[MR] Curiosity

[Rowanwald Central]

   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