So, anyone heard what happened at the BoD meeting?
Gretchen Beck
toodles, margaret
Greg Lindahl
Gretchen Beck <g...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Anything interesting?
My girlfriend was in a silk store in Los Altos, and reported running
into a bunch of people shopping for silk who sounded suspiciously like
SCAdians... even worse, Ansteorrans...
-- Gregory
Timothy McDaniel
Gretchen Beck <g...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Anything interesting?
Yes.
Daniel de Lincolia, Laurel Clerk
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Charlene Charette
Uh, that would be me, my husband (Laurel King at Arms), Mistress Kaitlyn
(the Ansteorran Kingdom Exchequer), and the kind local who drove us
there. She was surrounded by Ansteorrans. :-)
--Perronnelle
--
PEDIATRIC REFLECTION
Many an infant that screams like a calliope
Could be soothed by a little attention to its diope.
--Ogden Nash, Hard Lines, 1931
--
email perronnelle at earthlink . net
Greg Lindahl
Charlene Charette <neith...@northere.com> wrote:
>Uh, that would be me, my husband (Laurel King at Arms), Mistress Kaitlyn
>(the Ansteorran Kingdom Exchequer), and the kind local who drove us
>there. She was surrounded by Ansteorrans. :-)
See, easy identification... now who's the guy with the WARDUKE
license plate who drove past me on I-5 a few weekends ago when I was
on my way to Collegium Caidis? He slowed down and gave me a good
look-see... my license plate is CAROSO, but I didn't have any other
SCA-ish accessories visible...
-- Gregory
David W. James
wrote:
> -- Gregory
I don't know that one (not surprising, since I live on the opposite
coast!) I've seen a set of tags here in Atlantia that are something
like 'HRGRACE' that make me wonder if she's a duchess. It is amazing
how little comment my tags get from SCA folk.
David/Kwellend-Njal
VA: A NET OR
Timothy McDaniel
Timothy McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <177506109.1066589909@WANKERLAMP3>,
>Gretchen Beck <g...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>Anything interesting?
>
>Yes.
>
>Daniel de Lincolia, Laurel Clerk
Well, interesting to *me*. Aonghais dubh Mac Tarbh *finally* got his
membership Revoked & Denied and bounced from the Chivalry (they pulled
his chain, nyuk nyuk). (But I presume his other titles stay, such as
his ducal one.)
But what she was hinting at (and I was pulling her chain about):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. Laurel Sovereign of Arms applications
The Board appointed Jacquie Ziegler (Shauna of Carrick Point) to the
office of Laurel Sovereign of Arms, effective at the close of the
April 2004 quarterly meeting.
Also,
Laurel Sovereign of Arms
Laurel requested that the Board approve the release of a badge
designated for a College of Arms deputy, Privy Clerk to Morsulus
Herald. The Board determined that that Laurel has the authority to
release badges registered to his deputies.
Laurel requested that the Board approve a change to Admin Handbook to
require electronic copies of Letters of Intent and Letters of
Comment. The Board approved this change, noting that electronic format
is already the norm for these letters.
Daniel, Laurel Clerk
Charlene Charette
> Anything interesting?
>
> toodles, margaret
>
Here's a copy of the President's report that was just sent out:
PRESIDENT'S REPORT OF THE FOURTH QUARTER 2003
SCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Greetings:
This is the President's report of the actions taken at the SCA, Inc.'s most
recent Board of Directors meeting, held October 18, 2003, in Milpitas,
California (Kingdom of the West). This material may be freely distributed,
and those receiving it are strongly encouraged to share this information
with the general populace. Permission is hereby granted to reprint all, or
part, of this report in Kingdom, Principality, and local newsletters. It is
requested that the source of the information be identified as "from the
President's Report of the October 2003 Board meeting" and that, as far as
possible, exact quotes be used. Please note that this report is NOT the
official Minutes of the Board meeting. In case of any discrepancy between
this document and the approved Minutes, the Minutes are binding. Any
inaccuracies in reporting contained herein are my own.
Subscriptions to the Board Minutes are available from the SCA Inc. A
subscription includes this report in addition to the Minutes approved at the
meeting. Past approved Minutes are also available on the SCA website
(www.sca.org).
The next Board of Directors meeting will be held on January 24, 2004 in
Kansas City, Missouri. The deadline for submission of agenda items is
January 1, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Baron
President, SCA Inc.
------------------------------------
Branch Status Changes
1. The Board took note of the following new branches:
Shire of Tir Medion (Rockdale, TX)
Shire of Bentonshire (Hernando County, FL)
2. The Board took note of the following routine change in status:
Canton of Gate's Edge (Houston, TX) - to Shire
3. The Board took note of the following branch dissolutions:
Shire of Dragon's Lake (Page, AZ)
Shire of Aurochsford (Bullhead City, AZ)
Old Business
A. Corporate Office Manual - Financial Procedures section
The Treasurer presented a draft text of a Financial Procedures manual for
the Corporate office to the Board. It was returned for some changes, and the
Treasurer was requested to bring it back to the Board again at the next
meeting.
New Business
A. Proposed change to Corpora V.B.4.
Corpora V.B.4. currently reads:
A territorial Baron or Baroness may hold any other Society office for which
he or she is fitted and qualified, save only that of Baronial Seneschal, but
must not allow the duties and responsibilities of such office and the office
of Baron or Baroness to conflict.
The following change is proposed:
A territorial Baron or Baroness may hold any other Society office for which
he or she is fitted and qualified, save only those of Baronial Seneschal and
Baronial Exchequer, but must not allow the duties and responsibilities of
such office and the office of Baron or Baroness to conflict.
By consensus, Chairman Moore directed that this proposed change be placed
before the membership for comment, with a commentary due date of April 1,
2003.
B. 2004 Budget
The 2004 budget was adopted as presented, with the note that the Board is
currently seeking information on costs for an audit, which will necessitate
an adjustment to the budget.
The 2004 budget will be available to view soon on the Treasurer's webpage.
C. Marshallate proposal from Bill Colbert
A proposal was presented to the Board concerning restructuring the Office of
the Marshal at both the Society and the Kingdom level to remove authority
for various combat activities, including rapier, archery, and equestrian
activities, from the marshallate, giving deputies full authority for their
areas of responsibility.
By consensus, Chairman Moore ordered this proposal referred to the Society
Marshal and his deputies for comment, and remanded this item to the January
2004 meeting.
D. Proposed change to Corpora IV.C.10
Corpora IV.C.10. currently reads as follows:
"The Royal Heirs and Royalty must maintain their memberships until their
term as Royalty is over. Should anyone serving as a Royal Heir, or as
Royalty, be found in violation of the membership requirements, the term ends
for the couple involved as of the date of the membership lapse. Provisions
of Kingdom Law dealing with the situation are in force. Official acts after
the lapse are void. The couple shall not receive any recognition for having
temporarily held the status of Royal Heirs or Royalty."
The following change is proposed:
"The Royal Heirs and Royalty must maintain their memberships until their
term as Royalty is over. Should anyone serving as a Royal Heir, or as
Royalty, be found in violation of the membership requirements, that
individual's term ends as of the date of the membership lapse. Provisions of
Kingdom Law dealing with the situation are in force. The individual shall
not receive any recognition for having temporarily held the status of Royal
Heir or Royalty."
By consensus, Chairman Moore directed that this proposed change be placed
before the membership for comment, with a commentary due date of April 1,
2004.
E. Associate Membership elimination proposal
A proposal was submitted to the Board suggesting that Associate membership
be eliminated as a category, and that all remaining membership classes
(Sustaining, International, and Family) be counted toward membership numbers
for branch status.
While the Board is not inclined to eliminate Associate memberships, the
Directors feel that the concept of counting more classes of membership
toward Branch status requirements is worth further consideration. The Board
will continue to work on this proposal, and will bring it back for formal
consideration at a future meeting.
Officers' Reports - action items and policy decisions (note: officers not
mentioned here had no action items or policy decisions to present for Board
review)
Society Seneschal
The Society Seneschal requested warrants for George Reed (Aaron Faheud
Swiftrunner of the Stone Keep) as Deputy Society Seneschal, and for Marilee
Lloyd (Arianna Llwyd) as Deputy Society Seneschal for Special Projects. The
warrants were signed during a break.
Society Exchequer
The Society Exchequer requested that the Board approve changes to the
Society Branch Financial Policy. The proposed changes were returned for
further work.
The Society Exchequer requested authorization to require monthly NMS
reporting from Kingdoms which are failing to meet their quarterly reporting
requirements. The Board's opinion was that the Society Exchequer is free to
require monthly reporting of activity, but that actually moneys need not be
sent more often than quarterly.
The Society Exchequer requested a warrant for Anne Klingen (Brigid Mhor
inghean Mhuirchada) as Gulf Wars Exchequer. The warrant was signed during a
break.
Investment Committee
The Investment Committee presented recommendations for the sale of all
shares of two stocks (Gabelli Small Cap Fund and Cisco Systems) in the SCA's
portfolio. The Committee also recommended an exit strategy for stocks and
mutual funds, which requires determining Short Sell and Sell Limit Order
prices for all stocks and funds in the SCA's portfolio. The Board adopted
the strategy, and has asked the committee to recommend Short Sell and Sell
Limit Order prices for our current investments.
Chief Information Architect
The Chief Information Architect requested that the Board approve changing
the Proof of Membership letter used for on-line memberships from PDF to HTML
to eliminate the higher than expected number of people unable to print the
letter. The Board noted that this change had already been approved.
The Chief Information Architect requested that the Board consider forming a
team of experts made up of SCA members willing to donate their time and
versed in the technologies currently used by the registry, to modify the
registry system one last time so that adding Kingdoms in the future do not
require program or database modifications. Because the current registry
system has already been updated to eliminate this problem, the Board decided
that no action will be taken on this item.
The Chief Information Architect requested that an advertising flyer for
Known World Mail be created and included with all Corporate mailings to
members. The Board observed that this would be costly, and would increase
the size the just-reduced renewal packets. Chairman Moore ordered that other
advertising venues, such as announ...@sca.org and the Kingdom
newsletters, be utilized for this purpose, and designated a committee to
create such advertisements.
