Moderators: Webmaster, Stacy Clifford
jimmyc wrote:Hello,
Ive thought about the idea of joining ARMA. I am a member of the SCA i dont think i would leave that org. ARMA seems to be fun from what i see on the web site. How ARMA and the SCA compare? I thinking i can play in both. ok so oce i semd in my membership, what the nwxt step?
thanks
jimmyc Norwalk Wi
Aaron Kavli wrote:I think you can do both SCA and ARMA, but you need to watch out for their mutual influence.
Jonathan_Kaplan wrote:What about, yaknow, the type of larping that doesn't have physical combat? You know, the rock paper scissors types or the thowing pebbles at people type? Not all larping has you go at someone with padded swords... What about being in groups like SCA and not doing any of their combat stuff at all? Do you still not accept members in that case?
Shane Smith wrote:Aaron Kavli wrote:I think you can do both SCA and ARMA, but you need to watch out for their mutual influence.
The ARMA does not accept new members who are currently active in larping or fantasy-oriented groups such as SCA. Dual membership has proven to be unproductive in turning out good martially-effective fencers for the most part in our experience.
Shane Smith wrote:The ARMA does not accept new members who are currently active in larping or fantasy-oriented groups such as SCA. Dual membership has proven to be unproductive in turning out good martially-effective fencers for the most part in our experience.
Michael Navas wrote:Shane Smith wrote:The ARMA does not accept new members who are currently active in larping or fantasy-oriented groups such as SCA. Dual membership has proven to be unproductive in turning out good martially-effective fencers for the most part in our experience.
Could you elaborate on why this is?
In what way does ARMA suffer from its practitioners being of less than stellar quality? Members pay for themselves, equip themselves and train for themselves, all the while spreading the word, do they not? It sounds like membership is an investment on ARMA's behalf, and while that is certainly understandable from a scientific standpoint, it just sounds like the kind of thinking that would make ARMA kick students who didn't meet certain qualifications in a set amount of time. It doesn't AFAIK, so what makes SCA influence different?
Is it a publicity thing? That ARMA cannot afford to be represented by people of poor influence and 'corrupted' knowledge?
John_Clements wrote:As a clarification here...while the ARMA has no exclusionary policy or automatic dis-qualifiers, what we are about is focusing on creating new collaborative Study Groups and committed students contributing to our larger historical fencing community and assembling like-minded associates participating in our martial curricula and certification program.
We literally receive tens of new applications each month, and membership is not automatic. We admit only a few applicants each time, evaluating each on an individual case-by-case basis. We usually prefer as new colleagues those whose energies are not directed toward contradicting efforts or whose time and interests must be divided between distracting activities. We don’t generally have an interest in folk who are already comfortably pursuing their own programs or separate efforts. Doing otherwise hasn’t worked to our benefit in the past. For one to fully commit to our subject and give it the attention it deserves and the time it demands (both physically and academically) requires accepting shared values while avoiding conflicts of interest. Our craft is a complex and challenging one and we feel our heritage deserves no less.
Hope that clears up the matter. Feel free to apply.
Cheers,
John C.
ARMA Director
Return to “Research and Training Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||