?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Spring Dew [userpic]

Really?

May 14th, 2007 (01:48 pm)
Tags: ,

Got something interesting in my inbox today. What the Kingdom of Atenveldt does internally is their business, I'm sure. But there's lots of stuff SCAdians do that other SCAdians don't like or consider dangerous - the idea of dogs and horses running amok immediately comes to mind - that if we start carving these out, what have we got left?

An SCA-wide ban? I mean, really?!?!


THE RULING:
"The Kingdom of Atenveldt is temporarily supspending any and all combat archery activity pending the upcoming release of the new Society Combat Archery Handbook. Upon release of the new standardized Society Combat Archery Handbook, Atenveldt will adopt these standards. For purposes of Estrella War, Atenveldt will defer to the current combat archery rules established in the three other principle Kingdoms.

Done by Our Hands, this 5th Day of May, AS XLII, being 2007 by the common reckoning.


Morgan - Rex Livia - Regina
Jason of Antioch - Atenveldt Earl Marshal"


THE COMMENTS ABOUT ATENVELD KEM:
"Jason has been publically stating for years that he opposes CA, but he has "been trying to support it as KEM". I think the SEM coming down with the rule that noticeable hits are good has finally spurred a certain block within the Aten chivalry to act. This ruling really makes no sense, given that Atenveldt's CA rules are virtually so similar to the 3 bordering kingdoms, and most of the time Jason is talking about the CA negotiations taking is for limiting how many arrows CA can carry, what areas are valid targets, what scenarios CA and siege can be in, and other restrictive variations from the standard CA rules that all 4 kingdoms have been using. The Atenveldt powers that be seem to oppose anything but heavy melee combat, the banned light weapons 7 or 8 years ago because there was no society wide standard, rapier is allowed since they have a society level handbook published (and it was published before rapier really took off in Atenveldt)."


THE DISDAIN:
(from a Count)
Or we can just ban it all together as it seems to be such a tiny fragment of the fighting population anyway. Haven't we catered to this very small percentage of the fighting population long enough?

Has there been any other "group" of fighters that has caused more grief and controversy over the years? enough is enough already. Who really cares if 12 to 20 fighters out of 300 are bummed out cause they can't use their annoying weapons?

Sorry that's not a personal dig to any individuals. I like alot of the people that choose to be combat archers but in it's use combat archery does not sit well with most of the remainder of the fighting community.

We shouldn't have to contest it. It should just be gone.

Frankly I hate it. It's the lamest and most controversial part of fighting. It has no honor or chivalry and takes very very little skill in comparison to any other weapons forms.


THE FORM LETTER:
In my 32 years of activity and over the 13 years that I have been a Knight of the Society for Creative Anachronism many non fighters have come to me with various concerns regarding our sport. The most prominent concern that I have been told about and been witness to is a lack of safety for the spectators that want to watch the spectacle of our battles. This concern is predominantly mentioned to me regarding the use of Combat Archery.

I have been told on countless occasions by water bearers, adult spectators, and parents alike that they and or their children have been narrowly missed by or even struck by high speed high density projectiles that miss their targets completely or are deflected into the crowd. As it is already recognized as a potential safety hazard what the answer to the problem so far has been is to move the spectators to a much greater distance from our battles and to require our marshals to wear safety equipment specifically to protect themselves from stray projectiles.

The problem with that solution is that the spectators are no longer able to see what happens on the field. They can no longer see their friends or loved ones that they are trying to keep track of and they can no longer witness the prowess of the many incredibly talented fighters that grace our fields of honorable combat. Water bearers can no longer see where their boys are so they can give them a vital drink of water or a cool rag to wipe the sweat from their brow. Even at these great distances reports to me of stray arrows and crossbow bolts landing close to or hitting these people are still very common.

Hardsuit fighting is the number one draw for the Society for Creative Anachronism. Because we perform in such an impressive sport, everyone that ever hears the clang and bashing comes to the edge of the field to see what on earth it is that we are doing out there. Because we are also purely intended to be a spectator sport, according to our corporate guidelines, the removal of the spectators from our sidelines hardly seems a suitable solution to the problem. I have been asked many many times to do something about this problem. Unfortunately because I am not currently involved with the marshals office or in any official capacity able to make corrections or adjustments in the rules and regulations of our sport, I have decided to inform everyone that wishes to do so how to get this problem taken care of once and for all.

Are you a parent, water bearer, participant, marshal, spectator or any combination of these roles? This is your official legitimate recourse to make your voice heard by the people that are in charge of making the rules and regulations regarding the many valid concerns you might have concerning this issue.

Below you will find a pre-written letter that you can easily cut and paste or use as an example to write your own. If you cut and paste the letter simply apply your name to the bottom and delete any section of the letter that does not pertain to you. When you are finished send it to the e-mail address provided at the bottom of this post.

EXAMPLE LETTER:

Greetings,
As a member of this organization and a (parent, water bearer, participant, marshal, spectator) I am writing to you today regarding my concerns over the use of Combat Archery on the fields at our many fighting events worldwide. I have (been witness to or experienced difficulties with) uncontrollable stray arrows and crossbow bolts leaving the battle field and narrowly missing and even striking my (self / child/ children) and other spectators, water bearers, marshals, and children around me posing a great danger to us all.

In the interest of following the corporate guidelines instructing us to keep our game looking "period" it is unfortunately not possible for adequate spectator safety features to be put in place for a sport that involves the use of projectile weaponry. As I pay site fees and membership fees to witness what is listed as a spectator sport it is unfortunate that what is currently required is for me is to stay as far away from the field as possible when combat archery is being used.

Many weapons forms have been deemed unfit for our fields of combat in the past because they were overly advantageous, unchivalrous or dangerous to the participants. In this particular case the weapon in question is in my opinion (all of the above as well as being) dangerous for the many spectators, water bearers, parents, and children that wish to attend our larger fighting events.

The easiest and fastest solution is often the correct solution. The easiest and fastest solution to this widespread problem and the only possible way to completely eliminate the potential for spectator and child injury from these high speed high density projectiles is the complete and rapid removal of the weapons form from our fields.

If the weapon is simply not used then the danger it poses would no longer exist and SCA battles as a whole would be more enjoyable to myself as a spectator and far safer for all of the many spectators, water bearers, and children that wish to watch.

Thank you for spending the time to seriously consider my perspective and the very valid concerns that I have brought forth to you in this letter. I hope that my suggestion has helped you to come to a final resolution to the danger this weapon poses to us both on and off the field.

In service to the dream,

(your name here)



So how serious is it? Is this just a lot of bluster or is there anything to it?

Comments