Laurel Sovereign of Arms
Laurel requested that the Board approve the release of a badge designated
for a College of Arms deputy, Privy Clerk to Morsulus Herald. The Board
determined that that Laurel has the authority to release badges registered
to his deputies.
Laurel requested that the Board approve a change to Admin Handbook to
require electronic copies of Letters of Intent and Letters of Comment. The
Board approved this change, noting that electronic format is already the
norm for these letters.
Corporate Development Officer
The Corporate Development Officer requested that the Board approve Dave
Weiner to create an additional web page to our online services section that
will enable direct donations to the SCA, Inc. so that members may make
donations whenever they wish, instead of having to wait for when they renew
membership. By consensus, the Board agrees that this is a worthy project,
but is not the best use of Mr. Weiner's time. The Board will find another
programmer to take on this project.
The Corporate Development Officer requested that the Board consider and then
select members interested in participating in long-range Strategic Planning
sessions for the purposes of future fundraising goals of the SCA, Inc. The
Corporate Development Officer will facilitate these sessions. The Board
responded that the Corporate Development Officer may create this committee
herself. Interested SCA members are encouraged to contact her directly.
The Corporate Development Officer reported on some new opportunities for
those wishing to donate to the SCA:
"The SCA, Inc. continues to raise funds with www.iGive.com . This website
offers you hundreds of legitimate and popular vendors to choose from for
online purchases. By selecting "Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc." (no
*the*) you can have a percentage of your purchase donated to your favorite
group! We hope that you will consider making a purchase, such as for the
upcoming holidays, on www.iGive.com in the very near future.
MissionFish.org and ebay® have announced a November launch to their joint
fundraising venture. Every ebay seller will have the chance to share a
portion (or all) of the proceeds from each item they sell with the SCA, Inc.
Watch for the inception of this fundraising effort on SCA Announcements, or
on our website.
The Corporate Development Officer wants to know what you think of these
services. Please contact her at: DonaT...@baroness.sca.org or via
devel...@sca.org."
Grand Council
The Grand Council discussed issues of reporting funds for the Non-Member
Surcharge. It also discussed (at the Board's request) whether the
requirements for successful completion of a reign, as listed in Corpora,
should be adjusted. The Grand Council believes the basic rules are
adequate. The majority felt that requests for variance should continue to
be made on a case-by-case basis, with a few members strongly stating that
the list is absolute and no variance should be granted.
Legal Committee
The Legal Committee's Subcommittee on Equestrian Waivers continues to review
the waivers available in each state, and hopes to have a report by the end
of the calendar year.
The Legal Committee was asked to advise whether Youth Marshals would or
could be held to any additional standard of care because they are in charge
of children's martial activities. It is apparent that with a few
inapplicable exceptions, the states do not require voluntary coaches of
children's activities to undertake any special training or licensing.
Outside of scholastic sports, no state has a statute that requires the
training or registration of youth coaches, and a number of states
specifically limit the liability of volunteer coaches and officials,
although most specifically deny protection if the action is "intentional,
willful, wanton, or reckless behavior."
Executive Session
1. Tournaments Illuminated Editor Applications
The Board appointed John C. Sandstrom (Omar Mohammud Mirzazadeh) to the
office of Tournaments Illuminated Editor beginning with the Spring 2004
issue.
2. Tournaments Illuminated Art Director Applications
The Board appointed Linda Kracker (Rhianwen o Enfys Disberod) to the office
of Tournaments Illuminated Art Director beginning with the Spring 2004
issue.
3. Laurel Sovereign of Arms applications
The Board appointed Jacquie Ziegler (Shauna of Carrick Point) to the office
of Laurel Sovereign of Arms, effective at the close of the April 2004
quarterly meeting.
4. Revocation/Denial of Membership - R. Michael Grant
Motion by Lis Schraer to revoke and deny the membership of R. Michael Grant
(Michael O'Gaullee) effective October 18, 2003. Seconded by Gary Raine. In
favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando Vigil.
Opposed: none. Motion carried.
5. Absolute Banishment - Stephanie Goodfellow
Motion by Fernando Vigil to uphold the absolute banishment of Stephanie
Goodfellow (Morag the Wanderer) imposed by Dahoud and Shajara, King and
Queen of Artemisia, on May 10, 2003, and to direct the Society Seneschal to
begin an investigation into revocation and denial of membership. Seconded
by Gary Raine. In favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon,
Fernando Vigil. Opposed: none. Motion carried.
Motion by Gary Raine that Stephanie Goodfellow henceforth be prohibited from
holding any position of financial responsibility within the SCA. Seconded by
Dena Cady. In favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando
Vigil. Opposed: none. Motion carried.
6. Alex White Banishment
Motion by Dena Cady to uphold the banishment from the realm of Alex White
(Boldo) imposed by Christopher and Maurya, King and Queen of Aethelmearc, on
July 12, 2003. Seconded by Gary Raine. In favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine, Lis
Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando Vigil. Opposed: none. Motion carried.
7. Banishment Appeal - Alex White
Motion by Gary Raine that the Board of Directors deny the appeal of Alex
White (Boldo) and uphold the sanctions placed upon him by Christopher and
Maurya, King and Queen of AEthelmearc, on July 12, 2003. Seconded by Dena
Cady. In favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon, Opposed:
none. Abstained: Fernando Vigil. Motion carried.
8. Sanctions Appeal - Rick and Marie Feyes
Motion by Fernando Vigil that the Board of Directors grant the appeal of
Richard and Marie Feyes (Yoan Moon Yang and Eorann Maguire) and lift the
sanctions placed upon them on July 19, 2003, effective October 18, 2003.
Seconded by Lis Schraer.
Motion by Dena Cady to amend the motion to change the effective date of the
lifting of sanctions to January 19, 2004. Seconded by Hal Simon. In favor:
Dena Cady, Hal Simon, Opposed: Lis Schraer, Fernando Vigil. Recused: Gary
Raine. Chairman Moore exercised her option to vote and voted in favor of the
motion. Motion to amend carried.
In favor of the amended motion: Dena Cady, Hal Simon, Lis Schraer. Opposed:
Fernando Vigil. Recused: Gary Raine. Amended motion carried.
9. Revocation/Denial of Membership - Robert Earl Hogan
Motion by Gary Raine to revoke and deny the membership of Robert Earl Hogan
(AElfric of the Black Arrow) effective October 18, 2003. Seconded by Hal
Simon. In favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando
Vigil. Opposed: none. Motion carried.
10. Banishment from the Realm - Stephanie Allen
Motion by Fernando Vigil to uphold the banishment from the realm of
Stephanie Allen proclaimed by Ulsted and Cateau, King and Queen of
Ansteorra, on July 26, 2003. Seconded by Gary Raine. In favor: Dena Cady,
Gary Raine, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando Vigil. Opposed: none. Motion
carried.
Motion by Gary Raine that the Society Seneschal be directed to begin an
investigation into possible revocation and denial of membership of Ms.
Allen. Seconded by Dena Cady. In favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine. Opposed: Lis
Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando Vigil. Motion failed.
Motion by Gary Raine that Stephanie Allen henceforth be prohibited from
holding any position of financial responsibility within the SCA. Seconded by
Hal Simon. In favor: Dena Cady, Gary Raine, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando
Vigil. Opposed: none. Motion carried.
11. Revocation/Denial of Membership - Richmond Slate
Chairman Moore ordered this item remanded to the January 2004 quarterly
meeting.
12. Revocation/Denial of Membership - Tracy Donaldson
Chairman Moore ordered this item remanded to the January 2004 quarterly
meeting.
13. Revocation/Denial of Membership - Paul Serio
Motion by Fernando Vigil to revoke and deny the membership of Paul Serio
(Aonghais dubh Mac Tarbh) effective October 18, 2003. Seconded by Lis
Schraer. In favor: Dena Cady, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon, Fernando Vigil.
Opposed: none. Recused: Gary Raine. Motion carried.
Motion by Fernando Vigil that, upon consideration of the recommendation of
the Crown, Peers, and Officers of the Kingdom of Trimaris, the Board of
Directors herewith removes Aonghais dubh Mac Tarbh (Paul Serio) from the
Order of Chivalry, along with all rights and privileges associated with that
Order. Seconded by Hal Simon. In favor: Dena Cady, Lis Schraer, Hal Simon,
Fernando Vigil. Opposed: none. Recused: Gary Raine. Motion carried.
14. Appeal of Revocation/Denial of Membership - Eric Mauer
By consensus, in keeping with a request from Eric Mauer (Alaric Styrr),
Chairman Moore ordered this item remanded to the January 2004 quarterly
meeting.
Personnel Changes
Director Jason Williams (Duke John ap Gwyndaf of Holdingford) took his seat
at the conclusion of this meeting.
New Ombudsman assignments are as follows:
Linda Moore: President, Executive Vice President for Legal Affairs, Society
Seneschal, Corporate Office, Legal Committee
Dena Cady: Caid, Lochac, West, Chirurgeon, Communications
Gary Raine: An Tir, Calontir, Heralds, Chief Information Architect
Lis Schraer: Atlantia, Drachenwald, Ealdormere, Arts & Sciences, Board
Recruiting
Hal Simon: Artemisia, Atenveldt, Outlands, Grand Council, Development
Officer
Fernando Vigil: AEthelmearc, East, Middle, Financial Officers, Marshal
Jason Williams: Ansteorra, Meridies, Trimaris
Quarterly Meeting Schedule
The First Quarter 2004 meeting will be held on January 24, 2004, in Kansas
City, MO (Kingdom of Calontir). Due date for agenda items is January 1,
2004.
The Second Quarter 2004 meeting will be held on April 24, 2004, in Tampa,
Florida (Kingdom of Trimaris).
The Third Quarter 2004 meeting will be held July 17, 2004. The tentative
location is the Kingdom of the East.
The Fourth Quarter 2004 meeting will be held October 16, 2004. The tentative
location is the Kingdom of Ealdormere.
The First Quarter 2005 meeting will be held January 15, 2005. The tentative
location is the Kingdom of Ansteorra.
REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE CALL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 17, 2003
In the sole item of business at this meeting, the Board took note of the
abdication of Nan Gresko (Berengaria d'Hainault) as Crown Princess of
AEthelmearc.
Comments are strongly encouraged and can be sent to:
SCA Inc.
