<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
thank you your Excellency.<BR>
<BR>
Huzzah to Ironwyrm!!<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>
<HR>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:01:16 -0700<BR>From: mg1m@swbell.net<BR>To: ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org<BR>Subject: Re: [Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman<BR><BR>
<META content="Microsoft SafeHTML" name=Generator>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass DIV
{;}
</STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">
<DIV>William Blackdragon called Ironwyrm is the new Royal Huntsman, in a close sudden death tie breaker with Gavin the Younger</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Michel<BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif">----- Original Message ----<BR>From: Mike Wyvill <wyvillmike@hotmail.com><BR>To: Archery within the Kingdom of Ansteorra <ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org><BR>Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2008 4:26:04 PM<BR>Subject: [Ansteorra-archery] Royal Huntsman<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
</STYLE>
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,">
<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 rel=nofollow><IMG style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" alt="i'm"> 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: kentheriot@ravenboymusic.com<BR>> To: ansteorra-archery@lists.ansteorra.org<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>> <A href="http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org" target=_blank>http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-archery-ansteorra.org</A><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></DIV></DIV></DIV></body>
</html>