[SCA] Consent to Points of Contest

[Livia Tasia]

Can that be done?

[maxntropy]

Liviatasia:

I think it more certain than harsh.

*Medieval* Chivalry (as opposed to Victorian conceptions of Chivalry) is an aristocratic warrior ethos providing a code of conduct through which warrior nobility can provide military service for the benefit of, rather than as a detriment to society. It is a warrior's code for and between warriors -- promoting mutual respect, courage, gallantry, justice, protection of the weak, and integrity (honor).

I can understand how one might interpret the equalization of an *unfair* advantage as Chivalric -- at least in terms of a demonstration of courage (if you feel it courageous to try to give up an earned advantage), or justice (if you believe it is just for someone to feel some obligation to give away an advantage fairly and rightly earned).

But I do not see how an earned advantage within the ruleset constitutes an "unfair" advantage. It would seem, instead, to be a very *fair* advantage -- earned and foundational within our rules. I think there is a vastly more "unfair" advantage when a Duke with 20 years of experience and expertise enters the lists against a newcomer with one month of practice. Why don't we right that unfair advantage from the outset, by starting the Duke off on his knees or fighting single sword? Would that not rightly equalize a truly "unfair" advantage that wasn't "earned" (at least in the immediate sense, though surely the 20 years of experience and expertise are "earned" in the broader sense).

Certainly, I don't feel such actions (whether under a sense of obligation or simply a personal preference) constitute a demonstration of mutual respect. Quite the contrary. I, at least, always feel a measure of disrespect when someone "gives" me a point of honor. If they truly respected me, then they would consider me a deadly threat to their progress in the lists with or without legs or an arm. By giving up their earned advantage, they indicate either that they actually *don't* respect me as a threat in that way, or that they simply are less interested in engaging in a match of prowess between warriors than they are in entertaining the expectations (real or imagined) of the crowd. Either way, I do not thusly feel a sense of mutual respect between warriors -- which I believe is foundational to the Chivalric ethos.

Nor do I think such actions promote justice or protecting the weak. Firstly, I do not think any fellow warrior who enters the lists to do honorable combat constitutes "the weak" -- with or without any injuries that might disadvantage them. Certainly I, at least, do not consider myself amongst "the weak" if I'm on my knees with a sword in my hand, or with a single sword in my hand. On the contrary, I consider myself a mortal threat in both cases, and do not know many who would consider me one of "the weak" in need of defense. Thus, I have a fundamental problem with those who believe that somehow their Chivalric duty to protect the weak can be interpreted to my protection when on my knees or fighting single sword as expressed not by defending me against others who might do me harm, but by disadvantaging themselves as they themselves seek to do me harm. Not sure how that twisted logic might possibly work. Similarly I don't understand how giving away a legal advantage rightly and intentionally earned could possibly be considered "just" -- on the contrary, I believe that is an unjust expectation. Were somebody to be better educated, or harder working, or wiser or smarter than me such that they negotiated or otherwise earned a higher salary than me... than I would not consider it "just" to expect them to split the difference in our salaries so that we were "justly" equalized. In fact, I would consider such "generosity" (whether done willingly or under force or duress of law or expectations), "unjust" under the Golden Rule, as I would most certainly NOT want anyone to expect or force me to do likewise in a similar context. And I most certainly do NOT believe such behavior is even in my best interests in the short or long-term, as it does not teach or incentivize me to become better educated, harder working, wiser or smarter by striving to earn more myself... but instead sets lower expectations for me, and we all tend to live up to the level of expectation. Similarly, I believe such "points of honor" lower expectations, and thus unjustly provide a lower bar for folks to work towards.

So I fundamentally do not understand how such actions make sense within the warriors ethos of the Code of Chivalry. An earned disadvantage does not convert someone into "the weak" in need of protection. It is not a demonstration of mutual respect to signal a lack of concern with disadvantaging yourself or minimizing the importance of our demonstration of prowess and progress in the lists. I do not believe foregoing an earned advantage can in any way right an unjust wrong, but rather unjustly signals low expectations.