Box 360789
Milpitas, CA 95036
You may also email comm...@sca.org or reply to this message.
_______________________________________________
Announcements mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit:
http://www.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/announcements
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>The following change is proposed:
>
>A territorial Baron or Baroness may hold any other Society office for which
>he or she is fitted and qualified, save only those of Baronial Seneschal and
>Baronial Exchequer, but must not allow the duties and responsibilities of
>such office and the office of Baron or Baroness to conflict.
>
>By consensus, Chairman Moore directed that this proposed change be placed
>before the membership for comment, with a commentary due date of April 1,
>2003.
^^^^
Bit of a tight timeline?
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
sclark55
> 1. Tournaments Illuminated Editor Applications
>
> The Board appointed John C. Sandstrom (Omar Mohammud Mirzazadeh) to the
> office of Tournaments Illuminated Editor beginning with the Spring 2004
> issue.
>
> 2. Tournaments Illuminated Art Director Applications
>
> The Board appointed Linda Kracker (Rhianwen o Enfys Disberod) to the
office
> of Tournaments Illuminated Art Director beginning with the Spring 2004
> issue.
Which means that Drea and I are officially lame ducks. Woohoo!
Nicolaa
tired but happy TI editor...
Arval
> "The Royal Heirs and Royalty must maintain their memberships until their
> term as Royalty is over. Should anyone serving as a Royal Heir, or as
> Royalty, be found in violation of the membership requirements, the term ends
> for the couple involved as of the date of the membership lapse. Provisions
> of Kingdom Law dealing with the situation are in force. Official acts after
> the lapse are void. The couple shall not receive any recognition for having
> temporarily held the status of Royal Heirs or Royalty."
> The following change is proposed:
> "The Royal Heirs and Royalty must maintain their memberships until their
> term as Royalty is over. Should anyone serving as a Royal Heir, or as
> Royalty, be found in violation of the membership requirements, that
> individual's term ends as of the date of the membership lapse. Provisions of
> Kingdom Law dealing with the situation are in force. The individual shall
> not receive any recognition for having temporarily held the status of Royal
> Heir or Royalty."
In other words, a failure by one of the two would only result in the
removal of that member of the team from office.
This begs the question of why the corporation doesn't simply grant
membership to royalty for the duration of their terms. One can hardly
argue that the duty to write a check once per year is an important
measure of whether someone is suited for royal office. Given the
trauma that a kingdom goes through (as we have recently seen) when a
king or queen must be removed from office, it seems wiser to eliminate
insignificant paperwork requirements that might lead to such a
problem.
Arval
Anthony J. Bryant
> This begs the question of why the corporation doesn't simply grant
> membership to royalty for the duration of their terms.
No it doesn't. It "*brings up* the question" or "makes one wonder" but it
doesn't "*beg* the question."
You know better than that. Don't give in to the dark side.<G>
Effingham
Who is tired of hearing that term misused.
Nerak
>argue that the duty to write a check once per year is an important
>measure of whether someone is suited for royal office. Given the
>trauma that a kingdom goes through (as we have recently seen) when a
>king or queen must be removed from office, it seems wiser to eliminate
>insignificant paperwork requirements that might lead to such a
>problem.
>
> Arval
If the Royal Couple doesn't have their S**t together enough to make sure their
membership is paid -- then how do they intend to administer to the needs of
their Kingdom??
Arval
>> One can hardly argue that the duty to write a check once per year
>> is an important measure of whether someone is suited for royal
>> office.
Nerak replied:
> If the Royal Couple doesn't have their S**t together enough to make sure their
> membership is paid -- then how do they intend to administer to the needs of
> their Kingdom??
If they can't make jello, how can they possibly conduct a court of
chivalry?!
The two things are unrelated. More precisely, the one is so trivial
that it is not useful as a predictor of success at the other. If we
want to establish real prerequisites to try to ensure that our royalty
are qualified for the job, I'm all for it; but let's not fool
ourselves that requiring someone to write & mail one check per year
falls into that category.
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
Arval
>> This begs the question of why the corporation doesn't simply grant
>> membership to royalty for the duration of their terms.
> No it doesn't. It "*brings up* the question" or "makes one wonder" but it
> doesn't "*beg* the question."
It does that too; but it also begs the question: Any effort to refine
an existing policy assumes that there is some sensible reason for the
policy in the first place.
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
Drew Nicholson
news:bnbd5c$1et$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I agree, and said so in my letter to the BoD... But really -- is this a
serious issue? How many royals have actually let their memberships expire?
Drew Nicholson
news:20031024142352...@mb-m28.aol.com...
I might make the supposition that remembering to turn in a piece of paper
that's due once a year at most is rather different than the various and
sundry immediacies of being royalty.
Anthony J. Bryant
> I agree, and said so in my letter to the BoD... But really -- is this a
> serious issue? How many royals have actually let their memberships expire?
>
It's not an issue of how many *have*.
It's an issue of correcting -- and making "fair" -- a poorly written and
conceived regulation *before* something bad happens.
Effingham
Drew Nicholson
news:bnd5ms$lk1$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
Well, I think the number of times the regulation's been invoked would be
interesting to know. And I continue to think it's mostly a non-issue, and
could be completely a non-issue by automatically extending membership to
royals.
Zebee Johnstone
Drew Nicholson <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Well, I think the number of times the regulation's been invoked would be
> interesting to know. And I continue to think it's mostly a non-issue, and
> could be completely a non-issue by automatically extending membership to
> royals.
Is that legal? Isn't that using profits to the benefit of members?
Silfren
Cynthia Virtue
> Drew Nicholson <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> And I continue to think it's mostly a non-issue, and
>>could be completely a non-issue by automatically extending membership to
>>royals.
>
>
> Is that legal? Isn't that using profits to the benefit of members?
I think Silfren's probably right.
And if membership requirements for royals are somehow not
functional/useful, I think it it reflects the general state of
membership for everyone.
Feel free to disagree by taking the membership survey at sca.org!
--
Cynthia Virtue and/or
Cynthia du Pré Argent
Crivens!
David W. James
"Drew Nicholson" <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I agree, and said so in my letter to the BoD... But really -- is this a
> serious issue? How many royals have actually let their memberships expire?
I do not recall any instances where a sitting royal couple allowed their
memberships to expire. I do know of one instance (East) where a winner
of Crown was found to not have a valid membership after Crown. If my
memory is correct, a second Crown Tourney was held.
I understand that there was also a recent Crown tourney in the East
where a participant was not allowed to fight because his or her
membership card had not arrived, and the central office was unable or
unwilling to verify that their forms and check/credit card had been
processed. I have been told that their membership was valid at the time
of Crown, but they were denied participation due to this beaurocratic
snafu.
David/Kwellend-Njal
newsreader
> > If the Royal Couple doesn't have their S**t together enough to make sure
their
> > membership is paid -- then how do they intend to administer to the needs
of
> > their Kingdom??
>
> If they can't make jello, how can they possibly conduct a court of
> chivalry?!
>
> The two things are unrelated. More precisely, the one is so trivial
> that it is not useful as a predictor of success at the other.
I tend to agree with Nerak. Remembering to maintain one's membership may
not be proof of fiscal and organizational responsibility but not having
enough of a clue to do so is probably a good indicator that such
responsibility is lacking.
> If we
> want to establish real prerequisites to try to ensure that our royalty
> are qualified for the job, I'm all for it; but let's not fool
> ourselves that requiring someone to write & mail one check per year
> falls into that category.
It's a low hurdle, but it's a hurdle nonetheless. It's bad enough that the
Crown is a tourney prize, let's at least make sure that the people wearing
it have to demonstrate at least a *hint* of a clue.
YIS,
Macsen
newsreader
"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbpkobf...@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> Is that legal? Isn't that using profits to the benefit of members?
One could argue it either way.
IMHO, it's far simpler to expect that anyone who intends to sit as Crown
should have at least the minimal amount of forsight to make sure that their
membership is kept up to date. We're not talking about rocket science after
all.
YIS,
Macsen
newsreader
"David W. James" <un...@aolDAMNSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:unend-EEF1FB....@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> processed. I have been told that their membership was valid at the time
> of Crown, but they were denied participation due to this beaurocratic
> snafu.
The "brueaucratic snafu" was that Renee patently refused to check paperwork
in the office to verify the membership at the official request of the EK
Seneschal.
Yet another reason why Renee should have been sacked years ago.
YIS,
Macsen
Arval
>> Well, I think the number of times the regulation's been invoked would be
>> interesting to know. And I continue to think it's mostly a non-issue, and
>> could be completely a non-issue by automatically extending membership to
>> royals.
> Is that legal? Isn't that using profits to the benefit of members?
What benefit? The only benefits of membership (other than the
newsletter) are the ones that the corporation has arbitrarily decided
to withhold from non-members. And the SCA has always provided free
extra newsletters to many of its officers. I can't imagine any
mundane government official seriously entertaining the notion that
providing free newsletters etc. to our highest officers rises to the
level of actionable self-dealing.
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
Arval
Macsen wrote:
> It's a low hurdle, but it's a hurdle nonetheless. It's bad enough that the
> Crown is a tourney prize, let's at least make sure that the people wearing
> it have to demonstrate at least a *hint* of a clue.
But as you said yourself, it is so low a hurdle that it doesn't really
prove anything. So we need to weigh the benefit of this requirement
-- which we agree is nearly zero -- against the damage to a kingdom of
removing a sitting king or queen who might otherwise be doing a fine
job. I think this choice is a no-brainer.
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
Brian M. Scott
<newsr...@wyvernhall.com> wrote:
>"Arval" <ar...@mittle.users.panix.com> wrote in message
>news:bnbvft$932$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> > If the Royal Couple doesn't have their S**t together enough to make sure
>> > their
>> > membership is paid -- then how do they intend to administer to the needs
>> >of their Kingdom??
>> If they can't make jello, how can they possibly conduct a court of
>> chivalry?!
>> The two things are unrelated. More precisely, the one is so trivial
>> that it is not useful as a predictor of success at the other.
>I tend to agree with Nerak. Remembering to maintain one's membership may
>not be proof of fiscal and organizational responsibility but not having
>enough of a clue to do so is probably a good indicator that such
>responsibility is lacking.
You are making an unwarranted assumption. It is entirely
possible to have a whole hatful of clues and still forget to
renew membership. The important demands on royalty are of a
wholly different character.
