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

Re: overkill or not

Expand Messages
  • Dan Stratton
    ... Dalton As an experienced archer, I privately agree with the sentiment. But, as we have new archers showing up to shoot at pretty much every event, the SCA
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 13, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      > I just think it's overkill. I mean to compete in FITA or NFAA tournaments to name a couple there is no "authorization" ,in the form we are discussing, required. Some tournaments may require you qualify but that is solely on score. I just find it to be a bit unnecessary. If I want to shoot Vegas in recurve and compound there is no test whatsoever. Why should we in the SCA want to over-legislate everything? Authorized or not people are people and stupid will happen.
      Dalton
      As an experienced archer, I privately agree with the sentiment. But, as we have new archers showing up to shoot at pretty much every event, the SCA is a fish of a different color, so to speak.
      In context, we are forced to assume any archer showing up has yet to be certain that it's: "Push Wood, Pull String" and not the other way around. As there are in fact No specifications in most Kingdoms regarding Any Simpelton (not to be rude) with the price of a bow in his pocket turning up to play at this sport, what would you have us do? Even our authorizations are minimal by Heavy/Rapier standards.
      I assure you, the Archery Marshalate in this Kingdom has had it clearly laid out to us by a former Earl Marshal, that one notable infraction would shut down archery indefinitely for Revue. After which, archery Might continue, at some future date. Older members will remember that this in fact did happen to the fencers (and not in this Kingdom) after a few accidents - the use of the Epee was dicontinued in this Kingdom as a result. Resumption of Rapier activity took a while, with considerable rule changes.
      So, I don't believe in too careful, or too vigilant. Stupid may happen, but not on my watch, not while I sit by and shrug. We have avoided the Big Accident, so far, sometimes not by so very much.

      ......................................
      Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe
      Midrealm Forester - OP
      "- bows of carved wood strong for use, with well-seasoned strings of hemp, and arrows sharp-pointed whizzing in flight."
    • Carolus
      This points out a very good point which many not not have been around long enough to recognize. Prior to about 25 years ago most archers cam to the SCA as
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 13, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        This points out a very good point which many not not have been around
        long enough to recognize. Prior to about 25 years ago most archers cam
        to the SCA as experienced shooters from college teams or local clubs.
        They wanted to expand their knowledge into archaic styles. They were
        well skilled and trained in the basics. About that time colleges began
        shutting down the archery teams as "too expensive" or "too dangerous"
        for the sports departments to operate (I'll not go into the political
        situations at the time here). In Caid we also saw public ranges start
        disappearing and restrictions placed on archery by law. The SCA began
        to become the entry point to the sport for many. Archery was also
        rapidly gaining popularity. So, 20 years ago we wrote our first
        handbook, warranted Marshals (as Njall stated, they were call Range
        Masters then and I still have my original warrant), and authorized
        archers. Authorization was not (and isn't) required for practice (where
        is the archer supposed to learn what is needed to get warranted?). The
        purpose was to ensure that that archer knew basic safety, the
        particulars of SCA archery (I.E. what HOLD means), and the unique
        features of our competition (I.E.speed shooting and equipment specs).
        The entire process was to ensure that when an archer posted a score for
        ranking or showed up for a tourney we knew he had a baseline knowledge
        and the marshals weren't spending time teaching raw newcomers.
        Politically, telling an archer (no matter how unfamiliar with our
        shooting or unsafe) to leave the line just because the marshal said so
        was going to lead to problems - accusations of favoritism, bias,
        discrimination on illegal grounds, etc. Authorizations solved all these
        issues.

        The next is particularly Caidan. We continued to lose venues and laws
        became more restrictive. Open ranges became virtually non-existent and
        we no longer dealt with park people who understood the recreation
        activities at their venues but had to deal with city councils,
        bureaucrats, and police departments. These people did (and do) not
        understand archery and archers but they do understand paperwork. FITA,
        NAA, NFAA and the like had rulebooks and structured processes (though
        not authorizations, but as Njall pointed out their certification of
        officials is MUCH stricter). Showing them a codified handbook and
        process got us permission we otherwise could not get. About 10 years
        ago these restrictions were strangling the entire sport and the USOC and
        NAA became concerned about our Olympic prospects. Local governments saw
        the opportunity to get out from under a liability exposure and turned
        operation of public ranges over to Olympic style operations. Because we
        do not use Olympic style equipment the operators are familiar with,
        because we do "high-risk" shooting like speed shoots, wands, apples on
        wig stands, and the like we are suspect and initial permission to use a
        venue can be difficult, our codified process opens doors because they
        are used to that and makes us like them.