I realize, of course, that there are many who feel such displays are gallant or generous or courteous. Certainly they might be gallant. Stylish, showy, grand... i.e., crowd-pleasing. Certainly that. But I think neither courteous nor generous in the broad and long-term sense. As mentioned, the demonstrated lack of mutual respect simply cannot be seen as positive for the recipients esteem and ego, and by failing to show the mutual respect due a Chivalric opponent, I think it shows a lack of generosity. Similarly, I just fail to see the courtesy. It is most courteous to treat a fellow warrior as a fellow warrior. Asking if the sun is in my eyes when I'm on my knees is an action of courtesy. That I get. How providing a "point of honor" is a courtesy to me, I don't get.

I am of course open to explanations of how I might be misunderstanding things. Certainly, I understand the "crowd-pleasing" gallantry aspect. "It looks dashing" and "folks expect it" are arguments I understand. I don't think they are valid arguments in a medieval Chivalry context when considering the other arguments above... but I get that. How it is "Chivalric" or "Honorable" or "Courteous" or "Just" or "Courageous" or the like... that I don't.

I think this not harsh, but certain. I know what I believe, and I know why I believe it because I have fully considered it, and I'm committed to that belief unless and until someone shows me the error of my ways. For this I don't apologize (notice my signature line, after all) -- though I'm always glad to listen.

In friendship and open-minded conviction,

Max Von Halstern

[Livia Tasia]

I didn't see an instance where the crowd had expectations of anything at our Crown. But in those instances where someone did take away an advantage, they were delighted. If the other fighter was offended they did not openly show it.

Your initial reply had an undertone of deviant type behavior on the part of someone giving up the advantage. That's just really far from what I know our fighters to be. If they do it, it's meant only with the best of intentions. Offense shouldn't be taken where none was given.

I guess what I don't understand, even after reading both of your responses, is how someone could truly be offended by an action that was truly meant to be honorable.

[ThorvaldR Skegglauss]

Livitasia,

consider this aspect as well in a Crown tourney. The fighter is advancing the honor and advantage of their consort. To give up an earned advantage with hubris, or not, the fighter has knowingly and willingly endangered their consorts chances. You are not fighting just for yourself when in Crown tourney.

I am of the firm opinion that when I fight and someone has brought me to a disadvantage that it is my own failing and I must try to come from behind, so to speak. If as recently I enter a "wounds retained" bearpit tourney and my opponent is disadvantaged in some manner then I will match their disadvantage since I had not earned it. (mind you this is a slippery slope since the tourney is intended to provide for this eventuality however I would feel like an ass for taking advantage of an opponent who honestly has little chance against me even at full capabilities)

so I guess it is not always a clear choice but we do what we can.

regards
ThorvaldR

[Columb]

Great discussion!

Personally, I only like to match the other fighter's wound when I did not score it - such as in a melee, or when they are fighting one-hand or goofy-handed through an injury.

I'm not offended if anyone does match my wounds. We're here to have fun!

[Livia Tasia]

Good points too ThorvaldR.

[Kenwrec Wulfe]

I would prefer that someone simply beat me rather than giving anything up. I know many people have a personal need to match their opponents, but I prefer not to. I think it makes the fight that we have NOT the fight that exists.

When we fight, we have the option of taking an arm or leg. To de facto legislate through perceived honor acts that someone who takes a limb must give one up alters the game, and makes those shots/moves less important than otherwise.

I prefer my opponents who take a limb of mine, to just go ahead and try to beat me- I made a mistake in the course of the fight or someone beat me- finish it up! I know the rules, and it is not overwhelming advantage- that would be akin to saying that because i am a skilled fast fighter, I have to use a sword that makes my shots slower and less accurate. We don't Harrison Bergeron the game!

I do not take those acts as insults, but it is a fine line, and I do not appreciate it when they do.

Like others I WANT THE CHANCE TO OVERCOME THE DISADVANTAGE I AM IN, I want to be a hero and underdog. Matching me takes this chance away.

g-

+1

[Apollonian]

For some people, the only time the crowd will applaud them, is what I see as an empty gesture. Not an insult, but empty. Enjoy your applause.

I fight from my knees all the time at practice. We bear-pit our tourney practice and I always fight wounds retained. I am tall and I lose my legs often, so I have to be a good fight from my knees. After 30 years, I am. I won't speak for other fighters, and honesty isn't necessarily arrogance. Don't give me a "point of honor" if you intend to win. You might, but if you lose, I hope you can remember and relive your applause while taking your gear off.

