The Armour Archive

Or, answering the question "Well, what keeps them from cheating?"


I was talking with my father last night explaining things about armoured combat. We got in to talking about different areas with different calibrations, how spectators can rarely judge shots because they aren't on the recieving end, the honor system we use in calling shots, etc. Then he stumped me with this question.

"Well, if only you can call the blow good or bad, and it's known that some people rhino from time to time, how do you keep that person from outright cheating and taking no shots whatsoever?"

Now I've heard stories of knights taking these guys and setting them straight, marshal's pulling cards, etc. But I wanted to give him a clear and concise answer of the proper way to handle that.

The best I could come up with was reputation/renown, how it can affect you within the society, and keeps most people honest.

Is there a "proper" way to punish those who "cheat" and don't take any blows? How do you correctly answer that question for the new people?

One of two things happens:
1. They get hit harder and harder until they are injured.
2. Someone puts a crown on their head.

Nissan Maxima wrote:One of two things happens:
1. They get hit harder and harder until they are injured.
2. Someone puts a crown on their head.

Jaded?

ignoring nissans ignorant commentary i would offer that social pressure is what keeps people in line. i havent yet met this cheater that people talk about (or use as an excuse). but then i take the word "cheater" very seriously and perhaps some people feel comfortable throwing a slight of that magnitude around haphazardly.

i would suggest telling your father that almost without exception the fighting community in the sca are good natured people with good character. certainly those of us in the sca know that the character of the average sca member is much higher than society in general. that said this is a violent sport, but its not malicious violence. as such it is fairly safe from the things that cause the average athelete to step off the path of what is good and true. those things like money, fame, adoration, etc dont really play into the mix with sca sport combat. anyone that would suggest they can be accomplished through cheating has never been in that position within this game.

or better yet just let your father meet some fighters and talk with them a bit. im sure in short time he will see what i speak of.

regards
logan

Nissan Maxima wrote:One of two things happens:
1. They get hit harder and harder until they are injured.
2. Someone puts a crown on their head.

A tad oversimplified, because there are a couple of other options.

I recall one fellow who really had a serious acknowledgment problem (I hit him with a shot I apologized for because it was excessive - creased a sole leather breastplate from hip to shoulder - and he told me it was light) and not too long after that his local group explained to him he should not fight any longer.

Another fellow has had a fairly significant acknowledgment problem for years and continues to fight without any particular success and without getting injured such that anything would change. His acknowledgment is an ongoing irritant that never quite rises to the point of serious action.

For one to take a Crown by non-acknowledgment generally requires significant skill in the first place. Afterall, even if you won't accept the other fellow's blow, you have to land one on him to win. This doesn't make the problem any less (in fact, I find it worse, more frustrating, when a skilled fighter appears to cheat), but it does reduce the likelihood of success through that route alone.

gavin

The most effective thing to prevent the rhino from continuing his bad habits is to shun that person. It's very effective. How can that person rhino when they cannot find someone to fight?

Odo

I didnt find Nissans comment ignorant at all. I've seen it happen. Video in fact.

Odo wrote:The most effective thing to prevent the rhino from continuing his bad habits is to shun that person. It's very effective. How can that person rhino when they cannot find someone to fight?

Odo

Your Grace, Are you saying you would do this in a list, maybe a Crown list. What would be the repercussions of such an action. Shunning a person at practice is one thing.

Thorstenn wrote:

Odo wrote:The most effective thing to prevent the rhino from continuing his bad habits is to shun that person. It's very effective. How can that person rhino when they cannot find someone to fight?

Odo

Your Grace, Are you saying you would do this in a list, maybe a Crown list. What would be the repercussions of such an action. Shunning a person at practice is one thing.

I'm not sure what I would do in the situation that you describe. I cannot think of anyone that I would not fight today, for whatever reason. I have seen it in the past though, where ostracism has worked on those who do not act according to general standards, and it has been very effective.

Odo

thats partially because you believe that you know how hard someone gets hit simply because you saw the blow, and partially you believe that many people cheat, or at least your words on this board indicate that. so when his statement appears to support your beliefs you trust them. but i didnt say his statement was incorrect (although proving it is impossible), rather that it was ignorant.

the statement was, in fact, ignorant since to my knowledge he has never had a crown put on his head. as such he can not be talking about himself with such direct knowledge. and, if he isnt talking about himself, his words are indeed ignorant.

the statement is are also slanderous, irresponsible, insulting, and rumor mongering. but those facts were not my concern at the moment.

regards
logan

Animal Weretiger wrote:I didnt find Nissans comment ignorant at all. I've seen it happen. Video in fact.

