From: mjc@telerama.lm.com (Monica Cellio) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 25 Mar 1998 16:39:10 -0500 Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet Lines: 35 Message-ID: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: frogger.lm.com Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.direct.ca!ais.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!newssrvr.alleghenypower.com!news.lm.com!not-for-mail It appears that Dennis and I have a fairly fundamental difference of opinion about ownership of the Society, what is the Society, etc. Dennis, if I mis-characterize any of your beliefs in what follows, please say so. Dennis appears to believe that groups that aren't happy with SCA Inc should form splinter groups -- which of course (he argues) wouldn't really be part of the Society. He cites examples like Acre (MSR), but this is really a different sort of split. Acre is also a medieval re-creation group, but they choose their rulers differently, structure their local groups differently, do awards differently, and so on. They are related to the Society but they aren't the Society, though the Society shows them courtesies such as addressing them with their MSR titles. (Their knights do not sit in our Chivalry circles, however, just to pick one example.) On the other hand, if the kingdom of Ansteorra were to split from SCA Inc but continue to function in the same way as the rest of the Society, I think they would still be part of the Society. The rest of the kingdoms would recognize their rulers, members' awards would be recognized when they travelled to other kingdoms, etc. (11 kingdoms of the 13 that then existed signed a treaty to this effect, in fact.) Arval made a more detailed post on this subject, so I won't go into it again here. Dennis appears to believe that the only legitimate non-SCA-Inc groups are separate organizations (like Acre) and households. Thus, when I say that a non-SCA-Inc Society group's event are still part of the Society, he sees this as outsiders sponging off the corporation. I, on the other hand, see it as a Society that operates with the assistance of more than one corporation. Ellisif -- Spam bait: postmaster@[127.0.0.1], abuse@[127.0.0.1] ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 25 Mar 1998 23:06:00 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 82 Message-ID: <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.82 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Monica Cellio wrote in message <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com>... >It appears that Dennis and I have a fairly fundamental difference >of opinion about ownership of the Society, what is the Society, etc. >Dennis, if I mis-characterize any of your beliefs in what follows, please >say so. > >Dennis appears to believe that groups that aren't happy with SCA Inc >should form splinter groups -- which of course (he argues) wouldn't >really be part of the Society. That's not accurate. If they wish to form non-profit corporations separate from the SCA Inc, they should. If they wish to form households wiithin the Society, they should. Either is not part of the SCA, Inc. but both can be as much a part of the "Society" as any SCA Inc. subdivision. For example, in Atenveldt there have been households with membership larger than some Baronies, who were prominent in Society affiars. They had no SCA sanction, nor asked for any, and it didn't seem to be a problem for them. >He cites examples like Acre (MSR), >but this is really a different sort of split. Acre is also a medieval >re-creation group, but they choose their rulers differently [...] > and so on. Of course. Without the SCA, Inc. to dictate the basics of how rulers are selected and so on (which seems to be one of the things you object to: Corporate interference in the "Medieval" side of the Society) naturally it will differ after a while. It seems to me that MSR is an example of how the Society will be if your ideas are adopted: every Kingdom would have different rules, and it would be difficult for them to play together. > They are related to the Society but they aren't the Society, though the >Society shows them courtesies such as addressing them with their MSR >titles. (Their knights do not sit in our Chivalry circles, however, >just to pick one example.) Why do you say that ? If someone plays in Markland and also shows up at SCA events, aren't they as much "the Society" as anyone ? By what criteria do you exclude them from "the Society" ? If you only meant those in MSR who never go to SCA events, this is about as relevant as mentioning those in the Boy Scouts who never go to SCA events, and in that case I have to wonder what your motive is mentioning them. >On the other hand, if the kingdom of Ansteorra were to split from >SCA Inc but continue to function in the same way as the rest of the >Society, I think they would still be part of the Society. But if it was going to function "in the same way" as the rest of the Society, why would iot bother to split ? If it did split, Aten history makes it clearly probable that Atenveldt would very soon go its own way. >Dennis appears to believe that the only legitimate non-SCA-Inc groups >are separate organizations (like Acre) and households. I believe the Boy Scouts are "legitimate", so this statement as written is obviously false. Say what you mean, if you can. It's not my job to make your poorly expressed sentiments appear to make an ounce of sense. >Thus, when I say that a non-SCA-Inc Society group's event are still part >of the Society, he sees this as outsiders sponging off the corporation. Bullshit. I can spout inflamatory retoric on my own, thank you, I don't need the likes of you making up this dishonest crap and pretending it's akin to what I said. "Sponging" is *your* term for it, not mine. >I, on the other hand, see it as a Society that operates with the >assistance of more than one corporation. I see reality. You see a fantasy that you haven't bothered to think through the downside of. I have no interest in arguing about your fantasy, but you insist on thinking I am. I am not. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!news-feed1.tiac.net!posterchild1!news@tiac.net From: Zach Kessin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 26 Mar 1998 03:53:17 -0500 Organization: The Internet Access Company, Inc. Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell1.tiac.net X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 mjc@telerama.lm.com (Monica Cellio) writes: Just a point here, the SCA inc does not do us a bit of good here in Europe, Nordmark (Sweden) Has had their own corp for a while, And I think a few other countries do or at least should. We are still in the SCA but the only real benifit we get from it is The Dragon's Tail. --Lrd William Atwode, London > > It appears that Dennis and I have a fairly fundamental difference > of opinion about ownership of the Society, what is the Society, etc. > Dennis, if I mis-characterize any of your beliefs in what follows, please > say so. > > Dennis appears to believe that groups that aren't happy with SCA Inc > should form splinter groups -- which of course (he argues) wouldn't > really be part of the Society. He cites examples like Acre (MSR), > but this is really a different sort of split. Acre is also a medieval > re-creation group, but they choose their rulers differently, structure > their local groups differently, do awards differently, and so on. They > are related to the Society but they aren't the Society, though the > Society shows them courtesies such as addressing them with their MSR > titles. (Their knights do not sit in our Chivalry circles, however, > just to pick one example.) > > On the other hand, if the kingdom of Ansteorra were to split from > SCA Inc but continue to function in the same way as the rest of the > Society, I think they would still be part of the Society. The rest > of the kingdoms would recognize their rulers, members' awards would > be recognized when they travelled to other kingdoms, etc. (11 kingdoms > of the 13 that then existed signed a treaty to this effect, in fact.) > Arval made a more detailed post on this subject, so I won't go into > it again here. > > Dennis appears to believe that the only legitimate non-SCA-Inc groups > are separate organizations (like Acre) and households. Thus, when I > say that a non-SCA-Inc Society group's event are still part of the > Society, he sees this as outsiders sponging off the corporation. > I, on the other hand, see it as a Society that operates with the > assistance of more than one corporation. > > Ellisif > -- > Spam bait: postmaster@[127.0.0.1], abuse@[127.0.0.1] ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!DDFr From: DDFr@best.com (David Friedman) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:38:05 -0800 Organization: Santa Clara University Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ddfr.vip.best.com X-Trace: 890933532 11144 (none) 206.86.0.12 X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3.3 In article <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" wrote: >Monica Cellio wrote in message <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com>... >>On the other hand, if the kingdom of Ansteorra were to split from >>SCA Inc but continue to function in the same way as the rest of the >>Society, I think they would still be part of the Society. > >But if it was going to function "in the same way" as the rest >of the Society, why would iot bother to split ? It could function in the same way on the medieval side, but still want to be separate on the mundane side. The reason to do the former would be to make it easier to play in the same game. I think the issue may be to what extend we include non-SCA groups in the imaginary medieval world which is one way of viewing the SCA. Consider an SCA king accepting an ambassador from Markland or Acre. By doing so, he is treating them as independent powers within the same fictional world, not as new people or outsiders whose mundane life includes a (different)medieval hobby. One can easily enough imagine someone active in the SCA who goes to an Acre event--where he is treated as a distinguished foreigner. He does something for which the king of Acre gives him some award--and wears it back at SCA events, as a "foreign decoration" so to speak. That pattern implicitly assumes a society that is larger than the corporation. David/(Cariadoc) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.erols.com!erols!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 26 Mar 1998 13:58:22 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6fe8ge$gtj@panix5.panix.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com Greetings from Arval! Cariadoc wrote: > Consider an SCA king accepting an ambassador from Markland or Acre. By > doing so, he is treating them as independent powers within the same > fictional world, not as new people or outsiders whose mundane life > includes a (different)medieval hobby. ... That pattern implicitly assumes > a society that is larger than the corporation. And that is exactly what happens between Acre and the East, and between various non-SCA groups and SCA kingdoms at Pennsic. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ais.net!news1.chicago.iagnet.net!qual.net!iagnet.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: bellatrix2@aol.com (Bellatrix2) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 26 Mar 1998 18:13:36 GMT Lines: 16 Message-ID: <1998032618133601.NAA15889@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: Greetings, >. By doing so, he is >treating them as independent powers within the same fictional world, not >as new people or outsiders whose mundane life includes a >(different)medieval hobby. At one point Corpora did not allow recognition of outside/alternate medieval organization awards or titles. Has this changed? I think there is a great difference between alternate Medieval Societies and SCA groups that incorporate separately. One plays by completely different rules and standards and the other plays the same game, but deals with mundane issues differently. Stephan ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 26 Mar 1998 15:24:46 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6fedie$sn8@panix5.panix.com> References: <1998032618133601.NAA15889@ladder03.news.aol.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com Greetings from Arval! Stephan Bellatrix asked: > At one point Corpora did not allow recognition of outside/alternate medieval > organization awards or titles. Has this changed? I don't recall any such rule and I can't find anything in the current Corpora to that effect. The closest thing that is there is a general rule that unrecognized titles cannot be used if they imply rank or territorial jurisdiction. That certainly applies to the title "King of Acre". But the fact is that we've pretty much always ignored this rule when it made sense to do so. The King and Queen of Acre are granted honors as foreign sovereign by the East (if not by other kingdoms). The East, Middle, and other kingdoms have routinely recognized the "Khans" of the various parts of the Dark Horde -- that is a royal title, too. And I'm sure there are other examples in other parts of the Society. In practice, we have always recognized that the Known World is bigger than the Laurel Kingdoms, even though our rules may say otherwise. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 26 Mar 1998 19:07:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 47 Message-ID: <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.48 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 David Friedman wrote in message ... >In article <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote: > >>Monica Cellio wrote in message <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com>... > >>>On the other hand, if the kingdom of Ansteorra were to split from >>>SCA Inc but continue to function in the same way as the rest of the >>>Society, I think they would still be part of the Society. >> >>But if it was going to function "in the same way" as the rest >>of the Society, why would iot bother to split ? > >It could function in the same way on the medieval side, but still want to >be separate on the mundane side. The reason to do the former would be to >make it easier to play in the same game. Your Grace, other than in the International case (which I concede, BTW: it is easy to see the potential need for separate mundane corporations for different legal domains) I don't see a compelling resaon to have such inside the U.S., which I can see significant downsides to. >I think the issue may be to what extend we include non-SCA groups in the >imaginary medieval world which is one way of viewing the SCA. For most people, whether they are in or out of the SCA, or members of another group, matters little under the current scheme of things (except that you have to be a member to be a Corporate officer). Of course, for "foreign dignity", it's a different issue, and better settled by the people involved at the time than by written rules, IMHO. > That pattern implicitly assumes a society that is larger than the >corporation. I agree: the set of people who are members of "The Society" is a superset of the set of people who are SCA members. This is part of what makes it so problematic to allow people a say in any SCA affairs based on membership in "The Society": there is no clear way to tell who is and isn't part of the Society. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.mtu.edu!not-for-mail From: dwbutler@mtu.edu (Daniel W. Butler-Ehle) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 26 Mar 1998 21:03:35 -0500 Organization: Michigan Technological University Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6ff1dn$rvs$1@ginger.hu.mtu.edu> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: ginger.hu.mtu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: : : Perhaps it would help to regard the game of "The Current Middle Ages" as : the important thing and leave the term "The Society" to the SCA, Inc, as : one of (and the largest of) many groups holding events. This would allow : Acre/MSR and FarIsles to re-become part of the CMA without having to : accept SCA rules. Even Markland and Tuchucs could then be in on the CMA : bit (as they are inofficially at Pensic). We still need some compatibility with these other groups in order to have a consistent Current Middle Ages. Their game might not be the same as ours. Their game might *look* like our game, but the actual focus is on Monty Python movies and D&D. Our relationship with most of the groups you mention is pretty good. Each respects the other's rules. But what if the Kingdom of Wackyland wants to play with us and we find that although they, like the SCA, recreate "the Middle Ages as they should have been", but unlike the SCA, that means for them an emphasis on fantasy personae? We have to insist on *some* homogeneity; I don't think that having a governing body protect our game is a bad thing. Ulfin of Wyrmgeard ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-fw.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ais.net!newsfeed.wli.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!DDFr From: DDFr@best.com (David Friedman) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:13:39 -0800 Organization: Santa Clara University Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ddfr.vip.best.com X-Trace: 890978866 2717 (none) 206.86.0.12 X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3.3 In article <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" wrote: >I agree: the set of people who are members of "The Society" >is a superset of the set of people who are SCA members. Maybe, maybe not. I would not be surprised if there are some people who are SCA members for the publications but don't attend events or meetings--perhaps because there are none near them--and are thus not part of the Society. If so, the two sets intersect but neither is a superset or subset of the other. >This is part of what makes it so problematic to allow people >a say in any SCA affairs based on membership in "The Society": >there is no clear way to tell who is and isn't part of the Society. I don't think people should have a say in the affairs of the SCA Inc. if they are not members of it--was that what you were discussing? But I think people should (and do) have a say in the affairs of the Society--which could include almost anything that happens on the medieval side of the game. And I think current rules push way too much onto the mundane side. I can see that you need one person responsible for what is going on who has some status as a representative of the Corporation--presumably the seneschal--but do not see any reason why anyone else there must. And although someone who is representing the corporation must have the corporation's approval, he does not have to be a member in the sense in which the SCA has members. David/Cariadoc ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: stevem@faculty.unipissing.ca Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:37:12 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 97 Message-ID: <6ffa97$vcn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.187.23.117 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 27 04:37:12 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I) > Let the "market" decide. Any market presumes a certain enforceable legal framework. Otherwise the "free" market will include slavery and piracy. The SCA, Inc., has been our legal framework and I think it has mostly served us well (though the points made here about the Society de facto extending beyond the SCA, Inc. are well taken). Let no one tell me there would be no problems if we just threw away our lega (or perhaps I should say "conceptual") framework for the game. No one who has been king at the Pennsic war in a tense year (I've done this twice) would agree with this. The question is, are the costs we pay now greater or less than the costs (not necessarily monetary costs) we would pay without the conceptual and legal framework of the Society? If the Society clearly extends beyond the groups that are clearly affiliated with the SCA, Inc., it is also true that the SCA, Inc. is broadly accepted as a useful device by the leaders of our kingdoms. Many times the SCA, Inc. has required kingdoms to do things that were inconvenient or unpleasant. Hardly ever have the kingdoms rejected these decisions on important matters. Is this acceptance of Board decisions a result of unreasoning fear or unthinking loyalty to the Board? I don't think so. I think it comes from a realistic awareness that on crucial matters, it's nice to have an umpire, even if the occasional decision makes you want to "kill the ump." I'll bet you money that if you took a poll of all the Seneschals in US groups about whether we should keep the umbrella or go for local incorporations, the seneschals, who carry most of the responsibilities of dealing with mundane problems so we can play, would vote overwhelmingly for the big umbrella, even though they often curse about rules and regs from "above." The medieval re-creation community is much bigger than the Society (official or unofficial definition). The diversity some people call for is already here. We don't have to throw out our legal and conceptual framework to give people and groups freedom of choice. They've got freedom of choice. No one will force them to go to events sponsored by the SCA, Inc. or run under the rules and conventions of the Society (official or unofficial definition). I'm not a fanatic about this. I have considered running an event on my land outside the corporate structure when it looked like unbearable rules were going to be enforced through the SCA, Inc. structure. However, I think that the Society conventions, and practical implementations thereof (including incorporation) have made possible cooperation over three or four continents and that is a good thing. It has been worth all the money that I have paid into the corporate coffers since 1970 or 71. And I don't even mind if lots of people haven't paid but have got some of the benefits. However, to say that the corporation has served no purpose is a crock. Whether it still serves a purpose is another question, but I still answer that one in the affirmative. The Society is a big community now, and some of our events are very big indeed. We cannot avoid being subject to outside institutional expectations (insurance, government regulation). I've just been reading about the Burning Man temporary city that springs up every Labor Day in the Nevada desert. Five years ago there was no charge to attend and it was entirely freeform. Now, having grown to the size of 10,000 attendees and having experienced a traffic death, it has a corporation, a Board of Directors, an organized body of volunteer workers, and a $100 entrance fee, (gosh, can you say Pennsic?) mainly because the legal authorities would not tolerate another encampment without some structure and some organized effort to keep fools with cars from killing any more people. So is it better to have one corporate framework (per country or major part thereof), or dozens and dozens of corporations, many of which may founder due to lack of talent, internal feuding, or just bad luck, leaving the Society in those areas without legal shelter or the credibility that goes with being a recognized educationally-oriented body? Is it good to have some institutional continuity for the mundanities and the very basics, or should we put our hobby energy into re-inventing the wheel for each major or even minor event? (I'm thinking of my local horse club.) Well, I know my answer. It has nothing to do with defending the exact legal structure we have now. > > This would lead to kings being king by the same method that they were in > period, by winning wars, that is by getting enough followers. I am sure > the stickjocks would not mind real period reasons for wars. Here is one stickjock of long standing who would object strongly. We do not need bigger prizes and bigger ego involvement in our wars than we already have. The best wars are the ones fought just for fun; in such circumstances we occasionally achieve that blissful state that results from everyone on both sides being equally happy. Will this happen if a Crown is at stake? Hardly! Had you been on the field at a few bad Pennsic Wars, you'd be less sanguine about this idea. Finnvarr -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:37:36 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 91 Message-ID: <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Dennis O'Connor wrote: > > Monica Cellio wrote in message <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com>... > >He cites examples like Acre (MSR), > >but this is really a different sort of split. Acre is also a medieval > >re-creation group, but they choose their rulers differently [...] > > and so on. > > Of course. Without the SCA, Inc. to dictate the basics of > how rulers are selected and so on (which seems to be one of > the things you object to: Corporate interference in the "Medieval" > side of the Society) So do I and many others. The SCA, Inc and its BoD should be an interface to mundania, not part of the Medieval game. They _are_ OOP. > naturally it will differ after a while. It seems > to me that MSR is an example of how the Society will be if > your ideas are adopted: every Kingdom would have different > rules, Exactly, diversity, the spice of life. Thats good in many peoples books. Of course the autocrats of SCA, Inc events will demand SCA, Inc authorisation for fighters in their wars, so sensible rules will stay the same, in the limits that they are today. Other events might fight with different rules, there visitors will either adopt them or not fight. Let the "market" decide. This would lead to kings being king by the same method that they were in period, by winning wars, that is by getting enough followers. I am sure the stickjocks would not mind real period reasons for wars. > and it would be difficult for them to play together. Nope. In period different countries had different rules for many things. Here in Switzerland there wasn't even a King after 1291. Despite that the period people traded, visited, fought, etc. Diversity is period. > > They are related to the Society but they aren't the Society, though the > >Society shows them courtesies such as addressing them with their MSR > >titles. (Their knights do not sit in our Chivalry circles, however, > >just to pick one example.) > > Why do you say that ? If someone plays in Markland and also shows > up at SCA events, aren't they as much "the Society" as anyone ? Not by the criteria of the SCA, Inc = The Society party in this thread. Perhaps it would help to regard the game of "The Current Middle Ages" as the important thing and leave the term "The Society" to the SCA, Inc, as one of (and the largest of) many groups holding events. This would allow Acre/MSR and FarIsles to re-become part of the CMA without having to accept SCA rules. Even Markland and Tuchucs could then be in on the CMA bit (as they are inofficially at Pensic). Particularly here in Europe it may make it possible to collect up the many small (10-100 person) groups to improve all of ours game. Zach Kessin mentiones Nordmark in sweden as being inofficially like this. Drachenfels here in Switzerland is setting up to be similar (but without even being incorporated at all), we simply call ourselves a household. Yes, to do this SCA Inc would have to relinquish control of some things, such as Medieval titles like King, Baron. OTOH SCA specifica, such AoA, Laurel, Pelican would stay with SCA, Inc. Just an idea, most likely not BoD-compatible, impossible, but one can dream... > >On the other hand, if the kingdom of Ansteorra were to split from > >SCA Inc but continue to function in the same way as the rest of the > >Society, I think they would still be part of the Society. > > But if it was going to function "in the same way" as the rest > of the Society, why would iot bother to split ? If it did split, > Aten history makes it clearly probable that Atenveldt would > very soon go its own way. Well then diverge, uniformity is OOP. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 26 Mar 1998 23:38:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 74 Message-ID: <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Posted-By: @207.218.167.24 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 David Friedman wrote in message ... >In article <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote: > >>I agree: the set of people who are members of "The Society" >>is a superset of the set of people who are SCA members. > >Maybe, maybe not. I would not be surprised if there are some people who >are SCA members for the publications but don't attend events or >meetings--perhaps because there are none near them--and are thus not part >of the Society. If so, the two sets intersect but neither is a superset or >subset of the other. This of course depends on how you define "the Society". I tend to include all SCA Inc. members, by definition. While this may include some small number of people that you might not include, I think the practical impact of their inclusion is negligable. >>This is part of what makes it so problematic to allow people >>a say in any SCA affairs based on membership in "The Society": >>there is no clear way to tell who is and isn't part of the Society. > >I don't think people should have a say in the affairs of the SCA Inc. if >they are not members of it--was that what you were discussing? I that particular line, yes. It was an illustration of how difficult it is to put the criteria "membership in the Society" to any practical use. >But I think people should (and do) have a say in the affairs of the Society--which >could include almost anything that happens on the medieval side of the game. In general, I agree. Whether I'd agree on particular details depends on which details. >And I think current rules push way too much onto the mundane side. I >can see that you need one person responsible for what is going on who has >some status as a representative of the Corporation--presumably the >seneschal--but do not see any reason why anyone else there must. My criteria is that anyone who exercises the authority of the Corporation should be a member of the Corporation. So for me this would include Seneschals and Exchequers (and sometimes Heralds, who at least under Aten law sometimes wind up with financial authority), plus Marshals and Autocrats and (I think) Chiurgeons, plus (in Atenveldt) landed Royalty. >And although someone who is representing the corporation must have the >corporation's approval, he does not have to be a member in the sense in >which the SCA has members. Do you mean, in the sense that only the BoD are members, or in the sense that only people who've paid their dues to the Corp. are members ? I'll assume the latter, since the former would be impractical and not representative of any system past, present or proposed. Making that assumption, there may or may not be some good legal reason to have the Corporation's agents (and by that I mean anyone who acts with authority delegated to them by the Corporation) be dues-paying members of the SCA. Whether there is or not, it is certainly not unconscionable that the SCA Inc require its agents to be dues-paying members. I know of no compelling moral or ethical argument that they should do otherwise. So I am content with it, just as I was content back when anyone could be an officer. It's the SCA, Inc.'s call, and whichever way they go IMHO does no harm. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!INTERNET!news-mail-gateway From: rhuff@cybercom.NET Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 27 Mar 1998 10:51:19 -0500 Organization: The Internet Lines: 34 Sender: inews-mailgate@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Message-ID: <199803271550.KAA00813@jerusalem.cybercom.net> References: <6ff1dn$rvs$1@ginger.hu.mtu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: bloom-beacon.mit.edu To: sca@mc.lcs.mit.edu > Our relationship with most of the groups you mention is pretty good. > Each respects the other's rules. But what if the Kingdom of > Wackyland wants to play with us and we find that although they, like > the SCA, recreate "the Middle Ages as they should have been", but > unlike the SCA, that means for them an emphasis on fantasy personae? > We have to insist on *some* homogeneity; I don't think that having a > governing body protect our game is a bad thing. This has already happened after a fashion, with the "live-action role playing" groups. At least around here ... they looked at us, we looked at them, we agreed we weren't playing the same game, and there's no official contact. Are there people who play in both? Sure, just like there are people who live in the Laurel Kingdoms and are also {Acre, Tuchux, Horde}. And - shockingly - we manage to get along. And as to divergence between the Kingdoms if the BOD got its cotton-pickin' hands off? The East and the Middle haven't had identical combat regulations for a _long_ time now. If I fight in the East, I honor their rules and so for the Middle. The rules for Pennsic have been successfully negotiated for 25 years with no outcry. And, you know, variety is not only good - it leads to experimentation, and the possibility finding better ways of doing things - it's by-God appropriate. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, Visigoths, and Byzantines did things differently ... and I find the differences (and similarities) fascinating. Diego Mundoz Carolingia ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!news1.best.com!nntp2.ba.best.com!DDFr From: DDFr@best.com (David Friedman) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:39:52 -0800 Organization: Santa Clara University Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ddfr.vip.best.com X-Trace: 891027236 1880 (none) 206.86.0.12 X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.3.3 In article <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" wrote: >David Friedman wrote in message ... >>And I think current rules push way too much onto the mundane side. I >>can see that you need one person responsible for what is going on who has >>some status as a representative of the Corporation--presumably the >>seneschal--but do not see any reason why anyone else there must. > >My criteria is that anyone who exercises the authority of the Corporation >should be a member of the Corporation. So for me this would include >Seneschals and Exchequers (and sometimes Heralds, who at least under >Aten law sometimes wind up with financial authority), plus Marshals and >Autocrats and (I think) Chiurgeons, plus (in Atenveldt) landed Royalty. Chirurgeons are not exercising the "authority of the Corporation," so far as I know. Local exchequers are only because of the centralized structure we have, in which every group's money theoretically belongs to the corporation instead of the group. If you require that a corporate representative be present at any event sponsored by the corporation, there is no need that it be the autocrat. >>And although someone who is representing the corporation must have the >>corporation's approval, he does not have to be a member in the sense in >>which the SCA has members. >Do you mean, in the sense that only the BoD are members, or in the >sense that only people who've paid their dues to the Corp. are members ? As far as I can recall, "only the BoD are members" is SCA urban myth, arising during the late unpleasantnesses. Legally speaking, the SCA is a non-membership corporation and has no members. California law, however, recognizes that there may be non-members called members--which is what people who have paid their dues are. >legal reason to have the Corporation's agents (and by that I mean >anyone who acts with authority delegated to them by the Corporation) >be dues-paying members of the SCA. I cannot think of any. >Whether there is or not, it >is certainly not unconscionable that the SCA Inc require its agents >to be dues-paying members. My standard objection is that it is foolish for an organization that runs on volunteer labor to refuse to accept donations of labor unless accompanied by donations of cash. David/Cariadoc -- David Friedman DDFr@Best.com http://www.best.com/~ddfr/ "No man is secure in his life, liberty or property while the legislature is in session" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: stevem@faculty.unipissing.ca Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 15:03:20 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 15 Message-ID: <6fh456$i44$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6ff1dn$rvs$1@ginger.hu.mtu.edu> <199803271550.KAA00813@jerusalem.cybercom.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.187.23.113 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Mar 27 21:03:20 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I) In article <199803271550.KAA00813@jerusalem.cybercom.net>, rhuff@cybercom.NET wrote: > The > rules for Pennsic have been successfully negotiated for 25 years > with no outcry. > You just don't remember the outcry. Were there any catastrophes? No. Were there some very painful incidents? Yes. Finnvarr -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.117.161.1!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!news!ouray!jesierac From: jesierac@ouray.cudenver.edu (JULIE ELAINE SIERACKI) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 27 Mar 1998 17:24:23 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Denver Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6fgnc7$j4n$1@news.cudenver.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ouray.cudenver.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] I started out in non-SCA groups (Dagorhir, Markland) and still participate from time to time. I am also a member of a group which does not consider itself part of the SCA but participates primarily in SCA activities. Speaking from this vantage point I greatly appreciate the standards set by the SCA. While not always the best solution, the SCA standards are... well, standard. If I go to An Tir I can recognize a king, queen, barron, knight or other peer and I understand the general requirements for that position. In this respect I think the Corporation is a good thing. My group formed outside of the SCA and has it's own conventions and customs. The SCA does not recognize our 'peers' and the local folks have a hard time dealing with our system of 'governance'. We don't mind this. On the other hand, it works both ways. We quite often don't show the respect to royalty (within our own encampment) that most folks in the SCA consider standard. Typical response: "Not my king. Want a beer?" This antagonizes quite a few people and does not endear us to them. But as a friend of mine (mainstream SCA) once put it, it's nice to go to a foreign place sometimes. The non-SCA groups are just that, foreign places and foreign people. They have different ways of doing things, some better some worst, but mostly just different. Jester of Anglesey posting from my wife's account please address any e-mail to: jjordan@dhha.org ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.mtu.edu!not-for-mail From: dwbutler@mtu.edu (Daniel W. Butler-Ehle) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 28 Mar 1998 03:25:47 -0500 Organization: Michigan Technological University Lines: 26 Message-ID: <6fic6b$mvf$1@ginger.hu.mtu.edu> References: <6ff1dn$rvs$1@ginger.hu.mtu.edu> <199803271550.KAA00813@jerusalem.cybercom.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ginger.hu.mtu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] rhuff@cybercom.NET wrote: : : > Our relationship with most of the groups you mention is pretty good. : > Each respects the other's rules. But what if the Kingdom of : > Wackyland wants to play with us and we find that although they, like : > the SCA, recreate "the Middle Ages as they should have been", but : > unlike the SCA, that means for them an emphasis on fantasy personae? : > We have to insist on *some* homogeneity; I don't think that having a : > governing body protect our game is a bad thing. : : This has already happened after a fashion, with the : "live-action role playing" groups. At least around here ... they : looked at us, we looked at them, we agreed we weren't playing the : same game, and there's no official contact. . . . : Burgundians, Lombards, Visigoths, and Byzantines did things : differently ... and I find the differences (and similarities) : fascinating. Well, I don't find the differences between SCA and LARPers "fascinating". They looked at us, we looked at them. We determined we weren't playing the same game, but too many of them still fail to take the hint. I would really rather not deal with that when I'm playing *my* game. Ulfin ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: amyripton@aol.com (Amyripton) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 28 Mar 1998 05:36:46 GMT Lines: 16 Message-ID: <1998032805364600.AAA19661@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6fgnc7$j4n$1@news.cudenver.edu> Like Jester (using his wife's account) I am from Anglesey, a group that formed outside of the SCA and began attending SCA events with greater frequency in the last several years. What Jester said about our respect of SCA royals is true. Not to offend anyone, but we don't really recognize "kingship" as it is practiced in the SCA. I don't think anyone in Anglesey is opposed to the idea of royalty within the SCA, we just chose to do without such heirarchies in our own subculture--we are mostly Iron Age Celts after all, a people not necessarily known for their cohesiveness or respect for authority stemming from outside the tribal unit. So we don't, as a group, bow or offer more respect to someone wearing a crown or circlet than we would to anyone else. And some people have taken offense at this. But, for as long as I've been warlord, no one from the mainstream SCA has shown me the respect I've earned from my clanne, and that really doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's a product of coming from two different worlds and for the most part studying different cultures in different time periods. Lanea ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 28 Mar 1998 09:04:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 82 Message-ID: <6fj71h$1v@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.153 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 David Friedman wrote in message ... >In article <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote: > >>David Friedman wrote in message ... > >>>And I think current rules push way too much onto the mundane side. I >>>can see that you need one person responsible for what is going on who has >>>some status as a representative of the Corporation--presumably the >>>seneschal--but do not see any reason why anyone else there must. >> >>My criteria is that anyone who exercises the authority of the Corporation >>should be a member of the