>> If we
>> want to establish real prerequisites to try to ensure that our royalty
>> are qualified for the job, I'm all for it; but let's not fool
>> ourselves that requiring someone to write & mail one check per year
>> falls into that category.
>It's a low hurdle, but it's a hurdle nonetheless. It's bad enough that the
>Crown is a tourney prize, let's at least make sure that the people wearing
>it have to demonstrate at least a *hint* of a clue.
So instead of one irrelevant qualification, you would impose two.
Talan
Arhylda
>where a participant was not allowed to fight because his or her
>membership card had not arrived, and the central office was unable or
>unwilling to verify that their forms and check/credit card had been
>processed. I have been told that their membership was valid at the time
>of Crown, but they were denied participation due to this beaurocratic
>snafu.
>
>David/Kwellend-Njal
Not a "snafu", unless you count not renewing membership until two weeks before
Crown a snafu on the part of the participants. Am I not correct that all of the
membership renewal materials clearly stated a waiting period of at least a
month for membership cards to be processed, unless other arrangements had been
made (this being before the truly instant memberships on-line were available)?
The participants in question (there were two of them) both faxed in memberships
just before Crown (and after the deadline for application for the Crown, when
proof of membership is required), both tried to use their fax receipt as proof
of membership, both had fought in crowns multiple times before and KNEW BETTER
(at least one of them had not been allowed to fight in a previous crown for the
same reason), and both then pitched a hissy fit when Renee could not drop
everything to search for their faxed applications the Wednesday before Crown,
which happened to also be the end of the month (when kingdom newsletter label
processing is going on) and at least eight other crown tourneys were happening
that same upcoming weekend. I wonder how many of those same types of calls she
got that week, hmm?
Mairi
newsreader
> But as you said yourself, it is so low a hurdle that it doesn't really
> prove anything. So we need to weigh the benefit of this requirement
> -- which we agree is nearly zero -- against the damage to a kingdom of
> removing a sitting king or queen who might otherwise be doing a fine
> job. I think this choice is a no-brainer.
I agree it's a no brainer, I just don't agree with your conclusion. =>
Given the "damage" potential, it's important that any Crown makes the effort
to clear this insignificant hurdle. If they can't manage that simple task,
then they already have the potential to do far more damage than removing
them would ever do.
YIS,
Macsen
newsreader
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3f9a8684...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:50:01 GMT, "newsreader"
> You are making an unwarranted assumption. It is entirely
> possible to have a whole hatful of clues and still forget to
> renew membership. The important demands on royalty are of a
> wholly different character.
I submit to you that, given that maintaining a membership is a *requirement*
for keeping a Crown, it is every bit as "important" as any of the other
demands on royalty. Plus, unlike most other demands on royalty, the time
and effort needed to meet this simple requirement is trivial.
> >It's a low hurdle, but it's a hurdle nonetheless. It's bad enough that
the
> >Crown is a tourney prize, let's at least make sure that the people
wearing
> >it have to demonstrate at least a *hint* of a clue.
>
> So instead of one irrelevant qualification, you would impose two.
We are in full agreement that winning a tournament is a totally irrelevant
qualification for the position. I disagree that demonstrating in some small
way the ability to follow instructions and show the tiniest bit of
responsibility is entirely relevant.
In short, anyone either too stupid or too careless to maintain a membership
probably has no business filling any significant kingdom level office --
especially Crown.
YIS,
Macsen
sclark55
> What benefit? The only benefits of membership (other than the
> newsletter) are the ones that the corporation has arbitrarily decided
> to withhold from non-members.
To be exact, in a number of cases it is individual kingdoms, rather than
"the corporation" that has withheld benefits from non-members. This includes
pay-to-fight and the requirement in some kingdoms that one be a member to
receive awards. Neither of these are mandated by the SCA, Inc. (Inasmuch as
the kingdoms are part of the corporate structure, one could argue that the
corporation has mandated these as well, but I think it's important to point
out that not all member benefits (or maybe rather non-member
lack-of-benefits) are universal or mandated from the corporate level.)
Nicolaa
Cynthia Virtue
> Given the "damage" potential, it's important that any Crown makes the effort
> to clear this insignificant hurdle. If they can't manage that simple task,
> then they already have the potential to do far more damage than removing
> them would ever do.
Any of us have the potential to do a lot of damage as Royals, if we
willed it. I bet someone could do a lot of damage and stay within the
rules, and possibly within Society etiquitte, if that was really a goal.
The ability to fill out paperwork on time may or may not be a virtue,
but one's score on that part of life doesn't reflect very well on one's
ability to do anything else.
From my point of view, the membership for Tourney entrants is part of a
checklist that each couple should have in their head well prior to the
tourney itself. The marshalls require this sort of armor; the current
royals require this sort of letter; the Inc. requires a membership; my
consort requires some sort of token of my favor; biology requires some
Gatorade; etc. It's not a value judgement item, it's just a pass/fail
item. Some of the other items on the list are pass/fail also.
Brian M. Scott
<cvi...@thibault.org> wrote:
>Macsen wrote:
>> Given the "damage" potential, it's important that any Crown makes the effort
>> to clear this insignificant hurdle. If they can't manage that simple task,
>> then they already have the potential to do far more damage than removing
>> them would ever do.
>Any of us have the potential to do a lot of damage as Royals, if we
>willed it. I bet someone could do a lot of damage and stay within the
>rules, and possibly within Society etiquitte, if that was really a goal.
How many times it's been done depends on whom you ask, but many
would give you a figure greater than zero.
>The ability to fill out paperwork on time may or may not be a virtue,
>but one's score on that part of life doesn't reflect very well on one's
>ability to do anything else.
And it ranks fairly low on the scale of royal virtues.
[...]
Talan
Brian M. Scott
<newsr...@wyvernhall.com> wrote:
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3f9a8684...@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 13:50:01 GMT, "newsreader"
>> You are making an unwarranted assumption. It is entirely
>> possible to have a whole hatful of clues and still forget to
>> renew membership. The important demands on royalty are of a
>> wholly different character.
>I submit to you that, given that maintaining a membership is a *requirement*
>for keeping a Crown, it is every bit as "important" as any of the other
>demands on royalty.
No. It's an irrelevance, an artificial requirement having
nothing to do with the real business of the crown.
[...]
>> So instead of one irrelevant qualification, you would impose two.
>We are in full agreement that winning a tournament is a totally irrelevant
>qualification for the position.
No, we are not. It's not very much to the point, but it is a
much more substantial demonstration of commitment and ability to
plan than remembering to renew one's membership once a year. You
don't win a Crown Tournament without having put some real time,
effort, and dedication into it.
> I disagree that demonstrating in some small
>way the ability to follow instructions and show the tiniest bit of
>responsibility is entirely relevant.
>In short, anyone either too stupid or too careless to maintain a membership
>probably has no business filling any significant kingdom level office --
>especially Crown.
You're very free and easy with your insulting judgements. Were I
to respond in kind, I'd say that anyone so stupid as to think
that maintaining a membership has anything much to do with
fitness for office probably has no business filling any
significant kingdom-level office. Instead I will suggest that
you would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion that there
is any necessary connection between carelessness in little things
and carelessness that matters. In some people they may go hand
in hand; in others they are utterly unrelated.
Talan
Dennis M. O'Connor
>Any of us have the potential to do a lot of damage as Royals, if we
>willed it.
Only because a bunch of fools let the Crowns do so.
In reality, SCA Royals hold no real power of any consequence.
They hand out baubles and titles, and have a say in who gets
to do some volunteer work. If people didn't exaggerate the importance
of these things, Royals couldn't be as destructive as they sometimes are.
The Crown can't even banish someone from the SCA:
only the BoD can do that. And that's a damn good thing.
When I joined the SCA, I was in a remote area of the East Kingdom
that only saw a King or Queen every other year or so. I clearly remember
the first Peer in our area, and after that it was long before another.
Now I know I was lucky: the SCA is better without Kings, Queens or Peers.
They distract people from what is really important, and create strife,
via jealousy, resentment, conceit and injustice, not necessarily because
of the people who hold the titles, mind you: the titles themselves do it.
Who among us can honestly claim they have not seen one of these
titles awarded to an unworthy, or not thought someone worthy
had been denied it for reasons that would shame the Devil ?
These negative feelings create strife that outweighs whatever benefit
these titles supposedly provide. A "merit badge" system would be better.
Royals and Peers are parts of America's culture legacy from Europe that
I'm happy we abandoned. And I've abandoned having any respect for
those titles in the SCA, after hard experience. So they can do me
no harm, which brings us back to the fools mentioned at the beginning,
who _do_ allow Royals and Peers to harm them. Fools. Open your eyes.
Reclaim the power you gave them over you. You'll be happier.
I certainly am, regardless of what the net.telepath.frauds seem to think.
--
Dennis M. O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Cynthia Virtue
>>Cynthia Virtue <cvi...@thibault.org> wrote:
>>Any of us have the potential to do a lot of damage as Royals, if we
>>willed it.
>
> Only because a bunch of fools let the Crowns do so.
> If people didn't exaggerate the importance
> of these things, Royals couldn't be as destructive as they sometimes are
The situation with the Royals is no different than any other, mundane
organization's, leaders and figureheads, and their damage equivalent.
Drew Nicholson
No, it's paying an expense. We have a royal travel fund in the MidRealm
that royalty can submit receipts to; this could come under the same
category.
Purple
Drew Nicholson
news:k6KdneM6tKI...@speakeasy.net...
I didn't see anything in that survey about that. Did I miss it?
I think it's very useful to make sure that no one's reign is messed up
because they forgot to send in a piece of paper.
Arval
royalty to maintain membership vs. my suggestion that the corporation
just grant membership to royalty for the duration of their service.
> Given the "damage" potential, it's important that any Crown makes
> the effort to clear this insignificant hurdle. If they can't manage
> that simple task, then they already have the potential to do far
> more damage than removing them would ever do.
As I said, it's a matter of weighing the costs and benefits. You are
saying that you consider the benefit of requiring a trivial bit of
paperwork to outweigh the cost of the disruption caused by removing a
sitting king and/or queen. I personally don't see enough benefit in
the membership requirement to justify disrupting even one event -- and
removing sitting royalty would undoubtedly cause far more damage than
that. I think that ensuring that hundreds of people have fun in the
game is a lot more important that worrying about trivial paperwork.
