Pennsic Evictions
Baron Tibs
a Tuchuc , both camping groups ( hundreds of people ) were told by The
Coopers to be off site by 5 pm ( 9 hours notice ) . Dave Cooper then made
himself unavailable for the next 24 hours . Coopers claimed full SCA
backing . The people supposedly in charge of the event claimed the Coopers
acted alone without even consulting them .
The 2 crowns were upset but never consulted about the action . At a
meeting called to address the issue the Coopers snubbed the Crowns by not
attending . Much discontent was evident but no action resulted . The
Tuchux said that they could and would not be out by the deadline . At 4 pm
they showed little sign of leaving . What transpired after 4pm I do not
yet know as we were then on the 16 hour drive home , having comitted the
sin of knowing and camping with Vlad .
More news will no doubt follow . Already some people have tried to make it
a race issue due to the parties of the incident . Others have tried to
place blame based on a revised account of the incident .Neither is true or
matters ( I witnessed the incident and know that at no point did the
Coopers or Security really care about the details. They accepted a slanted
version rejected by the police . ) What matters is that while hundreds of
people slept at Pennsic they committed the sin of camping with someone
that was involved in a minor altercation. For that they were all evicted
without cause and with no recourse to our SCA heirarchy by the whim of
the site owner . Where is the justice owed us by the Crown ?
Yes , I am angry at this abuse . But I will be angrier still if the East
and Middle fail to do anything to protect guests at their War from such
mass and summary punishment in the future . At th time there was much
finger pointing and excuse making going on but no one knew how to fix it .
If we as a group can't take responsibility for running our event and must
run to the site owners to make our decisions (this is what the staff did )
then we should give up running Pennsic and hire a management company to
rule us rather then a frazzled site owner .
BTW 31 dollars were refunded to cover the missed weekend . Attendance of
either group will be discussed inthe future according to Dave Cooper .
Enough until the details of the after 4pm period is available . Everyone
from Vlads
was gone by then (about 40 people) .
Tiberius Marius Scutarius
Baron Forgotten Sea , Calontir
Calontir Pennsic Planning Committee Rep
Terry Nutter
Tiberius Marius Scutarius writes an account of being evicted from Pennsic
for an incident involving someone else that he happened to be camping with.
My first response on hearing the rumor that two groups had been evicted
was that it was pretty hard on people whose only "misdeed" was camping
with those groups. Knowing as I do virtually nothing about the event that
spurred this (were there three, seven, forty, or two hundred people
involved? etc.), I can't begin to comment on why Dave Cooper took that
position. I can only say that he has always dealt reasonably in the past,
so that if he was _not_ reasonable this time, I think he must have been
very seriously provoked.
None of which makes Tiberius's plight any the less; I think everyone on
the net must sympathize deeply with Tiberius and the others in his camp
for missing the last day of the war.
However, Tiberius raises two points worth comment.
: matters ( I witnessed the incident and know that at no point did the
: Coopers or Security really care about the details. They accepted a slanted
: version rejected by the police . ) What matters is that while hundreds of
: people slept at Pennsic they committed the sin of camping with someone
: that was involved in a minor altercation.
Tiberius, with respect, if it involved the police, then from the point
of view of the SCA, and the _legitimate_ point of view of the site
owner, it _wasn't_ minor.
Second:
: without cause and with no recourse to our SCA heirarchy by the whim of
: the site owner . Where is the justice owed us by the Crown ?
: Yes , I am angry at this abuse . But I will be angrier still if the East
: and Middle fail to do anything to protect guests at their War from such
: mass and summary punishment in the future .
Um, Tiberius? It's Dave Cooper's land. He has the mundane legal right
to pitch anyone he wants to, for any reason. The SCA has no legal power
to overrule him. The most that can be asked is a refund -- and apparently,
you got that.
Moving to another site won't help with this one. Any site owner has that
right. Most site owners will enforce it in a heartbeat if they wind up
with police on the premises -- especially in a situation as crowded and
potentially volatile as Pennsic.
There are some realities we just have to live with. One is that _real_
fights at sites get people kicked off. At a smaller event, it could
easily have resulted in getting _everyone_ sent home.
This isn't Their Majesties' fault.
-- Angharad/Terry
Brian T. Brunner
(Terry Nutter) writes:
!! Greetings, all, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn.
!!
!! However, Tiberius raises two points worth comment.
!!
!! : matters ( I witnessed the incident and know that at no point did the
!! : Coopers or Security really care about the details. They accepted a
!! slanted
!! : version rejected by the police . ) What matters is that while
!! hundreds of
!! : people slept at Pennsic they committed the sin of camping with
!! someone
!! : that was involved in a minor altercation.
!!
!! Tiberius, with respect, if it involved the police, then from the point
!! of view of the SCA, and the _legitimate_ point of view of the site
!! owner, it _wasn't_ minor.
This is not altogether good reasoning. Police get involved if someone with
rational
cause calls and summons them. Police also get involved if an addled
troublemaker
makes addled trouble by summoning the Police where there is not cause.
The Police arrived, evidently. Whether any persons were arrested,
detained, questioned
closely, or what, was not told us. Therefore, the presence of the Police
does not
guarantee that the event was not minor. Had it happened in Milpitas, the
event would
have been *major* *because* of the Police, considering that a confiscation
of many
assault-swords and cop-killer daggers would have ensued; along with a
perusal of all
the peddellers' licenses (Not related to the incident? Big deal, we'll
check anyway).
Maybe it was a big deal, we have not enough evidence to conclude either
way, on
the basis of the Police presence.
!!
!! Second:
!!
!! : without cause and with no recourse to our SCA heirarchy by the whim
!! of
!! : the site owner . Where is the justice owed us by the Crown ?
!!
!! : Yes , I am angry at this abuse . But I will be angrier still if the
!! East
!! : and Middle fail to do anything to protect guests at their War from
!! such
!! : mass and summary punishment in the future .
!!
!! Um, Tiberius? It's Dave Cooper's land. He has the mundane legal
!! right
!! to pitch anyone he wants to, for any reason. The SCA has no legal
!! power
!! to overrule him. The most that can be asked is a refund -- and
!! apparently,
!! you got that.
!!
!! This isn't Their Majesties' fault.
What you have pointed out, is that your vacation depends, in part, on the
character
and comportment of the folks with whom you spend it. Little could be so
obvious to
anyone who has ever had a vacation. Police your camp, and extinguish all
improperly
contained fires *before* they ruin your weekend. This applies to chemical
as well
as emotional fires.
!!
!! -- Angharad/Terry
!!
Hrolf/Brian.
--
93/100 of the Congresscritters FIRED in 1994 VOTED FOR THE ASSAULT WEAPON
BAN.
There is a message there...
bru...@cutter.ssd.loral.com
rudi...@utdallas.edu
had to pay for it.
It wasn't the autocrats' fault. They didn't get into a fight.
It wasn't the Crowns' fault. They didn't get into a fight.
It wasn't the police's fault. They didn't get into a fight.
It wasn't the Coopers' fault. They didn't get into a fight.
It was the fault of the people who got into a fight. They should be
blamed because they got into a fight, and it caused other people to be hurt.
It is true that the punishment was applied in a discriminatory manner.
Only some people in the organization were sent home. The Coopers could
have sent *everybody* home.
But don't blame the powers that be for their excess of mercy -- blame the
malefactors for their misdeed.
Robin of Gilwell/Jay Rudin
James Pratt
Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in hearing from
anyone with _first hand_ knowledge regarding the actual contract we
have with the Coopers on the use of the site. What is our _legal_
designation (tenant, user, attendee, guest. . .). Given that particular
the rights and\or obligations of the site owners vary considerably as
do our own.
If there is no clear designation in the contract, then I might
suggest that future negotiations ascertain it to the best benefit of
the SCA. The Coopers are good folk and we like doing business with them.
But it is _business_ and the reliance upon good will is no assurance of
equitable treatment.
Salvete,
Cathal.
DDFr
: Yes , I am angry at this abuse . But I will be angrier still if the East
: and Middle fail to do anything to protect guests at their War from such
: mass and summary punishment in the future .
Angharad replies:
Um, Tiberius? It's Dave Cooper's land. He has the mundane legal right
to pitch anyone he wants to, for any reason. The SCA has no legal power
to overrule him. The most that can be asked is a refund -- and
apparently,
you got that.
I was not there and do not know what really happened. But assuming for the
sake of argument (as Angharad at this point of her discussion apparently
is assuming) that Tiberius has the facts right, I agree with Tiberius and
disagree with Angharad.
The Coopers have the mundane right to expel anyone they wish to, subject
to possible liability for breach of contract, etc. But they have no legal
right to have us hold future Pennsics on their property. Surely it is
obvious that our continuing to have Pennsic at the Coopers is and always
has been conditional on their behaving in a way that we find
acceptable--where "we" is some vaguely defined amalgam of crowns, active
people, and general populace. Given the nature of the Society, that "we"
in practice is most naturally represented by the Crowns--as we all saw at
Estrella a year or so back. And surely it is also obvious that the Coopers
want us to keep coming; we represent a large income source as well as a
lot of work.
If the Coopers behaved as unreasonably as Tiberius suggests, then it is
the responsibility of the crowns to get from them not merely a refund but
an apology and a commitment not to act that way again. Failing that, we
should be investigating alternative sites. If the Coopers behaved in that
way because the autocrats said it was all right (the accounts seem to
imply two different versions of what happened in that regard), then the
autocrats are at fault and should be called to account by their crowns.
Angharad writes:
"Moving to another site won't help with this one. Any site owner has that
right. Most site owners will enforce it in a heartbeat if they wind up
with police on the premises -- especially in a situation as crowded and
potentially volatile as Pennsic."
Any site owner has the right to expel people unless he has contracted not
to do so, and no site owner is likely to agree not expel people who are
assaulting each other with deadly weapons (what seems to have happened
from the reports here). It is a long jump from that to claiming that any
site owner will retain, and exercise, the right to expel several hundred
people for the offense of camping with someone engaged in such an
altercation.
David/Cariadoc
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <41a5u6$o...@worf.qntm.com>,
ANDREW VETER <ve...@jupitr.enet.qntm.com> wrote:
> BTW, I am not a fan of how Pennsic is run. Ever since I had heard that the
>West bought land for events I have pushed for a multi-kingdom land fund for a
>War site. The possibilities are endless. Think about it.
The West has not yet purchased land. Indeed the *West* won't be
doing so. A separate corporation was set up to hold funds and
buy land (Kingdom Historical Trust, Inc., KHTI). KHTI came
*very* close to buying land last year. Everything was proceeding
until some of the neighbors showed up to oppose granting a use
permit. The search for land is continuing. Fund raising is
continuing. Ducal Prize Tourney XX is coming up in two weeks.
As for buying a Pennsic site... The West is quite used to
camping with little or not fixed facilities. I think it would be
quite a shock for many regular attendees at Pennsic to do without
running water, showers or a lake.
--Hal Ravn
(Hal Heydt)
Andrew Veter
>[Hal posting a correction from Dorothy's account....]
>In article <41a5u6$o...@worf.qntm.com>,
>
>doing so. A separate corporation was set up to hold funds and
>buy land (Kingdom Historical Trust, Inc., KHTI). KHTI came
>*very* close to buying land last year. Everything was proceeding
>until some of the neighbors showed up to oppose granting a use
>permit. The search for land is continuing. Fund raising is
>continuing. Ducal Prize Tourney XX is coming up in two weeks.
>
>As for buying a Pennsic site... The West is quite used to
>camping with little or not fixed facilities. I think it would be
>quite a shock for many regular attendees at Pennsic to do without
>running water, showers or a lake.
>
it necessary. A very nice lady in the West had been keeping me up to date and
even sent me some pictures of the site. I did not know it fell through, though.
Why should land that is bought mainly for Pennsic not have running water,
showers, or a lake? I don't get it.
> --Hal Ravn
> (Hal Heydt)
Ariel
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <41aa59$s...@news.isc.rit.edu>,
Andrew Veter <axv...@vaxd.isc.rit.edu> wrote:
>In article <41a82f$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>, djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu
>(Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>[Hal posting a correction from Dorothy's account....]
>>
>>As for buying a Pennsic site... The West is quite used to
>>camping with little or not fixed facilities. I think it would be
>>quite a shock for many regular attendees at Pennsic to do without
>>running water, showers or a lake.
....
>Why should land that is bought mainly for Pennsic not have running water,
>showers, or a lake? I don't get it.
Because they will cost you extra. Lots and lots extra.
When the West finally buys its land, that land will almost
certainly be completely "unimproved." No electricity, no running
water, no sewage connections, no buildings of any kind, quite
possibly not even a paved road to the site. Improved land would
be completely out of our price range.
As to a lake, well, if a group were to get together and raise funds
for a Pennsic site somewhere in Pennsylvania, you _might_ be able
to find a site near natural water. In California, where it is a
lot drier, where it doesn't rain for six months* at a time, any
site near a natural body of water comes equipped with stratospheric
prices.
--------------
*When it doesn't rain for six *years* at a time, then we call it
a drought.)
--------------
But Westies are used to camping on unimproved land. No
electricity? Who uses electricity? (But if it's going to be a
big Crown Tourney, where big = ">100", make sure you've got lots
of candle and oil lanterns to take to evening Court.) No sewage?
No problem, order in lots of portapotties. No water on site? Put
a notice in the _Page_ that there is no water on site and encourage
everyone to bring in lots of their own. And/or arrange for a
water buffalo (the kind that's a tank truck) to bring in potable
water if this can be done. No showers? Bring your own, and vie
with your neighbors to see who can construct the most attractive
and perioid mini-pavilion to hide it in. Or take sponge baths.
Or go dirty, which is period, after all. No lake nearby?
Breathe a sigh of relief that you don't have to worry about
small children falling in.
It's all in your point of view.
Dorothea of Caer-Myrddin Dorothy J. Heydt
Mists/Mists/West UC Berkeley
Argent, a cross forme'e sable djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu
PRO DEO ET REGE
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <41aa59$s...@news.isc.rit.edu>,
Andrew Veter <axv...@vaxd.isc.rit.edu> wrote:
>Why should land that is bought mainly for Pennsic not have running water,
>showers, or a lake? I don't get it.
While such facilities might be part of the criteria in seeking a
site, they are more likely to be the sort of thing that would be
built after acquisition--and it might take a while before the
facilities are available. I'm warning that (should such an
effort be mounted) that there is *likely* to be a period of time
during which the customary amenities may not be present.
--Hal Ravn
(Hal Heydt)
ANDREW VETER
Just to put a different perspective on this incident, this is not the first
altercation between Vlad and the Tuchux. I was asked to be a witness to the
proceedings of last years incident but when I arrived at Vlads the issue had
already been resolved.
The story went that Vlad woke up that morning to sounds coming from his
kitchen. When he went out to investigate he found one of the Tuchuxs rummaging
around. The Tuchuck promptly ran off.
Later, I believe it was on the same day, Vlads road sign dissapeared. I
don't remember whether Vlad said he saw someone run off with it or he simply
believed the Tuchux had taken it. Whatever the case, Vlad and a friend decided
to go up the hill and talk with the Tuchuxs. On the way up, they were jumped by
several Tuchuxs who were guarding the way. Somewhere in the altercation, Vlad
produced a can of mace and maced everyone, including his friend.
The Coopers did not call the authorities but decided that Vlad had to give
some personal item of value to the Tuchux as recompense for the macing or leave
the site. Vlad ended up giving them his dagger, I believe. The particulars of
the incident were not addressed since there were only witnesses to the macing.