        For us, it is a good and necessary process. Others may not need it at
        this time. From what I have been reading, however, regarding increasing
        regulation in other areas it may be something to be considered. When I
        was MoA we didn't have many out of area visitors and any particular
        event and virtually all of them asked to get Caidan authorization even
        though I offered to let them shoot under their own kingdoms' policy.
        Ten minutes later they were on the line, fully authorized for Caid and
        expressing pride that their kingdom taught them the skills.

        I would also like to point out that FITA, NAA, or NFAA shoots all have
        significant target fees. When I was active competitively, the fees I
        paid would have been over $100 in today's value. Someone new to the
        sport and not already well skilled will not pay those fees and enter the
        shoot. Additionally, the registration paperwork requires that the
        person signify that they are fully conversant with the complete rulebook
        of the sanctioning body (often over a hundred pages) and also usually
        requires paid membership in the sponsoring body or a recognized
        cooperating body. Comparing what the SCA does to what the mundane world
        does or comparing one kingdom's practices to another's is, as was said,
        apples to oranges. Looking at what others do and why, can help us
        prepare for changes in our own situations and have ideas how to address
        those changes. I particularly like each kingdom having its own culture
        and ruleset with minimal organization wide standards. It gives us local
        input and control and better represents the Medieval flavor of what we
        do. We are, after all a world of England, France, Italy, and the German
        States and NOT the European Community.
        Carolus


        Dan Stratton wrote:
        >
        >
        > > I just think it's overkill. I mean to compete in FITA or NFAA
        > tournaments to name a couple there is no "authorization" ,in the form
        > we are discussing, required. Some tournaments may require you qualify
        > but that is solely on score. I just find it to be a bit unnecessary.
        > If I want to shoot Vegas in recurve and compound there is no test
        > whatsoever. Why should we in the SCA want to over-legislate
        > everything? Authorized or not people are people and stupid will happen.
        > Dalton
        > As an experienced archer, I privately agree with the sentiment. But,
        > as we have new archers showing up to shoot at pretty much every event,
        > the SCA is a fish of a different color, so to speak.
        > In context, we are forced to assume any archer showing up has yet to
        > be certain that it's: "Push Wood, Pull String" and not the other way
        > around. As there are in fact No specifications in most Kingdoms
        > regarding Any Simpelton (not to be rude) with the price of a bow in
        > his pocket turning up to play at this sport, what would you have us
        > do? Even our authorizations are minimal by Heavy/Rapier standards.
        > I assure you, the Archery Marshalate in this Kingdom has had it
        > clearly laid out to us by a former Earl Marshal, that one notable
        > infraction would shut down archery indefinitely for Revue. After
        > which, archery Might continue, at some future date. Older members will
        > remember that this in fact did happen to the fencers (and not in this
        > Kingdom) after a few accidents - the use of the Epee was dicontinued
        > in this Kingdom as a result. Resumption of Rapier activity took a
        > while, with considerable rule changes.
        > So, I don't believe in too careful, or too vigilant. Stupid may
        > happen, but not on my watch, not while I sit by and shrug. We have
        > avoided the Big Accident, so far, sometimes not by so very much.
        >
        > ......................................
        > Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe
        > Midrealm Forester - OP
        > "- bows of carved wood strong for use, with well-seasoned strings of
        > hemp, and arrows sharp-pointed whizzing in flight."
        >
        >
      • obsidian@raex.com
        Greetings I am deeply opposed to authorizations in principle, because I think that such would add several levels of paperwork and bureaucracy, because I think
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 13, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Greetings

          I am deeply opposed to authorizations in principle, because I think that such would add several levels of paperwork and bureaucracy, because I think such would create a barrier between the range and interested people who wanted to find out what we were about, and because I think it repairs something that isn't broken. However, I also feel that Carolus provides good perspective on local (for him) conditions. Local response to local problems is a hallmark of wise planning, and when I say I am opposed to auths, what I am really saying is that I am opposed to a general blanket ruling on the part of the Board, mandating a standard for all the SCA. If auths are needed in Caid, ok, Ive got no (or, actually, not much) kick about it. But I don't want to be told that I have to abide by Caid rules if I don't live there.

