Hmmm...lemmee see. I can give you some of my thoughts, but these are only my personal musings on life more than any statements of fact.

I've been avidly following this related thread about reenactment on another forum:
http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000598.html

I had a bit of a chat with the originator of the thread Phillippe at Pennsic about some of the same issues that this thread covers, but it wasn't ARMET related so much as tangental or parallel.

Right now I'm not sure how I feel about ARMET. When the idea was hatched it intended to be a facilitating set of guidelines so we could all play together at the same level more than a set of RULES. If you've read some of the posts in this forum, you see that even though the participants agree in theory, we never could agree on specifics. Like the thread referenced above, it seems that no group can decided anything- even something they appeared to agree on- by committee. Maybe it’s just human nature?

It seems that if someone or some group had just set forth the guidelines and then announced “Hey- we have this group--wanna join?”, people could evaluate the guidelines and there are no problems. Either you want to play the game or not, and it’s an easy yes/no choice. Conflicts and disagreements seem to come up when aftermarket guidelines are constructed for an already ongoing activity, and this seems to be what happened to ARMET.

I’m not really willing to push for ARMET any more, although others might want to. I’m of a mind that maybe the time isn’t right for such an organization, or maybe Americans can’t play nice together, or maybe it’s group dynamics. In any case, it’s certainly not something I (as one of the 4 originators of the ARMET idea) am devoting a lot of time to now. Bob and Jen and Jeff and I put effort into it at the outset and tried to get others involved in the process, but it devolved into the same sort of brawl that’s happening on the other forum.

I guess an inherent part of this “setting up” process is deciding who’s opinion gets the most weight. At some point, *someone* has to have the authority to say “Thanks for your input. Now I/we are going to weigh everyone’s opinion and make a decision”, or no decisions will be made. But how do we decide who gets to make the final determination? Is it enthusiasm for the subject that gets the most points? Overall knowledge? Achievements? Abilities? Communication skills? Even in the area of “expertise”, how do we judge who is the top dog? Bob has a degree in History, but I, who have no degree, make my living at it. Whose vote carries more weight? Bob, whose knowledge of politics is encyclopedic, or Jeff, whose technical abilities and knowledge of 15th C. crafts is just as encyclopedic? Even something that seems as irrefutably self evident as “expertise” is subject to interpretation and debate and criticism, as in this passage, clipped out of the other thread:

> I also have a limited patience dealing with overblown egos by some
> self-appointed "expert" whose opinion is expected to be taken as gospel truth,
> regardless if said "expert" is an armouring or costuming artist of the highest
> quality. I get really pissy when I hear absurd statements about horses and
> riding from someone who's entire collection of online photos consist of him
> posing on a horse with its legs locked in a standing position, wearing
> full-plate and holding sword in a "charge" position.

Make no mistake about it, the author is referring to Jeff, and maybe me as the “costuming artist”. Do I have a right to make final decisions about ARMET if I’m not really an expert? Does Jeff if he’s just a costume dummy, not a Master artisan? How can we evaluate expertise? Should it matter? Is the above passage just one guy’s small minded, frustrated rock throwing, or a legitimate observation? Who decides?

Clearly, everything having to do with ARMET, from any angle you choose to look at it is open to debate. For me, I’m no longer interested in debate, and really, I’ve lost the desire to stick my neck out at all, for ARMET or not. I’m actually kind of suprised that I wrote all of this down, considering how unwilling I’ve become to say anything, for fear of the kind censure voiced in the above quoted passage.

I’m beginning to think that Mac [Robert McPherson] had the right of it when he said that maybe there’s something inherently flawed in such an impersonal medium as this [meaning boards like this], where you can’t hear what the other people are saying, and can’t see their face. Communication is more than just words on a page; speech evolved as a face to face communication medium involving the ability to see the other person’s face and to hear the intonation in their voice. I agree with his assessment that it may be “impossible _not_ to piss people off when you can’t see their face”. Maybe ARMET isn’t going anywhere because we can’t see each other’s faces.

Sorry for the ramble. Looks like you got the whole book instead of just the Cliff’s Notes edition.

What did they do to you at Pensic?……

I agree with many of your points, but I think the frustration you are feeling may stem from what would be normal with large group human interrelations. This may be a rather fatalistic attitude but I have found that the negative traits in behavior are cumulative, the more ignorance, the more glaring the example seems. I bet there is a mathematical formula that could be applied J

Buck up little camper…

My understanding of the ARMET, was to create a forum for standards to play by… be they minimums or standards to reach for, depends upon where you start within your hobby/obsession. I for one do not have a torch burning for this subject, but I do have respect for all that do. My life, as it is, dose not allow me to conduct the in depth research needed to master this subject, I find it comforting that there is someone or someplace for me to drop in on and gain an education on a very in depth subject.