Someone who has a better memory of this might be able to clarify the
details.
Someone posted that the Coopers have been trying to get rid of the Tuchux
for years. I think that it is actually quite the opposite. The Tuchux have
been shielded by the Coopers while many SCAers have tried to have them
expelled. (The Tuchux also hold a gathering of some sort at the campground.)
Members of the Tuchuxs have a bad habit of getting in trouble. I had the
oppurtunity to speak with their leader of several years ago, Stormbear. He
recognized the fact that some of his people got out of line from time to time
and that they tried to deal harshly with these 'dogs'. This was one of the
reasons that Tuchux only carried rataan and no live steel was allowed in their
camp. Sometimes it doesn't work to well. The same year as the macing incident,
another Tuchuck threatened Viscount Roak of the Rozakii with a dagger (live
steel). The Coopers obtained a promise from the Tuchux that the gentle would
not leave their encampment for the remainder of Pennsic. Roak ended up agreeing
even though he wanted the gentle expelled. Unfortunately, the gentle was seen
outside of camp about a day later.
My point is that the Coopers knew of the propensity on both sides to use
weapons and probably realized that things had begun to escalate out of
their control. If this had been a first incident, I really doubt that the
Coopers would have done more then boot the offending parties. As it was, they
hads been warned to cease and desist the year before.
BTW, I am not a fan of how Pennsic is run. Ever since I had heard that the
West bought land for events I have pushed for a multi-kingdom land fund for a
War site. The possibilities are endless. Think about it.
Ariel
da...@telerama.lm.com
>Why should land that is bought mainly for Pennsic not have running water,
>showers, or a lake? I don't get it.
The most modest estimate I've seen for a site that can provide such
facilities for ten thousand people is a million dollars. A civil
engineer I talked to opined that putting in enough facilities
(pipes, pumps, sewage handling, etc.) to satisfy health regulations
would put the total close to three million dollars. Even the lower
figure is probably beyond our fund-raising capacity.
Over the years, many people have suggested that we get our own site,
and some of them have actually investigated the possibility. I've
yet to see one of those investigations succeed. There's a reason.
-- Dani
Lisa Steele
> My action will be as follows: I am going to start a petition
> stating that a group of campers at this particular event is lawless and
> unsafe. I do not feel that , given the obvious lack of self control on
> their part and their lack of respect for others, including the owners of
> the land, I can safely attend Pennsic as long as this group is also
> allowed to attend.
> I am going to send it to the Business Associations of Newcastle
> and Butler. We are bigger than Christmas there, and the possibility of
> losing money can be a powerful motivator. I do not believe that the SCA
> can have more influence with the Coopers than the people they live with
> year 'round.
WHOA! No sense getting third parties into this mess until we have a
better idea what happened. Any chance that someone can get the police
reports and ambulance/hospital reports (yes, the parties will have to
agree to this) posted or made publically accessable?
Yes, folks are mad. Yes, it sounds like decisions were made in haste.
But lets not compound the mess by going off half cocked. Lets give the
dust a chance to settle and talk about petitions and stuff in say January
or so when everyone has cooled down and more objective information is out.
--Esclarmonde
Heather L. Garvey
>
> My action will be as follows: I am going to start a petition
>stating that a group of campers at this particular event is lawless and
>unsafe. I do not feel that , given the obvious lack of self control on
>their part and their lack of respect for others, including the owners of
>the land, I can safely attend Pennsic as long as this group is also
>allowed to attend.
>
> I am going to send it to the Business Associations of Newcastle
>and Butler. We are bigger than Christmas there, and the possibility of
>losing money can be a powerful motivator. I do not believe that the SCA
>can have more influence with the Coopers than the people they live with
>year 'round.
Aw, man, let's not even start *this* crap. With any luck,
the BAs will laugh at it and throw it out. Why on earth are you
getting mundane business associations involved with "waah, these
people are being nasty, fix it!!!"? Are we six-year-olds that have
to run to teacher to tattle when someone pulls our pigtails? Talk
to the Pennsic SCA staff, indeed. Work things out, have a ball
making sure things never start up again in this seeming continuous
feud. IF (and I say IF) you were actually present, then sure, send an
eyewitness accouting to the Coopers and the Autocrat and next year's
Pennsic SCA staff and the BOD, if you like. Ask them to uphold the
righteousness of your side. (Considering that each side seems to
consider themselves the terribly abused party, by the posts here,
I could not say one way or the other...)
But involving mundane groups? What do you expect them to do,
take the letters to the Coopers and say "Gee, this household doesn't
like this other group and they're afraid something might happen so
if you don't ban this 'Tuchux' group from your site, you won't
be welcome at church?"
Jeezus... Can we make an attempt at adulthood here?
-- Maggie MacKenzie
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Garvey Work Email: gar...@cig.mot.com
SCA : Maggie MacKenzie Play Email: h...@po.cwru.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie S Campbell
morning to find myself ousted, for reasons that had to be explained to me
several times before they made sense.
In spite of the fact that I was an "innocent victim" I agreed with
the Cooper's decision. I supposed they were sick to death of the
squabbling between the groups involved, and decided that this was the last
straw. It was only logical to evict the entirity of both camps, and since
it was their land they were not really responsible to anyone, I thought.
Leaving any members of either camp would only open the possibility of
repurcussion. It was only logical.
I personally, had a problem. I had been dropped off by my
husband and had no vehicle. I was given leave by Dave Cooper to stay
past the 5 0'clock deadline until my husband could drive the 6hours to
come pick me up, so I saw what followed.
THE TUCHUX DIDN"T LEAVE!!!!
They were still there, drumming and partying all night. They were
there the next day, as my husband and I loaded up, they were there when
the Port-a-johns at Vlad's camp were dynamited, and they were there as we
drove away.
As far as I know, the group resposible for clocking Vlad on the
back of the head never did leave.
BTW - there was no fight. Vlad was hit from behind, while arguing
with his wife. The offending tuchuc claimed Vlad was hitting her, but
according to his wife, the Baroness Ygraine, she had tripped on her
cothardie hem when she ran off, to aviod clocking him herself, thus
skinning her shoulder and giving herself a black eye. For anyone who
would doubt her story, he had been walking on a broken foot all war, and
was no threat to anybody.
So the only fault of theirs was that they took an minor domestic
squabble to a less than private spot (though where in their camp is
private?). A possibly well-meaning bystander took overzealous action,
though given past relations I personally think that the Tuchux hatred of
Vlad coloured his actions.
BUT
We left quietly, respecting the Cooper's wishes. They never did.
My action will be as follows: I am going to start a petition
stating that a group of campers at this particular event is lawless and
unsafe. I do not feel that , given the obvious lack of self control on
their part and their lack of respect for others, including the owners of
the land, I can safely attend Pennsic as long as this group is also
allowed to attend.
I am going to send it to the Business Associations of Newcastle
and Butler. We are bigger than Christmas there, and the possibility of
losing money can be a powerful motivator. I do not believe that the SCA
can have more influence with the Coopers than the people they live with
year 'round.
Rowan
ssca...@uoguelph.ca
Ferret
>Um, Tiberius? It's Dave Cooper's land. He has the mundane legal right
>to pitch anyone he wants to, for any reason. The SCA has no legal power
>to overrule him. The most that can be asked is a refund -- and apparently,
>you got that.
Not in Pennsylvania he doesn't. As a rentor he has laws to follow. Yes he
may ask that an individual be arrested and removed from the site, however,
asking an entire group to leave because of certain individuals may be
construed as an act of dicrimination. I leave the matter to the civil and
criminal courts.
As an individual I view it as an act of blantant discrimination and will
probably never go to Pennsic again at Cooper's. That is my "vote".
Ferret
Ferret
> The Coopers are good folk and we like doing business with them.
>But it is _business_ and the reliance upon good will is no assurance of
>equitable treatment.
Gee, no equitable treatment from freinds ?
Not my freinds then.
I don't know who the "we" is you refer to, it isn't me, I don't particullary
like being taken advantage of, even in "business".
Ferret
Mary Shafer
Ariel> Why should land that is bought mainly for Pennsic not have
Ariel> running water, showers, or a lake? I don't get it.
Because here in the West you buy water rights separate from the land.
Furthermore, a lot of land doesn't have any municipal water near it
and there may be no water under it.
--
Mary Shafer DoD #362 KotFR
SR-71 Chief Engineer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
Ferret
>It wasn't the Coopers' fault. They didn't get into a fight.
>It is true that the punishment was applied in a discriminatory manner.
Sounds like a contradiction.
>Only some people in the organization were sent home. The Coopers could
>have sent *everybody* home.
So selective discrimination is OK ?
Ferret
Ferret
> They were still there, drumming and partying all night. They were
>there the next day, as my husband and I loaded up, they were there when
>the Port-a-johns at Vlad's camp were dynamited, and they were there as we
>drove away.
They were there, by agreement with the Cooper's of the logistics of removing
such a large encampment.
It wasn't dynamite (there would have been nothing left of them if it were)
it was a "cherry bomb" firework. Still dangerous but lets keep from
exagerating the facts.
> BTW - there was no fight. Vlad was hit from behind, while arguing
>with his wife. The offending tuchuc claimed Vlad was hitting her, but
>according to his wife, the Baroness Ygraine, she had tripped on her
>cothardie hem when she ran off, to aviod clocking him herself, thus
>skinning her shoulder and giving herself a black eye. For anyone who
>would doubt her story, he had been walking on a broken foot all war, and
>was no threat to anybody.
Or could it be the denial of a battered woman ? Read up on it.
> My action will be as follows: I am going to start a petition
>stating that a group of campers at this particular event is lawless and
>unsafe. I do not feel that , given the obvious lack of self control on
>their part and their lack of respect for others, including the owners of
>the land, I can safely attend Pennsic as long as this group is also
>allowed to attend.
How chivalrous. Asking for your own group to be banned.
Ferret
da...@telerama.lm.com
>I am going to send it to the Business Associations of Newcastle
If I am not misunderstanding what you write, the source of your
ire is the fact that you got an extension until Friday night,
while the Tuchux got a longer extension and weren't gone until the
following noon. It seems out of proportion to circulate petitions
to complain about this.
-- Dani
da...@telerama.lm.com
>Not in Pennsylvania he doesn't. As a rentor he has laws to follow. Yes he
>may ask that an individual be arrested and removed from the site, however,
>asking an entire group to leave because of certain individuals may be
>construed as an act of dicrimination.
What I was told (third-hand, like most of the information circulating
on this topic) was that the Tuchux were informed that the Coopers
could not require those not directly involved to leave as a group,
but could only ask -- and that the Tuchux chose to acceed to that request.
>As an individual I view it as an act of blantant discrimination
I'm not sure I'd use the word 'discrimination'. I also opine, though, that
it was a mistake to evict entire groups for the actions of some of their
members. If the Coopers thought those groups were more trouble than they
were worth, it might be appropriate not to welcome them back next year.
Evicting them two days before the end of the War caused a lot more
distress and trouble for little probable benefit.
-- Dani
ArielofGre
number of the Tuchux did get out Friday by 5:00 as they were origionally
ordered to do. Unfortunately, moving 200 people (the Tuchux camp) is a
bit harder than moving 30 (Vlad's camp) and even the state police that
showed up at the Cooper's request said that the people were actively
packing and that the Cooper's couldn't reasonably give less than 24 hours
for that size of a group to pack up and leave.
rosalyn rice
surprising that the Coopers or the autocrat didn't make sure that they
were well separated.
It seems that a bit of planning on the part of someone in charge,
or else a bit of restraint by one of the two groups (like not camping next
to each other) would have allowed this wretched episode to be avoided
entirely.
Lothar
Vicky Dunbar
>
>Cathal to All, Greetings:
>
> Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in hearing from
>anyone with _first hand_ knowledge regarding the actual contract we
>have with the Coopers on the use of the site. What is our _legal_
>designation (tenant, user, attendee, guest. . .). Given that
particular
>the rights and\or obligations of the site owners vary considerably as
>do our own.
> If there is no clear designation in the contract, then I might
>suggest that future negotiations ascertain it to the best benefit of
>But it is _business_ and the reliance upon good will is no assurance of
>equitable treatment.
>Salvete,
>Cathal.
>
Milord Cathal,
Having recently taken and passed a law course in regards to innkeeping,
hospitality and the like, I do not believe that our legal designation
could be other than that of a person renting a hotel room. We are
renting space on their property, which they must carry insurance on to
cover any hazards that might result in harming their guests. Innkeepers
have certain rights and responsibilities towards their guests. IK
(Innkeeper) may evict a guest for disruptive behavior, bad character
(which used to mean prize fighters and prostitutes, and now refers to
known criminals), drunkeness, lack of luggage, or failure to pay when
payment is due. Evicting the offending parties was well within the
rights of the Coopers. I am unsure on the eviction of everyone else
who's bad luck it was to be CAMPING with those people. My hunch is that
the fear of two parties retaliating throughout the event was what caused
the Coopers to evict the lot of them. BTW, it is also allowed for hotels
and the like to have their own policy, which may or may not reflect the
law identically, but as long as it is not discriminatory (such as
refusing a room to someone who is a different skin color, nationality, or
religion) it can and some times is upheld in a court of law.
In short, I am not sure that negotiating our status in a contract will
change anything, or even be possible.
In Service to the Society, I remain
Yvonne/Vicky
REASONABLE MINDS DIFFER.-
VICKY DUNBAR EJB...@prodigy.com
All opinions are MINE, MINE, MINE! Opinions are like noses, everyone has
one, and they are all different!
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Not in Pennsylvania he doesn't. As a rentor he has laws to follow. Yes he
>may ask that an individual be arrested and removed from the site, however,
>asking an entire group to leave because of certain individuals may be
>criminal courts.
In PA, aggravated assault is a felony. No one in either camp would come
forward to name names or point fingers. Therefore they all aided and abbetted
a felony. I heard it said that charges were filed by both injured parties.
THe transcripts will eventually be available, and I suggest that we all wait
until that time. Idle speculation is innapropriate. If you weren't there
(that's a royal you, not you personally , Ferret), then you're only repeating
second and third hand gossip. Both sides will have their day in court to tell
their story, and somewhere in the middle will be the truth.
>As an individual I view it as an act of blantant discrimination and will
>probably never go to Pennsic again at Cooper's. That is my "vote".
You don't get a vote, Ferret. You get a choice. To go or not. Until you
know the entire story, don't say things you'll later regret. Humble pie
is not as tasty as one might think.
In service,
Corun
--
===============================================================================
Corun MacAnndra | Alright, the clown can stay, but the Ferengi
Dark Horde by birth | in the gorilla suit has to go.
Moritu by choice | G. LaForge
Michael Greenstein
: The most modest estimate I've seen for a site that can provide such
: facilities for ten thousand people is a million dollars. A civil
: engineer I talked to opined that putting in enough facilities
: (pipes, pumps, sewage handling, etc.) to satisfy health regulations
: would put the total close to three million dollars. Even the lower
: figure is probably beyond our fund-raising capacity.
: -- Dani
My son, I have one word for you... (and no, it isn't "Plastics"!)
M O R T G A G E !
Three million dollars is not that much, considering the sheer volume of
dollars that Pennsic raises every year. I'll save most of the math
for those with the inclination, but here is a rough get-the-idea-percolating
set of figures.
Let's assume 10,000 gentles (yes, I know, it's less, but I'm fudging) at
$31 a head (the price of attending only the LAST weekend this year;
most gentles paid more). That's $310,000 raised, more than a tenth of
the three million dollar figure. Under the circumstances, surely a
fifteen-year mortgage would be obtainable, especially considering that
we have hard attendance and financial figures to show banks, demonstrating
that Pennsic is a consistent moneymaker.
I can see it now... the Pennsic XXXVI opening ceremonies featuring a
ceremonial "Burning of the Mortgage".
I suspect that a little investigation would reveal a suitable tract of
land somewhere in the Western Pennsylvania/West Virginia area.
Any thoughts?
===========================================================================
F R E E A E T H E L M E A R C ! ! !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alewright of the Marche | a/k/a Michael Greenstein
|
Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands | zar...@platinum.nb.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I tell you this...
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
- James, son of Morris
===========================================================================
Corun MacAnndra
[much about the Chux and Vlad deleted for brevity]
> BTW, I am not a fan of how Pennsic is run. Ever since I had heard that the
>West bought land for events I have pushed for a multi-kingdom land fund for a
>War site. The possibilities are endless. Think about it.
>
>Ariel
Milord,
If you're not a fan of how Pennsic is run, then may I suggest that you come
up with what you consider a viable plan and offer to Autocrat the event at
some time in the future. Making noises about buying permanent land for Pennsic
will not make the problem of how it's run go away. It will still be run by
the same people who run it now, the SCA.
MODU
trying to defend Ygrainne, but the whole incident should have been handled
differently. In PA, they have the best Domestic Violence laws in the
USA. I know this because I am the director of the battered women's shelter
in my county. Anyone could have contacted the police and they would have
arrested the perpetrator, with or without Ygrainne's testimony. Also,
security could have been contacted...they did have radios, after all.
I also felt it was wrong to protest the evictions with drumming and
alcohol. The situation became volitile and disruptive. I support the
Cooper's decision in light of the fact that neither group were willing or
able to resolve their own problems.
I feel badly for those who were innocent bystanders and who were evicted.
However, in light of the Tuchux philosophy of "not knowing" people they
are camped with when those people get into trouble....well.... all members
of a group contribute to its "groupness". When you camp with a group or
associate with them, you have responsibility to them and for them.
Modu Okinyin
Ferret
>fellow! The man left quietly at the Cooper's first request saying that he
>knew what he saw and was not ashamed of what he did. But regretted that
>everyone else would have to pay for someone else's misconduct.
That is the problem, a group gets blamed for the actions of individuals. If
I am treated poorly by a royal shall I hold all royals accountable ? Take
this genarilizing to its logical limit and you will realize that this
attitude of blaming groups for the actions of individuals is a bad and
unfair thing.
Ferret
vki...@capaccess.org
you don't like it don't read it, don't watch it, don't say it, don't come
if you can't handle it.
Conrad Claus
[big snip]
>
> Milord Cathal,
>
> Having recently taken and passed a law course in regards to innkeeping,
> hospitality and the like, I do not believe that our legal designation
> could be other than that of a person renting a hotel room.
I dont think this is correct. While the sort of license/invitation
granted by hotel operators could be similiar to the Pennsic arrangement,
this is not necessarily so. One would have to see the contract for the
use of the site (assuming there is one).
Further, alot of the laws regarding hotels and innkeepers is regulated by
statute, and absent an examination of the statutory language in Penn. I
think it might not be as clear as you imply.
We are
> renting space on their property, which they must carry insurance on to
> cover any hazards that might result in harming their guests.
I am not sure renting is the best word. If were are mere licensees, or
(more likely) business inviteees then we are subject to a revokable
priveledge and do not have a leasehold interest. While rent can be used
more broadly than merely to imply a leasehold interest, I think most
people think of leases when they think of rent, so it is probably not the
best word in this situation.
Innkeepers
> have certain rights and responsibilities towards their guests.
And you are defining Pennsic as an "inn" on the basis of what statute or
bit of common law?
IK
> (Innkeeper) may evict a guest for disruptive behavior, bad character
> (which used to mean prize fighters and prostitutes, and now refers to
> known criminals), drunkeness, lack of luggage, or failure to pay when
> payment is due.
As I understand it, an Innkeeper can evict someone for *any* reason.
Removing an invitee is their right. What you are talking about is the
innkeeper's legal liability *for* evicting someone, which is a different
matter.
Evicting the offending parties was well within the
> rights of the Coopers.
Assuming that the attendees were invitees or licensees, this is definitly
true.
I am unsure on the eviction of everyone else
> who's bad luck it was to be CAMPING with those people.
Not me, I am pretty sure, assuming that they were licensees or invitees, the
Coopers could evict them too - though those other
people may be able to prevail in a legal action against the Coopers after
that eviction.
My hunch is that
> the fear of two parties retaliating throughout the event was what caused
> the Coopers to evict the lot of them.
Which was probably a reasonable action. (Think about the legal liability
they could be subjecting themselves to if they let both parties stay and
then there was serious trouble.)
BTW, it is also allowed for hotels
> and the like to have their own policy, which may or may not reflect the
> law identically, but as long as it is not discriminatory (such as
> refusing a room to someone who is a different skin color, nationality, or
> religion) it can and some times is upheld in a court of law.
Depends on the law in the jurisdiction in question and upon the policy.
> In short, I am not sure that negotiating our status in a contract will
> change anything, or even be possible.
I dont think so. There are certainly ways in which a contract could be
drafted to change the Pennsic situation, assuming the attendees are all
now licensees. However, I am not sure that a contract firming up a
leasehold interest for the SCA would be such a hot idea. First off, it
would likely cost more to get. Second, I am not sure, given the
circumstances, that an SCA autocrat would have reacted much differently
than the Coopers did.
Conrad
> In Service to the Society, I remain
>
> Yvonne/Vicky
>
>
> REASONABLE MINDS DIFFER.-
> VICKY DUNBAR EJB...@prodigy.com
> All opinions are MINE, MINE, MINE! Opinions are like noses, everyone has
> one, and they are all different!
>
>
>
"And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accur's they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
Elaine Ragland
I find this tale of Vlad and his wife's highly suspicious. I
come from a very clutzy family. Injuries in my family from unassisted
tripping/falling accidents include a broken wrist, a broken elbow, broken
fingers, and a shattered kneecap.
However, none of the women in my family has ever given herself a
black eye. Usually, this sort of injury is inflicted on one, possibly by
a fist. This sounds like a classic wife-beating denial story to me.
If the unfortunate Tuchuk happened upon a wife beating, his
actions were somewhat understandable, if overzealous. Certainly,
expelling both camps was an overreaction of no small proportion.
If we are going to be held responsible for the actions of our
campmates (and the administration of Pennsic seems to be going this way),
then the autocrats should make it easier for small groups to reserve
space. Very few people want to guarantee the behavior of 200 or more
people.
One wonders, if one of the perpetrators was a denizen of a royal
encampment, would the crown heads have been expelled?
Melanie de la Tour
Ferret
>You don't get a vote, Ferret. You get a choice. To go or not. Until you
>know the entire story, don't say things you'll later regret. Humble pie
>is not as tasty as one might think.
I "vote" by not giving money to a person(s) I find unethical and offensive.
Coopers will be short my $200 I spent for the space and at the store. You
want to call it boycot, that is acceptable.
It is not the incident itself but the way the Coopers blamed 230 people for
the actions of 6. That is IMHO a disgusting and pathetic act of cowardice
and discrimination. _That_ is why I am not going back to Coopers.
Ferret
Ferret
>I feel badly for those who were innocent bystanders and who were evicted.
>However, in light of the Tuchux philosophy of "not knowing" people they
>are camped with when those people get into trouble....well.... all members
>of a group contribute to its "groupness". When you camp with a group or
>associate with them, you have responsibility to them and for them.
So every one who lives in a high crime neighborhood should be punished en
masse ? This may be period thinking but hardly a modern attitude of holding
individuals responsible instead of groups.
Ferret
Monica Cellio
Michael Greenstein <zar...@cutlass.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>My son, I have one word for you... (and no, it isn't "Plastics"!)
>
> M O R T G A G E !
I've got one word for you: assets.
When I bought my house, I was able to get a mortgage for a property costing
approximately twice my annual income, with assets (collateral) that equalled
about half the purchase price. That's in the right ballpark. I don't think
a mortgage company is going to look too kindly on a buyer who says he
can raise even as much as a *tenth* the amount of the price (before interest)
annually. And certainly not on a 15-year loan, and considering taxes and
maintenance costs and stuff.
The West (and now KHTI) has been raising money for 20 years to buy land.
They have enough for a *down payment* now. And they're willing to settle
for much less than we are; they don't expect electricity, running water,
buildings, roads, flush toilets, showers, and loads of other services.
There's a reason the talk of buying a Pennsic site has never gotten
beyond the idle chit-chat phase. If you think it can be done, you're
going to need to supply the proof of why all previous investigations have
turned up empty.
By the way, the SCA part of the profit from Pennsic is about $15,000 per
year. I don't know the Cooper part. *Revenues* may be high, but so are
*costs*. Pennsic is not the cash cow, able to support a mortgage, that
you think it is.
Ellisif
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/mjc/www/ellisif.html
ArielofGre
individual Tuchux who hit Vlad did not. He was new and this was his first
Pennsic. By his admission, he didn't have a clue who he saw fighting on
the road, only that it was a man and a woman and he didn't think that her
falling repeatedly like that was an accident. The Tuchux in question is
an older man, about 40, black and from all accounts, very level headed and
mellow. There are certainly much more hot headed Tuchux around than this
Gretchen Miller
da...@telerama.lm.com
> >may ask that an individual be arrested and removed from the site, however,
> >asking an entire group to leave because of certain individuals may be
> >construed as an act of dicrimination.
>
> on this topic) was that the Tuchux were informed that the Coopers
> could not require those not directly involved to leave as a group,
> but could only ask -- and that the Tuchux chose to acceed to that request.
While we're spreading third hand information, the story I got was the
someone along the line called the state police, who informed the Coopers
that they had to provide 24 notice of evictions, and that they were
required to refund money for such. How true any of that is I have no
idea.
toodles, margaret
bag...@ix.netcom.com
problems from the past then you will understand why dave did what he
did.from postings people seem to think it was an isolated incident,it
was not.
badger
M. Broman
Excuse me, but this is now a mundane issue, since the Tchuck did in
fact hit Vlad (according to everyone involved, so far). This means
it is a problem between the people involved and they have to settle
it in or out of mundane court as they decide...or am I missing some-
thing ?
The debate about SCA vs Tuchux is a different issue and not really
related to this particular situation, since (as far as I know) there
has always been some friction between the two groups or at least parts
of them. For example last years debate about land between Calontir and
the Tuchux.
I do not think it is fair to judge the entire group on the behaviour
of a few of its members. If more drastic actions should be taken it
has to be after both sides have had their say.
Ciao
Morgan//
Who enjoyed Pennsic and heard at least 5 versions of the story....;)
CONNECT
Ok, again, as was asked by another gentle, where was the Autocrat or the
Coopers? Why were these people camped close together? Shouldn't the blame
for this incident rest at the door of the person making the land
assignments?
Yours,
Rosalyn MacGregor of Glen Orchy
Pattie Rayl of Ann Arbor, MI
Ferret
Wasn't this from the Munich Puscht ?
Ferret :-)
Jim Brewster
Greenstein) wrote:
> Let's assume 10,000 gentles (yes, I know, it's less, but I'm fudging) at
> $31 a head (the price of attending only the LAST weekend this year;
> most gentles paid more). That's $310,000 raised, more than a tenth of
> the three million dollar figure. Under the circumstances, surely a
> fifteen-year mortgage would be obtainable, especially considering that
> we have hard attendance and financial figures to show banks, demonstrating
> that Pennsic is a consistent moneymaker.
You can't look at it that way, though. You have to first subtract all the
other expenses: staff, insurance, taxes, utilities, bribes and other
administrative costs. And who's going to put up $ for the down payment?
I'm not saying that the mortgage is unworkable, just that it's not as
simple as you depict. I have no idea what the expenses are like, or what
the Coopers charge for rent, but someone with the data should be able to
tell us which is more tenable.
Iames the Brewer
--
Doktor James Barleycorn Bardo, Brewer & Bard
Skeptical Relativist Credo: "Believe nothing, and anything is possible."
Brian Flynn
four posts, you've:
1) Accused the Coopers of
a) discrimination
b) bad judgement
c) cheating the SCA
d) breaking Pennsylvania Rentor's law
2) Raised the possiblity that Vlad's Lady Wife was lying to protect her husband.
3) And at the same time, implicitly accused Vlad of spouse abuse.
4) Accused the entire Vlad camp of being unchivalrous.
5) Announced to the entire Rialto that you will never attend Pennsic again.
Wow, you've covered a lot of ground in a short time. I think just about the
only person you left out was the poor TuChux who started the whole thing in
the first place. Striking another person with a rattan sword, from behind, in
the head, without armor is ALWAYS wrong. In this case, it's four times wrong.
If I might make a small suggestion, try to look for the positives in things,
not the negatives. On the plus side, the Coopers acted in their best intrest
to avoid any further problems. The Vlad camp graciously accepted the ruling
and left without causing any trouble. Gentles all around have generally been
good about not spreading wild stories from second hand information.
Uther
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <dnb105.44...@psu.edu> dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>Not in Pennsylvania he doesn't. As a rentor he has laws to follow. Yes he
>may ask that an individual be arrested and removed from the site, however,
>asking an entire group to leave because of certain individuals may be
>construed as an act of dicrimination. I leave the matter to the civil and
>criminal courts.
>As an individual I view it as an act of blantant discrimination and will
>probably never go to Pennsic again at Cooper's. That is my "vote".
>Ferret
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sounds like a contradiction.
>Ferret
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <dnb105.44...@psu.edu> dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>In article <cathalDD...@netcom.com> cat...@netcom.com (James Pratt)
writes:>> The Coopers are good folk and we like doing business with them.
>>But it is _business_ and the reliance upon good will is no assurance of
>>equitable treatment.
>Gee, no equitable treatment from freinds ?
>Not my freinds then.
>I don't know who the "we" is you refer to, it isn't me, I don't particullary
>like being taken advantage of, even in "business".
>Ferret
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <dnb105.44...@psu.edu> dnb...@psu.edu (Ferret) writes:
>Or could it be the denial of a battered woman ? Read up on it.
>How chivalrous. Asking for your own group to be banned.
>Ferret
Heather L. Garvey
>
>Ok, again, as was asked by another gentle, where was the Autocrat or the
>Coopers? Why were these people camped close together? Shouldn't the blame
>for this incident rest at the door of the person making the land
>assignments?
act like adults?
-- Maggie MacKenzie
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Garvey Work Email: gar...@cig.mot.com
SCA : Maggie MacKenzie Play Email: h...@po.cwru.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil reed
>
>
>Ok, again, as was asked by another gentle, where was the Autocrat or the
>Coopers? Why were these people camped close together? Shouldn't the blame
>for this incident rest at the door of the person making the land
>assignments?
The groups were camped close together because that is their traditional
land. The space allocation process attempts to give priority to giving the
space that a group has camped on in the past to the same group if they
want it.
>
--
...phil
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in
whole or in part. Copyright, Phillip C. Reed, 1995. License to distribute this
post is available to Microsoft for $1,000. Appearance without permission
constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation to
Postm...@microsoft.com and p...@ic.net.