          I am from the Middle Kingdom, where we have a very tightly organized and relatively rigourously trained marshallate. Indeed, when I was Archer-General, making sure that the marshallate was at highest standard was a big priority with me. Ian Gourdon's checklist, in a previous message, of questions to expect and tests to be run through when one approaches the inspection point on a range, is a superb example of how to deal with the issue of control both of equipment and archer, without needing the archer to flash a card at you. I would encourage everyone on this list to carefully read Ian's message, and answer as best one might, the questions he poses therein.

          Nigel

          On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:19 pm, Carolus wrote:
          > This points out a very good point which many not not have been around
          > long enough to recognize. Prior to about 25 years ago most archers cam
          > to the SCA as experienced shooters from college teams or local clubs.
          > They wanted to expand their knowledge into archaic styles. They were
          > well skilled and trained in the basics. About that time colleges began
          > shutting down the archery teams as "too expensive" or "too dangerous"
          > for the sports departments to operate (I'll not go into the political
          > situations at the time here). In Caid we also saw public ranges start
          > disappearing and restrictions placed on archery by law. The SCA began
          > to become the entry point to the sport for many. Archery was also
          > rapidly gaining popularity. So, 20 years ago we wrote our first
          > handbook, warranted Marshals (as Njall stated, they were call Range
          > Masters then and I still have my original warrant), and authorized
          > archers. Authorization was not (and isn't) required for practice (where
          > is the archer supposed to learn what is needed to get warranted?). The
          > purpose was to ensure that that archer knew basic safety, the
          > particulars of SCA archery (I.E. what HOLD means), and the unique
          > features of our competition (I.E.speed shooting and equipment specs).
          > The entire process was to ensure that when an archer posted a score for
          > ranking or showed up for a tourney we knew he had a baseline knowledge
          > and the marshals weren't spending time teaching raw newcomers.
          > Politically, telling an archer (no matter how unfamiliar with our
          > shooting or unsafe) to leave the line just because the marshal said so
          > was going to lead to problems - accusations of favoritism, bias,
          > discrimination on illegal grounds, etc. Authorizations solved all these
          > issues.
          >
          > The next is particularly Caidan. We continued to lose venues and laws
          > became more restrictive. Open ranges became virtually non-existent and
          > we no longer dealt with park people who understood the recreation
          > activities at their venues but had to deal with city councils,
          > bureaucrats, and police departments. These people did (and do) not
          > understand archery and archers but they do understand paperwork. FITA,
          > NAA, NFAA and the like had rulebooks and structured processes (though
          > not authorizations, but as Njall pointed out their certification of
          > officials is MUCH stricter). Showing them a codified handbook and
          > process got us permission we otherwise could not get. About 10 years
          > ago these restrictions were strangling the entire sport and the USOC and
          > NAA became concerned about our Olympic prospects. Local governments saw
          > the opportunity to get out from under a liability exposure and turned
          > operation of public ranges over to Olympic style operations. Because we
          > do not use Olympic style equipment the operators are familiar with,
          > because we do "high-risk" shooting like speed shoots, wands, apples on
          > wig stands, and the like we are suspect and initial permission to use a
          > venue can be difficult, our codified process opens doors because they
          > are used to that and makes us like them.
          >
          > For us, it is a good and necessary process. Others may not need it at
          > this time.
          From what I have been reading, however, regarding increasing
          > regulation in other areas it may be something to be considered. When I
          > was MoA we didn't have many out of area visitors and any particular
          > event and virtually all of them asked to get Caidan authorization even
          > though I offered to let them shoot under their own kingdoms' policy.
          > Ten minutes later they were on the line, fully authorized for Caid and
          > expressing pride that their kingdom taught them the skills.
          >
          > I would also like to point out that FITA, NAA, or NFAA shoots all have
          > significant target fees. When I was active competitively, the fees I
          > paid would have been over $100 in today's value. Someone new to the
          > sport and not already well skilled will not pay those fees and enter the
          > shoot. Additionally, the registration paperwork requires that the
          > person signify that they are fully conversant with the complete rulebook
          > of the sanctioning body (often over a hundred pages) and also usually
          > requires paid membership in the sponsoring body or a recognized
          > cooperating body. Comparing what the SCA does to what the mundane world
          > does or comparing one kingdom's practices to another's is, as was said,
          > apples to oranges. Looking at what others do and why, can help us
          > prepare for changes in our own situations and have ideas how to address
          > those changes. I particularly like each kingdom having its own culture
          > and ruleset with minimal organization wide standards. It gives us local
          > input and control and better represents the Medieval flavor of what we
          > do. We are, after all a world of England, France, Italy, and the German
          > States and NOT the European Community.
          > Carolus
          >
          >
          > Dan Stratton wrote:
          >>
          >>
          >> > I just think it's overkill. I mean to compete in FITA or NFAA
          >> tournaments to name a couple there is no "authorization" ,in the form
          >> we are discussing, required. Some tournaments may require you qualify
          >> but that is solely on score. I just find it to be a bit unnecessary.
          >> If I want to shoot Vegas in recurve and compound there is no test
          >> whatsoever. Why should we in the SCA want to over-legislate
          >> everything? Authorized or not people are people and stupid will happen.
          >> Dalton
          >> As an experienced archer, I privately agree with the sentiment. But,
          >> as we have new archers showing up to shoot at pretty much every event,
          >> the SCA is a fish of a different color, so to speak.
          >> In context, we are forced to assume any archer showing up has yet to
          >> be certain that it's: "Push Wood, Pull String" and not the other way
          >> around. As there are in fact No specifications in most Kingdoms
          >> regarding Any Simpelton (not to be rude) with the price of a bow in
          >> his pocket turning up to play at this sport, what would you have us
          >> do? Even our authorizations are minimal by Heavy/Rapier standards.
          >> I assure you, the Archery Marshalate in this Kingdom has had it
          >> clearly laid out to us by a former Earl Marshal, that one notable
          >> infraction would shut down archery indefinitely for Revue. After
          >> which, archery Might continue, at some future date. Older members will
          >> remember that this in fact did happen to the fencers (and not in this
          >> Kingdom) after a few accidents - the use of the Epee was dicontinued
          >> in this Kingdom as a result. Resumption of Rapier activity took a
          >> while, with considerable rule changes.
          >> So, I don't believe in too careful, or too vigilant. Stupid may
          >> happen, but not on my watch, not while I sit by and shrug. We have
          >> avoided the Big Accident, so far, sometimes not by so very much.
          >>
          >> ......................................
          >> Ian Gourdon of Glen Awe
          >> Midrealm Forester - OP
          >> "- bows of carved wood strong for use, with well-seasoned strings of
          >> hemp, and arrows sharp-pointed whizzing in flight."
          >>
          >>
          >


