Petition?
Robert Bezold
I must confess, I read much of it with my jaw gaping. I've never seen
the like.
I'm curious. Are there any here on this BBS who are planning on signing
the petition? Not trying to start a war here, or asking anyone to take
sides. Just looking for a little more enlightenment on the matter.
For my part, I won't sign it. I cannot help but feel that the BOD's
decision may have had some merit. I find it hard to believe that such a
large number of people from all over the country are all either
dishonest or out to "get" Count Avelock.
I could be wrong, of course, which is why Im interested in hearing other
people's opinions.
Deann Allen
>
> I just read http://scaoubliete.com
>
> I must confess, I read much of it with my jaw gaping. I've never
> seen the like.
I would like to read it, but the link comes up as "no DNS entry."
D.
--
Dear Mr. President: Find them. Annihilate them. Root and branch.
-----------------------------------------
Todd Rich
> Robert Bezold wrote:
>>
>> I just read http://scaoubliete.com
>>
>> I must confess, I read much of it with my jaw gaping. I've never
>> seen the like.
> [snip]
> I would like to read it, but the link comes up as "no DNS entry."
That is because it was misspelled. It is actually at
http://scaoubliette.com/ However it looks like the petition section is
gone for the moment. The site also has undergone a format revision since
yesterday afternoon.
Torin
Deann Allen
>
> Deann Allen <dal...@pcisys.net> wrote:
> > Robert Bezold wrote:
> >>
> >> I just read http://scaoubliete.com
> >>
> >> I must confess, I read much of it with my jaw gaping. I've never
> >> seen the like.
> > [snip]
>
> > I would like to read it, but the link comes up as "no DNS entry."
>
> That is because it was misspelled. It is actually at
> http://scaoubliette.com/ However it looks like the petition
> section is gone for the moment. The site also has undergone a
> format revision since yesterday afternoon.
Thank you.
Ted Eisenstein
>>> I would like to read it, but the link comes up as "no DNS entry."
>>
>> That is because it was misspelled. It is actually at
>> http://scaoubliette.com/ However it looks like the petition
>> section is gone for the moment. The site also has undergone a
>> format revision since yesterday afternoon.
. . .or do as I needed to do: add "www." just after the double slashes. . .
Alban
Todd Rich
> Alban
Well, trying it for the heck of it, I don't see the petition there now
either using the www. And the two links that are there drop the www. for
their URLs.
Torin
Anthony J. Bryant
> I just read http://scaoubliete.com
>
> I must confess, I read much of it with my jaw gaping. I've never seen
> the like.
>
Likewise. When I saw the tenor of some of the responses (many of the
variety we in the media used to call "non-denial denials") I was stunned.
>
> I'm curious. Are there any here on this BBS who are planning on signing
> the petition? Not trying to start a war here, or asking anyone to take
> sides. Just looking for a little more enlightenment on the matter.
>
Not a snowball's chance in the Sahara.
Effingham
Duncan VH
it sounds like people are nitpicking and making a big deal out of every little
thing this person has ever done wrong. Some of it is represented olmost as
"hearsay". I'm going to keep reading it, it sounds very interesting.
Duncan
R Lindberg / E Winnie
>
> Likewise. When I saw the tenor of some of the responses (many of the
> variety we in the media used to call "non-denial denials") I was stunned.
>
Correct
You need to read the information carefully as there is interesting "word
smithing" going on. Like the item about the cannon, were it is carefully
pointed out that a cannon is not fireworks, forgetting it is a fire-arm
and a source of fire (there was also severe restrictions on fire, due to
the fire danger).
Also not all the "word smithing" does not appear to be being done by
Aveloc. The event he is accused of having improper relations with a minor
appears to have been held on the same weekend as he was winning AnTir's
Crown, many, many miles appart.
Ralg
-----
Ralph Lindberg N7BSN <n7...@amsat.org> ICQ#5988954
RV and Camping FAQ <http://kendaco.telebyte.net/rlindber/rv/>
Cry bother and loose the Pooh's of War
Unknown
the accusers is simply an error in counting - the Lilies War where the
lake incident took place was five years ago, not three - either a
mistake was made in recalling how many years ago the thing happened,
or the counting was done from an earlier date, like when the
recollection was actually written out. Weaseling out like that just
seems typical of the non-answers made to most of the allegations.
Avraham
xaviar
everyones attention. I just conclude that the BOD did what they thought best
for the SCA. As to his guilt on said charges, they are not any of my business,
nor anyone else's on this newsgroup to decide. I was amazed at the length of
the charges, I had no idea they would have tolerated such things for so long.
To the Count, all i can say is I dont know you...sorry and good luck, bye.
Xaviar
Matthew House
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102012...@mail.telebyte.com:
> Also not all the "word smithing" does not appear to be being done by
> Aveloc. The event he is accused of having improper relations with a
> minor appears to have been held on the same weekend as he was winning
> AnTir's Crown, many, many miles appart.
>
> Ralg
>
This is what worries me about the whole thing. It's really, really vauge.
Lots of second and third hand evidence, no hard and fast, "he was at
_this_ event, here is the attendance, here is the personal report of an
eyewitness _not_ affiliated with anyone involved, etc,etc... the lack of
opportunity for rebuttal is disturbing as well.
The other thing I noticed is that the same names keep popping up among
the accusers... who tend to have a lack of evidence to support thier
claim, or the evidence is all of the he said/she said variety.
I'd hate to be in this guy's shoes.... and with the current system, it
could happen. Even if I never did anything... I'm not saying he's
innocent. ( or guilty, the water's too cloudy). resonable doubt on the
other hand, yes.
basically, I'm concerned that The BOD did this with such little hard
evidence. And even if he _is_ an asshole, it's not like it's a crime.
another thing that concerns me. If this Aveloc critter is all that they
claim, why has he survived this long? why hasn't someone "dealt with
him" if he's such a horrbile person? I would think that if he were half
the devil they claim, somebody would have done something long before
now...
Regards,
Matthew House.
Greycat Sharpclaw
> However it looks like the petition section is
>gone for the moment. The site also has undergone a format revision since
>yesterday afternoon.
Indeed; I cannot find many of the allegations on it at this time,
including allegations being talked about elsewhere in this thread.
------
Emrys Cador
Barony of Settmour Swamp
East Kingdom
Remove "nospam" in the address to reply
Dennis O'Connor
> This is what worries me about the whole thing. It's really, really vauge.
> Lots of second and third hand evidence, no hard and fast, "he was at
> _this_ event, here is the attendance, here is the personal report of an
> eyewitness _not_ affiliated with anyone involved, etc,etc... the lack of
> opportunity for rebuttal is disturbing as well.
Well, you aren't getting the BoD's side of it, are you ?
I was called once by a BoD member WRT some issues they
were investigating. It was clear that that BoD member, at least,
was only interested in direct knowledge and first-hand eye-witness
testimony (which was all I was interested in relating as well).
Now, that doesn't speak to the current situation. But the
same concerns about the BoD were voiced then as now,
and I know that for that BoD member then, there was
no need to worry.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
We don't become a rabid dog to destroy a rabid dog.
Drew Nicholson
I cannot sign it because I have only seen 1/2 the evidence. Whether or not
that is fair, or engineered by the BOD, I cannot say, because, again, I have
not seen all of the evidence.
Aveloc's statements ring true. OTOH, I've seen people do things and then
deny it in front of witnesses. My three year old son, for instance... :P
--
purple
********************************
Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now!
It is better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies. --Arthur
Calwell
"Deann Allen" <dal...@pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:3C551438...@pcisys.net...
Matthew House
news:a3544s$14p0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net:
> "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote ...
>> This is what worries me about the whole thing. It's really, really
>> vauge. Lots of second and third hand evidence, no hard and fast, "he
>> was at _this_ event, here is the attendance, here is the personal
>> report of an eyewitness _not_ affiliated with anyone involved,
>> etc,etc... the lack of opportunity for rebuttal is disturbing as well.
>
> Well, you aren't getting the BoD's side of it, are you ?
no I'm not. but looking at the "charges" alone,
<qoute>
Information was received from Duncan of Skeene concerning an incident at
Lilies war some three years ago, when it is alleged that during a fight
you held a fighter’s head under the water.
<endqoute>
now I could _say_ that I saw you hit Effingham ( hi Eff!). but until
Effingham came foreward and said,"yes, Dennis hit me.", the BOD wouldn't
have much to go on, now would they?
>
> I was called once by a BoD member WRT some issues they
> were investigating. It was clear that that BoD member, at least,
> was only interested in direct knowledge and first-hand eye-witness
> testimony (which was all I was interested in relating as well).
sounds like that issue was handled properly. This one does not seem to be
so clear cut. It's murky, and I don't like it. It reeks of politics, or
_something_
>
> Now, that doesn't speak to the current situation. But the
> same concerns about the BoD were voiced then as now,
> and I know that for that BoD member then, there was
> no need to worry.
> --
> Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
> We don't become a rabid dog to destroy a rabid dog.
>
>
I'd like to clarify one thing. I'm not saying that I think this Aveloc is
innocent. I _don't_ know. What I do know, is that from the data I've
gathered ( read all of that site, paying particular attention to what the
BOD accused Aveloc on, and on what grounds the accused him, I spoke with
folks from An Tir, and I read his side of the arguement.), something isn't
right...
I think the process that the BOD normally uses has been short circuted
somehow....
one other question comes to mind. Assuming that half of what Aveloc stands
accused of is true, why hasn't somebody knocked him in the head with a
brick? I mean if he's such a horrible creature, surely he must have enemies
of according stature, who having become greatly tired of aveloc, decided to
make mince of him in a parking lot somewhere...
Or is this _exactly_ what's happening? Assasination by proxy?
I don't know, but I'd really like to. there are waaay to many holes in the
way the BOD handled this for me to be comfortable...
Dennis O'Connor
> > were investigating. It was clear that that BoD member, at least,
> > was only interested in direct knowledge and first-hand eye-witness
> > testimony (which was all I was interested in relating as well).
>
> sounds like that issue was handled properly. This one does not seem
> to be so clear cut. It's murky, and I don't like it. It reeks of politics,
> or _something_
But again, you've only heard the accused's side.
The Ranger
[Snip-O'-Matic employed]
>I think the process that the BOD normally uses has been short
>circuted somehow....
I'd like to keep on believing that the BOD has the Society's best interests
in mind (and at heart).
>one other question comes to mind. Assuming that half of what
>Aveloc stands accused of is true, why hasn't somebody knocked
>him in the head with a brick? I mean if he's such a horrible creature,
>surely he must have enemies of according stature, who having
>become greatly tired of aveloc, decided to make mince of him in
>a parking lot somewhere...
Or "T-H-E-Y" still believed in the System (that was in place) and used it
the way it was meant. We don't know, nor are we likely to find out.
>I don't know, but I'd really like to. there are waaay to many holes
>in the way the BOD handled this for me to be comfortable...
Until such time as the "evidence" is presented as public information, I do
not think you need worry needlessly over this. I would bet that in three
months Aveloc is less than a memory, let alone a bane to the SCA.