Falcne

[Christian1095]

So to recount a story from Atlantian 30 year, I was fighting Count Robert de Rath... During the course of our bout, I was struck in the leg. I had gambled on going deep to his offside (I'm a lefty) and was wrong... His block was solid and he tagged my leg in response.... However, given that this was my 4th time back in armor and was worried about the stress throwing a blow from my Knees would cause on my damaged wrist, I decided to yield the fight.

I could tell that once I called out "good leg, the bout is yours" and then went to shake his hand he was a bit confused. I explained to him why I had yielded the fight and I could tell it upset him... Perhaps he did not feel that he had "earned" the victory because we did not finish the fight. Taking my leg and then trashing me proper (of which he is certainly capable of) would have felt good... just taking the leg and having his opponent yield did not....

His response was along the lines of "damn brother, I wish you would have told me" and my response was that if I had told him, he would have avoided my leg, and since I had no problems throwing at his, then it would have given me an unfair advantage. Even if I had decided to not throw at his leg either, I would have been "asking" my opponent to change our conventions to match my own failings. Which felt wrong to me.

Really kind of a crappy place to be in... Most certainly it was my choice to yield.... but the fight left a bad taste in my mouth because I feel like I cheated my opponent from the victory he earned... He threw at my leg on purpose... the intent was to cause me a disadvantage... not to end the fight. So in the aftermath, I've decided that I should have dropped to my knees and just taken the whoopin instead... I will just have to suck it up and figure out how to throw from my knees again.

Thoughts?

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

In the West it has become custom to always do this, so much so that it's almost an expectation. I usually just yield when my sword arm is taken to avoid any such tomfoolery. However, the last two tournaments I was in I was armed and did not yield and both opponents gave up their shield (one of whom, who is now King, I asked him to keep his shield and he refused) and beat me anyway (hmm.. maybe because I always yield in practice so never fight left handed single sword???)

So I will probably go back to yielding. I also don't really like dropping my shield if someone does something lame and blocks with their arm.

One of the reasons dropping your shield against an armed opponent is done here is because it's "more fun". Well, frankly I no longer find single sword fights fun. I find that they kind of hurt, and I don't heal as fast as I used to.

However, I do subscribe to the convention that one should not keep _2_ points of advantage (i.e, both armed and legged), you should give one up (either fight with 2 arms from your knees or 1 armed standing)

[Christian1095]

I'm with you Sigifrith, I've NEVER had a fun single sword fight (except in rapier) with rattan they just hurt.

[Vladimir]

If people are so against it, then why do we do it?

Because for some, the dream is an Errol Flynn movie.

[Livia Tasia]

Maybe the SEM could do a polling and see where the fighters stand?

[Vladimir]

Nah, I'm fine with it being each fighter's individual decision. Our entire combat system is set up to see what kind of person you are.

[Apollonian]

Maybe the SEM could do a polling and see where the fighters stand?

As much as I dislike the social convention, I like "choice" very much.

Falcone

[Baron Alcyoneus]

I'm with you Sigifrith, I've NEVER had a fun single sword fight (except in rapier) with rattan they just hurt.

I have. In fact, one of the most fun single sword fights I ever had was with the first Crown of Calontir (in '91). After I one-shotted him, he opened up the control panel on his chest, and cranked up the speed&power buttons, and I matched him. We hit hard, we hit fast, and we hit often. The KEM actually stopped and asked if we were having a grudge match.

Chepe said "No, I'm having fun! I'm having a LOT OF FUN!!!", and we were. It wasn't a matter of our calibration increasing, it was the simple fact that we were fighting so intensely that anything that actually got through either of our defenses hit landed really hard.

And a good time was had by all.

[maxntropy]

That's just really far from what I know our fighters to be. If they do it, it's meant only with the best of intentions. Offense shouldn't be taken where none was given.

I guess what I don't understand, even after reading both of your responses, is how someone could truly be offended by an action that was truly meant to be honorable.

Sorry, but I don't really buy that 100%.

