Post by schlager7 on Jul 17, 2014 9:43:12 GMT -6
...from my email...
From the Society of American Fight Directors
Hello SAFD Friends, Actor/Combatants, and Advanced Actor/Combatants!
I wanted to write to you all with an update with some highlights of what was discussed and decided upon at the governing body face to face meeting.
The first item is one that has lead to great confusion for a long time. In the past we were very careful to explain that when you earn your certificate in a weapon discipline that you are not "certified" in that weapon, but rather that you are recognized as proficient. As of the meeting we are now changing that language to make it much simpler. You can now say that you are "Certified" (for example: I am certified in broadsword until 7-16-2017). The other language was confusing and in many cases just wasn't being followed, and did not mean much outside of this organization. This new language (ie calling yourself certified) does not certify you to teach or fight direct, but simply to create the illusion of danger when performing with this weapon (as per the language on your certificate).
Secondly, there has been a lot of talk amongst AAC's and the college of FM's surrounding what it means to be an Advanced Actor Combatant. In both cases the conversation has been in regards to making that status mean more. Advanced Actor Combatants, as the title suggests, should be depended upon to produce a higher level of skill and performance. At present there is a VAST array of skill level amongst the AAC's and people would like to find ways to have their title mean more.
To clarify, the last thing we are looking to do is to create more hoops to jump through. What we are looking to do is to adjust the requirements of the AAC designation so that the high level of competency that the title suggests can actually be assumed. One idea for that deals with membership length.
The current policies and procedures of the SAFD state:
2.02 Actor/Combatant: Advanced Status
I. Any Actor Combatant who has passed the Skills Proficiency Tests in a minimum of six of the eight weapon styles offered by the SAFD, of which at least three (3) must be recommended passes (providing the candidate has maintained said skills and that the proficiencies are current as per 2.01, III.G), and is a member in good standing.
Past versions of the P&P have included a requirement that the applicant must have been a member in good standing for at least 2 years. This was removed but is being considered for re-entry in to the P&P. The idea here is not to force people to be a member of the organization to collect more dues, but rather as a barometer of commitment to the craft. Someone who has been a member for 2 years or more has, at the very least, been around stage combat for 2 whole years, and it can be assumed that they have been practicing it to some degree. Advanced skill requires hours and hours of practice. What we are trying to avoid is that the only requirement to call yourself advanced is that you have done only 30 hours in 6 weapons, which you could feasibly do in only two months. This added qualification would require that you have studied for more time than that. It's not foolproof, but its a step in the right direction.
Another idea being tossed around instead of member history is to require that the Advanced Actor Combatant certify in 6 weapons and recommend in at least 3 (the current policy), but that one of those weapons must be Smallsword. The thought here is that smallsword is considered the most advanced weapon, and the most precise skill. Your proficiency in smallsword should be a testament to your proficiency overall.
These two ideas have not been made policy, but are on the table. I asked the GB that we wait for further discussion until I could bring this to you, the membership. We want to know what you think! Clearly, no one is in favor of creating more hoops to jump through, but we all would love for the reputation of the AAC to be one of more weight.
What do you think about either of these ideas (adding a membership length, or adding smallsword requirement?) Do you have other ideas?
Please chime in and let me know! As the Friends, AC's, and AAC's this decision affects us most!
Thank you all so much for your participation in this organization. It is an honor to represent you.
-Zev Steinberg
--
Zev Steinberg
Friend/Actor Combatant/Advanced Actor Combatant Representative
Society of American Fight Directors
From the Society of American Fight Directors
Hello SAFD Friends, Actor/Combatants, and Advanced Actor/Combatants!
I wanted to write to you all with an update with some highlights of what was discussed and decided upon at the governing body face to face meeting.
The first item is one that has lead to great confusion for a long time. In the past we were very careful to explain that when you earn your certificate in a weapon discipline that you are not "certified" in that weapon, but rather that you are recognized as proficient. As of the meeting we are now changing that language to make it much simpler. You can now say that you are "Certified" (for example: I am certified in broadsword until 7-16-2017). The other language was confusing and in many cases just wasn't being followed, and did not mean much outside of this organization. This new language (ie calling yourself certified) does not certify you to teach or fight direct, but simply to create the illusion of danger when performing with this weapon (as per the language on your certificate).
Secondly, there has been a lot of talk amongst AAC's and the college of FM's surrounding what it means to be an Advanced Actor Combatant. In both cases the conversation has been in regards to making that status mean more. Advanced Actor Combatants, as the title suggests, should be depended upon to produce a higher level of skill and performance. At present there is a VAST array of skill level amongst the AAC's and people would like to find ways to have their title mean more.
To clarify, the last thing we are looking to do is to create more hoops to jump through. What we are looking to do is to adjust the requirements of the AAC designation so that the high level of competency that the title suggests can actually be assumed. One idea for that deals with membership length.
The current policies and procedures of the SAFD state:
2.02 Actor/Combatant: Advanced Status
I. Any Actor Combatant who has passed the Skills Proficiency Tests in a minimum of six of the eight weapon styles offered by the SAFD, of which at least three (3) must be recommended passes (providing the candidate has maintained said skills and that the proficiencies are current as per 2.01, III.G), and is a member in good standing.
Past versions of the P&P have included a requirement that the applicant must have been a member in good standing for at least 2 years. This was removed but is being considered for re-entry in to the P&P. The idea here is not to force people to be a member of the organization to collect more dues, but rather as a barometer of commitment to the craft. Someone who has been a member for 2 years or more has, at the very least, been around stage combat for 2 whole years, and it can be assumed that they have been practicing it to some degree. Advanced skill requires hours and hours of practice. What we are trying to avoid is that the only requirement to call yourself advanced is that you have done only 30 hours in 6 weapons, which you could feasibly do in only two months. This added qualification would require that you have studied for more time than that. It's not foolproof, but its a step in the right direction.
Another idea being tossed around instead of member history is to require that the Advanced Actor Combatant certify in 6 weapons and recommend in at least 3 (the current policy), but that one of those weapons must be Smallsword. The thought here is that smallsword is considered the most advanced weapon, and the most precise skill. Your proficiency in smallsword should be a testament to your proficiency overall.
These two ideas have not been made policy, but are on the table. I asked the GB that we wait for further discussion until I could bring this to you, the membership. We want to know what you think! Clearly, no one is in favor of creating more hoops to jump through, but we all would love for the reputation of the AAC to be one of more weight.
What do you think about either of these ideas (adding a membership length, or adding smallsword requirement?) Do you have other ideas?
Please chime in and let me know! As the Friends, AC's, and AAC's this decision affects us most!
Thank you all so much for your participation in this organization. It is an honor to represent you.
-Zev Steinberg
--
Zev Steinberg
Friend/Actor Combatant/Advanced Actor Combatant Representative
Society of American Fight Directors