Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [E_Rapier] Re: ealdormere-rapier Rules Version 4

Expand Messages
  • Gerrard
    Actually I am asking on behalf of someone else. So I m not 100% certain. I believe they were more interested in the scoring. Gerrard ... From: Aaron
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 4, 2007
      Actually I am asking on behalf of someone else. So I'm not 100% certain.
      I believe they were more interested in the scoring.
      Gerrard
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Aaron Gormanshaw
      To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 1:06 PM
      Subject: RE: [E_Rapier] Re: ealdormere-rapier Rules Version 4


      > I am in a tournament and facing someone with a
      > longer blade. ( This is all they have ) . I do not
      > wish to fence them . How is this scored ?

      Gerard, was this a safety question? I did not perceive it as such, so I may
      have headed off on a wrong tangent. If not a safety question, what is the
      reason for this you not wishing to fence them?

      Hoskuld

      On the one hand, if we say conceding the bout leads to
      a loss all the time, we are giving someone a moment of
      doubt as to whether they should walk away from what
      they perceive as an unsafe situation. Perhaps it's
      not a very big moment of doubt, but when the
      adrenaline's up and competitiveness is at it's
      height, the smallest thing could tip the scales and
      things could turn bad.

      The flip side of this was well put by Hoskald.

      So... what do we do? I say it's the MiC that has
      pervue in this decision at each given instance. The
      reason: she/he is the person directly responsible for
      the safety of all combatants on the List. It's up to
      them to:
      a) Determine if this is a personal issue between two
      people or whether it is a problem for other Combatants
      as well?
      b) What is the best way to handle this situation that
      is fair to ALL? Not just these two combatants. If
      you read this email thread you have a sense of what
      the general Rapier populace thinks on this topic, and
      I suggest you keep it in mind, but you have to make
      the call on the field. Keep safety paramount in your
      mind and I'll back you on whatever call you make.

      Now talking to the MiC for the given tournament AS
      EARLY AS POSSIBLE if you have an issue fighting
      someone IS KEY! Gives them more time to make
      arrangments in the tournament that can be fair to
      everyone. If you wait until you're called to the
      List, you've tied the MiC's hands on what she/he can
      do.

      In Service,

      Mateo de Merida_._,___

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Enzinas
      ... I agree that this is a potential situation so, given that you have said this is the responsibility of the MiC I d like to know under what circumstance you
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 4, 2007
        On 4/4/07, John Wyatt <jwyatt2@...> wrote:
        > On the one hand, if we say conceding the bout leads to
        > a loss all the time, we are giving someone a moment of
        > doubt as to whether they should walk away from what
        > they perceive as an unsafe situation. Perhaps it's
        > not a very big moment of doubt, but when the
        > adrenaline's up and competitiveness is at it's
        > height, the smallest thing could tip the scales and
        > things could turn bad.

        I agree that this is a potential situation so, given that you have
        said this is the responsibility of the MiC I'd like to know under what
        circumstance you would allow THL Pointjock to refuse to fight an THL
        Wireweenie and not lose the bout and also not require THL Wireweenie
        to retire from the field as being unsafe for anyone else to fence.

        I must admit that I cannot think of a circumstance where I would do that.

        --j/g
      • Gerrard
        Most blades are standard length and longer... 98.8% of the time the blades are the same length. I am asking on behalf of someone else. Gerrard ... From:
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 4, 2007
          Most blades are standard length and longer... 98.8% of the time the blades are the same length. I am asking on behalf of someone else.
          Gerrard

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Aaron Gormanshaw
          To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:12 AM
          Subject: RE: [E_Rapier] Re: ealdormere-rapier Rules Version 4


          ***There is nothing in the rules designating what a standard length blade
          is.***

          If for any reason you do not want to fence your opponent, you have the
          right to yield the bout and not fence it.

          I am uncomfortable with the answer below which seems to say that if you have
          the agreement of the MiC, you can take a 35" blade onto the field in a
          tournament and refuse to fight anyone who brings a longer blade, which means
          that you win the bouts in the tournament without having to fight them.

          Let's rephrase the question:

          I am in a tournament and facing someone with a shorter blade. (That is all
          they have). I do not wish to fence them. How is this scored?

          As per below, with the agreement of the MiC, I can "not wish to fence" all
          of my opponents because they do not have a blade to match my length and thus
          I can win the bouts in the tournament without fighting if all my opponents
          bring short blades.

          Let's rephrase the question:

          I am in a tournament and facing someone without a swept hilt (using a saber
          guard). (That is all they have). I do not wish to fence them. How is this
          scored?

