[MR] The SCA as a "joke"

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:52:19PM -0500, logan wrote:
> im done repeating myself over and over.  but i will address this since
> herveus, yet again, tries to be so eloquent yet misses the point.  my
> comments are interspersed and preceded by >>>>>LOGAN
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org
> [mailto:atlantia-bounces at atlantia.sca.org] On Behalf Of Michael Houghton
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:16 PM
> To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
> Subject: Re: [MR] The SCA as a "joke"
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> >>>>>LOGAN
> again, the law that her grace isabel and i signed into existence does
> nothing more than provide a penalty  for violating the charter that the sca
> is founded on.  tennis shoes do not belong in the sca (unless, of course,
> they are a medical necessity).  herveus please explain to me how i am wrong
> in that?  you may insert whatever modern appliance you wish in place of
> tennis shoes.


> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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.
> 
> 
> >>>>>LOGAN
> sorry to hear that your bar has no bottom and that blue jeans are an
> attempt.  and our law only covers clothing if you really want to boil it

Where did I say that? I didn't begin to quantify the level of the bar, and
I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. 

It is not possible to write a usable or concise rule to allow one to decide
if someone's alleged "attempt" is truly "an attempt" or "showing contempt".
Any such rule-writing needs to be very mindful that it only grabs the
low-hanging fruit, lest it include too much in its reach.

> down.  it directly addresses the gear on your body and not the equipment you
> use on the field.  it says nothing about tents or furniture.  it is

OK. Yet, "Coleman chairs" keep surfacing. I'm unclear on exactly what changes
were made; that makes it more difficult to focus my attention.

> convenient to bring that into your argument but you are mixing facts with
> convenience attempts to discredit the author.  and it clearly states living

No. I'm not attempting to discredit the author. I'm disagreeing with the
message from the author. There is a huge difference there.

> history (my point) in the organizational handbook which can be found at the
> same site you use to bolster your opinion.  do not argue with me over this
> argue with the text of that document.  specifically page seven paragraph
> two.  ( http://sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf#page=7 . i will quote the pertinent
> passage and argue that the "aspects of the life and culture of the landed
> nobility in europe prior to 1600 ce." encompasses much more than some
> clothing.  but that is neither here nor there in regards to the law. 
> 
> ************BEGIN COPY*****************
> As a living history group, the Society provides an environment in which
> members can recreate various aspects of the culture and technology of the
> period, as well as doing more traditional historical research. We sponsor
> events such as tournaments and feasts where members dress in clothing styles
> worn in the middle Ages and Renaissance, and participate in activities based
> on the civil and martial skills of the period. These activities recreate
> aspects of the life and culture of the landed nobility in Europe prior to
> 1600 CE. The dress, pastimes, and above all the chivalric ideals of the
> period serve to unify our events and activities.
> 
This does not prescribe particular standards of dress and accoutrement. It
simply describes a range of activities that members *can* do (implicitly, if
they choose to do so). It does not provide a basis for attempting to 
legislate things out of play.

Also note that that passage comes from "A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIETY
FOR CREATIVE ANACHRONISM", not one of the governing documents. Again, that
does not provided a statutory basis for further regulating dress. You have
to justify that on its own merits.

[snip]
> 
> 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. 
> 
> >>>>>LOGAN
> the real concerns?  oh, you mean those that claim that modern appliances
> such as blue jeans and coleman chairs are requirements because they have no
> tools, talents applicable (in this case woodworking or sewing specifically),

There you go again. You are simply dismissing with no apparent understanding
of what was actually said. You are not even acknowledging that those who
disagree might be acting in good faith. That is not productive.

