[Archers] Recommendation

[Garth Groff]

M'Lord Janyn,

Well, actually I agree with you about the proficiency issue. The problem 
is that HM has already told us that it wasn't meant to be considered for 
these awards. I think it should be supplementary information that would 
make a case for an award if the person was borderline in some other 
area. That said, it is all subjective anyway, since we have no real 
benchmarks for the KM award.

I was not aware of the YB having standards already determined. Are these 
available to non-members of the order to read? Without reading them, I 
still would expect that what you look for in a YB member would be 
similar to those required of a KM, though much stricter and at a higher 
level.

Yours Aye,


Mungo


On 4/9/2012 4:28 PM, Janyn Fletcher wrote:
> I would like to make a point of clarification in this discussion. We cannot
> simply lump the Yew Bow in the same discussion with the KM. The YB is a
> polling order and I fully believe there is a course that candidates must
> exceed to be considered. In fact it was recently updated at this last
> Pennsic during the order meeting. Lord Mungo, I think all you listed are
> great points of consideration for a candidate for the KM but I will stick to
> my conviction that an archer should be active and at least try to be
> proficient in our craft.
>
> My two cents....
>
> Janyn
>
>
>
> -----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
>