Hail, Renee Signorotti!
Tim McDaniel
little enough good to say about the SCA Inc. as a corporation.
Today, I do.
I didn't remember getting my kingdom newsletters, TI, or Compleat
Anachronist, but it's harder to notice something that's missing than
something that's there.
I renewed my membership a couple of weeks ago, via the Web page. I
noticed that it said that my membership had expired on 15 July 2009,
but my card said 30 November 2009. So I was going to get around to
writing a letter.
Today I got my new membership card. Enclosed was a note saying
Renee Signorotti, Registrar, sends most courteous greetings!
_____ 1. The address that you gave us is different than the one in
our files and your subscriptions had been suspended due
to returned mail. Your new expiration date is _____.
/
_\/__ 2. We show the same address - we have reactivated your
membership, but the suspension indicates that there was a
problem. You may wish to take this matter up with your
local Post Office. Your new expiration date is
___4/30/2013___
Mail returned 6/1/2009
Please be sure to notify the Registry of your new address when you
do move, and let us know if your newsletters suddenly stop coming!
Also enclosed was a photocopy of the front of a CA or newsletter,
indeed with Post Office markings of "UNABLE TO FORWARD
NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE
RETURN TO POSTMASTER OF ADDRESSEE FOR REVIEW"
So they noticed a problem, recorded it, reported it to me, *and*
compensated me for it automatically! Yay!
Daniel Lindicolinum
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tm...@panix.com
synthi...@yahoo.com
> So they noticed a problem, recorded it, reported it to me, *and*
> compensated me for it automatically! Yay!
Wow, that's like, what corporations used to do back in the mid 20th
century. I guess the SCA really does recreate history.
So, ummm, how dead is the internet? Has all the SCA talk gone off to
one of those ghettoized, members-only, can't-be-found web chats?
Nils
Phil
>So, ummm, how dead is the internet? Has all the SCA talk gone off to
>one of those ghettoized, members-only, can't-be-found web chats?
Ghettoized? Members only? I belong to to three or four yahoo groups.
These groups rea local and more specific to my needs.
No offense to to the Kingdon of Lochac, but I won't be going to any of
your events. I'd more concerned with local activities.
Oliver de Bainbridge
Whyt Whey
Dorothy J Heydt
I think most people have gone off to Kingdom-specific mailing
lists. I know the West Kingdom has one, and if I really wanted
to get on it, I could ask my daughter for the info.... but I'm
kinda tired these days.
--
Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt
Mists/Mists/West Vallejo, California
PRO DEO ET REGE djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Dorothy J Heydt
On the other paw, the all-Kingdom group, when it was active,
provided a lot of valuable information in the way of InterKingdom
Anthropology.
(How long do your Kings reign? How much time elapses between
Crown Tourney and Coronation? What's the ratio of indoor to
outdoor events? How many feasts/year? What's the usual
attendance at Kingdom events? What's the size of the Exchecquer
at the Kingdom versus branch level? Who, if anybody, is allowed
to approach the Thrones wearing weapons?)
Morgan
wrote:
<snip>
> On the other paw, the all-Kingdom group, when it was active,
> provided a lot of valuable information in the way of InterKingdom
> Anthropology.
>
> (How long do your Kings reign? How much time elapses between
> Crown Tourney and Coronation? What's the ratio of indoor to
> outdoor events? How many feasts/year? What's the usual
> attendance at Kingdom events? What's the size of the Exchecquer
> at the Kingdom versus branch level? Who, if anybody, is allowed
> to approach the Thrones wearing weapons?)
Yeah, the inter-kingdom stuff is what I miss the most. You just don't get
as much of that on kingdom-specific lists. We get some, due to friends of
Caidans, and former Caidans who stay on the list despite being in a new
kingdom, but not near as many neat IKA discussions as used to happen here
:-(.
Muirghein /|\
Dorothy J Heydt
Kings of the West reign for roughly one-third of the year: we
have Coronations at Twelfth Night, Beltane, and Lammas: that is,
as close as possible to January 6, May 1 (the Kingdon's and SCA's
founding date), and somewhere suitable in August. The latter is
known as Purgatorio because it's usually hot. Crown Tournaments
are as close as reasonable to March 21, June 21, and sometime
suitable in October (used to be September 22, the Bagginses'
birthday, but early on we moved it into October because a lot of
us worked the Northern Renaissance Faire. Ancient history here).