          --
          "Ausculta, feminae novae in lacunis recumbens gladii dispensans non fundamentum pro formula administrationis est."
          -
          http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/regindex.html
        • Brad Boda d'Aylward
          I agree to not needing authorizations *In The Kingdom Of Æthelmearc*. Caid may be a different animal and, I assure you, it truely is when it comes to this
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 18, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            I agree to not needing authorizations *In The Kingdom Of Æthelmearc*. Caid
            may be a different animal and, I assure you, it truely is when it comes to
            this neck of the woods. (literally...... Woods) We're known as the 'Sylvan
            Kingdom' for a reason. The whole state of Pennsylvania observes 'Opening
            Day' where many (read MANY) buisnesses close down for the first day of big
            game season. No joke; there's no reason to be open when half your employees
            are off in the woods. This is a different area of the country with a
            different attitude towards bows and guns.

            I've been teaching tradirional archery in the SCA for the past 18 years and
            I can spot a rookie archer really rather quickly as can most of our Kingdom
            Marshalls. Many of our Roving Ranges start with a 'gimmie' shot at around 10
            yards. This first shot quickly shows the Marshall which Archer knows what
            they're doing and whom to watch or offer advice and the Archer isn't even
            aware of the fact that they're being evaluated. I love getting the newcomer
            on the range. We cover the basics of form and watch their RR average jump by
            10 to 15 points. We trust our Marshalls to do a good job and our marshalls
            aren't reluctant to take the responsibility for the safety of their ranges.
            The authorization process is needed with our full contact sports due to the
            very real possibility of injury but the only thing being injured on the
            archery range is the target downrange. We trust our Marshalls to do their
            job correctly, properly, and efficiently.