The Ranger
Matthew House
<qoute from me>
> I'd like to clarify one thing. I'm not saying that I think this Aveloc
> is innocent. I _don't_ know. What I do know, is that from the data I've
> gathered ( read all of that site, paying particular attention to what
> the BOD accused Aveloc on, and on what grounds the accused him, I spoke
> with folks from An Tir, and I read his side of the arguement.),
Hmmm, read what the BOD accused him of, read his response, talked to some
folks from An Tir... only one of the sources mentioned is the accused...
I'm sorry to be disagreeable Dennis, but I _did_ try to find out what
other folks have to say about it... And wierdly enough, out of the 3 An
Tir folk I've cornered, none have had anything nasty to say about this
guy... granted, none of them claimed to know him very well either...
I'm not saying He's innocent, I'm saying the whole thing was done poorly,
and with bad judgement. Of course, if someone with hard data, wants to
show otherwise....
Matthew House
news:a35ahn$15e4p9$1...@ID-61173.news.dfncis.de:
> Matthew House worried (endlessly):
> [Snip-O'-Matic employed]
>>I think the process that the BOD normally uses has been short circuted
>>somehow....
>
> I'd like to keep on believing that the BOD has the Society's best
> interests in mind (and at heart).
so would I. Two things bother me. 1. Everyone can be fooled. 2. Lack of
due process. some of those "charges" wouldn't hold up in kindergarten,
others should have been delt with long ago, given the severity( assuming
the charges are true).
>
>>one other question comes to mind. Assuming that half of what
>>Aveloc stands accused of is true, why hasn't somebody knocked
>>him in the head with a brick? I mean if he's such a horrible creature,
>>surely he must have enemies of according stature, who having become
>>greatly tired of aveloc, decided to make mince of him in a parking lot
>>somewhere...
>
> Or "T-H-E-Y" still believed in the System (that was in place) and used
> it the way it was meant. We don't know, nor are we likely to find out.
nah, everywhere you go, there with be at least 2 dipshits who wont work
within the system. Usually they can be found at each other's throats.
and given that a number of said charges involved "improper conduct" with
a lady, someone is _bound_ to loose their temper...
>
>>I don't know, but I'd really like to. there are waaay to many holes in
>>the way the BOD handled this for me to be comfortable...
>
> Until such time as the "evidence" is presented as public information, I
> do not think you need worry needlessly over this. I would bet that in
> three months Aveloc is less than a memory, let alone a bane to the SCA.
>
> The Ranger
It isn't Aveloc I'm worried about. It's the next guy. or me, or you...
Anthony J. Bryant
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:
>
> >
> > Likewise. When I saw the tenor of some of the responses (many of the
> > variety we in the media used to call "non-denial denials") I was stunned.
> >
> Correct
>
> You need to read the information carefully as there is interesting "word
> smithing" going on. Like the item about the cannon, were it is carefully
> pointed out that a cannon is not fireworks, forgetting it is a fire-arm
> and a source of fire (there was also severe restrictions on fire, due to
> the fire danger).
>
> Also not all the "word smithing" does not appear to be being done by
> Aveloc. The event he is accused of having improper relations with a minor
> appears to have been held on the same weekend as he was winning AnTir's
> Crown, many, many miles appart.
>
Don't forget the denial of "some three years ago at Estrella" being in the
form of "I wasn't at Estrella three years ago." Okay, how about FOUR years
ago, when the event actually is supposed to have happened? Not a word.
Effingham
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> now I could _say_ that I saw you hit Effingham ( hi Eff!).
(Hi back! <G>)
> but until
> Effingham came foreward and said,"yes, Dennis hit me.", the BOD wouldn't
> have much to go on, now would they?
>
Well, as a matter of fact... <G>
Effingham
Matthew House
@indiana.edu:
they would? how odd...
>
>
>
> Effingham
>
>
>
nice to "see" you.
I'm just really concerned about how this was handled.
Dennis O'Connor
Oh, please, don't be like that: I never am. :-)
> but I _did_ try to find out what
> other folks have to say about it... And wierdly enough, out of the 3 An
> Tir folk I've cornered, none have had anything nasty to say about this
> guy... granted, none of them claimed to know him very well either...
I doubt, then, that any of them were closely tied
to the process, which means your next statement:
> I'm not saying He's innocent, I'm saying the whole
> thing was done poorly, and with bad judgement.
.. is a conclusion too hastily drawn.
> Of course, if someone with hard data, wants to show otherwise....
So, is the BoD presumed guilty until proven innocent ?
You do seem to be taking that position, y'know.
The BoD is people too, and like our good Kings and Queens,
they sacrifice and suffer much to serve the SCA. I think
you are not being fair to them by presuming, on so little data,
that they were not fair to Count Aveloc.
Really, the best thing to do when you have too little data
to support a conclusion is to simply not come to one.
If there was some _need_ for me to decide who was
in the wrong in this case, I would do so. But for me
here in Atenveldt I see no such need. People in An Tir
will see it somewhat differently, of course.
Dennis O'Connor
> Matthew House wrote:
> > now I could _say_ that I saw you hit Effingham ( hi Eff!).
>
> (Hi back! <G>)
.. dressed all in white, kneeling before the shiny steel
doors, with the little up arrow glowing, waiting for the
doors to slide open and the Elevation to occur ...
<ding> <woosh> ...
> > but until Effingham came foreward and said,"yes, Dennis hit me.",
> > the BOD wouldn't have much to go on, now would they?
>
> Well, as a matter of fact... <G>
Tease! Now you are morally obliged to come up with
something clever and _true_ to finish that line with.
Christofe DuBois
If they are not, then the wording on the accusations are in question, as
they were posted by the defendant...
-Christofe DuBois
Owner, THE HUNT
http://www.schaunt.com
"Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91A52A949BFCm...@64.8.1.226...
Unknown
evidence" that you seem to believe. It is only the charges (and, it
appears, only snippets of the charges, not the coherent whole)
*without* the evidence to support them. I don't believe the BOD would
or could R&D someone without actual evidence to back up the
allegations made in the charges.
As far as why he's lasted this long - charisma goes a long way
anywhere, and tolerance a particularly long way in the SCA.
Avraham
Jim Grunst
Equally distasteful- the urge on my part to click on the link,
to go to that site and read it.Shame on ME.
It is not much better than gossip it seems to me.Suggestive, salacious.
From what I could see there, some of these allegations
are from 10 years before.It seems to me that it is difficult,
if not near impossible to defend oneself from accusations that old.
I wonder how this would have played out in an actual courtroom,
in front of an actual judge, rather than a board that only plays
at 'law' ?
If the guy did some of what is stated, then why have no criminal
charges been brought? It all seems kind of fishy to me.
Jim Grunst
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
R Lindberg / E Winnie
> Are the charges posted elsewhere (other than the 'free Aveloc' site)?
>
> If they are not, then the wording on the accusations are in question, as
> they were posted by the defendant...
>
They are not. The BoD never releases anything about an R&D, other then
they did one.
R Lindberg / E Winnie
> http://scaoubliette.com. Two Ts, not one.
>
> I cannot sign it because I have only seen 1/2 the evidence. Whether or not
> that is fair, or engineered by the BOD, I cannot say, because, again, I have
> not seen all of the evidence.
>
The BoD doesn't release the info and charges that lead to an R&D. So
the only source would be the person sanctioned.
> Aveloc's statements ring true. OTOH, I've seen people do things and then
> deny it in front of witnesses. My three year old son, for instance... :P
>
Or come up with excuses, or dodge the evidence (both of which you see in
some of the charges).
At the same time, some of the charges are clearly refuted (although the
info may not be on the web-site). I've seen the refutes, like from the
former Kingdom Seneschal.
R Lindberg / E Winnie
> "Dennis O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> wrote in
> news:a3544s$14p0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net:
>
> >
> > I was called once by a BoD member WRT some issues they
> > were investigating. It was clear that that BoD member, at least,
> > was only interested in direct knowledge and first-hand eye-witness
> > testimony (which was all I was interested in relating as well).
>
> sounds like that issue was handled properly. This one does not seem to be
> so clear cut. It's murky, and I don't like it. It reeks of politics, or
> _something_
>
Probably the "somthing". I've been in the process on several R&Ds, in my
experience they require real solid evidence. Like court convictions.
For all we know they had additional evidence, that they didn't discuss
the HE Aveloc as he couldn't refute it. It's also possible they don't, we
simply don't know.
One additional possibility is that the R&D was for past actions and
protecting the SCA from his future actions. Again, since the BoD doesn't
release anything, we will never know.
>
> I'd like to clarify one thing. I'm not saying that I think this Aveloc is
> innocent. I _don't_ know. What I do know, is that from the data I've
> gathered ( read all of that site, paying particular attention to what the
> BOD accused Aveloc on, and on what grounds the accused him, I spoke with
> folks from An Tir, and I read his side of the arguement.), something isn't
> right...
>
But don't you also say the AnTirians you've spoken to don't -know- him?
Or what went on?
Happen's I'm an AnTirian, and do know him. I've also spoken with people
that know him better then I do (former members of his court, etc).
The over all feeling appears to be, he has done some things that he
should be sanctioned for. But from what they know, they think the R&D is
excessive.
But they admit, they may not know everything.
> I think the process that the BOD normally uses has been short circuted
> somehow....
>
Or that we only know -part- of what went on?
> one other question comes to mind. Assuming that half of what Aveloc stands
> accused of is true, why hasn't somebody knocked him in the head with a
> brick? I mean if he's such a horrible creature, surely he must have enemies
> of according stature, who having become greatly tired of aveloc, decided to
> make mince of him in a parking lot somewhere...
>
> Or is this _exactly_ what's happening? Assasination by proxy?
>
Maybe, he is well "known" in more then one kingdom.
> I don't know, but I'd really like to. there are waaay to many holes in the
> way the BOD handled this for me to be comfortable...
>
Again, or way to many holes in our -knowledge- of how the BoD handled
this.
Malachias Invictus
"Dennis O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:a3544s$14p0$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote ...
> > This is what worries me about the whole thing. It's really, really
vauge.
> > Lots of second and third hand evidence, no hard and fast, "he was at
> > _this_ event, here is the attendance, here is the personal report of an
> > eyewitness _not_ affiliated with anyone involved, etc,etc... the lack of
> > opportunity for rebuttal is disturbing as well.
>
> Well, you aren't getting the BoD's side of it, are you ?
...nor will you. Unfortunately, publishing such exposes the SCA to a
potential suit for defamation. The cost of such litigation to the SCA would
be considerable, even if every single accusation was easily proven as
completely true. Thus, there is a policy of not publishing specific
evidence and accusations. It sucks, but this is a damned-if-you-do,
damned-if-you-don't situation. They may very well have stronger evidence
than is being presented by that (obviously one-sided) web page. It is not
particularly relevant that there may be tons of unsubstantiated claims; if
there are sufficient *substantiated* claims and credible evidence to support
a banishment, then the banishment should go through.
For my part, I do not know the man, nor the specifics of any allegations
(with the exception of the cannon incident). However, I *do* know that what
the petition asks for is completely ridiculous. Read it carefully, if you
are thinking about signing it. Pay particular attention to the final
paragraph.
Malachias
Malachias Invictus
"Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91A52A949BFCm...@64.8.1.226...