Five of our six great Crown events are outdoors, because the
weather (usually) permits it -- though there have been some
memorable March Crown Tournaments when the heavens opened up and
poured and we all squelched around in puddles and the fighters
had to watch how they fell. I should not that we don't have
access to the kind of camps with cabins that appear to be used in
many other Kingdoms: we have pavilions large and small, and big
sunshades to sit in to watch the fighting. There's a rule that
only period-style pavilions or at least perioid-looking sunshades
can camp in the front row around the Eric or anywhere else that
can be seen from the Royal Pavilion.
The Eric ... more ancient history here. We use the term both for
the lists field itself and for the arrangement of poles, ropes,
and flags that set it off from the surrounding walkways. In AS I
it consisted of some lengths of wire that could be pushed into
the ground, and a long strip of red fabric (because red fabric
was what we could get a lot of cheap) that fitted onto them. We
called this arrangement Eric the Red, and there would be
discussions about who was bringing the Eric to an event. As
the Kingdom grew and we had more fighters and need more lists
space, we added a strip of yellow fabric (the Yellow Peril) and
another strip of white (the Great White Hope); meanwhile, all the
pieces of fabric were getting faded and muddy and
indistinguishable. We not have a much bigger and prettier
arrangement, but we still use "the Eric" for the poles and ropes,
and for the space enclosed within them, and for the pavilion-deep
space outside them where the front-row pavilions sit. "Master
Flieg's pavilion is on the Eric as usual."
More IKA later.
Matthew G. Saroff
>As an unreconstructed rebel from the Milpitas Meltdown of 1994, I have
>little enough good to say about the SCA Inc. as a corporation.
>Today, I do.
Milpitas Meltdown of 1994?
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Matthew G. Saroff
It appears that the Rialto has largely been supplanted by kingdom
listserves.
Traffic is way off.
mikea
> tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>>As an unreconstructed rebel from the Milpitas Meltdown of 1994, I have
>>little enough good to say about the SCA Inc. as a corporation.
>>Today, I do.
>
> Milpitas Meltdown of 1994?
Gather round, people. Draw up a _comfy_ chair, as this may take quite a
long time. You probably will want drinks and munchies; I believe beer
and popcorn are traditional for rehashings of this particular series of
events.
Brother Tim, will you open the ball?
--
Mike Andrews / Michael Fenwick Barony of Namron, Ansteorra
mi...@mikea.ath.cx / Amateur Extra radio operator W5EGO
Tired old music Laurel; Chirurgeon; SCAdian since AS XI
Dorothy J Heydt
Matthew G. Saroff <msaro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>>As an unreconstructed rebel from the Milpitas Meltdown of 1994, I have
>>little enough good to say about the SCA Inc. as a corporation.
>>Today, I do.
>
>Milpitas Meltdown of 1994?
That (IIRC) was when the Bod brought in the non-member surcharge.
They actually met in Milpitas to discuss it, so a lot of Westies
were able to attend. Frederick of Holland brought an old-fashioned
1960s-protest-days protest sign (lightweight enough that
if you hit someone over the head with it, it wouldn't hurt him).
They made him leave it outside.
This was the second time (in my recollection) that the Kingdoms
seriously considered seceding from the SCA, Inc. (The first was
in the early 1970s; I misremember at the moment just what it was
about.) In this conflict, (boasting mode on), the West Kingdom
led the resistance and kept it nonviolent. Sir Michael Saint
Sever (then Prince of the Mists, and now in Paradise) visited
several other Kingdoms and exhorted them to keep their cool, to
trust their Royalty, to trust their companions. We would have
followed him anywhere.
To this day the West Kingdom keeps a Surcharge Fund, and if you
come to the gate and aren't a member, the Fund will pay the
surcharge for you, and if you are a member you're encouraged to
donate to the Fund so that entry to Western events continues to
be nondiscriminatory.
Christophe Bachmann
> synthi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> So they noticed a problem, recorded it, reported it to me, *and*
>>> compensated me for it automatically! Yay!
>> Wow, that's like, what corporations used to do back in the mid 20th
>> century. I guess the SCA really does recreate history.
>>
>> So, ummm, how dead is the internet? Has all the SCA talk gone off to
>> one of those ghettoized, members-only, can't-be-found web chats?
>>
> It appears that the Rialto has largely been supplanted by kingdom
> listserves.