            Requiring authorizations in a hunting society (small 's') like Æthelmearc
            could possibly be conceived as an insult to our basic common sense. It
            definately would add a layer of paperwork and data base management which, in
            reality, doesn't add any protection at all against lawsuits. In many states
            you cannot sign away your right to sue so the waivers we use in the Society
            (large 'S') legally aren't worth the paperwork unless they're notarized. Our
            fighting program in Æthelmearc will now include youth of 16 years old but
            the new waivers *must be notarized* by the parents to be legally accepted.

            I guess in a part of the country where the only bow most people will see is
            on the old Robin Hood movies.......... OK.

            Brad


            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: overkill or not


            >
            >
            > Greetings
            >
            > I am deeply opposed to authorizations in principle,
            > because I think that such would add several levels of paperwork and
            > bureaucracy, because I think such would create a barrier between the range
            > and interested people who wanted to find out what we were about, and
            > because I think it repairs something that isn't broken. However, I also
            > feel that Carolus provides good perspective on local (for him) conditions.
            > Local response to local problems is a hallmark of wise planning, and when
            > I say I am opposed to auths, what I am really saying is that I am opposed
            > to a general blanket ruling on the part of the Board, mandating a standard
            > for all the SCA. If auths are needed in Caid, ok, Ive got no (or,
            > actually, not much) kick about it. But I don't want to be told that I have
            > to abide by Caid rules if I don't live there.
            >
            > I am from the
            > Middle Kingdom, where we have a very tightly organized and relatively
            > rigourously trained marshallate. Indeed, when I was Archer-General, making
            > sure that the marshallate was at highest standard was a big priority with
            > me. Ian Gourdon's checklist, in a previous message, of questions to expect
            > and tests to be run through when one approaches the inspection point on a
            > range, is a superb example of how to deal with the issue of control both
            > of equipment and archer, without needing the archer to flash a card at
            > you. I would encourage everyone on this list to carefully read Ian's
            > message, and answer as best one might, the questions he poses therein.
            >
            > Nigel
            >
          • Carolus
            Good post Brad, I think you understand many of the differences well. BTW, notarizing a waiver doesn t change it s status in court at all. And it doesn t matter
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 18, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Good post Brad, I think you understand many of the differences well.
              BTW, notarizing a waiver doesn't change it's status in court at all.
              And it doesn't matter what state one is in - they cannot sign away their
              right to sue at all. In fact, a minor has the right to file suit for
              something his parent authorized once he becomes of age. So, even if a
              parent signs all the waivers, consent forms, permissions, and whatever
              and then something happens and they sign a release saying they are ok
              with it, the minor can then sue in his own right once he becomes 18.
              What the paperwork does do, however, is make it much easier to win once
              the suit is heard. (Yeah, I spent my time as a seneschal, too).
              Carolus