Yes logan. Many people do cheat. Sometimes it's inadvertant, a lot of times it isnt. You cant fight for 20+ years in this game and not get at least an idea of when someone is blowing off shots. Not if you have more than a slight intelligence anyway.
Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, right? Nissan has been doing this even longer than I have. Based on that and the fact that he's been a true and trusted friend for almost 25 years I'm inclined to believe what he says whether it supports my position or not. He knows what he's talking about.
As for slander, dont you have to actually name someone to slander them? And irresponsible? In what way? How is relating your own personal experience in some way irresponsible?
I've seen what he's talking about. More times than I care to.

its slander in that it implies that some of the former kings of the sca were kings because they cheated. by not naming a specific name he allows the implication to extend to all former kings.

its ignorant, again, in that the blows never hit him so he can not say, with any degree of surety, that the blows were good. in fact the rules clearly support that the blows were not good blows since only the man being hit with the blow can call it good. so the statement was both wrong and ignorant.

now do i think that nobody has ever blown off a shot that felt good to them. of course not. do i think i have hit people with blows that they should have called but didnt? no. i really have no way of knowing that and i refuse to speculate at the cost of painting someone a liar. perhaps i have hit a fighter with a blow that every other fighter in the world has taken from me only to have them continue. all i can do is accept that it was not a telling blow and keep trying to best them.

and yes, a lot can be said about expirence and time in this sport. but i think its sad when someone who has that much acts so irresponsibly when the opposite should be the case. if nothing else that amount of time should be a great indicator to a fighter that not every blow that looks good is good. a more observant and practical fighter would have learned early on that we can never judge that which does not hit us. to believe otherwise is foolish.

i suspect that he meant it more in jest than as a slanderous remark but there are plenty of people that might not see it that way. so i addressed it. if i am wrong and he did mean insult, well, i addressed it.

regards
logan

There's a line from shakespeare here that is SO fitting, but the wording of it escapes me at the moment. Oh well

I'm pretty sure that in print it's called liable, slander is spoken.

I love semantic arguments.

Libel is the LEGAL term for "written slander" but make no mistake, libel is "slanderous." Since Logan wasn't speaking of LEGALITY but of the nature of a statement, it's entirely apropos to call it slander, rather than libel.

Furthermore, to prove libel, you must prove certain things about intent. To demonstrate something is slanderous, you must merely prove that it's untrue and malicious.

That being said, it's difficult to call what Nissan said "slanderous" because you can't prove that he knew his statements to be untrue. It would have hard to prove anything beyond "ignorance" in this case, using Logan's operative deffinitions.

Thanks to Killkenny for the correction on spelling.

Morgan wrote:I love semantic arguments.

Liable is the LEGAL term for "written slander" but make no mistake, liable is "slanderous." Since Logan wasn't speaking of LEGALITY but of the nature of a statement, it's entirely apropos to call it slander, rather than liable.

Furthermore, to prove liable, you must prove certain things about intent. To demonstrate something is slanderous, you must merely prove that it's untrue and malicious.

That being said, it's difficult to call what Nissan said "slanderous" because you can't prove that he knew his statements to be untrue. It would have hard to prove anything beyond "ignorance" in this case, using Logan's operative deffinitions.

"Libel" "liable" is something else again - "Responsible" or probable" depending upon context. Liability = responsibility

Gavin

Thorstenn wrote:

Odo wrote:The most effective thing to prevent the rhino from continuing his bad habits is to shun that person. It's very effective. How can that person rhino when they cannot find someone to fight?

Odo

Your Grace, Are you saying you would do this in a list, maybe a Crown list. What would be the repercussions of such an action. Shunning a person at practice is one thing.

Consider for a moment the impact of a respected fighter declining to face an opponent in a Crown List. It is tantamount to yielding to decline to fight an opponent in a tournament (distinguished from declining a challenge, which we are, by the Rules of the List, free to do).

So just what does it say to all who come to know of the decision ?

And in my case, I know that I would do it, under certain circumstances.

Gavin

I know for a fact that there are people I would refuse to fight. These being people I see as having no honor. Killing them would be more like killing bugs than men. I'm a warrior not the Orkin man.

