pointless pennsic
Lord Erec
Pennsic this year. Is this true? Is this wise, melchior? Who would make such
a decision? Could someone shed some light on this please?
Many thanks,
In Service,
Lord Erec L'Claire
http://members.aol.com/lorderec/
kp
Arval wrote:
>
>
> I don't see any relation between the two things. If anything, dropping the
> point system might increase the number of large battles, since the kingdom
> expecting the smaller turn-out won't have any reason to veto them.
>
> ===========================================================================
> Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
One might think that, but alas! one would be wrong. When I wrote to
Viscount Myles suggesting more battles using this reason (among many
others) he said the issue was closed, except for privately sponsored
battles. Lilies this year has 4 battles per day for six days--so many
that even though they are all "warpoints", nobody can keep track of them
anyway. Maybe that's where Pennsic's extra battles went.:)
Kirk FitzDavid
georg
>
> Greetings all. I've heard on the EK listserv there is to be no war points at
> Pennsic this year. Is this true? Is this wise, melchior? Who would make such
> a decision? Could someone shed some light on this please?
This is what I have heard as well. With the bad feelings left over from
last year's "unfinished" war, I think it's a positive step to remind
everyone that we should go to Pennsic to have fun- and not to actually
quibble about winning, or other petty things that could interfere with
the fun.
The decision was reached by a council of royalty from several kingdoms;
whether a formal gathering or not, I do not know.
-lady george anne
Ian Andrew Engle
: Greetings all. I've heard on the EK listserv there is to be no war points at
: Pennsic this year. Is this true? Is this wise, melchior? Who would make such
: a decision? Could someone shed some light on this please?
Is it wise?
I say it's about time.
--Sion
thor...@aol.com
bridge battles was decided by a Marshal's mistake and not by the
fighters on the field. When The Eastern Royals and Their allies
requested a chance to address the issue they were met with obstinance
and dishonor. His Majesty, King Michael of Bedford, came before the
Atlantian army and told us that we had fought a good and honorable war
against a good and honorable foe, but the leadership of that great army
had acted without honor stating that they would "win at all costs". He
would not lead us against that mentality and risk losing all of the
good will and friendship we had built over the years. If the Royals of
the Middle wanted to win that badly then they were playing at a
different game than us. It had nothing to do with winning or losing.
Hell, it's just a game. It had everything to do with upholding the
ideals of chivalry, honor, and fair play that the SCA is based upon.
Anyone who thinks that the blame for last year's problems had
anything to do with anyone other than the Royals of the Middle and
decisions and statements they made while under the stress of the moment
does not have a grasp on what actually transpired.
To have a war with no points is truly pointless. The idea is not to
win at any cost, but to fight your best fight to bring glory to your
Kingdom. After the third or forth trip up that hill in the wood's
battle you have to be fighting for something bigger than yourself. Last
year I finished out the war with a badly strained back and a torn
shoulder muscle but never missed a battle so as not to let down the
army. That patriotism and duty I feel to The Crowns is an important
part of why I play.
Part of the magic of Pennsic is the illusion of war. The pageant and
drama of the Middle and the East drawing up for glorious battle and
calling upon their allies to aid them in their quest is what makes the
dream come alive for me. To tamper with that is to risk undermining
everything that The War has come to represent.
The best folks I meet every year tend to be my "enemies". I have
never had a problem with anyone I was trying to kill. Last year was the
best fighting I have ever experienced. Being so very badly outnumbered
made our every accomplishment even more glorious. The Middle and Her
allies were fighting for a good cause. We wanted to win. They wanted to
win. And it was some of the cleanest, most honorable fighting I have
ever had the priveledge to participate in. I wouldn't want that to
change.
Let us keep the point system for The War and meet in good and
honorable combat as we always have. Let the fighters fight. The
politics are irrelevant.
Vivat the Dream
In Service to that Dream,
Lord Hrothgar Thorgrimsson
Atlantian Warrior
In article <7igqe6$f...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Tracy Schulman
believe there will be mixed feelings now. Just my two pents.
Aine
Cumhail
>
> Lord Erec (lord...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Greetings all. I've heard on the EK listserv there is to be no war points at
> : Pennsic this year. Is this true? Is this wise, melchior? Who would make such
> : a decision? Could someone shed some light on this please?
>
> Is it wise?
>
> I say it's about time.
>
>
rock-paper-scissors like so many LARPers. A war with no victor is like
masturbation - it might feel good at the time, but it's MUCH less
satisfying than the alternative. Informal records of each battle will
be kept anyway, so all that's being accomplished is payment of lip
service to various anti-fighting factions within our Society. "We fight
for fun, not to win!" is a popular rallying cry amongst people caught up
in fighter-denial, but let's face it...whether you like to consider SCA
heavy fighting as re-creation, or as the modern/medieval sport that it
has become, it is a competition. Whether or not you're competing
against another kingdom, someone acrosses the lyst field, or just
against yourself, pretending that it is purely for enjoyment is
hypocriful (is that a word?). The enjoyment is a by-product of the
competition (much of it, for many people, at least).
Along with the drive of modern/medieval pacifism, has been a concerted
push towards greater authenticity within the Society. Our system of
"scoring" the war is certainly inauthentic....but less inauthentic
perhaps than a war with no winner. Perhaps our kingdom pride and esteem
should come from the authenticity of the shoes we wear, but strength of
our armies is a more period, percieved virtue. There is MUCH more to
the SCA than fighting. We shouldn't have to downplay the fighting to
see this. I'm against the lack of war points, and won't attend a
victorless war (as if anybody cares <G>).
your servant,
Cumhail
---
I'm a sensitive 90's kind of a guy.......1490's
Jay Rudin
> To have a war with no points is truly pointless. The idea is not to
> win at any cost, but to fight your best fight to bring glory to your
> Kingdom. After the third or forth trip up that hill in the wood's
> battle you have to be fighting for something bigger than yourself. Last
> year I finished out the war with a badly strained back and a torn
> shoulder muscle but never missed a battle so as not to let down the
> army. That patriotism and duty I feel to The Crowns is an important
> part of why I play.
Can't you feel that in each battle totally apart from bookkeeping
between battles?
For my part, the war points are a distraction from my patriotism and
duty. If those things require the points, then they don't exist in a
final battle when one side already has more than one-half of the total
points. In practice, however, we *do* feel the urge to fight for king
and for Queen and for our ladies -- even after the winner is
determined. Therefore the need to determine an overall winner is not an
integral part of our glory and honor.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
BoskSCA
>ever had the priveledge to participate in. I wouldn't want that to
>change.
> Let us keep the point system for The War and meet in good and
>honorable combat as we always have. Let the fighters fight. The
>politics are irrelevant.
> Vivat the Dream
>
I cut a lot of that out for sake of room but I would have to say I agree with
the sentiment exactly. I have not heard such a summation of Pennsic in quite a
while and it was great. Do not let politics mess up the game, let it be played
with honour and courage and dignity.
Bosk of the Clan Teaghlach
"Do what you will, cause harm to none"
Greg Lindahl
> Just going on record - We might as well be sitting in a bar playing
> rock-paper-scissors like so many LARPers. A war with no victor is like
> masturbation - it might feel good at the time, but it's MUCH less
> satisfying than the alternative.
Real wars don't have points. They were often inconlusive, with many
battles during the war won by each side, and then a peace treaty. I
know that you're _used_ to war points, but that doesn't mean that's
the only way to do it.
The "Pointless War" between Atlantia and the East (held 3 times, then
changed to the Kingdom Crusades) had no points. If you want to argue
about who won each time, have fun. I would suggest doing it over
beers.
> so all that's being accomplished is payment of lip
> service to various anti-fighting factions within our Society.
A vile conspiracy, no doubt.
> Along with the drive of modern/medieval pacifism, has been a concerted
> push towards greater authenticity within the Society.
A definite conspiracy. Let's string them all up! Let's start with all
the people wearing clothes that look like they date before 1600...
-- Gregory Blount
David Friedman
<dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Along with the drive of modern/medieval pacifism, has been a concerted
>push towards greater authenticity within the Society. Our system of
>"scoring" the war is certainly inauthentic....but less inauthentic
>perhaps than a war with no winner.
I would have said that wars without well defined winners were more the
norm than the exception in period. Consider the long conflict between
Harald Haardrada of Norway and Svein Estridsson of Denmark. As best I
recall, Harald, who was a first rate general, won all the battles--and
never gained any land as a result, since nobody in his right mind would
trust him.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
> To have a war with no points is truly pointless. The idea is not to
>win at any cost, but to fight your best fight to bring glory to your
>Kingdom.
But can't you bring glory to your kingdom by winning that particular
battle? After your side has won the field battle and their side has won
the woods battle, you argue that the field battle is what really matters
and the woods battle is just a side show, and they argue ... . Very
realistic.
> Part of the magic of Pennsic is the illusion of war. The pageant and
>drama of the Middle and the East drawing up for glorious battle and
>calling upon their allies to aid them in their quest is what makes the
>dream come alive for me.
I agree that the drama of war is effective, but I'm not sure it requires a
single well defined winner of the whole thing, and I think a point system
if anything undermines it.
For what it is worth, my proposal many years back was that there should be
one battle that counted as "the war." The fiction would be that the two
opposing armies had agreed to a series of chivalric combats before they
met in battle--which would be all the other battles of the war. To my
mind, the dramatic effect is greater with a single battle, win or lose,
than with a point system.
David/Cariadoc
Kirk Poore
thor...@aol.com wrote:
>
...
> To have a war with no points is truly pointless. The idea is not to
> win at any cost, but to fight your best fight to bring glory to your
> Kingdom. After the third or forth trip up that hill in the wood's
> battle you have to be fighting for something bigger than yourself. Last
> year I finished out the war with a badly strained back and a torn
> shoulder muscle but never missed a battle so as not to let down the
> army. That patriotism and duty I feel to The Crowns is an important
> part of why I play.
...
> Let us keep the point system for The War and meet in good and
> honorable combat as we always have. Let the fighters fight. The
> politics are irrelevant.
> Vivat the Dream
>
> In Service to that Dream,
> Lord Hrothgar Thorgrimsson
> Atlantian Warrior
>
Although I find myself in agreement with most of Lord Hrothgar's
attitudes, I come to a different conclusion. I find that I put a full
effort into each battle, and make that effort count to my kingdom's full
success. However, I have seen too many instances where despite local
success the battle is lost, or non-battle warpoints (champion's battles,
archery target shoots, even A&S warpoints) reverse a clear advantage in
battle points, making my battlefield exploits irrelevant to the big
picture. So I no longer keep track of who wins what war, be it the East
vs Middle, or Atenveldt vs Caid or Outlands. (And whenever I go, Gulf
Wars seems to end up a tie.:)) I go out, fight hard, try to help win
the individual battle, shoot archery, and try to make Calontir
successful. But do I care whether the Midrealm wins Pennsic? No.
The problem I have with the Pennsic schedule is that only 4 large
battles are formally scheduled--one per day Wednesday-Saturday. When a
fighter makes a lot of effort to go out, then gets smacked in the first
10 seconds, he might be tempted to question any blow that isn't
terrifically, shall we say, emphatic. More battles mean more chances to
make up for a mistake.
When I wrote my concerns to Viscount Myles, the Pennsic Marshal, he
suggested that other groups sponsor battles. In that light, I can say
that Calontir is working on running a battle on either Friday or
Saturday afternoon after the "formal" battle of the day. We will post
information when things get finalized.
Sir Kirk FitzDavid
Calontir Soldier
BoskSCA
>suggested that other groups sponsor battles. In that light, I can say
>that Calontir is working on running a battle on either Friday or
>Saturday afternoon after the "formal" battle of the day. We will post
>information when things get finalized.
That sounds great! Please keep me infomed on this. You are right about taking
the effort to get out there and not having many battles to participate in might
have some questioning blows. Which would be a shame but may just happen. But if
you and yours get a battle going I would love to get our fighters out there for
it.
Jay Rudin
> Just going on record - We might as well be sitting in a bar playing
> rock-paper-scissors like so many LARPers. A war with no victor is like
> masturbation - it might feel good at the time, but it's MUCH less
> satisfying than the alternative. Informal records of each battle will
> be kept anyway, so all that's being accomplished is payment of lip
> service to various anti-fighting factions within our Society.
This is simply untrue. This week-end I will celebrate my twentieth
anniversary as a rattan fighter in the SCA. I've been fencing somewhat
longer. I don't consider myself anti-fighting, or a member of an
anti-fighting faction. Cumhail, you are making up guesses about other
people and then convincing yourself that they must be true.
> "We fight for fun, not to win!" is a popular rallying cry amongst
> people caught up in fighter-denial,
Cumhail, no suggestion has been made that any fighting should be reduced
or denied. It's accountant-denial that's going on. I fight to win --
but I fight to win the battle I'm in, not the point on some judge's
score-sheet. If each battle is fought, then there is just as much
fighting to win. But without points, there will be less playing silly
games with the point structure to win.
Regardless of bookkeeping done between fights, if we fight the battle to
win the battle, then we fought to win, and there was no
"fighter-denial".
> ... but let's face it...whether you like to consider SCA
> heavy fighting as re-creation, or as the modern/medieval sport that it
> has become, it is a competition. ...
> The enjoyment is a by-product of the
> competition (much of it, for many people, at least).
Of course it's a competition -- between "Lay on" and "Hold". That
competition has nothing to do with points, and everything to do with the
fact that I'm trying to beat you and you're trying to beat me. But
there are no points between "Lay on" and "Hold". Counting points is a
non-fighting, sideline activity.
If you add points, then the competition continues after "Hold" is
called.
Points add nothing to honor. Treating my enemy with honor during the
battle is not affected by the point.
Points add nothing to glory. We don't celebrate the collection of 3 1/2
points; we celebrate the glorious charge, or the brilliant bridge
defense, or the proud line of warriors is full battle array.
Points add nothing to duty. When my king says to fight, I'll fight.
Points add nothing to authenticity. Period wars weren't judged by a
point system.
Points add nothing to excitement. What's the exciting part -- the
fourth point, or the line of 500 warriors charging you?
Points make all political issues worse. They make the competition last
after the last fighter is off the field. They encourage people not to
let go of earlier problems or arguments.
The final battle in last year's Pennsic would not have been cancelled if
there had been no points. In that one case, denying the fighters came
directly from the fact of having points, totally apart from the joy and
honor of strong competition in melee.
> Along with the drive of modern/medieval pacifism, has been a concerted
> push towards greater authenticity within the Society. Our system of
> "scoring" the war is certainly inauthentic....but less inauthentic
> perhaps than a war with no winner. Perhaps our kingdom pride and
> esteem should come from the authenticity of the shoes we wear, but
> strength of our armies is a more period, percieved virtue.
The issue is not whether we should be proud of the strength of our
armies. It is whether we need to do arithmetic at the side of the field
to have that pride.
> There is MUCH more to
> the SCA than fighting. We shouldn't have to downplay the fighting to
> see this. I'm against the lack of war points, and won't attend a
> victorless war (as if anybody cares <G>).
Nobody has suggested downplaying the fighting. I am capable of focusing
on a bridge battle without using an arbitrary tool to add it to the
woods battle and champions battle.
And I will attend any war, if I am able to go, when my Queen calls - or
my King. The point structure, or lack of it, is not my liege. It
cannot make me go, and it cannot make me stay home. I am a fighter, and
I will fight.
Andrew Tye
Just to make an observation from a non-Pennsic-Culture Kingdom, West-An
Tir/An Tir-West War, (aka A&W War), hasn't used war points for years. The
common thought seems to be that the use of war points would emphasize
"winning" over "having fun" and allow rancor to enter the fighting.
Instead, the general idea seems to be "If you had fun fighting, then you
won."
Another reason is that the war alternates between kingdoms yearly and that
due to the distances involved, the hosting kingdom usually greatly
outnumbers the other. If points were used, the "winner" would usually be
foreordained. The common solution is to shift units around so that the
sides are more even and more people actually get to fight in each battle.
As it is, units that get shifted to the opposing kingdom's side are often
spotlighted and their deeds and prowess in battle are noted and praised by
the foreign king and his commanders. Reknown is one of the best reasons
for fighting and is all the sweeter for spreading to foreign courts.*
Ivar Hakonarson
Crosston, West.
Late of Adiantum, An Tir.
*Of course The West and An Tir are still not yet completely foreign to
each other. A&W War traces its roots back to the Gerhard-Gerhard Wars
between the Baronies of Lions' Gate and The Westermark where the Shining
Star of Feudalism did contest with the Running Dog Lackies of Burgerite
Combinationalism; and even in this later day it is not unknown for
Westerners to compete in An Tirian Baroness's Sergeant Tourneys.
Dave Aronson (remove x's to reply)
> As best I recall, Harald, who was a first rate general, won all the
> battles--and never gained any land as a result, since nobody in his
> right mind would trust him.
Perhaps Svein's side had all the good songs. Sorry, just HAD to say it!
B*)
_ _ __
(_` . _ _ _ _ _| _ _ |_) _ _ (_ _
._) | ) | | (_) ) | (_| (/_ _\ |_) (/_ (_( (_( >< (__ (_( (_( ><
Another Fine Product of Ponte Alto, Atlantia
--
Dave Aronson, Sysop, AirNSun (f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org) +1-703-319-0714
Opinions MINE, not by GeoCities/Template/Mensa/NRA/SCA/CAUCE/USGov/God!
Support Rep. Smith's no-spam bill, NOT Sen. Murkowski's spam-is-OK one!
See my web site, http://listen.to/davearonson (last update 1999-05-13).
Bryan J. Maloney
> Just going on record - We might as well be sitting in a bar playing
> rock-paper-scissors like so many LARPers. A war with no victor is like
SCA has no wars. It has very large tournaments, but no wars.
Of course, this is not to say that tournaments never determined victors,
but were "points" the method used?
> "scoring" the war is certainly inauthentic....but less inauthentic
> perhaps than a war with no winner. Perhaps our kingdom pride and esteem
SCA has no wars.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
william thomas powers
I have been to most of the Pennsics held since I moved close 10 years ago.
Usually I had to ask someone "Who Won?" At this date I can't remember
who won *ANY* of the ones I have attended or heard about.
It is wise to remember that the non-fighters outnumber the fighters at
pennsic and realize that many folk would be happier with the Field of the
Cloth of Gold and not Agincourt.
Perhaps some of my friends wouldn't be visiting the hospital during their
vacation if some of the "war fever" abated a bit.
Thomas
noi...@io.com
: The problem I have with the Pennsic schedule is that only 4 large
: battles are formally scheduled--one per day Wednesday-Saturday.
I completely agree - I don't really care one way or the other if the
battles are for points or not, although you *know* every fighter will be
counting how many battles his side "won". However, having only FOUR
mass battles is incredibly disappointing.
In my book, there's no combat-related experience that can match the
thrill of being part of a huge army at a major War. The more folks who
are out in armor at the same time the better.
Change the Pennsic War to a pointless Pennsic Pleasure Faire if you
must, but let's also cater to the folks who take their pleasure in grand
melee.
Therion
David Friedman
(Dave Aronson (remove x's to reply)) wrote:
>DD...@best.com (David Friedman) writes:
>
> > As best I recall, Harald, who was a first rate general, won all the
> > battles--and never gained any land as a result, since nobody in his
> > right mind would trust him.
>
>Perhaps Svein's side had all the good songs. Sorry, just HAD to say it!
No, but Svein does come out on top in the saga of Audunn (sp?) and the bear.
As Harald puts it at some point in the saga, "Svein Estridsson is a very
generous man."
David/Cariadoc
mittle
Greetings from Arval! Cariadoc wrote:
> I agree that the drama of war is effective, but I'm not sure it requires
> a single well defined winner of the whole thing, and I think a point
> system if anything undermines it.
It may be that people are bringing modern expectations to medieval
competitions. Modern competitions -- eliminations, round-robins, etc. --
are designed to mechanically determine an overall winner. Medieval
tournaments were not. In many of them, there was no overall rating at
all. When prizes were awarded, the choices were made by judges, not by a
mechanical process built into the tournament itself.
And of course the notion of a "winner" -- let alone a point-scoring system
-- is even less obviously applicable if we think of Pennsic as a war.
Therion wrote:
> Change the Pennsic War to a pointless Pennsic Pleasure Faire if you
> must, but let's also cater to the folks who take their pleasure in grand
> melee.
I don't see any relation between the two things. If anything, dropping the
Zebee Johnstone
mittle <mit...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Therion wrote:
>
>> Change the Pennsic War to a pointless Pennsic Pleasure Faire if you
>> must, but let's also cater to the folks who take their pleasure in grand
>> melee.
>
>I don't see any relation between the two things. If anything, dropping the
>point system might increase the number of large battles, since the kingdom
>expecting the smaller turn-out won't have any reason to veto them.
Pretty much how it works at Rowany Festival.
There is plenty of fighting, but the "sides" fighting don't matter all
that much. Sometimes we have a "war" between one group and another over
something, with unaffiliated groups evening up the sides. I seem to
recall that one year one of the "sides" was well understrength due to
circumstances beyond their control, so people from the other "side"
swapped over to even it up.
Usually, no one remembers who won! There are sometimes lots of good
natured jokes, but it's not important. What's important is the fighting
and the individual displays of prowess. Festival isn't about the
fighting only, it has a hell of a lot more going on, the fighting
is just another thing we do.
The same happens in the various wars that spring up where war is the
focus rather than part of it. The concept of "group rivalry" is an
excuse not a reason to fight.
I think spending a lot of emotional energy on "who won" and making it
important encourages people to focus on the wrong thing.
Silfren
--
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au) Proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"You don't own an Italian motorcycle
- you merely have the privilege of paying its bills."
ThranSloth
In article <374BDDB7...@servtech.com>, georg wrote:
<< Lord Erec wrote:
>
> Greetings all. I've heard on the EK listserv there is to be no war points at
> Pennsic this year. Is this true? Is this wise, melchior? Who would make
such
> a decision? Could someone shed some light on this please?
This is what I have heard as well. With the bad feelings left over from
last year's "unfinished" war, I think it's a positive step to remind
everyone that we should go to Pennsic to have fun- and not to actually
quibble about winning, or other petty things that could interfere with
the fun.
The decision was reached by a council of royalty from several kingdoms;
whether a formal gathering or not, I do not know. >>
The following is according to the Pennsic war web page (and is mimicked in the
Pre-Pennsic book):
"Archery at Pennsic XXVIII will be the same as last year. There will be three
mass War Point shoots and a Champions War
Point shoot. The War Points will consist of the Clout, Advancing Warrior, the
Castle Window and the Archery Champions. "
I couldn't find anything about the Heavy Fighting war points, but I would be
surprised if they only had war points for Archery.
In Service,
Gillean ab Lywellen
Thran Sloth
Greg Lindahl
> It is wise to remember that the non-fighters outnumber the fighters at
> pennsic and realize that many folk would be happier with the Field of the
> Cloth of Gold and not Agincourt.
It is also wise to avoid letting the issue be defined as "fighters
vs. non-fighters". Some fighters like not having war points. Many of
the folks who decided that this year's Pennsic should be pointless are
fighters.
> Perhaps some of my friends wouldn't be visiting the hospital during their
> vacation if some of the "war fever" abated a bit.
Cooler heads would probably lead to fewer injuries, yes. It's a
constant struggle to keep bad attitudes in check.
-- Gregory Blount
Lord Erec
constant struggle to keep bad attitudes in check.
Wouldn't dealing witht he bad attitudes directly be more effective than some
vague and blanket decision such as, 'no war points this year'?
Ever in Service,
David Friedman
> My issue with the lack of points is that it takes away from the scope
>of Pennsic. If you break it down to just one battle, it loses it's
>"legendary proportions". The week-long struggle through the various
>scenarios is where the magic lies.
It might if there were some attempt to integrate the scenarios, so that it
felt like a single campaign--but that isn't how it is done.
David/Cariadoc
Bredin Zierd
>>And it was some of the cleanest, most honorable fighting I have
>>ever had the priveledge to participate in. I wouldn't want that to
>>change.
>>honorable combat as we always have. Let the fighters fight. The
>>politics are irrelevant.
>> Vivat the Dream
>>
>
with
>the sentiment exactly. I have not heard such a summation of Pennsic in
quite a
>while and it was great. Do not let politics mess up the game, let it be
played
>with honour and courage and dignity.
I'll agree that politics (lit. many blood sucking insects) should always be
left out of events like this. However I will make one observation:
As soon as you have three people you have politics.
Sad, but true.
--
Religion is the necropolis of Gods
-Lord Zierd, Cynic of the Inner Circle
BoskSCA
>
>Sad, but true
Good point indeed. As much as one tries to avoid it, it creeps in.
thor...@aol.com
>
> I agree that the drama of war is effective, but I'm not sure it
requires a
> single well defined winner of the whole thing, and I think a point
system
> if anything undermines it.
Your Grace,
My issue with the lack of points is that it takes away from the scope
of Pennsic. If you break it down to just one battle, it loses it's
"legendary proportions". The week-long struggle through the various
scenarios is where the magic lies.
In my mind, it is not so much that the war points matter but that
there is felt a need to dispose of them because of misunderstandings
regarding the Eastern Allies withdrawal from the field last year.
Several friends of mine from the Middle were under the impression that
we quit because we couldn't win. Nothing could be farther from the
truth. In all honesty, I think the second field battle would have been
almost as much of a massacre as the first. We had some interesting
strategies planned that I would have enjoyed seeing but basically it
was too much of a "target rich environment" even for Atlantians.
There is certainly as much honor in losing as is winning. Perhaps
even more. Duty to Crown and Kingdom doesn't rely on anything as
fleeting as "points". It is not whether you win or lose it is how you
play the game. But winning doesn't suck.
Let the points stand. Let the fighters fight. Let's all have fun and
do it all again and again..
Hrothgar
> For what it is worth, my proposal many years back was that there
should be
> one battle that counted as "the war." The fiction would be that the
two
> opposing armies had agreed to a series of chivalric combats before
they
> met in battle--which would be all the other battles of the war. To my
> mind, the dramatic effect is greater with a single battle, win or
lose,
> than with a point system.
>
> David/Cariadoc
>
Alban
from the scope of Pennsic. If you break it down to just one
battle, it loses it's "legendary proportions". The week-long
struggle through the various scenarios is where the magic
lies.<<
Possibility two: No points. Week-long struggle. Yup,
same magic. But no-one's keeping score.
>>Duty to Crown and Kingdom doesn't rely on anything as
fleeting as "points". It is not whether you win or lose it is
how you play the game.<<
The point exactly; which makes me wonder why you're
arguing so strenuously for points. If playing the game
is what's important, why worry about who's winning
or losing?
Marcus MacFarlane
Yes, Pennsic has no War Points this year.
However it will be far from Pointless. ;-)
Its still fun and exciting, and it our Vacation! And, for most of us
its the only decent vacation all year, so Points or not, we're going to
go, have fun, and relax.
See you at War...
Marcus MacFarlane
Clan...@HoTMaiL.com
jk
>
>
>thor...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>...
>> To have a war with no points is truly pointless. The idea is not to
>> win at any cost, but to fight your best fight to bring glory to your
>> Kingdom. After the third or forth trip up that hill in the wood's
>> battle you have to be fighting for something bigger than yourself. Last
>> year I finished out the war with a badly strained back and a torn
>> shoulder muscle but never missed a battle so as not to let down the
>> army. That patriotism and duty I feel to The Crowns is an important
>> part of why I play.
Sounds to me like he is missing the point. (Clearly ymmv)
>>
>
>> In that light, I can say
>that Calontir is working on running a battle on either Friday or
>Saturday afternoon after the "formal" battle of the day. We will post
>information when things get finalized.
>
>Sir Kirk FitzDavid
>Calontir Soldier
Good. One of the best "pensic" battles I have been in, was a calontir
sponsored castle battle. Good clean fun, lots of fighting, no "must
win" attitude.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>For what it is worth, my proposal many years back was that there should be
>one battle that counted as "the war." The fiction would be that the two
>opposing armies had agreed to a series of chivalric combats before they
>met in battle--which would be all the other battles of the war. To my
>mind, the dramatic effect is greater with a single battle, win or lose,
>than with a point system.
I would go even further: I have thought for some years that Pennsic is
really more of a merchant fair than anything else and that the battles
are merely parts of a great tournament. I see no real need for a
single winner or a final result at all.
Talan
Brian M. Scott
powers) wrote:
>It is wise to remember that the non-fighters outnumber the fighters at
>pennsic and realize that many folk would be happier with the Field of the
>Cloth of Gold and not Agincourt.
Bingo! Some of us think of it that way already - including some of us
who have fought at Pennsic.
Talan
Malachias Invictus
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>I think spending a lot of emotional energy on "who won" and making
>it important encourages people to focus on the wrong thing.
I generally agree; however, I recall with some pleasantness some of the
evening "boasting matches" over who won the day at the A&W War. It was all
for fun, of course, and some boasts were quite poetic. I must say, our
neighbors in An Tir are quite adept at this!
>Silfren
Herr Malachias von Morgenstern
Captain of the Galatea
Danegeld Tor/Cynagua/West
Vanyel
Brian M. Scott wrote in message <374cd82...@news.csuohio.edu>...
>really more of a merchant fair than anything else and that the battles
>are merely parts of a great tournament. I see no real need for a
>single winner or a final result at all.
>
>Talan
Well, I have never myself thought of Pennsic as anything other than a
shopping event. Where as when I hear people refer to "The War" I always
have to stop and wonder then realize what they are referring to. As to a
winner or final result... I guess that depends on what ones reason for going
IS.
I myself am happy enough to find that ever needed hopelessly 600 years
out of fashion fill in the blank. And have noticed that even the fighters I
know always tell me what they bought ( never has anyone told me who won. )
this however might be because I never seem to remember that Pensic is
anything other than a sales event.
Vanyel
EXCMairi
have given us a sign that they were not happy with the way things fell out last
year and they want things to be different this year.
Whether or not this is the best way to handle it doesn't even really matter
(especially at this late date). The fact that they have made some kind of
effort to Play Nice with each other should be recognized and appreciated.
Mairi
jaZZmanian Devil
Tracy Schulman wrote:
>
> It was done before, Pennsic XX I believe, there was mixed feelings then, and I
> believe there will be mixed feelings now. Just my two pents.
> Aine
>
> Ian Andrew Engle wrote:
>
> > Lord Erec (lord...@aol.com) wrote:
> > : Greetings all. I've heard on the EK listserv there is to be no war points at
> > : Pennsic this year. Is this true? Is this wise, melchior? Who would make such
> > : a decision? Could someone shed some light on this please?
> >
> > Is it wise?
This may have been addressed many times before, and if so, please
pardon... but terming Pennsic to be "pointless" either in principle or
because of a lack of war points might be a bit after the fact. The
origins of Pennsic, AIU, were always the good natured fight between the
Mid and the East over the "debatable lands" near Pittsburgh. For a good
period of time now, though, these lands have lain clearly in
AEthelmearc. Having the Mid and the East come in and fight over them
has made the entire thing rather pointless, eh? It's all for fun, so it
would seem getting bent out of shape over war points, or a lack thereof,
would be extra worry and angst over nothing. Just MHO, of course.
Jakys the Cheesemonger.
Lyle H. Gray
David Friedman wrote in message ...
>It might if there were some attempt to integrate the scenarios, so that it
>felt like a single campaign--but that isn't how it is done.
... any more...
Lyle FitzWilliam
mittle
Greetings from Arval!
> >As soon as you have three people you have politics.
> Good point indeed. As much as one tries to avoid it, it creeps in.
"Politics" is a much misunderstood word. It is too often used incorrectly
as if all politics were bad politics. That is not true.
Politics is the art of getting things done. Good politicians get a lot
done by balancing the interests of their constituents and forging
compromises. Bad politicians either bulldoze ahead, ignoring competing
interests, or get nothing done because they can't convince people to
compromise.
It is certainly true that politics accompanies any group of people; but all
that means is that the members of any group will inevitably have competing
interests. If we are to accomplish anything, we have to recognize that
fact and deal with it. Dealing with it is politics.
If you want to decry bad politics, go right ahead. But avoiding all
politics means surrendering any possibility of progress.
Dave Aronson (remove x's to reply)
> davea...@xgeocitiesx.com (Dave Aronson (remove x's to reply)) wrote:
>
> >DD...@best.com (David Friedman) writes:
> >
> > > As best I recall, Harald, who was a first rate general, won all the
> > > battles--and never gained any land as a result, since nobody in his
> > > right mind would trust him.
> >
> >Perhaps Svein's side had all the good songs. Sorry, just HAD to say it!
>
> No, but Svein does come out on top in the saga of Audunn (sp?) and the bear.
I am not familiar with this. Would you please summarize the plot?
Thanks in advance....
Cumhail
>
> Cumhail wrote:
>
> > Just going on record - We might as well be sitting in a bar playing
> > rock-paper-scissors like so many LARPers. A war with no victor is like
> > satisfying than the alternative. Informal records of each battle will
> > be kept anyway, so all that's being accomplished is payment of lip
> > service to various anti-fighting factions within our Society.
>
> This is simply untrue. This week-end I will celebrate my twentieth
> anniversary as a rattan fighter in the SCA. I've been fencing somewhat
> longer. I don't consider myself anti-fighting, or a member of an
> anti-fighting faction. Cumhail, you are making up guesses about other
> people and then convincing yourself that they must be true.
>
Please, Master Robin, clarify which of my statements you find fault
with. There are factions within our Society that are (to varying
degrees) anti-fighting. The years that I, myself have spent wielding
rattan are less your score by three, and neither number proves ought,
but that we fight. Pray, what guesses have I made up, and about whom?
I've kept an accounting of those who did say me nay on this matter,
and the list reads much as I did expect. Cariadoc, of course. The
ducal agenda is ever worn well outside his coat, for Allah, and the
world to see, so his detraction was of small surprise. Gregory Blount.
The minds of that Isenfiri and I are ever at odds and we think no more
alike than does a duck and a falcon. Your own opposition I did
anticipate, but your arguement did take me unawares. In my thoughts, I
would have set you squarely in the "fun is more important than winning"
camp. Now, mark you, I do not say that winning is more important that
making a bonny time of it all, but do think that a balance must be
struck between the senses of competition and enjoyment. Like the two
sides of a scale - if one side holds scant weight no measuring is done.
I tell you now, and forthrightly, competition is a muckle big part of
the enjoyment that I find on the field of war or tourny. I am not alone
in this - accuse me no accusations and guess me no guesses, I know this
to be true, my I die abed if it's not. Tell me that you think that the
competitive spirit has no place in our fighting, and like, our fighting
has no need for such spirt and I'll believe you, for I've not know you
to be a dissembler. I'll not agree with you, however, for I do know my
own heart, and well I ken the hearts of some others, or know by their
own lips that they are like-minded.
> > "We fight for fun, not to win!" is a popular rallying cry amongst
> > people caught up in fighter-denial,
>
> Cumhail, no suggestion has been made that any fighting should be reduced
> or denied. It's accountant-denial that's going on. I fight to win --
> but I fight to win the battle I'm in, not the point on some judge's
> score-sheet. If each battle is fought, then there is just as much
> fighting to win. But without points, there will be less playing silly
> games with the point structure to win.
>
> Regardless of bookkeeping done between fights, if we fight the battle to
> win the battle, then we fought to win, and there was no
> "fighter-denial".
>
Fought to win what? You yourself know that despite the system of
points, fighters often do not know who carried the day at Pennsic.
Those to whom it is most important will figure it, anon. Those with
little care will still be happily unaware, so I ask you - who does this
move serve? It let's us cry "See, winning is not important" for all to
hear. Nothing but lip service, I tell you again.
> > ... but let's face it...whether you like to consider SCA
> > heavy fighting as re-creation, or as the modern/medieval sport that it
> > has become, it is a competition. ...
> > The enjoyment is a by-product of the
> > competition (much of it, for many people, at least).
>
> Of course it's a competition -- between "Lay on" and "Hold". That
> competition has nothing to do with points, and everything to do with the
> fact that I'm trying to beat you and you're trying to beat me. But
> there are no points between "Lay on" and "Hold". Counting points is a
> non-fighting, sideline activity.
>
In a series of battle, how else does one count a victor? By who
carried the mosts battles, certes. The system also allows for archers,
and oft, other less martial wights to strive for their kingdom, some
little glory and MUCH satisfaction.
> If you add points, then the competition continues after "Hold" is
> called.
>
> Points add nothing to honor. Treating my enemy with honor during the
> battle is not affected by the point.
>
What part of my arguement are these righteous words meant to refute?
That is another part of battle that (though perhaps the most important),
need not be addressed here.
> Points add nothing to glory. We don't celebrate the collection of 3 1/2
> points; we celebrate the glorious charge, or the brilliant bridge
> defense, or the proud line of warriors is full battle array.
>
> Points add nothing to duty. When my king says to fight, I'll fight.
>
> Points add nothing to authenticity. Period wars weren't judged by a
> point system.
>
> Points add nothing to excitement. What's the exciting part -- the
> fourth point, or the line of 500 warriors charging you?
>
> Points make all political issues worse. They make the competition last
> after the last fighter is off the field. They encourage people not to
> let go of earlier problems or arguments.
>
> The final battle in last year's Pennsic would not have been cancelled if
> there had been no points. In that one case, denying the fighters came
> directly from the fact of having points, totally apart from the joy and
> honor of strong competition in melee.
>
So....if the benighted mockers won't behave as we say they should,
we'll change the rules to add a subliminal inducement!! Bah!! We need
to change those we can, accept the rest as a fact of life and carry on.
Honorable behavior is something that we all should be constantly
striving to cultivate within ourselfs (none of us has it perfectly, nor
ever will). With ourselves to worry about, we should have no time to
try and make others behave as we want them to, with schemes and
trickery.
>
> The issue is not whether we should be proud of the strength of our
> armies. It is whether we need to do arithmetic at the side of the field
> to have that pride.
>
No points - no victor. Neither army will hold possession of the
debatable lands when the last hungover, drum-banging, loincloth wearing
reveler wends their way home. The arithmetic is our only measure. Just
as you measure your years on the field...just as you measure you words,
whether it be in hot debate, or sweet sonnet. We NEED, as humans, to
measure. We measure ourselves, we measure our towns, we measure our
cultures and we measure our armies. How else do we know if, when and
where we require improvemnt. Denied this knowledge, we might cease to
improve, atrophy, stagnate, and die.
> > There is MUCH more to
> > the SCA than fighting. We shouldn't have to downplay the fighting to
> > see this. I'm against the lack of war points, and won't attend a
> > victorless war (as if anybody cares <G>).
>
> Nobody has suggested downplaying the fighting. I am capable of focusing
> on a bridge battle without using an arbitrary tool to add it to the
> woods battle and champions battle.
>
> And I will attend any war, if I am able to go, when my Queen calls - or
> my King. The point structure, or lack of it, is not my liege. It
> cannot make me go, and it cannot make me stay home. I am a fighter, and
> I will fight.
>
These last words have been measured well <wink>, but you'll not clench
this debate by committing poesy. Did my king insist, I too would fight.
Honor cannot be cast aside for mere political protest. He will not,
however, so I will not. I do wish you a fair time, and two more tens of
years an' you wish it, marching to war.
your servant,
Cumhail
JULIE ELAINE SIERACKI
Actually, the SCA does have wars. That's what the points are about.
The strategy comes about as Kingdoms negotiate treaties that allow them
to bring their strengths to bear (military might, productive crafstmen, etc)
and jockey for position by arranging alliances and even hiring
mercenaries.
Naturally this sometimes reflects the worst sides of war. Pettiness,
cruelty, and deceit are sometimes evidenced. People fight hard for the
war points, sometimes too hard. So while our armies may not tromp about
the countryside putting villages to the torch, skirmishing with foraging
parties and local militias we still have a partial re-creation of a war.
But this is the SCA, remember. Room for everyone who has one foot in
reality-based history and enough sense not to wear fangs or pointy ears?
If the organizers of this year's Pennsic want to make this a giant
tournament (historical precedents abound) and fair then why not give it
a try? This means, of course, that the focus is somewhat shifted. Perhaps
Kings and Queens will rise before their subjects and exhort them to acts
of chivalry and courtesy. Maybe they will remind them that the focus of
a tournament is excellence of action, not success. Now is the time, they
might say, to show the world that we are the flower of chivalry and
courtesy among all other kingdoms.
I'll miss the cut-throat tactics and being trampled underfoot and trampling
people underfoot, but there's always next year.
Jester of Anglesey
posting from my wife's account
flame me at jjord...@hotmail.com
Cumhail
>
> Ivar here,
>
> Just to make an observation from a non-Pennsic-Culture Kingdom, West-An
> Tir/An Tir-West War, (aka A&W War), hasn't used war points for years. The
> common thought seems to be that the use of war points would emphasize
> "winning" over "having fun" and allow rancor to enter the fighting.
> Instead, the general idea seems to be "If you had fun fighting, then you
> won."
>
That's ever so politically correct. Never would I say that winning is
more important than having fun. The ability to lose cheerfully or not,
however, tells much about a fighter's graces and is a virtue that should
be pursued. One can't pursue the virtue if one is not tried.
> Another reason is that the war alternates between kingdoms yearly and that
> due to the distances involved, the hosting kingdom usually greatly
> outnumbers the other. If points were used, the "winner" would usually be
> foreordained.
Why then, the Tyger should have won every Pennsic. This problem has
been dealt with, and on those times when it does come up...well, those
are the fortunes of war.
The common solution is to shift units around so that the
> sides are more even and more people actually get to fight in each battle.
> As it is, units that get shifted to the opposing kingdom's side are often
> spotlighted and their deeds and prowess in battle are noted and praised by
> the foreign king and his commanders. Reknown is one of the best reasons
> for fighting and is all the sweeter for spreading to foreign courts.*
All true....I can't see how it reflects upon the situation, tho (of
course, I'm slow at times).
<snip>
War points are not the antithesis of anything, as far as I can tell.
They are not wicked of themselves, and if they promote such in some
people, well surely it is the people who are at fault.
your servant,
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
> In article <374C0D...@mindspring.com>, Cumhail
> <dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Just going on record - We might as well be sitting in a bar playing
> > rock-paper-scissors like so many LARPers. A war with no victor is like
>
><snip>
Bryan, spare us your sophistry. We are all painfully aware of your
opinion on this subject, which, (I am of the opinion that) is best left
to those affected by it.
your servant,
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
> It is also wise to avoid letting the issue be defined as "fighters
> vs. non-fighters". Some fighters like not having war points. Many of
> the folks who decided that this year's Pennsic should be pointless are
> fighters.
>
> Cooler heads would probably lead to fewer injuries, yes. It's a
> constant struggle to keep bad attitudes in check.
>
Master Blount, you have proven me wrong, for on this we are both of
one mind.
your servant,
Cumhail
Greg Lindahl
> Wouldn't dealing witht he bad attitudes directly be more effective than some
> vague and blanket decision such as, 'no war points this year'?
Changing the rules is a classic way of dealing with bad attitudes
directly: by removing the cause. As you've heard, other wars have done
the same thing. Even Pennsic has recently had similar steps to reduce
problems, namely the "Friendship War" a few years back.
-- gb
Bryan J. Maloney
<dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote:
How many real casualties have occured? They're not wars. To claim that
they are wars is to indulge in sophistry.
--
To women contemplating marriage: The question you should ask is not
"How much do I love him?" The real question is "How much can I
tolerate him?"
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Bryan J. Maloney
(JULIE ELAINE SIERACKI) wrote:
> Actually, the SCA does have wars. That's what the points are about.
How many real deaths occur? How much real territory actually changes
hands? How much booty is actually looted? How much real tribute is
exacted from the vanquished? What dynasties are toppled? What seats of
power are altered?
They're not wars, they're tournaments.
David Friedman
<dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>No points - no victor. Neither army will hold possession of the
>debatable lands when the last hungover, drum-banging, loincloth wearing
>reveler wends their way home.
Just to correct a persistent bit of SCA mythology ... . The original
excuse for Pennsic was not that the East and the Middle were fighting over
Pittsburgh--the Barony Marche of the debatable lands didn't exist at the
time. The original excuse was that we were fighting over whose banner
would go first when we invaded the West.
David/Cariadoc
David Friedman
<jazzm...@myremarq.com> wrote:
> The
>origins of Pennsic, AIU, were always the good natured fight between the
>Mid and the East over the "debatable lands" near Pittsburgh.
Not correct. The Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands came into existence
after Pennsic did.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
(Dave Aronson (remove x's to reply)) wrote:
>I am not familiar with this. Would you please summarize the plot?
>Thanks in advance....
A man trades everything he owns for a captured polar bear, with the
intention of taking it as a gift to King Svein Estridsson of Denmark. He
has a hard time of it. Eventually he ends up in the court of King Harald
Sigurdsson of Norway, Svein's enemy, who covets the bear. Being a simple
minded sort, Audun refuses to give or sell the bear to Harald, and tells
Harald what he is doing with the bear, and Harald sends him on his way,
with instructions to come back and tell Harald how Svein treated him.
Eventually Audun makes it to Svein's court, is treated very generously
indeed. Audun eventually makes it back to Harald's court, where he tells
Harald what happened. The exchange (from memory) goes something like this
(details invented).
A: Svein gave me this fine gold arm ring.
H: I would have done as much
A. And these magnificent clothes, and fed me for the winter, and ...
H. I might have done as much
A. And a ship and crew to take me on pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
H. Svein Estridsson is a very generous man.
Kale (sp.) from Carolingia once told the whole thing at my bardic circle;
it was wonderful.
David/Cariadoc
thor...@aol.com
DD...@best.com (David Friedman) wrote:
> In article <374D4271...@myremarq.com>, jaZZmanian Devil
> <jazzm...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>
> > The
> >origins of Pennsic, AIU, were always the good natured fight between
the
> >Mid and the East over the "debatable lands" near Pittsburgh.
>
> Not correct. The Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands came into
existence
> after Pennsic did.
> --
> David Friedman
Now THAT is a fine reason for a war. Count me in.