Corporation. So for me this would include >>Seneschals and Exchequers (and sometimes Heralds, who at least under >>Aten law sometimes wind up with financial authority), plus Marshals and >>Autocrats and (I think) Chiurgeons, plus (in Atenveldt) landed Royalty. > >Chirurgeons are not exercising the "authority of the Corporation," so far >as I know. Here's my thinking on that particular issue: it is my belief that the Chiurgeon is, in the absence of mundane authority, given the authority to direct the handling of medical problems at SCA events. Not just to treat a medical problem, as any good samaritan might do, but to direct what other people do as well. It is my belief that this authority would be backed by the people in charge of the event should some other person try to interfere with it. So it seems to me that this authority stems from the Corporation. I will admit that of the examples I gave, this is the weakest. >Local exchequers are only because of the centralized structure >we have, in which every group's money theoretically belongs to the >corporation instead of the group. True, but that's the reality I'm talking about here. > If you require that a corporate >representative be present at any event sponsored by the corporation, there >is no need that it be the autocrat. I guess that depends on how much authority is given to autocrats. >>>And although someone who is representing the corporation must have the >>>corporation's approval, he does not have to be a member in the sense in >>>which the SCA has members. > >>Do you mean, in the sense that only the BoD are members, or in the >>sense that only people who've paid their dues to the Corp. are members ? > >As far as I can recall, "only the BoD are members" is SCA urban myth, You are correct. My error. I read the "only members can vote for Directors" part of the code and didn't catch the "being a Director doesn't make you a member" part. >>Whether there is [...legal reasons to ...] or not, it >>is certainly not unconscionable that the SCA Inc require its agents >>to be dues-paying members. > >My standard objection is that it is foolish for an organization that runs >on volunteer labor to refuse to accept donations of labor unless >accompanied by donations of cash. "Foolishness" can be viewed as a judgement on how well ones tactics further ones goals, I suppose. It would indeed be foolish, as you say, if there were a lack of dues-paying volunteers for the positions that need them, and a large number of people willing to volunteer but unwilling to pay dues. However, this doesn't seem to be the case: there seem to be enough volunteers willing to pay dues. This has much to do, I think, with why people volunteer in the first place. Consider, how many people would refuse to join if they were offered the position of Territorial Baron, and joining was a requirement ? Very very few, I think. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com Vanity Web Page: http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:33:50 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 65 Message-ID: <351D7ACE.D9449D86@ccw.ch> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6ff1dn$rvs$1@ginger.hu.mtu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Daniel W. Butler-Ehle wrote: > Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > : Perhaps it would help to regard the game of "The Current Middle Ages" as > : the important thing and leave the term "The Society" to the SCA, Inc, as > : one of (and the largest of) many groups holding events. This would allow > : Acre/MSR and FarIsles to re-become part of the CMA without having to > : accept SCA rules. Even Markland and Tuchucs could then be in on the CMA > : bit (as they are inofficially at Pensic). > We still need some compatibility with these other groups in order > to have a consistent Current Middle Ages. Their game might not be > the same as ours. Their game might *look* like our game, but the > actual focus is on Monty Python movies and D&D. I was of course only refering to Middle Ages _recreation_ groups, not to Middle Ages _inspired_ fantasy LARP or D&D groups. Perhaps I should have made that point clearer (in words, not just in the selection of example groups). I was actually thinking of the many scattered and small but otherwise SCA-like (real recreation) groups here in Europe, that often don't know of each other and are extremely difficult to find. Having an large Current Middle Ages community with SCA, Inc being just one (most likely the largest, at least in the US) organiser of events would sure be usefull here, and most likely also in the US. This most likely will not be able to happen so long SCA, Inc is so dominant in many aspects of the Medieval side (exclusive use of titles such as King, Baron, Knight, etc comes to mind). As a background for senechals and autocrats who organise events it is OK, just too intrusive in how the game is played. > Our relationship with most of the groups you mention is pretty good. > Each respects the other's rules. That is what I have been sensing from the various discussions on the Rialto (I have never been to Pensic, it is a bit far away from here (Europe)). > But what if the Kingdom of > Wackyland wants to play with us and we find that although they, like > the SCA, recreate "the Middle Ages as they should have been", but > unlike the SCA, that means for them an emphasis on fantasy personae? > We have to insist on *some* homogeneity; I don't think that having a > governing body protect our game is a bad thing. Then they obviously are not Middle Ages, so they are not part of our game. In such a case SCA members would after a few trial visits not go again and not recommend to other SCAdians to go. So the experiment with that particular group would dry up. OTOH we could perhaps send them our elves and vampires and hope they get lost there :-) With other SCA game compatible groups SCAdians would revisit and recommend to others and the connection would flourish. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 23:33:53 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 202 Message-ID: <351D7AD1.C80640C3@ccw.ch> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6ffa97$vcn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) stevem@faculty.unipissing.ca wrote: > > Let the "market" decide. > Any market presumes a certain enforceable legal framework. Otherwise > the "free" market will include slavery and piracy. I was using the term "market" as in "let different players offer variation and let the other players chose what they like instead of one corporation enforcing uniformity", not in its sense as "make organisers compete to be the cheapest". So danger of exploitation would not happen. So an equivalent of an legal framework to protect organisers from exploitation would not be needed. > Let no one tell me there would be no problems if we just threw away our lega > (or perhaps I should say "conceptual") framework for the game. No one who has > been king at the Pennsic war in a tense year (I've done this twice) would > agree with this. I would assume the conceptual framework of what the typical recreationist wants to be doing in this game to be settled by now. More by "we have done it so since years" than by decree of the BoD (and often in violation of the BODs rules). As for being King in a tense year, your excellency (that is the right one for an Duke?), I would assume that the tension you mentioned could well be less when playing the role/persona of an King in the Medieval side of the game is separated from being one of the top society officers in the mundane side of the game. My suggestion was based on the Idea of splitting the playing of the game Current Middle Ages (which contains Kings, Barons, Knights, etc) and the organising of events (which contains BoD, senechals, autocrats, troll, etc in the case of SCA, Inc events and other parallel stuctures in other organisations events). > The question is, are the costs we pay now greater or less than the costs (not > necessarily monetary costs) we would pay without the conceptual and legal > framework of the Society? Full on the mark. > If the Society clearly extends beyond the groups that are clearly affiliated > with the SCA, Inc., it is also true that the SCA, Inc. is broadly accepted as > a useful device by the leaders of our kingdoms. It is surely a usefull device when it comes to providing one possible infrastructure to organise events. It becomes a load when it limits what can be played in the game. My aim was/is to really limit the BoD to the mundania side of things (organising) and get it out of the game. > Many times the SCA, Inc. has > required kingdoms to do things that were inconvenient or unpleasant. Hardly > ever have the kingdoms rejected these decisions on important matters. Is this > acceptance of Board decisions a result of unreasoning fear or unthinking > loyalty to the Board? I don't think so. I think it comes from a realistic > awareness that on crucial matters, it's nice to have an umpire, even if the > occasional decision makes you want to "kill the ump." Any matter that is important from the mundane view point (example financing, insurance, safety) would be addressed by the BoD telling its organisations senechals and autocrats what to do and by the SCA, Inc events visitors holding to the published event rules. Any matter that is important from the medieval game view point (example titles, court, rituals) would be addressed by the players avoiding other players who don't see the light. The majority will have the most players and so be the most attractive to comply with. > I'll bet you money that if you took a poll of all the Seneschals in US groups > about whether we should keep the umbrella or go for local incorporations, the > seneschals, who carry most of the responsibilities of dealing with mundane > problems so we can play, would vote overwhelmingly for the big umbrella, even > though they often curse about rules and regs from "above." Senechals are organising, so in that aspect of their life they are part of the mundane side. Many of them would be interested in organising their events under the umbrella of the SCA, Inc. Some would prefer to "roll their own". I could actually concieve of an SCA, Inc that consists entirely of being an organisation of event organisers, with senechals and autocrats as its _only_ members. With all others that only play in the game being its (and other parallel organisations) visitors. Due to the lot smaller amount of members of the corporation this would have to be financed entirely from the site fees. > The medieval re-creation community is much bigger than the Society (official > or unofficial definition). The diversity some people call for is already > here. > We don't have to throw out our legal and conceptual framework to give > people and groups freedom of choice. They've got freedom of choice. No one > will force them to go to events sponsored by the SCA, Inc. or run under the > rules and conventions of the Society (official or unofficial definition). I agree that the players are not forced to participate in the SCA. But if anyone wants to play with the many ones that are in the SCA they are forced to accept some fairly big intrusions of the BoD/corpora into the game. > I'm not a fanatic about this. I have considered running an event on my land > outside the corporate structure when it looked like unbearable rules were > going to be enforced through the SCA, Inc. structure. However, I think that > the Society conventions, and practical implementations thereof (including > incorporation) have made possible cooperation over three or four continents > and that is a good thing. I would assume that the cooperation (as far as being able to visit events) would have taken place without the corporation. As for the cooperation (as far as organising events) I think the positive effect of being an california law recognised educational organisation most likely becomes very little as soon as one leaves the US. After all the many small groups over here in Europe seem to well without that legal construct. The limitations to playing the game coming from corpora remain though. Making participation my many over here not interesting. So todays splintered situation stays. And one has only the choice of being yet annother small group or in an SCA that is a lot smaller than it could be, and that is very small in some places over here. > However, to say that > the corporation has served no purpose is a crock. Well I didn't say that. Actually SCA, Inc s organiser of events is usefull. But as arbitrar of the game it is too intrusive. I suppose posting in a thread where many critics have taken the point of it being useless has lead to you thinking that I was supporting them on that point. I suppose I should have been clearer that I don't. > Whether it still serves a purpose is another question, but I still answer that > one in the affirmative. As organiser it does and allways will. > The Society is a big community now, and some of our events are very big > indeed. We cannot avoid being subject to outside institutional expectations > (insurance, government regulation). Big events require an organisation. Nothing against that. But it should leave the players to define the game details. > So is it better to have one corporate framework (per country or major part > thereof), or dozens and dozens of corporations, many of which may founder due > to lack of talent, internal feuding, or just bad luck, leaving the Society in > those areas without legal shelter or the credibility that goes with being a > recognized educationally-oriented body? As said above. It doesn't mean that much outside the US and the groups over here seen to get along without it. Do not forget that over here every child knows what the Middle Ages is, we are not just "queers in funny clothes" in the eyes of mundania. > Is it good to have some institutional continuity for the mundanities and the > very basics, or should we put our hobby energy into re-inventing the wheel for > each major or even minor event? (I'm thinking of my local horse club.) > > Well, I know my answer. It has nothing to do with defending the exact legal > structure we have now. For organising, particularly in the US the corporation is right. We agree on that. > > This would lead to kings being king by the same method that they were in > > period, by winning wars, that is by getting enough followers. I am sure > > the stickjocks would not mind real period reasons for wars. > > Here is one stickjock of long standing who would object strongly. We do not > need bigger prizes and bigger ego involvement in our wars than we already > have. The best wars are the ones fought just for fun; in such circumstances > we occasionally achieve that blissful state that results from everyone on both > sides being equally happy. Will this happen if a Crown is at stake? Hardly! > > Had you been on the field at a few bad Pennsic Wars, you'd be less sanguine > about this idea. O.K. that is a possible downside, I accept it. What then about selection simply by a King proposing himself and then being it if enough followers take it up. I still think that crown lists are OOP and prevent good _rulers_ from being King just because they are bad _fighters_. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: stevem@faculty.unipissing.ca Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:15:20 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 87 Message-ID: <6fls0t$bd9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6ffa97$vcn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <351D7AD1.C80640C3@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.187.23.115 X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Mar 29 16:15:20 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I) Dear Neil Franklin, It looks like we've come to some degree of agreement, but important disagreements remain. I will say right at the beginning that it looks like our SCA experiences have been quite a bit different. I consider it a very good thing to have a purely mundane body with a certain amount of legal clout that is able to overrule monarchs. That is because I have seen monarchs do arbitrary and stupid things, in large part because they felt it necessary to "act like kings." I have been both a director of the SCA and a king, and the pressure of expectation on kings is far greater most of the time. Also, kings find it very hard to back down if they have made a mistake. One of the reasons the SCA has grown and thrived for over three decades is that we have a fairly simple set of "game" rules and don't have to make them up as we go along. In particular, we do not have to argue and argue and argue about who wears the shiny hat this time. The Crown Tournament comes along, it is conducted according to the rules of the list, somebody wins, a King and Queen are proclaimed. We have had very few schisms in the SCA's history. If our rules were not straight-forward and if there were not a certain amount of enforcement offered by an outside body (the Board is not part of any kingdom or any local group and has not been for years) then we would have had multiple schisms caused by disagreements between strong personalities who would either have refused outside arbitration or not had it available. Of course, probably every schism would have had a "winner" and a "loser" but all of us would have lost something. The cohesion of the Society would have been an early casualty It strikes me that your "let the conceptual market decide" philosophy is conditioned by two things. First, you don't like the way we choose our monarchs. This is a common complaint, and I won't try to convert you into a believer. However, I will assert that the Crown Tournament is the magical rite that creates the cohesion of our kingdoms and makes the SCA different from other recreation and re-enactment groups. Change that custom, and you will split the Society. Get out your history books and read up on what Martin Luther wanted to accomplish and what he ended up doing. Hint: he did not want to found a new church or denomination. Second, you seem to be writing from Switzerland, where the SCA seems to have a very small presence, and must compete on more or less equal terms with other groups. People in those groups don't see much point in many of our customs. Assuming I am right in the above paragraph: the whole SCA is not going to change to suit your situation. People in Europe or Australia have got the choice of breaking off from the customs of the SCA (as currently enforced by the Board and the Society Officers), or of going along with those customs. The Board and Society Officers have no power whatever to compel Europeans, Canadians, or Australians to do anything. People in some of those places have their own corporations and could appropriate the name SCA if they wanted to. And then they could change whatever rules they wanted to change -- if they could agree among themselves. (That's the trick of course.) Well, why don't they? It's because they want to be part of something big, and have adopted the basic customs of the Society as an international lingua franca, because they think there is a lot to be said for Society tradition and custom as a framework for enjoyable medieval re-creation. The Nordmark/Nordrik (Sweden) split is instructive. Some people got mad and left. Lots of people stuck around, even though they were not wildly enthusiastic about every detail of SCA custom or administration. Nobody outside of Sweden held a gun to the heads of those who stuck with the Society customs and remained affiliated with the SCA, Inc. There are plenty of people in Sweden, Australia, and New York State who occasionally take part in events sponsored by some branch of the SCA, but have little use for Crown Tournaments, Kings and Queens, or other things that lots of us are attached to. They, like you and me, have that choice. And they have the choice of organizing their own events, making up their own rules, appointing their own monarchs, captains, podestas, gonfalonieri, hundredmen, or whatever they like. The dissatisfaction of such people, though, is not a very compelling argument for the people who are happy with our structure (at least most of the time) to dismantle a tradition that has a lot of practical and emotional value. Finnvarr (p.s. Dukes are "Your Grace" -- but this being an informal electronic medium that's not particularly relevant.) -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 23:49:57 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 110 Message-ID: <351EC205.A657E81D@ccw.ch> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6ffa97$vcn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <351D7AD1.C80640C3@ccw.ch> <6fls0t$bd9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) stevem@faculty.unipissing.ca wrote: > It looks like we've come to some degree of agreement, but important > disagreements remain. I will say right at the beginning that it looks like > our SCA experiences have been quite a bit different. > > I have been both a director of the SCA > and a king, and the pressure of expectation on kings is far greater most of > the time. Also, kings find it very hard to back down if they have made a > mistake. Sure they have been. Mine does not contain having been King or Director. Thank you for sharing some of your experiences. > One of the reasons the SCA has grown and thrived for over three decades is > that we have a fairly simple set of "game" rules and don't have to make them > up as we go along. In particular, we do not have to argue and argue and argue > about who wears the shiny hat this time. I suppose that some people will take anything too seriously. Perhaps the 2 organisations where I was president (both fairly small) simply were lucky cases in this respect. > enforcement offered by an outside body (the Board is not part of any kingdom > or any local group and has not been for years) then we would have had multiple "has not been for years"? Was it once? That is new to me. > every schism would have had a "winner" and a "loser" but all of us would have > lost something. The cohesion of the Society would have been an early casualty Colateral damage. > out your history books and read up on what Martin Luther wanted to accomplish > and what he ended up doing. Hint: he did not want to found a new church or > denomination. That case is known to me (I am late period). > Second, you seem to be writing from Switzerland, where the SCA seems to have a > very small presence, To be exact: One household (Drachenfels, the rock in the middle of Drachenwald) of presently 4 members, of which I am the founder. > and must compete on more or less equal terms with other > groups. People in those groups don't see much point in many of our customs. Well compete is exactly what I don't want to do. I would like to integrate the others, so that we over here (in Switzerland and Europe in general) can have something as big as you Americans enjoy. > Assuming I am right in the above paragraph: the whole SCA is not going to > change to suit your situation. Just for us surely not. I was actually lookung at the regularly reoccuring discussions on the Rialto about BoD involment/intrusion and organisational changes and was offering an suggestion, which happens to be also good for out problems. > People in Europe or Australia have got the > choice of breaking off from the customs of the SCA > > Well, why don't they? It's because they want to be part of something big, and > have adopted the basic customs of the Society as an international lingua > franca, because they think there is a lot to be said for Society tradition and > custom as a framework for enjoyable medieval re-creation. Exactly. After all it is the size that makes some things only really good. If it weren't for that I would not even bother with the SCA and would simply set up yet annother small local group. > The Nordmark/Nordrik (Sweden) split is instructive. Some people got mad and > left. Lots of people stuck around, even though they were not wildly > enthusiastic about every detail of SCA custom or administration. Nobody > outside of Sweden held a gun to the heads of those who stuck with the Society > customs and remained affiliated with the SCA, Inc. That is where my suggestion was aiming at, to give more leeway, so that "not wildly enthusiastic" and such splits do not occure. The end structure would be more an federation of groups instead of one big group and regular splinters dropping off entirely. Perhaps the disadvantages you point out to are greater. That is why I poster, to get comments, thank you for yours. > (p.s. Dukes are "Your Grace" -- but this being an informal electronic medium > that's not particularly relevant.) But it will be when I meet an Duke on field. So I used the occasion to ask you. Yours... -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ais.net!newsfeed.wli.net!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey03.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: mclean1382@aol.com (McLean1382) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 30 Mar 1998 01:33:34 GMT Lines: 26 Message-ID: <1998033001333401.UAA05053@ladder03.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder03.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com References: <351EC205.A657E81D@ccw.ch> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Finnvarr wrote: >> One of the reasons the SCA has grown and thrived for over three decades is >> that we have a fairly simple set of "game" rules and don't have to make >them >> up as we go along. In particular, we do not have to argue and argue and >argue >> about who wears the shiny hat this time. In article <351EC205.A657E81D@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch writes > >I suppose that some people will take anything too seriously. Perhaps the >2 organisations where I was president (both fairly small) simply were >lucky cases in this respect. > I suspect that size was more of a factor than luck. The social dynamics of small organizations is very different than large ones. The bigger the organization, the less well informal social mechanisms work. Ditto for the decision making process. Galleron ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newshub.northeast.verio.net!howland.erols.net!news.idt.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!nntp.earthlink.net!1cust212.tnt1.winter-haven.fl.da.uu.net!user From: blackwilliam@mail.geocities.com (Dr. Bill) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 30 Mar 1998 04:22:52 GMT Organization: Mad Scientists' Union local 3.14159.... Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.254.80.212 In article , DDFr@best.com (David Friedman) wrote: > In article <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com>, "Dennis O'Connor" > wrote:.... > >My criteria is that anyone who exercises the authority of the Corporation > >should be a member of the Corporation. So for me this would include > >Seneschals and Exchequers (and sometimes Heralds, who at least under > >Aten law sometimes wind up with financial authority), plus Marshals and > >Autocrats and (I think) Chiurgeons, plus (in Atenveldt) landed Royalty. > > Chirurgeons are not exercising the "authority of the Corporation," so far > as I know. They are, however, providing a service on behalf of the Corporation which exposes the Corporation to potential liability. It is, furthermore, a service which has unusual Society-specific ramifications, and a service which is increasingly seen as a responsibility of the Corporation to provide--at least, at large scale and/or remote events. This seems a not unreasonable area to have officers of the Corporation active. Cordially, Bill Ernoehazy, MD, FACEP Don Giovanni di Fiamma, Trimaris. -- Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons For You Are Chewy And Would Taste Great Dipped In Chocolate ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!newsfeed.ecrc.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news-xfer.mccc.edu!mars.njcc.com!not-for-mail From: "TAI-PAN" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 30 Mar 1998 14:26:23 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Lines: 15 Message-ID: <01bd5be7$679605a0$d002e0c7@gbzrypeq> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts4-208.njcc.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 As a member of the SCA EK, MARKLAND and MSR I would like a chance to post a reply the oringal posting. Is there any chance I can get a copy emailed to me DMJ Monica Cellio wrote in article <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com>... > It appears that Dennis and I have a fairly fundamental difference > of opinion about ownership of the Society, what is the Society, etc. > Dennis, if I mis-characterize any of your beliefs in what follows, please > say so. > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 30 Mar 1998 15:35:36 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 22 Message-ID: <6fovmo$n2v@panix5.panix.