I fell strongly that the information needs to be available to those inclined to learn. Even if we all cannot seem to reach a consensus… the seed has been planted.

I spent many early years in the SCA, back when carpet armor was the standard and all I was interested in was having fun in a medieval-esque kind of atmosphere. I think our interest and depth of knowledge/understanding grow as we do… but I also feel that there should be some place for those not interested in more academic standards to go and enjoy themselves. After all, we have chosen to participate in a group activity (for better or worse).

My comments above revolve around one aspect of personalities as they impact the ARMET idea, but it's a broader issue that impacts other areas. Since I don't want to derail this thread, jump over to here:
http://www.wolfeargent.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=newtopic&f=17

Gwen

While participation from members of the Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA) is welcome, this is not an SCA site and we do not discuss SCA specific heraldry, peerage, combat, armour, or events (unless there is a 'true' living history presence there), there are plenty of other boards and locations that address these topics and we will be happy to point you in the right direction.

May I suggest that those who wish to discuss the SCA read the whole thread and post their thoughts on the appropriate board, The Armour Archive.

--------------------

I believe the _concepts_ of what is being discussed in that thread apply equally here, if not the _specifics_. I believe there is much cross-learning that could happen between the 2 groups, especially in matters of group dynamics, if not specifics.

I posted the URL so that people *could* read the whole thing.

I don't think that the idea of ARMET ought be abandoned. It may not take the form originaly envisioned, but we can surely come up with a simple minimum standard that we can all agree upon.

I see the primary reason for it not having gone forward is that discussion was primarily between two groups (Red Co. and Wolfe Argent) that basically agreed on most all pertenant points. We were lacking input from other 15th century groups, but now with participation of members from other groups, we can perhaps come up with a minimum we can agree on. I would like to just put us on par with a recognized acceptable standard as in all the other historic eras re-enacted.

Perhaps we can hash things out to a degree at Stoudt's in a few weeks.

[ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: chef de chambre ]

--------------------

I have always suggested that those whose idea it was come up with their own idea of where the minimum bar is, and if others want to achieve that, peachy by them.

To me, the concept of ARMET was always a way to say "this is an ARMET event" so I would know where that bar was. Each group sets the bar differently for themselves...for some its something to achieve and strive for, for some its a minimum standard (that's the way La Maisnie does it--we keep moving the bar up each year as we get better and better).

As to "who is the expert"....expertness, like any other soubriquet is totally in the eye of the beholder.

One does not declair onesself an expert, it is a status that is assigned to you by others.

Decide for yourself, grasshoppers, who are your "experts". And look at the ARMET standards as put forth by the originators and decide for yourself if you want to try and match them in your group. If not, not!

One of the strengths of this forum, I feel, is that we come from so many diverse backgrounds, but that strength becomes a weakness when its used to divide rather than allow us to examine ourselves that much closely....

(OK, that was deliciously vague, no? )

--Anne-Marie

--------------------

--------------------

This thread has been both fascinating and frustrating to follow and read, as there is so much good insight and thought expressed in it, while at the same time, this "issue" of authority is really a part of the human condition and will not be solved here or in any other medium. At least, it won't ever be solved to everyone's satisfaction. When you ask if it's just part of being human, the answer is "yes"; when you ask if American's just can't play nicely together, the answer is a qualified "yes, if you mean ALL Americans".

A good rule of thumb about "Experts" is that if they call themselves an expert, do not trust that, as they clearly have something to prove (though they may be right in the long run). If others (who seem knowledgeable) respect that person's opinion, however, then they actually may be that elusive commodity called "Expert". The pitfall we all get into beyond this point is that many people believe that expert opinion is the same as "Truth", or "Law", or "The Way". It really is only opinion -- educated, tested, and well-informed opinion -- but still just opinion, because this forum deals with lives and times that none of us has lived through for real, and is based -- at best -- on research. That really is what we're doing every time we play -- we're researching. Anybody who's a scientist out there knows that research and theory can serve as pretty good guidelines, but replicating somebody else's experiment perfectly is dang nigh impossible.

A separate issue was raised by Gwen (who sure sounds like she knows a lot to me, and who's opinion on her area of expertise I value). Personal attacks are extremely painful, especially when you are attacked in an area where you've tried only to be helpful, supportive, and open. Try to ignore disgruntled people who resent the fact that others may actually know as much -- or more -- than they do. I suspect that the person who posted their irritation -- too pointedly -- on the other board to be that type.

