Is the BOD totally nuts now??
Frank Wegener
than I do. So I come to write about an article I haven't read yet myself.
I've had to listen to her telling me about the BOD ordering us to make
everybody attending an event sing a paper that says he or her cannot sue (or
whatecer this word is spelled) the SCA in case of an accident.
So far so good. But what does that mean for us, over here in good old germany?
1) I rather doubt that such a waiver has any legal consquences here. I did
not ask a lawyer yet, but used to do "Jura" a little bit on the Universety.
2) So much for the good news. But: We will have to send the Waiver to Milpitas
within 10 Days or so. That means Airmail, ans Airmail is !very! expensive.
3) Nobody ever saw such a waiver over here. Shall we make one up, or how about
publishing it in the TI? Or at least put it in here (NewsNet).
4) If I talk someone into singing such a waiver (not considering the fact that
noone will sign something he doesn't understand, and I don't understand
legal english either, although I can claim to speak it quite fluently) and
this person gets hit on the head (by accident) he will propably make ME pay
for it. Were will I get my money back???
5) We are struggeling to find new members over here. Thanks for another
regulation we can scare people off with!
6) I wonder: considering all this, did the BOD think, just for a minute, about
the SCA in other countries than the US? Maybe the Organization should be
reorganized in a way that takes more care (or some care at all) about its
foreign members.
7) Or maybe: Did I do all this for nothing, because these new waivers do not
apply in Drachenwald? If so, Why did you not publish it in the TI?
I hope that someone who knows more about all this stuff can tell me in detail
exactly how we're supposed to handle things now, and what further plans the
BOD has to jeopardize us in our struggle to just reenact our current middle
ages.
Michael Apenteger
Frank Wegener (mundane)
KGO...@artspas.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
>6) I wonder: considering all this, did the BOD think, just for a minute,
about> the SCA in other countries than the US?
No
>Maybe the Organization should be reorganized in a way that takes more
>care (or some care at all) about its foreign members.
Good luck.
Eyrny
Dorothy J Heydt
Frank Wegener <fweg...@bach.seda.sowi.uni-bamberg.de> wrote:
>I've had to listen to her telling me about the BOD ordering us to make
>everybody attending an event sing a paper that says he or her cannot sue (or
>whatecer this word is spelled) the SCA in case of an accident.
As you are hopefully aware by now, that waiver has been put in
abeyance while a completely new one is worked up. Further, I was
given to understand (informally) that the waiver in question
wouldn't be put in force outside the US until it could be checked
for language in the contries in which it would be used. So, not
only is the issue moot, but it was moot for you all along (though
no one actually got up and said so).
>2) So much for the good news. But: We will have to send the Waiver to Milpitas
> within 10 Days or so. That means Airmail, ans Airmail is !very! expensive.
Notice that the language said that it had to be *sent* to
Milpitas within 10 days. Nothing there says that it has to
*arrive* in 10 days. Surface mail of the cheapest sort would
meet the criteria. After that it's all up to the PTTs invloved.
>3) Nobody ever saw such a waiver over here. Shall we make one up, or how about
> publishing it in the TI? Or at least put it in here (NewsNet).
Your Kingdom Seneschal should have gotten copies. When I talked
to her she had some pretty strong opinions about the legality of
the waiver in various countries in Europe. She probably didn't
even distribute it around Drachenwald pending formal opinions.
>6) I wonder: considering all this, did the BOD think, just for a minute, about
> the SCA in other countries than the US? Maybe the Organization should be
> reorganized in a way that takes more care (or some care at all) about its
> foreign members.
On evidence for the recent Board Meetings, I don't think that
non-US locales loom large in the thinking of Directors. Even
though the effects are indirect for me (as a kingdom officer with
non-US deputies) I get problems with those oversights.
>I hope that someone who knows more about all this stuff can tell me in detail
>exactly how we're supposed to handle things now, and what further plans the
>BOD has to jeopardize us in our struggle to just reenact our current middle
>ages.
The way you handle it at the moment is to ignore it. The lead
time of TI has now (twice this year) rendered major news in it
grossly out of date. If you want detailed instructions, talk to
your Kingdom Seneschal--but be gentle about it. I think all the
Kingdom Great Officers involved with these disputes are pretty
frazzled by now. I expect to see a great number of changes in
Kingdom Seneschals and Earl Marshals as soon as the dust settles.
Those who have been dealing with the mess at kingdom level are
getting pretty worn down by it.
--Hal Ravn
(Hal Heydt)
J. Micheal Morrill
>Path: magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!uclink.berkeley.edu!djheydt
>From: djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt)
>Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
>Subject: Re: Is the BOD totally nuts now??
>Date: 23 Jul 1994 18:15:37 GMT
>Organization: University of California, Berkeley
>Lines: 57
>Message-ID: <30rmo9$4...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>References: <30opn...@uni-erlangen.de>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: uclink.berkeley.edu
>In article <30opn...@uni-erlangen.de>,
>Frank Wegener <fweg...@bach.seda.sowi.uni-bamberg.de> wrote:
>>I've had to listen to her telling me about the BOD ordering us to make
>>everybody attending an event sing a paper that says he or her cannot sue (or
>>whatecer this word is spelled) the SCA in case of an accident.