>
> Traffic is way off.
Google statistics are unforgiving :
http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.org.sca/about
--
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Ch�teau du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France
mikea
There was more to it than that.
The Corporation has 501(c)(3) status with the IRS as a tax-exempt
educational organization. The rules and regs for 501(c)(3) orgs require
that the corporate account books be open for inspection by members at
reasonable times at the corporate offices.
The Corporation, IIRC, decided that the subscribing members weren't
"members" in the sense defined by the rules and regs, and that only the
Corporation officers were. They therefore refused to permit inspection
of the corporate books.
During this time the Corporation had, IIRC, brought in a person who had
never played in the SCA to oversee day-to-day operations; he didn't
understand the mindset of the members, offended many, and alienated
more. Some members brought suit to require the Corporation to open the
books to the rank-and-file members, the Corporation chose to fight it,
and the Corporation lost pretty hard.
There is a great deal more to the matter than this necessarily imprecise
synopsis. I welcome correction where I've misstated matters; it's due to
failure of memory, rather than to any malice at all.
Tim McDaniel
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <Ku3Cq...@kithrup.com>:
>> In article <le3gh5dqkb1iaj3a1...@4ax.com>,
>> Matthew G. Saroff <msaro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>As an unreconstructed rebel from the Milpitas Meltdown of 1994, I
>>>>have little enough good to say about the SCA Inc. as a
>>>>corporation. Today, I do.
>>>
>>>Milpitas Meltdown of 1994?
>>
>> That (IIRC) was when the Bod brought in the non-member surcharge.
>
MUCH more, and there were some inaccuracies in the parent articles.
Fortunately, Google horked up a note I wrote for the Ansteorran
kingdom list in 1998. This is
<http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/ansteorra-ansteorra.org/1998-February/014304.html>,
except with my modern .signature and a few corrections.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sat Feb 21 15:17:09 PST 1998
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, -Jax- <jackson2 at apple.com> wrote:
> Well, I have been waiting and hoping that soeone would
> clarify, but no one has, so I'll ask: Just what was this
> infamous 'BoD Incident'
Erm. How to summarize in a page or two what some call the
Milpitas Meltdown, and some the Recent Unpleasantness.
It started on a Saturday in January 1994. The SCA BoD had
their quarterly meeting and said there was a major budget
deficit and low reserves. Among other things, they raised
subscribing memberships from $20 [someone replied that he
believes that it had been $25] to $35 and required paid
membership for people going to all SCA events
("pay-to-play"). It was pointed out at the time that the
deficit, and hence the crisis, was of the Board's own
making, and that they weren't re-examining their spending
plans.
Someone pointed out that [requiring pay-to-play] was against the SCA
by-laws, which required a unanimous vote to change.
Apparently, the Board afterwards met and the majority told
the two dissenting directors to repeal the by-laws provision
or they'd be removed (only requiring a two-thirds vote).
There was other unpleasantness around then: an egregious
waiver was one. Also, there was a peaceful and good-natured
picketing of that meeting (against required membership for
fighters) and the board chairman told them to remove the
signs or he'd call the police. Also, a non-SCAer, Tony
Provine, had been chosen as Executive Director (CEO,
really), and he had an autocratic background and little
sympathy for things medieval (barely got him into garb for
one revel).
Some kingdoms went ballistic -- West, East, Ansteorra, An
Tir, and I think Trimaris were the strongest and closest to
secession. I suspect it was largely due to the particular
crowns. The Middle and Meridies backed the Board, but I
dimly recall some squire bond between the Middle's king and
the Board chairman chairman, and Meridies' king had some
squire bond too. On the other hand, Ansteorra's Inman was a
truly effective preacher against the Board. (Somewhere I
have the One True Waiver he puclicly ripped up at Steppes
Warlord.) On the other hand, An Tir had had problems with
the Board a couple of years previously, so they were
predisposed against them from the get-go.
Much of the uproar and organization against the Board was
helped by the Rialto, the rec.org.sca Usenet newsgroup.
Duke Frederick of Holland, a long-time Westie and one of the
protesters, posted his first Broadside of a Board Sunday
morning, and it was one of the most effective persuasive
pieces I've ever seen.
There were a few Board resignations, in one case due to
death threats. The new people selected tended to be
"reformers", or those against the old BoD. The last
recalcitrants didn't leave for a couple of years, though.
