Acknowledgement

[Peter Adams <redduke@earthlink.net>]

Poster: Peter Adams <redduke@earthlink.net>

>Logan wrote 
> I think we need to ask ourselves the following:
> 
> 1. do we really care what they think of us
> 2. do we really cheat and are unchivalrous slobs on the field
> 3. how do we change their perception of our fighting and should we
> 4. is change a group effort or should I do something about it
> 
> >
> >
> > For what it's worth, whenever I have spoken of Atlantia's fighters 



Logan, I may yet stop being surprised when we aggree.  Fundamental
questions are far more important than anecdotes.

I would like to offer my *opinions* on these core issues.

1.  I care what others think of me, if I begin with the opinion that
they are acting as gentles.  If a sufficiently large group of people
tell me I am doing wrong, I will give strong consideration to the
proposition that they may be right, and I wrong.  I am a herd animal
with teeth, myself, not a predator.

2. I do not believe that Atlantians as a general group cheat.  I believe
that individuals "cheat" very rarely, though I believe arguements over
the interpretation of the rules which descend to the personal level are
common.  I believe it does happen (my use of "cheating" is "acting in a
fashion knowingly different from your personal norm in order to
circument an annoying application of the rules").  In the case of
acknowledgement, it is my opinion that Atlantia does indeed take harder
blows than most of the many kingdoms I have visited but I dont have
enough experience to say it is or is not the hardest.  The bowling ball
test was administered by Sir Peter Van Doorn, who is a high profile
marshall at Pennsic.  You could address questions on that subject to
him.  Popular legend has it that the board asked him to supress the
information, possibly cause they were unsure how to deal with data that
showed wide divergence in standards.
	Also anecdotally from some armorers I have spoken to, Atlantia and the
West are the largest consumers of 12 gauge helmets.
I believe that the difference in acknowledgement is less between the
respective knightly classes, quite possibly because the interactions
have been between smaller groups.  
	I do not beleive that Atlantia's generally higher level of blow force
developed out of a malific intent to beat a bunch of weaker people up,
but rather as a response to the martial artists who have shaped the
system.  Not because of their size or strength or lack of nerve endings,
but from their desire to fight HARD.  Thats what we are and do- we take
HARD, we give HARD, we train HARD, we love and hate (maybe too) HARD, we
PLAY HARD.  That is Atlantian martial arts, and again my opinion, it has
been from the Git-go.

3.  From a marshalls standpoint, I believe that we should ALWAYS do our
best to prevent misunderstandings that will affect the safety of the
field activities.  Hot tempers from only a few high profile individuals
will have a ripple effect where the other team members will emulate the
leaders.  This leads to an environement where safety becomes a secondary
issue to the fighters, particularly if the language has become
intemperate.  
	Personally, I guess Im just an old hippie, cause Im not sure its
unreasonable to ask that we fight hard with someone on the field, and
still like em, win or lose, and regardless of how they did business.  I
know I didnt come to cheat, I can make a pretty good guess that they
didnt either.

4.  Yes and Yes.  Group change is a group activity.  You, Logan, are a
leader of group activities.  I constantly seek to defuse situatuions
such as are created by different levels of acknowledgement, or for that
matter any rules interpretation.  Arguement over being insulted (as you
have so astutely pointed out) is not germane.  I rate Gryffli's
behaviour as incendiary, pejorative, and insulting.  I note with some
sadness and surprise that he has not yet chosen to defend his remarks, I
look forward to further efforts to resolve this issue on his part.

	I do believe that regardless of the suitability of Gryffli's
observations that he has acted as an indicator of a very important
Marshallate issue, which is the resolution between the *definition* of
acknowledgement, the *action* of acknowledgement, and the differring
perception of that relationship from fighter to figher.  The goal should
not be to "create a single blow strength for acknowledgement"  but to
find a way for groups with differing standards to act together with a
minimum of friction.  
	
	To demonstrate my perception of the current rule set, let us take this
example: for purposes of testing our armor with a sword and mail, my
squire Mia is a spring lamb, where I am a ram (we wear nearly identicall
armor, except that I have less torso armor, in the SCA).  You do the
sheep test on us, and she will be broken before I really notice you hit
me.  Honest, 20 years of hitting and getting hit tells me that.  I will
hardly notice the blow that will break her bones, knock her out, or give
her a concussion. (do I sound like Logan, except for the old fogey
part?).  She is less than half my weight, and is a head shorter.  This
does not make me a better person than her, or necessarilly more skilled.
There are lots of things she does better than I, but taking a big hit
and not getting hurt is not one of them.  As an aside, if she were
sufficiently technically proficient, she *could* beat me- in fact, the
vast majority of my long record of losing is against those smaller than
I. Also, of course, for clarity, I have used individuals well towards
either end of the curve.
	There is no clear mandate in the rules that we *should* take blows the
same either, as you I hope you will see if you really read that section
carefully. 

Taken from Eli Whites earlier post.

"All "fully armoured" fighters are presumed to be wearing hauberk over a
padded gambeson, with boiled leather arm and leg defenses and an
open-faced
iron helm with a nasal. The helm may be presumed by Kingdom convention
to
include a very light chain mail drape, permitting vision and resisting
cuts
by the mere touch of a bladed weapon."

Add to this:

"Blows must be delivered with effective technique for the particular
type
of weapon used, and must strike properly oriented and with sufficient
force, to be considered an effective, or good, blow.  . . .  All
fighters
are expected to take into account the nature of the weapon being used by
their opponent and the location of the point of impact of that weapon
when
judging the outcome of a blow delivered. Fighters are also expected to
take
into account the timing of the blow and the collision of the weapon with
any other object other than the fighter's presumed armour."



	I repeat, there is not one thing in there that implies to me that I
must take a blow at the level which the "lamb" finds itself disinclined
to continue.
	One point of approach is that pretty much we are all agreed that this
is a sport.  But, which sport is it?  To Logan and Olaf, it is less
brutally hard than the boxing they were experienced in- after all, you
arent actually trying to knock out your opponent.  I think of it more at
the hockey level- A person who comes to me to play tennis has come to
the wrong person.
	Fixing the assumption of this "single level of acknowledgement" is a
first step in resolving the grief between Battleship fighters and PT
boat fighters.  Both put out the most damage they can, and take the most
they can, but they are NOT EQUAL.  Nor are the fighters of the SCA.
	Determining if it is appropriate to change the group toward a standard
is another step.  I make the odds that the a survey of the group  will
find that the number of detrimental interactions based on the different
acknowledgement baselines in no way justifies the disruption and
allocation time and energy.  I do believe that it is neccessary before
battles between groups with known baseline diffenences in
acknowledgement to ask the group with a lower baseline to "gear up", and
the higher baseline to "handicap" itself for the day (hey it works in
golf, and thats a sport, right ,).  The clash should be among people
trying to find common ground, not use the field to further nationalistic
agendas.


Y know, I love it when someone brings up something that Ive been stewing
over a while.  This stew, as you see, is still in chunks, feel free to
add to the broth.  
Duke Badouin McKenzie
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org