              Brad Boda d'Aylward wrote:
              > I agree to not needing authorizations *In The Kingdom Of Æthelmearc*. Caid
              > may be a different animal and, I assure you, it truely is when it comes to
              > this neck of the woods. (literally...... Woods) We're known as the 'Sylvan
              > Kingdom' for a reason. The whole state of Pennsylvania observes 'Opening
              > Day' where many (read MANY) buisnesses close down for the first day of big
              > game season. No joke; there's no reason to be open when half your employees
              > are off in the woods. This is a different area of the country with a
              > different attitude towards bows and guns.
              >
              > I've been teaching tradirional archery in the SCA for the past 18 years and
              > I can spot a rookie archer really rather quickly as can most of our Kingdom
              > Marshalls. Many of our Roving Ranges start with a 'gimmie' shot at around 10
              > yards. This first shot quickly shows the Marshall which Archer knows what
              > they're doing and whom to watch or offer advice and the Archer isn't even
              > aware of the fact that they're being evaluated. I love getting the newcomer
              > on the range. We cover the basics of form and watch their RR average jump by
              > 10 to 15 points. We trust our Marshalls to do a good job and our marshalls
              > aren't reluctant to take the responsibility for the safety of their ranges.
              > The authorization process is needed with our full contact sports due to the
              > very real possibility of injury but the only thing being injured on the
              > archery range is the target downrange. We trust our Marshalls to do their
              > job correctly, properly, and efficiently.
              >
              > Requiring authorizations in a hunting society (small 's') like Æthelmearc
              > could possibly be conceived as an insult to our basic common sense. It
              > definately would add a layer of paperwork and data base management which, in
              > reality, doesn't add any protection at all against lawsuits. In many states
              > you cannot sign away your right to sue so the waivers we use in the Society
              > (large 'S') legally aren't worth the paperwork unless they're notarized. Our
              > fighting program in Æthelmearc will now include youth of 16 years old but
              > the new waivers *must be notarized* by the parents to be legally accepted.
              >
              > I guess in a part of the country where the only bow most people will see is
              > on the old Robin Hood movies.......... OK.
              >
              > Brad
              >
              >
              > Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: overkill or not
              >
              >
              >
              >> Greetings
              >>
              >> I am deeply opposed to authorizations in principle,
              >> because I think that such would add several levels of paperwork and
              >> bureaucracy, because I think such would create a barrier between the range
              >> and interested people who wanted to find out what we were about, and
              >> because I think it repairs something that isn't broken. However, I also
              >> feel that Carolus provides good perspective on local (for him) conditions.
              >> Local response to local problems is a hallmark of wise planning, and when
              >> I say I am opposed to auths, what I am really saying is that I am opposed
              >> to a general blanket ruling on the part of the Board, mandating a standard
              >> for all the SCA. If auths are needed in Caid, ok, Ive got no (or,
              >> actually, not much) kick about it. But I don't want to be told that I have
              >> to abide by Caid rules if I don't live there.
              >>
              >> I am from the
              >> Middle Kingdom, where we have a very tightly organized and relatively
              >> rigourously trained marshallate. Indeed, when I was Archer-General, making
              >> sure that the marshallate was at highest standard was a big priority with
              >> me. Ian Gourdon's checklist, in a previous message, of questions to expect
              >> and tests to be run through when one approaches the inspection point on a
              >> range, is a superb example of how to deal with the issue of control both
              >> of equipment and archer, without needing the archer to flash a card at
              >> you. I would encourage everyone on this list to carefully read Ian's
              >> message, and answer as best one might, the questions he poses therein.
              >>
              >> Nigel
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              > Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2753 - Release Date: 03/17/10 12:33:00
              >
              >
            • Brad Boda d'Aylward
              Yup. The only thing a notarized waiver does is make it much more difficult to convince a Judge that someone inadvertantly signed a waiver. You paid good
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 18, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Yup. The only thing a notarized waiver does is make it much more difficult
                to convince a Judge that someone "inadvertantly" signed a waiver. You paid
                good money to sign a notarized waiver so it wasn't an 'accident'.

                The subject line of 'Overkill??' The answer is, yes TA authorizations are
                overkill for Æthelmearc. Most of our Marshalls view it as an insult of our
                ability to do our jobs in maintaining line safety. Line safety is a serious
                issue but it ain't rocket science. 80% of being a good Marshal is using
                Common Sense with 15% being experience and/or training and with a good
                marshallate we have no need to auth the Archer. In fact, I would tend to
                believe that having a line of authed Archers in no way makes my job of line
                Marshal any easier. The responsibilities are exactly the same either way and
                having the line filled with 'authed' Archers may, in fact, lead some
                marshalls into a false sense of security with a subsequent lessening of the
                level of awareness due the range.

                Nah. Too much added make due work for the control oriented personallities
                with little appreciative return for the effort.

                Brad



                Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: overkill or not


                > Good post Brad, I think you understand many of the differences well.
                > BTW, notarizing a waiver doesn't change it's status in court at all.
                > And it doesn't matter what state one is in - they cannot sign away their
                > right to sue at all. In fact, a minor has the right to file suit for
                > something his parent authorized once he becomes of age. So, even if a
                > parent signs all the waivers, consent forms, permissions, and whatever
                > and then something happens and they sign a release saying they are ok
                > with it, the minor can then sue in his own right once he becomes 18.
                > What the paperwork does do, however, is make it much easier to win once
                > the suit is heard. (Yeah, I spent my time as a seneschal, too).
                > Carolus
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.