Hrothgar
> DD...@Best.com
> http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Duncan VH
>
>> Wouldn't dealing witht he bad attitudes directly be more effective than
>some
>> vague and blanket decision such as, 'no war points this year'?
>
I hope people learn from this, maybe to remind them why we do it. I don't like
to see things that affect the whole change because of a few. I think it's
better to try to change the people then the system. Maybe this will give the
problem people a chance to see that some things aren't as all important as they
think.
This will be my tenth Pennsic comming up and usually most of the problems
aren't the people , it's the politics. So the message has to get to the people
in charge, their actions set the mood for things like Pennsic.
Kenneth Moyle
David Friedman wrote in message ...
>excuse for Pennsic was not that the East and the Middle were fighting over
>Pittsburgh--the Barony Marche of the debatable lands didn't exist at the
>time. The original excuse was that we were fighting over whose banner
>would go first when we invaded the West.
I have long understood that it was because some silly bugger declared
wan on himself... though I suppose that the two stories are not
incompatible.
Respectfully....
.....Kenneth Moyle / Cinaed de Moray
/------------------------------------------------------------\
| Kenneth C. Moyle moy...@mcmaster.ca |
| Computing Services Coordinator, Faculty of Engineering |
| http://www.mcmaster.ca/cis/csc/eng (905) 525-9140 X24156 |
| McMaster University - Hamilton, Ontario (Canada) |
\------------------------------------------------------------/
Lord Erec
"I hope people learn from this, maybe to remind them why we do it." This never
works. Those who need it most are usually too self-righteous to ever thing
that it is aimed at them.
"the problems
aren't the people , it's the politics."
What!?! People are the origin, perpetuators and demise of politics. The only
way to eliminate politics is solitary confinement.
Ever in Service,
Lord Erec L'Claire
http://members.aol.com/lorderec/
Lord Erec
the average joe. If they are unhappy with the way things fell, they should
APOLOGIZE directly, explicitly and without hedging their words, shifting blame
or otherwise skirting the issue.
The method in which it is handled is everything. It is the difference between
honor and dishonor, truth or deciet, guilt or innocence. We all make mistakes
and bad decisions. It is how we deal with them that makes us what we are
Marcus MacFarlane
> The method in which it is handled is everything. It is the difference
between
> honor and dishonor, truth or deciet, guilt or innocence. We all make
mistakes
> and bad decisions. It is how we deal with them that makes us what we
are
HERE! HERE! Ah... Now can someone explain what happened last year, I
missed P27 and don't know of the references.
Cheers...
Marcus MacFarlane
Clan...@HoTMaiL.com
thor...@aol.com
> Mairi, the royalty are responsible for what happened last year,
certainly not
> the average joe. If they are unhappy with the way things fell, they
should
> APOLOGIZE directly, explicitly and without hedging their words,
shifting blame
> or otherwise skirting the issue.
That pretty well sums up my position. Rather than point fingers and
spread the blame around, let the responsibility lie with those who
caused the problem last year. Not the fighters. Not the design of the
war. Not a misplaced zeal for victory as some seem to feel is the
culprit. There is no sense in letting last year's poor decisions and
even poorer choices of words bleed over into this year's event.
Hrothgar
Greycat Sharpclaw
>In article <374D4271...@myremarq.com>, jaZZmanian Devil
><jazzm...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>
>> The
>>origins of Pennsic, AIU, were always the good natured fight between the
>>Mid and the East over the "debatable lands" near Pittsburgh.
>
>Not correct. The Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands came into existence
>after Pennsic did.
Although I seem to remember the legend predating the territorial group
there... hence the name of the group. The first version of the legend
I learned (back in AS XII) included the caveat "loser gets it".
Greycat Sharpclaw
- does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
David Friedman
>Although I seem to remember the legend predating the territorial group
>there... hence the name of the group. The first version of the legend
>I learned (back in AS XII) included the caveat "loser gets it".
The Barony Marche was a major force by Pennsic III, and I believe some of
their people were present at Pennsic II. I was talking about the original
justification, not more recent inventions.
David/Cariadoc
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Jay Rudin wrote:
>> Cumhail wrote:
>> > Just going on record - We might as well be sitting in a bar playing
>> > rock-paper-scissors like so many LARPers. A war with no victor is like
>> > masturbation - it might feel good at the time, but it's MUCH less
>> > satisfying than the alternative. Informal records of each battle will
>> > be kept anyway, so all that's being accomplished is payment of lip
>> > service to various anti-fighting factions within our Society.
>> This is simply untrue. This week-end I will celebrate my twentieth
>> anniversary as a rattan fighter in the SCA. I've been fencing somewhat
>> longer. I don't consider myself anti-fighting, or a member of an
>> anti-fighting faction. Cumhail, you are making up guesses about other
>> people and then convincing yourself that they must be true.
> Please, Master Robin, clarify which of my statements you find fault
>with. There are factions within our Society that are (to varying
>degrees) anti-fighting.
There are folks who think that it's overemphasized; I've never seen
any significant body that I'd describe as genuinely anti-fighting,
however.
> The years that I, myself have spent wielding
>rattan are less your score by three, and neither number proves ought,
>but that we fight. Pray, what guesses have I made up, and about whom?
You seem to be very quick to guess at motivations.
> I've kept an accounting of those who did say me nay on this matter,
>and the list reads much as I did expect. Cariadoc, of course. The
>ducal agenda is ever worn well outside his coat, for Allah, and the
>world to see, so his detraction was of small surprise.
Ducal agenda?
> Now, mark you, I do not say that winning is more important that
>making a bonny time of it all, but do think that a balance must be
>struck between the senses of competition and enjoyment.
You have yet to establish that there is significantly less sense of
competition when no tally of points is kept. The real competition is
within the individual battle, perhaps even within the small
engagements that it comprises. The overall scoring system is an
artificial add-on.
> I tell you now, and forthrightly, competition is a muckle big part of
>the enjoyment that I find on the field of war or tourny.
Your notion of competition seems somehow rather limited. If you fight
in 5 battles, you get 5 battles' worth of competition.
>> Regardless of bookkeeping done between fights, if we fight the battle to
>> win the battle, then we fought to win, and there was no
>> "fighter-denial".
> Fought to win what?
The individual battles, of course. He even *said* so.
> It let's us cry "See, winning is not important" for all to
>hear. Nothing but lip service, I tell you again.
You're imputing motives again, and insultingly, at that.
> In a series of battle, how else does one count a victor? By who
>carried the mosts battles, certes. The system also allows for archers,
>and oft, other less martial wights to strive for their kingdom, some
>little glory and MUCH satisfaction.
Horsefeathers. One gets satisfaction from having fought or shot well.
One's satisfaction may be somewhat increased if one's companions have
also done so, and one's side has thereby won the battle or the shoot.
The accountants' tally of disparate competitions is too artificial to
mean much in terms of personal satisfaction.
I wonder how serious you are about your argument. If you're right, it
would be easy enough to spread the satisfaction around even more
widely by adding, oh, a calligraphy point, a glass-blowing point, a
cooking point, and so on.
> No points - no victor.
Nonsense. There are as many victors as there are competitions.
> Neither army will hold possession of the
>debatable lands when the last hungover, drum-banging, loincloth wearing
>reveler wends their way home. The arithmetic is our only measure. Just
>as you measure your years on the field...just as you measure you words,
>whether it be in hot debate, or sweet sonnet. We NEED, as humans, to
>measure. We measure ourselves, we measure our towns, we measure our
>cultures and we measure our armies. How else do we know if, when and
>where we require improvemnt. Denied this knowledge, we might cease to
>improve, atrophy, stagnate, and die.
Nice oratory, but not much to the point (and greatly overblown,
considering the essential unimportance of the subject). Artificially
picking an overall winner measures ... nothing much. The real
measuring, both of individuals and of groups, occurs at the butts, in
the shieldwall, or wherever the actual competition occurs.
Talan
EXCMairi
>the average joe. If they are unhappy with the way things fell, they should
>APOLOGIZE directly, explicitly and without hedging their words, shifting
>blame
>or otherwise skirting the issue
HELLO!!!! It's different people on the throne this year.
Mairi
jaZZmanian Devil
>
> In article <374D4271...@myremarq.com>, jaZZmanian Devil
> <jazzm...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>
> > The
> >origins of Pennsic, AIU, were always the good natured fight between the
> >Mid and the East over the "debatable lands" near Pittsburgh.
>
> Not correct. The Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands came into existence
> after Pennsic did.
In case there are other relative newbies here (i.e only 3 years in SCA
in my case) could you expand on that? I don't find much early history of
Pennsic at their web site relating to this question. I was under the
impression that it has always been a "border war" between the East and
the Mid. Perhaps using the term "debatable lands" was wrong and
confusing, since that brings the name of the Barony to mind, but I've
always heard it described as such a border war with "the loser gets
Pittsburgh" as the standard running joke. If that wasn't the theme of
Pennsic, what was it? And if it *was* in fact a border war, how is it
treated now that the land in question is no longer anywhere near the
East Kingdom's borders? Thanks in advance for your tolerance of
questions from newer members.
Jakys
--
"Did you get left behind on the telepathy bus? Maybe you can make up for
it by growing a set of horns and a pig-like snout. That way, you
wouldn't need plastic surgery to improve your looks."
---Jon Osborn
Duncan VH
>What!?! People are the origin, perpetuators and demise of politics. The
>only
>way to eliminate politics is solitary confinement.
I'm saying the problems are caused by the people in charge, that's where the
politics are. There is little I can do to affect the workings of Pennsic, but
they can make or ruin it with a few words or actions.
Duncan
Lyle H. Gray
jaZZmanian Devil wrote in message <374E8D08...@myremarq.com>...
>If that wasn't the theme of
>Pennsic, what was it? And if it *was* in fact a border war, how is it
>treated now that the land in question is no longer anywhere near the
>East Kingdom's borders? Thanks in advance for your tolerance of
>questions from newer members.
The way I heard it, it was a war to decide who would lead a campaign against
the West...
Lyle FitzWilliam
Cumhail
>
> There are folks who think that it's overemphasized; I've never seen
> any significant body that I'd describe as genuinely anti-fighting,
> however.
>
And so they obviously don't exist? I've met them, I've corresponded
with them and read posts from them on the Rialto. Many people in our
society DO think fighting to be overemphasized and many of called for
its outright ban. It's these former that I refer to as "anti-fighting"
in an effort to be succinct.
>
> You seem to be very quick to guess at motivations.
>
Gee.....it seems that you're only guessing that I made a guess, Talan.
>
> Ducal agenda?
>
Try and read into the post, Talan. His grace Cariadoc is one of the
most zealous, and high profile proponants of authenticity and
persona-play in it purest form in the known world. He makes his views
very clear and works very hard towards his chosen end. Quite admirable,
really. Perfectly clear? The word "agenda" doesn't automatically have
negative conotations.
.
>
> You have yet to establish that there is significantly less sense of
> competition when no tally of points is kept. The real competition is
> within the individual battle, perhaps even within the small
> engagements that it comprises. The overall scoring system is an
> artificial add-on.
>
<sigh> Can I utimately speak for anyone but myself? Can anyone,
truely? Spare me your own definitions, Talan. Mine are as real to me
as your's are to you. The competition is significantly less FOR ME, and
also for some others that I fight and talk with. Don't keep making the
mistake of thinking because your thoughts differ, everyone's do.
> > I tell you now, and forthrightly, competition is a muckle big part of
> >the enjoyment that I find on the field of war or tourny.
>
> Your notion of competition seems somehow rather limited. If you fight
> in 5 battles, you get 5 battles' worth of competition.
>
Competition is not a thing that you can save up, or hold in your hands.
