[Archers] Fw: Stierbach indoor archery practice and is new rule correctly numbered?

[Charles Oliff]

Unfortunately, you didn't answer the question: Is it my judgement call as
MIC on site, or do I need a waiver regardless of my judgement?

and I resent the implication that I would take convenience over safety.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com> wrote:

>   I understand your hesitation as we've removed some of the prerogative of
> the MIC-Target Archery by requiring a waiver.  In all other cases, your
> judgement is what we use.  It is indeed a judgement call.  You have to be
> willing to back your decision that there was sufficient visibility.  I have
> in the recent past and will in the future hold marshals accountable for
> their judgement.
>
> Make sure you are thinking about safety and not just convenience.
>
> K
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Charles Oliff <caergarchery at gmail.com>
> *To:* Kingdom Archery List <archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org>
> *Sent:* Mon, March 8, 2010 10:40:04 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Archers] Fw: Stierbach indoor archery practice and is new
> rule correctly numbered?
>
>  does this safety zone definition mean that we can't have part of our
> safety zone go into woods?
>
> The way it is worded, I read this as it being a mic judgement call, but I
> don't want to assume anything with these new rules.
>
> William of Wolverhampton
>
>
>>
>> As for the Safety Zone / woods thing, I'd say this, which I can codify if
>> necessary:
>>
>> "A safety zone is defined as an area where the marshal and shooters have
>> sufficient visibility to manage the safety of the range."
>>
>>
>> Thoughts on that wording?
>>
>> K
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/archers-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20100308/e5c8b85d/attachment-0003.htm>