1. An unintended insult is still an insult -- so even if, in ignorance, no insult was meant, then offense *is* given and can rightly be taken. By equalizing an earned advantage you are either indicating a lack of mutual respect as a sufficiently threatening warrior, or that you consider me "the weak" in need of your protection as an object of the expression of your Chivalric "mercy". I am neither, and consider both implications to be inappropriate and thus insulting to a code of conduct between warriors. As an action with at least a significant chance of being considered insulting, I don't see it as one "with the best of intentions."

2. Outside of he expression of mercy for the weak, I've also heard such actions justified on the basis of the expression of Chivalric courage. How courageous one is showing oneself to be by risking progression in the lists by giving up an earned advantage. If such is the case, would it not be truly courageous to begin the fight without such advantage? Would not the truly brave and courageous fighter always come out on their knees or with single sword? I simply don't see how it relates to true courage at all. Courage is expressed by all who enter the lists, for they can choose not to. Courage is expressed by the novice who, if given the opportunity, chooses to challenge up to the Duke, rather than select another novice -- for decades of experience do in fact, confer a very significant advantage that is only "earned" in the long-term sense. But I just don't see how simply equalizing a fight after already demonstrating you can gain an advantage expresses courage per se.

3. I do not believe it is an unselfish act. Rather, I believe those who engage in such behavior are seeking to demonstrate their gallantry for the appreciation of the crowd. This is a self-ish act meant to bolster one's own ego and/or standing. As a selfish act, I don't agree that it is "with the best of intentions."

4. Honor is fundamentally integrity, honesty, and fairness. I believe I can make a strong case that both the expectation of giving away advantage as well as the personal choice to do so actually compromises the integrity of our ruleset and actually makes the situation more unfair, not more fair. For example, were we to play chess, would it be more fair if the rule was that every time I captured one of your pawns I had to sacrifice one of my own? I think that would make the game much less fair, for what would be the point of capturing pawns? Similarly, if every time I "capture" your limb, am I not likewise making the game unfair by the expectation of giving away an advantage rightly earned? I just don't see by what basis of understanding "honor" that such deeds are considered "honorable"? I don't consider it "honorable" for an opponent to give up their pawn if they capture one of mine in Chess, and I don't consider it "honorable" for someone to give up their leg if they've struck mine. "Meant to be" honorable does not make it honorable. It might be called a point of "honor" and folks who may not have sufficiently thought about the nature of its "honor" or who might even be more broadly ignorant of medieval Chivalry and honor might consider it so... but that does not make it so. So in ignorance, folks might consider and intend such actions to be "honorable"... but I generally prefer to judge folks by their deeds and the outcome, not by their intentions (as my Telepathy is insufficiently strong).

I realize that most folks are just going with expectation and following the behaviors of others, and doing what they might've been told. But I don't think that makes it well intentioned and/or honorable. I don't take great personal umbrage when confronted by the situation (because almost always folks are just acting out of momentum and expectation and ignorance), I just try my darndest to remedy the situation. I understand that nobody is really trying to actively insult others... but I also don't believe that they are engaging in selfless behavior with the best of intentions.

I look forward to assertions to the contrary, and realize I am likely in the minority.

Max Von Halstern

[Sigurd of Jorvik]

I agree with you 100% And I don't think you are in the minority, rather the converse I think to be true.

This is probably thread hijackery but I still maintain the best way to solve this problem is by yielding the fight when a limb is lost. You've been bested by any measure of the word when your limb has been taken and the SCAdian rule-set of fighting with arms behind backs or on legs is simply stupid and should be eliminated.

[Kilkenny]

If people are so against it, then why do we do it?

Because "people" are not so against it. Some people, who are strongly represented on this board, feel strongly against it. Some people, not so strongly represented on this board, feel strongly for it. Probably the majority of people don't worry about it one way or the other.

And, as I explained previously, the pendulum of public opinion on this subject swings. We're currently in a period where there are numerous vocal opponents to the entire concept. Hasn't always been true, probably won't continue to be true forever going forward.

[chris19d]

I agree completely with Max, he stated everything I had intended more thoroughly than I would have.

[maxntropy]

Meditated on it a little more.

I think what fundamentally bothers me about it is the three-fold theft it represents.

