[Artemisia] identifying cheaters

[Cindie Green]

In my opinion, the public shaming would bring us down to the same level as the cheater. None of us would be behaving very chivalrously. I think it is really up to the King and the chivalry to take it in hand. Perhaps on the second warning the consort could be brought into the conversation by the Queen and point out the stain on her honor to the cheater. Maybe he doesn't care. Maybe nothing will make him alter his behavior except doing what the chivalry and that first King I saw had to do. If we did THAT more I think there would less of a problem. (Kind of like public hangings 😉) We have a process in place to keep habitual cheaters out of the list as well. Do we use that? That, being the K&Q don't accept their LOI.
Bottom line is exactly what Morgan suggested. If we say we don't allow cheating, then let's don't allow cheating. If fighters get disqualified and the tourney started all over, less people will be tempted to cheat.

Again, I think most fighters are honorable and if they miss a hit once in awhile it is just that, they missed it, they didn't blow it off.

Illora

> On Oct 2, 2015, at 12:03 AM, Karen <caointiarn1 at bresnan.net> wrote:
> 
> Then,   maybe we shouldn't just be "watching."     Maybe some of the cheers
> need to turn to jeers, and boos and heckling the ones the crowd can see
> deliberately "bending" the rules . . . .   Public shaming  documentation can
> be found  . . . .
> Caointiarn   
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> This ought to liven things up a bit ;o)  Well done, Your Grace
> 
> Cheaters aside (and yes, that is what they are) I'm a bit tired of those
> running the Tournament(s) announcing at the beginning that cheating will not
> be tolerated and then doing absolutely nothing about it.  Don't bluff, don't
> posture - just do the job as you swore you would when you took up the
> Crowns.
> 
> Either way, everyone - those who are Cheating and those who are just
> watching - knows what sort of behavior is acceptable in this Kingdom.
> 
> Morgan
> Arn Hold
> 
> 
> 
> --
> I'm not clumsy. 
> It is just that the floor hates me, the tables and chairs are bullies and
> the wall gets in the way. 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Duke Alan" <dukealan at q.com>
> To: "Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list" <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 7:06:01 AM
> Subject: [Artemisia] Winning or Just Not Losing?
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Artemisia mailing list
> Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
> http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia