Why I don't post in TWILL

[RedJessi]

That's a nice definition (of reenactment, not re-enactors, NB.) It's still open to wide variances in interpretation. (But then, all definitions are. Whole wars are fought over such things. (So maybe we should all go out and re-enact one as penance. ))

Between you and me, I sometimes wonder at what sort of good we could do if we put all of this energy into something that would benefit mankind.

You don't see benefit in what we do? Because I actually do.

We give the spectators something to do on weekends that is an interesting diversion from the norm at least. That can act as a safety mechanism, operating as a release valve for pent up frustration, allowing for different morays and norms of behavior that allow for people to conform to normal societal constraints the rest of the time. Is that a benefit to ALL mankind? Perhaps not, but you never know how far reaching the effects can be.

A butterfly flaps its wings in Nepal and we get a hurricane in Palm Beach.

[Quartermaster James]

A butterfly flaps its wings in Nepal and we get a hurricane in Palm Beach.

Well, for the love of Florida: somebody stop that damn butterfly!

[blackjohn]

That's a nice definition (of reenactment, not re-enactors, NB.) It's still open to wide variances in interpretation. (But then, all definitions are. Whole wars are fought over such things. (So maybe we should all go out and re-enact one as penance. ))

Between you and me, I sometimes wonder at what sort of good we could do if we put all of this energy into something that would benefit mankind.

You don't see benefit in what we do? Because I actually do.

Check the winkie emoticon. But yeah, sometimes I do wonder. But I'm a wondering kind of guy. Sometimes when wondering I come to the same conclusion you just did. Sometimes I don't.

[blackjohn]

Btw, bag that "teaching the public" stuff. The public wants bread and circuses!

Personally, I prefer cider and brothels.

Hawkyns

A man of refined tastes.

[Mission]

A butterfly flaps its wings in Nepal and we get a hurricane in Palm Beach.

Well, for the love of Florida: somebody stop that damn butterfly!

This is why I love reading your posts! Maybe I should come out there instead of waiting for you to come here. I really need to meet Iron Bess anyhow.

[blackjohn]

Possibly. But, I don't believe there is an overall community. I believe there are many and varied communities. Sometimes and in some places they overlap. Like here, for instance.

Really? How would you define the pub is not a community?

It is a hub where some pirate reenactors and some pirate enthusiasts and some pirate aficionados come to trade ideas. It is a community. But it is not the only community. In fact, I'm often surprised by the other pirate communities I find out there. Some of them right under my own nose, geographically speaking.

And what positives do you see in dividing the groups?

Some like to do things one way. Some another. Human nature on the tribal level.

In light of your last questions, let me attempt to clarify.

I came to the discussion with the sentiment (or point of view) that the shorthand used in the community - on both sides of PCness - was potentially damaging and divisive, and even more so since an internet forum subtracts all the metacommunication that informs face-to-face communication.

I still hold that point of view.

Given that, what do you see as your choices?

[RedJessi]

Well, in for a penny - in for pound, I suppose, so here goes:

My understanding is that fundamental to projection is unconscious denial. So, my question here is what is it you suggest I am denying? Would my statements appear less to be projecting if instead of saying "X seems..." I wrote "In my opinion, X is..."?

Well, let me start by going back to your original words that prompted me to suggest the matter:

Well, to reiterate: this is the forum for those wishing to discuss "PCness", and this thread started within it seems to be about why people who don't participate here don't like this forum. This thread really seems to be a perfect example of the type of behavior we've all agreed is inappropriate. I don't see how this thread differs from the oft proposed but seldom substantiated scenario of the "stitch nazi" accosting someone with uninvited criticism.

From there, my suggestion that this was a projection came from the fact that the thread is titled "Why I don't post in Twill" and not "Why I don't like Twill". So, you equating them as being synonymous statements made me think that perhaps you were taking your own emotional reaction to the reasons why people were not comfortable posting here and personalizing them (ie, feeling personally attacked via feeling that the hobby you feel passionate about was being attacked), which then caused you project an emotional state (dislike of Twill due to feeling like it was an attack) onto their meaning due to your own dislike of the feeling that the whole thread was already engendering.

