[Archers] Recommendations

[Garth Groff]

Noble friends of the Bow,

I like Lord Christophe's comments, and since he is pinging off my 
earlier post, I didn't trim (sorry).

I certainly agree with Lord Christophe's point that the awards come in a 
specific order, and that we should consider Missiliers before the Yew 
Bow. I think in general, the standards for both should be similar, but 
much more demanding for the Yew Bow.

To answer his last point, according to Her Majesty's explanation, the 
awards are not based on weapons performance. If we consider performance, 
it should be supplemental. Thus a poor archer, or one who for reasons of 
health (for example) cannot shoot, could still receive an award for 
their other contributions. Now, is an opal roughly the equivalent the 
Missiliers award (I don't know much about awards)? If so we could go 
either way, but the Missiliers is a special recognition within our 
discipline, and I would recommend them for that over the Opal if their 
service was mostly to the archery community.

Anyway, my suggestions were only how I would go about evaluating a 
candidate for an award based on my current understanding, and as points 
of discussion for us all. I am certainly open to reevaluating my notions 
now or in the future.

I have only done one awards recommendation in my four or so years in the 
SCA, an AofA, and sadly that person went dormant due to job 
responsibilities before the award was ever given (if it was approved).  
As I get to know more people (especially archers), I am beginning look 
around for other folks who are deserving.

Yours Aye,


Mungo

On 4/9/2012 10:14 AM, John Atkins wrote:
> I like these recommendations although I don't see them as hard and fast
> criteria one must meet to receive "the" award as much as guidelines for
> determining appropriateness of the award.  One question though, are these
> criteria for a Yewbow or a Missilier?  Being in agreement with Her 
> Majesty's
> comments, I feel strongly about awards being given in "proper order" 
> and for
> conduct appropriate.  Thus a Missilier would be for individuals showing
> promise of the conducts noted below with areas needed to improve but 
> perhaps
> does not have the skill of a Yewbow quite yet.  As the Yewbow is 
> currently
> the highest archery award in Atlantia for an archer those who are 
> inducted
> into the order should be held to higher standards, one of which is skill
> with bow and arrow or crossbow and bolt.  Whereas the Missilier is the
> "training grounds" for those showing great promise, have accomplished 
> bits
> and pieces of the "yewbow requirements".
>
> Let me state this a different way.  I believe when a person begins to
> display service and expertise in the area of archery the first award they
> should receive is their baronial award for archery.  As they continue 
> down
> the path, the next award in the sequence should be the Missilier.
> Continuing even further they ultimately advance to the level of the 
> Order of
> the Yewbow.  The progression is much like an unbelt becoming a 
> man-at-arms,
> then a squire, then a knight.  Each step has "requirements" that the
> individual is expected to meet and maintain to advance to the next step
> (although it is NOT a check list for a "merit badge" - that is, there 
> is not
> nor should be any guarantee that the award will be given once "all these
> things are done").  Until such time that Atlantia has a peerage for 
> archers
> our path is baronial recognition/award, Missilier, then Yewbow.  Thus, as
> with the heavy's path, each step is a "training ground" for the next 
> step.
>
> The "other" question on hand is what of an individual who provides great
> service to the archery community but is simply not a very good shot?  
> What
> of someone who provides service but does not shoot?  And, yes, we have 
> them
> as well.  Should they be ignored or awarded a service specific award, 
> i.e.
> Opal?  What then would be the "criteria" for that awarding?
>
> Of course all this is my opinion and as I threw it out, so may you!
>
> C0g
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: archers-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> [mailto:archers-bounces at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of Garth 
> Groff
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 8:31 AM
> To: archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org; padrgroups at charter.net
> Subject: Re: [Archers] Recommendation
>
> Noble Friends of the Bow,
>
> Her Majesty's post, and other messages on this subject, set me to 
> thinking
> about awards this weekend. I see that we have no real fixed benchmarks 
> for
> recommending someone for the King's Missiliers or the Yew Bow. That is
> probably as it should be. Each candidate is different, and expresses 
> their
> excellence in different ways.
>
> So here is what I would consider, in no particular order, and keeping in
> mind that some points will be stronger than others in each candidate:
>
>
> Participation and commitment: Is the candidate a regular participant in
> the archery community through their local group's practices, and at
> tournaments in at least their regional area? Do they make any of their
> own equipment?
>
> Service: Does the candidate contribute to archery by marshaling at
> practices, assisting at tournaments, staging a tournament as MIC,
> contributing targets, teaching archery in the field, teaching classes on
> archery subjects at University, or serving as a higher officer in the
> archery program? There is nothing in Her Majesty's comments requiring an
> office for an award, and there are lots of other ways a non-officer can
> be of service. Staging a tournament can be especially difficult for
> someone from a small group, so I wouldn't always expect this, but it
> certainly is a plus.
>
> Worthy conduct: Does the candidate show respect to others he/she
> interacts with in and out of the archery community? Do they contribute
> their knowledge and expertise to the archery community, and to assist
> others such as newcomers? Are they honest? Are they respectful of the
> rules? Are they complainers?
>
> Scores: Although Her Majesty pointed out that the awards were not
> intended to be a test of skills, in a martial sport this is still hard
> for us to completely ignore. If the candidate has mastered their chosen
> weapon or weapons, and achieved a score worthy of note, that could be a
> plus. What is worthy of note? Well that's debatable, but certainly above
> our two lowest ranks by my definition.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> Yours Aye,
>
>
> Mungo
> _______________________________________________
> Archers mailing list
> Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org
>