[Artemisia] Winning or Just Not Losing?

[Mellane McCammon]

Hello all,

On some of the assertions made, it is correct that the only way to win
crown tournament is by fighting. The people that usually win those
tournaments, as well as other tournaments, have put in countless hours of
training and work to get good enough to be a crown contender. These people
often are involved in the other activities of the SCA as well. If it
doesn't make sense that a person who is good at combat is a good ruler,
then how would it make sense that someone good in an art would be a good
ruler? Would a pelican be a good ruler? There is no way to know until the
person has ruled. If we are strictly going by the idea of who would be a
good ruler, then we would have to turn more towards politics and
candidates. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view, this
would turn a great many people away. Not only from our sport of fighting,
but from the SCA as a whole. If it is unfair (which is a word I despise)
then what would be fair? Regardless of the debate regarding 'how should
crowns be determined', I do not believe it is quibbling with regards to
cheating. Every sport, from Football to Olympic swimming deals with
cheating on one level or another. To say that we're quibbling about
cheating is rather insulting to all of us that play in our sport. It is
important to us, rather it's in a tournament or not. Please keep in mind,
not all who fight, win. It really is a level of training, persistance and
passion that will win at that level.

When it comes to dishonesty in fighting, it needs to be addressed in all
areas. There should be honesty at practice, at war and at tournaments.
Unfortunately, there are a few that feel honesty isn't as important as
winning.
How to deal with that situation is complicated due to the entirety of the
sport relying on the perception of the person in the armor and the people
watching. Is there obvious cheating? Yes, of course. But where is that
line? It's a very difficult question. I wish I had the answers but I don't.
Maybe the answer lies in changing the mind set of new fighters. I know for
me, I do my best to make sure I am, above all else, honorable. I would
never want my friends, family and especially my consort, to feel that I am
being anything less. Perhaps that example, if made by many, will have a
trickle down effect. In reality, though, it has been my observation that
the cheaters are a very small percentage. They are just the most
spotlighted.

I love the SCA and have decided that I will not let the negativity change
my love of the game. It is disheartening at times and has made me question
why I play. And I play for the love of all of it; the arts, the people, the
fighting, the pagentry. All of it.

Thanks for reading,

Vigdis



On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:31 AM, danoman1000 . <danoman1000 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> When people grumble about a tournament not being won cleanly, I think that
> it is a symptom of a bigger issue.  The SCA has many varied activities that
> each person can pick and chose from.   Heavy combat is one of the oldest of
> these activities.  It's very visible, and it draws in a lot of our new
> membership.  But it is not the only activity we do.  Yet the fact remains
> that it is the only way to win the crown.  And the crown makes the rules
> for all of our activities.  I can't speak for anyone else, but that seems
> unfair to me.  It doesn't make sense to me that a person who is good at
> combat is necessarily a good ruler.  And it doesn't make sense to me to
> quibble about the fairness of combat, when it's already unfair that only
> the combatants have the opportunity to rule.
>
> Sneferu
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Duke Alan <dukealan at q.com> wrote:
>
> > Good Morning All,
> >
> > Seems like we need some lively discussion to wake up the Aerie.
> > Excellent!  Here we go, and the topic is appropriate considering this
> > weekend's festivities...
> >
> > The SCA claims to be honorable, and is loath to "call shots" for others.
> > But what happens when someone refuses to "call shots" as good in a
> > tournament?  Please don't pretend this doesn't happen.  We've all seen it
> > repeatedly.
> >
> > How do we deal with the person who couldn't win, but refused to lose?  So
> > far, we've not done much.  Sometimes they get a Crown out of the deal,
> > which of course dishonors those who did fight fairly and played the game
> > with honor.  Those people far outweigh the Cheaters.
> >
> > Oh my, is that too harsh?  But PC aside, what do you call someone who
> > participates in a game, yet wants to win and not necessarily following
> the
> > rules to do so?
> >
> > I was extremely pleased to watch our last Crown Tourney.  It was clean,
> > and the final winner, in fact, was the winner.  Not the guy who refused
> to
> > lose.  I would greatly hope that we would draw a line in the sand and
> say,
> > that is the standard that we wil hold to.
> >
> > So, how is that done?
> >
> > Discuss away!
> >
> > Alan
> > _______________________________________________
> > Artemisia mailing list
> > Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> > http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Lind
> praeco sum, ergo insanus sum
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>