There was the Estrella [War] Compact, in which 11 of the
then 13 crowns (except Middle and Meridies) signed a treaty
recognizing each others' existance, titles, styles, and
awards, no matter what (i.e., in case there was secession).
They also issued demands of the Board.
Pay-to-play was repealed (in April?), but they instituted a
$3 non-member tax, $1 kicked back to the kingdoms (as a
bribe to get their acquiencence). That helped the Board
some, since some kingdoms had non-member taxes already.
After Tony Provine tried to get the site to cancel the
Lillies' War contract the day before the war, the Board
finally "thanked him for his services".
A side note that swelled to become the major point: the
financials. The Board at their January meeting had had
financial figures in front of them. One member in the
audience asked to look at the figures and was refused.
Other members went to the SCA offices over a period of
months and were refused. The problem with that is By-Laws
X, "The books of account may be inspected by any member or
member's agent, for any reasonable purpose at any reasonable
time.". Eventually, the 17 of the Committee to Save Our
Society took SCA Inc. to court (Santa Clara County, CA --
Milpitas, the corporate headquarters, are there). The SCA
counter-argument was ... well, I'll omit the details, but it
was thoroughly lame. The plaintiffs won the writ of
mandamus that they wanted (forcing access to the books -- it
was NOT suing for damages). However, the judge thought the
SCA's case was so bad that she awarded the plaintiffs their
legal costs, some $70,000. Their total bills were quite a
bit higher, but that helped. The SCA Inc. dragged their
feet about paying, until they were on the brink of a
contempt citation. So, with the SCA's own legal expenses,
they wasted a lot of money unnecessarily.
(The plaintiffs *did* get the financials, but the two people
they got to look at them said the records were so confused
they couldn't get anywhere with them.)
Results: some reformers got on the Board. Pay-to-play and
SCA-wide non-member taxes are dead. (For now.) The waiver
committee got some competant legal help and got a fiarly
decent one. A Council of Crowns was formed and had some
solidarity, at least at the time. There is a Grand Council,
with a lot of the reformers, to look at big issue, and an
advisory council for shorter-term ones, but they don't
appear to have done much (weak chairmanship in the GC's
case, with a lack of direction and leadership from the
Board).
And some of us are more wary of Milpitas and a little more
apt to split in the future.
Danel de Lyncoln
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Matthew G. Saroff
I was involved with another organization, and when they wanted to
go corporate with a self-appointing board, and I left as a
result.
My recollections of 1994 have led me to conclude that if you want
a properly run membership type group non-profit, then membership
has to elect the directors.
D. Peters
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
[wrt the Milpitas Meltdown of 1994]
>In this conflict, (boasting mode on), the West Kingdom
>led the resistance....
? From what I recall, the folks in CSOS who brought suit against the
Corporation (which always struck me as "leading a resistance") were all
East of the Mississippi.
Just another data point--
D.Peters
--
"'Tehee' quod she, and clapte the wyndow to...."
--Geoffrey Chaucer, "The Miller's Tale"
D. Peters
In article <hf9ail$o5d$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
[wrt the Milpitas Meltdown of 1994]
> Some kingdoms went ballistic -- West, East, Ansteorra, An
> Tir, and I think Trimaris were the strongest and closest to
> secession....The Middle and Meridies backed the Board....
I can't address the Meridian climate at that time, but I lived in the
Midrealm in 1994, and most of the people I knew did *not* approve of what
the Board was doing. My perception may have been skewed because I spent a
lot of time playing with Cariadoc and his friends, but I don't think so: I
remember seeing petitions circulating at Candlemas in Lexington, KY (a
good distance from that libertarian hotbed in Chicago :-D).
> There was the Estrella [War] Compact, in which 11 of the then 13
> crowns (except Middle and Meridies) signed a treaty....
My recollection is that TRM Jafar and Catherine said that they were
uncomfortable signing such a compact without being certain that it
reflected the will of their Populace--that's not the same thing as
"backing the Board" :-) (The Midrealm wasn't a "King's Word Is Law" kinda
place--ah, those were the days... :->)
Just another $0.02--
Ralph E Lindberg
tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>
> After Tony Provine tried to get the site to cancel the
> Lillies' War contract the day before the war, the Board
> finally "thanked him for his services".