Grep trigger words: eWorks! OT7 IBM bomb
Andrew Veter
>Ariel <axv...@vaxd.isc.rit.edu>:
>>Why should land that is bought mainly for Pennsic not have running water,
>>showers, or a lake? I don't get it.
>
>The most modest estimate I've seen for a site that can provide such
>facilities for ten thousand people is a million dollars. A civil
>engineer I talked to opined that putting in enough facilities
>(pipes, pumps, sewage handling, etc.) to satisfy health regulations
>would put the total close to three million dollars. Even the lower
>figure is probably beyond our fund-raising capacity.
>
Do you honestly think that Coopers Lake Campground has invested anywhere *near*
1-3 million dollars for the above? All of there facilities that we use, with
the possible exception of the Barn, could not have come to more than a couple
hundred thousand dollars.
I have the feeling the the Civil Engineer was probably considering a site of
10,000 people which in many areas constitutes a large event. Pennsic right now
does not have facilities that come close to meeting those standards and the
Coopers aren't interested in doing so. It has been their intent to restrict
Pennsic within the 'large event' limits.
I have looked into this rather extensively and there are a few things that have
been pointed out to me.
First, the most expensive part of any land improvement endeavor is always the
labor. I am fairly sure that should we buy land, the many skilled participants
of the SCA will have no problem donating a little time and experience. I know
many members of the populace that already do as much on Kingdom encampments at
war. An example would be the splendid Eastern Castle or the Middle Kingdom wall
panels.
Second, while paying for improvements is costly, it is nothing that can't be
handled after a Pennsic or two. The Coopers apparently cleared (after paying
everyone including Uncle Sam) $250,000 around five years ago. Addmission is only
one part of a host of income sources for them. They sell quite a lot of ice,
soda, store goods, hay, wood, etc.
Finally, there are many fundraising strategies that can raise quite a lot of
money. I believe the West had a single event last year that brought them
$12,000 dollars for their land fund. They are only one kingdom.
A Rozakii once proposed an idea that I liked. Let each group raise money for
land that they will occupy. For each acre they 'buy' for personal use, a
certain amount of additional land must be purchased for common use land.
Improvements would work in a similar vein except that the overall scheme is
managed as a whole. That way, coding, periodicity, and those type of topics can
be addressed. This scheme eliminates land lotteries, storage problems, and the
like while allowing for permanent, period structures. Of course, the land would
actually belong to whatever legality spawned organization the Society comes
up with but for all practical purposes the land is sub-owned unless a group
doesn't state intent to attend or they consistently fail to maintain their
area.
The beauty of this in my mind is that every group has a tangible goal. Instead
of raising money for the greater cause of SCA land, the fundraising is
personal. Each Kingdom, Principality, Barony, household, and the like are
raising funds for land that they will occupy every year, at least once a year.
>Over the years, many people have suggested that we get our own site,
>and some of them have actually investigated the possibility. I've
>yet to see one of those investigations succeed. There's a reason.
>
What is the reason? I hear these things once and while and I don't understand
it. Groups all over have achieved these types of goals with less resources than
we can muster. Everything from re-enactment groups to sewing organizations have
purchased land. Some of them have even improved them. Sure, its complicated and
will take great effort on the part of a few dedicated individuals but it is by
no means impossible.
There is a young lad in the SCA here that was telling me about another group he
belongs to called Nero or Hero or something like that. Its some sort of nation
wide boffer live-roleplaying group that sounds like D&D. He tells me they own
land all over the states and each piece of land has a barracks and cabins. Yet
they do not fundraise, their membership/event prices are lower, and there
members are generally much younger (and poorer) than the average SCA member.
Why, then, can't we succeed?
I love this topic!
>-- Dani
Ariel
CONNECT
>>>Why? Since when are they responsible for making sure people
act like adults?<<<
and Vajk said:
>>>Thank you, Maggie!
When I first read this I was way to hot to respond! We all can be
responsible
for only one person, ourselves, and perhaps children. I would exclude
teenagers from the category of "children", as anyone who has ever tried
being responsible for a teenager knows it's futile at best.<<<
Anyone who's done any entertaining or conferences knows that it's common
sense NOT to put people who have trouble getting along next to each other.
I'm basing this on the post someone left that Vlad's camp and the Tuchux
camp have had run ins in the past. If one has a dinner party, does one put
the two people who can't stand each other side by side? If one does, one
can't be surprised when trouble arises.
So, all I'm trying to point out is that this trouble may have been
preventable if a little common sense had been applied when assigning
spaces.
Yours in Service,
bryan manternach
: Although the two groups in question have a history of problems, the
I don't think Dusty could have defended himself better.
Thank you for telling it like it is.
--
|==============================================| I'm a 21st Century digital
| sm...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu | boy... I dunno how to live,
| http://cse.utoledo.edu/~smash | but I got a lotta toys...
| *THE PARTICLE BOARD* BBS (419)531-4818 | - Bad Religion, 1994
| War Eagle Clan : Mighty Tribe of the TUCHUX! | \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|"I have taken all knowlege to be my province" | In Wildness is the pres-
| - Francis Bacon| ervation of the world. So
|==============================================| Seek the WOLF in Thyself!
Thomas W Delfs
income is going to be there on a continuing basis? What one person (or
group of persons) is going to be willing to guarentee the mortgage?
Unless you've got a VERY trusting banker, you're going to get laughed out
of lots of offices with this scheme. Most banks won't go near
undeveloped land for a mortgage, with good cause. If the mortgage is
defaulted, where will the bank get the $3 million back? By selling the
partially developed land?
Solveig Throndardottir
The property upon which Pennsic now takes place is far different from what
it was back when Pennsic VI was held there. At Pennsic VI, the only paved
road was a bit of road going to the barn and a bit of ground in front of
the barn to turn around in. Almost none of the roads (paved, gravel or
dirt) currently at Pennsic were there. Most of the water facilities at
Pennsic were not there then. The only buildings were the barn and the
bath house across from the barn. Much of the land currently used by
Pennsic (and which now stands fallow) was under cultivation.
Most of the year, Cooper's Lake Campground stands pretty much deserted.
The truth of the matter is that simply buying the land would not be enough
to provide the physical plant that Cooper's Lake has aquired for Pennsic
over the years. Further, there are substantial costs associated with
providing water, sanitation, electricity, etc. for Pennsic. Yes, Pennsic
means a lot of money for Butler County, but that does not make Pennsic into
a cash cow in the sense that the money is not being well earned.
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Throndardottir
Amateur Scholar
Dani Eder
>>and some of them have actually investigated the possibility. I've
>>yet to see one of those investigations succeed. There's a reason.
>>
>What is the reason? I hear these things once and while and I don't understand
>it. Groups all over have achieved these types of goals with less resources than
>we can muster. Everything from re-enactment groups to sewing organizations have
>purchased land. Some of them have even improved them. Sure, its complicated and
>will take great effort on the part of a few dedicated individuals but it is by
>no means impossible.
Here in Meridies, we have started a 'Castle Guild' with the purpose of
building a castle/SCA site. We bought 35 acres last year, and about
$6000 in tools & equipment this year. It's not a big enough property
(yet) to hold a major war, but it will do for up to about 400 person
events.
Technically, the Guild is a partnership. Individuals and groups can
earn ownership by contributing labor, materials, or tools. Ownership
shares entitles a person or group to proportionate use of the property
(i.e. if a Shire earns some shares by doing a work weekend, they get
discounted or free use of the site for an event).
So, the second previous poster is incorrect, there is at least one piece
of land that has been purchased for SCA use. I agree with the previous
poster that a lot of work is required, and it will take time to develop
the site, but it can be done because we are doing it.
Daniel of Raven's Nest
Susan Carroll-Clark
I was not at Pennsic this year, but was not terribly surprised when
someone told me this news. There's been "bad blood" between the 'Chux and
Vlad for years; as for moving sites--they've both been at their respective
sites for ages.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for a
serious incident of this level to occur at Pennsic (talking more generally
now), given its explosion in size and relative lack of security folks, other
than SCA people policing their own encampments. Pennsic is huge. Even
if 99% of the people follow the rules, that 1% who doesn't adds up to
a significant number.
I think the Coopers took the only step they could in expelling both
encampments--unfair as it may have been to "bystanders". (What would have
happened if the majority of both groups were allowed to stay? Would
armed guards have had to been posted at each site? Could the Coopers have
trusted the two camps not to get into trouble with each other? Is there
any way that the two sides could have signed a "peace bond"?)
Whatta mess. I can see the lawyers gathering....
regards--
Nicolaa/Susan
Canton of Eoforwic
scl...@epas.utoronto.ca
David Sanders
In a previous article, gar...@poohbear.cig.mot.com (Heather L. Garvey) says:
>CONNECT <con...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Ok, again, as was asked by another gentle, where was the Autocrat or the
>>Coopers? Why were these people camped close together? Shouldn't the blame
>>for this incident rest at the door of the person making the land
>>assignments?
>
> Why? Since when are they responsible for making sure people
>act like adults?
>
> -- Maggie MacKenzie
Thank you, Maggie!
When I first read this I was way to hot to respond! We all can be responsible
for only one person, ourselves, and perhaps children. I would exclude
teenagers from the category of "children", as anyone who has ever tried
being responsible for a teenager knows it's futile at best.
Michael Greenstein
: What guarentee can you (or I or anyone else provide) that the $300K plus
A guarantee based on past performance, of course! Since banks do not
employ their own psychics, what have they to go by but an established track
record? Pennsic certainly has one. It has been steadily growing for
twenty-four years so far, and shows no signs of slowing down. Look to the
local economy during Pennsic. Look to the profits on bottled water and
ice alone at the Cooper's store! Look to the potential of an improved
campground to bring in income during other parts of the year.
Between gross receipts from admissions, and profits from whatever store
would be located on the property, and profits that could be obtained
throughout the rest of the year (what a great place to put a RenFaire!)...
surely it is a good risk for a bank.
As for the downpayment... Pennsic War Bonds, anyone?
===========================================================================
F R E E A E T H E L M E A R C ! ! !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Alewright of the Marche | a/k/a Michael Greenstein
|
Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands | zar...@platinum.nb.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I tell you this...
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
- James, son of Morris
===========================================================================
David Sanders
In a previous article, con...@aol.com (CONNECT) says:
>Maggie MacKenzie said:
>
>>>>Why? Since when are they responsible for making sure people
>act like adults?<<<
>
>and Vajk said:
>>>>Thank you, Maggie!
>
>When I first read this I was way to hot to respond! We all can be
>responsible
>for only one person, ourselves, and perhaps children. I would exclude
>teenagers from the category of "children", as anyone who has ever tried
>being responsible for a teenager knows it's futile at best.<<<
>
>So, all I'm trying to point out is that this trouble may have been
>preventable if a little common sense had been applied when assigning
>spaces.
Okay, that's not the way it came across. Common sense and responsibility
are two *VERY* different things.
>Yours in Service,
>Rosalyn MacGregor of Glen Orchy
>Pattie Rayl of Ann Arbor, MI
Heather L. Garvey
>David Sanders <ae...@yfn.ysu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Okay, that's not the way it came across. Common sense and responsibility
>>are two *VERY* different things.
>
>second.
But you can *have* the second without the first. Both groups
involved have RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. Whether they use
COMMON SENSE is another thing. :)
Corun MacAnndra
Baron Tibs <baro...@aol.com> wrote:
>Several points
[deleted for brevity]
>7 The question is not one of legal rights but one of how we have run
>Pennsic . If htis had occured at the Lilies War , I as autocrat would have
>probably sent both Vlad and Dusty to their corners while we investigated
>the incident or called the police if they wished . I would have informed
>the crown and senechal and followed SCA policies to resolve the problem
>.Regardless of the decision my King and his officers would be informed the
>entire time . Iwould not call the park and ask them to sort it out for us
>, regardless of their land rights . At no other event do we just turn to
>the site owner to settle our problems so why Pennsic . Where was our
>structure ? Ask either king if he is happy with this
The Royals were called in to investigate this. Both Ossis and Valthiona
were present at Vlad's camp the next morning. I was on duty driving folks
to and from the site since motorpool was running low on available drivers.
I personally took Ogami back to his camp. To the best of my knowledge, SCA
policy was enforced, but you have to understand that, regardless of whether
it's Pennsic or Lillies or any other site, the site owners have the legal
right to evict anyone they want. This is above anything you think the SCA
can do about it.
As for who called the police, I believe it was Dave Cooper, and that was
to make sure the Tuchux left the site. I also have hear that charges of
aggravated assault were pressed by Vlad against his alleged assailant, and
by the hospitalized alleged assailant against the five or six people who
allegedly beat him severely enough to send him to the hospital with internal
injuries.
Before you start defending any one party, you had best have all the facts.
The one fact that any of us has at this point is that none of us has all
the facts. You claim to have been present, but you have not said anything
about the seeing the Tuchux that allegedly hit Vlad being beaten. It is
quite apparent that you don't have all the facts.
In service,
Corun
--
===============================================================================
Corun MacAnndra | Alright, the clown can stay, but the Ferengi
Dark Horde by birth | in the gorilla suit has to go.
Moritu by choice | G. LaForge
Corun MacAnndra
>
>I "vote" by not giving money to a person(s) I find unethical and offensive.
>Coopers will be short my $200 I spent for the space and at the store. You
>want to call it boycot, that is acceptable.
>It is not the incident itself but the way the Coopers blamed 230 people for
>the actions of 6. That is IMHO a disgusting and pathetic act of cowardice
>and discrimination. _That_ is why I am not going back to Coopers.
As I said, until you know all the facts, you shouldn't be so quick to make
a hasty decision. You don't know all the facts, nor the the past complaints
the Coopers have had with both Vlad and the Chux. Both groups have been
warned by the Coopers in the past to clean up their respective acts. They
didn't, and the Coopers acted on what they said they'd do. As far as I'm
concerned, it is not an act of cowardice to do what you say you're going
to do. You don't want to play at Pennsic anymore, fine, don't play. But
hiding your head in the sand won't let you see the light of truth. And don't
fool yourself into thinking your $200 is going to make one whit of difference
to either the Coopers or the SCA.
Corun MacAnndra
Jeff Williams <Jeffrey_...@ppp.ablecom.net> wrote:
>In article <41d1g8$s...@access4.digex.net>, co...@access4.digex.net (Corun
>MacAnndra) wrote:.
>
>> Ever since I had heard that the West bought land for events...
>
>Not so! There is, in the West, a search going on for land, but it has
>not been found nor has it been bought.
>
>Geoffrey of Kirkwood (West Kingdom)
Milord,
I did not write the above line. I believe you got the quote attributes
out of sycnh.
da...@telerama.lm.com
>The groups were camped close together because that is their traditional
>land. The space allocation process attempts to give priority to giving the
>space that a group has camped on in the past to the same group if they
>want it.
Partially correct. Where a group camped in previous years was not
taken into account in this year's land allocation, because the information
was not available. (Some of the data was entered, no backup was made,
and it was lost when the disk crashed.) Attention was paid, however,
to where groups asked to camp, and that was often influenced by where
they'd camped in the past.
-- Dani
ANDREW VETER
>In article <41a5u6$o...@worf.qntm.com>,
>ANDREW VETER <ve...@jupitr.enet.qntm.com> wrote:
>
>[much about the Chux and Vlad deleted for brevity]
>
>> BTW, I am not a fan of how Pennsic is run. Ever since I had heard that the
>>West bought land for events I have pushed for a multi-kingdom land fund for a
>>War site. The possibilities are endless. Think about it.