In the most classical definition (and please keep in mind, this is not what I am trying to say you absolutely were doing, as I honestly don't know you well enough AT ALL to make such a statement, but I am merely describing why I made the initial query) your dislike of the discussion in general caused you to ascribe a dislike of Twill onto those who initiated the discussion.

Thus, you changed the statement "I don't post because..." into "I don't like Twill because..."

In truth, I believe this perfectly proves that you are honestly trying to understand a different point of view, as normal social function theorizes that if we cannot ascribe our own feelings onto others than we cannot ever understand them. Unfortunately, when we labor under such projections erroneously, we can run into difficulties as well.

[RedJessi]

That's a nice definition (of reenactment, not re-enactors, NB.) It's still open to wide variances in interpretation. (But then, all definitions are. Whole wars are fought over such things. (So maybe we should all go out and re-enact one as penance. ))

Between you and me, I sometimes wonder at what sort of good we could do if we put all of this energy into something that would benefit mankind.

You don't see benefit in what we do? Because I actually do.

Check the winkie emoticon. But yeah, sometimes I do wonder. But I'm a wondering kind of guy. Sometimes when wondering I come to the same conclusion you just did. Sometimes I don't.

Oh, emoticons. So open to interpretation!

My interpretation was that it was like saying "natch" at the end of your statement, not an a tongue-in-cheek aside.

[Quartermaster James]

In truth, I believe this perfectly proves that you are honestly trying to understand a different point of view, as normal social function theorizes that if we cannot ascribe our own feelings onto others than we cannot ever understand them. Unfortunately, when we labor under such projections erroneously, we can run into difficulties as well.

Oh s#+^!

So now I'm suddenly sane?

[Ransom]

OK, Mission, fair point. I do have definition of reenactor. That does not apply to all. There are other groups that have their own definitions. Let me emphasizeTHIS IS MY OPINION AND THAT OF A BUNCH OF LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS, IT IS NOT PUB POLICY

Reenactor- one who is concerned with the history of the past, and wishes to be as accurate as possible.

Recreationist- one who like the general idea of the past, but is willing to make compromises and is less concerned with accuracy

Faire or Festival Patron- someone who likes the various attitudes and some of the garb and fashion, but is more into the fun than the research.

Fantacist- one who takes a basic theme of a period and adds to it out of their own imagination or other fantasy literature.

There is room for all, and all have their place. Not all will get along with each other in the same place.

Hawkyns

This might be worthy of being a topic in its own right.

Actually, I think these definitions are fairly accurate.

However, the definition of reeanacting wasn't the issue, it was use of derogatory language. And don't get me wrong, the greater percentage of posters on Twill are informative, and dedicated. I admire that. But there are a few who could get their point across without using terms like Farb, Pollywood or Hollywood Pyrates, Polyester Pyrates, etc....

And although it has been a long while back, I have seen instances of newbies being literally attacked on this forum for asking a simple question like "What do you think of this shirt I'm thinking of buying?" In that particular instance, the newbie disappeared and never posted again. And I'm sure he didn't have very many kind things to say about the Pub. Nothing like that has happened in a long time, but I use it as an extreme example of how language can be hurtful.

There is not a thing wrong with being passionate about what you do, and being proud of your accomplishments, but language is powerful, and the wrong words used to make your point can be hurtful or insulting, even if that was not your intent.

I should also add that the other side of that coin — terms like Stitch Nazi, Thread Counter, etc — are also just as hurtful and insulting.

[RedJessi]

Really? How would you define the pub is not a community?

It is a hub where some pirate reenactors and some pirate enthusiasts and some pirate aficionados come to trade ideas. It is a community. But it is not the only community. In fact, I'm often surprised by the other pirate communities I find out there. Some of them right under my own nose, geographically speaking.

Yes, but I was referring to the pub, and the impact of such language here for the most part. Sure, that would spill over into other groups as systems overlap, especially at events. And it would certainly have an impact on people who might be interested in joining but have an overwhelmingly negative first experience at such events or on the pub. But as far as the community I was intending to refer to, Pub is it.

Some like to do things one way. Some another. Human nature on the tribal level.

So, are you saying that you think dividing groups is a better solution than trying to find ways to peacefully co-exist or try to cross cultures, so to speak, to expand (knowledge, horizons, membership, understanding, what have you)?