>
The week the Tony as "fired" was the week before AnTir hosted the
Field of Gold. Where every Crown there was invited to discuss the
matter. As I recall most of them attended, with HerRM of the Middle
there to offer her advise (which as was noted, ran counter to most
Kingdoms thoughts). Also the Crown of Acre attended
I can still remember the look on Fleig's face as he arrived, having
heard that Tony had been fired.
Ralg
AnTir
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
David Friedman
dpe...@panix.com (D. Peters) wrote:
At some point during that dispute, his Majesty asked me my opinion of
what had just been happening (the Estrella War compact). I told him I
was happy with the acts of every crown except my own (I probably didn't
know about Meridies).
He was a good man, as best I could tell, and clearly willing to be
disagreed with. But I think on the wrong side of that particular
argument.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
Matthew G. Saroff <msaro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I remember that now.
>
> I was involved with another organization, and when they wanted to
> go corporate with a self-appointing board, and I left as a
> result.
>
> My recollections of 1994 have led me to conclude that if you want
> a properly run membership type group non-profit, then membership
> has to elect the directors.
I wrote a piece at about that time discussing how the mineral collecting
hobby was organized, my wife's parents being very active in that. Aside
form being much less centralized than the SCA model, it's a system where
if everything is going smoothly the leadership is essentially
self-perpetuating, but if a significant number of people are unhappy
with what's happening, they can nominate candidates to run against the
candidates proposed by the incumbents.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Medieval/Another_Hobby.html
Incidentally, lots of stuff I wrote at the time of the board flap can be
found at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Medieval/Board_Flap.html
Ralph
Who knows I may need them again (grin)
Ralg
AnTir
Tim McDaniel
Ralph E Lindberg <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
>In article <hf9ail$o5d$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>> After Tony Provine tried to get the site to cancel the
>> Lillies' War contract the day before the war, the Board
>> finally "thanked him for his services".
>>
> The week the Tony as "fired" was the week before AnTir hosted the
>Field of Gold. Where every Crown there was invited to discuss the
>matter. As I recall most of them attended, with HerRM of the Middle
>there to offer her advise (which as was noted, ran counter to most
>Kingdoms thoughts). Also the Crown of Acre attended
I have a vague memory that the Crown of Acre attended the Estrella
meeting too, but I don't have a citation. I don't recall whether
other non-SCA orgs did too.
Danyell de Linccolne
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Chris Zakes
caused Matthew G. Saroff <msaro...@gmail.com> to write:
>OK, I remember that now.
>
>I was involved with another organization, and when they wanted to
>go corporate with a self-appointing board, and I left as a
>result.
>
>My recollections of 1994 have led me to conclude that if you want
>a properly run membership type group non-profit, then membership
>has to elect the directors.
Well... maybe, maybe not. Take a look at the current list of Board
nominees: http://sca.org/BOD/nominees.html How many of these names do
you recognize? How many do you know well enough to cast a reasonable
vote for or against? Unless you want to get into a situation where we
have SCA-wide campaigns for Board elections, most people would be
voting for the one or two nominees from their own kingdom, because
that's the only person they know, or else just picking names at
random.
Despite their negative reputation with some folks, the Board, as a
rule, is actually trying to make the SCA work, with the most fun for
the most people; they're not some evil group of ogres trying to stomp
as many folks as possible.
I think the biggest problem with the 1994 mess is that they hired an
outsider--someone who had no clue about what the SCA was and how it
operated--so he didn't *care* about the membership and let the power
go to his head. And then the whole mess was compounded by the Board
being stubborn (or possibly bamboozled by Tony Provine) and not
backing down when they realized what a mess they'd created.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its
subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden
to know," the end result is tyranny and opression, no matter how holy the motives.
-John Lyle in "If This Goes On--" by Robert Heinlein
Tim McDaniel
Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:53:31 -0500, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Matthew G. Saroff <msaro...@gmail.com> to write:
>>My recollections of 1994 have led me to conclude that if you want
>>a properly run membership type group non-profit, then membership
>>has to elect the directors.
>
>Well... maybe, maybe not. Take a look at the current list of Board
>nominees: http://sca.org/BOD/nominees.html How many of these names do
>you recognize? How many do you know well enough to cast a reasonable
>vote for or against? Unless you want to get into a situation where we
>have SCA-wide campaigns for Board elections, most people would be
>voting for the one or two nominees from their own kingdom, because
>that's the only person they know, or else just picking names at
>random.