>>
>>Ariel
>
>Milord,
>
>If you're not a fan of how Pennsic is run, then may I suggest that you come
>up with what you consider a viable plan and offer to Autocrat the event at
>some time in the future. Making noises about buying permanent land for Pennsic
>will not make the problem of how it's run go away. It will still be run by
>the same people who run it now, the SCA.
>
I think you missed the point of the subject. In almost every one of the various
cases where an 'incident' has occurred, the Coopers decide what will be done
irrespective of what anyone else thinks. I apologize if I was not clear in the
context. The Autocrats and SCA in general are required to run the event in the
framework determined by the Coopers. Most of the really annoying rules are
Cooper rules and have nothing to do with the SCA. The Autocrats are only one
part of the actual running of the event.
This is likely to change with sites, but not very much. Owners tend to
structure things in a way that will gain them the greatest profit margin. While
they are in the loop, the variability of Pennsic will not be very great. Prices
will still be high, we will still have to wear medallions at all times, we will
still have to buy recycled hay, we will still have cars driving through to
constantly destroy the atmosphere, we will still have to allow entire camps to
be removed because of individuals, etc., etc..
The greatest number of complaints involving Pennsic stem from what the owners
require and have nothing to do with the Society. Why do you believe it is the
the SCA?
>In service,
>Corun
>
>--
>===============================================================================
> Corun MacAnndra | Alright, the clown can stay, but the Ferengi
> Dark Horde by birth | in the gorilla suit has to go.
> Moritu by choice | G. LaForge
Ariel
Corun MacAnndra
ANDREW VETER <ve...@jupitr.enet.qntm.com> wrote:
>
>I think you missed the point of the subject. In almost every one of the various
>cases where an 'incident' has occurred, the Coopers decide what will be done
>irrespective of what anyone else thinks.
As is their legal right. They do, afterall, own the land we use.
>I apologize if I was not clear in the
>context. The Autocrats and SCA in general are required to run the event in the
>framework determined by the Coopers. Most of the really annoying rules are
>Cooper rules and have nothing to do with the SCA. The Autocrats are only one
>part of the actual running of the event.
Yes, the Autocrats are only one part of running Pennsic. They have to run it
according to the mandates set forth by the owners of the land we use, and
those owners in turn have to run their campground according to the mandates
set forth by the Commonwealth of PA, which in turn has to answer to the
Federal Gov't of the USA. We all have someone we have to answer to, and if
some of the rules set down are hard to take, then you always have the choice
of not attending. Blaming the Coopers out of hand with little or no facts
to back up such claims is innappropriate. If you want to state what "annoying
rules" you specifically have a hard time with, then state them and let's
address them point by point. So far though, there has been too much heat,
and not nearly enough light shed on this entire issue.
>The greatest number of complaints involving Pennsic stem from what the owners
>require and have nothing to do with the Society. Why do you believe it is the
>the SCA?
Because I have worked closely with both the Coopers and various Pennsic
staffs since PWXX, and I have seen how Pennsic works (or doesn't in some
cases) from the inside. Too many things are being blamed on the Coopers
that have no basis in fact. People are only looking for a target, and the
landowners are the easiest ones, especially so since they are unable to
defend themselves on this forum.
Terry Nutter
Corun writes:
: To the best of my knowledge, SCA
: policy was enforced,
: As for who called the police, I believe it was Dave Cooper, and that was
: to make sure the Tuchux left the site. I also have hear that charges of
: aggravated assault were pressed by Vlad against his alleged assailant, and
: by the hospitalized alleged assailant against the five or six people who
: allegedly beat him severely enough to send him to the hospital with internal
: injuries.
: Before you start defending any one party, you had best have all the facts.
: The one fact that any of us has at this point is that none of us has all
: the facts.
No kidding.
Before Pennsic, I was talking about problems generated by trying to solve
problems under wraps of secrecy. I think we have a perfect case in point
here.
There is an incident serious enough to require police investigation and
to get 230 people expelled from the site, with the Crowns, the autocrats,
and the landowners all formally putting their names in writing to a
statement that the expulsion was warranted by the circumstances. And
then they say "We won't tell you the charges or the verdict, just the
sentence. Now go home and shut up."
Duh. Right. Like 230 angry people and 9,000 + curious ones aren't going
to talk. Like the people who weren't there aren't going to care what
they might walk into next year. Like nobody has a legitimate interest
in the circumstances under which people are likely to be pitched from
their vacation without warning. Sure. Very realistic.
This way of handling the information is stone cold guaranteed to generate
rumors, and to result in ill-informed charges and slanders that could
damage reputations of the innocent for years to come. If the offense was
serious enough to warrant police intervention, it was also serious enough
to warrant a police-blotter style report, saying what the police determined
happened, and what _actual_ consequences there were. (What, if any,
injuries were determined, not just who asked for a ride to the hopital;
and so on.) Such a report would have put a stop to most of the conjecture
here.
Instead, our formal way of handling matters is encouraging people to go
around making fundamnetally unfounded charges of spousal abuse, aggravated
assault, and just about you-name-it up to incitement to riot.
Can anyone tell me what the SCA is gaining by trying to keep secret what,
in the real world, would be matters of public record? I think it's pretty
clear what we're losing. Most of us, at any rate, are supposed to be
grownups. If we can't handle the embarrassment of people knowing what
we actually did in public venues, we shouldn't be doing it. Protecting
people from the natural consequences of their behavior only invites
them to behave unacceptably.
-- Angharad/Terry
Don Levey
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>[Hal posting a correction from Dorothy's account....]
>
>As for buying a Pennsic site... The West is quite used to
>camping with little or not fixed facilities. I think it would be
>quite a shock for many regular attendees at Pennsic to do without
>running water, showers or a lake.
>
> --Hal Ravn
> (Hal Heydt)
As are many in the East. However, does the West camp like
that for 2 weeks at a time? I think that the length of
Pennsic is what makes the ammenities necessary.
-Don
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Okay, that's not the way it came across. Common sense and responsibility
>are two *VERY* different things.
Vajk, you've got to have the first if you're going to presume to take the
second.
In service,
GeorgePacz
> Everything from re-enactment groups to sewing organizations have
purchased land. Some of them have even improved them. Sure, its
complicated and will take great effort on the part of a few dedicated
individuals but it is by no means impossible.
Of course it can be done. Why, however, have we returned to Cooper's Lake
year after year, in the face of dwindling land and facilities, and a
slowly growing unwelcomeness on the part of the Coopers to take us in?
Easy. We've done Pennsic there for so many years that, to a great extent,
the event runs automatically. Much of what we count on having are
provided by the Coopers in return for payment. The first year that we
finally move to a new site, break in new campgrounds, provide all these
services that we consider part of the War, etc., etc., etc., the Middle
and East kingdoms are going to get a royal <g> education in what it would
take to put this thing together.
Yes, I know we know what it takes, but it's been done on automatic for so
long, I think we've forgotten. And over the past 14 years attending, I
get the feeling that we don't want to learn it again.
Don Justinian Syke of Rakovec
Syke's Sutlering
bryan manternach
: So, all I'm trying to point out is that this trouble may have been
: preventable if a little common sense had been applied when assigning
: spaces.
Unfortunately, moving either group from a traditional spot would have
caused problems in it's own. For example, trying to boot the TUchux last
year from the hill... didn't work...
SMASH
|==============================================|
| |
| ____/ __ __ / __ / ____/ / / | _
| / / / / / / / / / | / \ _-'
| ___ / / / / __ / ___ / ___ / | _/| \-''- _ /
| / / / / / / / / / |__-' { | \
| ____/ / / / / / ____/ / / | / \
| | / "o. |o }
|==============================================| | \ ;
| sm...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu | ',
| http://cse.utoledo.edu/~smash | \_ __\
| SMASH GREYWOLF of the BLACK SWAMP | ''-_ \.//
| War Eagle Clan - Mighty Tribe of the TUCHUX! | / '-____'
| *THE PARTICLE BOARD* BBS (419)531-4818 | /
| 1200 => 28.8 n/8/1 24 Hours RENEGADE | _'
| SMASH at NODE # 5 | _-'
| HOME PHONES: (419)531-7676 / (419)534-2310 |
Dorothy J Heydt
In article <leveyDD...@netcom.com>, Don Levey <le...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <41a82f$8...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>[Hal posting a correction from Dorothy's account....]
>>
>>As for buying a Pennsic site... The West is quite used to
>>camping with little or not fixed facilities. I think it would be
>>quite a shock for many regular attendees at Pennsic to do without
>>running water, showers or a lake.
>
>that for 2 weeks at a time? I think that the length of
>Pennsic is what makes the ammenities necessary.
We've had a 10-day event, though there were some facilities at
the site that was used. I make the point to demonstrate the one
you have made explicit: Between desired comforts and the length
of the event, raw land really won't do for Pennsic. Therefore,
the cost of purchasing land is not nearly the issue so much as
the cost of improving it to a minimally acceptable level.
--Hal Ravn
(Hal Heydt)
Aliza R. Panitz
In article <nostrand-230...@joe02.slip.yorku.ca>,
Solveig Throndardottir <nost...@mathstat.yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>[...] At Pennsic VI, [almost none of the current facilities at Cooper's
>were present yet.]
>The truth of the matter is that simply buying the land would not be enough
>to provide the physical plant that Cooper's Lake has aquired for Pennsic
>over the years.
How much of those improvements were bought with the profits from Pennsic?
The truth of the matter is, a piece of bare land bought by the SCA could
be upgraded, *gradually*, into anything we wanted. 19 years of piecemeal
improvements could do a lot for any suitable chunk of land...
However, the question of who should pay for the land is non-trivial.
Pennsic is, officially, a joint function of the East and the Middle. The
land, assuming it were near the current Pennsic site, would be of most use
to the East, the Middle, and Atlantia. I suspect that there would be a certain resistance to paying for it out of a Society-wide tax...
- Joy of Morganza
--
Aliza R. Panitz http://www.access.digex.net/~buglady | The Net is good.
Preferred address: bug...@access.digex.net | It is also goo.
Also: bug...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu an8...@anon.penet.fi | - Playboy, June 1994
PGP Key: 0xDD32833D f'print: D5 38 FC 6D 4E 1C 0E 7B F4 84 46 F1 18 66 B8 A1
Monica Cellio
> does not have the right of refusal. Many times these evictions occur
> before the SCA even knows an incident has occured.
Please cite cases where the Coopers evicted people "before the SCA even knows
an incident has occurred". I've attended Pennsic for 14 years and attended
Pennsic council meetings for 4 or 5 years, and I've never heard of this
happening. Eviction decisions that I have heard about have been *joint*
decisions.
>2. The Coopers retain the right to refuse to evict, even if the SCA desires
> said eviction. There have been times when evictions have been requested
> in cases that the law has been broken. Instead of evicting, the Coopers
> force campers to settle for apologies, etc.
Really? Can you cite some? The SCA certainly has the ability to eject
people from events, so I'm having trouble conceiving of a situation where
they would want to do so and would be blocked by a site owner. (As a
member of a group that was targetted by a certain high-ranking corporate
officer last year for possible eviction without cause, I am well aware
that the Coopers could not have helped us.)
>3. The Coopers have a policy of deciding who they think is at fault and
> offering a choice of eviction or compensation to the other party in the
> form of a personal item, etc.
Can you cite some cases or point to a place where the policy is recorded?
>5. The Coopers refuse admission after a certain deadline turning away even
> those who have travelled long distances. (Like CA)
This was a joint decision as I recall; the SCA was also having trouble
finding people to staff the gate that late, and the Coopers and autocrat
the first year it happened decided the payoff was too low to be worth
the trouble. (How many people really drive from CA to attend only the
last 24 hours of the event?)
>6. The Coopers do not make any attempt to dress their staff even moderately
> period attire. This is a pet peeve I am throwing in. They say it is
> because scrubs are distinctive. I can think of several ways they can do the
> same in a way that would allow even simple T-tunics.
I doubt they would turn their noses up at a proposal to change this.
Someone would have to be able to provide the tunics at no more than the
cost of the scrubs, I would think; we can't expect all the staff members
to sew their own. But has it ever been proposed and turned down? I don't
think so. Why don't you suggest it?
Ellisif
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/mjc/www/ellisif.html
ANDREW VETER
>
>Yes, the Autocrats are only one part of running Pennsic. They have to run it
>according to the mandates set forth by the owners of the land we use, and
>those owners in turn have to run their campground according to the mandates
>set forth by the Commonwealth of PA, which in turn has to answer to the
>Federal Gov't of the USA. We all have someone we have to answer to, and if
>some of the rules set down are hard to take, then you always have the choice
>of not attending. Blaming the Coopers out of hand with little or no facts
>to back up such claims is innappropriate. If you want to state what "annoying
>rules" you specifically have a hard time with, then state them and let's
>address them point by point. So far though, there has been too much heat,
>and not nearly enough light shed on this entire issue.
>
You know, your habit in threads of saying, "...the choice of not attending.", is
not appropriate. I have never stated that Pennsic is not enjoyable, just
annoying at times. The purpose of this conversation is simply to illuminate
other possibilities, not to pack up and go home.
But since you insist that the Coopers are faultless and the SCA is to blame for
everything, we can surely discuss some of the Cooper rules and policies. I will
avoid addressing money making policies, such as those regarding hay,
medallions, etc. and just address the more important issues of governance.
1. The Coopers retain the right to evict participants at Pennsic. The SCA
does not have the right of refusal. Many times these evictions occur
before the SCA even knows an incident has occured.
2. The Coopers retain the right to refuse to evict, even if the SCA desires
said eviction. There have been times when evictions have been requested
in cases that the law has been broken. Instead of evicting, the Coopers
force campers to settle for apologies, etc.
3. The Coopers have a policy of deciding who they think is at fault and
offering a choice of eviction or compensation to the other party in the
form of a personal item, etc.
5. The Coopers refuse admission after a certain deadline turning away even
those who have travelled long distances. (Like CA)
6. The Coopers do not make any attempt to dress their staff even moderately
period attire. This is a pet peeve I am throwing in. They say it is
because scrubs are distinctive. I can think of several ways they can do the
same in a way that would allow even simple T-tunics.
These are a few. What you have failed to discern, though, is that this
conversation stemmed from the suggestion that land should be bought to take the
Coopers out of the loop, not that the Coopers should be taken out and shot. If
the Society had the right to make decisions as above, at least their is a way
of making their grievances known and have them addressed. The Coopers do not
have to justify anything and seldom even attempt to. Nor do I necessarily think
they should as people running a business.
>>The greatest number of complaints involving Pennsic stem from what the owners
>>require and have nothing to do with the Society. Why do you believe it is the
>>the SCA?
>
>Because I have worked closely with both the Coopers and various Pennsic
>staffs since PWXX, and I have seen how Pennsic works (or doesn't in some
>cases) from the inside. Too many things are being blamed on the Coopers
>that have no basis in fact. People are only looking for a target, and the
>landowners are the easiest ones, especially so since they are unable to
>defend themselves on this forum.
>
First, this forum is for debate and not attacks. I state my oppinions and
anyone is free to debate those oppinions as you have. I have no dislike for the
Coopers and often support their decisions. This does not mean that I am happy
with their methods. That they are not participants on the net is a silly reason
not to discuss their actions.
