On Your Knees!

[Count Johnathan]

Perhaps some wanted to be rebels but the game itself was so that people could dress up as knights and fight for the honor of their ladies. It was so that people could involve themselves in a world of victorian honor and chivalry if only for a day to escape the sorrow of the modern world. I'm not sure they actually expected it to grow as it did.

[Gaston de Vieuxchamps]

I apologize, it was only your father, not you that used the "squire" title. In any event the sentiment seemed the same to me, perhaps I shouldn't have lumped you together.

There's no option to put an accent on the "e" at the end of resume' but I figure you know what I meant. To presume I am less qualified to be representative of the SCA because I've dared to play outside it makes no sense.

As to losing respect for me, experience tells me you never had any, but that doesn't make me special in any way.

I started by saying I wouldn't get draagged in. Guess I was fooling myself.

G

[Vebrand]

Just to clarify, wasn't the SCA created by a group of people who wanted to "buck the system"?

Actually no. I had the honor to talk to Duke Fredrick of Holland who was at "The Party" that started it all.. Was a one day fun thing and they had such a blast they did it again and again. There is a lot of history on "The Party" in the West and those who started it did not go out to buck the system but to have fun. That was and is the way of the SCA and thus the reason it is so varied. It is about having fun. The problem often comes down to a person’s version of fun. Years ago on this board I had was on the other side of the 14th Mafia people who looked at wanting more people to be like them and do all armor as worn stuff. While I think that stuff is cool and enjoy watching it from time to time it is not my type of fun. I don't go out and say the way I enjoy the SCA is right and only right and you should enjoy it my way because that is not what the SCA is. My motto is, if you are not having fun then you are doing it wrong. The worst thing people do is force their vision of the SCA on others and think everyone will enjoy it the way they do. I have one squire ( Marvin on the AA) and one former squire (Prince Jon of Gleann Abhann) and right now and I think I can say our vision of SCA is a bit different but we enjoy it the same and enjoy when we can get together.

Also talking to several of the old timers giving up an arm or going to ones knees was done well before the Monty Python movie came out. That is an urban legend in the SCA that the Holy Grail is the reason people go to their knees or give up an arm and it has been around a long time.

Vebrand

[Count Johnathan]

I apologize, it was only your father, not you that used the "squire" title. In any event the sentiment seemed the same to me, perhaps I shouldn't have lumped you together.

There's no option to put an accent on the "e" at the end of resume' but I figure you know what I meant. To presume I am less qualified to be representative of the SCA because I've dared to play outside it makes no sense.

As to losing respect for me, experience tells me you never had any, but that doesn't make me special in any way.

I started by saying I wouldn't get draagged in. Guess I was fooling myself.

G

At what point did I ever say that you were unqualified to be a representative of the SCA? Again I said that that it was not your place to tell us all what we appreciate. It would have been more appropriate for me to say that I feel that it is not your place to tell us all what no longer works for us. It does work for the vast majority of the SCA and has for a long time. It is OK to simply say "I don't like knee fighting" and that's cool with me. Nobody has to like it, it is not a requirement.

In regard to respect I will clarify as we have never met face to face for us to have any sort of respect for one another on any aquaintance level. If there was reason for me to have respect for you the blanket statements about how others are not being truthful seemingly because their experiences differ from yours destroys any desire for me to want to know you. That's OK though we are seperated by a great distance so our actions in the SCA will most likely have little or no effect on each others enjoyment of our shared pastime. You have no experience to go by when it comes to me since we have never discussed anything before and we have never met. You don't know me to make such judgements. That would make your experience hearsay and supposition would it not?

You were not dragged into anything. You willingly jumped in and decided to proclaim that others are lying when it comes to expressing their personal experiences. That was a poor choice on your part.

Regardless of respect we could exchange pleasantries (or pretend that we did) and move on. I'll just go with that and the previous civil conversation can resume.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

For clarity, by "flying twigs", do you mean archery, milord?

[Gaston de Vieuxchamps]

I'm all for moving on, but I do have to say this is far from our first "discussion". You might not remember me but we've met online plenty of times.

My skepticism of the reports of increased cheating under three telling blows comes from every case I've witnessed running contrary to that. Everyone I've ever polled after a tourney or spoken to in regard to a specific incidence has reported positively or neutrally on the effect on blow calling. That's in almost 10 years of occasional use. I myself assumed blow calling might get worse before I actually experienced otherwise.

When I say it no longer serves us well I mean us as a Society. Freon cans used to serve us well and some people didn't want to give those up either. You may disagree but that is my opinion.