As one possible alternative, that might be an indication that a
world-wide SCA Inc. is too large. Not as many plane flights would be
needed for board meetings of Ansteorra Inc., for example.
>I think the biggest problem with the 1994 mess is that they hired an
>outsider--someone who had no clue about what the SCA was and how it
>operated--so he didn't *care* about the membership and let the power
>go to his head. And then the whole mess was compounded by the Board
>being stubborn (or possibly bamboozled by Tony Provine) and not
>backing down when they realized what a mess they'd created.
The problem with that hypothesis is that that's just the latest major
Board explosion. An Tirians had been wearing black armbands in
protest against the Board just a few years earlier, but quick Googling
doesn't remind me of why -- something archery-related comes to mind.
There was also whatever earlier incident provoked the song with "Lie,
lie, lie to the Council / Lie to the lords of state!" in the chorus.
To their credit, I haven't seen a major explosion since. Maybe
(the SCA is growing up | arteriosclerosis is setting in). I have an
impression that hideous in-group politics have, ON AVERAGE [1],
decreased in that time too.
[1] Emphasis because that's an average over the SCA as a whole.
Certainly some groups have exploded, and sometimes the kingdom or the
BoD salts the earth.
Danihel Lincolnia
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Zebee Johnstone
Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
> To their credit, I haven't seen a major explosion since. Maybe
> (the SCA is growing up | arteriosclerosis is setting in). I have an
> impression that hideous in-group politics have, ON AVERAGE [1],
> decreased in that time too.
>
Explosions far away are hard to hear.
YOu want to get some ranting happening, ask a Lochacian about how well
the BoD does the "consultation" bit of the agreement with SCA
Australia Inc, (and these days SCANZ) and how much work people here
have to do wheneve they come up with a bright SCA-wide idea.
not to mention the latest: that census thing which deliberately
doesn't include us. It's about working out the direction of the
SCA, but they don't want to know about us.
Which we wouldn't mind if they didn't keep trampling over our game in
their hobnailed boots. If us taking their rules was optional we'd be
OK with consultation and consensus being optional.
I'll bet there will be a few Drachwalders with similar stories.
I'd much rather the SCA Inc realised that the whole thing was too big,
and stopped trying to make game-rules that make it easier for kingdoms
a few square miles in size to work with others next door and make
trouble for places like us who will never end up playing with those
kingdoms.
Silfren
Ralph E Lindberg
tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
> The problem with that hypothesis is that that's just the latest major
> Board explosion. An Tirians had been wearing black armbands in
> protest against the Board just a few years earlier, but quick Googling
> doesn't remind me of why -- something archery-related comes to mind.
> There was also whatever earlier incident provoked the song with "Lie,
> lie, lie to the Council / Lie to the lords of state!" in the chorus.
>
Not as I recall. That was due to efforts by the BoD (which was about
100% West Kingdom back then) to stop AnTir from declaring it-self a
Kingdom, with out clearance from both the BoD and West
Not saying either side was right (I was purty fringey back then)
Ralg
AnTir
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv
Morgan
<Chri...@jmvd.info> wrote:
> Matthew G. Saroff a ï¿œcrit :
>> synthi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> So they noticed a problem, recorded it, reported it to me, *and*
>>>> compensated me for it automatically! Yay!
>>> Wow, that's like, what corporations used to do back in the mid 20th
>>> century. I guess the SCA really does recreate history.
>>>
>>> So, ummm, how dead is the internet? Has all the SCA talk gone off to
>>> one of those ghettoized, members-only, can't-be-found web chats?
>>>
>> It appears that the Rialto has largely been supplanted by kingdom
>> listserves.
>> Traffic is way off.
>
> Google statistics are unforgiving :
> http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.org.sca/about
Because I'm a hopeless number wonk, and it's easier to visualize this on a
chart, I used EditGrid to make one:
http://www.editgrid.com/user/ljwolfe/SCA:_Rialto_posts.html
If you want to see the spreadsheet:
http://www.editgrid.com/user/ljwolfe/SCA:_Rialto_posts
If you want to play with it, contact me back channel (change the domain in
the email to silver-gateway dot com) and I'll try to get you access.
The numbers on the X-axis are just the row numbers, but I put the years in
the spreadsheet for reference. It looks like the Rialto's peaked between
1996 and 2000, and has been pretty much dead since around 2005 :-(.