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com > This seems a not unreasonable area to have officers of the Corporation active. A bunch of people here are making an invalid connection between liability and membership. There is none. A corporation is liable for certain actions performed by its agents, no matter how those agents are designated. Rostering or warranting officers is _one_ method to designate agents, but it is not the only method and it is provides neither more nor less protection from laibility than any of the many other methods. The corporation has many agents who are not dues-paying members. It certainly makes sense for the corporation to be careful how it delegates authority to its agents, and I definitely agree that the corporation should have some formal means of authorizing agents to speak in its name; but none of this has anything to do with membership. We certainly do not want all members to be designated agents of the corporation. Since we therefore need a separate process for naming agents, there is no sense in tying it to membership. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.dejanews.com!nnrp1.dejanews.com!not-for-mail From: stevem@faculty.unipissing.ca Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 21:42:25 -0600 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Lines: 50 Message-ID: <6fpokv$nsl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6ffa97$vcn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <351D7AD1.C80640C3@ccw.ch> <6fls0t$bd9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <351EC205.A657E81D@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.187.23.111 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Mar 31 03:42:25 1998 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (Win95; I) In article <351EC205.A657E81D@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > >>(the Board is not part of any kingdom >> or any local group and has not been for years) > "has not been for years"? Was it once? That is new to me. Quite a few years ago the Board was largely (and before that) entirely West Coast. > Well compete is exactly what I don't want to do. But you are competing: hobbies make demands on time, money, energy and creativity. You are competing with other hobbies for that time, money, energy. > I would like to > integrate the others, so that we over here (in Switzerland and Europe in > general) can have something as big as you Americans enjoy. It's a great idea, but to "integrate" things you will need at the very least some common customs, SCA customs or not. Otherwise you have distinct groups, with "visitors" passing back and forth. > That is where my suggestion was aiming at, to give more leeway, so that > "not wildly enthusiastic" and such splits do not occure. > The end structure would be more an federation of groups instead of one > big group and regular splinters dropping off entirely. Well, the way I see it, the SCA *is* a federation of groups, but what makes that federation recognizable as being such are the core customs of the Society. There are disagreements about those core customs, and probably always have been, but so far the advantages of adhering to them have been sufficiently obvious to enough people to give those customs the force they have today. If they become too burdensome to enough people, there will be a split, but not before. Individuals and groups of individuals have the freedom to move in and out of this culture as they wish. And the number of schisms has been astonishingly small. I can think of three in over thirty years which are of some significance. Nice talking to you. Finnvarr -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!sibyl.sunrise.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.69.200.121!news.mindspring.com!usenet From: AEdric@mindspring.com (Aedric the Grene) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:41:25 GMT Organization: House Howling Mouse, Canton of Elvegsast, Barony of Windmasters' Hill, Kingdom of Atlantia Lines: 35 Message-ID: <35202b6d.721105@news.mindspring.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ff1k5$11i@nntp02.primenet.com> <6ffhg9$7qg@nntp02.primenet.com> <6fovmo$n2v@panix5.panix.com> Reply-To: AEdric@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: user-38ld8pl.dialup.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 30 Mar 1998 23:41:33 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) wrote: >of this has anything to do with membership. We certainly do not want all >members to be designated agents of the corporation. Since we therefore >need a separate process for naming agents, there is no sense in tying it to >membership. I'm afraid I miss your point. It seems like you're saying since we don't want all members to be designated agents and designated agents are defined seperately from members, designated agents should not be members. Correct? Assuming I understand properly, I disagree. SCA is a volunteer organization which means I see every reason its agents should be members. I think things would worsen if we had a completely non-member BoD, for instance, to point out an extreme case. Sure, certain agents can, perhaps even should be, non-members such as lawyers, accountants and the like. But, I see that as a common sense requirement of not having a conflict of interest as a professional. All other (volunteer) positions, should be held by members. Why? Because it shows a dedication to the organization of willing to put in one's own money and labour. Because then we don't have disinterested people representing the organization. Because in general, I think a self-interested volunteer is the best volunteer. Sure, it might be accomplished without the money part (I would never discount labour donations), but in an international organization the money makes an easier standard to identify and qualify how much a person has invested. Which isn't that much when you look at membership costs. AEdric the Grene Anglo-Saxon, KnowItAll wannabe, Cider drinker Arms: Per Pale, sable and vert (or is it vert and sable...) Legs: 3'6" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.new-york.net!mars.njcc.com!not-for-mail From: "TAI-PAN" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 01:37:38 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Lines: 27 Message-ID: <01bd5c45$2d16a700$da02e0c7@gbzrypeq> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts4-218.njcc.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 David Friedman wrote in article ... This si happrning all the time here in NJ I have offen had the tak of being a MARKLAND ambassador to SCA or MSR events or crowns > I think the issue may be to what extend we include non-SCA groups in the > imaginary medieval world which is one way of viewing the SCA. Consider an > SCA king accepting an ambassador from Markland or Acre. By doing so, he is > treating them as independent powers within the same fictional world, not > as new people or outsiders whose mundane life includes a > (different)medieval hobby. This si happrning all the time here in NJ I have offen had the tak of being a MARKLAND ambassador to SCA or MSR events or crowns > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!netnews.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news-xfer.mccc.edu!mars.njcc.com!not-for-mail From: "TAI-PAN" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 01:42:52 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Lines: 35 Message-ID: <01bd5c45$e85ab740$da02e0c7@gbzrypeq> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts4-218.njcc.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote in article <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch>... > Dennis O'Connor wrote: > > Exactly, diversity, the spice of life. Thats good in many peoples books. > > Of course the autocrats of SCA, Inc events will demand SCA, Inc > authorisation for fighters in their wars, so sensible rules will stay > the same, in the limits that they are today. Other events might fight > with different rules, there visitors will either adopt them or not > fight. Let the "market" decide. No, If I where to hold a MARKLAND event and invited the SCA/MSR to play I could set land aside for a seperat list field for there type of fighting. Thats if I had the land. > > Perhaps it would help to regard the game of "The Current Middle Ages" as > the important thing and leave the term "The Society" to the SCA, Inc, as > one of (and the largest of) many groups holding events. This would allow > Acre/MSR and FarIsles to re-become part of the CMA without having to > accept SCA rules. Even Markland and Tuchucs could then be in on the CMA > bit (as they are inofficially at Pensic). What is this CMA?? DJM ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.139.105.25!news.chatlink.com!not-for-mail From: "Peter O'Briaroak" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 09:50:50 -0800 Organization: PDN/Chatlink Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: pdx-64.budget.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 i think a lot of gentles don't really understand what the story of the Kingdom of Acre is and this is used against them on a pretty repetitive basis. so much so that they have developed a kind of precontact defense against the prejudice of members of the SCA. I have camped with twice and was Landocrat a third time for the combined An Tir Royal / Acre Pennsic Encampment and from that have been able to get a really good but disgusting view from their perspective. the original members of Acre didn't split from the sca they formed their own corporational entity for the purpose of owning property and doing faires. the corporational unit owns physical acreage, a barn, four horses (the last time i talked to them) a truck, a large horse trailer, a large amount of pavilions, and period gear. notice i said OWNS. the sca does not own property, and does not allow jousting with real lances and real horses. they choose their royalty by the same process we do with only the difference i know of being a person can have a champion fight for his or her right to rule. the royalty become corporational entities in the corporation (as far as i was able to understand it in essence the co presidents of the board ) . By the way, their garb, manners, and armor are on the whole better than ours. for obvious reasons. the garb and mannerisms are part of the show so they have to be good. also the armor is much more complete and protective that the average SCA fighter because of the jousting. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.139.105.25!news.chatlink.com!not-for-mail From: "Peter O'Briaroak" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 10:05:59 -0800 Organization: PDN/Chatlink Lines: 19 Message-ID: <6frb24$f81$1@news.chatlink.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6ff1dn$rvs$1@ginger.hu.mtu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pdx-64.budget.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 >: Perhaps it would help to regard the game of "The Current Middle Ages" as >: the important thing and leave the term "The Society" to the SCA, Inc, as >: one of (and the largest of) many groups holding events. This would allow >: Acre/MSR and FarIsles to re-become part of the CMA without having to >: accept SCA rules> >We still need some compatibility with these other groups in order >to have a consistent Current Middle Ages. Their game might not be >the same as ours. Their game might *look* like our game, but the >actual focus is on Monty Python movies and D&D. > >Our relationship with most of the groups you mention is pretty good. >Each respects the other's rules. The Kingdom of Acre does accept SCA rules. Almost all are card carrying members, pay their entrance fees and sign their waivers. they receive their copies of the kingdom newsletter and enjoy all the prerogitives of other SCA members. what they don't do is play the kingdom game, as they have their own organizational entity. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.mccc.edu!mars.njcc.com!not-for-mail From: "TAI-PAN" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 13:44:11 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Lines: 44 Message-ID: <01bd5caa$aaee94c0$cf02e0c7@gbzrypeq> References: <1998032618133601.NAA15889@ladder03.news.aol.com> <6fedie$sn8@panix5.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts4-207.njcc.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 The SCA EK and Markland have learnd to work well together, attending each others events Doing demos together and exchangeing tech info about combat archery. Markland looked at some of the really small Med LH groups and decided not to have any offical contact with them for one reason or another. It is much better to greet your neghbors than to snub them. DJM Arval d'Espas Nord wrote in article <6fedie$sn8@panix5.panix.com>... > > Greetings from Arval! Stephan Bellatrix asked: > > > At one point Corpora did not allow recognition of outside/alternate medieval > > organization awards or titles. Has this changed? > > I don't recall any such rule and I can't find anything in the current > Corpora to that effect. The closest thing that is there is a general rule > that unrecognized titles cannot be used if they imply rank or territorial > jurisdiction. That certainly applies to the title "King of Acre". > > But the fact is that we've pretty much always ignored this rule when it > made sense to do so. The King and Queen of Acre are granted honors as > foreign sovereign by the East (if not by other kingdoms). The East, > Middle, and other kingdoms have routinely recognized the "Khans" of the > various parts of the Dark Horde -- that is a royal title, too. And I'm > sure there are other examples in other parts of the Society. In practice, > we have always recognized that the Known World is bigger than the Laurel > Kingdoms, even though our rules may say otherwise. > > =========================================================================== > Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com > > ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news.linkline.be!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 14:05:49 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 59 Message-ID: <6freqd$7mi@panix5.panix.