When I say the game is more serious now I mean the way collegiate fencing is more serious than kids with foam swords from the fair... That doesn't make it less fun. Some might prefer one or the other for various reasons it's obvious that what adds to one might detract from the other. We're not a one-off themed costume party any more.

G

[Count Johnathan]

For clarity, by "flying twigs", do you mean archery, milord?

We don't have to go there you know. I have a negative opinion about it and it doesn't serve to make this conversation any better.

[Count Johnathan]

I'm all for moving on, but I do have to say this is far from our first "discussion". You might not remember me but we've met online plenty of times.

My skepticism of the reports of increased cheating under three telling blows comes from every case I've witnessed running contrary to that. Everyone I've ever polled after a tourney or spoken to in regard to a specific incidence has reported positively or neutrally on the effect on blow calling. That's in almost 10 years of occasional use. I myself assumed blow calling might get worse before I actually experienced otherwise.

When I say it no longer serves us well I mean us as a Society. Freon cans used to serve us well and some people didn't want to give those up either. You may disagree but that is my opinion.

When I say the game is more serious now I mean the way collegiate fencing is more serious than kids with foam swords from the fair... That doesn't make it less fun. Some might prefer one or the other for various reasons it's obvious that what adds to one might detract from the other. We're not a one-off themed costume party any more.

G

Thank you for the clarification. The above sounds far more appropriate and less offensive than before. I am quite alright with the idea that your experiences have been different than others. Sharing knowledge through different experiences and the expressing of opinions is the way ideas for improvements become reality. I don't recall butting heads with you before. Perhaps we have but still we have never met. Perhaps it is better that way.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

For clarity, by "flying twigs", do you mean archery, milord?

We don't have to go there you know. I have a negative opinion about it and it doesn't serve to make this conversation any better.

Just wondering, milord, what could cause you to use insulting language in reference to the way that thousands of Scadians enjoy the Society?

[Broadway]

Thousands? Surely you jest.

For clarity, by "flying twigs", do you mean archery, milord?

We don't have to go there you know. I have a negative opinion about it and it doesn't serve to make this conversation any better.

Just wondering, milord, what could cause you to use insulting language in reference to the way that thousands of Scadians enjoy the Society?

[Baron Alejandro]

I like pie. Especially bacon pie. Do you like bacon pie?

[Guillaume Beauvin]

I like pie. Especially bacon pie. Do you like bacon pie?

I haven't tried bacon pie, but apple-barley-bacon cake is surprisingly good!

-Guillaume

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

I don't know if I like Bacon Pie- though I'd sure as hell give it a try!

Broadway: between the archers themselves and guys like me who enjoy having archers in battles for the extra element that they bring to battle scenarios- yeah, I'd say thousands. I also live in an archery-heavy region and run a unit that includes missile support.

[Broadway]

Ah, my bad. I had assumed you meant the archers themselves.

[Count Johnathan]

For clarity, by "flying twigs", do you mean archery, milord?

We don't have to go there you know. I have a negative opinion about it and it doesn't serve to make this conversation any better.

Just wondering, milord, what could cause you to use insulting language in reference to the way that thousands of Scadians enjoy the Society?

Description of the equipment should offend nobody. And thus my point. While I dislike the practice I found through experience that it was not appropriate for me to express how others should enjoy their pastime merely because I don't appreciate it. I am entitled to my opinion about it like you over knee fighting. I learned and changed my tone. Instead of dismissing the fact that some people do enjoy it and asking for it's removal I later made suggestions for equipment alterations to eliminate what I feel are unnecessary hazards WITHOUT removing the option for participation in that manner.

I know you have said multiple times that you do not intend to change the rule but you also contradict that several times as well. Do seek to improve the game through the addition of options. The removal of options only serves to harm the organization.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

I loathe archers, but I ain't telling them they can't participate in the greatest game ever concieved by the mind of man.

[CiaranBlackrune]

I loathe archers, but I ain't telling them they can't participate in the greatest game ever concieved by the mind of man.

They have archery in golf?

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

For clarity, by "flying twigs", do you mean archery, milord?

We don't have to go there you know. I have a negative opinion about it and it doesn't serve to make this conversation any better.

Just wondering, milord, what could cause you to use insulting language in reference to the way that thousands of Scadians enjoy the Society?

Description of the equipment should offend nobody. And thus my point. While I dislike the practice I found through experience that it was not appropriate for me to express how others should enjoy their pastime merely because I don't appreciate it. I am entitled to my opinion about it like you over knee fighting. I learned and changed my tone. Instead of dismissing the fact that some people do enjoy it and asking for it's removal I later made suggestions for equipment alterations to eliminate what I feel are unnecessary hazards WITHOUT removing the option for participation in that manner.