Muirghein /|\
jk
>
>
>Because I'm a hopeless number wonk, and it's easier to visualize this on a
>chart, I used EditGrid to make one:
>
>http://www.editgrid.com/user/ljwolfe/SCA:_Rialto_posts.html
>
>If you want to see the spreadsheet:
>http://www.editgrid.com/user/ljwolfe/SCA:_Rialto_posts
>
>If you want to play with it, contact me back channel (change the domain in
>the email to silver-gateway dot com) and I'll try to get you access.
>
>The numbers on the X-axis are just the row numbers, but I put the years in
>the spreadsheet for reference. It looks like the Rialto's peaked between
>1996 and 2000, and has been pretty much dead since around 2005 :-(.
>
Yeah, but what happens if you subtract out all of the posts (ok
flames) Dennis was involved in? I bet it gets a lot flatter. :)
jk
David Friedman
Ralph E Lindberg <n7...@callsign.net> wrote:
> In article <hfcs5s$ohu$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
> tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The problem with that hypothesis is that that's just the latest major
> > Board explosion. An Tirians had been wearing black armbands in
> > protest against the Board just a few years earlier, but quick Googling
> > doesn't remind me of why -- something archery-related comes to mind.
> > There was also whatever earlier incident provoked the song with "Lie,
> > lie, lie to the Council / Lie to the lords of state!" in the chorus.
> >
> Not as I recall. That was due to efforts by the BoD (which was about
> 100% West Kingdom back then) to stop AnTir from declaring it-self a
> Kingdom, with out clearance from both the BoD and West
> Not saying either side was right (I was purty fringey back then)
I think it's worth distinguishing the Board from the Corporation, since
some of the things that have been done by corporate that annoyed people
may not have come from the Board.
The specific example I'm thinking of is the decision to ban hardwood
spears in favor of fiberglass--to eliminate the one reasonably period
weapon we were using in our heavy combat and replace it with something
strikingly out of period. I was at Pennsic a bit after that decision,
and observed a conversation between the then Imperial marshall, who I
believe had made the decision, and a number of people from the East. The
East used hardwood spears; the kingdom the Marshall came from, as best I
could tell, didn't. He had no first hand experience with how they
handled, what their risks were, or how those risks could be contained.
I don't either--I don't fight spear. I was just a spectator. As a
spectator, it seemed clear to me that the people who were objecting to
the decision knew a great deal more about the relevant issues than the
person who had made the decision. He offered no serious rebuttal to
their arguments (as I remember seeing it at the time--this was many
years ago), beyond saying he would go back and think about it.
Of course, nothing happened.
Christophe Bachmann
While M. O'Connor was often very abrasive, and the all times most
prolific poster of the Rialto, he was never an all out troll, however
you can filter him out by substracting :
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=li7WqREAAAAvoYWHq-dR49ksbUkRDS_DkdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q&group=rec.org.sca&utoken=PFSKsU8AAAA9VPgMYZODCskfJbRgjXVJdx9OsD8i9-8nFuzQbaYecQTJWyxdDd8-tD3X5aIuCVCFlepwgYZF-PynFKiOnZ95d4ZvQvRDXqaONwjnSVsEqg
from the previous total.
sorry for the length of the link...
But of the 240895 messages sent during his posting presence (feb. 1996 -
oct. 2006), his account only for 5714 which is a mere 2.3% so his weight
was often more felt than real.
And on this page :
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.sca/about
you have the most prolix authors summed up, and by clicking on their
addresses you can see when they dropped out.
jk
>
>While M. O'Connor was often very abrasive, and the all times most
>prolific poster of the Rialto, he was never an all out troll, however
never said he was. A flamer I called him and a flamer he was, almost
exclusively, but not always undeservedly.
>you can filter him out by substracting :
>http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=li7WqREAAAAvoYWHq-dR49ksbUkRDS_DkdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q&group=rec.org.sca&utoken=PFSKsU8AAAA9VPgMYZODCskfJbRgjXVJdx9OsD8i9-8nFuzQbaYecQTJWyxdDd8-tD3X5aIuCVCFlepwgYZF-PynFKiOnZ95d4ZvQvRDXqaONwjnSVsEqg
>from the previous total.
>sorry for the length of the link...
>
>But of the 240895 messages sent during his posting presence (feb. 1996 -
>oct. 2006), his account only for 5714 which is a mere 2.3% so his weight
>was often more felt than real.