Well, that applies to judges, juries, and legislators, as well as everyone
else who has any significant effect on your life. You must be "bothered"
often.
> 2. Lack of due process.
You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
> some of those "charges"
...as presented solely by the Defense...
> wouldn't hold up in kindergarten, others should have been delt
> with long ago, given the severity( assuming the charges are true).
They say that a great deal about rape and molestation victims as well, yet
when someone finally gets the courage up to make an accusation, often other
victims come forward. In addition, you do not have access to the evidence
the BoD used to make its determination, so you are arguing from a position
of ignorance.
> >>one other question comes to mind. Assuming that half of what
> >>Aveloc stands accused of is true, why hasn't somebody knocked
> >>him in the head with a brick? I mean if he's such a horrible creature,
> >>surely he must have enemies of according stature, who having become
> >>greatly tired of aveloc, decided to make mince of him in a parking lot
> >>somewhere...
> >
> > Or "T-H-E-Y" still believed in the System (that was in place) and used
> > it the way it was meant. We don't know, nor are we likely to find out.
>
> nah, everywhere you go, there with be at least 2 dipshits who wont work
> within the system. Usually they can be found at each other's throats.
> and given that a number of said charges involved "improper conduct" with
> a lady, someone is _bound_ to loose their temper...
So, your argument is "He must be innocent, because he was never lynched," is
it?
Malachias
Robert A. Uhl
>
> I would bet that in three months Aveloc is less than a memory, let
> alone a bane to the SCA.
Doesn't that worry you? That a man can be cast down and forgotten so
soon? That he may actually be innocent? `In a hundred years no one
will remember' doesn't, to me, seem a good excuse.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Marriage, n: The state or condition of a community consisting of a master,
a mistress, and two slaves, making, in all, two. --Ambrose Bierce
Malachias Invictus
<Avraham> wrote in message
news:pv5d5ucpsrai6kc1o...@4ax.com...
> As far as why he's lasted this long - charisma goes a long way
> anywhere, and tolerance a particularly long way in the SCA.
...and people are very reluctant to accuse people who may just be their next
King.
Malachias
Robert A. Uhl
>
> So, is the BoD presumed guilty until proven innocent?
Governments always are:-)
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Drawing on my extensive covert operations training I curled up into a
foetal postion and whimpered.
Robert A. Uhl
<Pine.LNX.4.10.102012...@mail.telebyte.com>, R
Lindberg / E Winnie wrote:
>
> Probably the "something". I've been in the process on several
> R&Ds, in my experience they require real solid evidence. Like court
> convictions.
This is what's worrying--what's `real solid evidence'? There's a
wonderful book entitled The Shadow University (by Kors & Silverglate)
which covers some of the appalling practices in our academic
institutions. One of the sections investigates academic courts and
hilights the terrible things which happpen therein.
The entire history of Anglo-American jurisprudence exists for a
reason. The right to confront one's accusers in court. Rules of
evidence. Right to counsel. Right to a public trial. Et cetera
ceteraque ad infinitum. There's a _reason_ we have all these things.
People lie, they dissemble, they forget.
Insomuchas it is practical, an organisation should pattern its
judicial system after the real world's. The results of judicial error
are not as great in the real world--expulsion from a club stands small
next to imprisonment and death--but they are no less wrong.
> For all we know they had additional evidence, that they didn't
> discuss the HE Aveloc as he couldn't refute it.
This sentence doesn't scan--do you mean that they didn'tm discuss it
with him because he would be unable to refute it? This is very wrong:
one should know _all_ the evidence against one, and confront one's
accusers before the court. One who can write a very convincing lie in
a letter may break down in public.
Or do you mean that he didn't discuss it? This is certainly possible.
Anyone can present his own case in a favourable light. This is
another reason for publicity: so that the public can feel that what is
done is appropriate. No doubt the court of Star Chamber achieved some
good. But it sure didn't look like it. Why hide that which is not
shameful?
> Again, or way to many holes in our -knowledge- of how the BoD handled
> this.
Which is why these things should not be secret. Then each man can
come to his own conclusions, and the great body of men can acclaim or
censure the actions of the BoD. Secrecy is for those who are ashamed,
not those who are proud.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Who does not love wine, women, and song,
Remains a fool his whole life long.
--Johann Heinrich Voss
Jay and Diane Rudin
> so would I. Two things bother me. 1. Everyone can be fooled. 2. Lack of
> due process. some of those "charges" wouldn't hold up in kindergarten,
> others should have been delt with long ago, given the severity( assuming
> the charges are true).
We haven't seen the charges or the evidence. We've only seen the request
for more information about them. We cannot honestly and fairly draw any
conclusion from charges and evidence that we haven't seen. The process was
(properly) done behind closed doors. We therefore haven't seen the process,
so we can draw no honest conclusion about whether there was "due process".
The only thing we can draw any conclusions from is Aveloc's responses to the
request for more information. And what stands out most in my mind is this:
If I were accused of having sex with a minor named so-and-so at an event, I
wouldn't say I didn't recognize that mundane name, I'd say I have never had
sex with a minor. If I had been accused of holding another fighter's head
under water, I wouldn't ask what SCA event has water on the field, I would
say I have never held any fighter's head under water at any event. If I
were accused of threatening an officer, I wouldn't appeal to somebody else
at the event, I would say I have never threatened an officer. If I were
accused of not providing a report, I would provide the report. That's what
I would do, because I am innocent. I would deny, categorically, the
substance of the charges.
There is a way of answering charges when they are false and you want the
whole truth to come out, and there is a way of answering charges when they
are true and you want to keep them unproven. Which did his answers look
like?
His answers read like the Jesuit who, accused of murdering three men and a
dog, triumphantly produced the dog alive. "Did you do horrible deed X at
Lilies around three years ago?" "I wasn't at Lilies exactly three years
ago." I would expect an innocent man to say, "No, I never did X".
This is not evidence that proves his guilt, but he provided no evidence of
his own innocence.
None of his answers read the way I expect an innocent man to answer.
No, I don't know the truth of it. But based on the evidence I have seen, I
have no justification for assuming the BoD did anything wrong or unfair.
Until some evidence for that shows up, any attacks on the BoD's actions seem
unwarranted.
What about attacks on Aveloc's actions? I haven't seen the evidence; I
can't be sure. If he is innocent, then I strongly recommend that the
answers on this website be radically re-written. If he is innocent, then
these answers are doing him a grave disservice, because he never once denies
the substance of the charges.
Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
Robert A. Uhl
<56c6b1ce9ecee96de05...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Jim
Grunst wrote:
>
> Frankly, I find the whole thing rather distasteful. Shame on them.
Why? You're booted from a club, one that you obviously care about.
And it's shameful to try to present your side of the story?
> Equally distasteful--the urge on my part to click on the link, to go
> to that site and read it. Shame on ME.
What--you're ashamed that you've tried to educate yourself regarding a
situation? Better issue masks at libraries, then.
> From what I could see there, some of these allegations are from 10
> years before. It seems to me that it is difficult, if not near
> impossible to defend oneself from accusations that old.
Hence, among other reasons, why in the mundane world we have statutes
of limitations.
I've no opinion on the guy's guilt or innocence. My opinion is solely
concerning the process. Which sucks.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
In France, they're having trouble translating a lot of Internet terms
into French. In France the law is you have to use French words. For
example, there are no French words for surfing the Web, there aren't any
French words for chat session, and there aren't any French words for
hacker. Of course, a lot of other words don't translate to French
either: military victory, deodorant... --Jay Leno
Ester Mendes
> I wonder how this would have played out in an actual courtroom,
> in front of an actual judge, rather than a board that only plays
> at 'law' ?
My guess... the judge would be appalled, given the documented history
of misconduct and harrassment that we hadn't booted the individual
earlier.
Senhora Ester Mendes
(Kirsti Thomas)
ce...@drizzle.com
Lugh
"Robert Bezold" <rbe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9341-3C5...@storefull-2171.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I just read http://scaoubliete.com
>
>
> For my part, I won't sign it. I cannot help but feel that the BOD's
> decision may have had some merit. I find it hard to believe that such a
> large number of people from all over the country are all either
> dishonest or out to "get" Count Avelock.
>
> I could be wrong, of course, which is why Im interested in hearing other
> people's opinions.
>
FWIW......
Most people do hoist themselves by their own petard. I hoisted mine (was
rhino-hiding, and pulled myself).
Now, understand that I have met his grace Aveloc twice. One of those he was
an ass. The next, a perfect gentleman. And for my part, two meetings do not
give me enough to form a full opinion on a person. Also, one of my first and
truest friends in the SCA was a man-at-arms to one of Aveloc's Squires at
one time.
Lugh
--
No information is any better than the assumptions of those who gather it.
(paraphrased)
Theodore Roszak
v1.2a r TW 0/0/r tG 0- 0 DSotM 2 0 44.7% <17aug1>
Jim Grunst
>
> Why? You're booted from a club, one that you obviously care about.
> And it's shameful to try to present your side of the story?
>
No, IMHO it's too bad that this dirty laundry has to be aired
in public.
>
> > From what I could see there, some of these allegations are from 10
> > years before. It seems to me that it is difficult, if not near
> > impossible to defend oneself from accusations that old.
>
> Hence, among other reasons, why in the mundane world we have statutes
> of limitations.
Yes- in the mundane world, in a real court of LAW,
many of htese accusations would not have been admissable.
The guy's gotten railroaded, from the sounds of it.
At least, from what I read on the web page.
I wasnt aware of who put this web page up tho, and it IS
(possibly) biased.
Robert A. Uhl
>
> If I were accused of having sex with a minor named so-and-so at an event, I
> wouldn't say I didn't recognize that mundane name, I'd say I have never had
> sex with a minor. If I had been accused of holding another fighter's head
> under water, I wouldn't ask what SCA event has water on the field, I would
> say I have never held any fighter's head under water at any event. If I
> were accused of threatening an officer, I wouldn't appeal to somebody else
> at the event, I would say I have never threatened an officer. If I were
> accused of not providing a report, I would provide the report. That's what
> I would do, because I am innocent. I would deny, categorically, the
> substance of the charges.
OTOH, if you've been fighting the thing for awhile there's a good
chance that you'd have _stopped_ saying you never did anything
wrong--obv. that didn't work. `I never held a man's head underwater'
vs. `where was there water to hold a man's head under?' One is simple
denial--the other points out the absurdity of the charge.
Just a different way of looking at it.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me `Can I add this
machine to the DNS?' It gives me a headache just trying to think down to
their level. --Gary Barnes
Mike Andrews
:> From: "Jim Grunst" <scad...@juno.com>
:> I wonder how this would have played out in an actual courtroom,
:> in front of an actual judge, rather than a board that only plays
:> at 'law' ?
: My guess... the judge would be appalled, given the documented history
: of misconduct and harrassment that we hadn't booted the individual
: earlier.
We don't get to see any of what the BoD was handed, or what
they presented, nor do we get to see what was actually used in
defense.
That being so, I can't agree that we have seen a documented
history of anything -- or that there isn't one. We are not
entitled to make a judgement, however much we may be entitled
to our opinions.
Further deponent sayeth not.
