[MR] The SCA as a "joke"

Tue Oct 28 18:21:33 PST 2003

For the "carrot" approach as opposed to the "stick" approach...

One thing that's being contemplated at our upcoming Challenge of the Phoenix 
is having the fighters who don't have a spiffy kit write their names down on 
a list and having the Gallery (whoever that ends up being) choose the best 
performer (overall appearance other than the kit, best fighting, etc) and 
have the A&S people of the barony donate a tabard, torse, and mantle in 
their colors.  Simple yet effective.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, 
or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction 
of a new order of things.
-Niccolo M.

>From: Michael Houghton <herveus at radix.net>
>To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
>Subject: Re: [MR] The SCA as a "joke"
>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:16:11 -0500
>
>Howdy!
>
>On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:44:09AM -0500, logan wrote:
> > apparently you did not read what i wrote.  i will attempt to summarize.
> >
> > "a reasonable attempt" is the battle cry of people, such as yourself, 
>that
> > disagree with what i have said.  first, i have never suggested that the 
>sca
> > become a strictly authentic organization.  never.  i have suggested that 
>we
> > make, uh oh, a "reasonable attempt".  now tell me what attempt at pre 
>1600
> > items are exposed plastic barrels, gorms nylon coleman chair, blue 
>jeans,
> > tennis shoes, or anything else that i specifically have mentioned?  
>there is
> > no attempt at all.
>
>I question not your motivation, but your methods. To me, you appear to be
>dictating one way of reducing modernity. I find the stick unappealing. It
>occurs to me that one could give positive encouragement to work toward that
>end instead of trying to suppress by legislation.
>
>[snip freon can, etc]
> >
> > and, i never said that the sca was a joke.  what i said was the 
>statement
> > that the sca is a living history group is a joke.  the sca claims, in 
>its
> > charter, that it is a living history group, an educational group and it
> > requires its participants to make a "reasonable attempt".  yet it fails 
>at
> > all of these things and there is, for some bizarre reason, an effort to
> > ignore those simple requirements.
>
>The blurb at the top of <http://www.sca.org> says:
>
>    The Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) is an international
>    organization dedicated to researching and re-creating pre-17th-century
>    European history. All persons interested in such study are invited to
>    use these pages to obtain information about the SCA.
>
>This does not say "living history" -- a phrase with quite different
>semantics. The By-Laws speak of re-creation as one of the purposes; again
>a different meaning.
>
>Corpora II.B says:
>
>    B. Requirements for Participants at Society events
>
>    Anyone may attend Society events provided he or she wears an attempt at
>    pre-17th century clothing, conforms to the provisions in Corpora, and
>    complies with any other requirements (such as site fees or waivers)
>    which may be imposed. At business meetings and informal classes, the
>    requirement to wear pre-17th century dress may be waived. All
>    participants are expected to behave as ladies or gentlemen.
>
>This only requires "an attempt". Not a "reasonable attempt". It's a real
>low bar, and I'll freely concede that some people's attempt is hard to
>see. However, this only speaks to clothing. Not furniture. Not tents.
>
> > sorry to hear that you had some problems with hospitality in your area.  
>not
> > sure that has anything to do with this topic though.
> >
> >
> >
> > look, it boils down to a few simple facts.  one of those is that so many
> > people in the sca like to react emotionally to things they do not, on 
>the
> > surface, agree with.  they attack the author and not the message. to 
>date a
> > few people have disagreed with what i have said on this topic and every 
>one
> > of them has made claims about me wanting to have everyone live up to my
> > level of authenticity, or that i expect exact period techniques and
> > materials.  obviously none of them have actually read what i have 
>written.
> > not a surprise, its fairly common.  the big thing that is lacking in all 
>of
> > these retorts is an argument against what i have suggested.  i have only
> > suggested that the rules that are in place in the charter of the sca be
> > followed.  why there are people that take the option to join an 
>organization
> > and then refuse to follow its rules is beyond me.  do you guys smoke in 
>non
> > smoking sections?  of course not.  just because there is no fear of 
>being
> > thrown out of an event for drinking out of a mello yello bottle doesnt 
>mean
> > we should spit on or ignore the rules.  that is the point.  not what i 
>want
> > to see.  frankly it doesnt really matter to me and its not my problem 
>any
> > longer.  i am only addressing it because i signed a check a few months 
>ago
> > and i support what we did.
>
>That's not a productive response. It dismisses the very real concerns that
>have been articulated -- articulated in responses that spoke to the 
>substance
>of the issue, not to the author. Arguments have been raised that question
>the policy and show how it has (perhaps) unintended effects.
>
>Further, you assert that the rules of the SCA say things that I have not
>been able to discover, and that would be inconsistent with the citations
>I have given. Pray show where in the governing documents it actually says
>what you claim it says.
>
>You complain about being attacked as author, yet you turn around and return
>the favore wholesale.
>
> > so please, if anyone else wishes to step up and trumpet the greatness of
> > coleman chairs or the impossibility of taking the field in anything but
> > exposed plastic and tennis shoes also include why you think its ok to 
>refuse
> > to follow the rules.  perhaps the rules should be changed.  until they 
>are
> > why should you (general statement) be above them?  few other 
>organizations
> > would cater to such active disregard.
>
>The "rules" (at least at the corporate level) do not forbid any of these
>things. I do not claim that they should be encouraged, but trying to
>legislate them out of the game is a dangerous path to take, and one which
>will (has?) create needless strife.
>
>I'm all for improving the ambiance. I'm not for trying to formally turn the
>SCA into a high-authenticity organization. I'll support getting people to
>disguise or discard modernities by positive encouragement. It doesn't work
>on every one, but it pisses off far fewer people.
>
>If I am faced with a demand that I do something, I am less likely to go the
>extra mile to do it really well; I'll be more likely to do just enough to
>get by, or a bit less if I can. I've got things I do prefer to do, and I'd
>rather not have my limited resources frittered away on impositions. Make
>it easy.
>
>yours,
>Herveus
>--
>Michael and MJ Houghton   | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
>herveus at radix.net         | White Wolf and the Phoenix
>Bowie, MD, USA            | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
>                           | http://www.radix.net/~herveus/
>========================================================================
>                    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

_________________________________________________________________
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded 
its 2MB storage limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage!         
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es