[MR] In defense of inauthenticity

[gormofberra at direcway.com]

A strict reading of the rule could support the conclusion that an uncovered folding chair is not allowed near the field, so I would call that a "ban".

I note that the way the Tea Leaves are reading currently indicates that isn't the working interpretation that will be in force, but what will keep a future Crown or Earl Marshal from changing their minds and being stricter?

But you're missing my point...this Law is saying 'Thou must, or you can't play with us', a better approach, in my mind,  would have been to say "Thou should, and we will recognize those who do over those who don't".

As it is happening, the Law as written won't help the authenticity level of the SCA, will piss off a number of members, and goes against the spirit of how the organization has been run, where courtesy and social interaction was cherished over material posession.

We aren't losing sites because of Coleman chairs, we're losing them because of people who drink despite the site being dry, or drive on the grass that the site asked us to keep off of, or who leave trash everywhere.  Everyone is guilty of this at one time or another, I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but we all know this happens.

We aren't losing fighers because of Kydex, we're losing fighters because if you do this long enough, you *will* sustain a significant injury due to repeated trauma to your body.  The shot that years ago was excessive is light today.

We aren't failing to attract and keep members because of sneakers (which can be documented to period, btw...no, the soles weren't rubber, but there is documentation for laceup low cut shoes made of leather), we're failing to attract and keep members because of cliquishness, attitudes of "my way or the highway", and rudeness.

Should individual members want to make their personal kit more period?  Certainly.  Do I want to make my kit more period in some areas?  Absolutely, in those areas which interest me, or those which I believe I can accomplish easily.  Someone (it might have been Cuan), a couple of years ago, requested that everyone try to upgrade one piece of gear during their reign.  I did, and many others did as well.

The carrot could work...why did you feel the need to jump straight to the stick?

----- Original Message -----
From: logan <dukelogan at bellsouth.net>
Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:57 pm
Subject: RE: [MR] In defense of inauthenticity

> sigh....
> 
> no one has banned the precious coleman chairs.  no one has said 
> you must
> meet any standard to sit down.  if your kid vomits on your bathing 
> suit do
> you still jump in the pool?  sure there are a 1000 excuses for the 
> cover to
> the chair being lost, stolen, missing, abducted, whatever so i 
> dont get what
> point you are trying to make with that.
> 
> coleman chairs have no place in an organization that is supposed 
> to be about
> the middle ages.  can you explain how they do?
> 
> im at a loss
> 
> logan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org
> [atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of
> gormofberra at direcway.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:26 PM
> To: Marybeth Lavrakas
> Cc: Merry Rose
> Subject: Re: [MR] In defense of inauthenticity
> 
> 
> Let's see...
> 
> 1. You forgot it at home...no it isn't a "good" reason, but it 
> shouldn'tresult in your not being able to sit down. 2. Your baby 
> threw up on it 3.
> You lent it to a friend for some other purpose 4. You had to 
> change a spare
> tire on the way up to the event, used the fabric as a ground cover to
> protect your Elizebethan dress, and left it on the side of the 
> highway. 5.
> The hall needed fabric for a wall hanging to screen off the 
> kitchen area,
> and you were the only person on site who had some.
> 
> I could go on and on.  And yes, I've had some of these happen to me.
> 
> However, you're missing my point.  My point isn't that I should be 
> able to
> sit in my naked Coleman chair on the side of the field as a matter 
> of right,
> my point is that rather than *banning* something for failure to 
> comply with
> an arbitrary standard, instead *encourage* people to meet that 
> standard, and
> maybe even exceed it, by rewarding excellence.
> 
> When you say "You must meet this standard", you get a lot of 
> activity right
> at that standard, and have to ban people who don't meet it.  When 
> you say
> "Here is a shiny object because you excelled", you get a lot of 
> excellence,AND you don't have to ban anyone.
> 
> Which is more likely to result in a larger pool of people with 
> fewer hurt
> feelings?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marybeth Lavrakas <katrous at yahoo.com>
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [MR] In defense of inauthenticity
> 
> > There are plenty of reasons to use a Coleman chair,
> > but I can't think of a good reason not to cover it up
> > with some cloth...
> > 
> > =====
> > Lady Kateryn Rous, CP
> > House Broussard
> > Windmasters Hill
> > http://sca.livingpast.com 
> > 
> ========================================================================>                   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
> 
> ========================================================================
>                   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
> 
> ========================================================================
>                   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