> or money to do it right?  have you not paid attention to the offers to
> provide all of these things?  did you miss my detailed responses about the
> cost comparison of a single coleman chair (in charlotte they run $25) to a
> set of benches and a table that all fold down that i have made for less?
> and the offers i have made to teach people how to do them?  or the complete
> set of period styled armor that sir andreas has offered (many times
> actually) to teach people how to make for under $100?  sorry, these are all
> attainable with some effort.  i have yet to hear from a hockey glove wearing
> pole arm fighter sad tales of asking for help to get appropriate gear only
> to be scoffed at by everyone or ignored by those that know how to help.  i
> have offered to do all of the work of creating, for example, seating for
> well over a dozen people in the last year.  no takers.  these are people
> that have argued that modern seating is their only alternative and that
> without modern seating they simply can not function in the sca.  cant cover
> it, cant be bothered to change it, nothing.  sure a few simply live too far
> away to make a trip to charlotte realistic.  but ive made the offers as have
> others.  so whats the excuse?

OK. You fuss at me for mentioning furniture and tents, but you insist on
making them part of the dialog.

You are being just as obstinate and bull-headed as the people you decry.

We all have limits on the time, money, and creative energy we can apply to
SCA activities. We each have to make choices about how we use what we have
to make our SCA fu better. Some people put their energy into things other
than clothes and seats, but that does not mean we should sneer at them and
make them feel unwelcome. 

We all have our hot buttons -- those (often little) things that just get 
our goat -- and we see them at SCA events. We all need to be mindful that
these things we see as "mortal sins" may be "of no consequence" to anyone
else. That doesn't mean we must then simply ignore them, but we do need
to keep in mind the historical openness the SCA has had toward those whose
kit is "lacking". When one is in a position to write rules to regulate
those actions, one should be very careful to draw the lines no more
restrictively than necessary, lest you lop off things you didn't want to.

> 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.
> 
> >>>>>LOGAN
> i have, time and time and time again, supplied the text of the scas
> organizational handbook.  specifically the section titled "an introduction
> to the sca".  i am sorry if that is not enough but it tells me a very clear
> tale of what this organization claims to be.  that, is all i have argued
> for.
> 
The texts offered have not made the claims you claim they have, or have not
been from "rules" sections. 

[snip]

> > 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.
> 
> >>>>>LOGAN
> blue jeans are not an attempt no matter what color you spray paint it.  the
> rules say an attempt, tennis shoes are not an attempt no matter what color
> glasses you put on.  you disagree.  but i fail to see how you can support
> that.

I specifically dispute your impliciation that coleman chairs and such are
forbidden by the corporate rules. You cannot claim from that that I claim
that blue jeans constitute an "attempt". I didn't say that. Please do the
courtesy of responding to my argument instead of setting up a straw man to
knock down.

> 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.
> 
> >>>>>LOGAN
> well we obviously have different ideals and ideas.  i try to do things to
> the best of my ability.  i follow the rules as they are laid out.  and, when
> i join any kind of organization voluntarily i try to excel not just "get
> by".  i agree that the sca is not the place for the ultra authenticity.  i
> have never suggested it should be.  if you want ultra authenticity there are
> other places one should play.  if you want anything goes as long as it makes
> it easy i dont think the sca is the right place either.  there are, indeed,
> other places one should play.

Be very careful how you say that. I did not advocate "not following the
rules". I do dispute your apparent sense of what the scope of the rules are.

Note also that most of us do not have the diverse resources to excel at all
aspects of SCA activity; we must decide where to place our emphases. The
great diversity of those emphases is one of the great strengths of the SCA
even as it create apparent weakness. 

[snip]

Atlantian law has long purported to regulate canned soda specifically and
"obvious modern items" in general (for Kingdom-level events) and smoking
in the central area of all events. Smoking by marshals on the list field
during the tourney (Crown, even) is not unheard-of, but I've never seen
nor heard of said smokers sanctioned or chastised. Flash photography is
similarly forbidden in the central area without prearrangment with the
autocrat.

I don't know that it would be a Good Thing to actually try to enforce
these, although it may be productive to bring them to people's attention
so that they can voluntarily comply.

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/