[Chad Arnow]

[Michael Edelson]

[Chad Arnow]

[Artis Aboltins]

I belive that, at least partially, reasons behind the bickering on internet are linked to the "lack of personal presence" as I like to call it - people are usually much less likely to be pointing fingers and insulting eachother in person than they are on internet. In many occasions I have seen strongly difering opinions beeing discussed in scientific community in a civil way during conferences and excelent conclusions beeing drawn from it by both parties involved - and I assume it is generally the same in this field, the diference, however, beeing that in many ways HEMA is not treeted as science per se - so people wgho practice it "the researchers" do not feel constrained by the same behevioural requirements people working in diferent fields of studdy do. As Patrick and others have said already, many who engage in heated depates over the net are perfectly normal people when met in person, and it is really just a vocal minority that is "duking it out" on the Internet, so do not be disheartened about the art/science of HEMA just because of it.

[P. Cha]

You know, since I started martial arts in the eastern ones...I guess the WMA folks seem down right cordial to each other. I mean honestly, I haven´t seen anything nearly as volatile as kendo vs gumdo my kung fu is better then yours argument in WMA. And the trash talk around kempo or gracie jujuitsu would make even the most die hard I´m right group in WMA feel inadequate. In fact the hottest topic debates in WMA seem to revolve more around safety issues as it is just starting and doesn´t have the long line of safety tradition in the eastern arts.

[Anders Backlund]

Not-so-serious-suggestion: Have all HEMA factions duke it out in a huge tournament.

Whoever wins is right.

[Jean Thibodeau]

I can understand what Chad is reacting to but my personal observations in my HEMA group is that I have rarely met a more respectful group of people and I haven't witnessed any obnoxious or impolite behavior within my group after 3 years of participation ! I can't generalize for every group but this is what I have personally experienced.

[M. Eversberg II]

I don't get this feeling from any WMA group other than ARMA, personally.

M.

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

I agree with Chad that some schools of thought are overly exclusive. These will usually be driven by a quasi cult of the opinions of the local Maitre d'Armes. Our local groups here in Montreal tend to be more experimental in nature, though the founders of one so-called medieval company had a tendency to be doctrinaire in their approach. i knew them before they began their school, and knew how they were self taught, so I concluded that their need to be overly assertive was born from their own insecurity, and as time went on they were less and less tolerant of students who might question their techniques or teachings.The school subdivided into a series of smaller entities.
I continue to take the occasional class, when my schedule permits, but have come around to a different attitude. I listen to what the teacher has to say, go through the exercises for their own sake, and keep or discard as I go along. Those who claim some form of superiority at the outset no doubt have firm opinions about their own product and capacities, and are entitled to their opinions, I am equally entitled to refuse to share their opinions, and write them off for what they are. I am equally entitled to share their opinions if, within my own experience, they hold up under scrutiny and can withstand constructive criticism.
One class I simply abandonned when I concluded that the instructor was out to lunch and should have worn one of those really special gambesons where both arms cross the chest and strap in the back.... It's a case by case thing, but I do think that Chad should not give up the search quite yet, I haven't..

[Myrick J. Hethington]

I agree with Backlund!!
The blade speaks only truth....Heck there could be an HEMA olmypics each year.Kinda like a All-THING of european martialarts.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Chad,

I'm leaving this discussion, though my point stands that it's unreasonable to judge a community that you've had no face time with.

The reason I'm doing so is that I feel it's impossible to honestly address why I feel there's such a bad HEMA vibe here without violating the rules (which I understand) regarding commentary on forum and moderation policy.

I'll see you guys next time...

Cheers,

Christian

[Nathan Robinson]

I think you're missing the point, Christian, in that he's judging HEMA specifically by the way in which members represent themselves online. Chad and others have quite a bit of exposure to HEMA groups online and it's absolutely reasonable to assume that he and others are going to form an opinion based on that experience.

If the online representation of these individuals differs so greatly from the way they are in person (as my own experience has shown), then I think this is truly something that individuals should want to address with themselves. Online behavior matters.

Some points as to why people behave so radically different online than they do in person have been raised here. I think this is an important point that all HEMA groups should consider. If I were to run such a group, I'd make it a point to discuss with my members my expectation of how they represent themselves and the group in online environments. In corporate environments, this is already happening because, as I say, it matters.

If I were to get feedback that the industry in which my startup company belongs was thinking things about the company that were not true, I'd be extremely concerned. If these opinions were based on, say, our Web site, online blog, or some of the social networking sites we participate, I'd not simply dismiss the people with the opinions and say, "you need to meet us in person to form an opinion." Rather, I would first take a critical look at the way we are representing ourselves in those instances. Perception is important for a business and all avenues of representation are equally valid.

The same is true for HEMA groups and their members. The irony here is that that there is very little disagreement being said about how the online behaviors might give a bad impression. The argument is, instead, that one should simply not judge these groups and people based on those behaviors alone. I don't really understand that. If groups and people are giving a bad impression in one medium, wouldn't there be some validity to wanting to remedy that?

[Michael Edelson]

Chad and Nathan,

When someone comes to myArmoury and says, "Well, since I know that Euro swords weighed 20lbs and had no edges, and the...whaddaya call them things, kataaanas, them is the best, I want to know why [insert one of a hundred questions]", you or someone else say, essentially but more politely:

"Welcome to myArmoury. Your assumptions suck, go read some books, and here is a list of things I am personally willing to take the time to point out that you are wrong about, etc..."

You do this because you've done your homework, you know your medieval weapons, and the point of this forum is to get accurate information out there. Well, in this respect, you are no different than many HEMA groups. We do our homework, we know our stuff, and when someone comes along and says something that we think is blatantly wrong, we say something, for the same reason you do.