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
David W. James
"Drew Nicholson" <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Feel free to disagree by taking the membership survey at sca.org!
> I didn't see anything in that survey about that. Did I miss it?
That questionaire is the (delayed) result of a proposal submitted by
Duke Frederick of Holland at last January's Board meeting in Phoenix.
His proposal would replace the current funding of the corporation (by
selling 'memberships') with an amount per attendee at events.
The upshot would be that 'membership' in the SCA would be defined by
participation, not by a check clearing in California.
Obviously, if there are no 'memberships' as they currently exist, then
there is no way for royals (or officers, or anyone) to fail to be a
member.
Please see his web page for more info on Duke Frederick's proposal:
http://xray.cchem.berkeley.edu/flieg2/allmember/PMPtoc.html
David/Kwellend-Njal
David W. James
arh...@aol.com (Arhylda) wrote:
> I wonder how many of those same types of calls she
> got that week, hmm?
> Mairi
It doesn't matter. She is a paid employee. It is part of her job. If
she did indeed refuse to do so, she should be disciplined by the Board.
I hope that the East and the folks affected complained.
David/Kwellend-Njal
Brian M. Scott
<anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Cynthia Virtue" <cvi...@thibault.org> wrote in message
>news:k6KdneM6tKI...@speakeasy.net...
[...]
>> And if membership requirements for royals are somehow not
>> functional/useful, I think it it reflects the general state of
>> membership for everyone.
>> Feel free to disagree by taking the membership survey at sca.org!
>I didn't see anything in that survey about that. Did I miss it?
Wasn't there a question asking for your opinion on membership
requirements for royalty and the like?
[...]
Talan
Chris Zakes
Maybe. But if the Crown doesn't need to keep up their membership, then
why should the Kingdom Seneschal or other Great Officers? For that
matter, why should the Barons or local officers?
Considering that groups sometimes have trouble finding *anybody* to
take an office, maybe that should be on of the "perks" of holding an
office: automatic membership.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
Great holes secretly are digged where earth's pores ought to
suffice, and things have learnt to walk that ought only to crawl.
Abdul Alhazred, "The Necronomicon"
Drew Nicholson
Ah, I see. Thank you.
Drew Nicholson
As anecdotal evidence that it's not difficult to do, I asked Renee for a
fax-confirmation of membership a few years ago. It took a day for her to
get it, but she did it.
I really think that what should happen is a way for people to get proof of
membership on their own, over the internet, accessing the database. Just
like we should be able to renew our memberships online, too.
Purple
Drew Nicholson
Honestly, I don't remember.
Drew Nicholson
news:3etnpvsed6p37qucl...@4ax.com...
> >
> >Well, I think the number of times the regulation's been invoked would be
> >interesting to know. And I continue to think it's mostly a non-issue,
and
> >could be completely a non-issue by automatically extending membership to
> >royals.
>
>
> Maybe. But if the Crown doesn't need to keep up their membership, then
> why should the Kingdom Seneschal or other Great Officers? For that
> matter, why should the Barons or local officers?
>
This must vary from Kingdom to Kingdom; I wonder what happens if a landed
Baron fails to renew a membership...
But if the Kingdom Seneschal fails to renew, I don't think that awards are
made invalid.
> Considering that groups sometimes have trouble finding *anybody* to
> take an office, maybe that should be on of the "perks" of holding an
> office: automatic membership.
>
Maybe it should. I wouldn't mind that, and I'd know that my membership
funds were going to something worthwhile.
David W. James
"Drew Nicholson" <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I really think that what should happen is a way for people to get proof of
> membership on their own, over the internet, accessing the database. Just
> like we should be able to renew our memberships online, too.
> Purple
You mean renew the way the button with the dancing exclaimation mark at
www.sca.org allows you to?
https://secure.sca.org/membership/
I am less enthusiastic about accessing the database over the network.
Period.
David/Kwellend-Njal
Arhylda
Do you know for sure that it IS part of her job to send a fax confirmation to
anyone who requests one? I'm pretty sure that even with faxing in a credit card
number, the following regulation still applied (this was before confirmations
could be printed directly from the web). Membership forms clearly read:
"Subscriptions may take 4 to 7 weeks for processing. For confirmation, send
self-addressed, stamped blank postcard, one postcard per person."
The postcard option is there for those who need confirmation sooner than 4-7
weeks.
Nowhere does it say that faxed confirmations are an option.
Mairi
Drew Nicholson
"David W. James" <un...@aolDAMNSPAM.com> wrote in message
> In article <zHUmb.24746$mZ5.101463@attbi_s54>,
> "Drew Nicholson" <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I really think that what should happen is a way for people to get proof
of
> > membership on their own, over the internet, accessing the database.
Just
> > like we should be able to renew our memberships online, too.
>
> > Purple
>
> You mean renew the way the button with the dancing exclaimation mark at
> www.sca.org allows you to?
>
> https://secure.sca.org/membership/
>
<<In order to receive a membership card with waiver confirmation, you'll
need to complete a waiver. Just print out the waiver form, print your legal
name, date it, sign it and mail or fax it to the SCA's Corporate office.
We'll send your new membership card, with waiver confirmation, out to you in
the mail once we've received the signed waiver. Until your
waiver-confirmation card arrives, you'll need to sign waivers at events you
attend. If you're purchasing memberships for more than one person, please
remember that we need a separate, signed waiver for every individual,
including minors.>>
Until we can dump this part, I'm frankly unsatisfied.
> I am less enthusiastic about accessing the database over the network.
> Period.
Proper safeguards can be put into effect.
Purple
David W. James
> Do you know for sure that it IS part of her job to send a fax confirmation to
> anyone who requests one?
> Mairi
Another poster stated that it was an official request of the East
kingdom seneschal. That isn't "anyone".
In any case, Crown tourneys are major events. The corporate office of
the SCA exists to support events such as Crown tourney. We have a V.P.
of Member Services. Verification of 'membership' in support of a major
event would certainly seem to qualify as a 'member service', regardless
wether it is the regional executive officer or the participant who needs
the proof. If it isn't Member Services' job, whose is it? But since
verification of membership status manifestly falls under the VP for
Member Services, you have to ask why it wasn't done.
In other words, yes, it was her job.
David/Kwellend-Njal
sclark55
> In any case, Crown tourneys are major events. The corporate office of
> the SCA exists to support events such as Crown tourney. We have a V.P.
> of Member Services. Verification of 'membership' in support of a major
> event would certainly seem to qualify as a 'member service', regardless
> wether it is the regional executive officer or the participant who needs
> the proof. If it isn't Member Services' job, whose is it? But since
> verification of membership status manifestly falls under the VP for
> Member Services, you have to ask why it wasn't done.
I believe the Corporate Office tries to promote the idea that it's the duty
of individual members to make sure their membership is in order before
competing in a Crown Tourney--otherwise, a precedent could be set that might
lead to the Corporate Office being swamped with requests for membership
confirmation. It was also explained in the earlier post that Corporate was
in the midst of doing the label runs for kingdom newsletters. I suspect
Renee may have given that higher priority--after all, that affects a *lot*
more members.
In any case, from what I understand with the new online renewal system, you
can actually get an instant confirmation of your membership once you've hit
the magic button. You still have to send in the waiver, but the proof that
you've paid your money is generally what's needed. I would suspect that
this should greatly lessen the need for requesting faxed proofs of
membership.
Nicolaa
newsreader
> that. I think that ensuring that hundreds of people have fun in the
> game is a lot more important that worrying about trivial paperwork.
Until such time as the BoD decides that officers aren't required to have
memberships, this particular paperwork will remain non-trivial.
Also, you are presupposing that having a Crown has a non-trivial effect on
"ensuring that hundreds of people have fun in the game." Personally, I
don't find that the presence or absence of a Crown is *that* critical.
YMMV.
YIS,
Macsen
newsreader
> >In short, anyone either too stupid or too careless to maintain a
membership
> >probably has no business filling any significant kingdom level office --
> >especially Crown.
>
> You're very free and easy with your insulting judgements.
So prove me wrong.
(BTW, as I've only "insulted" a hypothetical subset of people who, AFAIK,
contains zero members, it's a pretty safe judgement to make. Don't you
think?)
> Were I to respond in kind, I'd say that anyone so stupid as to think
> that maintaining a membership has anything much to do with
> fitness for office probably has no business filling any
> significant kingdom-level office. Instead I will suggest that
Go back and reread. I didn't say it did. I said failing to complete so
simple a task is probably a get indication of unfitness. The two statements
are not interchangeable.
> you would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion that there
> is any necessary connection between carelessness in little things
> and carelessness that matters. In some people they may go hand
> in hand; in others they are utterly unrelated.
Allowing membership to lapse means one is inelegible to continue in office.
That, IMHO, makes failure to do so "carelessness that matters." As I noted
earlier, there's a good chance that anyone incapable or irresponsible enough
to fail to complete this (simplest?) task during their tenure in office is
likely to be careless and irresponsible in other ways as well.
YIS,
Macsen
Arval
> Until such time as the BoD decides that officers aren't required to have
> memberships, this particular paperwork will remain non-trivial.
You do realize, don't you, that this is a circular argument? I.e.,
buying a membership is an important requirement for office because the
SCA arbitrarily decided to make it a requirement of holding office.
Obviously everyone here knows that's true; what we are discussing is
whether it SHOULD be a requirement for office.
> Also, you are presupposing that having a Crown has a non-trivial effect on
> "ensuring that hundreds of people have fun in the game."
Yes, I am. I think that all the people whose awards will be revoked
if we discover that a King was ineligible to reign, and all their
friends, will be pretty damned upset. I think that an autocrat
planning an event around the royal presense, and all the members of
her shire, will be very unhappy when they learn that there is no
royalty to attend. You may not care about royalty, Macsen, but they
_are_ a central element of our game, regardless of your opinion.
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
Cynthia Virtue
> Yes, I am. I think that all the people whose awards will be revoked
> if we discover that a King was ineligible to reign, and all their
> friends, will be pretty damned upset.
True -- although in the language change under discussion, the Queen
could still be a valid Royal Personage even if the king is deposed, and
she could carry the validity-weight of every award given, save one,
unless she's a Knight.