Firstly, "giving" me a "point of honor" steals all meaning from any potential victory I might gain over you -- proven simply by the fact that you are "giving" me an equalized advantage. I have not earned it. Thus, even should I prove victorious, it clearly rests on the equalization given not the victory earned. By "giving" me "honor" you have actually stolen my chance for honorable victory.

Secondly, such actions steal the opportunity for the even greater glory I might gain by defeating you from a "disadvantaged" position. Hard-fought and hard-won victories are always so very much more meaningful. By "equalizing" fights, you steal that additional meaning from my victory and from the game.

Thirdly, such actions steal the meaning from all the potential future victories that I might gain in that tournament. All later wins could (and probably should) be considered "fruit from the poisoned tree" and considered cheap, as they are all bought on a victory "given" by another. As above, I don't want to be "given" my victories. I want to earn them meaningfully. If I'm given one, then all that follow are founded on that "gift". They are not my victories, but those borne of the gift.

Thus, I feel that such "honorable" gifts are actually thefts of my opportunity for honorable victories.

Humbly submitted for your consideration,

Max Von Halstern

[Baron Alcyoneus]

I agree with you 100% And I don't think you are in the minority, rather the converse I think to be true.

This is probably thread hijackery but I still maintain the best way to solve this problem is by yielding the fight when a limb is lost. You've been bested by any measure of the word when your limb has been taken and the SCAdian rule-set of fighting with arms behind backs or on legs is simply stupid and should be eliminated.

And it has no historical precedence whatsoever.

http://www.isegoria.net/2004/02/the-dub ... ll-part-1/

The Dubious Quick Kill, part 1
Sunday, February 22nd, 2004

The Dubious Quick Kill, part 1 contrasts the modern sport of fencing against its dueling roots:

Take for example the case of the duel fought in 1613 between the Earl of Dorset and Lord Edward Bruce. According to the Earl’s account, he received a rapier-thrust in the right nipple which passed ‘level through my body, and almost to my back.’ Seemingly unaffected, the Earl remained engaged in the combat for some time. The duel continued with Dorset going on to lose a finger while attempting to disarm his adversary manually. Locked in close quarters, the two struggling combatants ultimately ran out of breath. According to Dorset’s account, they paused briefly to recover, and while catching their wind, considered proposals to release each other’s blades. Failing to reach an agreement on exactly how this might be done, the seriously wounded Dorset finally managed to free his blade from his opponent’s grasp and ultimately ran Lord Bruce through with two separate thrusts. Although Dorset had received what appears to have been a grievous wound that, in those days, ought to have been mortal, he not only remained active long enough to dispatch his adversary, but without the aid of antibiotics and emergency surgery, also managed to live another thirty-nine years.

Brutal? Consider this anecdote:

However, consider the duel between Lagarde and Bazanez. After the later received a rapier blow which bounced off his head, Bazanez is said to have received an unspecified number of thrusts which, according to the account, “entered” the body. Despite having lost a good deal of blood, he nevertheless managed to wrestle Lagarde to the ground, whereupon he proceeded to inflict some fourteen stab wounds with his dagger to an area extending from his opponent’s neck to his navel. Lagarde meanwhile, entertained himself by biting off a portion of Bazanez’s chin and, using the pommel of his weapon, ended the affair by fracturing Bazanez’s skull. History concludes, saying that neither combatant managed to inflict any “serious” injury, and that both recovered from the ordeal.

[Payn]

So, speaking for myself, and my observances of behavior in Antir.

When I take my opponents arm, I will give up my shield, pretty much every time, in any tournament (the exception being against great weapons, where control of a large mass weapon is eroded when used in one hand). It's my expectation of me, and frankly, my expectation of high end fighters in my area.

This is mostly due to how I interpret the "one point of advantage" version of a fair and fun fight. If I take my opponents arm, it is almost always their sword arm. To the point that their dropping their shield arm after getting hit will have me drop mine simply by rote. Since I am taking their sword arm, I have not only taken their arm, but I have taken their skill to a certain extent. There are few people that I have fought who are equally as good with both hands. So it's MY opinion that if they are 80% as effective with their weak hand, then I am at 1.2 points ahead, not 1.

I realize it's an odd way to look at it, but it's how I do the math for me.