I know you have said multiple times that you do not intend to change the rule but you also contradict that several times as well. Do seek to improve the game through the addition of options. The removal of options only serves to harm the organization.

So you didn't look to change their involvement (which I applaud)- just the WAY in which they were involved, to be more in keeping with what YOU perceived as the hazards and drawbacks of the system? Interesting.

You're right, milord. There is indeed a lesson to be learned from this.

[Balin50]

I don't know if I like Bacon Pie- though I'd sure as hell give it a try!

Broadway: between the archers themselves and guys like me who enjoy having archers in battles for the extra element that they bring to battle scenarios- yeah, I'd say thousands. I also live in an archery-heavy region and run a unit that includes missile support.

So you want to Kill your noble brothers when you take the melee field.

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

[DeCalmont]

Gee, what a surprise...Johno and Balin involved in a thread that's turned anti combat archery...

[Balin50]

Gee, what a surprise...Johno and Balin involved in a thread that's turned anti combat archery...

Johno said bringing it up would not help the thread

At least we are not wishy washy

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

[Count Johnathan]

So you didn't look to change their involvement (which I applaud)- just the WAY in which they were involved, to be more in keeping with what YOU perceived as the hazards and drawbacks of the system? Interesting.

You're right, milord. There is indeed a lesson to be learned from this.

I did seek the elimination of it. I found that to be innapropriate.

I made suggestions for adjusting the equipment to increase the safety for all participants including those who just watch from afar. My later suggestion would have actually improved its potential for more widespread acceptance and would not have eliminated the practice as an option as I originally desired.

Seeking change in equipment standards to help improve the practices acceptance overall is not the same as demanding to remove the option altogether.

[Aaron]

I don't think there will be a solution to the debate.

Those who enjoy traditional SCA rules, should fight traditional SCA rules.

Those who enjoy counted blows, should fight counted blows.

Those who enjoy fencing, should fence.

Those who enjoy combat archery, should shoot combat archery.

Those who enjoy cut-and-thrust, should fight cut-and-thrust.

Those who enjoy Combat of Thirty fights, should fight in the Combat of Thirty.

Those who enjoy plate-and-mail and armour as worn, should fight plate and mail and armour as worn.

Now, these would not all be on the same battlefield. It would be odd for someone to fence while someone else does plate-and-mail and armour as worn, with wrestling.

But I don't think the talk will change the minds here.

Count Johnathan Whitewolf jr. won't sit back from his computer and say, "Golly! I was so horribly wrong all this time! Now where can I start enjoying counted blow fighting and some nice combat archery on the side! Does anyone have a pink tutu I can borrow for my persona with cut-and-thrust?"

Francisco Lopez de Leon won't suddenly back away from his i-phone and say, "Well shucky-darn, that noble royal is quite right! We should all fight traditional SCA style. The grass is soft. The wind is cooling. And I look really good on my knees...maybe they'll knight me while I'm down on my knees! Does anyone have a Barney the Dinosaur costume for my knighting ceremony?"

We can get along, but I doubt you two will change your minds.

[Foxman]

A couple of points:

> Change *does* happen in the SCA, over the years tips have been added to swords, armour standards have changed, combat archery has evolved, etc.

> For change to happen a signifigant amount of people need to step up and test/practice and advocate for the change they belive in.

> No matter what change has been introduced, there have always been detractors/doubters/challangers. They can be a positive thing by making sure that each change is truely an improvment.

----

I'm willing to test it out and see what happens...

As a side note - I'm not even sure that the 'Vitus System' could truely be called a counting system....

Have I been hit on the limb previously?
NO = Keep going
YES = Dead

Really its only one question - almost like binary, an on off flag. All you have to keep track of is 'have I been hit on the limb' - Yes or No

----

I've noticed a few posts that refer to the fact that we take a limb as a penalty (arm or leg). I will state again that I have noticed that loosing an arm *is* a penalty, but losing a leg and going on knees is much less of a penalty and some fighters have choosen to excel at fighting on thier knees, turing a penalty into an advantage...

[Count Johnathan]

Most people find not being able to stand while fighting to be a penalty. We cannot truly say that the elimination of the ability to move is not a penalty merely because some people get good at it.

Some folks might fight really well with their off hand. That doesn't mean losing their arm is an advantage.

[DeCalmont]

Gee, what a surprise...Johno and Balin involved in a thread that's turned anti combat archery...

Johno said bringing it up would not help the thread

At least we are not wishy washy

Balin
Aten 101
Fighters not Targets

I can honestly say that "wishy washy" has never been a term applied to either of you by me...