Save your paper. As an organizer of many events (none SCA), I can tell you
the that such a release is not worth paper it is printed on. Think about it,
if these releases really worked, wouldn't we be signing them all the time?
..... In exchange for passage, I relase this airline.....In exchange for
lodging, I release this hotel ........
You can not pre-release people from their torts. You can have them sign a
paper stating that they understand some of the risk involed in combat so that
you would have a defense if someone is injured in combat, they knew and
accepted the risks. But even that may not be worth the trouble. Nothing will
stop someone from fileing suit, and the lawyer for the plaintiff will argue
that the specific risk was not spelled out.
Gary Heston
>than I do. So I come to write about an article I haven't read yet myself.
The state of waivers, their usage, and their wording is in flux at the
moment. I think the TI article is well out-of-date.
>2) So much for the good news. But: We will have to send the Waiver to Milpitas
> within 10 Days or so. That means Airmail, ans Airmail is !very! expensive.
Oh, no, no. They've simply required you to *send* the waivers, not required
deilvery within 10 days. You can ship on a slow boat via Moscow, Antartica,
and Peking if you want, just as long as you ship them within 10 days.
Besides, I don't think they don't have the storage space for the things yet....
--
Gary Heston SCI Systems, Inc. ga...@sci.com site admin
The Chairman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
If I had Bills' Billions.........
...I'd buy a Delta Clipper!
Bart Orbons
stupid mailer) wrote:
>In article <30opn...@uni-erlangen.de>,
>Frank Wegener <fweg...@bach.seda.sowi.uni-bamberg.de> wrote:
>>I've had to listen to her telling me about the BOD ordering us to make
>>everybody attending an event sing a paper that says he or her cannot sue (or
>>whatecer this word is spelled) the SCA in case of an accident.
>As you are hopefully aware by now, that waiver has been put in
>abeyance while a completely new one is worked up. Further, I was
>given to understand (informally) that the waiver in question
>wouldn't be put in force outside the US until it could be checked
>for language in the contries in which it would be used. So, not
>only is the issue moot, but it was moot for you all along (though
>no one actually got up and said so).
Please, Mara has been, and still is working on this subject. What does
which waiver mean in what country. Do not blame the BOD for not
understanding, or thinking about what even WE do not know. A lot has
been said in the past of the meaning of the waivers and it's validity.
But a fact is.. nobody really knows/knew what the exact legal status of
(whatever waiver) is/was within the ountries of europe. Mara has put out
requests to peoson, and is looking into what will serve (and protect) the
SCA in europe as best.
>>3) Nobody ever saw such a waiver over here. Shall we make one up, or how about
>> publishing it in the TI? Or at least put it in here (NewsNet).
>Your Kingdom Seneschal should have gotten copies. When I talked
>to her she had some pretty strong opinions about the legality of
>the waiver in various countries in Europe. She probably didn't
>even distribute it around Drachenwald pending formal opinions.
right on the head, Hal. Do you perhaps know Mara? So, indeed, Mara
decided to first gather some legal advice from different countries on
what that this new waiver would MEAN in that country. (IHMO a smart
move, Mara).
>>6) I wonder: considering all this, did the BOD think, just for a minute, about
>> the SCA in other countries than the US? Maybe the Organization should be
>> reorganized in a way that takes more care (or some care at all) about its
>> foreign members.
>On evidence for the recent Board Meetings, I don't think that
>non-US locales loom large in the thinking of Directors. Even
>though the effects are indirect for me (as a kingdom officer with
>non-US deputies) I get problems with those oversights.
Yes Hal, you are right on that.. while they have been thinking on this
subject in the past.. it is drifting away out of their eyesight. But
Frank, don't blame the board for things they cannot and do not know. If
the legal status of the waivers within some of the states of america is
uncertain.. I think that they have made a larger 'oversight' that just
the international members... (They have been relying on bad advice from
lawyers, I would guess..). I think sometimes you should consider
yourself in the position of a board member... You cannot know
everything... meaning you have to rely on expertise of others... And
make decision on basis of this expertise. If this expertise them prooves
to be wrong... it is You who gets the blames...
>>I hope that someone who knows more about all this stuff can tell me in detail
>>exactly how we're supposed to handle things now, and what further plans the
>>BOD has to jeopardize us in our struggle to just reenact our current middle
>>ages.
>The way you handle it at the moment is to ignore it. The lead
Either ignore it, or just play the policy to its fullest extend.. What i
do not know I cannot do. Everything on the rialto is considered rumors,
nothing is policy, so.. Untill something appears within the Dragons Tale
(what I would consider more relyable than the TI) I know nothing.