Second, you are correct that they are blamed for more than they are responsible
for, but not correct in assuming that they are not responsible for any of these
things. They are, after all, in the business of making a profit.
If you come across the other thread concerning owning land, you will see where
many people have illuminated the advantages of taking the Coopers out of the
loop. It is not that the Coopers are wrong or bad or whatever you are implying.
The bottom line is that they are running a business and making a profit. What I
am trying to address here is not that the Coopers are bad people but that they
are expendable for the good of Pennsic.
>In service,
>Corun
>
Ariel
Corun MacAnndra
Mark R. Kiel <re...@horde.com> wrote:
>> No one in either camp would come forward to name names or point fingers.
>>Therefore they all aided and abbetted a felony.
>
>Perhaps you should actually consult with a lawyer or a law enforcement officer
>before you make such comments, but this statement just won't hold up in any
>court in the land.
I was told this by a lawyer. And remember, it's the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The laws are different.
If the person who told me this was wrong, then I would appreciate it if
you would cite the appropriate PA stautes that deny this.
In service,
Corun
--
===============================================================================
Corun MacAnndra | Beneath the cool, calm, professional exterior of the
Dark Horde by birth | SCA, lurk all the subtle interpersonal dynamics of a
Moritu by choice | nursery school at recess. -- A. Greyseas
Dottie Elliott
> structure things in a way that will gain them the greatest profit
margin. >While
> they are in the loop, the variability of Pennsic will not be very great.
>Prices
> will still be high,
Pennsic is one of the cheapest vacations I have ever had! It cost me
about $60 for 9 days of fun. I don't have a problem with that. What do
you think it should cost?
>we will still have to wear medallions at all times,
At small events it is not too hard to locate someone who knows an injured,
sick or drunk individual to deal with the problem and get necessary
medical information. This is impossible at Pennsic (and mind you at many
other large events we have). The medallions are INCREDIBLY useful in this
situation and for that reason alone I don't mind them. Perhaps you have
never noticed, but every night at Pennsic we find folks who are
unconscious or out of it enough not to know who they are, much less where
they belong. The medallions are extremely useful in these situations. So
why should we all wear them when its only a few that need them? Can you
be positive you won't have ANY medical problem at Pennsic (from bee sting
or bug bite to bad alcohol to a bad fall)? No one can.
The medallions are just a piece of jewelry and not very intrusive at all.
>we will
> still have to buy recycled hay,
SO?
>we will still have cars driving through to
> constantly destroy the atmosphere,
Geez, I have yet to go to an event that didn't have cars being intrusive
all the time! I am amazed that you must have been to such an event. No
matter where I have camped (and I have lived in 3 kingdoms) my one ideal
of never seeing a car for the majority of an event has yet to be met. How
would you choose to handle folks arriving late and leaving early? Just not
let them attend??
>we will still have to allow entire camps to
> be removed because of individuals, etc., etc..
I would like to hear the whole TRUE story before I pass judgement although
I doubt any of us ever will. I imagine the Coopers may have been worried
about reprisals between the 2 groups. I heard some of the name calling
going on between the 2 groups as they packed and I can understand that
concern. This was a sad incident that has taken our innocence away. It
was made sadder still by the Tuchuks not leaving when asked as courtesy
would require and by all the rumors and counter-rumors.
>
> The greatest number of complaints involving Pennsic stem from what the owners
> require and have nothing to do with the Society. Why do you believe it
is the
> the SCA?
>
> Ariel
As long as we rent someone else's land, we will have to meet their rules
plus our own. If we have our own land, we will still have to meet many
rules we would rather not because of the modern litigation in the US among
other reasons such as state safety and health codes. Plus, the event
still has to have a firm opening and closing date, rules of conduct which
disallow acts of violence, and ways to locate people in the event of an
emergency. There are just problems that must be solved for a 9000 person
event that just don't exist for a 100 person event.
Clarissa
--
Dottie Elliott (ma...@onr.com)
Computer Applications & Technical Support, Austin, TX
Macintosh, Windows & Internet Training
database design & implementation
contract programming
technical writing
Corun MacAnndra
ANDREW VETER <ve...@jupitr.enet.qntm.com> wrote:
>
>You know, your habit in threads of saying, "...the choice of not attending.", is
>not appropriate. I have never stated that Pennsic is not enjoyable, just
>annoying at times. The purpose of this conversation is simply to illuminate
>other possibilities, not to pack up and go home.
I got the impression from your words that you were more inclined to blame
the Coopers for you being annoyed. If that wasn't the impression you intended,
I apologize. But I would ask you to choose your words more carefully. They
contain more heat than you claim to be intending, and I will be inclined
to answer in kind. I'm all for reasoned debate, so let's both be wary of
what we say.
>But since you insist that the Coopers are faultless and the SCA is to
>blame for
>everything, we can surely discuss some of the Cooper rules and policies.
That's a straw man and you know I never said anything of the kind. You
claimed the Coopers ran Pennsic and I said you were wrong. It is run
conjointly by the Coopers and the SCA, with the SCA making policy decisions
for its members up to the point where the landowners have to intercede.
>1. The Coopers retain the right to evict participants at Pennsic. The SCA
> does not have the right of refusal. Many times these evictions occur
> before the SCA even knows an incident has occured.
The Coopers own the land, and therefore have every legal right to evict
anyone they choose for any offense they perceive. But I challenge you
to name one eviction beyond the ones that occured this year, especially
one that occured without the knowledge of the SCA members in charge.
You have a tendency to speak in generalizations, and your arguments lose
credibility as a result.
>2. The Coopers retain the right to refuse to evict, even if the SCA desires
> said eviction. There have been times when evictions have been requested
> in cases that the law has been broken. Instead of evicting, the Coopers
> force campers to settle for apologies, etc.
Again, I challenge you to name spcific incidents. Even if this is the
case, and the Coopers choose to let the people involved in the incident
shake hands and make up, isn't this what the SCA is supposed to be about?
Your point here is not well made. The Coopers have the right to evict
or not. Why is allowing them their legal rights an annoyance to you?
>3. The Coopers have a policy of deciding who they think is at fault and
> offering a choice of eviction or compensation to the other party in the
> form of a personal item, etc.
Would you prefer they call the police every time someone stubs a toe?
Would you prefer they press charges and have people arrested? Frankly,
I think that the offer of eviction or recompense is a perfectly medaeval
thing to do. In this light, the Coopers are trying to play our game. What's
so wrong with that?
>5. The Coopers refuse admission after a certain deadline turning away even
> those who have travelled long distances. (Like CA)
Are you sure this is a Cooper decision and not and SCA or joint decision?
Besides, the cutoff dates are published well in advance. If someone comes
from CA late, then that's their fault, isn't it.
>6. The Coopers do not make any attempt to dress their staff even moderately
> period attire. This is a pet peeve I am throwing in. They say it is
> because scrubs are distinctive. I can think of several ways they can do the
> same in a way that would allow even simple T-tunics.
You're right, this is your personal pet peeve, and therefore not addressable.
The Cooper staff doesn't belong to the SCA. Why should we force them to
wear our clothes? Do you not hold events in churches and schools that have
to have someone there on site? Do you make them dress appropriately, perhaps
against their will? You talk of the Coopers forcing their rules on you.
Just what do you think this pet peeve of yours is doing to them?
>These are a few. What you have failed to discern, though, is that this
>conversation stemmed from the suggestion that land should be bought to
>take the
>Coopers out of the loop, not that the Coopers should be taken out and shot.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. If I have failed to discern
anything you're trying to say, perhaps you haven't said it clearly enough.
>If
>the Society had the right to make decisions as above, at least their is a way
>of making their grievances known and have them addressed. The Coopers do not
>have to justify anything and seldom even attempt to. Nor do I necessarily
>think
>they should as people running a business.
Well, we agree on one thing here. Neither of thinks the Coopers have to
justify their decisions or rules to any of us.
But the Society does have the right to make certain decisions within the
bounds of the rules set forth by the Coopers.
>>Because I have worked closely with both the Coopers and various Pennsic
>>staffs since PWXX, and I have seen how Pennsic works (or doesn't in some
>>cases) from the inside. Too many things are being blamed on the Coopers
>>that have no basis in fact. People are only looking for a target, and the
>>landowners are the easiest ones, especially so since they are unable to
>>defend themselves on this forum.
>>
>
>First, this forum is for debate and not attacks. I state my oppinions and
>anyone is free to debate those oppinions as you have. I have no dislike for
>the
>Coopers and often support their decisions. This does not mean that I am happy
>with their methods. That they are not participants on the net is a silly
>reason
>not to discuss their actions.
I have read many attacks on the Coopers. I read your words and saw first
a placing of blame for the Coopers having rules, not an attack, just
throwing blame for your annoyance. If you want to say I thought you were
attacking the Coopers, go ahead. You'll be wrong. You'll also be wrong
if you think the Coopers don't have the right to make rules that we have
to adhere to.
I also never said it was silly not to discuss the actions of anyone.
That is the third time you have put words in my mouth.
>Second, you are correct that they are blamed for more than they are
>responsible
>for, but not correct in assuming that they are not responsible for any
>of these
>things. They are, after all, in the business of making a profit.
By "any of these things" I assume you mean the numbered points you
addressed above? If not, then please clarify. This sentence is unclear,
and perhaps this lack of clarity is at the root of our misunderstanding.
But don't think to throw the straw man of profit making at me. Do you
work? Do you make money? Is it soley for the purpose of paying bills to
people who are in the business of making a profit? Or do you hope to
make enough profit yourself from your work that you can do more than
merely pay bills? Anyone who is not independantly wealthy is in the
business of making profit, and even those that are independantly wealthy
desire more profit.
>If you come across the other thread concerning owning land, you will see where
>many people have illuminated the advantages of taking the Coopers out of the
>loop. It is not that the Coopers are wrong or bad or whatever you are
>implying.
I'm not implying that. I was reading your words and getting that implication
from you. And I have read those threads, and seen just as many people
saying how difficult it would be for the SCA to run a comparable campsite
for Pennsic or any other largescale event. If you think the corporation
of the SCA is capable of this, then you haven't been paying attention to
the BoD threads of the past year or two. The SCA can't even manage its
own computer contracts decently, and you and others expect them to
suddenly become landowners? And not merely landowners, but the owners
and operators of a campground of the size of Cooper's Lake replete with
all the ammenities the Coopers provide? Not on their best day, even with
Viscount Edward as Landscapegoat.
>The bottom line is that they are running a business and making a profit.
See my rebuttal to this above.
>What I
>am trying to address here is not that the Coopers are bad people but that they
>are expendable for the good of Pennsic.
Here I have to say flat out that you're wrong. If we choose to move from
Cooper's Lake to another campsite, we'll have to deal with the rules
set down by those landowners, and they may not be so forgiving as the
Coopers. I've already given you my opinion of what I think the SCA can
accomplish as landowners.
Corun MacAnndra
Heather L. Garvey <gar...@poohbear.cig.mot.com> wrote:
>Corun MacAnndra <co...@access4.digex.net> wrote:
>>
>>Vajk, you've got to have the first if you're going to presume to take the
>>second.
>
>involved have RESPONSIBILITY for their actions. Whether they use
>COMMON SENSE is another thing. :)
Agreed. ;-)
bryan manternach
: THE TUCHUX DIDN"T LEAVE!!!!
How can you expect around 200 people who had nothing to do with it, to
just pack up and go? THink about it!
: They were still there, drumming and partying all night. They were
: there the next day, as my husband and I loaded up, they were there when
: the Port-a-johns at Vlad's camp were dynamited, and they were there as we
: drove away.
And the johns were not dynamited...
: As far as I know, the group resposible for clocking Vlad on the
: back of the head never did leave.
They were in the hospital before anyone else left... Buy a clue, plesae...
: So the only fault of theirs was that they took an minor domestic
: squabble to a less than private spot (though where in their camp is
: private?). A possibly well-meaning bystander took overzealous action,
: though given past relations I personally think that the Tuchux hatred of
: Vlad coloured his actions.
How could Dusty hate Vlad? He had never been to Pennsic before. He wouldn't
know Vlad if Vlad fell on him! Dusty saw someone arguing , and from his
point of view misinterpreted the situation. How could he be biased by
"Hatred"? There are very few Tuchux who really had a problem with Vlad
actually, and the ones who did, were from a specific clan...
The only one spewing hatred here, sopunds like you, my dear, for you are
the only voice I have heard in this forum thus far that has "lost her head"
over this...
: We left quietly, respecting the Cooper's wishes. They never did.
They left... Many of the ones who stayed, were those like me who couldn't
get away from our mundane jobs and arrived AFTER the fact, and they couldn't
tell us to leave.
: My action will be as follows: I am going to start a petition
: stating that a group of campers at this particular event is lawless and
: unsafe. I do not feel that , given the obvious lack of self control on
: their part and their lack of respect for others, including the owners of
: the land, I can safely attend Pennsic as long as this group is also
: allowed to attend.
No worry, because many of the Tuchux no longer wish to go. Unlike the SCA,
or members actually OWN vast tracts of land in the area... We can go to
much nicer (ANd better improved) places,a s well as unimproved places.
IF you are going to petition for an entire "realm" to leave , rather than
a clan, so be it, but how would you feel if all of say Middle Kingdom
were told to leave because one small barony had some problems?
: I am going to send it to the Business Associations of Newcastle
: and Butler. We are bigger than Christmas there, and the possibility of
: losing money can be a powerful motivator. I do not believe that the SCA
: can have more influence with the Coopers than the people they live with
: year 'round.
That's quite all right, Mebbe there will be a competing event nearby,
run by the Tuchux... Who knows... All it is to the business assoc.
is more publicity,a nd more money...
While it's unfortunate that your vacation was disrupted, think of others
before you act. This event affected many more people than yourself.
Perhaps I should not be even responding to this, but she struck a nerve
deep within me. It is one of a very few that get me going. One thing
I do not tolerate is intolerance. If the world had less rigid, and more
understanding people in it, and if peopel would jsut mind theor own business,
then perhapos MUCH of this could have been avoided...
It is views like this, and intolerant people like this that have kept me
from local SCA involvement for over a year now. You people take this
stuff WAY too seriously... I called it quits when the local chivalry
tried to get me involved in mundane legal proceedings because of someone's
WORDS at an SCA event... Where is the honor?
Now you want to make this more mundane than it already is.
Believe me... I don't need this crap, and I'll bet my loincloth, nobody
else does either...
Ferret
>I do believe that what is meant is that if you are living in a house,
>then you are responsible for the household members' actions. Especially
>when retaliation will most likely occur if all members are not removed.
>Liza
Perhaps it is different where you live. I have found that when the police
remove an individual (arrest) they do not collect eveyone in the residence.
Also, individuals above 21 yoa are rarely held accountable for the actions
of others. Marriage and other contracts of shared and limited
responsibilities excluded. At least in the U.S. one cannot be held
accountable for a crime committed by another _or_ because some beleives you
will commit a crime in the future.
Ferret
RWESTMARCH
use private investors and owner carrybacks, Banks are useless. You can't
compare Residential property to non-residential land: whole different
ballgame. SCA could easily afford 3 mill land.
robert
Anita Kilgour
>I think you missed the point of the subject. In almost every one of the various
>cases where an 'incident' has occurred, the Coopers decide what will be done
>context. The Autocrats and SCA in general are required to run the event in the
>framework determined by the Coopers. Most of the really annoying rules are
>Cooper rules and have nothing to do with the SCA. The Autocrats are only one
>part of the actual running of the event.