It is a feeling, and it doesn't increase by how much one fights. For
all my earlier talk about measuring, one can't measure a feeling, or a
spirit. I'll endeavor to improve my "limited" notions. Thank you for
pointing out this intellectual flaw.
>
> > Fought to win what?
>
> The individual battles, of course. He even *said* so.
>
Ever hear "win the battle, lose the war"? Ever look at the "big
picture"? Be content with small victories and small losses and a small
life if you will. There is a bigger game out there, and yes, I'm
speaking literally as well as metaphorically.
>
> You're imputing motives again, and insultingly, at that.
>
Tell me why YOU think this is being done, if not in responce to the
actions of various royalty and peerage at Pennsic last. It would be
nice to believe that it was arbitrarily decided to hold a war of peace
and fellowship (can you say oximoron? I thought you could). Perhaps
I'm being cynical, but such is my feeling. Should I keep my mouth shut
in the name of good fun? Cynical I may be, but you, Talan, are
certainly sounding naive.
> > In a series of battle, how else does one count a victor? By who
> >carried the mosts battles, certes. The system also allows for archers,
> >and oft, other less martial wights to strive for their kingdom, some
> >little glory and MUCH satisfaction.
>
> Horsefeathers. One gets satisfaction from having fought or shot well.
> One's satisfaction may be somewhat increased if one's companions have
> also done so, and one's side has thereby won the battle or the shoot.
> The accountants' tally of disparate competitions is too artificial to
> mean much in terms of personal satisfaction.
>
Speaking of insulting, those explicatives which are meant to imply
that my opinions are so much shit, with which you begin your paragraphs
are rather insulting, too. Do you presume to tell me what *I* derive
satisfaction from? By all means give us your own opinion, but who the
hell are you to attempt to invalidate mine? I'll tell you what gives me
satisfaction, and you may or may not feel similarly, but do not tell me
that I know not my own heart or mind, or that everyone else in the known
world thinks as you do.
> I wonder how serious you are about your argument. If you're right, it
> would be easy enough to spread the satisfaction around even more
> widely by adding, oh, a calligraphy point, a glass-blowing point, a
> cooking point, and so on.
>
Faith, but I am truely serious. There you go speaking of satisfaction
as a commodity much like competition was earlier in your post. The
various groups that I perhaps mislabled as "anti-fighting" are the very
ones who have proposed such non-martial war points in the past. Am I on
their side, or against them? Make up your mind WHY you are vilifying me
and my ideas, don't just toss negative concepts about haphazzardly
because you don't agree.
> > No points - no victor.
>
> Nonsense. There are as many victors as there are competitions.
Nonsense, yourself. Your own subjective, shiny/happy definition of
victory is all well and good, but it is not the "right" one (or the
"wrong one", for that matter), nor is it the sole one. Leave me mine,
and accept that I find the concept of Pennsic War having a winner a
satisfying one, and, for the most part, a time honored one. Call not my
opinions nonsense, nor my postulations horsefeathers, until you have
proof that they are wrong. Your opinions are no more dogma than mine
are.
>
> Nice oratory, but not much to the point (and greatly overblown,
> considering the essential unimportance of the subject). Artificially
> picking an overall winner measures ... nothing much. The real
> measuring, both of individuals and of groups, occurs at the butts, in
> the shieldwall, or wherever the actual competition occurs.
>
One man's trash is another man's treasure. Measure how and what you
will, Talan, and I'll do the same. I'm dismayed that your measuring is
"real", while mine is "horsefeathers", but I guess I am just some base
churl of lesser intelligence, who's opinions are so much "nonsense". I'm
not insulted by such supercilious treatment, so don't trouble over it.
Do, however, please enlighten me as to just HOW one picks a "true"
winner of Pennsic War - without all of that "there are 3000 winners.."
crap. There may be 3000 people fighting, and having a wonderful time,
but there shall be, apparently, NO overall winner of this Pennsic War.
Cumhail
Bryan J. Maloney
<dr_b...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> actions of various royalty and peerage at Pennsic last. It would be
> nice to believe that it was arbitrarily decided to hold a war of peace
> and fellowship (can you say oximoron? I thought you could). Perhaps
It is quite possible to hold a tournament of peace and fellowship, and
that is what Pennsic is--it's a tournament. It's not a war.
How many legs does a mule have if you call the tail a leg? Just four,
because no matter what you call it, a tail is still a tail.
Ian Andrew Engle
: Brian M. Scott wrote:
: > You're imputing motives again, and insultingly, at that.
: Tell me why YOU think this is being done, if not in responce to the
: actions of various royalty and peerage at Pennsic last. It would be
: nice to believe that it was arbitrarily decided to hold a war of peace
: and fellowship (can you say oximoron? I thought you could). Perhaps
: I'm being cynical, but such is my feeling. Should I keep my mouth shut
: in the name of good fun? Cynical I may be, but you, Talan, are
: certainly sounding naive.
If you think that the rancorous atmosphere at Pennsic was just a
product of last year's war, then Talan is not the only naive one around
here. (Talan, when did you get naive? We were considering you for the
jaded old peers club.) It goes back years before that, and quite honestly
it arises when folks, no matter where they come from, think that who
"wins" the war makes a damned bit of difference.
It doesn't.
: Do, however, please enlighten me as to just HOW one picks a "true"
: winner of Pennsic War - without all of that "there are 3000 winners.."
: crap. There may be 3000 people fighting, and having a wonderful time,
: but there shall be, apparently, NO overall winner of this Pennsic War.
If the "We gotta win the war" mentality gets defused, even just a
little, then in the long run those 3000 folks and their 7000 friends in
support rolls all win.
On the other hand, if there has to be an overall "winner", why
don't we just say in advance that Acre won it. I've never heard any
complaints about their behaviour, on or off the field, and they have no
stake in our game.
--Sion
Oh, and for the record, no, I don't fight and never have in 22
years.
Lyle H. Gray
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> Ducal agenda?
>>
> Try and read into the post, Talan. His grace Cariadoc is one of the
>most zealous, and high profile proponants of authenticity and
>persona-play in it purest form in the known world. He makes his views
>very clear and works very hard towards his chosen end. Quite admirable,
>really. Perfectly clear? The word "agenda" doesn't automatically have
>negative conotations.
Cariadoc's proponence of authenticity is not related to his being a duke, is
it?
Lach
Lyle H. Gray wrote in message
<7imaqi$br2$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Cariadoc's proponence of authenticity is not related to his
being a duke, is
>it?
>
It doesn't appear to be that way to me. I don't think I've
ever seen him sign his name in this NG as 'Duke Sir Cariadoc
of the Bow'. Someone else, as I recall, had to call him
"your grace" before I caught on to what his rank was.
Lach
David Friedman
<jazzm...@myremarq.com> wrote:
>In case there are other relative newbies here (i.e only 3 years in SCA
>in my case) could you expand on that? I don't find much early history of
>Pennsic at their web site relating to this question. I was under the
>impression that it has always been a "border war" between the East and
>the Mid. Perhaps using the term "debatable lands" was wrong and
>confusing, since that brings the name of the Barony to mind, but I've
>always heard it described as such a border war with "the loser gets
>Pittsburgh" as the standard running joke.
"Always" is a long time. That running joke has been around for quite a
while, but it wasn't part of the pretext for Pennsic 1.
>If that wasn't the theme of
>Pennsic, what was it?
The East and the Middle were planning to jointly invade the West, and had
a dispute about whose banners should go in front. The East held that as
the older of the two kingdoms, it had priority. The middle held that as
the stronger of the two, it did. So we met at Pennsic to settle the
matter. We're still working on it.
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Cariadoc's proponence of authenticity is not related to his being a duke, is
>it?
I doubt it very much. One could, if one stretched the point, say that his
proponence is related to his Laurel Peerage, though it would be more correct
to reverse that and say his Laurel Peerage is related to his proponence of
authenticity. This of course assumes he his a Companion of the Laurel, and
I quite frankly can't recall one way or the other. If he's not he should
be and if he is then he's earned it.
In service,
Corun
Corun MacAnndra
>
>The East and the Middle were planning to jointly invade the West, and had
>a dispute about whose banners should go in front. The East held that as
>the older of the two kingdoms, it had priority. The middle held that as
>the stronger of the two, it did. So we met at Pennsic to settle the
>matter. We're still working on it.
Meanwhile the West has grown tired from waiting for the invasion and has
fallen asleep? <G>
All of this talk of wars conjures up all sorts of way OOP filking ideas.
Why, one could take a currently popular story and adapt it to the story
of the beginnings of Pennsic. Was that His Grace I just heard shudder at
the thought?
LuSCAarts presents
SCA WARS
Episode I
The Short Menace
A long time ago, in a Known
World far, far away
Use your fork, Duke.
In service,
Corun
Cumhail
>
>
> Cariadoc's proponence of authenticity is not related to his being a duke, is
> it?
Of course not. He IS a duke, however, so his proponence is, in fact,
ducal. Why in the world anyone would assume (from context) that "ducal"
applied, in any way shape or form to a scope beyond Cariadoc in this
matter is lost on me.
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
>
> It is quite possible to hold a tournament of peace and fellowship, and
> that is what Pennsic is--it's a tournament. It's not a war.
>
Is the whole concept of subjective definition beyond everyone? It is
called Pennsic WAR, Bryan. WAR. Not Pennisc Tournament. We choose to
treat it like a war. It's the closest thing to a war that we're capable
of, and is titularly designed to impersonate one. War, I tell you.
War!!
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
> Lyle H. Gray <gr...@cs.umass.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Cariadoc's proponence of authenticity is not related to his being a duke, is
> >it?
>
> proponence is related to his Laurel Peerage, though it would be more correct
> to reverse that and say his Laurel Peerage is related to his proponence of
> authenticity.
He IS a duke. Everything about him is then, in fact ducal. His
proponence is in NO way due to his rank. It's not due to anything other
than his grace's whim. This is not a complicated concept, folks. Let's
not try and over-read things, huh?
> This of course assumes he his a Companion of the Laurel, and
> I quite frankly can't recall one way or the other. If he's not he >should
> be and if he is then he's earned it.
All well and good.
Cumhail
Cumhail
>
> If you think that the rancorous atmosphere at Pennsic was just a
> product of last year's war, then Talan is not the only naive one around
> here. (Talan, when did you get naive? We were considering you for the
> jaded old peers club.)
Did I say he WAS naive? Nopers. I said that he SOUNDED naive. It
implies a contextual reference, and I stand by it.
It goes back years before that, and quite honestly
> it arises when folks, no matter where they come from, think that who
> "wins" the war makes a damned bit of difference.
>
> It doesn't.
It doesn't to you. It may not to Talan. Don't presume to speak for
the known world. Don't presume, either, to tell anyone what matters for
them. Omniscient, much?
>
>
> If the "We gotta win the war" mentality gets defused, even just a
> little, then in the long run those 3000 folks and their 7000 friends in
> support rolls all win.
>
How about we try to understand that actual situation, instead of
spouting tired, motivational, public school rhetoric. Everyone doesn't
win. Everyone doesn't even necessarily survive. Sophistry and
knee-jerk slogans like "everybody wins" don't change life. The phrase
"we gotta win the war" automatically evokes undeserved negative
conotations. I want to know who wins....so I can celebrate, or
congradulate those who did. Because one tries to win, doesn't mean that
they have to forget all of the important aspects of social interaction.
Wanting to win is not an evil concept. It's a natural, desire and one
we dare not attempt to breed out of the race, lest we stagnate.
> On the other hand, if there has to be an overall "winner", why
> don't we just say in advance that Acre won it. I've never heard any
> complaints about their behaviour, on or off the field, and they have no
> stake in our game.