--
Cynthia Virtue and/or
Cynthia du Pré Argent
Crivens!
Greg Lindahl
David W. James <un...@aolDAMNSPAM.com> wrote:
>In other words, yes, it was her job.
Wow. You do a good job of making authoritative statements, but can you
back it up at all? For example, I don't think your personal opinion
trumps what the BoD or Society Seneschal or President thinks about
this matter. Maybe you could ask them about it _before_ posting on
rec.org.sca? Or, if you did so, you could mention it, so that people
could evaluate what you've claimed.
-- Gregory
Greg Lindahl
>participation, not by a check clearing in California.
That was completely unclear in the questionnaire. The questionnaire
left me wondering how making events members-only would mesh with
membership being defined by "participation"... which wasn't defined,
so I was left thinking that you couldn't go to an event because you
haven't been to a meeting, or something like that.
It's still well worth filling out the questionnaire, by the way, just
be sure to make comments if you can't figure out what the questions
mean. I also left a comment that I was disappointed that the NMS
didn't really have a specific question on the questionnaire, when it
was well known to be controversial.
-- Gregory
jk
>
>When I joined the SCA, I was in a remote area of the East Kingdom
>that only saw a King or Queen every other year or so. I clearly remember
>the first Peer in our area, and after that it was long before another.
Oh come on, Concordia wasn't all THAT remote.
Cynthia Virtue
>>The upshot would be that 'membership' in the SCA would be defined by
>>participation, not by a check clearing in California.
> That was completely unclear in the questionnaire.
Yeah, it was poorly written. I'm in the process of a letter to the
Board explaining how useless the results will be (politely)
Part of my draft, which desperately needs editing for clarity says:
This is fairly clearly an attempt to directly address Duke Frederick's
membership idea. However, the question doesn't give any context: Should
the fees be paid to an SCA, Inc. as it exists today? After a
significant restructuring per Duke Frederick's idea, or other people's
ideas of decentralization? Some people will not have heard of any other
way to run the Inc. than as it is now, and will not even understand why
the question is being asked. All of this makes an enormous difference
in how someone would answer this question.
It's like asking "would you like chocolate or onion flavor?" What I
want depends upon whether we're talking about ice cream or bagels, but
the question didn't specify. A preponderance of "chocolate" responses
will only indicate that most people thought the question was about ice
cream, not whether chocolate is the best choice above other ice-cream
options, which may have been the intent of the question writer. Because
it wasn't specified, the results will be contradictory and ....
Dennis M. O'Connor
Baloney. I've never heard anyone, in any other organization,
say "The figurehead-leader's word is law". People say that
here in Atenveldt, and they mean it. They are fools.
--
Cynthia Virtue
>>The situation with the Royals is no different than any other, mundane
>>organization's, leaders and figureheads, and their damage equivalent.
>
> Baloney. I've never heard anyone, in any other organization,
> say "The figurehead-leader's word is law".
Religious groups have a history of this sort of thing, from the Pope to
the one-offs that occasionally pop up in the media. I'm sure there are
other cults-of-personality examples.
Dennis M. O'Connor
I joined in Anglespur, not Concordia, a few years before.
When my future-wife (who was one of the founders of Anglespur)
and I autocratted "Feast of the Winter Storm" there in March 1981
(IIRC, could have been '82) it was the first time a King and Queen
(Aelfwine and Arastorm) had been to an event in the area in quite a while,
if ever. We were quite remote IMHO, as was anyone not near I-95.
Remember when Mistress Teragram became the first Peer in the area ?
(Yeah, back then you could spell "Margaret" backward, use it as
a name, work hard, be well-respected, and get a Peerage. Now it seems
that the latter two don't matter if your name isn't registered ... yet
another thing that's gone wrong with the SCA in the past 20 years. )
And I remember "Black Rose Ball" down in Bridge: live musicians,
scores of people, all there to dance ! Yeah, I remember doing
"Horse's Bransle" in a huge long line even after the musicians
stopped, and everyone trying to dance the "Califean" faster than
the musicians could play it ... <sigh> Does Bridge still hold the Ball,
I wonder ? Dance seems so neglected in the Biker Kingdoms.
--
sclark55
> Baloney. I've never heard anyone, in any other organization,
> say "The figurehead-leader's word is law". People say that
> here in Atenveldt, and they mean it. They are fools.
Well, I don't live in a "king's word is law" kingdom, but I know people who
do. Most of them choose to espouse this idea as part of the game they're
playing, and it stops when it ceases being enjoyable.
Yes, there are some who do not, as well as others who espouse the idea when
it suits them politically, but I've run into their equivalents in just about
every org I've ever belonged to. They may not be able to point to a
statement about someone's word being law, but instead will use pressure to
get people to "be a team player" and toe the accepted line, with more or
less the same sorts of consequences you see in the SCA (including membership
revocation in some cases).
The SCA has no exclusive contract on idiots. We just have our own brand.
Nicolaa
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
They may or may not consider it part of her job; so what?
Kwellend obviously does, and what you've left up there at the top
is obviously nothing more than an authoritative statement of his
opinion (with which I'm inclined to agree, though at the same
time I certainly don't wish to absolve participants in Crown of
all responsibility for following simple directions).
Talan
newsreader
> You do realize, don't you, that this is a circular argument? I.e.,
> buying a membership is an important requirement for office because the
> SCA arbitrarily decided to make it a requirement of holding office.
It's not circular as the discussion isn't about whether or not membership
should be required (I thought I alluded to that already) but whether failing
to maintain it should be grounds for booting a Crown.
> Obviously everyone here knows that's true; what we are discussing is
> whether it SHOULD be a requirement for office.
More accurately, we've been discussing whether or not failing to meet this
trivial responsibility should disqualify a Crown. IMHO, the discussion of
whether of not a membership should be required to hold office is another
larger issue altogether.
> Yes, I am. I think that all the people whose awards will be revoked
> if we discover that a King was ineligible to reign, and all their
In any sane kingdom, Memberships are checked before Crown is ever even
fought. I'd expect a prudent Seneschal to be sure that the Crown's
membership remains current. How long do you think a lapse would really go
undetected? And do you really think the BoD would be all that strict about
retroactively removing awards? Even so, big deal.
> royalty to attend. You may not care about royalty, Macsen, but they
> _are_ a central element of our game, regardless of your opinion.
Central, rarely ever critical, and never indispensible.
YIS,
Macsen
Arval
I had writtetn:
>> You do realize, don't you, that this is a circular argument? I.e.,
>> buying a membership is an important requirement for office because the
>> SCA arbitrarily decided to make it a requirement of holding office.
Macsen replied:
> It's not circular as the discussion isn't about whether or not membership
> should be required (I thought I alluded to that already) but whether failing
> to maintain it should be grounds for booting a Crown.
OK, I guess you've completely misunderstood what Talan and I (and
others) have been saying. Go back and read my comments and Talan's
and you will see that we have _always_ been talking about whether
membership should be required, not whether it is required. Everyone
knows that it _is_ required, so that would be an awfully silly thing
to argue about.
Arval
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
Michael Houghton
In article <D2Zmb.6101$FI2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
newsreader <newsr...@wyvernhall.com> wrote:
>
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
>news:3f9b2988...@enews.newsguy.com...
>
>> >In short, anyone either too stupid or too careless to maintain a
>membership
>> >probably has no business filling any significant kingdom level office --
>> >especially Crown.
>>
>> You're very free and easy with your insulting judgements.
>
>So prove me wrong.
>
> (BTW, as I've only "insulted" a hypothetical subset of people who, AFAIK,
>contains zero members, it's a pretty safe judgement to make. Don't you
>think?)
Lose the quotes. On what basis do you assume that the subset you speak of
is empty? You are dangerously sure of yourself.
What is it that you seek proof of? What proofs do you offer to support your
outlandish claim?
>
>> Were I to respond in kind, I'd say that anyone so stupid as to think
>> that maintaining a membership has anything much to do with
>> fitness for office probably has no business filling any
>> significant kingdom-level office. Instead I will suggest that
>
>Go back and reread. I didn't say it did. I said failing to complete so
>simple a task is probably a get indication of unfitness. The two statements
>are not interchangeable.
I do not take it as a given that failing to renew one's membership is, per
se, an indicator that that person is not fit to hold the office they hold.
The correlation is quite imperfect. Talan is merely turning your outlandish
claim on its head. His formulation is just as valid as yours -- which is to
say, not at all.
>> you would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion that there
>> is any necessary connection between carelessness in little things
>> and carelessness that matters. In some people they may go hand
>> in hand; in others they are utterly unrelated.
>
>Allowing membership to lapse means one is inelegible to continue in office.
>That, IMHO, makes failure to do so "carelessness that matters." As I noted
>earlier, there's a good chance that anyone incapable or irresponsible enough
>to fail to complete this (simplest?) task during their tenure in office is
>likely to be careless and irresponsible in other ways as well.
The current rules do demand membership. Of that there is no question.
The real question is "is this an appropriate measure?" On that, there
is considerable question. You are free to believe that the measure is
appropriate, but you seem to be incapable of considering that others of
good will disagree.
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/
Zebee Johnstone
sclark55 <scla...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Greetings--
>
>> Baloney. I've never heard anyone, in any other organization,
>> say "The figurehead-leader's word is law". People say that
>> here in Atenveldt, and they mean it. They are fools.
>
> Well, I don't live in a "king's word is law" kingdom, but I know people who
> do. Most of them choose to espouse this idea as part of the game they're
> playing, and it stops when it ceases being enjoyable.
>
As it was told to me, "In the west, the King's word is Law. But if the
king says to dig that ditch, it might take 6 months to find the
shovels".
In practice, I believe most of the sillier things have been quietly
advised against before becoming law. Some of them have been accepted by
the advisors because they reflected the advisor's own beliefs.
Silfren
Drew Nicholson
news:Vu9nb.7664$FI2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> > royalty to attend. You may not care about royalty, Macsen, but they
> > _are_ a central element of our game, regardless of your opinion.
>
> Central, rarely ever critical, and never indispensible.
>
> YIS,
> Macsen
>
>
In your opinion. I quite strongly disagree.
Greg Lindahl
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>Wasn't there a question asking for your opinion on membership
>requirements for royalty and the like?