Just for the sake of my own curiousity, *what* rules do you find annoying?
From the remainder of your article (which, yes, I've deleted for space), other than
the mediallions (which seems reasonable), most of your complaints are with
decisions that had to be made at the time, not with longstanding rules.
Just curious,
Tanith
somewhere welsh
ma...@norell.se
I was asked which versions of the Tchuck vs Vlad stories
I had heard...;)...here are my answers :
>Okay, which versions did you hear?
1) Vlad hits wife, then beats up Tchuck.
2) Tchuck beats Vlads wife, Vlad beats Tchuck.
3) Vlad argues with wife, wife falls, Vlad helps her up, Tchuck
hits Vlad and runs away.
4) Vlad argues with wife, wife falls, Vlad helps her up, Tchuck
hits Vlad, Vlads friends beat up Tchuck, Tchuck found in
ditch badly damaged.
5) Vlad hits wife, wife falls, Tchuck hits Vlad, Vlad+friends beat
up Tchuck. (This one says Vlad landed a roundhouse kick
to the Tchucks head.....;)..)
So what do you think....;)....pick one, anyone...;) !
4 out of 5 shows the Tchuck taking a beating.
3 out of 5 shows Vlads wife taking a beating.
2 out of 5 shows Vlad taking a beating.
0 out of 5 shows Vlads friends taking a beating.
0 out of 5 even mentions the second Tchuck who was there...;)
I'd rather be the Tchuck that was not there....;)
Ciao
Morgan//
======================================================
SCA : Morgan deGrey ma...@norell.se
Mundane : M. Broman
"What is life, but a fraction of nothing,
made important by actions out of time."
ShadowHawk
======================================================
William H. Johnson
> Good gentles,
>
> Just to put a different perspective on this incident, this is not the first
> altercation between Vlad and the Tuchux. I was asked to be a witness to the
> proceedings of last years incident but when I arrived at Vlads the issue had
> already been resolved.
> The story went that Vlad woke up that morning to sounds coming from his
> kitchen. When he went out to investigate he found one of the Tuchuxs rummaging
> around. The Tuchuck promptly ran off.
> Later, I believe it was on the same day, Vlads road sign dissapeared. I
> don't remember whether Vlad said he saw someone run off with it or he simply
> believed the Tuchux had taken it. Whatever the case, Vlad and a friend decided
> to go up the hill and talk with the Tuchuxs. On the way up, they were jumped by
> several Tuchuxs who were guarding the way. Somewhere in the altercation, Vlad
> produced a can of mace and maced everyone, including his friend.
> The Coopers did not call the authorities but decided that Vlad had to give
> some personal item of value to the Tuchux as recompense for the macing or leave
> the site. Vlad ended up giving them his dagger, I believe. The particulars of
> the incident were not addressed since there were only witnesses to the macing.
> Someone who has a better memory of this might be able to clarify the
> details.
> Someone posted that the Coopers have been trying to get rid of the Tuchux
> for years. I think that it is actually quite the opposite. The Tuchux have
> been shielded by the Coopers while many SCAers have tried to have them
> expelled. (The Tuchux also hold a gathering of some sort at the campground.)
> Members of the Tuchuxs have a bad habit of getting in trouble. I had the
> oppurtunity to speak with their leader of several years ago, Stormbear. He
> recognized the fact that some of his people got out of line from time to time
> and that they tried to deal harshly with these 'dogs'. This was one of the
> reasons that Tuchux only carried rataan and no live steel was allowed in their
> camp. Sometimes it doesn't work to well. The same year as the macing incident,
> another Tuchuck threatened Viscount Roak of the Rozakii with a dagger (live
> steel). The Coopers obtained a promise from the Tuchux that the gentle would
> not leave their encampment for the remainder of Pennsic. Roak ended up agreeing
> even though he wanted the gentle expelled. Unfortunately, the gentle was seen
> outside of camp about a day later.
> My point is that the Coopers knew of the propensity on both sides to use
> weapons and probably realized that things had begun to escalate out of
> their control. If this had been a first incident, I really doubt that the
> Coopers would have done more then boot the offending parties. As it was, they
> hads been warned to cease and desist the year before.
> BTW, I am not a fan of how Pennsic is run. Ever since I had heard that the
> West bought land for events I have pushed for a multi-kingdom land fund for a
> War site. The possibilities are endless. Think about it.
>
> Ariel
around Vlad's camp that time was actually one of your damned
SCA -chux. It appears that there is a fun litttle game of
blaming every incident in which a participant wears fur on the
Tuchux. A couple years ago, a "Tuchuk" waa reported to have
done something, only to discover the Tuchux hadn't even arrived
on site yet. We also "finally" got an apology from that.
As to Vlad, I have never crossed words with the man, although I
have seen his behavior (especially when drunk) for a couple of
years now, and he is far and away more disgusting than the
worst of the "problem children" among the Tuchux. The posts
defending him are laughable, he is from direct observation (on
gusrd duty at the gate for four hours) and remains, a coward and a
lout, at best.
Again, I point out that any other group can suffer from this
precedent, and you have brought it in yourselves. You are
right, the Coopers only want our money, and thay have shown
their colors. If you participate, you sink to their level. It
is past time to take the War elsewhere.
If you as a group have any honor, enforce the promises made
years ago that only the Tuchux wear the fur and skin. Then, we
will see who is the problem, and it isn't the Tuchux.
We have given the SCA an honorable enemy for many years, and
have provided flavor and presence that added to the War and
made it great.
We are the source of so many of your onerous rules, and you
constantly fail to see your errors. In all the years of Tuchux
fighting, we never needed a marshall, allowed total body
targeting, grappling, and projectiles, honest to god charges,
and realistic fighting (no light, tip, glance loooooowwwww
bullshit) If we leave, you lose, and you will keep on losing,
degenerating into an aimless rigid lockstepped sameness that
will bore the SCA into extinction. The best of what is in you
came from us, and some of the best in us came from some of the
best fighters you ever produced. Rhinohiding is a realtively
new phenomenon. Had you accepted Tuchux style rules like many
wanted to do, this woudl have stopped.
What the Tuchux do, the Tuchux do, and each of us speaks for
him or herself. That is the way it is. I speak as a warrior,
something many more of you would understand years ago. You ahve
deteriorated, indeed some of you speak of Kings being chosen by
proxy fighters. What? are there no fighters with the honor
requisite to be King? Do you so revile warriors that you fear
to have one lead you? Many of my friends of old among the SCA
must be truly disgusted at what you have become, and what is
loose among you. You lose the best part of yourselves when you
lose the Tuchux.
--
William H. Johnson at University of Virginia, Dept. of Cardiology
aka Wild Bill the Tuchuk <<<<<<<<<<<]===} {===[>>>>>>>>>>>
wh...@virginia.edu These opinions are my own.
Mr Jefferson will tell the University if they can have an opinion.
Iain Odlin
Beg to differ, dude. The word "dynamited" might be somewhat extreme, but
they were demolished by some explosive device. Saw it myself.
And who has to pay for them?
--
------------------------- Iain Odlin, od...@reed.edu -------------------------
42 Clifton Street, Portland ME 04101
--------- Two plus two equals five only for very large values of two ---------
Christine Rudock
I, too was an innocent who found myself ousted for reasons that were
explained to me several times but, unlike you they never made sense
to me.
I am writing to correct the many misinterpretations and rumor
mongering in your article.
1. Those camping with Vald were able to break camp because there
were fewer numbers than in Tuchux camp. Some structures in Tuchux
camp took a full week to erect before the official opening. Most
Tuchux live close enough to the War that they make several trips
back and forth to bring all of their stuff. It was most
unreasonalbe to expect that we could have everything broken down
given the 6 hour time limit. The State Police that arrived in
response to Coopers' complaint agreed! The Tuchux were told to take
as much time as they needed but try to be out by noon on Saturday.
My clan was still feverishly breaking down when darkness fell. By
dark a goodly portion of the Tuchux had left the site.
2. As far as the drumming and partying goes; the drumming was the
result of SCA members who came in protest and support. Also 2/3 or
more of the partiers were other SCA folk.
3. THE TUCHUX DID INDEED LEAVE! The same day you did. We too were
given leave to stay past the 5 o'clock deadline.
4. Where were you when the Port-a-johns were dynamited?
5. When was the last time a womam "tripped" on her hem and got a
black eye? And when does a broken foot limit upper body strengh?
6. The so called overzealous bystander didn't even know who Vlad
was and was only coming to the rescue of a woman whom he belived was
in danger.
7. We did leave quitely, even though we thought the eviction
unjust.
8. When sending the petion to the Business Associations in
Newcastle and Butler in order to force Coopers to keep US out you
should also consider the fact that Vlad's camp is not an innocent
here.
Rosamond Novaya Wulfsdottir
Eagle Clan of the Tuchux
Christine Rudock
Christine Rudock
Terry Nutter
First, why do we care?
Because this is a kind of problem that can arise anywhere in the SCA,
over any groups, in large or small scale, and we're not very good at
handling it.
Liza wrote:
: >I do believe that what is meant is that if you are living in a house,
: >then you are responsible for the household members' actions. Especially
: >when retaliation will most likely occur if all members are not removed.
: >Liza
to which Ferret responded:
: Perhaps it is different where you live. I have found that when the police
: remove an individual (arrest) they do not collect eveyone in the residence.
: Also, individuals above 21 yoa are rarely held accountable for the actions
: of others. Marriage and other contracts of shared and limited
: responsibilities excluded. At least in the U.S. one cannot be held
: accountable for a crime committed by another _or_ because some beleives you
: will commit a crime in the future.
Both of them have a point.
There are obviously limits on the extent to which anyone is held responsible
for anyone else's actions. If a husband commits a murder without the wife's
knowledge or consent, they don't arrest the wift; if a child kills someone,
they don't arrest the parents.
OTOH, there certainly are situations in which one person's misbehavior
can get others in trouble. The simplest example, and the one probably most
relevant in this case, is that if several people are sharing a hotel room,
and there are repeated complaints concerning the behavior of people in
that room, the management has the right to pitch them all, whether or not
they were all involved.
They also have the right to forbid people or groups from using their
premises if there is a history that indicates to them a significant
risk of future bad behavior on the part of some members of that group.
Hotel owners are not normal landlords, and guests do not have the rights
of normal tenants. The same is true at campgrounds. Eviction from a
campground is not the same as conviction of a crime. It constitutes a
judgment that you are not welcome on someone else's property. Nothing in
our legal system guarantees that people will be welcome everywhere.
Certainly, to interpret 200 people as "in the same room" is, at best,
stretching a point. For that matter, to interpret 30 that was is the
same. Certainly, 30 people are not guilty because two people had a
noisy argument in the middle of the night that led to misunderstandings,
and 200 are not guilty because one person responded to those misunder-
standings with physical violence.
Had I been involved in deciding what to do, I would have argued against
the evictions. This was a clearly circumscribed incident, involving a
very small number of identified individuals. If any action needed to
be taken, it did not need to go beyond those individuals. The rest of
what I'm saying should not be taken as an argument that I think the
action was appropriate. (To say that someone is acting within his or
her rights -- especially if "rights" is construed legally -- is _not_
to say that s/he is acting appropriately. An awful lot of the time,
we have the legal right to act inappropriately.)
But there's another side to this. Groups that are associated with chronic
violations of various kinds _do_ get treated differently, in the real
world, from groups that are not. To make it clear to your members that
you won't tolerate the behaviors that bring on that kind of different
treatment is only common sense. If you're not willing (or able) to do
that, and if you let them continue to associate with you, you run all the
risks inherent in association with chronic offenders.
A few people's actions can have consequences for all the people they are
camping with. Whatever other moral issues are involved, there is a clear
issue of prudence here, that should govern both individuals inclined to
take actions that may precipitate this sort of thing ("Don't make trouble
that could get your group tossed") and groups to which such individuals
belong ("Warn people of the likely consequences of trouble, and don't
tolerate actions that lead to trouble, or people who habitually take
those actions, unless you are ready to pay the price of their deeds.")
In most jurisdictions, "drunk in public" is an offense, albeit not a very
serious one. Outside your tent, at Coopers Lake, you're in a public
campground. There are also ordinances governing noise late at night.
Avoiding very loud drunken quarrels in public areas in the wee hours
is just commone sense. Discouraging them among those you camp with is
likewise common sense (however you feel about your own sleep). If you
aren't willing to do that, you run certain risks.
The 'Chux play a game that, _within the game_, rewards stern physical
response to certain kinds of stimuli. That same kind of response,
_outside_ the game, can result in criminal charges. It is very important,
therefore, that the 'Chux make it clear _to each other_ where the game
ends*, and that things that they may praise when they are play will not
be tolerated when they are not. Potentially lethal attacks (blows to
the head, with a club) on unarmed people who are not at that moment
engaged in an aggressive action _ought_ to come under that rubric. If
you choose to praise such action, rather than to point out the lesser
actions that could better have achieved the intended goal, you run
certain risks.
I don't think that people are ultimately responsible for the actions of
others. I do think that, at least to some extent, they are responsible
for the risks they choose to run. Vlad's is well known for drinking. I
suspect that most people camping there could have predicted beforehand
a reasonably high probability of a late night drunken quarrel. Hereafter,
they may be more inclined to factor in what that might cost. Likewise,
most 'Chux are aware that there has been a pattern for years of nasty
confrontations between 'Chux and others, one reasonable description of
which is that the 'Chux continue to play their usual game whenever they
are at Coopers Lake, despite the clear knowledge that most of the others
there are playing a different and incompatible game. Perhaps hereafter
they too will be more inclined to consider that that may not come free.
-- Angharad/Terry
* If you want to convince people that you have a clear grip on where your
game begins and ends, it's a bad idea to go on an international forum and
claim that a chunk of public campground is your ancestral home. It's an
especially bad idea, when that notion doesn't make a whole lot of sense
in terms of the particular event at which you were camping there. It
gets worse, when you claim to have been camping there years longer than
it has been a campground. In fact, the way 'Chux have spoken on this
list about that chunk of ground suggests to me that the SCA has made a
mistake for many years in letting them camp there at SCA events, since
they seem unable to separate it from the 'Chux game, which may be a
perfectly wonderful game at 'Chux events, but is the wrong one at Pennsic.
ru...@paltech.com
>[big snip]
My lords and Ladies,
We are forgetting 1 thing.. in the Pre-Pennsic hanbook and in all the Pennsic
books there is the one rule... and that is the Main Site Rule:
" Cooper's Lake Campgound is a private property with the right to deny
admission without reason or cause of any kind. Infraction of the established
rules may result in curtailment of activites and/or expulstion from the site
without any refund of fees."
The Coopers have the right to ask anyone to leave their poperty for what ever
reason.
Christine Rudock
William H. Johnson
> In article <41d0r2$s...@access4.digex.net> co...@access4.digex.net (Corun MacAnndra) writes:
>
> >You don't get a vote, Ferret. You get a choice. To go or not. Until you
> >know the entire story, don't say things you'll later regret. Humble pie
> >is not as tasty as one might think.
>
> I "vote" by not giving money to a person(s) I find unethical and offensive.
> Coopers will be short my $200 I spent for the space and at the store. You
> want to call it boycot, that is acceptable.
> It is not the incident itself but the way the Coopers blamed 230 people for
> the actions of 6. That is IMHO a disgusting and pathetic act of cowardice
> and discrimination. _That_ is why I am not going back to Coopers.
