[Artemisia] Winning or Just Not Losing?

danoman1000 . danoman1000 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 1 17:15:04 CDT 2015 

"What is stopping anyone, be they fighter, crown, or part of a body or
group, from abusing that power?" - Vigdis

This is why I like the idea of transferring legislative power from the
crown to a parliamentary body.  So no one person has the power.
Obviously the fighters are no more prone to abusing power than anyone
else.  But as we now have it, the only qualification to have the final say
on all decisions is winning one tournament.  I have no problem with that
being the only qualification to give out awards and run court.  But the
ability to rewrite the law seems more important than that to me.  YMMV.

Sneferu

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Mellane McCammon <mellane30 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don't disagree with the concept. Originally it was asked why only
> fighters were allowed to gain the crown. That was the question I was
> responding to. This topic is a completely different debate because now
> we're asking about the abilities that lie with the crown, now how it's
> obtained.
> And you are correct in asking 'what is stopping other from doing so'. But
> that's a rhetorical question. What is stopping anyone, be they fighter,
> crown, or part of a body or group, from abusing that power? Anyone can
> abuse power. Transfer of power is still power.
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Amber Snurkowski <
> syeira.caminante at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > That is generally correct about NorthShield.
> > The crown is involved but on a much smaller level. The Stallari runs much
> > of the day to day business.
> > It works well for them.
> >
> > Syeira
> > (Immigrant from NorthShield)
> > On Oct 1, 2015 1:53 PM, "danoman1000 ." <danoman1000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "...what would be fair?" - Vigdis
> > >
> > > Personally I like the model I've heard described by a friend in
> > > Northshield.  From what I'm told their crown gives out awards and does
> > all
> > > the ceremonial and fun things our crowns do, but they leave all
> > > the legislative stuff (revisions to law, banishments, dispute
> resolution,
> > > etc.) to the "Stellar Committee"
> > >  a parliamentary body with representatives from each group.  Obviously
> > I've
> > > only heard of it second hand, but it seems like a fair and period way
> to
> > go
> > > about it.
> > >
> > > Sneferu
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Artemisia mailing list
> > Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> > http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia
>



-- 
Dan Lind
praeco sum, ergo insanus sum

More information about the Artemisia mailing list