[Archers] Recommendation

[John Atkins]

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