Where I think there is some confusion for those outside of the community is that HEMA is NOT as open to everyone's opinion as some people think it is. There is a TON of detailed information that takes years of research and hard work to absorb, and there are things that pretty much everyone in the community (with few and extreme exceptions) knows with about as much certainty as you know that swords were not giant 20lb clubs.

That's part of the problem. Here is the other...

One of the reasons you see so much bickering on forums is that forums generally take a very neutral, everyone's opinion is worth as much as any one else's approach. Leading authorities in HEMA are on equal footing with self proclaimed experts who don't know enough about the subject being discussed to merit being in the discussion in the first place, let alone challenging the views of established researchers and martial artists. Now some people might think this is a good thing, that everyone should get an equal say, that people should be judged based on what they say, not who they are. That's a great way to look at things, but when the people listening don't know very much about the subject being discussed, how can they judge what is being said?

We in the community tend to know when something being said is worthwhile, even if we disagree with it. Doesn't matter who says it. But someone without a farily solid grounding in HEMA doesn't have the information required to make such a distinction, and to such a person it may seem that we are a bunch of overly touchy grouches who jump down people's throats for expressing perfectly valid opinions.

Yes, we often bicker amongst ourselves, but as my friends in the scientific community tell me, this is exactly the kind of bickering you would see from a forum of physicists, or geneticists, or whatever. We are opinionated folk, usually with type A personalities...if we weren't, we wouldn't be very effective at running groups. I personally learned a great deal from the many such arguments I've been in, especially from those in which I was wrong (the great thing about being wrong is that you get to learn something from the one who is right).

We each have our theories, ideas and interpretations. We generally think these are correct, or as correct as we know how to make them, but few of us are married to them. And while most of us will not put up with challenges from obvious ignoramuses, we love nothing more than discussing our differences with those we respect. We're not a perfect community (heck, they let me in, didn't they? ), but I think we're far from the worst. Some of the best people I've ever met, I met in HEMA.

[Nathan Robinson]

Michael,

So, if you go back and read what I posted: it says that it's understandable for people to form an opinion on HEMA groups and individuals by the way they represent themselves online. I said it's reasonable for people to do so. I also suggest that if the impression that these groups and people are showing online is significantly different than the one they portray in person, these people might want to consider this fact and do something about it.

That's the entire content of what I said. I said nothing about the issues you are raising above but I'll address them below:

To be brief, I will say that I agree with you.


To elaborate I'll say:

I want and encourage people to disagree, debate, and challenge each other. This site wants those things, too. I want people to correct each other. I want people to express when they believe others are wrong. I want people to express opinions, put out theories, disagree with other theories, etc. I want people to put out facts (as they know it) and put to rest myths (as they understand them to be).

But I expect people to do so professionally without personal attacks. This isn't always the case online and hasn't always been the case on myArmoury.com (on any subjet). And when it isn't, we try to moderate it to the best of our abilities. (holes in our game? absolutely...)

These are simple rules. Ironically, most people play by these same rules when they are face to face but don't feel the need to do so online. I've experienced this at various WMA events where people still disagree, bicker, and challenge each other but do it in a way that is respectful. I find it absurd that people do that in person but are often unwilling to do so online.

I don't care if people bicker. I really don't. I don't care in so long as they're doing so within the rules. In fact, bickering often leads to fruitful conversations and learning. Yay for learning.

Others might disagree and simply not read those types of topics. That's their choice. Still others might feel the need to post, "not this again" or "why does this always come up?" because they're tired of the same old stuff. Point taken. Who cares. I don't think that stuff leads to any good, but it's bound to happen. It's all within the rules of this site in so long as all this stuff is done in the right way.

Back to my point and the point of this topic:

The impression left online for HEMA groups and members of the WMA community is often quite different than what is portrayed in person. Further, it's often something that dissuades some people from looking into further participation. This is a point that very few will disagree with and I'd imagine it's worth considering.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Nathan,

I'm willing to continue this discussion via either PM, or via email, but not here, and for the reason I just cited.

Best regards,

Christian

[Nathan Robinson]

[Chad Arnow]

Michael,
Some interesting points as always. One beef with the inflammatory online HEMA discussions is the refusal of some parties to let something go when it's obvious that 1) they've stated their position clearly and fully already and when 2) the other side is clearly not being convinced.

Because those people can't leave it at that, the comments get not only repetitive but louder and posters begin to make their comments personal.

Yes, forums promote an opportunity for every voice to be heard. Correct the incorrect statements to the best of your ability and knowledge. I always want people to defend their position, but at some point it becomes obvious that the standpoint will not be resolved. My preference at that point would be for people to recognize the situation, say "We agree to disagree" and then move on, as I said in my initial post. That rarely happens.

There is a need for some of these people to say they're right and others are therefore wrong, and a need to have the last word. So the pointless discussion continues and casts a bad light and turns people off.

Those situations do not serve to protect or preserve the art people have devoted years to the study of; they actively harm the art.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Nathan,

I only posted my previous message to indicate that I'm not "taking my marbles and going home". I am willing to engage further on this topic.

Best regards,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

Chad and Nathan,

You've both made good points. I just want to shine a light on something everyone already knows...this happens in every online community. If you banned all HEMA from myArmoury, would any of these issues really go away?

Communicating online is a difficult skill to learn, and a nearly impossible one to master. I don't think anyone, or any community, should ever be judged for their failure to do so.

[Chad Arnow]

What I see in this thread are HEMA folks spending their time telling me I'm generalizing and/or being unfair. They may not be wrong. And I appreciate their posts.

But, what I don't see is much of an effort to acknowledge that there is a real problem within their community worth discussing or addressing. And therein lies the problem in my eyes.

I'm taking what people say here and giving it plenty of thoughtful consideration. I'd ask that those in the HEMA community do the same.