[Gaston de Clermont]

I haven't tried bacon pie, but apple-barley-bacon cake is surprisingly good!
-Guillaume

Ooh! Do you have a recipe for that?

[Magnus Ulfgarsson]

I'd much prefer some kind of counted blows system.

But not for historical accuracy at all... just to avoid sillyness. Fighting from ones knees looks silly to me.

Even if we kept everything the same and made 2 leg shots a kill, and all the other rules the same I'd be happy. Since I do like fighting single sword.

Or as akward as it sounds... the wounded leg must stay planted (That's off the top of my head with very little thought, just throwing out random stuff)

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Count Jonathan: I was mostly getting your goat with the archery stuff.

Sounds like we have more in common than either of us is ready just now to admit! different perspectives, perhaps, but similar approaches in teh past, if nothing else.

It's possible that the day will come when I am satisfied with the system as I and my generation have helped to make it, and view any young whippersnapper coming to fuck with my chi as a heretic.

I hope not, but I can't discount the possibility. Nor am I going to really hold a grudge just because you're earned the right to be set in your ways and as opinionated in your own way as I am in mine.

Aaron's right, and I think that we have, perhaps, beaten our arguments well past the point of death.

Balin: No, I don't want to see my noble brothers slain on the melee field. As a commander, I want to simulate real warfare as closely as is safely possible, in the hopes of forcing myself and my soldiers to think tactically on their feet and consider a wide range of options. I see "battle simulations" and "melee tournaments" as different beasts. In a melee tourney, I am participating in a team version of what I do in the regular heavy lists. When I'm trying to take a mock castle or bridge, I am doing a battle simulation. A battle simulation would be incomplete without missile/siege weapon support.

[Baron Alejandro]

I haven't tried bacon pie, but apple-barley-bacon cake is surprisingly good!
-Guillaume

Ooh! Do you have a recipe for that?

I'm looking for one now. Should bacon pie be sweet or savory?

[Baron Alejandro]

I found this. It looks pretty tasty. We should have an ArmourArchive Cookoff. Best bacon pie wins.

http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Bacon-Pie/Detail.aspx

Original Recipe Yield 1 -10-inch pie
Ingredients

12 slices bacon
1 cup shredded Swiss cheese
1/3 cup chopped onion
2 cups milk
4 eggs
1 cup baking mix
1/8 teaspoon ground black pepper
Directions

Heat oven to 400 degrees F (205 degrees C). Grease glass pie plate, 10x1-1/2 inches. Place bacon in a large, deep skillet. Cook over medium high heat until evenly brown. Drain, crumble and set aside.
Sprinkle bacon, cheese, and onion in pie plate.
In a medium bowl, stir milk, eggs, baking mix, and pepper with fork until blended. Pour into pie plate.
Bake 35 to 40 minutes or until knife inserted in center comes out clean.

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Now THIS is a constructive direction for this thread to go in: bacon.

I suspect that you can get Both Count Johnathans, Ulric and myself to back this to the hilt.


Mmmmmm, bacon!

[Baron Alejandro]

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... 24#1656524

[Balin50]

[......

Balin: No, I don't want to see my noble brothers slain on the melee field. As a commander, I want to simulate real warfare as closely as is safely possible, in the hopes of forcing myself and my soldiers to think tactically on their feet and consider a wide range of options. I see "battle simulations" and "melee tournaments" as different beasts. In a melee tourney, I am participating in a team version of what I do in the regular heavy lists. When I'm trying to take a mock castle or bridge, I am doing a battle simulation. A battle simulation would be incomplete without missile/siege weapon support.[/quote]

When you are doing a battle sim is it side A vs side b over some random thing be it castle, wall, bridge, etc? I would think to "simulate Real warfare" a field would include several if not all of these objectives. Do you fight to the last man standing? How many period "real" battles went to the last man alive?

Yet in our "wars" like their melee tourneys we /they fought over smaller battlefields and would continue until one team was eliminated. Sounds familiar I prefer to think of our "wars" as melee tourneys between noble cousins for the joy of the contest not the glory of victory. YMMV

Balin

[Francisco Lopez de Leon]

Balin: I would LOVE to have SOME of our wars include a series of objectives that were interdependent. At a war the size of Pennsic, Estrella or GW, I would even go so far as to hope that we could make death count: ie. if you die, you're off the field and can go play in a pas or tourney, while the war continues with the surviving men/women.... that would make commanders think about how they expend their soldiers- and make the soldiers (hopefully) more mindful of the risks that they take.

Like the a outrance/a plaisance distinction for a tourney, we could distinguish between melee and battle sim events.