Yes, there was. It was pretty comprehensive, asking about all the
current situations where membership is required, and asking about
potential additions. So, anyone who feels passionate about this
issue has a good way to make their voice heard: fill out the survey.
-- Gregory
Greg Lindahl
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>They may or may not consider it part of her job; so what?
You missed this quote up-thread:
>> It doesn't matter. She is a paid employee. It is part of her job. If
>> she did indeed refuse to do so, she should be disciplined by the Board.
>> I hope that the East and the folks affected complained.
Obvious he thinks that it's not just his opinion at work.
-- Gregory
Matthew G. Saroff
>In article <bmvjf9$et5$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Timothy McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <177506109.1066589909@WANKERLAMP3>,
>>Gretchen Beck <g...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>>Anything interesting?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>Daniel de Lincolia, Laurel Clerk
>
>Well, interesting to *me*. Aonghais dubh Mac Tarbh *finally* got his
>membership Revoked & Denied and bounced from the Chivalry (they pulled
>his chain, nyuk nyuk). (But I presume his other titles stay, such as
>his ducal one.)
>
Who is this guy and what did he do (email me if you think
that it might start an online sh*tstorm to post here).
--
--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
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>In article <3f9d14b2....@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>They may or may not consider it part of her job; so what?
>You missed this quote up-thread:
I saw it.
>>> It doesn't matter. She is a paid employee. It is part of her job. If
>>> she did indeed refuse to do so, she should be disciplined by the Board.
>>> I hope that the East and the folks affected complained.
>Obvious he thinks that it's not just his opinion at work.
You misunderstood me, I think. He is giving his opinion of what
her job comprises. It may not be the Board's; he doesn't claim
that it is, though he clearly thinks that it ought to be.
Talan
Ashland Henderson
> In rec.org.sca on Mon, 27 Oct 2003 11:39:14 GMT
> sclark55 <scla...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > Greetings--
> >
> >> Baloney. I've never heard anyone, in any other organization,
> >> say "The figurehead-leader's word is law". People say that
> >> here in Atenveldt, and they mean it. They are fools.
> >
> > Well, I don't live in a "king's word is law" kingdom, but I know people who
> > do. Most of them choose to espouse this idea as part of the game they're
> > playing, and it stops when it ceases being enjoyable.
> >
>
> As it was told to me, "In the west, the King's word is Law. But if the
> king says to dig that ditch, it might take 6 months to find the
> shovels".
In the west it would only take four months to find the shovel.
> In practice, I believe most of the sillier things have been quietly
> advised against before becoming law. Some of them have been accepted by
> the advisors because they reflected the advisor's own beliefs.
Usually the sillier things got dropped in the west because it became
apparent that everyone likely to win the crown was going to remove them
instantly.
newsreader
"Michael Houghton" <her...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:bnjn4u$8q1$1...@news1.radix.net...
> > (BTW, as I've only "insulted" a hypothetical subset of people who,
AFAIK,
> >contains zero members, it's a pretty safe judgement to make. Don't you
> >think?)
>
> Lose the quotes. On what basis do you assume that the subset you speak of
> is empty? You are dangerously sure of yourself.
Not at all, that's why I included the caveat, "As Far As I Know." I don't
know of a case when a Crwon has been removed for failing to maintain a
membership and I believe other posters here have made similar statements.
Do you know of any?
> >Go back and reread. I didn't say it did. I said failing to complete so
> >simple a task is probably a get indication of unfitness. The two
statements
> >are not interchangeable.
>
> I do not take it as a given that failing to renew one's membership is, per
> se, an indicator that that person is not fit to hold the office they hold.
Sorry, but t would seem pretty obvious to me that failing a trivially small
but critical administrative task such as renewing ones membership would have
reasonably good predictive validity about performing other administrative
tasks.
> The correlation is quite imperfect. Talan is merely turning your
outlandish
> claim on its head. His formulation is just as valid as yours -- which is
to
> say, not at all.
No, the two formulations aren't logically interchangeable.
YIS,
Macsen
Drew Nicholson
>
> Sorry, but t would seem pretty obvious to me that failing a trivially
small
> but critical administrative task such as renewing ones membership would
have
> reasonably good predictive validity about performing other administrative
> tasks.
>
I'm sorry, but I see no correlation between sending in a piece of paper with
a check once a year to handling banishments, marshals' courts, awards
recommendations, rules changes and new regalia approval, among the myriad of
other unrelated things royalty does.
Purple
Ralph E Lindberg
Matthew G. Saroff <msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> Who is this guy and what did he do (email me if you think
> that it might start an online sh*tstorm to post here).
> --
While I think R&Ding the Duke was a dead issue... he is in prison
convicted on a murder-for-hire charge. Where he used being in the SCA as
a part of his defense.
Yes he is -that- Aonghais.
Ralg
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://kendaco.telebyte.com/rlindber/RV
Brian M. Scott
<newsr...@wyvernhall.com> wrote:
[...]
>Sorry, but t would seem pretty obvious to me that failing a trivially small
>but critical administrative task such as renewing ones membership would have
>reasonably good predictive validity about performing other administrative
>tasks.
Yes, we understand that it seems obvious to you. It does not
seem obvious to us. Indeed, it seems obviously false.
>> The correlation is quite imperfect. Talan is merely turning your
>> outlandish
>> claim on its head. His formulation is just as valid as yours -- which is
>> to say, not at all.
>No, the two formulations aren't logically interchangeable.
If by that somewhat opaque phrase you mean 'logically
equivalent', no one said that they were. They are formally
similar statements of rather insulting exaggerations of opposed
positions.
Talan
David W. James
wrote:
> -- Gregory
A couple of things. You clipped (and ignored) the part where I ask
"If it isn't her job, whose is it?" You challenge my assertion, but
you don't provide any basis for the challenge except to appeal to other
authority.
So, what kind of evidence would you accept to back it up?
Alternatively, what part of my chain of reasoning (which, again, you
clipped), do you feel is in error?
Last, funny, but at all the Board meetings I've attended, the Board
and officers have certainly appeared to think that verification of
membership was part of the VP of Corporate Operations' job, whether
directly or via staff.
David/Kwellend-Njal
Mike Andrews
Yes, Your Majesty. ;=>
--
Mike Andrews / Michael Fenwick Barony of Namron, Ansteorra
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old music Laurel
Anthony J. Bryant
> Who is this guy and what did he do (email me if you think
> that it might start an online sh*tstorm to post here).
The former Duke Angus.
In short, murder for hire. IIRC, someone's (ex?) wife was killed, and in the
process an infant died.
Among the other issues, as his defense he tried to claim, IIRC, that the SCA had
conditioned him to violence -- requiring the then seneschale of the Society,
Mistress Hilary of Serendip, to defend the SCA in court.
He's in the big house in Florida, but I can't recall if it's life or the death
penalty.
Effingham
Greg Lindahl
>> rec.org.sca? Or, if you did so, you could mention it, so that people
>> could evaluate what you've claimed.
[...]
> A couple of things. You clipped (and ignored) the part where I ask
>"If it isn't her job, whose is it?"
I didn't ignore it, I simply didn't find it to be useful in a
discussion of whether we should fire Rene on your say-so. It isn't
necessarily anyone's job to provide membership verification on a
weekend, for example. Or on a holiday. Or while they're on vacation.
Or on extremely short notice.
> Last, funny, but at all the Board meetings I've attended, the Board
>and officers have certainly appeared to think that verification of
>membership was part of the VP of Corporate Operations' job, whether
>directly or via staff.
Details matter: does that address this actual situation? Given your
enthusiastic and authoritative tone, I'm afraid that your say-so that
they "appeared to think" something which might apply to this situation
isn't going to be accepted by everyone.
-- Gregory
Greg Lindahl
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>You misunderstood me, I think.
No, we simply disagree, which is pretty usual for us.
> He is giving his opinion of what
> her job comprises. It may not be the Board's; he doesn't claim
> that it is, though he clearly thinks that it ought to be.
Note the recent posting in which he does claim that it is the BoD's
position.
-- Gregory
Michael Houghton
In article <4Jrnb.9293$FI2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
newsreader <newsr...@wyvernhall.com> wrote:
>
>"Michael Houghton" <her...@radix.net> wrote in message
>news:bnjn4u$8q1$1...@news1.radix.net...
>> > (BTW, as I've only "insulted" a hypothetical subset of people who,
>AFAIK,
>> >contains zero members, it's a pretty safe judgement to make. Don't you
>> >think?)
>>
>> Lose the quotes. On what basis do you assume that the subset you speak of
>> is empty? You are dangerously sure of yourself.
>
>Not at all, that's why I included the caveat, "As Far As I Know." I don't
>know of a case when a Crwon has been removed for failing to maintain a
>membership and I believe other posters here have made similar statements.
>Do you know of any?
Your statement was broader in application than just the Crown. You included
officers, in general. How sure can you be that officers have never allowed
their membership to lapse? How many kingdom great officers have made that
mistake? How many then got sacked specifically for that lapse?
>
>> >Go back and reread. I didn't say it did. I said failing to complete so
>> >simple a task is probably a get indication of unfitness. The two
>statements
>> >are not interchangeable.
>>
>> I do not take it as a given that failing to renew one's membership is, per
>> se, an indicator that that person is not fit to hold the office they hold.
>
>Sorry, but t would seem pretty obvious to me that failing a trivially small
>but critical administrative task such as renewing ones membership would have
>reasonably good predictive validity about performing other administrative
>tasks.
I reject your claim that the task of renewing membership is "critical". I'm
with Talan and Arval (I think) when I claim that it is an overrated matter.
There might be a correlation between that and other "fitness to rule" metrics,
but I see no rational basis for making it a litmus test.
>
>> The correlation is quite imperfect. Talan is merely turning your
>outlandish
>> claim on its head. His formulation is just as valid as yours -- which is
>to
>> say, not at all.
>
>No, the two formulations aren't logically interchangeable.
I didn't say that they were, at least at the "saying the same thing" level.
However, they are equally outlandish, being rather over the top.
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
>In article <3f9ddd42....@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>You misunderstood me, I think.
>No, we simply disagree, which is pretty usual for us.
Now I'm puzzled. Do you actually deny that the original
statement can be read as a forceful statement of personal opinion
rather than a statement about external facts? Or did you simply
choose (for whatever reason) not to read it that way? The former
would surprise me, coming from you.