--
Mike Andrews / Michael Fenwick Namron, Ansteorra
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old music Laurel since 1986
Matthew House
news:%Pz58.12$it2....@news.abs.net:
>
> "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns91A52A949BFCm...@64.8.1.226...
>> Two things bother me. 1. Everyone can be fooled.
>
> Well, that applies to judges, juries, and legislators, as well as
> everyone else who has any significant effect on your life. You must be
> "bothered" often.
Frequently....
>
>> 2. Lack of due process.
>
> You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
IANAL...
quite possibly. hell probably even. I'm still uncomfortable with the way
this was handled, and have every right to make concerned noises about
it...not that it' will do any good other than settle my own ruffled
feathers,, :/
>
>> some of those "charges"
>
> ...as presented solely by the Defense...
Well, the writing style did differ considerably between the two, but if he
is a bad'un, and he's gone this far, a little forgery shouldnt stop him.
Which is why I wish the BOD was a little more forthcoming about the whole
thing. It's the not knowing....
>
>> wouldn't hold up in kindergarten, others should have been delt with
>> long ago, given the severity( assuming the charges are true).
>
> They say that a great deal about rape and molestation victims as well,
> yet when someone finally gets the courage up to make an accusation,
> often other victims come forward.
True, has anybody seen any? I'm not discounting you, I'm taking you at face
value, has anyone honestly seen/heard/been made aware of further
accusations?
In addition, you do not have access
> to the evidence the BoD used to make its determination, so you are
> arguing from a position of ignorance.
True. and that bothers me.
>
>> >>one other question comes to mind. Assuming that half of what
>> >>Aveloc stands accused of is true, why hasn't somebody knocked
>> >>him in the head with a brick? I mean if he's such a horrible
>> >>creature, surely he must have enemies of according stature, who
>> >>having become greatly tired of aveloc, decided to make mince of him
>> >>in a parking lot somewhere...
>> >
>> > Or "T-H-E-Y" still believed in the System (that was in place) and
>> > used it the way it was meant. We don't know, nor are we likely to
>> > find out.
>>
>> nah, everywhere you go, there with be at least 2 dipshits who wont
>> work within the system. Usually they can be found at each other's
>> throats. and given that a number of said charges involved "improper
>> conduct" with a lady, someone is _bound_ to loose their temper...
>
> So, your argument is "He must be innocent, because he was never
> lynched," is it?
>
> Malachias
No, but close... "If He's guilty of so many things, why hasn't this come to
a head before now?" and I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm saying I dont
like the way it was handled...
Regards,
Matthew House.
db
to the procedure as presented.
1. The "plaintiff" admits to bypassing weapons check but says it was ok as
his weapon was inspected in his home kingdom before he left. Now isn't that
an automatic removal of his fighter card?
2. Some allegations concern conduct on the field that was not presented till
much much later. As I understand it, it is considered _very_ bad form to
grouse about anything that happened on the field _after_ you have already
agreed to the outcome before you left the field?
db
Matthew G. Saroff
>For my part, I won't sign it. I cannot help but feel that the BOD's
>decision may have had some merit. I find it hard to believe that such a
>large number of people from all over the country are all either
>dishonest or out to "get" Count Avelock.
>
>I could be wrong, of course, which is why Im interested in hearing other
>people's opinions.
There is context. Avelock is the author of the Pennsic
Accord, which proposed the following: Changing the selection
methods of selection of board members from the current self
selection to one where the Crowns, acting in rotation, would
select new Board members, with the sitting Board retaining the
right to veto a selection for just cause.
So we have motive, and the time span (10 years!) over
which these events allegedly occurred indicates that SOMEONE went
on a long fishing expedition.
Remember, the BoD represents SCA, Inc. It does not
represent The Society.
--
--Sfi Mordehai ben Yosef Yitzhak, Aka Matthew G. Saroff
This is not the Dream. This is what I do on weekends to have
some fun.
The Dream involves 4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool
Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries,
satin sheets, a magnum of champagne, a trapeze, and a python.
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Matthew House
news:3c56c...@newsa.ev1.net:
> "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> so would I. Two things bother me. 1. Everyone can be fooled. 2. Lack
>> of due process. some of those "charges" wouldn't hold up in
>> kindergarten, others should have been delt with long ago, given the
>> severity( assuming the charges are true).
>
> We haven't seen the charges or the evidence. We've only seen the
> request for more information about them. We cannot honestly and fairly
> draw any conclusion from charges and evidence that we haven't seen.
> The process was (properly) done behind closed doors. We therefore
> haven't seen the process, so we can draw no honest conclusion about
> whether there was "due process".
Ummm, you might be ok about being in the dark, I'm not. To each his own...
>
> The only thing we can draw any conclusions from is Aveloc's responses
> to the request for more information. And what stands out most in my
> mind is this:
>
> If I were accused of having sex with a minor named so-and-so at an
> event, I wouldn't say I didn't recognize that mundane name, I'd say I
> have never had sex with a minor. If I had been accused of holding
> another fighter's head under water, I wouldn't ask what SCA event has
> water on the field, I would say I have never held any fighter's head
> under water at any event. If I were accused of threatening an officer,
> I wouldn't appeal to somebody else at the event, I would say I have
> never threatened an officer. If I were accused of not providing a
> report, I would provide the report. That's what I would do, because I
> am innocent. I would deny, categorically, the substance of the
> charges.
>
> There is a way of answering charges when they are false and you want
> the whole truth to come out, and there is a way of answering charges
> when they are true and you want to keep them unproven. Which did his
> answers look like?
Second stage. to clarify.
first stage:
A: you did "X"
D: No, I did not do "X".
A: yes you did!
d: no,
etc,etc.
Second Stage:
A: You did "X"
D: I was two states away in a body cast, I could not have done "X". also,
if I did "X" there would be some "Y" left over, where is it?
A:"Did you do horrible deed X at Lilies around three years ago?"
D: "I wasn't at Lilies exactly three years ago."
from this we can infer that if was not there, then he could not have done
the crime in question. We've gone to the point after "no I didn't do it"
> This is not evidence that proves his guilt, but he provided no evidence
> of his own innocence.
two words. resonable doubt. I have reasonable doubt that this was "the
right thing to do"...
Todd Rich
>>For my part, I won't sign it. I cannot help but feel that the BOD's
>>decision may have had some merit. I find it hard to believe that such a
>>large number of people from all over the country are all either
>>dishonest or out to "get" Count Avelock.
>>
>>I could be wrong, of course, which is why Im interested in hearing other
>>people's opinions.
> There is context. Avelock is the author of the Pennsic
> Accord, which proposed the following: Changing the selection
> methods of selection of board members from the current self
> selection to one where the Crowns, acting in rotation, would
> select new Board members, with the sitting Board retaining the
> right to veto a selection for just cause.
But, Aveloc (no k) had the investigation for his conduct at events started
(July board minutes 2001) before he came up with the Pennsic Accords
(August 2001). Speaking of the Pennsic Accords, from what I understand,
Aveloc was upset that there had been no An Tiran Board members for some
time. His method of solving it would actually guarantee that there would
be no An Tirans on the Board for longer stretches of time than they would
be on the Board.
> So we have motive, and the time span (10 years!) over
> which these events allegedly occurred indicates that SOMEONE went
> on a long fishing expedition.
There was an investigation of his conduct at events. There is no time
limit in the governing documents for what investigations can cover.
> Remember, the BoD represents SCA, Inc. It does not
> represent The Society.
> --
However, they are making progress in doing both. (Long time board
watcher, who has been very upset with Board actions in the past, and is
NOT a 'Board is always right' flunkie.)
Torin
Robert Bezold
msa...@pobox.com (Matthew G. Saroff)
wrote:
There is context.
Avelock is the author of the Pennsic Accord, which proposed the
following: Changing the selection methods of selection of board members
from the current self selection to one where the Crowns, acting in
rotation, would select new Board members, with the sitting Board
retaining the right to veto a selection for just cause.
So we have motive, and
the time span (10 years!) over which these events allegedly occurred
indicates that SOMEONE went on a long fishing expedition.
Remember, the BoD
represents SCA, Inc. It does not represent The Society.
--
Maybe I could use an education then. Please bear with me if Im asking
questions about things I 'should know by now', but heretofore my
interest in the SCA has not extended much beyond the kitchen and smithy.
1. What is the BOD?
2. Who elects them?
3. What are their duties/authority?
4. Why/How is SCA Inc. different from The Society?
Robin D'Montecute
..If you see smoke/fire near my kitchen, this is not necessarily a bad
thing depending on what it is Im trying to burn...
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> I wasnt aware of who put this web page up tho, and it IS
> (possibly) biased.
A website apparently owned/run/managed by his wife? Biased? Ya think?
Effingham
Michael Houghton
In article <iFz58.11$it2....@news.abs.net>,
Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>...nor will you. Unfortunately, publishing such exposes the SCA to a
>potential suit for defamation. The cost of such litigation to the SCA would
>be considerable, even if every single accusation was easily proven as
>completely true. Thus, there is a policy of not publishing specific
>evidence and accusations. It sucks, but this is a damned-if-you-do,
>damned-if-you-don't situation. They may very well have stronger evidence
>than is being presented by that (obviously one-sided) web page. It is not
>particularly relevant that there may be tons of unsubstantiated claims; if
>there are sufficient *substantiated* claims and credible evidence to support
>a banishment, then the banishment should go through.
I suppose Harvey Palmer could bring some sort of lawsuit against the SCA and
cause the particulars to be made public...
I do have concerns about the integrity of "investigations" done at the behest
of the board. The several that I have been aware of more closely than many
seem to have been more of a witch hunt than an earnest attempt to get to the
facts. I don't know the extent to which this case fits that pattern.
>
>For my part, I do not know the man, nor the specifics of any allegations
>(with the exception of the cannon incident). However, I *do* know that what
>the petition asks for is completely ridiculous. Read it carefully, if you
>are thinking about signing it. Pay particular attention to the final
>paragraph.
>
I don't know about "completely" ridiculous. Mostly ridiculous, I'll buy...
I do agree in broad spirit with the idea of a different way of selecting
directors (personally preferring election by the membership), but I do not
propose to thrash that out further here.
Yeah, the general demand is pretty uppity...
yours,
Herveus
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
her...@radix.net | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/
R Lindberg / E Winnie
> But, Aveloc (no k) had the investigation for his conduct at events started
> (July board minutes 2001) before he came up with the Pennsic Accords
> (August 2001).
Correct, actually it sounds like the ball was rolling before that, it's
just at the July meeting when non-Participants starting hearing about it.
> Speaking of the Pennsic Accords, from what I understand,
> Aveloc was upset that there had been no An Tiran Board members for some
> time.
Ragnar (former member and AnTrian) did some figureing, and found that if
you exclude ex-AnTirians (Sir Edward) and imports (Sir Cire) you still
have about the right number of AnTirians on the Board for the last 20
years (since we became a Kingdom). If you include even Sir Cire (who moved
here while on the BoD), or Sir Edward (who can doubt one of the leaders of
the AnTir rebellion against the BoD doesn't still have that rebel AnTir
heart), we've been well represented.
WelshWmn3
>And it's shameful to try to present your side of the story?