>
> Ferret
Thank you, Ferrett, for being a person of honor and objective
reason. yours is a well reasoned argument, and one which should
be considered by all. What if, next year, Lord Butternuts of
the Blue feather decides he doesn't like his treatment by Lord
Nerdly and convinces the powers that be, based on the precedent
set this year, that all of Lord Nerdly's household be expelled
because Lord NERDLY clocked Lord Butternuts. Better yet, both
households get the boot because two drunken dudes duked it out.
This is what is going on here. Of course, maybe this is the
wave of the future. The way things have been going in the SCA
for the past few years, nothing that reeks of sheer stupidity
would surprise me.
tim.a...@hartford.com
Vivat! Vivat! Vivat!
This has been the most concise statement I have heard yet regarding this
incident. Due to respect for individuals' privacy, I doubt that the general
populace will ever know precisely what happened that illustrious night. By the
same token, the general populace has no demonstrated need to know. However,
those who were evicted should have been given some reason for the action. I am
aware of "eccentricities" on the part of both camps. While these help make
these camps beloved to some, myself included, they can also tend to get on
others' nerves. I genuinely missed the "Poodle Party" on Friday night. I am
also a rare creature in that I am a warranted marshal who believes that many of
the Tuchux have proven themselves skilled, and chivalrous, on the field of SCA
combat. Still, if an incident occurs on Dave Cooper's land, and he feels that
the individuals associated with the persons directly involved in the incident
pose a threat, he has the right to evict them. Just look at your Peensic
Handbook.
I do feel that it would be nice to here from the Coopers themselves how
this decision was reached. This was my tenth war. I have always found the
Coopers and their staff more than willing to be helpful and understanding. I
get the strong feeling that it's more than just the profit... They're
genuinely nice people, who have opened up their homes to the Knowne World for
two weeks a year. This is the first time an incident of this type AND
magnitude has occurred, to the best of my knowledge. I will reserve harsh
judgement until I am better informed.
In Service to the Society I Remain,
Ld. Timothy Nicholls of Clann MacQueen, CBC,BTF
Brian Flynn
> I find this tale of Vlad and his wife's highly suspicious. I
>come from a very clutzy family. Injuries in my family from unassisted
>tripping/falling accidents include a broken wrist, a broken elbow, broken
>fingers, and a shattered kneecap.
> However, none of the women in my family has ever given herself a
>black eye. Usually, this sort of injury is inflicted on one, possibly by
>a fist. This sounds like a classic wife-beating denial story to me.
This is disgraceful. Ygraine said she wasn't beaten. Vlad said he didn't
beat her. Without having personally witnessed abuse, nobody is in any
postition to make those kinds of accusations. Unless you intend to call their
honors into question, it is best to stop this line now.
Yes, I realize that a battered wife will frequently deny whats going on.
However, I also believe that being a victim is a choice. It only takes one
word ("HELP") to begin the ending. This is especially true in our Society
where there are more than enough willing people to answer the call. Yes,
it's harder for some to ask for help than others. That's life. False
accusations are not the answer.
If you think I'm being insensitive to the idea, you might be right. I also
might be right that you're being insensitive to honor and a person's word. I
guess it's all a question of which one you find more important.
Uther
Diana Parker
>In PA, aggravated assault is a felony. No one in either camp would come
>forward to name names or point fingers. Therefore they all aided and abbetted
>a felony.
Hmmmm? I don't think I've ever heard this definition of Aiding &
Abetting before.
Just because I won't tell any Joe Citizen or even a "Club
Representative" what I may know or not know about a crime to which I may
or may not have knowledge? At the most I would think you could push
Obstruction of Justice _IF_ I refused to answer an Officer of the Courts
legitimately investigating.
Worse yet is saying that they _all_ aided & abetted; no matter the
truth of the tales, I find it impossible to believe that all 200 or so
persons evicted had knowledge that warranted their coming forward to name
names or point the finger.
cheers
Tabitha (who thinks that the only three people who will ever know the
truth of the matter are Vlad, Ygraine & Dusty)
--
----------------------------------------------
Diana Parker par...@mcmaster.ca
Security Services CUC - 201
McMaster University (905) 525-9140 (x24282)
li...@dworld.org
Ariel Wrote:
IV>6. The Coopers do not make any attempt to dress their staff even moderately
IV> period attire. This is a pet peeve I am throwing in. They say it is
IV> because scrubs are distinctive. I can think of several ways they can do t
IV> same in a way that would allow even simple T-tunics.
Oh yes! This drives me up a bloody wall! IMHO this is a slap in the face
by the Coopers. To completely disregard the time periods that we are
trying to keep during Pennsic completely infuriates me. After all of
these years the most certainly should have made themselves some tabards
to distinguish themselves. How about a white tabard with a large green
dollar sign? That should satisfy them. Seriously though, they really
need to at more respectful to the ideals of Pennsic.
Yet, I can see how they do not care since the SCA doesn't seem to have
laid any laws down concerning such issues. Could someone tell me why
this is?
Thank you again Ariel. You seem to have stated many of my own points
before I had a chance to type them. ;}
_______________
Liza
Trimaris
}-:]
Lisa Steele
> Perhaps it is different where you live. I have found that when the police
> remove an individual (arrest) they do not collect eveyone in the residence.
> Also, individuals above 21 yoa are rarely held accountable for the actions
> of others. Marriage and other contracts of shared and limited
> responsibilities excluded. At least in the U.S. one cannot be held
> accountable for a crime committed by another _or_ because some beleives you
> will commit a crime in the future.
But I have found some sources to suggest that it is period. I just saw
a reference in a book on English fairs that discusses tossing out all of
the Genoese merchants because one had gotten into a brawl. Interesting, no.
--Esclarmonde
phil reed
>
>In article <41d0r2$s...@access4.digex.net> co...@access4.digex.net (Corun MacAnnd
>ra) writes:
>
>>You don't get a vote, Ferret. You get a choice. To go or not. Until you
>>know the entire story, don't say things you'll later regret. Humble pie
>>is not as tasty as one might think.
>
>I "vote" by not giving money to a person(s) I find unethical and offensive.
>Coopers will be short my $200 I spent for the space and at the store. You
>want to call it boycot, that is acceptable.
>It is not the incident itself but the way the Coopers blamed 230 people for
>the actions of 6. That is IMHO a disgusting and pathetic act of cowardice
>and discrimination. _That_ is why I am not going back to Coopers.
If you want to believe that the "wife beating" incident was the only
thing that lead to the expulsion, you are welcome to do so. You are,
however, wrong. It was the final in a continuing series of actions,
primarily caused by Tuchucks. (Did Vlad go up and urinate around the
Tuchuck camp? Not that I heard.)
Feel free to boycott Pennsic next year. Have a nice August.
>
>Ferret
--
...pilgrim
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form, in
whole or in part. Copyright, Phillip C. Reed, 1995. License to distribute this
post is available to Microsoft for $1,000. Appearance without permission
constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation to
Postm...@microsoft.com and p...@ic.net.
Grep trigger words: eWorks! OT7 IBM bomb
DAVID RAZLER
TA>. Still, if an
TA>incident occurs on Dave Cooper's land, and he feels that the
TA>individuals associated with the persons directly involved in the
incident
TA>t pose a threat, he has the right to evict them. Just look at your
TA>Peensic Handbook.
TA> I do feel that it would be nice to here from the Coopers
TA>themselves how this decision was reached. This was my tenth war. I
TA>have always found the Coopers and their staff more than willing to be
TA>helpful and understanding. I get the strong feeling that it's more
TA>than just the profit... They're genuinely nice people, who have
TA>opened up their homes to the Knowne World for two weeks a year. This
TA>is the first time an incident of this type AND magnitude has
TA>occurred, to the best of my knowledge. I will reserve harsh
TA> judgement until I am better informed. In Service to
TA> the Society I Remain, Ld. Timothy Nicholls of
TA>Clann MacQueen, CBC,BTF
No, the Coopers are landlords who have NO moral or ethical right to
throw people off land we have rented from them. It's our party, we rent
Cooper land and hire Cooper help, but Pennsic is not a Cooper event.
Now let's see what happened this year: Cindy Cooper told Longship
Trading Co. (merchants at Pennsic 'since Pennsic was dirt') "not to even
bother showing up" because Steve got his papers in late due to personal
matters (quotes are Steve's).
The Coopers threw people off a site WE rented from them en masse. We
did not hold a proper court ofchivalry to decide who had to go, they
took the matter out of our hands.
The Coopers decided that after bleeding us for all they could (like
making sure their store was the only place on site to buy food during
Landgrab Week and charging outrageous prices, in addition to $44 per
person spending an extra week lying around on ground that otherwise
would bring them no return) that we couldn't rent the land for a couple
of more days for recovery.
What we MUST do is renegotiate our contract with the Coopers, with
any luck, lining up a "backup site" contract first to give us leverage,
taking BACK the right to decide who attends OUR party, who caters it,
who can do business where and when, and setting them in their place as
rentors who should give us what we want before we leave them eating the
mortgage on their campground, one basically vacant during the rest of
the year.
WHO should have been thrown out is a decision WE should have made.
Now I have no particular love for either the 'chux or Vlad's little
oasis (except when the poodles get burned) because neither are properly
attempting period play. But that has nothing to do with the morally
obscene acts committed throwing them all out after a fight between a
few. [play with Diesel and Dust playing in the background turned way up]
LET'S TAKE IT BACK!
In Service
Aleksandr the Traveller
[david....@compudata.com]
Victor W. Wong
> No, the Coopers are landlords who have NO moral or ethical right to
> throw people off land we have rented from them. It's our party, we rent
> Cooper land and hire Cooper help, but Pennsic is not a Cooper event.
Mister, your grasp of the landlord/tenant relationship seems to be a bit
shaky. The Coopers OWN the land, they pay the taxes on it and maintain
it. This gives them the right to select who uses the land, the right to
collect a reasonable rent--and the right to evict ANYONE whom they consider
has misused their property or is a danger to others.
>
> Now let's see what happened this year: Cindy Cooper told Longship
> Trading Co. (merchants at Pennsic 'since Pennsic was dirt') "not to even
> bother showing up" because Steve got his papers in late due to personal
> matters (quotes are Steve's).
>
> The Coopers threw people off a site WE rented from them en masse. We
> did not hold a proper court ofchivalry to decide who had to go, they
> took the matter out of our hands.
Pardon me, but did you actually pay the Coopers money for the rent, or
did you pay it to the Pennsic organizers? If the former, you MAY have
a legitimate grievance and the right to collect a refund.
Also, if this is a dispute with the Coopers, it's a civil dispute--which
is NOT appropriate for a Court of Chivalry.
>
> The Coopers decided that after bleeding us for all they could (like
> making sure their store was the only place on site to buy food during
> Landgrab Week and charging outrageous prices, in addition to $44 per
> person spending an extra week lying around on ground that otherwise
> would bring them no return) that we couldn't rent the land for a couple
> of more days for recovery.
As I said, the Coopers own the land, and have the right to decide who
gets to use it--and for how long. They may have plans for other uses
of the land.
>
> What we MUST do is renegotiate our contract with the Coopers, with
> any luck, lining up a "backup site" contract first to give us leverage,
> taking BACK the right to decide who attends OUR party, who caters it,
> who can do business where and when, and setting them in their place as
> rentors who should give us what we want before we leave them eating the
> mortgage on their campground, one basically vacant during the rest of
> the year.
Now how sure are you that the Coopers don't have other campers using the
site during the year?
What's more, lining up a "backup site" would in all likelihood push the
cost of Pennsic up a very significant amount. The owner of the backup
site would require a deposit which would be forfeited should his site
not be used--if his site is a popular one, he needs compensation for
lost revenue.
Further, for the Coopers to surrender the right to select their tenants
would be a dangerous position indeed. What if someone does damage to
their property and the insurance people refuse to pay up, on the grounds
that they should have known such damage would be expected? Frankly,
what you propose would be seen by any decent lawyer as a golden
opportunity to screw them silly.
>
> WHO should have been thrown out is a decision WE should have made.
> Now I have no particular love for either the 'chux or Vlad's little
> oasis (except when the poodles get burned) because neither are properly
> attempting period play. But that has nothing to do with the morally
> obscene acts committed throwing them all out after a fight between a
> few. [play with Diesel and Dust playing in the background turned way up]
The Coopers have observed trouble with these two groups before. They would
be within their rights to evict them if they foresaw further trouble.
Let's suppose they did nothing after the Dusty Vlad incident. How sure are
they that this conflict wouldn't escalate--and that both groups would
exercise enough self-control to let the incident be in the past--AND that
other SCAdians wouldn't feel obligated to "avenge" either party? Based
on the comments on the Rialto--especially among Pennsic attendees who
weren't even there--I am not sure further and more serious incidents wouldn't
take place.
>
> LET'S TAKE IT BACK!
> In Service
> Aleksandr the Traveller
> [david....@compudata.com]
ษอออออออออป
บ8 8 8 8 8บ VINCENT THE CALCULATOR
ฬอออออออออน mka Victor Wong
บ8 8 8 8 8บ ah...@freenet.carleton.ca
บ8 8 8 8 8บ Barony of Skraeling Althing, Ealdormere
ศอออออออออผ
--
Copyright (C) 1995 Victor W. Wong. All rights reserved.
Fellwalker
: DAVID RAZLER (david....@compudata.com) writes:
: > No, the Coopers are landlords who have NO moral or ethical right to
: > throw people off land we have rented from them. It's our party, we rent
: > Cooper land and hire Cooper help, but Pennsic is not a Cooper event.
: Mister, your grasp of the landlord/tenant relationship seems to be a bit
: shaky. The Coopers OWN the land, they pay the taxes on it and maintain
: it. This gives them the right to select who uses the land, the right to
: collect a reasonable rent--and the right to evict ANYONE whom they consider
: has misused their property or is a danger to others.
If the situation were truly one of landlord/tenant, the Coopers would
have to go through a, possibly lengthy, legal process to evict anyone from
the premises. (Going by my personal experiences in not being able to have
to police remove _guests_ of a (house) tenent, and get the tenent himself
(who was stinking drunk) to stop throwing broken wine glasses into the
bottom of my pool (amoung other things).
I think it's a little simplistic to try to define the Coopers/SCA
Pennsic actions justifiable/unjustifiable even as a commercial
landlord/tenent relationship, without knowing what sort of contract (if
any, I've heard that there may not be one....in which case they could do
any damn thing they want and we have no right to complain because we're
STUPID) there was.
Unless you know the specific terms under which the SCA uses the site,
there's no use debating whether anyone had any right to evict anyone. If
there is a contract it _should_ spell out under what situations, if any,
evictions can take place.
AND...unless you know WHO did the evicting (which has been variously
been reported to be 1) The Coopers, acting without the SCA "authorities"
2) The Coopers and the SCA together, this converstaion is even MORE
pointless.
--Max
--
-- ...with rings on her fingers and bells on her toes... <des...@netcom.com>
Sleepy Cat Graphis http://emporium.turnpike.net/Z/zen/index.html
P.O. Box 608048 - The Church of Zen Fatalism -
San Diego, CA 92160 Artful Things Gallery
HaMizrachi
I believe the decision to dress Coopers in scrubs instead of garb stems
from the desire to have them stand out. Keep in mind that the Coopers are
not part of the game. Having them recognizably not so is deemed a good
thing.
Obviously, reasonable folks may disagree with this philosophy. It is not,
however, inteded as a slap.
Yaakov