>> He is giving his opinion of what
>> her job comprises. It may not be the Board's; he doesn't claim
>> that it is, though he clearly thinks that it ought to be.
>Note the recent posting in which he does claim that it is the BoD's
>position.
Which, however, had not been made at the time of your comment and
my response. His previous postings made no such claim.
Talan
Ester Mendes
> >membership Revoked & Denied and bounced from the Chivalry
Sfi Mordehai ben Yosef Yitzhak, Aka Matthew G. Saroff:
> Who is this guy and what did he do (email me if you think
> that it might start an online sh*tstorm to post here).
Paul Serio is the person's real name. Here's a quote from the AP wire
on what he did:
June 25, 1994
"A man convicted of hiring hitmen to kill his ex-wife so he could
avert a $ 180,000 divorce settlement was sentenced to life in prison.
Paul Hamwi, 48, will be eligible for parole in 25 years for the 1983
kiling of Susan Hamwi. A co-defendant, Paul Serio, also received a
life sentence Friday. Jurors recommended the sentences, rejecting the
death penalty.
Hamwi, a developer from Aspen, Colo., was acquitted in the death of
his 18-month-old daughter, Shane, who died of dehydration when her
mother was killed."
Serio was one of the hitmen. I'll mention that 2 years ago, when the
BoD revoked the membership of Harvey Palmer (former King of An Tir), I
heard a number of people saying that since the BoD had never
R&D'd Paul Serio, who was a convicted murderer, they didn't have the
moral authority to R&D Harvey Palmer. It was pointed out that no one
had ever introduced a formal motion to R&D Serio (in large part
because he's not eligible for parole until 2019), while there had been
a formal motion to R&D Palmer. I'm assuming someone finally decided
that it was worth making the symbolic gesture of revocation and denial
of membership for Serio. Better late than never.
Ester Mendes
Anthony J. Bryant
> Last, funny, but at all the Board meetings I've attended, the Board
> and officers have certainly appeared to think that verification of
> membership was part of the VP of Corporate Operations' job, whether
> directly or via staff.
Yes, and there are standard ways she will do it. When the office is bogged down
in the monthly label-run, going through heroic effort (i.e., out of the ordinary
digging and looking through files) is NOT, IMHO, her job.
It is the job of the would-be combatant (again IMHO), to (1) get his membership
in on time to get it dealt with, and (2) keep it current so this doesn't happen.
You shouldn't be sending in a cheque the week before Crown just so you can
fight, IMO.
Effingham
Arhylda
>had
>conditioned him to violence -- requiring the then seneschale of the Society,
>Mistress Hilary of Serendip, to defend the SCA in court.
Actually it was then Senschal of the Society Duchess Sedalia MacNare.
>He's in the big house in Florida, but I can't recall if it's life or the
>death
>penalty.
>
Life.
Mairi
Drew Nicholson
"Mike Andrews" <mi...@mikea.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:bnm18q$g8i$3...@puck.litech.org...
> Drew Nicholson <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > "newsreader" <newsr...@wyvernhall.com> wrote in message
> > news:Vu9nb.7664$FI2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > > royalty to attend. You may not care about royalty, Macsen, but they
> > > > _are_ a central element of our game, regardless of your opinion.
> > >
> > > Central, rarely ever critical, and never indispensible.
> > >
> > > YIS,
> > > Macsen
>
> > In your opinion. I quite strongly disagree.
>
> Yes, Your Majesty. ;=>
>
Very good. Carry on. :P
Matthew G. Saroff
>
>Serio was one of the hitmen.
Wheelman IIRC. Once someone spelled his name right, I
figured out who it was. I met him 10 years ago.
>I'll mention that 2 years ago, when the
>BoD revoked the membership of Harvey Palmer (former King of An Tir), I
>heard a number of people saying that since the BoD had never
>R&D'd Paul Serio, who was a convicted murderer, they didn't have the
>moral authority to R&D Harvey Palmer.
There is a Royal peer and member of the chivalry who also
pled guilty to Negligent Homicide of his wife who is (and should
be) still in the SCA.
I am certain that there are other murderers and serious
criminals (the numbers pretty make it a certainty) in the SCA.
Palmer's R&D were for offenses done in his capacity as a
member, from what I can devine through Google.
>It was pointed out that no one
>had ever introduced a formal motion to R&D Serio (in large part
>because he's not eligible for parole until 2019), while there had been
>a formal motion to R&D Palmer. I'm assuming someone finally decided
>that it was worth making the symbolic gesture of revocation and denial
>of membership for Serio. Better late than never.
I tend to disagree. I think that the board energy
(however slight) is better served by addressing issues that need
to be addressed.
IIRC, he'll be something like 80 if he gets paroled in
2019.
If he wants a subscription to TI in the interim, who
cares.
Matthew G. Saroff
>In article <e3nrpv0f5jli92ms9...@4ax.com>,
> Matthew G. Saroff <msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> Who is this guy and what did he do (email me if you think
>> that it might start an online sh*tstorm to post here).
>> --
>
> While I think R&Ding the Duke was a dead issue... he is in prison
>convicted on a murder-for-hire charge. Where he used being in the SCA as
>a part of his defense.
>
> Yes he is -that- Aonghais.
I got confused by the non-standard spelling. If someone
had written "Angus", I would have known. I actually met the guy
about 10 years ago.
Arval
>> Yes he is -that- Aonghais.
> I got confused by the non-standard spelling. If someone
> had written "Angus", I would have known.
<Aonghais> is, in fact, one of the standard Gaelic spellings of the
name. <Angus> is an English form of the name.
===========================================================================
Arval ar...@mittle.users.panix.com
Heather Jones
That depends on who gets to apply the label
"silly". From my point of view, there are
entirely too many silly things instituted by
royalty that have become cherished and
time-honored traditions.
Tangwystyl
--
*****
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*****
Michael Houghton
In article <dg6upvsu347vhcb61...@4ax.com>,
Matthew G. Saroff <msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Ester Mendes <celyn@drizzle%.com> wrote:
>>
>>Serio was one of the hitmen.
>
> Wheelman IIRC. Once someone spelled his name right, I
>figured out who it was. I met him 10 years ago.
>
>>I'll mention that 2 years ago, when the
>>BoD revoked the membership of Harvey Palmer (former King of An Tir), I
>>heard a number of people saying that since the BoD had never
>>R&D'd Paul Serio, who was a convicted murderer, they didn't have the
>>moral authority to R&D Harvey Palmer.
>
> There is a Royal peer and member of the chivalry who also
>pled guilty to Negligent Homicide of his wife who is (and should
>be) still in the SCA.
>
> I am certain that there are other murderers and serious
>criminals (the numbers pretty make it a certainty) in the SCA.
>
> Palmer's R&D were for offenses done in his capacity as a
>member, from what I can devine through Google.
>
Well, Serio did invoke the SCA in his defense, so he it's not just
the SCA saying "we know thee not" without any cause whatsoever.
As to whether it was something that needed done, I'm less certain.
newsreader
> Your statement was broader in application than just the Crown. You
included
> officers, in general. How sure can you be that officers have never allowed
> their membership to lapse? How many kingdom great officers have made that
> mistake? How many then got sacked specifically for that lapse?
Do you know of any? Unless you wish to provide evidence to the contrary,
I'll stand by my original statement which remains irrefutably accurate. Or
do you wish to continue arguing for the sake of hearing yourself type? I've
expressed my opinion, you've expressed yours. What need is there to
continue?
> >Sorry, but t would seem pretty obvious to me that failing a trivially
small
> >but critical administrative task such as renewing ones membership would
have
> >reasonably good predictive validity about performing other administrative
> >tasks.
>
> I reject your claim that the task of renewing membership is "critical".
I'm
Okay. Allow me to disagree. Any failure that means automatic removal from
office strikes me as "critical." I suppose that, if you don't consider such
removal important, you might consider it less important. YMMV.
YIS,
Macsen
newsreader
"Greg Lindahl" <lin...@pbm.com> wrote in message
news:3f9e9d57$1...@news.meer.net...
> I didn't ignore it, I simply didn't find it to be useful in a
> discussion of whether we should fire Rene on your say-so. It isn't
> necessarily anyone's job to provide membership verification on a
> weekend, for example. Or on a holiday. Or while they're on vacation.
> Or on extremely short notice.
There's one more piece of information that should be injected into this
discussion. The membership in question had already been paid for i.e. the
member's credit card was billed, the member's account charged, and the SCA
benefits associated with membership paid for in full. Through the (not
surprising) inefficiency of the Milpitas office -- which is quite obviously
Renee's responsibility as VP of operations -- payment had been accepted but
nobody had gotten around to updating the membership records. So the party
in question -- who had paid for membership and those few direct benefits it
conveys -- was denied one of those benefits because Renee couldn't be
bothered to even *attempt* to locate the application on here desk.
This isn't the first instance of Renee's poor attitude towards serving the
SCA. It should be one of the last.
YIS,
Macsen
newsreader
"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbryan...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bnn3kt$577$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> Yes, and there are standard ways she will do it. When the office is bogged
down
> in the monthly label-run, going through heroic effort (i.e., out of the
ordinary
> digging and looking through files) is NOT, IMHO, her job.
It's her job, IMHO, when the member has already been charged for membership.
If the office was that bogged down, the membership application should have
been held until it could be *completely* processed. Instead they were quick
enough to take the member's money -- thus honoring *his* side of the sales
contract -- but neglected to honor *their* side of the deal by giving him
the membership rights he paid for.
> It is the job of the would-be combatant (again IMHO), to (1) get his
membership
> in on time to get it dealt with, and (2) keep it current so this doesn't
happen.
Membership is effective the moment payment is accepted. The member already
knew it had been accepted, Milpitas dropped the ball by not fully processing
it in a timely manner.
> You shouldn't be sending in a cheque the week before Crown just so you can
> fight, IMO.
No, in that case you would logically chrge your membership a few weeks
before to be sure it is renewed immediately upon receipt. Just as was done
in this case.
Just because we study the Middle Ages doesn't mean that our business office
should be medieval...
YIS,
Macsen
Ashland Henderson
Good point. I have a few such in mind as well. But then I guess it is all
in where you are coming from.