>
There are people that don't want to hear the accused's side of the story, in
anything.
Just sayin'.
Branwyn
basic.bs.webusenet.com
know any of the current BOD members, and I wouldn't know Aveloc from a hole
in the ground. However, I *do* know the person who was the BOD's chief
investigator in this matter. Mistress Daphne is a very determined and
tenacious person, and her tenacity is equalled by her integrity. If she has
looked into a matter, she has left *no* stone unturned in any direction. I
know whose conclusions *I* would trust.
AElfwenna
JE Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Petition?
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:%Pz58.12$it2....@news.abs.net:
>
> >
> > They say that a great deal about rape and molestation victims as well,
> > yet when someone finally gets the courage up to make an accusation,
> > often other victims come forward.
>
> True, has anybody seen any? I'm not discounting you, I'm taking you at
face
> value, has anyone honestly seen/heard/been made aware of further
> accusations?
Yes, I talked face to face with one of the complaintants and found her
experience, as described, to be consistant with my own experiences with
Aveloc - just on a grander scale.
Eirika
R Lindberg / E Winnie
>
> Ummm, you might be ok about being in the dark, I'm not. To each his own...
>
and why are you not in the dark? Have you seen the original documents?
If not, you are just deluding yourself.
Ralg (who know's he doesn't know the facts, and he lives close enough to
Avaloc to have been to his house, and has)
R Lindberg / E Winnie
Maybe, if they scanned and put up the original papers, well..
Ralg
R Lindberg / E Winnie
> 1. What is the BOD?
The Board of Directors. Basicly the "top" of the food-change (legal,
mundane wise) of the SCA
> 2. Who elects them?
They do, based on nominations received (list availvable at the SCA
web-site)
> 3. What are their duties/authority?
They operate the legal side of the SCA, they hire the people to operate
the office, do all the "leg work" to keep a semblance of order going, and
work to make certain the IRS is happy with us.
> 4. Why/How is SCA Inc. different from The Society?
>
Depends on whom you ask.
Christofe DuBois
this thread are invalid.
If all we have are the BoD charges as disseminated to us by a website trying
to overturn the decision, then we have incomplete information from which to
base an arguement. We cannot review the charges, because we do not know
what, if any, information has been omitted in an attempt to bolster support
for Aveloc.
-Christofe
"R Lindberg / E Winnie" <rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102012...@mail.telebyte.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Christofe DuBois wrote:
>
> > Are the charges posted elsewhere (other than the 'free Aveloc' site)?
> >
> > If they are not, then the wording on the accusations are in question, as
> > they were posted by the defendant...
> >
> They are not. The BoD never releases anything about an R&D, other then
> they did one.
Mike Andrews
: msa...@pobox.com (Matthew?G.?Saroff)
: wrote:
: ????????????????There is context.
: Avelock is the author of the Pennsic Accord, which proposed the
: following: Changing the selection methods of selection of board members
: from the current self selection to one where the Crowns, acting in
: rotation, would select new Board members, with the sitting Board
: retaining the right to veto a selection for just cause.
: ????????????????So we have motive, and
: the time span (10 years!) over which these events allegedly occurred
: indicates that SOMEONE went on a long fishing expedition.
: ????????????????Remember, the BoD
: represents SCA, Inc. It does not represent The Society.
: --
: Maybe I could use an education then. Please bear with me if Im asking
: questions about things I 'should know by now', but heretofore my
: interest in the SCA has not extended much beyond the kitchen and smithy.
: 1. What is the BOD?
The Corporate Board of Directors, as set forth in the Articles of
Incorporation and other documents.
: 2. Who elects them?
They do. Self-perpetuating clique is the harsh way to view it,
group of folks all striving to do their best to see that the
Society maintains its high aims and principles is the other end
of the spectrum. I hope they're somewhere in the middle.
: 3. What are their duties/authority?
Duties? As stated in the Articles and in other documents.
Authority? Whatever they choose to arrogate to themselves,
limited only by the Articles of Incorporation and other
documents, mundane law, and any concessions they make to
subordinate groups, such as the "real SCA". I view Kingdom and
lower Law as one set of such concessions.
: 4. Why/How is SCA Inc. different from The Society?
There is a body of opinion that the SCA Inc. arrogated to itself,
by virtue of its having incorporated under that name, the
authority to rule the game we play, and that they had no right to
do so. Within those who hold this view, there is a wide variation
in how they feel about this arrogation.
Another body of opinion holds that the SCA Inc. is necessary to
hold the game together and to ensure that the SCA doesn't become
a bunch of squabbling, Balkanized groups, no two of which play
quite the same game. Within those who hold this view, there is a
wide variation in how they feel about the quality of the "glue"
provided by the SCA Inc.
Some people belong to neither group, some to one or the other,
and some to both.
At least that's the way I see it right now. My views have
changed before; they may do so again.
Tanya Guptill (Mira Silverlock)
>And for my part, two meetings do not
> give me enough to form a full opinion on a person.
Well spoken. Like just about every else on the planet, Aveloc is neither
all good or all evil, as much as people would have one believe.
I had heard a great deal of gossip about Aveloc before I went to Pennsic
in 1999. I try to always form my own opinion, based on what I truly
know and observe. In 2000, I had two different people (one from An Tir,
one who was not) tell me a rumor about Aveloc's behavior in the Woods
Battle, and how he was brought up in Marshall's court (or whatever it
is called) for sweeping the crutch of a one-legged fighter and then
hitting him when he was down. At that same Pennsic, I was the An Tiran
representative at the meeting to negotiate permanent kingdom campsites,
and had the opportunity to speak with the Ansteorran knight (a charming
gentleman whose name escapes me) who was supposedly wronged by Aveloc.
He had a good laugh about it, and stated emphatically that the rumor was
not true. He also seemed to think he would've been able to defend
himself just fine, thank you :)
I don't tell this story to say that Aveloc is guiltless in his
behavior--I don't have firsthand knowledge to be a judge of that at all.
I merely wish to illustrate how rumors, which seem to swirl around
Aveloc more than most, can be greatly exaggerated or untrue.
I do disagree with the lack of ability of an accused individual to
defend oneself by asking questions directly to the board (they allowed a
statement, but no questions). I also disagree with the fact that
accusations where the version changes from telling to re-telling are
allowed, often years after the original incident. I realize absolute
evidence ("smoking gun") is not always available, but to be presumed
guilty automatically is a very difficult position from which to defend
oneself. I can think of a few people who probably think of me as The
Queen Bitch From Hell, and the thought of trying to prove my own
innocence against their accusations, as period as the procedure is
("Really, Sir, I'm not a witch! :) looks nearly impossible. I believe
the petition, which demands court intervention if Harvey Palmer is not
reinstated, is too extreme, and I will not sign it. I am drafting a
letter to send to the BoD regarding my concerns with the process.
Just my two piasters worth,
Dame Mira Silverlock
An Tir
--
http://www.currentmiddleages.org/tents
The Ranger
>> I would bet that in three months Aveloc is less than a memory,
>> let alone a bane to the SCA.
>
>Doesn't that worry you? That a man can be cast down and forgotten
>so soon? That he may actually be innocent? `In a hundred years
>no one will remember' doesn't, to me, seem a good excuse.
No. Not even in the slightest does it cause me to reach for my Rolaids.
There are multiple reasons for this but the most obvious are:
1) I /want/ to believe that the BOD acted in the best interest of the
Society;
2) I /want/ to believe that there was a preponderance of evidence
presented and not refuted sufficiently;
3) I /want/ to believe that the Process worked.
I've been to board meetings. [Mostly] those people asked to participate at
that level HAVE the best interest of the organization at heart and go out of
their way to understand the situations [fully] that they're called upon to
review. They base their vote on the evidence that is presented; I've NEVER
seen a board member vote without enough factual evidence before them...
Sure, these decisions are not always popular but this isn't high school
either. They [the BOD] are in charge of an international organization with
membership that expects thoughtful decisions and adherence to the rules that
have been established.
As far as my statement that Aveloc won't be a bane, and won't be remembered
after three months. It was a little glib but that's the nature of the beast
in this case. I think I remember reading that there have only been five (or
less) R&D's in the Society's history. Does anyone remember those previous
R&D's? (Oh, alright... There'll be several people that DO remember them all;
I concede /that/ point -- but the majority of SCA members will not.)
The Ranger
Malachias Invictus
"Michael Houghton" <her...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:a3719g$7rf$1...@saltmine.radix.net...
> Howdy!
>
> In article <iFz58.11$it2....@news.abs.net>,
> Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >...nor will you. Unfortunately, publishing such exposes the SCA to a
> >potential suit for defamation. The cost of such litigation to the SCA
would
> >be considerable, even if every single accusation was easily proven as
> >completely true. Thus, there is a policy of not publishing specific
> >evidence and accusations. It sucks, but this is a damned-if-you-do,
> >damned-if-you-don't situation. They may very well have stronger evidence
> >than is being presented by that (obviously one-sided) web page. It is
not
> >particularly relevant that there may be tons of unsubstantiated claims;
if
> >there are sufficient *substantiated* claims and credible evidence to
support
> >a banishment, then the banishment should go through.
>
> I suppose Harvey Palmer could bring some sort of lawsuit against the SCA
and
> cause the particulars to be made public...
He could try, but that would be a mighty uphill climb...
> I do have concerns about the integrity of "investigations" done at the
behest
> of the board. The several that I have been aware of more closely than many
> seem to have been more of a witch hunt than an earnest attempt to get to
the
> facts. I don't know the extent to which this case fits that pattern.
That is certainly a concern. I do not know the players in this one.
> >For my part, I do not know the man, nor the specifics of any allegations
> >(with the exception of the cannon incident). However, I *do* know that
what
> >the petition asks for is completely ridiculous. Read it carefully, if
you
> >are thinking about signing it. Pay particular attention to the final
> >paragraph.
> >
> I don't know about "completely" ridiculous. Mostly ridiculous, I'll buy...
Heh.
> I do agree in broad spirit with the idea of a different way of selecting
> directors (personally preferring election by the membership),
Sure; that is reasonable. I do not have strong opinions on the matter.
> but I do not propose to thrash that out further here.
>
> Yeah, the general demand is pretty uppity...
Yep...
Malachias
Susan Carroll-Clark
> There is context. Avelock is the author of the Pennsic
> Accord, which proposed the following: Changing the selection
> methods of selection of board members from the current self
> selection to one where the Crowns,
Not the Crowns. The Petition reads "Kingdoms", and goes on to say "We
propose that each Kingdom determine their own method of choosing their
appointee from within their Kingdom or from without, which they feel best
meets the needs of the Realm".
There are Crowns who signed who probably would not have had the wording been
"Crowns" rather than "Kingdoms".
Also, Aveloc was the instigator of the discussions which led to the Pennsic
Accord. He was not the author. The Accord was very much a negotiated
document.
acting in rotation, would
> select new Board members, with the sitting Board retaining the
> right to veto a selection for just cause.
> So we have motive,
Only problem is that the investigation was initiated by the Board in July,
almost a month before the promulgation of the Pennsic Accord, with the
stated reason being "investigation of possible misconduct at SCA events."
