[MR] Re: [Announcements] Proposed Revision to Corpora IV.A.1.

[Logan]

are we opening this whole thing back up to discussion or did you
accidentally copy your commentary to the bod to the rest of the list?
the proposal as it stands basically states that right now there seems to
be no logical reason to create a crown list of popularity.  however, if
there may be some crown that thinks there is a good way to run a
popularity crown they (the bod) will certainly hear them out.

either way, i say leave the rules regarding crown lists alone and make
it clear that it is a test of prowess.  not that i would mind a
popularity contest either, especially one decided on the field.  8^)

regards
logan

-----Original Message-----
From: atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org
[mailto:atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of David W. James
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:36 AM
To: comments at sca.org
Cc: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: [MR] Re: [Announcements] Proposed Revision to Corpora IV.A.1.


On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 11:11 PM, Andrew Smith wrote:
> The following is a proposed revision of Corpora IV.A.1.  (The proposed

> revision is in CAPITAL LETTERS.)

> Royal Lists must be conducted at a tournament announced in the Kingdom

> newsletter as being for that purpose.  CROWNS OR CORONETS WHO WISH TO
> CONDUCT A ROYAL LIST IN A MANNER OTHER THAN INDIVIDUAL COMBAT MUST
> OBTAIN THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

Unfortunately, I do note feel that this change is an improvement over
the current wording.  The criteria for approval are not given, and are
therefore purely subjective. It gives the proposing Crown/Coronet no
guidance/suggestions as to what is acceptable.  Therefore it can be used
to ensure that nothing new is ever allowed.  That is one problem.

Changes to the governing documents should move the corporation toward an
objective, not hide their purpose in subjectivity.  Either ban the
different (an idea that was rejected by the membership in the last
polling)
  or provide clear guidelines for what is acceptable and only have to
bother with the occasional question that falls in the 'grey' area.

Or does the Board really *want* to make more needless work for itself?
Knowing the opinion of past Boards on more work (not just 'No', but
"Hell No!"), a cynical persons conclusion regarding this proposal is
that it is offered with the assumption that the answer is always an
automatic 'No', and therefore it would not be any more work.

Otherwise you are asking the future to provide the time you do not want
to invest now.  And our future selves may well have more important
things that they should be paying attention to then.

Please take the time to do the hard work of crafting a better proposal
now to keep future Boards from doing extra work.  You might be on those
Boards,
  and have to answer the question 'What were you thinking?'

Though I am loath to support this course of action, there is a way of
doing this that does not make more work for future Boards.  The question
of deciding Crown and Coronet list winners is a strongly game-side
issue.  As such, the Board of Directors of the Corporation, which have
to worry about the non-game aspects of the SCA, Inc., should be able to
delegate questions concerning such tournaments to a Game-Side overview
committee.  The only problem, of course, is that no such thing exists at
this time, save the Board.  Which gets us back to the problem...

One potential means of 'vetting' alternative formats for such
tournaments might be to require that the Soc. Sen. be notified of the
proposed tournament format, and that such notification include the
support of some combination of current and past Royalty from across the
SCA (but such requirements should be reasonable; I am thinking on the
order of 3-4 current or former Crowns (meaning the ruling pair, not just
one of the pair.
)  The Soc. Sen. job would be to include the fact of the notification in
her report to the Board if it had the required number of supporters.
Relatively simple, unambiguous, and objective from the Corporations
point of view.  The mix of current and former required would be set in
the rule.

There really are better ways of doing this that A) protect the Game, B)
allow for innovation and experimentation and C) do not make for long
Board meetings.  A and B are your job, and C makes it a nicer one to
have.

David W. James/Kwellend-Njal Kollskeggsson
cc: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org, rec.org.sca

========================
                   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