          As per below, with the agreement of the MiC, I can "not wish to fence" any
          of my opponents who do not have a period hilt.

          You can see how ridiculous this can easily become.

          If you do not want to fence someone, then yield.

          I personally use a blade longer than 35", and that is what I train with and
          what I am comfortable with. Why should I have to use a shorter blade which
          will mess up my style and training? Obviously, it would be to your
          strategic advantage to have your opponent use a blade shorter than they
          train with. I think that this would be abusing the system.

          Hoskuld

          > I am in a tournament and facing someone with a
          > longer blade. ( This is all they have ) . I do not
          > wish to fence them . How is this scored ?

          As others have said, you do not have to fence them. I
          understand that in the past this has been scored as a
          loss for you... even in a single elinimation
          tournament. The final answer though: Talk to the
          MiC, it's their call. Just ask them before the
          tournament so they're ready if the situation comes up!

          Mateo

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Kelly Wyatt
          I would have to agree with you on that. It s putting the MiC in a terrible position and I really can t conceive of being able to bring myself to do that. It
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 4, 2007
            I would have to agree with you on that. It's putting the MiC in a terrible
            position and I really can't conceive of being able to bring myself to do
            that. It would seem to make a mountain out of a molehill.

            If I choose not to fight someone, assuming that the reason is NOT one
            pertaining to the potential safety of others on the field, I would reserve
            the right to keep my reasons as personal and not have to tell anyone I don't
            wish to know. I wouldn't want to risk damaging anyone's ego or potentially,
            reputation. A simple "I concede." should be all that's necessary.

            Needless to say, if I felt that ANYONE else's safety were in question, I
            would not hesitate to call it to the MiC's attention.

            This is a very sticky soup indeed.

            Cainder

            @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
            MKA - Kelly Wyatt kgarlow@...
            SCA -Bantiarna Cainder ingen hui Chatharnaig
            Seeblatt Herald, Kingdom of Ealdormere
            @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
            Justus, Fortis, Patiens - Per chevron argent and sable, two sprigs of witch
            hazel and a snowy owl counterchanged.





            >From: "John Enzinas" <jenzinas@...>
            >Reply-To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
            >To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Re: [E_Rapier] Re: ealdormere-rapier Rules Version 4
            >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:22:58 -0400
            >
            >On 4/4/07, John Wyatt <jwyatt2@...> wrote:
            > > On the one hand, if we say conceding the bout leads to
            > > a loss all the time, we are giving someone a moment of
            > > doubt as to whether they should walk away from what
            > > they perceive as an unsafe situation. Perhaps it's
            > > not a very big moment of doubt, but when the
            > > adrenaline's up and competitiveness is at it's
            > > height, the smallest thing could tip the scales and
            > > things could turn bad.
            >
            >I agree that this is a potential situation so, given that you have
            >said this is the responsibility of the MiC I'd like to know under what
            >circumstance you would allow THL Pointjock to refuse to fight an THL
            >Wireweenie and not lose the bout and also not require THL Wireweenie
            >to retire from the field as being unsafe for anyone else to fence.
            >
            >I must admit that I cannot think of a circumstance where I would do that.
            >
            >--j/g
          • Bob Roberts
            What exactly is the issue? Is it that a sword is longer than the other? How about if a fencer with realy short arms has to fence someone with really long arms?
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 4, 2007
              What exactly is the issue? Is it that a sword is
              longer than the other? How about if a fencer with
              realy short arms has to fence someone with really long
              arms? Do they automatically win? Is not everyone who
              fences at a tournament authorized? Has not the sfety
              issue already been decided previously? Has not the
              kingdom already decided that x blade length is
              allowed? I know that I have been hit hard by both
              short blades and long blades. It is not the blade that
              hits hard, it is the fencer. By the way, were there
              not swords of differing legnth way back then as well?
              If you went to a duel and faced an opponent with a
              longer sword, could you say that you did not want to
              fight and yet still "win"? Back to what I wrote above,
              if the kingdom has decided that a blade is acceptable
              and that a fencer is authorized then where is the
              problem? Could it lay in a fencer who is unsure of
              themselves and is scared? Should they actually remain
              authorized since they are not ready to fence
              psychologicaly and in fact pose a danger to the fencer
              with the longer sword?
              There is accomodation for limitations and then there
              is just plain sillyness.