In light of your last questions, let me attempt to clarify.

I came to the discussion with the sentiment (or point of view) that the shorthand used in the community - on both sides of PCness - was potentially damaging and divisive, and even more so since an internet forum subtracts all the metacommunication that informs face-to-face communication.

I still hold that point of view.

Given that, what do you see as your choices?

I am not sure I follow you. Why do I need to make a choice concerning my point of view?

Edited October 9, 2009 by RedJessi

[RedJessi]

In truth, I believe this perfectly proves that you are honestly trying to understand a different point of view, as normal social function theorizes that if we cannot ascribe our own feelings onto others than we cannot ever understand them. Unfortunately, when we labor under such projections erroneously, we can run into difficulties as well.

Oh s#+^!

So now I'm suddenly sane?

I honestly don't know you well enough AT ALL to make that statement either....

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*sage nod*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

*serious look*

[Hawkyns]

Ransom, I think the definitions are part of the problem and here's why: when reenactors talk among themselves, those terms are part of the conversation, and they are some of the milder terms used. We are harsh among and about ourselves. I've said worse about my own kit when new research comes to light. You should try some of the progressive boards if you really want to see kit torn apart.

The other three groups are not so invested in the authenticity, so they are not so critical of kit, and see the language that we use as off putting. They don't listen to the point that they see us saying the same things to ourselves, and assume that they are the only target.

Now, a while back in this thread it was said by someone that Twill was more for the hardcore, a community of pirate reenactors within the overall pirate community. So I guess that begs the question, how do we get people to understand that what is going on is normal for us, not insulting, and that this is how we discuss things? Putting restrictions on the language, trying to 'clean it up', or make it more friendly, would, IMNSHO, lessen the impact of what we are trying to do here. Put it this way, If I walked into a military NCO's mess, I would be hearing things that some would find offensive, getting some funny looks, and generally being on the edges, until I learned the dynamics of that mess. That is on me to be polite, stand back and learn, and generally try to fit in.

Perhaps an extra notice on Twill the wya we have one on the over 18 boards. "Things said here may be construed as derogatory, which is not the intent. Information will be exchanged in what may construed as a volatile manner. Please be aware of this and take no offense."

Just my two penn'orth. YMMV

Hawkyns

[Quartermaster James]

And although it has been a long while back, I have seen instances of newbies being literally attacked on this forum for asking a simple question like "What do you think of this shirt I'm thinking of buying?" In that particular instance, the newbie disappeared and never posted again. And I'm sure he didn't have very many kind things to say about the Pub. Nothing like that has happened in a long time, but I use it as an extreme example of how language can be hurtful.

The infamous red shirt debacle in Plunder of October 2006, no doubt...

https://pyracy.com/index.php?showtopic=8810

[blackjohn]

Yes, but I was referring to the pub, and the impact of such language here for the most part.

Ah. My mistake. I misunderstood and took community as being something larger.

Some like to do things one way. Some another. Human nature on the tribal level.

So, are you saying that you think dividing groups is a better solution than trying to find ways to peacefully co-exist or try to cross cultures, so to speak, to expand (knowledge, horizons, membership, understanding, what have you)?

I believe there will always be a yin and a yang. That is the way of things. I also believe they are not mutually exclusive.

I am not sure I follow you. Why do I need to make a choice concerning my point of view?

Oh heck no! I was just wondering if you were heading towards making some sort of suggestion about getting rid of Twill, or some other sort of thing.

[blackjohn]

And although it has been a long while back, I have seen instances of newbies being literally attacked on this forum for asking a simple question like "What do you think of this shirt I'm thinking of buying?" In that particular instance, the newbie disappeared and never posted again. And I'm sure he didn't have very many kind things to say about the Pub. Nothing like that has happened in a long time, but I use it as an extreme example of how language can be hurtful.

The infamous red shirt debacle in Plunder of October 2006, no doubt...

https://pyracy.com/index.php?showtopic=8810

Sweet! I look like a good guy in that thread!

[Fox]

This whole definitions-of-terms thing comes up every couple of years, we really should have it sorted by now.