Taking my opponents' leg will have me keeping everything, while taking an arm and a leg will have me at least dropping my shield, if not dropping to my knees as well.

I understand that there is some hypocrisy in the way I am calling, but I think that it's pretty much in line with the behaviors of other fighters in Antir.

IMO, cheering about someone dropping their arm in a large tournament is a passive aggressive F-U to the people who won't. It might not be evident at the time, but when a high level fighter keeps everything after taking someones sword arm, you will see some interesting looks being passed around mid/upper level fighters in this kingdom.

This is NOT across the board though, just a general feeling.

At the end of the day, aspire to win greatly.

[maxntropy]

At the end of the day, aspire to win greatly.

But how can I win greatly if your efforts to "equalize" the fight forestall my opportunity for a come-from-behind (or even from-very-behind) victory?

The fight is fun and fair from the outset. Like Chess. If you make moves that lead to a temporary imbalance (e.g., taking many of my pawns or taking my leg or arm), then you're playing this game better than I, but the game is still fun and fair. In fact, you are providing me the opportunity for great glory (even risking embarrassment for yourself) by providing me the opportunity of a great come-from-behind victory.

Perhaps it is less about equalizing fights and making them fair, then it is about minimizing the opportunity for embarrassment?

I think that might actually play some role in the psychology (and I think that would be more about cowardice than courage).

Max Von Halstern

[Ulrich]

Normally I don't give up an advantage.

If I do it is for one of the following reasons,

1 - I didn't earn it, it was a shot that I thought was not good for some reason I cannot convince my opponent to NOT take the shot. (I equate this to not taking slop in pool)
1a -I didn't earn it - I take the field in a wounds retained tournament, and my opponent is wounded from a previous bout - I will start the fight on even terms.

2 - Its a Pas or some other type of tournament that thrives on these types of action, that are more about the show than the combat. (it can be fun sometimes)

3 - If I just feel like it in the end its an act of Largess....a gift. - Its rare, but I do it occasionally. but then I love a single sword fight.

If someone does it fighting against me, I'm not insulted, I simply accept their gift as graciously as possible, after all its rude to refuse a gift, and then regardless I do my best to beat them.

Its such a polite thing, it shouldn't be something we get our nickers in a twist about.

YMMV

Regards,
Ulrich

(edit to add the word "regardless")

[Baron Alcyoneus]

1a -I didn't earn it - I take the field in a wounds retained tournament, and my opponent is wounded from a previous bout - I will start the fight on even terms.

Your opponent won't learn to not trade a leg for a head when you do that.

[Malek]

My own experience - so take it for what you paid for it.
I have been complimented and told I was stupid for giving an arm when I have taken one.
Complimented: In a tournament vs someone's 2nd time in armour.
-- Also: Opponent had a shoulder injury that I did not know about until after I had hit his good arm. I offered to allow him to ignore the blow and I would be mindful of his injury. - basically we reset and had a good fight.
Reprimanded: By a duke after the fight who told me I should have kept my arm (after clobbering me, of course).
The culture here in An-Tir (as I have observed, I could be wrong) is this:
If one fighter is clearly superior (newb vs vet / knight vs avg fighter) then the superior fighter is looked on favorably for evening things up.

If the fighters are equal skill (or as close as that ever gets) then it's up to both of them to decide. (I have had some ask me to keep my shield or leg, others don't say anything.)

Personally - if you even things up after taking my leg or arm, I won't mind one way or the other. If my opponent does not want me to even things up, all they have to do is say so.

[Tegan]

I don't like having my opponent give me anything for a couple reasons.

First, I'm not particularly skilled but I take pride in winning when I do. If someone concedes something to me then I didn't win the fight, you lost it, and there's no pride for me in that.

Second, I know I'll never be great but I strive to be good enough that I can't be disregarded. Giving up an advantage you've earned seems to me that you're telling me that I'm not good enough for you to take seriously. That's certainly true in some cases but I'd appreciate you not rubbing my nose in it.


Along a similar vein one other thing I've noted is that there seems to be an automatic assumption that if I take your sword arm it's acceptable for you to take it as a wound to your shield arm instead. Sometimes it's a convenience thing since not everyone armors fully behind their shield but it twerks me a bit when people do it, especially without asking if it's okay.