Animal Weretiger wrote:I know for a fact that there are people I would refuse to fight. These being people I see as having no honor. Killing them would be more like killing bugs than men. I'm a warrior not the Orkin man.

I was very narrow in my scope of who I would not fight. I was only considering Crown List because of what was at stake. I cannot think of a single person in my Kingdom that I would not fight because of the lack of honor.

There are tournaments that I will never fight in for personal reasons. There are people that I will not fight, but they all live outside of Trimaris.

Odo

It is spelled "libel"
li·bel n.

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.
The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

I am joined by an ignorant, slanderous, irresponsible, insulting, and rumor mongering chorus , including a pile of peers seriously discussing this at:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=52153

Logan, I have never seen you fight and mean no insult to you personally. If you really believe no one cheats I find that naive but charming.

dukelogan wrote:its slander in that it implies that some of the former kings of the sca were kings because they cheated. by not naming a specific name he allows the implication to extend to all former kings.

I don't agree he implied that all former kings cheated, but that there have been *some* who have. I personally know of at least one who admitted it to another Duke, and it doubtful that is is anyone who Nissan has ever seen.

I still don't understand how anyone can train another fighter if they can't give them feedback for an average well struck blow.

Certainly there are blows that are marginal or out of sight that I don't feel I can comment on, but there are others that are quite obvious not only to the person who threw the blow, but also the marshals and other onlookers.

It does take some effort to "learn to watch", and some Marshals and fighters never get it. Once I was training a new knight how to Marshal and was narrating a fight as we marshalled. When I described a flurry where 4 blows were thrown, but two were off the shield, and two off the opponent's sword, my "student" was shocked that what he saw was just a "bunch" of blows with no detail, several of which struck the opponent, but he could not tell that all of them had been blocked in some way.

I look at it from a different perspective. Feedback from anyone is a way to help me retain my renown. Its particularly difficult because I am so short, my inside style lends itself to getting hit through a sword blocks, or off shields.

I find I spend more time as a Marshal clarifying why a blow was not good so that immature contestants don't start playing what they think is tit for tat and escalating calibration.

-J

nissan i didnt think you were talking about me at all. i suspect that you saw something that you thought was cheating and that is what caused you to make such a statement. my comment was based on my extreme dislike of rumor and your statement was simply that since you made a charge at a limited group of men yet left it completely open to the entire group by not naming names. i simply detest rumor.

if you think you can call a shot that didnt hit you thats your choice. i can not and will not. i can, and do, think that some people have refused to call shots that they normally would otherwise for whatever reason. i just can not prove it and have no way of knowing. but i will never call a man a liar on a simply suspicion.

regards
logan

Nissan Maxima wrote:It is spelled "libel"
li·bel n.

A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
The act of presenting such material to the public.
The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

I am joined by an ignorant, slanderous, irresponsible, insulting, and rumor mongering chorus , including a pile of peers seriously discussing this at:

http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/ ... hp?t=52153

Logan, I have never seen you fight and mean no insult to you personally. If you really believe no one cheats I find that naive but charming.

i can, and do, think that some people have refused to call shots that they normally would otherwise for whatever reason. i just can not prove it and have no way of knowing. but i will never call a man a liar on a simply suspicion.

Ok what would it take? If you hit me so hard it shattered my arm? Broke my rib? creased me like an oragami penguin? casued me to pass out after saying "light"? There HAS to eb a point at which you know the person is lying. what is it for YOU personally, and as a general rule?

-+G

george are you seriously asking for a response to such ridiculous questions? honestly, i have broken arms and once, that i know of, ribs and never had someone call it light. challenging a position with outrageous examples doesnt do much.

to answer the one question you asked, never. its not my place to do so. my only job is to fight within the rules and to monitor my own behavior. my honor is never something i am willing to negotiate and i dont pretend to know another mans mind.

regards
logan

Rev. George wrote:i can, and do, think that some people have refused to call shots that they normally would otherwise for whatever reason. i just can not prove it and have no way of knowing. but i will never call a man a liar on a simply suspicion.

Ok what would it take? If you hit me so hard it shattered my arm? Broke my rib? creased me like an oragami penguin? casued me to pass out after saying "light"? There HAS to eb a point at which you know the person is lying. what is it for YOU personally, and as a general rule?

-+G