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fovmo$n2v@panix5.panix.com> <35202b6d.721105@news.mindspring.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com Greetings from Arval! I wrote: > We certainly do not want all members to be designated agents of the > corporation. Since we therefore need a separate process for naming > agents, there is no sense in tying it to membership. Aedric replied: > I'm afraid I miss your point. It seems like you're saying since we > don't want all members to be designated agents and designated agents > are defined seperately from members, designated agents should not be > members. Correct? Nope. I did not mean that our agents should _not_ be members, but rather that there is no business reason why our agents _should_ be members. Since requiring membership limits our pool of volunteers, we should not require membership as a pre-requisite for volunteering. > All other (volunteer) positions, should be held by members. Why? > Because it shows a dedication to the organization of willing to put in > one's own money and labour. It is true that donating money and labor shows dedication. But it is also true that donating labor alone _also_ shows dedication. > ...in an international organization the money makes an easier standard to > identify and qualify how much a person has invested. Which isn't that > much when you look at membership costs. You're contradicting yourself. Either the cost is significant and is a meaningful measure of dedication, or it is not significant and therefore cannot be a significant measure of anything. The size of the organization is irrelevent to this discussion, because the corporation's officers-must-be-members policy is not enforced from the center. It is enforced (if at all) on the local level. The corporation, as a whole, does not verify local officers' qualifications, so it does not need a convenient way to do so. It does (occasionally) need a convenient way to identify _officers_, but it has that without having to refer to membership: warrants, rosters, and (in practice) newsletters. It is spectacularly silly to pretend that dues-paying membership is ever used as a measure of an officer-candidate's dedication to the game. That just isn't how the world works. When a local officer needs a successor, he doesn't start with a membership list and choose possibilities. He looks around and finds a qualified candidate. If the candidate is acceptable and interested in the job, then -- as an afterthought -- he'll be advised to buy a membership so that he can be an officer. In other words, membership does not identify how dedicated the candidate is. It _might_ be an extra hurdle that the candidate has to clear to prove his dedication, but if so it is a remarkably ineffective test and it does not demonstrate any meaningful level of dedication -- any idiot with a checkbook can pass it. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!surfnet.nl!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 15:11:37 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 18 Message-ID: <6frilp$gpt@panix5.panix.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <351BFB4C.5602@wineasy.se> <6fr3ed$f49$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> <35212F73.2FF5@wineasy.se> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com Greetings from Arval! Tibor wrote: > Interkingdom events (wars) are a major part of what makes us > a united set of Kingdoms. Far more than blue cards or partial armor > standards. When we play together, we grow together. Hartmann Rogge replied: > If it's true, it's bad tidings for Drachenwald... Not really, because Drachenwald has its own unique ways to ensure cross-pollenization: Military migration. Now, if the US military stopped sending you fresh faces, _then_ you'd be in trouble. =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.125.85.9!news.mv.net!newspump.wustl.edu!news.fas.harvard.edu!abel!schuldy From: schuldy@abel.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 15:51:41 GMT Organization: My own little corner. Lines: 38 Message-ID: <6fr3ed$f49$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <351BFB4C.5602@wineasy.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: abel.math.harvard.edu Jan Frelin wrote: I believe that mutual recognition to be terribly important. Hartmann, believe it. Think about one of the really fun Rialto hobbies: Inter-Kingdom Anthropology. Boy, are our Kingdoms different. Armor and fighting rules, levels of costume, types and lengths of events. "The King's Word Is Law" v. "The King's A Good Fighter". (:-) Ask someone who has moved Kingdoms. It can be a shock. I suspect that the "delta" between some of those non SCA Incorporated groups and the groups they split from, is far smaller than the delta between some of our own Kingdoms. (Not always the case, and the delta may be very emotionally charged. But not so big that a mundane could tell.) So, what ties us together? Some say the Corporation. But I subscribe to a different theory. I cannot remember where I heard this good idea, so I'll ascribe it to Cariadoc. (What the heck: the odds are good any good idea started with or near him. :-) Interkingdom events (wars) are a major part of what makes us a united set of Kingdoms. Far more than blue cards or partial armor standards. When we play together, we grow together. If you buy the premise, then some of the SCA Incorporated's rules, the ones that make working without outside groups and corporations hard, help to perpetuate and increase divisions between groups. Mutual recognition *is* terribly important. It's a shame that outside of the SCA it is nearly forbidden. And it is fortunate that it happens anyway. Tibor (If there hadn't been a Pennsic, we'd be different today) -- Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@math.harvard.edu) "Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.netaxs.com!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 16:12:46 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 34 Message-ID: <6frm8e$p82@panix5.panix.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> Reply-To: mittle@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com Greetings from Arval! Peter O'Briaroak wrote: > ...the original members of Acre didn't split from the sca they formed > their own corporational entity for the purpose of owning property and > doing faires. That was the original purpose, yes. These people continued to play in the Society for a while, but after a personal dispute with the Eastern Crown, split from the Society and transformed the MSR, Inc. into a separate medieval recreation group, holding events, giving awards, etc. Their medieval structure wasn't created until after their split with the Society. > they choose their royalty by the same process we do with only the > difference i know of being a person can have a champion fight for his or > her right to rule. Their crown tournament is held in three steps: A single-combat tournament to four semi-finalists; a small-team melee tournament led by these four, which reduces the field to two; and then a grand melee in which each finalist raises an army. > By the way, their garb, manners, and armor are on the whole better than > ours. Not really. I've been to a lot of their events, and with a very few exceptions, they are indistinguishable from Society events. Their level of authenticity is almost identical to the in Society in the same part of the world. Their armor, so far as I can tell, is identical (which is not surprising, since many of them fight at Society events, too). =========================================================================== Arval d'Espas Nord mittle@panix.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.125.85.9!news.mv.net!newspump.wustl.edu!news.fas.harvard.edu!abel!schuldy From: schuldy@abel.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 31 Mar 1998 16:20:50 GMT Organization: My own little corner. Lines: 40 Message-ID: <6fr552$muj$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fovmo$n2v@panix5.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: abel.math.harvard.edu Arval d'Espas Nord wrote: It certainly makes sense for the corporation to be careful how it delegates authority to its agents, and I definitely agree that the corporation should have some formal means of authorizing agents to speak in its name; but none of this has anything to do with membership. We certainly do not want all members to be designated agents of the corporation. Since we therefore need a separate process for naming agents, there is no sense in tying it to membership. Arval is quite correct: and even the Corporation knows it. For your perusal, Governing and Policy Decision 7: POLICY ON LEGAL AGENTS (February 1981, revised May 1982) 1. Duties of the Legal Agent: a. The primary duty of the Legal Agent is to receive on behalf of the SCA any legal papers served on the Society, to forward those papers to President and the Corporate Secretary and to inform the President and Corporate Secretary of the existence of any legal actions involving the Society. b. Secondarily, the Legal Agent will, under the express and specific direction of the President, file such papers and pay such fees or fines as may be directed by the President. 2. Since the work of the Legal Agent is entirely outside the medieval structure of the Society, the position of Legal Agent will carry no Society title or precedence, nor shall any notice of the office be taken in any ceremonies or Medieval Courts. Note that it restricts itself to legal agents, but it certainly doesn't have to. Tibor -- Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@math.harvard.edu) "Yep. I have often wished I could charge an idiot tax. But then, I probably would have been hit up for change a few time myself." -- Devin ###### Message-ID: <35212F73.2FF5@wineasy.se> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:01:23 +0200 From: Jan Frelin Reply-To: jan.frelin@wineasy.se X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <351BFB4C.5602@wineasy.se> <6fr3ed$f49$1@news.fas.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!cosy.sbg.ac.at!newshunter.cosy.sbg.ac.at!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!EU.net!howland.erols.net!fci-se!fci!news.dalnet.se!seunet!news2.swip.net!news.wineasy.se X-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.wineasy.se Lines: 45 Mark Schuldenfrei wrote: > > Jan Frelin wrote: > I believe that mutual recognition to be terribly important. > > Hartmann, believe it. > > Think about one of the really fun Rialto hobbies: Inter-Kingdom > Anthropology. Boy, are our Kingdoms different. Armor and fighting rules, > levels of costume, types and lengths of events. "The King's Word Is Law" v. > "The King's A Good Fighter". (:-) > > Ask someone who has moved Kingdoms. It can be a shock. I've noticed. Since Drachenwald has an unusually large part of the population moving in and out, I notice how different the perceptions can be. Every now and then, some influential outsider moves in and realises our ways need to be mended - since we are obviously playing the game wrong... Most of the time, we prevail. I don't even mind new customs - but i refuse to acknowledge that somehow got the game wrong just because it's different. I remember talking to a newly elevated Drachenwald pelican who was moving to the States. He told me he was gonna enter the new kingdom by informing everyone how *wrong* they all were, and how much better Drachenwald ways are. Then you now you're speaking to native peer... > I cannot remember where I heard this good idea, so I'll ascribe it to > Cariadoc. (What the heck: the odds are good any good idea started with or > near him. :-) Interkingdom events (wars) are a major part of what makes us > a united set of Kingdoms. Far more than blue cards or partial armor > standards. When we play together, we grow together. > > If you buy the premise, then some of the SCA Incorporated's rules, the ones > that make working without outside groups and corporations hard, help to > perpetuate and increase divisions between groups. If it's true, it's bad tidings for Drachenwald... It also smacks of an 'eastern' weltanschaung! Cheers, ======================================================================== Hartmann Rogge Holmrike, Nordmark, Drachenwald Jan Frelin Stockholm, Sweden jan.frelin@wineasy.se ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.c Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:42:32 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 22 Message-ID: <35215538.2F961B30@ccw.ch> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <01bd5c45$e85ab740$da02e0c7@gbzrypeq> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) TAI-PAN wrote: > > Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote in article > <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch>... > > Perhaps it would help to regard the game of "The Current Middle Ages" > > > > accept SCA rules. Even Markland and Tuchucs could then be in on the CMA > > bit (as they are inofficially at Pensic).> > > What is this CMA?? Current Middle Ages. Perhaps I should have put (CMA) behind it in the first line. But there again, I used it to save typing, at 11.30pm. Yes, YABA (yet another bloody acronym) :-) -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.mccc.edu!mars.njcc.com!not-for-mail From: "TAI-PAN" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 1 Apr 1998 01:44:22 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Lines: 35 Message-ID: <01bd5d0f$4569dbe0$d402e0c7@gbzrypeq> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts4-212.njcc.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Peter O'Briaroak wrote in article <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com>... > i think a lot of gentles don't really understand what the story of the > Kingdom of Acre > the original members of Acre didn't split from the sca they formed their own corporational entity >for the purpose of owning property and doing faires. They now owen a camp ground in upstate NY >the corporational unit owns physical acreage, a barn, four horses (the last time i talked to them) >a truck, a large horse trailer, a large amount of pavilions, and period gear. notice i said OWNS. > the sca does not own property, and does not allow jousting with real lances and real horses. It six horses and they dont owen the barn they board there. The MSR Jousting team does not use real lances for ther hits. They use a 24'" balsa wood break away tiped lance fitted into a socket. They hits are on the shield only and they don't do falls. There steel fighting is done unhorsed right in front of the crowed. >By the way, their garb, manners, and armor are on the whole better than ours. for obvious reasons. >the garb and mannerisms are part of the show so they have to be good. also the armor is much more >complete and protective that the average SCA fighter because of the jousting. Its better but not by much. DJM ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-raspail.