[MR] NonMember Charges

[Gorm Of Berra]

There's an important issue here, though (aside from the rightness/wrongness of
the tax).

"$3 Discount" implies that I take the price in the Acorn and subtract $3 if I
have my blue card

"$3 Surcharge" implies that I take the price in the Acorn and add $3 if I do
not have my blue card.

As a potential autocrat, knowing that about 75% of those attending events are
members (that's a number I pulled out of thin air, incidentally, but math
requires numbers), and knowing that my event will incur $1000 in expenses and
expect about 100 attendees...

Do I put "Site Fee $13" in the Acorn (expecting 75% of folks to really only be
paying $10), or "Site Fee $10" in the Acorn (expecting 25% to be paying $13).

You're right in that it doesn't make a difference in the ultimate income from
the event, but getting it wrong could have a large impact.

For that matter, there's something else to consider:

If it is a $3 discount, there's nothing preventing me as an autocrat from
declaring "Site Fee $13 for SCA Members, $10 for Non-Members", and collecting
$10 from everyone through the door.  The only drawback would be that the
sponsoring group would still have to pony up $3/nonmember to Milpitas for the
Non-Member penalty.

Heck, make it $14 for SCA Members ($11 after discount) and $10 for Non-Members
and even with the $3 tax, the event will bring in $10/attendee (if the 75% is
right).

Most non-SCA groups I know of go out of their way to get new people in the
door by making it *LESS* expensive to get started, rather than more...but then
again, the SCA isn't like any other group I've been a member who can't vote on
issues of.

Alan MacNeill

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:12:23 -0400 Siegfried Sebastian Faust
<eliwhite at adelphia.net> wrote:

Gorm ... as I understand it (from it being explained at a recent Baronial 
Meeting) ...

You are getting caught up by 'wording'.

There is only a single, $3 fee ...