-Tegan
No Account

[Payn]

At the end of the day, aspire to win greatly.

But how can I win greatly if your efforts to "equalize" the fight forestall my opportunity for a come-from-behind (or even from-very-behind) victory?
...

Max Von Halstern

Therein lies the rub. IMO, I still have an advantage, in most instances (once again noting that I rarely manage to take my opponents shield arm), by dropping my shield when you are dropping your dominant hand and shield.

[rhys]

I tend to not give up advantages earned, and I will tell my opponent to keep their advantage. in regards to new fighters. yes I will keep my advantages. I will fight them one step above their skill level so they can have fun, and have a chance to not get the one shot now sit down fight. you don't learn to fight from your knees if you have your opponents dropping to theirs every time. It took me quite a few years to break a certain Duke in Caid from dropping to his knees after he had legged me when we fought, that towards the end of my time there he remained standing as I had requested of him (and what I request of all my opponents).


As to the fighting from your knees is stupid comment. since it is part of the way we play the game you can do a few things.

yield the fight if you get hit in the leg/arm.
drop to your knees tuck your arm back and finish the fight.
quit fighting all together, sell your armor and buy a new computer game
become the society Earl Marshal and try to change the rules.
Personally I would like to see you do one of the first two that I wrote just saying that it is stupid isn't really a reason. My five year old gives me reasons she doesn't like things, not just the fact that she thinks they are stupid.

here is another way to look at it. in a tourney it is the final round and you go in clean(no losses) but your opponent is dirty (one loss).. do you give up your one win option?( you both have to get two wins to win the fight, or do you keep your advantage of only having to win one while they have to win two?
I have done both, and had both done to me. .. IF it happens in a crown, I honestly don't know what I would do I'll revisit it when it happens..LOL, just some more food for thought..

Rhys

[Mrmiles]

All the more reasons for a counted blows system...

Boooo sorry, I disagree with counted blows system, u want counted blows mAke a counted blows tournament or make a brand new game. Or larp or something. Do you want 3 nuclear ass wraps from uther in one fight? I don't. And I like that it only takes one good shot before I can hit the ground and Die. It's like martial arts point sparring. And do people really think they will gain any advantage by being hit more times? I dunno, just my .02

but onto arming. I almost always give up my shield when I arm an opponent. Unless of course I am outclassed. And I generally ask my opponent to keep his/her advantage if they arm me. I don't get offended either way. I'm here to hit people

[Maeryk]

It can be viewed as cocky. I for one would _NEVER_ do it.. unless it was with one of my house-brothers and that would mostly be, well, cocky. I fought hard to win that advantage. To then give it up just doesn't sit right with me. The logical conclusion of that "attitude" is that every fight should be a draw, no?

(Not saying my way is for everyone.. it's clearly not. That's just my take on it. I wouldn't be offended if someone did it TO ME, I guess.. even though the message is "I can beat you with one hand tied behind my back" at that point.. I'd take it as offered.)

[Baron Eirik]

For me, I'm not trying to say 'I can beat you with one arm tied behind my back'. It's keeping a fun fight fun.

And, as I said, I just enjoy single sword. It challenges me like no other style, the margin for error is so narrow, it puts that much more risk on the line.

[Kilkenny]

All the more reasons for a counted blows system...

Boooo sorry, I disagree with counted blows system, u want counted blows mAke a counted blows tournament or make a brand new game. Or larp or something. Do you want 3 nuclear ass wraps from uther in one fight? I don't. And I like that it only takes one good shot before I can hit the ground and Die. It's like martial arts point sparring. And do people really think they will gain any advantage by being hit more times? I dunno, just my .02

but onto arming. I almost always give up my shield when I arm an opponent. Unless of course I am outclassed. And I generally ask my opponent to keep his/her advantage if they arm me. I don't get offended either way. I'm here to hit people

I like the way you think

[St. George]

As a new fighter I realized that a point of honor was simply me giving a better fighter a second chance. Whether or not I got lucky or used skill to take an arm or leg of a better opponent, I realized that I shouldn't have to "even" the fight by giving up a perceived "advantage", because the fight still wasn't even.

g-