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news-xfer.mccc.edu!mars.njcc.com!not-for-mail From: "TAI-PAN" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 1 Apr 1998 01:48:38 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Lines: 27 Message-ID: <01bd5d0f$ddb59740$d402e0c7@gbzrypeq> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> <6frm8e$p82@panix5.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts4-212.njcc.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Arval d'Espas Nord wrote in article <6frm8e$p82@panix5.panix.com>... > > Greetings from Arval! Peter O'Briaroak wrote: > Their crown tournament is held in three steps: A single-combat tournament > to four semi-finalists; a small-team melee tournament led by these four, > which reduces the field to two; and then a grand melee in which each > finalist raises an army. Yes you got this part right > > By the way, their garb, manners, and armor are on the whole better than > > ours. >their armor, so far as I can tell, is identical (which is not surprising, since many of them fight at Society events, too). No if you look closely there mimuim staders for armour are more than the SCA EK I dont have a set of ruls to compar but this was what I was told a saw. DJM ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.69.200.121!news.mindspring.com!usenet From: homan@mindspring.com (NAME) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 04:29:00 GMT Organization: ORG Lines: 70 Message-ID: <3521bf79.20161799@news.mindspring.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fovmo$n2v@panix5.panix.com> <35202b6d.721105@news.mindspring.com> <6freqd$7mi@panix5.panix.com> Reply-To: homan@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: user-38ld8fo.dialup.mindspring.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 1 Apr 1998 04:29:09 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 mittle@panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord) wrote: >Nope. I did not mean that our agents should _not_ be members, but rather >that there is no business reason why our agents _should_ be members. Since >requiring membership limits our pool of volunteers, we should not require >membership as a pre-requisite for volunteering. However, we don't seem to have a problem getting people to be agents (Making sure I'm remembering correctly, we're talking about offices like Seneschal et al, right?) currently. Why change what's not broke? >It is true that donating money and labor shows dedication. But it is also >true that donating labor alone _also_ shows dedication. Yes, I agree. It's the quantification of such that makes it difficult for me. Especially since there is no standard for how much labour donation it takes to make one sufficiently committed. Money always shows some form of commitment. >> ...in an international organization the money makes an easier standard to >> identify and qualify how much a person has invested. Which isn't that >> much when you look at membership costs. > >You're contradicting yourself. Either the cost is significant and is a >meaningful measure of dedication, or it is not significant and therefore >cannot be a significant measure of anything. The cost is not prohibitive, but has symbolic signifigance. I never paid for my membership until I was sure I wanted to be part of the SCA and not just a hanger-on or the like. I think you're mixing the two different meanings of signifigant (which would be my fault if I used the same word in two different senses) and thus the confusion. >It is spectacularly silly to pretend that dues-paying membership is ever >used as a measure of an officer-candidate's dedication to the game. That >just isn't how the world works. When a local officer needs a successor, he >doesn't start with a membership list and choose possibilities. He looks >around and finds a qualified candidate. If the candidate is acceptable and >interested in the job, then -- as an afterthought -- he'll be advised to >buy a membership so that he can be an officer. Well, maybe the world around you always works this way. However, local to me, I have seen more people volunteer for positions that are vacant without reccomendations from the prior office holder. More input from the group that way, if nothing else. Also never heard anything about having to become a member, which either means the people already are or know to do it. Unless you have been everywhere (literally) in the SCA, I would hesitate to accept your argument on how the [SCA] world works, since it seems to work so many different ways in different places. >In other words, membership does not identify how dedicated the candidate >is. It _might_ be an extra hurdle that the candidate has to clear to prove >his dedication, but if so it is a remarkably ineffective test and it does >not demonstrate any meaningful level of dedication -- any idiot with a >checkbook can pass it. I agree it does not mark dedication to office. It does mark dedication to the organization, IMAO. And, if nothing else, it insures that they have access to Kingdom information for themselves not just through word-of-mouth or the like. More importantly, most idiots don't just throw away money to joing groups. Most people I've seen only pay money to join a group for a reason. It's something about the paying part that seems a big step. AEdric the Grene Anglo-Saxon, KnowItAll wannabe, Cider drinker Arms: Per Pale, sable and vert (or is it vert and sable...) Legs: 3'6" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!enews.sgi.com!decwrl!news.bu.edu!acs3.bu.edu!kcm From: kcm@bu.edu (Ken Mondschein) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 1 Apr 1998 16:51:30 GMT Organization: Boston University Lines: 47 Message-ID: <6ftrai$jjb$2@news1.bu.edu> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> <6frm8e$p82@panix5.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: acs3.bu.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Arval d'Espas Nord (mittle@panix.com) wrote: : Greetings from Arval! Peter O'Briaroak wrote: : > ...the original members of Acre didn't split from the sca they formed : > their own corporational entity for the purpose of owning property and : > doing faires. : That was the original purpose, yes. These people continued to play in the : Society for a while, but after a personal dispute with the Eastern Crown, : split from the Society and transformed the MSR, Inc. into a separate : medieval recreation group, holding events, giving awards, etc. Their : medieval structure wasn't created until after their split with the Society. There is a lot of ugly back history to this, and I have the opinions of the founders of the MSR, the SCA side, and innocent bystanders. What you all don't understand is that there were some pretty ugly politics going on in the medieval-recreation world around New York at that time. Since I actually know what the story is, I will keep my big mouth closed, so as not to piss anybody off. : > By the way, their garb, manners, and armor are on the whole better than : > ours. I, personally, like the horses and the steel-fighting (especially the horses....!). My own personal opinion is that Acre, being a smaller organization, does an excellent job of medieval recreation. I also have never seen an Acre person in plastic armor that wasn't covered by fabric; I've seen lots of SCA people proudly wearing plastic barrels. Also, the biggest crossover seems to be with heavy-weapons fighters; Acre people come to SCA practices and vice-versa, so that anyone who's a heavy weapons fighter can be said to have a sort of dual membership. I should also say that the Acre folks are very, very nice people. -- Ken Mondschein Work in Progress Graduate Student, History Department, Boston University ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer.mccc.edu!mars.njcc.com!not-for-mail From: "TAI-PAN" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 1 Apr 1998 20:15:31 GMT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ Lines: 34 Message-ID: <01bd5daa$7c7c8240$d402e0c7@gbzrypeq> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> <6frm8e$p82@panix5.panix.com> <6ftrai$jjb$2@news1.bu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts4-212.njcc.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Ken Mondschein wrote in article <6ftrai$jjb$2@news1.bu.edu>... > There is a lot of ugly back history to this, and I have the opinions > of the founders of the MSR, the SCA side, and innocent bystanders. What you > all don't understand is that there were some pretty ugly politics going on in > the medieval-recreation world around New York at that time. Since I actually > know what the story is, I will keep my big mouth closed, so as not to piss > anybody off. Yes god idea, time have changes > My own personal opinion is that Acre, being a smaller organization, > does an excellent job of medieval recreation. I also have never seen an Acre > person in plastic armor that wasn't covered by fabric; I've seen lots of SCA > people proudly wearing plastic barrels. Yes good point. > I should also say that the Acre folks are very, very nice people. Yea they throw one hell of a good party. DJM ###### From: mjc@telerama.lm.com (Monica Cellio) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: 2 Apr 1998 11:30:33 -0500 Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet Lines: 14 Message-ID: <6g0ef9$nsk@frogger.lm.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <351BFB4C.5602@wineasy.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: frogger.lm.com Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-dc.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in5.uu.net!newssrvr.alleghenypower.com!news.lm.com!not-for-mail In article <351BFB4C.5602@wineasy.se>, Jan Frelin wrote: >I believe that mutual recognition to be terribly important. In your >example, Ansteorra would get their legitimacy as a "Laurel Kingdom" from >the other kingdoms. Exactly! The recognition for who's part of the shared society we call the Laurel Kingdoms comes from *within* that society -- not from any paritcular corporation. Which corporations these member groups draw on for support really shouldn't matter. Ellisif -- Spam bait: postmaster@[127.0.0.1], abuse@[127.0.0.1] ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!supernews.xara.net!xara.net!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: Ron Trenka Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 16:29:28 -0400 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Message-ID: <35293B23.6981@panix.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> <6frm8e$p82@panix5.panix.com> Reply-To: hanover@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 29720@208.151.41.22 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Lines: 45 Arval d'Espas Nord wrote: > > Greetings from Arval! Peter O'Briaroak wrote: > > > ...the original members of Acre didn't split from the sca they formed > > their own corporational entity for the purpose of owning property and > > doing faires. > > That was the original purpose, yes. These people continued to play in the > Society for a while, but after a personal dispute with the Eastern Crown, > split from the Society and transformed the MSR, Inc. into a separate > medieval recreation group, holding events, giving awards, etc. Their > medieval structure wasn't created until after their split with the Society. > > > they choose their royalty by the same process we do with only the > > difference i know of being a person can have a champion fight for his or > > her right to rule. > > Their crown tournament is held in three steps: A single-combat tournament > to four semi-finalists; a small-team melee tournament led by these four, > which reduces the field to two; and then a grand melee in which each > finalist raises an army. > > > By the way, their garb, manners, and armor are on the whole better than > > ours. > > Not really. I've been to a lot of their events, and with a very few > exceptions, they are indistinguishable from Society events. Their level of > authenticity is almost identical to the in Society in the same part of the > world. Their armor, so far as I can tell, is identical (which is not > surprising, since many of them fight at Society events, too). We (those in Acre) tend to have heavier armor since we don't allow non-period materials (no plastic, aluminum, etc) and are a little more stringent in some areas and a bit less in others. As for everything else, garb at one point was more authentic, but the SCA has changed and become more and more accurate over the past years. At this point, anyone can pretty much pick up and play in either group without going through "culture shock". Hanover of Acre ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!Supernews60!supernews.com!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail From: Ron Trenka Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: non-SCA-Inc Society groups Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 16:33:06 -0400 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 9 Message-ID: <35293BFD.68C@panix.com> References: <6fbthu$c2e@frogger.lm.com> <6fcr88$sr5@nntp02.primenet.com> <351AD8B0.5E8D9F7@ccw.ch> <6fra5l$emk$1@news.chatlink.com> <01bd5d0f$4569dbe0$d402e0c7@gbzrypeq> Reply-To: hanover@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 29720@208.151.41.22 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) > It six horses and they dont own the barn they board there. > The MSR Jousting team does not use real lances for ther hits. > They use a 24'" balsa wood break away tiped lance fitted into a socket. > They hits are on the shield only and they don't do falls. > There steel fighting is done unhorsed right in front of the crowed. We've started doing live steel on horseback also. Hanover of Acre