <BR>> Sir Kenneth, there
have been official reports of archers shooting out of <BR>> the
battlefield. But mostly they don't get reported unless they hit <BR>>
bystanders. The have been official reports of folks shooting off the <BR>>
battlefield and hitting bystanders and I have personally had to revoke
<BR>> authorizations for archers who repeatedly did this and have had sit
<BR>> through more than one marshals court where we addressed the issue.
<BR>> Every time it happens it adds much fuel to the folks who are fanning
the <BR>> fire to do away with CA completely.<BR>> <BR>> There has
never been any work that I am aware of to try and equate the <BR>>
offenders and the structure of the authorization process they went <BR>>
through. I can tell you that in my experience the repeat offenders tend
<BR>> to be less experienced combatants.<BR>> <BR>> While we need not
"require" a buddy system while authorizing folks I <BR>> have found it to
be one of the most effective ways of training and <BR>> authorizing new
archers. If I buddy them up with an experienced archer <BR>> on the field
there is somebody right there watching them that can <BR>> hopefully keep
them from doing anything dangerous and I believe that the <BR>> best way of
learning most skills is experientially. While they are <BR>> paired up with
an experienced archer that I know I can trust to watch <BR>> over then and
give me good feedback that give me as the authorizing <BR>> marshal the
freedom to stand back at watch them at a distance and see <BR>> how they
act and react to the overall battle which is not something I <BR>> might
not necessarily see if I was personally right here in armor <BR>> shooting
with them.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> <BR>> -EA<BR>> <BR>> Ken
Theriot wrote:<BR>> > I honestly don't think there is any data on
correlations between<BR>> situations<BR>> > where a bystander was
hit, and the "strictness" of the shooter's<BR>> > authorization process.
In fact, I'd like to see "official" data (as in<BR>> > officially filed
SCA reports) where a bystander in a legal area was hit.<BR>> > I'm not
saying it doesn't exist, I'd just like to see it if it does. Then<BR>> >
we can act from a position of real knowledge. If there is no
correlation,<BR>> > then there is no logic to the presupposition that
"more training and<BR>> > observation prior to authorization will reduce
safety incidents."<BR>> ><BR>> > Will bystanders sometimes get hit
by a stray combat arrow? Probably. The<BR>> > question we NEED answered
before we assume it only (or even usually)<BR>> happens<BR>> >
because the archer was not properly trained, is whether there is any
data<BR>> to<BR>> > support that assertion.<BR>> ><BR>> >
I'd be willing to bet large sums of cash that we would see no change
in<BR>> the<BR>> > number of spectators hit if we err a little LESS
on the side of caution.<BR>> > I'm absolutely not suggesting that we
turn someone loose on the field whom<BR>> > we have not seen demonstrate
the minimum requirements (as described<BR>> below).<BR>> > Both
Eadric and I are saying that it needn't require participation in<BR>> >
multiple melee/archery "wars," it needn't require a "buddy" separate
from<BR>> > the authorizing marshal to observe all day, etc. Those are
restrictions<BR>> > some have assumed are mandatory. <BR>>
><BR>> > If I have spent enough time talking to the candidate to
ensure they can<BR>> > repeat the rules back to me and understand them,
and observing their<BR>> actions<BR>> > in a few melee scenarios
(enough to allow me to see if they can control<BR>> > their shots, not
poke someone in the eye with their bow, and not shoot<BR>> > arrows
toward the onlookers, etc.), then I'm gonna authorize.<BR>> ><BR>>
> Reasonable assurance using logical procedures based on actual evidence
is<BR>> > what we need. Any more than that and we DO make it too hard,
especially<BR>> if<BR>> > it is merely a response to perceived
political pressure.<BR>> ><BR>> > YIS,<BR>> ><BR>> >
Kenneth<BR>> ><BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Ansteorra-archery
mailing list<BR>> Ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org<BR>>
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org<BR>>
<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
Ansteorra-archery mailing list<BR>>
Ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org<BR>>
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Ansteorra-archery
mailing
list<BR>Ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org<BR>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
http://www.avg.com <BR>Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.6/1709 -
Release Date: 10/5/2008 9:20 AM<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>