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

Last call for updates and request for comments

Expand Messages
  • Andre Detommaso
    Greetings from Lorenzo, one last reminder that 1 January will be the last day that I will accept updates to scores for the 2002 season. Thanks to everyone who
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 29, 2002
      Greetings from Lorenzo,

      one last reminder that 1 January will be the last day
      that I will accept updates to scores for the 2002
      season. Thanks to everyone who checked the last
      updates and sent changes. I have updated the database
      and posted changes to the web site.

      As we close the season, I would like to ask you to
      take a moment and think about changes you would like
      to see for next year's IKAC/IKCAC competition. I would
      be grateful for your comments, suggestions and
      criticisms, so that we can make this an ever more fun
      competition. A couple of items worth thiking about:

      - We ended up with quite a few IKCAC scores, more than
      last year. Did the new way of reporting work for you?
      How should we address next year's IKCAC? Should we
      make multiple IKCAC divisions for APD/No APDs? Please
      let me know your thoughts.
      - We had a few entrants in the new Children division.
      From the scores submitted, I could tell that people
      were not familiar with the shorter distances for the
      children division. Is this worth continuing? If so, is
      there a better way to make people aware of this
      division?
      - I would like to offer some prizes to the top three
      of every Kingdom in every division. I was thinking of
      something like leather medallions. I don't mind doing
      it, but I don't know how, as I've never made them
      before. If you know how to make leather medallions,
      can you point me to some instructions? I really would
      like to offer something to everyone who placed in the
      top three of their Kingdoms by this time next year.
      - Any other ideas, suggestions, criticisms? Please let
      me know.

      Thanks to everyone for shooting this year. Next year's
      season is just around the corner, and it will start on
      1 Frebruary. If you would like to hold IKACs during
      January, that is no problem, just contact me in
      advance. Several of you have done that already.

      Looking forward to hearing from you. You can reach me
      at this address or at ikac@....

      Shoot well, and Happy New Year!
      - Lorenzo

      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
    • Jack Bradley
      Number 8 here I m kinda wondering why sights or mark term need to be included at all I don t remember including any bow info on the score sheet Of the bowes
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
        Number 8 here I'm kinda wondering why sights or mark term need to be
        included at all I don't remember including any bow info on the score
        sheet Of the bowes that I use only one has marks and it was not used for
        the ICAK this year
        Congratulations to the seven who beat me And thanks to Lorenzo for the
        good work
        Ragnar Two Ax

        detomamd wrote:

