[MR] Call for Comments

[Malone, Nicholas S.]

	Changing Single combat to group or team formats will only allow more
potential for abuse. The Simplest format will always be the easiest to
regulate and watch for abuse. If you think the populace doesn't know how
"some" crowns have been won, then its a simple case of denial. There are
plenty of cases of abuse in the current system. I have watched house holds
form teams to enter crown with the expressed intent of moving one person up
the ladder easier. This is done by presenting very challenging bouts to the
strongest contenders and rolling over for the team captain. Cycling is a
very individual contest but anyone that thinks the team does not assist the
winners just do not get it. Yes there are abuses in the current system. But
complicating or tricking up the system would only make for more potential
abuse. If you want to spread the pool winners then other factors have to be
added that still maintain individual head to head trials. it would be less
susceptible to abuse to add Fencing, unarmed combat, Archery, Chess,etc..  I
think a 3-4 day decathlon would be a hoot. Might kill off a few entrants but
hey that's period too. And true competitors will match the competition and
you will eventually get to a pool of most likely winners with a few dark
horse hitting occasionally. Sound Familiar?

The end of the world must be near, I have agreed with a Norman twice in less
than a moon

AshaHito


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Logan [mailto:dukelogan at directvinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 1:43 AM
> To: David W. James; atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: RE: [MR] Call for Comments
> 
> 
> since i was mentioned i will respond.
> 
> oddly i find that i can easily prove a popularity contest in 
> any format that
> allows teams.  i can stack a team and ensure victory in 99 
> out or 100 tries
> (ive done so every year i have put together  a team for the 10 man at
> pennsic).  single combat between two fighters under the gaze 
> of the populace
> in attendance is the only way to avoid that.  granted that 
> does not, and
> certainly has not, stopped fighters that desired a win over 
> their own honor
> from walking through a few blows but it provides more checks 
> and balances
> than anything allowing teams to compete.  be that team a two, 
> five or fifty
> man unit.
> 
> limiting the number of chiv on a  team is also weak as i can 
> put together
> teams of five chiv that cant beat teams of five unbelts.  the fighting
> prowess of a knight certainly is part of what determines 
> whether or not he
> is recognized as one.  however, that prowess changes year to 
> year.  just
> because a fighter is belted does not dictate nor ensure his 
> current level of
> ability.
> 
> creating blind teams out of the available participants is 
> also bogus as it
> opens the door for one team to get blindly stacked or favoritism to
> influence how hard a fighter fights against his mates.
> 
> regards
> logan
> 
> ps  please understand that i personally am cool with whatever 
> format and
> whatever degrees of silliness people want to create to change 
> the way we
> decide our future monarchs.  im only trying to inject some 
> realism into the
> idea that allowing multiple parties choose who the individual 
> is that sits
> the throne is flawed in every respect.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org
> [mailto:atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org]On Behalf Of David W. James
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:45 PM
> To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [MR] Call for Comments
> 
> 
> On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 08:00 PM, Becky McEllistrem wrote:
> > It seems to me his majesty carefully explained
> > anything other than individual comment could so easily
> > become a popularity contents.
> 
> > It wasn't a very old discussion.  I believe it
> > happened in the last 6 months.
> 
> > Rebecca
> 
> 	March or April sounds about right.  Might have been 
> May.  If you go to
> the web archive and check those months you should find it.
> 
> 	His Majesty presented his opinion that some formats could become
> popularity contests, but in no way proved that all non-single 
> lists had to
> be.  For example, it is hard to see how a Crown with two 
> person teams would
> be,
> 
> 	Or one with 5 member teams (no more than two members of 
> the Chivalry per
> team) until there there are only 2/3/4 teams left, then the 
> Captain's of
> the teams fight single combat to decide the winner.
> 
> 	Or... well, you get the idea.  There are lots of 
> potential formats that
> don't share the 'popularity contest' flaw.  Lots of them that 
> do too.  But
> then there are some great (not to mention less obviously 
> modern) formats
> besides double-elim for single combat too, but that's what is 
> written into
> Kingdom law.
> 
> 	The Board is requesting commentary on this proposal.  
> Please consider it
> and give them your thoughts.  There was considerable 
> agitation at the table
> (both officers and Board members) to make the change they 
> proposed last
> time (only single combat allowed in Crown lists.)  It was the 
> commentary
> that they received that caused the Board to *not* implement 
> that change as
> worded.  It was pointed out at the meeting that this 
> variation addressed
> many of the concerns while leaving some avenue for experimentation and
> research.
> 
> 	Personally, I suspect that A) it will not be used very 
> often (look at
> how many times we've had them to date, and it has been legal 
> all this time)
>   and B) such a request's chance of getting approved by the 
> Board is only
> slightly better than the proverbial snowball's.  Very slightly.
> 
> David/Kwellend-Njal
> 
> ==============================================================
> ==========
>                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions: 
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
> 
> ==============================================================
> ==========
>                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions: 
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020906/03bd279e/attachment-0023.htm>