Because the SCA isn't a game of pretend for everyone. To many people,
it's just another, less mainstream aspect of their life. Why don't I
pretend that the Chicago Blackhawks won the last hockey game I played
in? Why don't we just say in advance that William Marshall won Crown
Tournament, and Prester John took the kingdon A&S? Why don't we just
devalue every aspect of our Society in one fall swoop, instead of bit by
bit, and make the change from re-creation (albeit our own little version
of it), to re-enactment?
> Oh, and for the record, no, I don't fight and never have in 22
> years.
That certainly doesn't invalidate your opinion, but neither does it put
you in a position to better understand mine.
your servant,
Cumhail
Brian Matthews
last year)
--
In service.....
Wilthain Westbram
Carillion, East Kingdom
Wingedwolf Gypsy Clan
______________________________________________________________________
"If you can't tell the truth be a journalist."
Bob Boze Bell
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Lyle H. Gray wrote:
>> Cariadoc's proponence of authenticity is not related to his being a duke, is
>> it?
>Of course not. He IS a duke, however, so his proponence is, in fact,
>ducal. Why in the world anyone would assume (from context) that "ducal"
>applied, in any way shape or form to a scope beyond Cariadoc in this
>matter is lost on me.
To speak of a 'ducal agenda' is in normal usage to imply that the
agenda has something to do with the ducalness. In fact I understood
you to be using 'ducal' merely as a tag to indicate that you were
talking about Cariadoc, but the misunderstanding is perfectly natural.
Talan
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
> Is the whole concept of subjective definition beyond everyone? It is
>called Pennsic WAR, Bryan. WAR. Not Pennisc Tournament. We choose to
>treat it like a war. It's the closest thing to a war that we're capable
>of, and is titularly designed to impersonate one. War, I tell you.
>War!!
For a great many of the participants it's just 'Pennsic'. It's been a
good many years since the battles were a real centrepiece, and my
impression is that for the majority of those in attendance they are
somewhere in the range from irrelevant to entertainment. In short,
they *are* tournaments, and they have been for some time, whatever we
choose to call them.
Talan
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
> (Talan, when did you get naive? We were considering you for the
>jaded old peers club.)
Maybe my second childhood is creeping up on me.
Talan
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> There are folks who think that it's overemphasized; I've never seen
>> any significant body that I'd describe as genuinely anti-fighting,
>> however.
> And so they obviously don't exist? I've met them, I've corresponded
>with them and read posts from them on the Rialto. Many people in our
>society DO think fighting to be overemphasized and many of called for
>its outright ban. It's these former that I refer to as "anti-fighting"
>in an effort to be succinct.
This is a bit incoherent. Does 'these former' refer to those who
think that fighting is overemphasized? They include a lot of us
fighters and are probably right. Does it refer to those who have
called for its outright ban? I remain to be convinced that 'many have
called for its outright ban'. I really think that if that were the
case, I'd have noticed one or two of them in all these years. There
clearly isn't a significant body of that opinion.
>> You seem to be very quick to guess at motivations.
> Gee.....it seems that you're only guessing that I made a guess, Talan.
If you weren't making such a guess, you expressed yourself very badly
or failed to provide evidence that you were in a position to know
rather than guess.
>> Ducal agenda?
> Try and read into the post, Talan. His grace Cariadoc is one of the
>most zealous, and high profile proponants of authenticity and
>persona-play in it purest form in the known world. He makes his views
>very clear and works very hard towards his chosen end. Quite admirable,
>really. Perfectly clear? The word "agenda" doesn't automatically have
>negative conotations.
I didn't assume any. I am quite familiar with Cariadoc's views on the
subject; I just don't see what their relevance is to the issue at
hand, so no, it is not perfectly clear.
>> You have yet to establish that there is significantly less sense of
>> competition when no tally of points is kept. The real competition is
>> within the individual battle, perhaps even within the small
>> engagements that it comprises. The overall scoring system is an
>> artificial add-on.
> <sigh> Can I utimately speak for anyone but myself? Can anyone,
>truely? Spare me your own definitions, Talan.
Why? You're not sparing us yours.
> Mine are as real to me
>as your's are to you. The competition is significantly less FOR ME, and
>also for some others that I fight and talk with. Don't keep making the
>mistake of thinking because your thoughts differ, everyone's do.
This, no doubt, is why you expressed your personal opinions as
universals.
>> > Fought to win what?
>> The individual battles, of course. He even *said* so.
>Ever hear "win the battle, lose the war"?
Historically it is possible to lose most battles and still win a war,
so tallying points is hardly realistic. If the outcome of one
competition affected the conditions of later competitions, you might
perhaps be able to justify calling it a war.
> Ever look at the "big
>picture"? Be content with small victories and small losses and a small
>life if you will.
Eh? Pennsic is a small thing by any important standard, and you're
getting exercised about a trivial detail. In the big picture that
looks pretty silly.
> There is a bigger game out there, and yes, I'm
>speaking literally as well as metaphorically.
There is indeed
>> You're imputing motives again, and insultingly, at that.
>Tell me why YOU think this is being done, if not in responce to the
>actions of various royalty and peerage at Pennsic last.
I don't know why it's being done, and I don't care why it's being
done. I'd be delighted to see official recognition of the fact that
Pennsic is a great fair with tournaments and not a 'war'. If I were
an optimist, I'd view this as a step in the right direction, but in
fact I doubt that it's more than a hiccough.
> It would be
>nice to believe that it was arbitrarily decided to hold a war of peace
>and fellowship (can you say oximoron? I thought you could).
Yes; I can even say 'oxymoron'. And as Bryan points out, no oxymoron
is involved.
> Perhaps
>I'm being cynical, but such is my feeling. Should I keep my mouth shut
>in the name of good fun? Cynical I may be, but you, Talan, are
>certainly sounding naive.
You might have a different opinion if you paid more attention to what
I actually write. Unlike you, I expressed no opinion as to the
motives involved. Since you do not know what my opinions are, any
notion that they are naive must come from your own imagination.
>> > In a series of battle, how else does one count a victor? By who
>> >carried the mosts battles, certes. The system also allows for archers,
>> >and oft, other less martial wights to strive for their kingdom, some
>> >little glory and MUCH satisfaction.
>> Horsefeathers. One gets satisfaction from having fought or shot well.
>> One's satisfaction may be somewhat increased if one's companions have
>> also done so, and one's side has thereby won the battle or the shoot.
>> The accountants' tally of disparate competitions is too artificial to
>> mean much in terms of personal satisfaction.
> Speaking of insulting, those explicatives which are meant to imply
>that my opinions are so much shit, with which you begin your paragraphs
>are rather insulting, too.
I disagree. A strong expression of disagreement is just that. If you
tell me that my ideas are rubbish, I may be annoyed, but I will not be
offended; when you try to tell me what I think, I am offended.
> Do you presume to tell me what *I* derive
>satisfaction from? By all means give us your own opinion, but who the
>hell are you to attempt to invalidate mine? I'll tell you what gives me
>satisfaction, and you may or may not feel similarly, but do not tell me
>that I know not my own heart or mind, or that everyone else in the known
>world thinks as you do.
But you didn't just tell us what gives you satisfaction. You spoke
for archers and 'other less martial wights'. If you were in fact
speaking only for yourself, either you should have made this very
clear, or you should not be jumping on anyone else for expressing
opinions without explicitly tagging them as such. (It should be
obvious that all of us are expressing opinions, for Pete's sake!)
>> I wonder how serious you are about your argument. If you're right, it
>> would be easy enough to spread the satisfaction around even more
>> widely by adding, oh, a calligraphy point, a glass-blowing point, a
>> cooking point, and so on.
> Faith, but I am truely serious. There you go speaking of satisfaction
>as a commodity much like competition was earlier in your post.
Er, who was it who initially spoke of 'MUCH satisfaction'?
> The
>various groups that I perhaps mislabled as "anti-fighting" are the very
>ones who have proposed such non-martial war points in the past. Am I on
>their side, or against them? Make up your mind WHY you are vilifying me
>and my ideas, don't just toss negative concepts about haphazzardly
>because you don't agree.
I'm not vilifying your ideas; I'm disagreeing with them. I'm not
vilifying you, either; I'm disagreeing with you and expressing a
dislike for your style. And you didn't answer my implied question.
Your previous remarks, if taken seriously, imply that it would be a
good thing to extend the 'war' by adding non-martial points; would you
like to see this done?
>> > No points - no victor.
>> Nonsense. There are as many victors as there are competitions.
>Nonsense, yourself. Your own subjective, shiny/happy definition of
>victory is all well and good, but it is not the "right" one (or the
>"wrong one", for that matter), nor is it the sole one.
But you are acting as if yours - which, were I to adopt your style, I
might well characterize as a 'subjective, comic-book/D&D definition' -
were in fact the 'right' one.
>Do, however, please enlighten me as to just HOW one picks a "true"
>winner of Pennsic War
One doesn't. I doubt that one can even define the concept in a
non-circular fashion (i.e., without reference to the particular method
chosen to pick one). You surely don't think that tallying war points
picks an indisputable 'true' winner, do you -- especially when the
points themselves can change from war to war? You *have* heard the
occasional post-war arguments, have you not?
Talan
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Ian Andrew Engle wrote:
>> If the "We gotta win the war" mentality gets defused, even just a
>> little, then in the long run those 3000 folks and their 7000 friends in
>> support rolls all win.
> How about we try to understand that actual situation, instead of
>spouting tired, motivational, public school rhetoric. Everyone doesn't
>win.
Most of us can real 'all win' in this context as 'are all better off'.
And it is of course true.
> Everyone doesn't even necessarily survive.
By all means let us try to understand the actual situation, instead of
spouting tired, would-be-realist rhetoric. It is indeed true that not
everyone necessarily survives Pennsic; with so many people involved,
some of them remarkably foolish, the odd medical emergency, heart
attack, and even suicide is inevitable. This has nothing to do with
the matter at hand (save, perhaps, as it may very indirectly support
Sion's position).
> Because the SCA isn't a game of pretend for everyone.
Then not everyone involved is sane. I don't deny that the Society can
be a very important part of one's life -- how could I, after the
thousands of dollars and the 30- and 40-hour weeks that I contributed
to it for years?! - but failure to recognize that it is still a game
is not sane; and when that failure extends to combat, it's an insanity
that endangers others.
Talan
William Underhill
re: points or no points. May I offer a song I wrote for Pennsic a
few years ago?
"At The Pennsic War"
(tune: "Both Sides Now")
Ladies fair and armoured knights,
Evening campfires' friendly lights,
Tournaments and stirring sights,
At the Pennsic War.
Bardic songs and stories told
Of far-off treasure, Viking gold,
Captivate both young and old,
At the Pennsic War.
REFRAIN
The dream has wakened something now
That dwells within, and this is how
I'd rather live, when trumpets call,
Than live without the dream... at all.
Rank on rank advance the foe
To where Death greets them there below,
As each falls to a mortal blow,
At the Pennsic War.
The cry of 'hold!' is heard abroad.
Warriors rise up from the sod.
Death's given but a passing nod,
At the Pennsic War.
REFRAIN
See where the Tiger takes the field
Agains the Dragon's sword and shield.
In the end there's one must yield,
At the Pennsic War.
Others too will struggle here,
Caid, Trimaris, Calontir,
For East or Midrealm ev'ry year
At the Pennsic War.
REFRAIN
An oh, the rows of merchants' tents,
Selling garb and frankincense,
Jewels, food and armaments,
At the Pennsic War.
I charge you now, each who attends,
Remember this ere Pennsic ends:
"Annual Enemies, Eternal Friends".
At the Pennsic War.
REFRAIN
(I will concede that it was written in a fit of self-pity because
I wasn't able to go...)