        >Greetings Sir Jon and everyone.
        >Thanks for the question, which is a good one. First of all: the
        >term "sights" in the IKAC refers to simple limb markings, per the SCA
        >rules.
        >This appears to be a regional confusion. Here in the East Coast and I
        >am pretty sure in Mid, the terms "sights" is commonly used for simple
        >limb markings. This terms does not appear to be used in the western
        >Kingdoms. It has been my intention to change it just as you have
        >suggested. I received a handful of questions about it this year, and
        >I think only one last year, when I introduced the reporting of
        >markings or no markings, so I didn't realize at first that it was
        >causing confusion.
        >
        >Once again: the terms "sights" in the Open IKAC refers to simple limb
        >markings. It will be changed to "marks" next year.
        >
        >Thanks again for your input. Please let me know if you have any
        >further questions.
        >Regards,
        >- Lorenzo
        >
        >--- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, John Edgerton <sirjon1@p...>
        >wrote:
        >
        >
        >>An archer in the West brought to my attention a question about the
        >>scores in the Open division of the IKAC. So I looked at the latest
        >>
        >>
        >Open
        >
        >
        >>division scores at the IKAC web site. Both the first and eighth
        >>
        >>
        >place
        >
        >
        >>scores in the Open division are listed as recurve-sights. Most all
        >>
        >>
        >of
        >
        >
        >>the other Open scores are listed as no sights. To my understanding
        >>
        >>
        >the
        >
        >
        >>standards for the Open division were the same as the SCA rules,
        >>
        >>
        >which do
        >
        >
        >>not allow the use of sights, marked bow limbs are allowed, but not
        >>sights. So my question is, are these scores that are noted as with
        >>sights shot with sights or with marked bow limbs? If they were
        >>
        >>
        >shot
        >
        >
        >>with sights they should not be allowed. If with marked bow limbs,
        >>
        >>
        >then
        >
        >
        >>all is fine. But, perhaps the term "sights" on the scores should be
        >>changed to "marks" or something else if there is really a need for
        >>
        >>
        >it.
        >
        >
        >>The current score sheets have under the bow type both "N" and "S"
        >>
        >>
        >which
        >
        >
        >>may stand for "sights" and "no sights". And has an example of RS
        >>
        >>
        >which
        >
        >
        >>might be understood to stand for "Recurve-Sights". This is
        >>
        >>
        >misleading
        >
        >
        >>and could cause someone to believe that they may use sights in
        >>
        >>
        >shooting
        >
        >
        >>the Open division.
        >>
        >>Lorenzo, could you clear this up for me.
        >>
        >>Thanks
        >>
        >>Jon
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >---8<---------------------------------------------
        >Brought to you YahooGroups Ad Free in 2002 by Medieval Mart
        >Get Medieval at Mad Macsen's http://www.medievalmart.com/
        >
        >[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to leave this list]
        >
        >
        >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Edgerton
        An archer in the West brought to my attention a question about the scores in the Open division of the IKAC. So I looked at the latest Open division scores at
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
          An archer in the West brought to my attention a question about the
          scores in the Open division of the IKAC. So I looked at the latest Open
          division scores at the IKAC web site. Both the first and eighth place
          scores in the Open division are listed as recurve-sights. Most all of
          the other Open scores are listed as no sights. To my understanding the
          standards for the Open division were the same as the SCA rules, which do
          not allow the use of sights, marked bow limbs are allowed, but not
          sights. So my question is, are these scores that are noted as with
          sights shot with sights or with marked bow limbs? If they were shot
          with sights they should not be allowed. If with marked bow limbs, then
          all is fine. But, perhaps the term "sights" on the scores should be
          changed to "marks" or something else if there is really a need for it.

          The current score sheets have under the bow type both "N" and "S" which
          may stand for "sights" and "no sights". And has an example of RS which
          might be understood to stand for "Recurve-Sights". This is misleading
          and could cause someone to believe that they may use sights in shooting
          the Open division.

          Lorenzo, could you clear this up for me.

          Thanks

          Jon
        • John Edgerton
          Andre Detommaso wrote: misc deleted ... misc deleted I feel that 3/4 inch blunts should only be allowed to be used by those areas that have a wavier to use
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
            Andre Detommaso wrote:
            misc deleted

            >
            >- We ended up with quite a few IKCAC scores, more than
            >last year. Did the new way of reporting work for you?
            >How should we address next year's IKCAC? Should we
            >make multiple IKCAC divisions for APD/No APDs? Please
            >let me know your thoughts.
            >-
            >
            misc deleted

            I feel that 3/4 inch blunts should only be allowed to be used by those
            areas that have a wavier to use them in combat. And APDs should be
            required on all shafted arrows except from those areas with a waiver
            not to use them. I do not understand why scores have been accepted for
            shafted arrows without APDs from areas other than those with a waiver
            not to use them. Shafted arrows without APDs are not SCA legal, except
            for those areas with waivers. I would suggest to change the wording of
            the rules to reflect this

            If there were two divisions, the division for non APD shafted arrows
            would be a extremely limited division.

            Jon
          • detomamd <detomamd@yahoo.com>
            Greetings Sir Jon and everyone. Thanks for the question, which is a good one. First of all: the term sights in the IKAC refers to simple limb markings, per
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 3, 2003
              Greetings Sir Jon and everyone.
              Thanks for the question, which is a good one. First of all: the
              term "sights" in the IKAC refers to simple limb markings, per the SCA
              rules.
              This appears to be a regional confusion. Here in the East Coast and I
              am pretty sure in Mid, the terms "sights" is commonly used for simple
              limb markings. This terms does not appear to be used in the western
              Kingdoms. It has been my intention to change it just as you have
              suggested. I received a handful of questions about it this year, and
              I think only one last year, when I introduced the reporting of
              markings or no markings, so I didn't realize at first that it was
              causing confusion.