I'm a stitch-counter. I'm not ashamed of that, and I don't see that I should be. Literally, I count stitches in my kit (not with everything, because we don't always know what the stitch/inch ratio should be with any particular garme... oh sorry, got carried away there). I'd prefer not to be called a stitch-nazi because I, in common with every other counter I know, do not attempt to impose my own researches or standards on others unless specifically invited to do so. Apart from that, call me what you like: PCist, reenactor, authenticist, even 'elite' if you really must (though I wouldn't use the term myself).

To describe others who are not concerned with historical accuracy I usually use the term 'Hollywood', though this in itself is untrue because most 'Hollywood' pirates look like nothing that's actually come out of Hollywood. Pat Hand, who plays both sides of the fence often uses 'play pirate', which I think is not bad, but will probably offend the thin-skinned. As will farb, polywood, and panto-pirate.

I therefore propose a codification of terms which should not be offensive to anyone.

Those of us who place a high emphasis on historical accuracy are, on the whole, quite happy to be called stitch-counters. Frankly though, we don't much care. It's just not that big an issue to get upset over.

For the rest, I propose the introduction and widespread adoption of the term NOT. As in, 'not a stitch-counter'.

Anyone who delights in pissing on anyone else's bonfire in any way should universally be called an arsehole.

[Capt. Sterling]

The motion has been delivered... I'll second it...(although why on earth has no one ever asked the "Hollywood" pirates what they would like to be called?? Why have they never offered a term of classification themselves?)

[Ransom]

Oh Gawd, I can't believe you actually pulled that piece to the surface again. LOL Maybe I should have used a different example, and that thread would have stayed buried. But, really, it was like a pack of wolves on a wounded deer.

[michaelsbagley]

Okay, I'm going to throw this out there to help muddy the waters some... I'm sort of responding to the earlier question of what is a re-enactor... And also illustrating that some times in Twill re-enactors piss each other off as a result of different focus.

What is a re-enactor... Well I have several definitions (I am an almost compulsive user of classifications, so I beg the indulgence of those who don't care for such things). I am going to list some terms I use, knowing full well that the definitions I ascribe to these classifications are used differently (I.e. I apply Term 1 to concept 1, and term 2 to concept 2, where as another person may use term 1 for what is concept 2 etc.)

The Historic Presenter - Someone who dresses in period garb (usually accurate garb, but some instances accurate garb is not the focus here), and in first person and in a historic persona, interacts with the public in a hopefully educational and entertaining fashion. Usually this is done for more common portrayals although specific skills can be a focus. Often the main focus is the ability to be in character and the persona.

The Trades person - Someone who demonstrates a trade or skill set (from baker to doctor to candlestick maker). While this style of re-enactor can also be a "historic presenter", explaining the skill in a modern tone and more modern educator style tends to be the main focus, so this style while compatible with the "historic presenter" isn't always done the same. The skill is the focus, not the characterization. I have also noted that accuracy on clothing is often not as much of a concern for the "Trades Person" and in some cases (blacksmith for example) modern safety gear may be used which can detract from the historic appearance.

The Battle re-enactor - Although most battle re-enactors do tend to put a good deal of effort into the clothing and gear, this style of person is out for the action and to help fill in the ranks of the battlefield to make a more impressive overall impression to an event. This style of re-enactor also tends to not interact directly with the public as much as others (although they tend to be a social lot), and when they do interact, the focus of conversation tends to be the arms and/or tactics. Performing military drills can also be a part of this.

The artifact exhibitor - This person has a bunch of stuff, whether they are reproductions or originals, or a mix of both, this style of re-enacting is about material culture. This style may come off as a duplicate of the "Trades Person" but the trades person is trying to exhibit a skill set, whereas the Artifact exhibitor has a more varied collection of goodies to show off.

The Trekker (although I hear die hard Trekkers prefer the term "Scout" as "Trekkers" sound too much like fans of a Sci-Fi TV and film series) - This groups tends to be in it for themselves. Often they are trying to get away to presenting to audiences. This type of re-enactor may pop-in on public display re-enactments, but they prefer to be out in the wilderness living it (at least for the weekend, or as much spare time as they have). Historical accuracy on gear tends to be a strong focus as well as basic survival skills (a candle maker would not fit too well into a Trek as a candle maker, for example, or try trekking with blacksmith gear).

