[MR] Curiosity

[pandora at his.com]

One thing I found interesting when Aveloc came to our camp to talk to us about 
the "Pennsic Accord" and his ideas regarding the BoD was his belief that while 
the Bod should have to answer to the powers that be, the King of Antir should 
be allowed to have absolute power (The kings word is law). I had a hard time 
reconciling these 2 views. 

Chimbai
GDH


>    Well, I for one, am not real interested in signing a petition that states
> that I will *sue the SCA in California's civil court* in order to force the
> total replacement of all members of the BoD and request that the state
> appoint provisional directors until the Kingdoms chose a new way of handling
> things. Did anyone really read this thing? All members of the BoD must
> resign immediately and the "Pennsic Accord" be enacted at the same time, or
> *I, the undersigned,  WILL SUE*?!?
> 
>    I think not. I don't have the personal funds to travel there and spend on
> lawyers just to please someone with an axe to grind (and one that I don't
> know the whole story on).
> 
>    The BoD began their investigation before Aveloc wrote and presented his
> idea for Coporal reformation, in fact, back at their July meeting, wasn't
> it? Which means that it was placed on their agenda even earlier, so I don't
> believe that this is a tit-for-tat kind of revenge.
>    Have we forgotten that we have a member of this Kingdom sitting the BoD
> right now? Do YOU really think that she would be so vindictive and petty?
> What about the other members who you know?
> 
>    Aveloc's message on his webpage says, in part, " Absolute power, as they
> say, corrupts absolutely."  He said it in reference to the BoD, but it could
> just as easily point at him. I've read the stories of the girls who were
> pressured into sex with him, and know that at least one court case has been
> pressed (I don't know if it's gone to trial, so I should, as a good
> American, presume him not guilty - but as someone trained in
> rape-couselling, I know the difficulty in bringing such a suit to trial and
> of the ordeal that the victim goes through during it, so doubt that it was
> brought lightly.
>    I met the man only twice, both times at Pennsic. He was rude and
> overbearing, constantly demanding special consideration because of his
> position and at least once in my presence, when things didn't go his way,
> made ugly insinuations about the honesty of the Troll Staff - accusing them
> of stealing something that he only thought *might* have been left in their
> booth. I'm unimpressed. His temper tantrum "What do I know? I'm only the
> King. Aren't you supposed to do what I say?", said with full dirision and
> flared nostrils, didn't lead me to believe that he was a man deserving of
> honor - more like a spoiled schoolboy who was being told he really did have
> to follow the rules.
> 
>    His webpage is full of evasions and edge-cutting, and there's too many
> witnessed accounts that he dismisses as "second hand and therefore of no
> consequences" - last time I looked, if I witnessed a crime and the police
> learned of it, they didn't dismiss it as "second hand and worthless" - they
> handed me a supoena for court.
> 
>    He admits disregarding a state law *as a representative of the SCA*. He
> admits disregarding marshalate safety laws. He admits intimidating a woman,
> and then published a derivisive and condenscending portrait of her on the
> web, as well as publizing the name of a minor who accused him of statutory
> rape - founded or not - I don't consider that to be the actions of an
> honorable man, much less the type of behavior of someone who should be in a
> postion to shape the future of our Society.
> He doesn't seem to feel that even the things he admits doing wrong are
> reprehensible, but that we should shrug them off... because he was King?
> Because he can be charming?    Not good enough.
> 
>    I don't believe that the BoD members that I know personally are venal or
> vindictive. I don't believe that the decision that they reached was easy, or
> one that they won't constantly second-guess, since it cost a man something
> that he loves and it was their responsibility to bring it about. They are
> known to be slow to act and to overturn banishments more often than uphold
> them, yet we, without anything remotely approaching the full facts, have
> decided to hang them and vindicate the man they judged. And they get to read
> our condemnation on every SCA list.
>     And for what it's worth - let's not forget that they made this decision
> knowing that they could never tell their side of the story or what shaped
> their decision, and that *we* are notorious for assuming that the "little
> guy" MUST, by all that is holy, be the one who was wronged... if the BoD is
> involved. And still they unanimously decided that this man was a danger to
> the Society.
>    So until I become all-knowing and wise, I'm going to trust that the seven
> people who heard the whole story, and the people who did the investigating
> of the charges and brought their findings to those seven, were, at minimum,
> acting in a manner that they thought would best protect this Society.
>    If I can extend the benefit of the doubt to one person, I can at least do
> the same for seven.
> 
> Rosine
> 
> ========================================================================
>                    The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>     List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>   Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia
> 


-------------------------------------------------
This message was sent via http://webmail.his.com.
http://www.his.com/