              Once again: the terms "sights" in the Open IKAC refers to simple limb
              markings. It will be changed to "marks" next year.

              Thanks again for your input. Please let me know if you have any
              further questions.
              Regards,
              - Lorenzo

              --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, John Edgerton <sirjon1@p...>
              wrote:
              >
              > An archer in the West brought to my attention a question about the
              > scores in the Open division of the IKAC. So I looked at the latest
              Open
              > division scores at the IKAC web site. Both the first and eighth
              place
              > scores in the Open division are listed as recurve-sights. Most all
              of
              > the other Open scores are listed as no sights. To my understanding
              the
              > standards for the Open division were the same as the SCA rules,
              which do
              > not allow the use of sights, marked bow limbs are allowed, but not
              > sights. So my question is, are these scores that are noted as with
              > sights shot with sights or with marked bow limbs? If they were
              shot
              > with sights they should not be allowed. If with marked bow limbs,
              then
              > all is fine. But, perhaps the term "sights" on the scores should be
              > changed to "marks" or something else if there is really a need for
              it.
              >
              > The current score sheets have under the bow type both "N" and "S"
              which
              > may stand for "sights" and "no sights". And has an example of RS
              which
              > might be understood to stand for "Recurve-Sights". This is
              misleading
              > and could cause someone to believe that they may use sights in
              shooting
              > the Open division.
              >
              > Lorenzo, could you clear this up for me.
              >
              > Thanks
              >
              > Jon
            • detomamd <detomamd@yahoo.com>
              Last year (2001) I received more complaints than scores on the use of APDs or not in the IKCAC, and specifically whether they should be allowed or not allowed
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 3, 2003
                Last year (2001) I received more complaints than scores on the use of
                APDs or not in the IKCAC, and specifically whether they should be
                allowed or not allowed in the IKCAC, for a very wide variety of
                reasons. However, it seemed to me that the majority of the complaints
                came from the fact that people didn't feel like they were competing
                on a level playing field, and there was always the suspicion that a
                particular good score was due to a particular arrow configuration.
                FUrthermore, by the time the just concluded season (2002) started,
                APD designs were still evolving, and the bottom line is that I felt I
                had no good data on which to make any kind of decisions, since no one
                had been tracking ammunition type before. After consulting with
                several people I decided to run the 2002 IKCAC season as the year
                before, but to require submissions to specify arrow type and
                components. I then reported that information along with the score on
                the web site and report.
                I think that this worked well. We now have some good data, and we can
                definitely see correlations. The question now is how to handle it for
                next season. One division, multiple divisions? Allowing 3/4 blunts
                only for the areas that allow it does not solve the underlying un-
                level playing field complaint, whereas creating one division just for
                those folks would make a tiny division indeed, as you have correctly
                pointed out. I appreciate your input on this. I would very much like
                more input from archers in the next few weeks. I will do what the
                majority would like, but Sir Jon, yours is only the second answer I
                have received on this so far. The other one advised me to create
                three new divisions. How does everyone else feel? Please let me know,
                I very much need your input.
                Regards,
                - Lorenzo

                --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, John Edgerton <sirjon1@p...>
                wrote:
                >
                >
                > Andre Detommaso wrote:
                > misc deleted
                >
                > >
                > >- We ended up with quite a few IKCAC scores, more than
                > >last year. Did the new way of reporting work for you?
                > >How should we address next year's IKCAC? Should we
                > >make multiple IKCAC divisions for APD/No APDs? Please
                > >let me know your thoughts.
                > >-
                > >
                > misc deleted
                >
                > I feel that 3/4 inch blunts should only be allowed to be used by
                those
                > areas that have a wavier to use them in combat. And APDs should be
                > required on all shafted arrows except from those areas with a
                waiver
                > not to use them. I do not understand why scores have been accepted
                for
                > shafted arrows without APDs from areas other than those with a
                waiver
                > not to use them. Shafted arrows without APDs are not SCA legal,
                except
                > for those areas with waivers. I would suggest to change the wording
                of
                > the rules to reflect this
                >
                > If there were two divisions, the division for non APD shafted
                arrows
                > would be a extremely limited division.
                >
                > Jon
              • John Edgerton
                That clears it up. Many thanks Jon ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 3, 2003
                  That clears it up.

