[Artemisia] Winning or Just Not Losing?

[Mellane McCammon]

I proof read what I wrote three times and still missed it. It should read:
'Whether it's in a tournament' and not 'rather it's in a tournament'. My
apologies.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mellane McCammon <mellane30 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>