Nicolaa
Malachias Invictus
"Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote:
> >> Two things bother me. 1. Everyone can be fooled.
> >
> > Well, that applies to judges, juries, and legislators, as well as
> > everyone else who has any significant effect on your life. You must be
> > "bothered" often.
>
> Frequently....
Heh - I sympathize. Nothing to get an ulcer over, though.
> >> 2. Lack of due process.
> >
> > You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
>
> IANAL...
Just as well; it is a pain in the ass.
> quite possibly. hell probably even.
Don't stress it. Half the people I graduated with had a bit of trouble with
due process arguments.
> I'm still uncomfortable with the way this was handled, and have
>every right to make concerned noises about it...
Absolutely.
>not that it' will do any good other than settle my own ruffled
> feathers,, :/
Who knows? Perhaps it will motivate someone...
> >> some of those "charges"
> >
> > ...as presented solely by the Defense...
>
> Well, the writing style did differ considerably between the two, but if he
> is a bad'un, and he's gone this far, a little forgery shouldnt stop him.
I doubt there was any outright forgery, just as I seriously doubt the
complete text of the accusations was presented. It seemed to be edited a
bit to suit the counterargument.
> Which is why I wish the BOD was a little more forthcoming about the whole
> thing. It's the not knowing....
So did everyone on the legal team, when we were looking into the legalities
of publishing the details of banishments. However, mundane legal reality is
a mother, and no one wants the SCA, Inc. involved in costly, time-consuming
lawsuits. Look at the way other organizations handle this; it is very
similar, and likely for the same reasons.
> >> wouldn't hold up in kindergarten, others should have been delt with
> >> long ago, given the severity( assuming the charges are true).
> >
> > They say that a great deal about rape and molestation victims as well,
> > yet when someone finally gets the courage up to make an accusation,
> > often other victims come forward.
>
> True, has anybody seen any? I'm not discounting you, I'm taking you at
face
> value, has anyone honestly seen/heard/been made aware of further
> accusations?
Not I; I was just making an analogy.
> > In addition, you do not have access to the evidence the
> > BoD used to make its determination, so you are
> > arguing from a position of ignorance.
>
> True. and that bothers me.
I wish there was a way to reveal such information without creating undue
exposure to potential lawsuits, but there is not.
> > So, your argument is "He must be innocent, because he was never
> > lynched," is it?
>
> No, but close... "If He's guilty of so many things, why hasn't this come
to
> a head before now?"
Who says it hasn't? From what we are hearing, there have been quite a few
"blowups" of various levels regarding this individual. Who knows if they
are his fault, but when you get a string of them, things do not look
favorable...
> and I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm saying I dont
> like the way it was handled...
How would you suggest it be handled?
Malachias
R Lindberg / E Winnie
>... I think I remember reading that there have only been five (or
> less) R&D's in the Society's history. Does anyone remember those previous
> R&D's? (Oh, alright... There'll be several people that DO remember them all;
> I concede /that/ point -- but the majority of SCA members will not.)
>
Old number. There where three others at the December meeting, I know
there are requests for more pending, and I have read about even more (I
have gotten the BoD minutes for as long as they have been available to the
general membership.)
In the few that I know all the details from, it took very strong
evidence (like a conviction in a real court).
Christofe DuBois
which is why I'm speaking out", not "I'm not in the dark."
-Christofe
"R Lindberg / E Winnie" <rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102012...@mail.telebyte.com...
Greycat Sharpclaw
wrote:
[snip, except for a particular paragraph that I think demonstrates
Jay's position]
>His answers read like the Jesuit who, accused of murdering three men and a
>dog, triumphantly produced the dog alive. "Did you do horrible deed X at
>Lilies around three years ago?" "I wasn't at Lilies exactly three years
>ago." I would expect an innocent man to say, "No, I never did X".
"Proving" one's innocence by giving an alibi is normal behavour for a
person providing a thought out defense against accusations that some
people obviously believe.
>None of his answers read the way I expect an innocent man to answer.
I disagree that an innocent man would answer as you expect.
Especially if the accusations were being believed by other people.
>Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
------
Emrys Cador
Barony of Settmour Swamp
East Kingdom
Remove "nospam" in the address to reply
Arhylda
>wouldn't say I didn't recognize that mundane name, I'd say I have never had
>sex with a minor.
One thing that does concern me about the web page is the publication of the
name of said minor, as well as names of other folks who felt they had been
victims of sexual assault or harrassment. It seems this is another good reason
for the BOD to not make public the paperwork in this case, or other similar
cases.
Mairi
Maeryk
(Greycat Sharpclaw) wrote:
>There is an allegation that "Jay and Diane Rudin" <ru...@ev1.net>
>wrote:
>
>[snip, except for a particular paragraph that I think demonstrates
>Jay's position]
>
>>His answers read like the Jesuit who, accused of murdering three men and a
>>dog, triumphantly produced the dog alive. "Did you do horrible deed X at
>>Lilies around three years ago?" "I wasn't at Lilies exactly three years
>>ago." I would expect an innocent man to say, "No, I never did X".
>
>"Proving" one's innocence by giving an alibi is normal behavour for a
>person providing a thought out defense against accusations that some
>people obviously believe.
Agreed.. and that the posted charges read "at lillies war some three
years ago".. after that is meaningless if the defendant was not AT
lillies war some three years ago.
Specific and WELL THOUGHT OUT charges would be what I would expect.
Answering "Well.. I wasnt there, but five years ago.." Is just plain
silly.. and would probably get you in deeper in any courtroom in this
country. If the accusor cannot even get DATES straight, how solid is
the accusation likely to be?
>
>>None of his answers read the way I expect an innocent man to answer.
>
>I disagree that an innocent man would answer as you expect.
>Especially if the accusations were being believed by other people.
One thousand percent agreed. "Innocent until proven guilty" is sort of
fallacious. Once someone accuses you of something and brings suit, it
is on you to prove innocence.. at least in most of the cases I have
heard of. I know the wording is the other way around, but I have had
false charges brought against me.. and Im VERY unsure of how it would
have gone, had it actually gone to court and the charges not been
dropped.
(I was not guilty of the thing I was accused of.. but it is very
difficult to defend ones-self against some nebulous charges,
especially in a subjective situation.)
Lord Maeryk
Unknown
ago" excuse, is that when the complaint was written down it *was* the
Lilies three years ago; now it's the Lilies FIVE years ago. He *was*
at the Lilies the incident in question took place at - he's answering
a different question than the one that was truly asked. Those are the
sorts of responses he's making - avoiding answering the question by
answering a different one, or completely ignoring the question in
favor of attacking or ridiculing his accusors.
Avraham
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:23:05 GMT, theGr...@nospam.eartlink.net
(Greycat Sharpclaw) wrote:
Michael Houghton
In article <3C5715A0...@teleport.com>,
Tanya Guptill (Mira Silverlock) <tgup...@teleport.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>I had heard a great deal of gossip about Aveloc before I went to Pennsic
>in 1999. I try to always form my own opinion, based on what I truly
>know and observe. In 2000, I had two different people (one from An Tir,
>one who was not) tell me a rumor about Aveloc's behavior in the Woods
>Battle, and how he was brought up in Marshall's court (or whatever it
>is called) for sweeping the crutch of a one-legged fighter and then
>hitting him when he was down. At that same Pennsic, I was the An Tiran
>representative at the meeting to negotiate permanent kingdom campsites,
>and had the opportunity to speak with the Ansteorran knight (a charming
>gentleman whose name escapes me) who was supposedly wronged by Aveloc.
That would be Sir Keif (Arenvald Keif av Kerstad, if I recall correctly),
on account of whom Duke Stephen of Bellatrix wears a single spur to this
day (the other one having been placed on Keif's foot at his knighting at
Pennsic some years ago)..
[snip]
Maeryk
OTOH: If you are willing to bring such charges against someone, you
should be willing to stand and defend those charges. (Im not saying he
is right in that).
A minor is a tricky case.. but someone of the age of majority *SHOULD*
in my mind, at least, have the courtesy to stand up and come out,
should they level a charge of that severity at someone.
Maeryk
Matthew House
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Matthew House wrote:
>
>>
>> Ummm, you might be ok about being in the dark, I'm not. To each his
>> own...
>>
> and why are you not in the dark? Have you seen the original
> documents?
>
no, I'm saying I _know_ I'm in the dark, and I'm not happy about it... Not
that that will fix anything... :)
Greycat Sharpclaw
>The biggest problem with the "I wasn't at Lilies exactly three years
>ago" excuse, is that when the complaint was written down it *was* the
>Lilies three years ago; now it's the Lilies FIVE years ago. He *was*
>at the Lilies the incident in question took place at - he's answering
>a different question than the one that was truly asked. Those are the
This is, of course, a different issue. Not the point I was addressing
at all, but with validity, if your facts are correct.
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> So did everyone on the legal team, when we were looking into the legalities
> of publishing the details of banishments. However, mundane legal reality is
> a mother, and no one wants the SCA, Inc. involved in costly, time-consuming
> lawsuits. Look at the way other organizations handle this; it is very
> similar, and likely for the same reasons.
>
>....
>
> I wish there was a way to reveal such information without creating undue
> exposure to potential lawsuits, but there is not.
>
Since you were invovled, I want to bounce an idea off you.
Due to the legal concerns, we can't say Lord X (Sam Spade) was R&Ded
for Felony Fraud while Lord Y (Jerry Smith) was R&Ded for Assault. I
understand the reasoning behind this, and regret it's being true.
However...
Couldn't the BoD, on some periodic basis say something like: Over the
past year members have had their membership denied/revoked for one, or
more, of the following reasons: Theft, Assault, Assault and Battery,
Fraud and Childmolestation. This list is intended to unduly frighten the
membership, but rather to remind them that real crimes do occur in the
SCA.
Since there would be no way for the public/membership to couple which
person(s) with which action(s), so an defamation suit would be more
difficult. But it would (maybe) remind our members that some bad people
sometimes join the SCA
Ralg
--
Ralph Lindberg personal email n7...@amsat.org
RV and Camping FAQ http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber/rv
If Windows is the answer I would really like to know what the question is
Brian L. Rygg/Brendan Pilgrim
> another thing that concerns me. If this Aveloc critter is
> all that they claim, why has he survived this long? why
> hasn't someone "dealt with him" if he's such a horrbile
> person? I would think that if he were half the devil they
> claim, somebody would have done something long
> before now...
And your evidence that no one has attempted to do something before now
is?
(Whether he's all that "they" [for whatever particular values of
"they"] claim is a topic I amn't gonna broach.)
Your honours in dutie.
Brendan Pilgrim
Brian M. Scott
<tgup...@teleport.com> wrote:
[...]
>I had heard a great deal of gossip about Aveloc before I went to Pennsic
>in 1999. I try to always form my own opinion, based on what I truly
>know and observe. In 2000, I had two different people (one from An Tir,
>one who was not) tell me a rumor about Aveloc's behavior in the Woods
>Battle, and how he was brought up in Marshall's court (or whatever it
>is called) for sweeping the crutch of a one-legged fighter and then
>hitting him when he was down. At that same Pennsic, I was the An Tiran
>representative at the meeting to negotiate permanent kingdom campsites,
>and had the opportunity to speak with the Ansteorran knight (a charming
>gentleman whose name escapes me) who was supposedly wronged by Aveloc.