              --- Kelly Wyatt <kgarlow@...> wrote:

              > I would have to agree with you on that. It's
              > putting the MiC in a terrible
              > position and I really can't conceive of being able
              > to bring myself to do
              > that. It would seem to make a mountain out of a
              > molehill.
              >
              > If I choose not to fight someone, assuming that the
              > reason is NOT one
              > pertaining to the potential safety of others on the
              > field, I would reserve
              > the right to keep my reasons as personal and not
              > have to tell anyone I don't
              > wish to know. I wouldn't want to risk damaging
              > anyone's ego or potentially,
              > reputation. A simple "I concede." should be all
              > that's necessary.
              >
              > Needless to say, if I felt that ANYONE else's safety
              > were in question, I
              > would not hesitate to call it to the MiC's
              > attention.
              >
              > This is a very sticky soup indeed.
              >
              > Cainder
              >
              > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
              > MKA - Kelly Wyatt kgarlow@...
              > SCA -Bantiarna Cainder ingen hui Chatharnaig
              > Seeblatt Herald, Kingdom of Ealdormere
              > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
              > Justus, Fortis, Patiens - Per chevron argent and
              > sable, two sprigs of witch
              > hazel and a snowy owl counterchanged.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > >From: "John Enzinas" <jenzinas@...>
              > >Reply-To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
              > >To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
              > >Subject: Re: [E_Rapier] Re: ealdormere-rapier Rules
              > Version 4
              > >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:22:58 -0400
              > >
              > >On 4/4/07, John Wyatt <jwyatt2@...> wrote:
              > > > On the one hand, if we say conceding the bout
              > leads to
              > > > a loss all the time, we are giving someone a
              > moment of
              > > > doubt as to whether they should walk away from
              > what
              > > > they perceive as an unsafe situation. Perhaps
              > it's
              > > > not a very big moment of doubt, but when the
              > > > adrenaline's up and competitiveness is at it's
              > > > height, the smallest thing could tip the scales
              > and
              > > > things could turn bad.
              > >
              > >I agree that this is a potential situation so,
              > given that you have
              > >said this is the responsibility of the MiC I'd like
              > to know under what
              > >circumstance you would allow THL Pointjock to
              > refuse to fight an THL
              > >Wireweenie and not lose the bout and also not
              > require THL Wireweenie
              > >to retire from the field as being unsafe for anyone
              > else to fence.
              > >
              > >I must admit that I cannot think of a circumstance
              > where I would do that.
              > >
              > >--j/g
              >
              >
              >




              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
              with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
              http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
            • Kelly Wyatt
              The original question posed to the list (not by me) was regarding if a fencer with a shorter blade chooses to yield a tournament fight to a fencer with a
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 5, 2007
                The original question posed to the list (not by me) was regarding if a
                fencer with a shorter blade chooses to yield a tournament fight to a fencer
                with a longer blade, does he/she lose the bout.

                I believe that it's been determined that it's ultimately up to the MiC to
                make that decision.

                I agree that blade length alone is not enough reason to yield a fight. In my
                opinion it's certainly not enough to grant anything other than a loss. On
                it's own, that is.

                I'm sorry if I got things muddled. I still choose to reserve my right to not
                voice my reasons for yielding if it's anything other than a safety issue.
                What is silliness to you may not be at all to someone else. A gentleman
                shouldn't make assumptions.


                Cainder

                @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
                MKA - Kelly Wyatt kgarlow@...
                SCA -Bantiarna Cainder ingen hui Chatharnaig
                Seeblatt Herald, Kingdom of Ealdormere
                @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
                Justus, Fortis, Patiens - Per chevron argent and sable, two sprigs of witch
                hazel and a snowy owl counterchanged.





                >From: Bob Roberts <maskkasm@...>
                >Reply-To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                >To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [E_Rapier] Re: ealdormere-rapier Rules Version 4
                >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 14:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
                >
                >What exactly is the issue? Is it that a sword is
                >longer than the other? How about if a fencer with
                >realy short arms has to fence someone with really long
                >arms? Do they automatically win? Is not everyone who
                >fences at a tournament authorized? Has not the sfety
                >issue already been decided previously? Has not the
                >kingdom already decided that x blade length is
                >allowed? I know that I have been hit hard by both
                >short blades and long blades. It is not the blade that
                >hits hard, it is the fencer. By the way, were there
                >not swords of differing legnth way back then as well?
                >If you went to a duel and faced an opponent with a
                >longer sword, could you say that you did not want to
                >fight and yet still "win"? Back to what I wrote above,
                >if the kingdom has decided that a blade is acceptable
                >and that a fencer is authorized then where is the
                >problem? Could it lay in a fencer who is unsure of
                >themselves and is scared? Should they actually remain
                >authorized since they are not ready to fence
                >psychologicaly and in fact pose a danger to the fencer
                >with the longer sword?
                >There is accomodation for limitations and then there
                >is just plain sillyness.
                >
              • John Enzinas
                ... What would be a reason to allow someone to yield a bout without loosing and still allow their opponent to continue in the tournament? --j
                Message 7 of 15 , Apr 5, 2007
                  On 4/5/07, Kelly Wyatt <kgarlow@...> wrote:
                  > The original question posed to the list (not by me) was regarding if a
                  > fencer with a shorter blade chooses to yield a tournament fight to a fencer
                  > with a longer blade, does he/she lose the bout.
                  >
                  > I believe that it's been determined that it's ultimately up to the MiC to
                  > make that decision.