>grossly out of date. If you want detailed instructions, talk to
>your Kingdom Seneschal--but be gentle about it. I think all the
Yes, Mara is trying to make as much sense out of what has happened
recently as possible. Dot charge to her, blaming what the BoD has
decided. She hasn't decided it.. the BoD has. She cannot change what has
been decided.
None of us can.. All of us might... So write to the board (and i advice
to use the air mail rate for that letter :) ) that you do not agree
with what they have decided (and why you think so)...
Yours,
Bertrik van Triecht,
another DW officer.
--
Bart Orbons, Warande 193, 3705 ZP Zeist, the Netherlands.
orb...@fys.ruu.nl
KGO...@artspas.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
>Please, Mara has been, and still is working on this subject. What does
>which waiver mean in what country. Do not blame the BOD for not
>understanding, or thinking about what even WE do not know.
I do blame the BoD for not considering whether or not the waiver would be
valid in other jurisdictions than California, including outside the US.
(Now if they asked the lawyer and he gave the wrong answer I'll probably let
them off the hook.)
>decided to first gather some legal advice from different countries on
>what that this new waiver would MEAN in that country. (IHMO a smart
>move, Mara).
Very smart move!
Eyrny
Patricia Shanahan
In article <orbons.7...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>, orb...@fys.ruu.nl (Bart Orbons) writes:
...
|> Yes Hal, you are right on that.. while they have been thinking on this
|> subject in the past.. it is drifting away out of their eyesight. But
|> Frank, don't blame the board for things they cannot and do not know. If
|> the legal status of the waivers within some of the states of america is
|> uncertain.. I think that they have made a larger 'oversight' that just
|> the international members... (They have been relying on bad advice from
|> lawyers, I would guess..). I think sometimes you should consider
|> yourself in the position of a board member... You cannot know
|> everything... meaning you have to rely on expertise of others... And
|> make decision on basis of this expertise. If this expertise them prooves
|> to be wrong... it is You who gets the blames...
...
I can and do blame the Board for cutting themselves off from input from
the members. Suppose the board had still been distributing minutes,
had discussed the "new new" waiver at one meeting, and announced that
they would decide about it in 2 months after getting advice from affected
kingdom officers. Would the "new new" waiver have ever been implemented?
All they have to do is announce that they are considering a policy change,
and LISTEN. If it would cause bad problems in some area, the people who
can and do know about local conditions in that area will tell them so.
(Agnes of Ilford thinks that any lord who makes major decisions without
consulting his vassals is foolish and does not deserve to rule. He is
going to end up with unhappy vassals and bad decisions.)
--
Patricia Shanahan
pa...@cray.com
phone: (619) 625-3708
Pattie McGregor
<KGO...@ARTSPAS.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <orbons.7...@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl> orb...@fys.ruu.nl (Bart Orbons) writes:
>>Please, Mara has been, and still is working on this subject. What does
>>which waiver mean in what country. Do not blame the BOD for not
>>understanding, or thinking about what even WE do not know.
>
>I do blame the BoD for not considering whether or not the waiver would be
>valid in other jurisdictions than California, including outside the US.
>(Now if they asked the lawyer and he gave the wrong answer I'll probably let
>them off the hook.)
The new committee is apparently considering having different waivers
for different jurisdictions, according to John the Bearkiller.
siobhan
===========================================================================
Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor
Sharing her time between Crosston & 3331 Kimberly Road
Mountain's Gate/Golden Rivers Cameron Park, CA 95682
p...@cygnus.com (916) 677-6607
sio...@lloyd.com (415) 903-1448 (days)
"That's how freedom will end: not with a bang, but with a rustle of file
folders. If you love any of your rights, defend all of them!"
-Joe Chew, on the net
Bill McNutt
>>In article <30opn...@uni-erlangen.de>,
>>Frank Wegener <fweg...@bach.seda.sowi.uni-bamberg.de> wrote:
>>>I've had to listen to her telling me about the BOD ordering us to make
>>>everybody attending an event sing a paper that says he or her cannot sue (or
>>>whatecer this word is spelled) the SCA in case of an accident.
[deletia[
>You can not pre-release people from their torts. You can have them sign a
>paper stating that they understand some of the risk involed in combat so that
>you would have a defense if someone is injured in combat, they knew and
>accepted the risks. But even that may not be worth the trouble. Nothing will
>stop someone from fileing suit, and the lawyer for the plaintiff will argue
>that the specific risk was not spelled out.
A good, point. I just want to elaborate that this doesn't necessarily apply
outside the United States. I understand that in Great Britain, you CAN sign
waivers that are more binding than those in the United States.
Tony Luck
> A good, point. I just want to elaborate that this doesn't necessarily apply
> outside the United States. I understand that in Great Britain, you CAN sign
> waivers that are more binding than those in the United States.
Maybe, but you'd need to be careful with the wording. The "Provine" waiver
includes a "negligence" clause ... which probably invalidates the whole
thing under British law (see 'unfair contracts act', late 1970's ... it isn't
legal to disclaim negligent acts).
-Tony Luck (Anthony fitz Robert)