>He had a good laugh about it, and stated emphatically that the rumor was
>not true. He also seemed to think he would've been able to defend
>himself just fine, thank you :)
That must be Sir (Arenvald) Kief av Kiersted, once Star Principal
Herald of Ansteorra. Kief probably would have been able to defend
himself, too.
[...]
Talan
Bruce Sinclair
:In article <tmF58.792$it2....@news.abs.net>,
: "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:
:>
:> So did everyone on the legal team, when we were looking into the legalities
:> of publishing the details of banishments. However, mundane legal reality is
:> a mother, and no one wants the SCA, Inc. involved in costly, time-consuming
:> lawsuits. Look at the way other organizations handle this; it is very
:> similar, and likely for the same reasons.
:>
:>....
:>
:> I wish there was a way to reveal such information without creating undue
:> exposure to potential lawsuits, but there is not.
:>
:
: Since you were invovled, I want to bounce an idea off you.
:
: Due to the legal concerns, we can't say Lord X (Sam Spade) was R&Ded
:for Felony Fraud while Lord Y (Jerry Smith) was R&Ded for Assault. I
:understand the reasoning behind this, and regret it's being true.
:However...
:
: Couldn't the BoD, on some periodic basis say something like: Over the
:past year members have had their membership denied/revoked for one, or
:more, of the following reasons: Theft, Assault, Assault and Battery,
:Fraud and Childmolestation. This list is intended to unduly frighten the
:membership, but rather to remind them that real crimes do occur in the
:SCA.
:
: Since there would be no way for the public/membership to couple which
:person(s) with which action(s), so an defamation suit would be more
:difficult. But it would (maybe) remind our members that some bad people
:sometimes join the SCA
Seems to me that it would imply that all could have been guilty of all ...
which I would imagine could make for more law suits :)
How about a straight list of people that have been kicked out "for cause"
but with no reasons published ? Doesn't that satisfy everyone ?
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
The Ranger
>How about a straight list of people that have been kicked
>out "for cause" but with no reasons published ? Doesn't
>that satisfy everyone ?
Works for me. Of course, someone's going to point out the obvious:
black-listing. (Humorless gorms that they are.)
The Ranger
Dennis O'Connor
> "Dennis O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> wrote ...
> > "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote ...
> > > This is what worries me about the whole thing. It's really, really
> vauge.
> > > Lots of second and third hand evidence, no hard and fast, "he was at
> > > _this_ event, here is the attendance, here is the personal report of an
> > > eyewitness _not_ affiliated with anyone involved, etc,etc... the lack of
> > > opportunity for rebuttal is disturbing as well.
> >
> > Well, you aren't getting the BoD's side of it, are you ?
>
> ...nor will you.
Which is fine. Aveloc's an adult, the BoD members are adults, they
can handle their own affairs, and if either side thinks they need
my help, they know where to find me to ask for it.
Strangers sticking their noses into a nasty scrap without an invitation
can lose that nose, and deservedly so. I think you'd agree, Captain.
> For my part, I do not know the man, nor the specifics of any allegations
> (with the exception of the cannon incident). However, I *do* know that what
> the petition asks for is completely ridiculous. Read it carefully, if you
> are thinking about signing it. Pay particular attention to the final
> paragraph.
IANAL, but it seems to me you're referring to the part that will could
as evidence of extortion via "abuse of process", and therefor stands a
good chance of torpedoing any suit that might be lodged, yes ?
The part that leaves all the signatories potentially guilty of the civil
tort of abuse of process, and therefor liable for damages (including
the costs of the countersuit and emotional distress) ? That part ?
IANAL, good Captain, but you are, and I ask you, how would
you feel about a client who had (IMH[IANAL]O) so thoroughly
sabotaged his own case ?
Now again, IANAL, but because it threatens legal action
(NEVER DO THAT!)
anyone thinking of signing that petition should _really_ have
a short talk with a good lawyer first. It's tricky ground, folks.
Best to steer a wide path, or tread carefully.
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
We don't become a rabid dog to destroy a rabid dog.
Dennis O'Connor
> Dennis O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > So, is the BoD presumed guilty until proven innocent?
>
> Governments always are:-)
Aveloc was King, and therefor as much a part of the "Government"
of the SCA as the BoD is, if in a subordinate role. So, you should
presume he is guilty until proven innocent as well, shouldn't you ?
Naturally, I hold that you are wrong to do either.
Dennis O'Connor
For Wisdom, one can go to "The Princess Bride":
Inigo Montoya: Who are you?
The Man in Black: Noone of consequence.
Inigo Montoya: I must know...
The Man in Black: Get used to disappointment.
Inigo Montoya: 'kay.
Now, meditate upon the limits of mortal knowledge.
Morgan Smith
"Tanya Guptill (Mira Silverlock)" <tgup...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3C5715A0...@teleport.com...
(snippage)
I believe
> the petition, which demands court intervention if Harvey Palmer is not
> reinstated, is too extreme, and I will not sign it. I am drafting a
> letter to send to the BoD regarding my concerns with the process.
>
It *is* a little like cutting butter with a chain saw, isn't it?
I can't say that I know Aveloc - I've met him a few times, sat in some
meetings when he was king, survived a couple of courts (mainly by taking up
a firm and insoluble position at the bar - I'm from Avacal, after all). I
can't say that I liked him - but he wasn't the Anti-Christ, either. Mainly,
he bored me to screaming point, but I'm easily bored.
I don't know why R&D was chosen - it seems a bit drastic, but like
everyone else, I have no idea what other charges or evidence was involved. I
do know - because Aveloc told all and sundry, every chance he got - that
there are outstanding civil harassment suits pending against him; and I can
say that he has, in my presence, behaved in what for some people, might be
considered a bullying/threatening manner. On the other hand, he never did
anything to me that was not polite as well as generous, and the flaky
stuff - well, the SCA is full of that.
I don't think the website was such a great idea. It tends to make him look
guiltier, perhaps, than he actually is.
Morgan the Unknown
Matthew House
news:tmF58.792$it2....@news.abs.net:
/chop/
...
>>
>> True. and that bothers me.
>
> I wish there was a way to reveal such information without creating
> undue exposure to potential lawsuits, but there is not.
are we sure about that? There's gotta be a way...
>
>> > So, your argument is "He must be innocent, because he was never
>> > lynched," is it?
>>
>> No, but close... "If He's guilty of so many things, why hasn't this
>> come to a head before now?"
>
> Who says it hasn't? From what we are hearing, there have been quite a
> few "blowups" of various levels regarding this individual. Who knows
> if they are his fault, but when you get a string of them, things do not
> look favorable...
>
>> and I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm saying I dont like the way it
>> was handled...
>
> How would you suggest it be handled?
>
> Malachias
well, The Accused in this case seems pretty eager to air the whole thing...
Why cant we give him what he wants? If it's true, he hosed himself....
I think the requirements for "acceptable evidence" could stand to be a
little tighter... say first hand only?
a statue of limitations might be nice....
ummm, trial by jury? ( of his peers!)....don't hurt me...
trashing a large part of somebodies life based on hearsay bothers me.
Not being able to find out what happened bothers me even more....
oh, and some way of providing the "evidence" and the "Decision" so that
interested parties ( public at large) can have access to it. freedom of
information does some wonderfull things....
Matthew House
>
> How about a straight list of people that have been kicked out "for
> cause" but with no reasons published ?
No. Not ever. McCarthy is dead. lets keep it that way.
Doesn't that satisfy everyone ?
No. Let truth run rampant.
>
> Bruce
>
Matthew House
news:A8K58.341$5y.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net:
> Matthew House scripsit:
>
>> another thing that concerns me. If this Aveloc critter is
>> all that they claim, why has he survived this long? why
>> hasn't someone "dealt with him" if he's such a horrbile
>> person? I would think that if he were half the devil they
>> claim, somebody would have done something long before now...
>
>
> And your evidence that no one has attempted to do something before
> now
> is?
I have none. My question was, "why haven't we heard any noise about this
before now?" and " if there was noise before this, why hasn't someone
mentioed it?".
>
> (Whether he's all that "they" [for whatever particular values of
> "they"] claim is a topic I amn't gonna broach.)
as I said before, I make no claims as to his innocence. It's the way the
situation is handled that bothers me....
>
>
> Your honours in dutie.
>
> Brendan Pilgrim
>
>
>
regards,
Matthew House.
Dennis O'Connor
> No. Let truth run rampant.
Regardless of the harm doing so might do to innocent people ?
No, I don't think correct behavior is as simplistic as that.
Publishing the names of 10-year-old rape victims is wrong,
for example.
Dennis O'Connor
> before now?"
Where does that "we" come form ? _I_ had heard noise
about this before, some of it from the person himself.
And I'm just a nobody down in Atenveldt, far from An Tir.
And I don't hear half what my wife hears, I'd guess, and I'd
have to guess, because she never tells me _any_ of it ! ;-(
> and " if there was noise before this, why hasn't someone
> mentioned it?".
It seems to me you are asking "Why don't people
gossip more?", which seems an odd thing to desire.
But I _do_ understand the allure: when I drive past
an accident, I always _want_ to look, but I know
that I should pay attention to my driving instead,
and so I resist. The urge is an important survival
tool (tribal people need to know the local gossip)
that's sometimes misapplied in our modern societies.
Malachias Invictus
"Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie" <rlin...@kendaco.telebyte.com> wrote in
message news:rlindber-C9E332...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> Since you were invovled, I want to bounce an idea off you.
Bounce away.
> Due to the legal concerns, we can't say Lord X (Sam Spade) was R&Ded
> for Felony Fraud while Lord Y (Jerry Smith) was R&Ded for Assault. I
> understand the reasoning behind this, and regret it's being true.
> However...
>
> Couldn't the BoD, on some periodic basis say something like: Over the
> past year members have had their membership denied/revoked for one, or
> more, of the following reasons: Theft, Assault, Assault and Battery,
> Fraud and Childmolestation. This list is intended to unduly frighten the
> membership, but rather to remind them that real crimes do occur in the
> SCA.
>
> Since there would be no way for the public/membership to couple which
> person(s) with which action(s), so an defamation suit would be more
> difficult. But it would (maybe) remind our members that some bad people
> sometimes join the SCA
The problem with this is that the number of people R&D'd is very small; it
makes it fairly simple to put two and two together (this was considered, if
I recall, but ultimately rejected).
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
"Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91A63FBD6C87m...@64.8.1.226...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > I wish there was a way to reveal such information without creating
> > undue exposure to potential lawsuits, but there is not.
>
> are we sure about that? There's gotta be a way...
About a dozen attorneys busted their asses to figure one out, and did not
come up with one. We are, of course, still open to suggestions (do not be
surprised if you can only come up with ones we have already considered,
though).
> >> and I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm saying I dont like the way it
> >> was handled...
> > How would you suggest it be handled?
> well, The Accused in this case seems pretty eager to air the whole
thing...
> Why cant we give him what he wants? If it's true, he hosed himself....