>
That only accounts for his primenet posts, there were other ISPs he
used at various times as well. I recall some from an Intel account I
think and others that originated from an .edu account as I vaguely
recall back when the Rialto was a UUCP thing mostly.
But even assuming that those were a small minority, of his total, and
not in his most "inflammatory" days, (and were before the primnet
posts) what I said was
> Yeah, but what happens if you subtract out all of the posts (ok
> flames) Dennis was involved in? I bet it gets a lot flatter. :)
By which I mean not only his posts, but those responding to his (OT)
posts, those responding to those posts and so on ad nauseum....
I think if that was done there would be a minimum of twice as many to
10x as many posts "eliminated". [Otoh there were relevant non
inflammatory posts as well, just not that many.]
I think if that were done, the curve would be flatter, but that also
we would have seen the "die off" happen sooner.
>And on this page :
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.sca/about
> you have the most prolix authors summed up, and by clicking on their
>addresses you can see when they dropped out.
It does surprise me to see Dorothea at 7th.
jk
jk
>I think it's worth distinguishing the Board from the Corporation, since
>some of the things that have been done by corporate that annoyed people
>may not have come from the Board.
>
>The specific example I'm thinking of is the decision to ban hardwood
>spears in favor of fiberglass--to eliminate the one reasonably period
>weapon we were using in our heavy combat and replace it with something
>strikingly out of period.
>....
>I don't either--I don't fight spear. I was just a spectator. As a
>spectator, it seemed clear to me that the people who were objecting to
>the decision knew a great deal more about the relevant issues than the
>person who had made the decision.
Having seen what can result when they break, I for one would agree
with the result. But while that didn't come from the board, the board
could change it.
jk
David Friedman
jk <kle...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Part of the discussion was about precautions which, according to the
people with experience, made sure they didn't break.
jk
>> Having seen what can result when they break, I for one would agree
>> with the result. But while that didn't come from the board, the board
>> could change it.
>
>Part of the discussion was about precautions which, according to the
>people with experience, made sure they didn't break.
I had seen them break. That was enough for me. I am less thrilled
with what was done with combat archery.
jk
Robert Uhl
>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Medieval/Board_Flap.html
You had some really good ideas there...pity they didn't take off.
--
Guthlac of Caerthe
Isn't it amazing how a large number of evil morons can give the appearance
of being a single evil genius? --Mel Rimmer
Octavian
wrote:
> jk a écrit :
>
> > Morgan <ljw-motzare...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Because I'm a hopeless number wonk, and it's easier to visualize this on a
> >> chart, I used EditGrid to make one:
>
> >>http://www.editgrid.com/user/ljwolfe/SCA:_Rialto_posts.html
>
> >> If you want to see the spreadsheet:
> >>http://www.editgrid.com/user/ljwolfe/SCA:_Rialto_posts
>
> >> If you want to play with it, contact me back channel (change the domain in
> >> the email to silver-gateway dot com) and I'll try to get you access.
>
> >> The numbers on the X-axis are just the row numbers, but I put the years in
> >> the spreadsheet for reference. It looks like the Rialto's peaked between
> >> 1996 and 2000, and has been pretty much dead since around 2005 :-(.
>
> > Yeah, but what happens if you subtract out all of the posts (ok
> > flames) Dennis was involved in? I bet it gets a lot flatter. :)
>
> > jk
>
> That should even be possible with Google's stats...
>
> While M. O'Connor was often very abrasive, and the all times most
> prolific poster of the Rialto, he was never an all out troll, however
> from the previous total.
> sorry for the length of the link...
>
> But of the 240895 messages sent during his posting presence (feb. 1996 -
> oct. 2006), his account only for 5714 which is a mere 2.3% so his weight
> was often more felt than real.
>
> And on this page :http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.sca/about
> you have the most prolix authors summed up, and by clicking on their
> addresses you can see when they dropped out.
> --
> Greetings, Salutations,
> Chris CII, Rennes, France
yay, top poster for the month... lol..
Long time since I've seen my name on a _top listing.. lol
~Octavian
Christophe Bachmann
>
> yay, top poster for the month... lol..
>
> Long time since I've seen my name on a _top listing.. lol
>
> ~Octavian
Nowadays it's quite easy to be top poster of the month on the Rialto,
and getting in the top 10 is trivial, sic transit gloria mundi...
--
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Ch�teau du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France