Yours aye,
Uilleam mac Alan vic Hamish, called the Mariner
Baron Seagirt
--
.-------------------------------------------------------------.
| William Underhill http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6650 |
| Speaker-to-Electrons tr...@geocities.com |
| Uilleam mac Alan vic Hamish IC Q#20433054 |
| The usual government employee disclaimer, blah blah blah... |
`---------------------| Ready Aye Ready |---------------------'
Bob Upson
> one battle that counted as "the war." The fiction would be that the two
> opposing armies had agreed to a series of chivalric combats before they
> met in battle--which would be all the other battles of the war. To my
> mind, the dramatic effect is greater with a single battle, win or lose,
> than with a point system.
With all due respect, good Cariadoc, this scenario neglects the
archers. The archers of the East and Mid (and their allies, for that
matter) -- have worked long and hard to become a part of the total
outcome of the Pennsic War. Archery marshals from both kingdoms work
side-by-side all week to serve close to 2000 archers who annually
contribute to the "war effort."
Whether it is a single great battle scenario to determine the war, or
just unofficial tallying of every East vs Mid battle (which will
undoubtedly be done absent "official" war points), the lack of "War
Points" only serves to relegate the archers of both kingdoms into being
part of the sideshow.
Macsen
Bob Upson
> there had been no points. In that one case, denying the fighters came
> directly from the fact of having points, totally apart from the joy and
> honor of strong competition in melee.
This is a telling statement in that it refers to THE final battle of
Pennsic being canceled -- as if that single rattan contest was the last
unfinished part of the "war." Not one, but _four_ 'battles' were
canceled that day. One on the rattan field, three on the archery range.
The point system, inauthentic as it may be, is the only way to combine
elements of medieval battle that just can't be recreated together on the
field. (Yes, I know so-called Combat Archery attempts to do so. But
let's face it -- it's a sad attempt.)
> The issue is not whether we should be proud of the strength of our
> armies. It is whether we need to do arithmetic at the side of the field
> to have that pride.
Easily enough said with rattan armies where the outcome is self-evident
at the end of each battle. Unless you make each mass battle a random
pick-up match with no recognizable kingdom alliances, the tally of "us
vs them" will be counted officially or unofficially no matter what
Barneyspeak we use about how "Everybody Wins."
Macsen
archer first, sword fodder on occasion
Ian Andrew Engle
One question, Cumhail.
You have mentioned thess views of yours to the only people who
have the power, or rather had the power, to make this a pointed Pennsic,
right? Their Majesties Oriental and Mediterranean?
Even if you were to convince me, and you won't, that the same
things we've had for years is better, not I, not Talan, not Cariadoc, not
my chia pet have the ability to change it for you.
And if (or ought that to be _since_) the Crowns prefer to be
pointless this year, then I'm afraid we're both stuck with a year when the
big question of Pennsic won't be "Which kingdom's ahead?"
--Sion
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Whether it is a single great battle scenario to determine the war, or
>just unofficial tallying of every East vs Mid battle (which will
>undoubtedly be done absent "official" war points), the lack of "War
>Points" only serves to relegate the archers of both kingdoms into being
>part of the sideshow.
I fail to see how they become part of the sideshow any more than those
who participate in any other competitive activity. For a large number
of those in attendance, all of these competitions - clout shoot, field
battle, you name it - are part of the sideshow. For those engaged in
them they are presumably a significant part of the Pennsic experience.
It's all in your point of view.
Talan
Brian M. Scott
[...]
> Easily enough said with rattan armies where the outcome is self-evident
> at the end of each battle. Unless you make each mass battle a random
> pick-up match with no recognizable kingdom alliances, the tally of "us
> vs them" will be counted officially or unofficially no matter what
> Barneyspeak we use about how "Everybody Wins."
I suppose that if you don't pay any attention to *how* 'everybody wins',
you can misconstrue it as 'Barneyspeak'. Everybody wins when there is
less overt pressure to do something stupid and dangerous. This kind of
winning has nothing to do with victory in the official contests.
Talan
Bob Upson
> who participate in any other competitive activity. For a large number
> of those in attendance, all of these competitions - clout shoot, field
> battle, you name it - are part of the sideshow. For those engaged in
> them they are presumably a significant part of the Pennsic experience.
> It's all in your point of view.
Excepting that for many years archery hasn't been "just another
competitive activity." Up until now it has been a martial activity
crucial to the outcome of the "War" -- unlike any other competitive
activity at Pennsic.
As long as there are "War Points," the archers contribute to the overall
"War Effort." The outcome of more than a few past Pennsics has been
significantly affected by the results of the archery points. Archery
war points are unlikely to be even counted in a "pointless war" but you
can be sure that the outcomes of every battle will be toted up and used
as a measure of who "wins" and who "loses." Without the formal point
system in place to combine the efforts of the archers and fighters, the
efforts of the kingdoms' archers will be virtually ignored.
This is particularly unfortunate because it affects not only the regular
archers who shoot all the time anyway, but it removes the possibility
for the common SCAdian to participate directly in the unique SCA
competition that is the "Pennsic War."
Macsen
not going to Pennsic this year and not too particularly upset about it
the way things are shaping up
Bob Upson
> you can misconstrue it as 'Barneyspeak'. Everybody wins when there is
> less overt pressure to do something stupid and dangerous. This kind of
> winning has nothing to do with victory in the official contests.
Yes, Talan, I do pay attention. Please don't presume to insult my
intelligence just because you disagree with my opinion.
Competition implies winners and losers. The platitude that "Everybody
Wins" is fiction when applied to competition because in a game where
nobody loses, nobody wins either. If competitors adhere to some
semblance of sportsmanship, then everybody can have a good time -- win
or lose. But to say that "Everybody Wins" is a poor euphemism and is as
clearly an oxymoron when applied to a competitive event.
The problem with recent past Pennsics has been limited to a few poor
sports who can't seem to separate "winning at all costs" from "competing
honorably and hoping to win." Playing at semantics about having no
winners or losers because there are no war points won't make poor sports
any better. But it's a much simpler, easier, and politically correct
"fix" than actually addressing the problem.
Eliminating war points at Pennsic is a band-aid on a broken leg. Not
only does it not fix what's broken, but it also says that SCAdians
aren't mature enough to compete honorably. That they are so immature, in
fact, that the largest, longest running, best known SCA event and
tradition in the world cannot be allowed to be a competition anymore
because some of the kids don't play well together in the sandbox.
But at least the Powers That Be can point to the band-aid and say, "See,
we tried to make it better."
Macsen
Corun MacAnndra
And what makes you think you've gotten out of your first? <g>
In service,
Corun
"Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional."
Corun MacAnndra
>
> He IS a duke. Everything about him is then, in fact ducal. His
>proponence is in NO way due to his rank. It's not due to anything other
>than his grace's whim. This is not a complicated concept, folks. Let's
>not try and over-read things, huh?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here since your comments
bore no relevence to mine, however, I think you miss an important point.
To whit, Cariadoc is, within the auspices of the SCA, a Duke, by virtue
of having won crown tourney more than once. This is not to say that
Cariadoc, in his chosen, authentic and well researched persona is a Duke,
since, to the best of my knowledge (and her I defer to Cariadoc since it
is, afterall his persona we're discussing), hiw persona would not have
borne the title of Duke in real life.
In otherwords, to say that everything about Cariadoc is Ducal, is a gross
misrepresentation of the man and his persona. It shows a misunderstanding
of what Cariadoc is trying to do within the bounds of the SCA by eshewing
that which detracts from actual authenticity in all things. That he will
wear his title of Duke at some times and not at others is is whim, likely
based upon the needs of the moment. I have, for example, never seen him
sign anything but his mundane name on the Rialto, it being a purely mundane
medium, and therefore out of the ken of any chosen persona in the SCA.
And of course I haven't even touched upon the concept of Chivalry and its
relevence to Royal Peerage, but that's a topic of another conversation
entirely.
David, Cariadoc, Your Grace, I hope I have not overstepped my bounds in
this somewhat lengthy explanation, and I beg you to correct my comments
as you see fit.
In service,
Corun (becuase most of my friends in the SCA know me as Corun and it's
just easier that way)
Ian Andrew Engle
: And what makes you think you've gotten out of your first? <g>
: "Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional."
"I'll grow up when they pry the last of my toys out of my cold,
dead fingers!"
--Sion
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>> I fail to see how they become part of the sideshow any more than those
>> who participate in any other competitive activity. For a large number
>> of those in attendance, all of these competitions - clout shoot, field
>> battle, you name it - are part of the sideshow. For those engaged in
>> them they are presumably a significant part of the Pennsic experience.
>> It's all in your point of view.
>Excepting that for many years archery hasn't been "just another
>competitive activity." Up until now it has been a martial activity
>crucial to the outcome of the "War" -- unlike any other competitive
>activity at Pennsic.
You misrepresent me: I did not (and would not) use the dismissive
expression 'just another competitive activity'. You also
misunderstand: I include the rattan battles among the competitive
activities. (This should have been very clear, since I named both the
clout shoot and the field battle as examples of 'these competitions'.)
As you will have gathered, I've thought for years that 'War' was a
misnomer for what is obviously a merchant fair with tournaments. I
see no need for it to have An Outcome.
>As long as there are "War Points," the archers contribute to the overall
>"War Effort." The outcome of more than a few past Pennsics has been
>significantly affected by the results of the archery points. Archery
>war points are unlikely to be even counted in a "pointless war" but you
>can be sure that the outcomes of every battle will be toted up and used
>as a measure of who "wins" and who "loses."
So? Why should you care? Does the fact that some folks need to play
such games devalue your shooting?
> Without the formal point
>system in place to combine the efforts of the archers and fighters, the
>efforts of the kingdoms' archers will be virtually ignored.
Doesn't follow. As long as there are archery competitions of some
kind at Pennsic, there is absolutely nothing to prevent a Crown from
emphasizing archery.
Talan
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott <sc...@math.csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>On 28 May 1999 11:01:03 -0400, iane...@gcfn.org (Ian Andrew Engle)
>>wrote:
>>> (Talan, when did you get naive? We were considering you for the
>>>jaded old peers club.)
>>Maybe my second childhood is creeping up on me.
>And what makes you think you've gotten out of your first? <g>
You're right, though maybe not quite as you meant it. If you'd known
me 40 years ago, you'd probably agree that it's my *first* childhood
that's creeping up on me!
Talan
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>> I suppose that if you don't pay any attention to *how* 'everybody wins',
>> you can misconstrue it as 'Barneyspeak'. Everybody wins when there is
>> less overt pressure to do something stupid and dangerous. This kind of
>> winning has nothing to do with victory in the official contests.
>Yes, Talan, I do pay attention. Please don't presume to insult my
>intelligence just because you disagree with my opinion.
>Competition implies winners and losers. The platitude that "Everybody
>Wins" is fiction when applied to competition because in a game where
>nobody loses, nobody wins either.
This is irrelevant, since I explicitly denied that I (or Sion) was
using 'everybody wins' in such an asinine sense. Perhaps you could
try to avoid distorting the opinions of those with whom you disagree?
Talan
Greg Lindahl
> Whether it is a single great battle scenario to determine the war, or
> just unofficial tallying of every East vs Mid battle (which will
> undoubtedly be done absent "official" war points), the lack of "War
> Points" only serves to relegate the archers of both kingdoms into being
> part of the sideshow.
You know, the fencing community at Pennsic is pretty happy to not have
war points, as is the A&S community, the dance community, the music
community, etc. Why not do what you love and stop worring about
status? If you were so worried about status, you shouldn't have
forgotten that there are more than 2 kingdoms at the War.
-- Gregory Blount