I'll add more as I think of them (I'll likely edit this post rather than posting again), but as you can see, these are four archetypes that all fall into the category of historic re-enactor. Many re-enactors try to draw from more than one of these styles (or even all), but the truth is, most of us tend to fall mostly into one of those categories as our focus whether we like to admit it or not.

To re-address the comment of how re-enactors piss each other off... I see no reason to not include someone who falls into the "Historic Presenter" or "Trades Person" as a re-enactor, even if their clothing is not very authentic looking (more inspired by pop-culture), however a "Trekker" who may not care as much about educating the public may get a bit off-put by an in-authentically dressed "Historic Presenter". A Historical Presenter also may take umbrage by the fact that a trades person is not putting any effort into being "in character" because they are focusing more on explain more technical information in modern terms they are more comfortable with using. Honestly, while the whole authentic/non-authentic "war" is oft debated, I honestly see the war as a myth perpetrated by the fact it has happened a few times to just about everyone. I really think more heated debates are derived from difference in re-enactment style than the whole authentic/non-authentic thing... But that is just my humble observations.

And to add a little more fuel to the fire, in the 3 or more years I have been on this forum, I think most of the authentic/non-authentic "wars" have been started from a cold blunt statement of relevant facts being interpreted as an insult than the use of derisive terms.

[Ransom]

The motion has been delivered... I'll second it...(although why on earth has no one ever asked the "Hollywood" pirates what they would like to be called?? Why have they never offered a term of classification themselves?)

Actually, I think Lady B had a good one. She used Historical Fiction Pyrates (HFPs). Based on the proto-type of Historical Fiction novels, which use history as a base to elaborate on, as opposed to a history textbook. That term would probably not apply to those who go total fantasy, but would mainly apply to those of us who lean toward accuracy, but are willing to compromise on some things.

[Mission]

Michael, you left out the fantasy pirates. I like the term fantasy pirate because it describes their kit and I think a lot of fantasy re-enactors would appreciate that term. Hollywood is fantasy stuff. So are pirates with fairy wings, pirates in ren-fair tights, pirates festooned with myriad cool-looking skulls and many of the pirates who wear 73 pounds of weapons and gadgets on their belts.

Plus when I was a little boy, being this sort of pirate was my fantasy.

[Fox]

My point with the term 'NOT', rather than 'HFP', is that it can be used outside the pirate world too.

[blackjohn]

Michael, you left out the fantasy pirates. I like the term fantasy pirate because it describes their kit and I think a lot of fantasy re-enactors would appreciate that term. Hollywood is fantasy stuff. So are pirates with fairy wings, pirates in ren-fair tights, pirates festooned with myriad cool-looking skulls and many of the pirates who wear 73 pounds of weapons and gadgets on their belts.

I was just thinking the same, then decided I liked Fantastical instead. Fantasy has swords and sorcery implications to much of the population these days.

And for the record, I've voting against "stitch-counter". Being of a military bent, I'd prefer something more martial, like hobnail-counter or rivet-counter.

[michaelsbagley]

Michael, you left out the fantasy pirates. I like the term fantasy pirate because it describes their kit and I think a lot of fantasy re-enactors would appreciate that term. Hollywood is fantasy stuff. So are pirates with fairy wings, pirates in ren-fair tights, pirates festooned with myriad cool-looking skulls and many of the pirates who wear 73 pounds of weapons and gadgets on their belts.

Plus when I was a little boy, being this sort of pirate was my fantasy.

Nah, that is covered by the historic presenter...

See, a historic presenter or the trades person (or even perhaps a battle re-enactor that doesn't care about authentic gear)... These are more about acting the part than dressing the part (although there are admittedly more people that fall into those categories that try hard to be authentic than not).

Now if you are talk of the myth-inspired pirate that isn't even trying to demonstrate history... Well that tends to fall outside of my definitions of what a re-enactor can be. In fact I tend to put those as "Pirate Entertainers", which again don't mesh with my ideals, although I could in a flexible enough state of mind see an argument to the contrary.

A style I did leave out, as I am not sure how best to sum them up would be "The Progressive". I am currently questioning if under my defined archetypes, if the progressive would be a separate category, or someone who tries to cover a few to most of those categories simultaneously.