                  What would be a reason to allow someone to yield a bout without
                  loosing and still allow their opponent to continue in the tournament?

                  --j
                • Kelly Wyatt
                  ... Honestly, I can t think of ANY reason that fits those parameters. I will let it roll around a bit and see if I can think of something. Cainder
                  Message 8 of 15 , Apr 5, 2007
                    >From: "John Enzinas" <jenzinas@...>
                    >Reply-To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                    >To: E_Rapier@yahoogroups.com
                    >Subject: Re: [E_Rapier] Re: ealdormere-rapier Rules Version 4
                    >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:37:04 -0400
                    >
                    >On 4/5/07, Kelly Wyatt <kgarlow@...> wrote:
                    > > The original question posed to the list (not by me) was regarding if a
                    > > fencer with a shorter blade chooses to yield a tournament fight to a
                    >fencer
                    > > with a longer blade, does he/she lose the bout.
                    > >
                    > > I believe that it's been determined that it's ultimately up to the MiC
                    >to
                    > > make that decision.
                    >
                    >What would be a reason to allow someone to yield a bout without
                    >loosing and still allow their opponent to continue in the tournament?
                    >
                    >--j

                    Honestly, I can't think of ANY reason that fits those parameters. I will let
                    it roll around a bit and see if I can think of something.

                    Cainder
                  • Nicholas J. Corkigian
                    Is it just a matter of boycotting longer blades out of a personal preference (or displeasure)? If so, then I would say that s a personal choice to make that
                    Message 9 of 15 , Apr 5, 2007
                      Is it just a matter of boycotting longer blades out of a personal
                      preference (or displeasure)? If so, then I would say that's a personal
                      choice to make that has no bearing on the actual rules. The penalties
                      should go with it. In this case, it's a choice to not fence an
                      opponent, therefore it's a choice to take the loss.

                      -Nikolai


                      >
                      >
                      > > > The original question posed to the list (not by me) was regarding if a
                      > > > fencer with a shorter blade chooses to yield a tournament fight to a
                      > >fencer
                      > > > with a longer blade, does he/she lose the bout.
                      > > >
                      > > > I believe that it's been determined that it's ultimately up to the
                      > MiC
                      > >to
                      > > > make that decision.
                      > >
                      > >What would be a reason to allow someone to yield a bout without
                      > >loosing and still allow their opponent to continue in the tournament?
                      > >
                      > >--j
                      >
                      > Honestly, I can't think of ANY reason that fits those parameters. I
                      > will let
                      > it roll around a bit and see if I can think of something.
                      >
                      > Cainder
                      >
                      >


                      --
                      -Nicholas J. Corkigian

                      "Sacred cows make the best burgers"
                      -Robert Kriegel



                      This E-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended
                      only for the individual or entity named in the message. If the reader
                      of this message is not the intended recipient, or the agent responsible
                      to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
                      any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
                      is prohibited. If this communication was received in error, please
                      notify the sender by reply E-mail immediately, and delete and destroy
                      the original message.
                    • Ross Weaver
                      ... Yeilding to an opponent is to give them the win. If my opponent legs me and I choose to yeild rather than fight from my knees I m offering them the win,
                      Message 10 of 15 , Apr 5, 2007
                        On 4/5/07, Kelly Wyatt <kgarlow@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > The original question posed to the list (not by me) was regarding if a
                        > fencer with a shorter blade chooses to yield a tournament fight to a
                        > fencer
                        > with a longer blade, does he/she lose the bout.
                        >





                        Yeilding to an opponent is to give them the win. If my opponent legs me
                        and I choose to yeild rather than fight from my knees I'm offering them the
                        win, rather than to keep fighting. It does not matter why you yeild,
                        choosing to yeild is choosing to lose.

                        To refuse to fence some due to safety is a different issue. If someone is
                        unsafe they should be removed from the field. If equipment is unsafe it
                        should be removed from the field. But that is obviously not the question
                        here.

                        ~Wilhelm


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.