                  Many thanks

                  Jon

                  detomamd wrote:

                  >Greetings Sir Jon and everyone.
                  >Thanks for the question, which is a good one. First of all: the
                  >term "sights" in the IKAC refers to simple limb markings, per the SCA
                  >rules.
                  >This appears to be a regional confusion. Here in the East Coast and I
                  >am pretty sure in Mid, the terms "sights" is commonly used for simple
                  >limb markings. This terms does not appear to be used in the western
                  >Kingdoms. It has been my intention to change it just as you have
                  >suggested. I received a handful of questions about it this year, and
                  >I think only one last year, when I introduced the reporting of
                  >markings or no markings, so I didn't realize at first that it was
                  >causing confusion.
                  >
                  >Once again: the terms "sights" in the Open IKAC refers to simple limb
                  >markings. It will be changed to "marks" next year.
                  >
                  >Thanks again for your input. Please let me know if you have any
                  >further questions.
                  >Regards,
                  >- Lorenzo
                  >
                  >-
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Carolus Eulenhorst
                  As one looking at competing next year and having both heavy weapons legal (APD equipped 1.5 blunts) and light weapons (no APD 1.25 blunts) I would say that
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 3, 2003
                    As one looking at competing next year and having both heavy weapons legal
                    (APD equipped 1.5" blunts) and light weapons (no APD 1.25" blunts) I
                    would say that these two divisions with waiver kingdoms/regions being
                    included in the light weapons division for equipment similarity and
                    equitability would be the way to go. Thanks for running this competition
                    and taking the time to refine the rules on an ongoing basis.

                    In service to the dream
                    Carolus von Eulenhorst
                    eulenhorst@...

                    On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:34:41 -0000 "detomamd <detomamd@...>"
                    <detomamd@...> writes:
                    > Last year (2001) I received more complaints than scores on the use of
                    >
                    > APDs or not in the IKCAC, and specifically whether they should be
                    > allowed or not allowed in the IKCAC, for a very wide variety of
                    > reasons. However, it seemed to me that the majority of the
                    > complaints
                    > came from the fact that people didn't feel like they were competing
                    >
                    > on a level playing field, and there was always the suspicion that a
                    >
                    > particular good score was due to a particular arrow configuration.
                    > FUrthermore, by the time the just concluded season (2002) started,
                    > APD designs were still evolving, and the bottom line is that I felt
                    > I
                    > had no good data on which to make any kind of decisions, since no
                    > one
                    > had been tracking ammunition type before. After consulting with
                    > several people I decided to run the 2002 IKCAC season as the year
                    > before, but to require submissions to specify arrow type and
                    > components. I then reported that information along with the score on
                    >
                    > the web site and report.
                    > I think that this worked well. We now have some good data, and we
                    > can
                    > definitely see correlations. The question now is how to handle it
                    > for
                    > next season. One division, multiple divisions? Allowing 3/4 blunts
                    > only for the areas that allow it does not solve the underlying un-
                    > level playing field complaint, whereas creating one division just
                    > for
                    > those folks would make a tiny division indeed, as you have correctly
                    >
                    > pointed out. I appreciate your input on this. I would very much like
                    >
                    > more input from archers in the next few weeks. I will do what the
                    > majority would like, but Sir Jon, yours is only the second answer I
                    >
                    > have received on this so far. The other one advised me to create
                    > three new divisions. How does everyone else feel? Please let me
                    > know,
                    > I very much need your input.
                    > ds,
                    > - Lorenzo

                    ________________________________________________________________
                    Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
                    Only $9.95 per month!
                    Visit www.juno.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.