He is welcome to photocopy all the documents and post them. I doubt this
will happen, though.
> I think the requirements for "acceptable evidence" could stand to be a
> little tighter... say first hand only?
We are not sure that anything other than first hand evidence was given any
weight, are we?
> a statue of limitations might be nice....
I would imagine older (unreported) incidents were given very little weight.
> ummm, trial by jury? ( of his peers!)....don't hurt me...
We are not the judiciary, and should not pretend to be.
> trashing a large part of somebodies life based on hearsay bothers me.
We do not know anything about what it is based on, except what is being
reported by the accused.
> Not being able to find out what happened bothers me even more....
In that case, ask the accused to post photocopies of the entire document
from the BoD. He is the only one who can release it.
> oh, and some way of providing the "evidence" and the "Decision" so that
> interested parties ( public at large) can have access to it.
Impossible without risking a serious defamation and/or invasion of privacy
suit.
> freedom of information does some wonderfull things....
Indeed. It works much better in a forum insulated from lawsuits, though...
Matthew House
@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net:
> "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote ...
>> > Doesn't that satisfy everyone ?
>> No. Let truth run rampant.
>
> Regardless of the harm doing so might do to innocent people ?
um, in my limited experience in life I have not seen very many instances of
the truth injuring the innocent. maybe squashing a few illusions, but no
actual injury... More good than harm is what I have seen so far...
> No, I don't think correct behavior is as simplistic as that.
is _anything_ really simple?
> Publishing the names of 10-year-old rape victims is wrong,
> for example.
Well, I suppose there must be exceptions to everything, and that strikes me
as a pretty good one.
Matthew House
@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net:
> "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote
>> My question was, "why haven't we heard any noise about this before
>> now?"
>
> Where does that "we" come form ?
perhaps too broad a brush on my part. "we" as in the community at large?
> _I_ had heard noise
> about this before, some of it from the person himself.
> And I'm just a nobody down in Atenveldt, far from An Tir.
> And I don't hear half what my wife hears, I'd guess, and I'd
> have to guess, because she never tells me _any_ of it ! ;-(
>
>> and " if there was noise before this, why hasn't someone mentioned
>> it?".
>
> It seems to me you are asking "Why don't people
> gossip more?", which seems an odd thing to desire.
I would think that ther is a difference between "gossip" and "accurate
information" but then, "truth told with bad intent"...
> But I _do_ understand the allure: when I drive past
> an accident, I always _want_ to look, but I know
> that I should pay attention to my driving instead,
> and so I resist. The urge is an important survival
> tool (tribal people need to know the local gossip)
> that's sometimes misapplied in our modern societies.
very true... I don't know, maybe the system needs to stand as it is. I
will say that we do need to ask the question, regularly...
Matthew House
>
> "Matthew House" <mho...@SPAMadelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns91A63FBD6C87m...@64.8.1.226...
>> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> > I wish there was a way to reveal such information without creating
>> > undue exposure to potential lawsuits, but there is not.
>>
>> are we sure about that? There's gotta be a way...
>
> About a dozen attorneys busted their asses to figure one out, and did
> not come up with one. We are, of course, still open to suggestions (do
> not be surprised if you can only come up with ones we have already
> considered, though).
bummer. I dont suppose a modification of the waiver? Nah, you've probly
already thought of that one...
>
>> >> and I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm saying I dont like the way it
>> >> was handled...
>
>> > How would you suggest it be handled?
>
>> well, The Accused in this case seems pretty eager to air the whole
>> thing... Why cant we give him what he wants? If it's true, he hosed
>> himself....
>
> He is welcome to photocopy all the documents and post them. I doubt
> this will happen, though.
Good point. I'll send him an email, asking him to do so... maybe we'll get
lucky.
>
>> I think the requirements for "acceptable evidence" could stand to be a
>> little tighter... say first hand only?
>
> We are not sure that anything other than first hand evidence was given
> any weight, are we?
true, but my arguement has been that we _don't_ know... And, as far as I
know, there are no "standards" as to how evidence is judged.
>
>> a statue of limitations might be nice....
>
> I would imagine older (unreported) incidents were given very little
> weight.
again, we dont know.
>
>> ummm, trial by jury? ( of his peers!)....don't hurt me...
>
> We are not the judiciary, and should not pretend to be.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist the "peers" crack.
>
>> trashing a large part of somebodies life based on hearsay bothers me.
>
> We do not know anything about what it is based on, except what is being
> reported by the accused.
exactly.
>
>> Not being able to find out what happened bothers me even more....
>
> In that case, ask the accused to post photocopies of the entire
> document from the BoD. He is the only one who can release it.
>
>> oh, and some way of providing the "evidence" and the "Decision" so
>> that interested parties ( public at large) can have access to it.
>
> Impossible without risking a serious defamation and/or invasion of
> privacy suit.
>
>> freedom of information does some wonderfull things....
>
> Indeed. It works much better in a forum insulated from lawsuits,
> though...
mmmm, lawsuit insulation... is it made from _Real_ lawyers?
Malachias Invictus
"Dennis O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:a37tp0$pio$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > "Dennis O'Connor" <dm...@primenet.com> wrote ...
> > > Well, you aren't getting the BoD's side of it, are you ?
> >
> > ...nor will you.
>
> Which is fine. Aveloc's an adult, the BoD members are adults, they
> can handle their own affairs, and if either side thinks they need
> my help, they know where to find me to ask for it.
>
> Strangers sticking their noses into a nasty scrap without an invitation
> can lose that nose, and deservedly so. I think you'd agree, Captain.
I have seen Chinatown...
> > For my part, I do not know the man, nor the specifics of any allegations
> > (with the exception of the cannon incident). However, I *do* know that
what
> > the petition asks for is completely ridiculous. Read it carefully, if
you
> > are thinking about signing it. Pay particular attention to the final
> > paragraph.
>
> IANAL, but it seems to me you're referring to the part that will could
> as evidence of extortion via "abuse of process", and therefor stands a
> good chance of torpedoing any suit that might be lodged, yes ?
It could be interpreted as such, but I doubt things would go that far.
However, asking that they either change both the BoD member election
process, "Justice Process," and R&D decision, impeach the entire board, or
suffer a lawsuit (on what grounds, pray tell?) seems far too excessive.
Something like "I ask that you reconsider your decision for reasons X, Y,
and Z" would be far more effective, in my opinion.
> how would you feel about a client who had (IMH[IANAL]O) so thoroughly
> sabotaged his own case ?
I would hope I got a sizable retainer ;-)
> Now again, IANAL, but because it threatens legal action
>
> (NEVER DO THAT!)
>
> anyone thinking of signing that petition should _really_ have
> a short talk with a good lawyer first. It's tricky ground, folks.
> Best to steer a wide path, or tread carefully.
It does not just threaten legal action. By signing this, you are claiming
that *you* will "petition the Superior Court in Santa Clara County, usw..."
*Not* a good idea. Just my opinion; get yourself counsel for (perhaps) a
better one...
Malachias
Robert Bezold
Re: Petition?
Group: rec.org.sca Date: Wed, Jan 30, 2002, 5:34am (PST+8) From:
mho...@SPAMadelphia.net (Matthew House)
Hear, hear! I may not believe Aveloc is innocent, but the manner in
which the BOD is handling this smacks of the Inquisition. We don't need
secret trials. I just left an organization that did that very thing and
I can tell you from personal experience that it is a procedure far too
easily abused.
And while Im ranting...
Could someone explain to me this whole "he can never attend an SCA event
again thing"? If Im autocrating a local event, I should be able to
invite anyone I damn well please. Does the BOD provide labor for my
event? Will it underwrite the costs if we go into the red? Will they
provide legal counsel if someone decides to sue the local group for
whatever reason?
If the answer to the above is 'no', then I don't see where the BOD has
the right to violate my first ammendment right to freedom of assembly,
and tell me whom I will be allowed to associate with and when.
I guess what's really bothering me here is that a faceless group of
strangers that do not represent me (I didn't elect them) are indirectly
asking me to help enforce a decision that Im being kept in the dark
about.
I would feel a whole lot better about this if someone could assure me
that the BOD is looking out for my best interests.
Lady PDC
>that *you* will "petition the Superior Court in Santa Clara County, usw..."
>*Not* a good idea. Just my opinion; get yourself counsel for (perhaps) a
>better one...
>
>Malachias
>
>
>
Well, I am not a lawyer either, but my father is and when I showed him the
petition he just about had a heart attack. His interpretation was exactly the
same as Malachias's above. He added that anyone who signed the petition as it
stands opens themselves up to a personal lawsuit for attempted extortion. Not
likely that the BOD would go that far as I am sure that they would assume that
many who sign petitions do so without reading the full text, but why take the
chance.
I *might* be willing to sign a petition that said something like "I request
that the R&D decision be review with a view towards either revocation of same
or a time limit being placed on the R&D as I feel that a lifetime R&D is
exhorbitant". But to tie it in with enforcement of the Pennsic accord which is
still in the comment process set up for such suggestions and then threaten to
try to tear down the entire SCA (yes that could even possibly would happen if
the Board of Corps was pulled in) is going too too far.
Constance de la Rose
lad...@aol.com
Debbie Snyder
"Never say a thing's impossible, chances are you'll rue it
Because some fool who doesn't know, will come along
and do it"
Unknown
Bezold) wrote:
<snip of older entries>
>
>Hear, hear! I may not believe Aveloc is innocent, but the manner in
>which the BOD is handling this smacks of the Inquisition. We don't need
>secret trials. I just left an organization that did that very thing and
>I can tell you from personal experience that it is a procedure far too
>easily abused.
>
>And while Im ranting...
>
>Could someone explain to me this whole "he can never attend an SCA event
>again thing"? If Im autocrating a local event, I should be able to
>invite anyone I damn well please. Does the BOD provide labor for my
>event? Will it underwrite the costs if we go into the red? Will they
>provide legal counsel if someone decides to sue the local group for
>whatever reason?
>
>If the answer to the above is 'no', then I don't see where the BOD has
>the right to violate my first ammendment right to freedom of assembly,
>and tell me whom I will be allowed to associate with and when.
>
>I guess what's really bothering me here is that a faceless group of
>strangers that do not represent me (I didn't elect them) are indirectly
>asking me to help enforce a decision that Im being kept in the dark
>about.
>
>I would feel a whole lot better about this if someone could assure me
>that the BOD is looking out for my best interests.
They can forbid him from attending SCA events without violating your
right to free assembly because this is a private organization, not the
government. Private groups can decide who they want to participate,
and those they do not are not constitutionally deprived.
I'll say that the BOD is looking out for all of our best interests,
precisely because they *are* us - look in your kingdom newsletter, at
the list of nominees. They're from every kingdom (OK, they may not be
right at the moment, but overall they are), and from every rank. They
want to have fun at this game just like you and I do. How likely is
it, do you think, that *ALL SEVEN OF THEM* are just "out to get"
Aveloc?
Avraham
Malachias Invictus
<Avraham> wrote in message
news:bakf5u4hpncht6ohr...@4ax.com...
<re: the BoD>
> They're from every kingdom (OK, they may not be
> right at the moment, but overall they are), and from every rank.
From *every* rank?
Malachias