This is not to say that people who argue with authority are bad -- America has a very different class system than do some other countries, and it makes us less accepting of authority and structures of all types, in some cases. There will always be differing opinions -- we just need to argue it out, and try to be kind in doing so. Even when "experts" get together, they don't agree on everything. Some of the most hotly debated arguments are between experts. That is why ARMET needs to be based on guidelines and entry-level standards, rather than absolute rules and ideal standards. There has to be enough flexibility within ARMET to allow beginners to feel welcome and fully included in the activities, even if they aren't kitted-out or knowledgeable to the ideal level.

And if somebody still doesn't feel comfortable with that, and doesn't have the same ideals, they can take their Naugahyde tunic and join a Fantasy group instead of a Living History organization.

Keep on posting, its what makes the World go 'round

While I agree completely with the concept of "everyone being welcome.. including newcomers who aren't kitted-out or knowledgeable to the ideal level.", I have a different opinion when it comes to entry level standards.

I learned from Dave Key that the White Company's handbook gives directions how to achieve 100% compliance with the groups standards. At first sight this may seem exclusionary, however, it is assumed that most people will achieve anywhere from 60-80% compliance with the ideal. If they were to present a "low bar" (to coin a term much used around here), compliance would be assumed to be much lower. Having folks running around in tennis shoes at events because they have not gotten appropriate shoes together detracts from the efforts of the long term members.

The Red Company, along with other like groups, agree that it is better to loan a new person the kit they are lacking rather than having them make due with something which is innappropriate. RedCo. has a collection of loaner gear which we allow new members, recruits and guests to use so that they are 100% integrated into the group. I feel very little will make a new member feel like an outsider than not looking like they belong, or feeling embarrassed that their kit is not up to par.

While I understand that some of the "re-creation" groups approach the question from the "start low and build up" angle, I believe The White Company and their ilk have the right of it when they ask for the stars and "only" get the moon from their members.

I have experienced putting a guest into Red Company clothing and seeing their thrill at participating on a par with everyone else. If they decide to join the group, they are much more excited about making their own gear, having experienced firsthand what it is like to wear/use it.

Loaner gear need not be an additional expense or burden for a group, as long as members are willing to share their personal gear until loaner gear can be assembled. Jeff and I put our clothing on others for years, until the group grew enough and until we accumulated enough cast off clothing to clothe guests and new members.

Just my opinion-

And yes, Pieter, ARMET nothing more than a set of guidelines. The idea being that if any group has an ARMET event, everyone would know what the standards were ahead of time and there would be no suprises. ARMET will not be a club in an of itself, but an affiliation of people who all want to play together. Think of the NFL- any team can play any other team and know how big the field will be, how to score points, etc.

Bob, Jen, what do you think?

I have been in favor of doing this sort of thing, and I'm not the sort to change horses in mid-stream.

I think we need simple guidlines for authenticity. I also think we need a means of having the "boys with guns" as AM calls us interact in skirmishing (and I think we need to simply adopt the WOR federation standard). I think we need to have the leadership of each company talk the structure over, and then sign on or not as the case might be. We all seem to be talking to each other now, so maybe we have a hope of this working.

The guidlines need to be simple (and not unachievable)- and enforced at ARMET standard events - after all, we have no means of (or desire to) police others groups or enforce our own perhaps higher (or not) standard on these other groups when they are off doing their own thing.

--------------------

I am new to this Forum, and I am German, so please have mercy upon me in case I got something wrong or repeat things posted before.
To the issue- we had these discussions about minimum standards, minimum equipment in minimum quality etc. as well.
I would opt for a simple "Do´s and Dont´s"-Letter in the first place, with a contents like "Use wool, hemp and linen and keep away from artificial fibres", "Only steel/iron or copper or brass/bronze, no aluminium, stinless, plastic".

One of my favourite issues is the point "Abandon projects you can´t afford". Better to take a simple footsoldier to the extreme of historical accuracy than boasting a knight or noble full of bad compromises. In Germany the majority of the knights hasn´t got a horse, not even spurs to at least look like just dismounted!
And one more: Think, whether recreating a civilian couldn´t be as attractive.

Another point could be a helping hand for research. Here in Germany most people don´t know the right keywords for their library. For clothing they usully start with "Gewandung", the German equivalent to "Garb". One book available. Then the go to "armour" or "knight" and fiddle a costume that looks quite like the pictures in the book. The results usually are RenFaire-stylee, but not worthy to be called "historic".

I think a letter like this would be helpful alongside strict rules. Rules give the impression of the musculous guy in front of the discotheque, and kit guides usually create mostly clones.
What do you think?
Regards from Germany

Ivo

--------------------