[MR] Peerage questions

[David Wendelken]

Greetings unto Lady Bianca di Bari, 

>>>bmcellis at yahoo.com
>>> I expect any associate to have the goal of becoming a peer one day if
>>> they officially associate with a peer/household. 
> 
>That expectation is what some people, myself included, consider the problem
>because that implies the opposite... that if you don't have the official
>association of a peer/household then you must not have the goal of becoming
>a peer one day.  So it's perceived that there's a less pressing matter to
>make them a peer. 

I have been a knight since 1979 and a laurel since 1989.  I have NEVER heard
such a comment from any peer.  I'm perfectly willing to believe that
somewhere, some peer said that and believed it.  Everyone, peers included,
is entitled to an idiotic opinion now and again.  What I can assure you is
that it is NOT a belief among many peers at all.  Period.

>And time has shown that it _does_ generally take one X more years to get an
>award if they're not officially associated with a peer/household.  Not true
>in every case, but in most. 

In my experience, it is often true that non-associates do not get awards as
fast.

>I find that disturbing.

You should not.  The explanation is quite simple.  There is nothing devious
or underhanded about it.

Peerage is composed of two main components:  skill and character.  It takes
time for the skill of an individual to get noticed by a sufficient number of
peers across the realm.  It takes even more time for the character of an
individual to be evaluated by a sufficient number of people across the
realm.

The more someone travels, the more they will get noticed.  

The more people they meet, the more they will get noticed.  

That last point is important to understanding a significant portion of the
time differential.  Many of the peers know one another and are friends with
one another.  Friends hang out with their friends.  If you are my friend and
hang out with me, you are more likely to meet and get to know the other
people who hang out with me - my squires and apprentices among them.

Nothing sinister about it.  Just simple social dynamics at work.

The second reason for the time differential is also simple.  Ever notice
that when everyone is responsible for a job that no one is really
responsible for that job?  I'm responsible for knowing when my squires and
apprentices are ready for peerage.  I took an oath on it.  I'm in touch with
them all the time.  When they are ready, I'll let others know.

Unless I deal with someone who isn't a squire or apprentice on a frequent
enough basis to know their skill level and character, I'm not going to bring
them forward as quickly.  Not because I don't want to, or don't believe I
should, but simply because I generally won't know as quickly that they are
ready.  If they were my friend and hung out with me as much as my squires
and apprentices do, they would get noticed/recommended at the same rate.
Possibly faster, as I don't want to show favoritism to those in my
household.

An independent (i.e., not a squire, apprentice or protégé) who is very
personable and very fun to be around will tend to overcome the social
dynamics of getting known more quickly.  Ditto for someone whose work is
truly outstanding.  They have to work harder.

Is that wrong?  I do not think so.  If they have chosen to work towards the
peerages without taking advantage of all the opportunities our society
provides, so be it.

>I know brave fighters in the East who have been fighting longer, and
>better, than some squires and yet they make knight later or not at all. 

One of my squire brothers was a Duke before he was knighted.  And you know
what?  That was the right call.  He should not have been knighted before he
was.  He was a nice guy, everybody liked him, and he fought really well.
But he wasn't ready to be a knight, so the knights waited until he was.  

Here's another example from real life.  My wife and I sponsored a contest.
One person had a really nice entry.  Their spiel was incredible.  Their work
happened to be on a topic I know very little about, so I was listening
intently to learn.  Partway thru the person's explanation of their work, my
wife turned red and left the room suddenly.  Not wanting to be rude, I
continued listening and observing.  A few minutes later, I realized that the
person was lying thru their teeth.  They had claimed to make an item by hand
that - even to my untrained eyes - was clearly factory made.  My wife,
knowing far more about the subject than I did, had made the same realization
somewhat earlier.

I'm sure people at that event were greatly surprised do discover that that
person did not win our contest.  And some of them probably complained about
how this fine individual just wasn't getting the recognition they deserved
from the Laurels.  Sadly for them, the person was getting the recognition
they deserved.

>>thus proving that campaigning for an award, well, works.

It does not prove that at all.  See my explanation above.

>I'm not saying that peers play favorites, but I am saying that they notice
>and recognize their official associates sooner.    

And I hope I've explained why.  Realistically, would you expect me to notice
someone faster who works with me all the time, or someone I only see at a
few events a year for a few minutes at a time?  If you've got a solution for
that problem, please share it!

Anyone can write a recommendation to the Peerages for an individual.  Said
recommendations are not received very often in my experience.  I can tell
you that every one I have ever seen has been handled with seriousness and
care.  It is considered "A Matter of Importance."

I cannot tell you why there are so few recommendations made.  Several
explanations come to mind:

1. People do not know they can make such a recommendation.
2. People think it won't matter if they do.
3. People are too embarrassed to make such a recommendation.
4. People are too lazy to do it.
5. People think the current system is working well enough, so why bother?

I wish we received more recommendations.  It would make it harder for us to
overlook a worthy individual.

>So if a person wants to be, say, a Laurel, they almost have to be
>apprenticed to eventually get on the team.  

That is simply not true.  They will, all things being equal, probably take
longer, simply because people will get to know them at a somewhat slower
rate.

Most peers prefer a slow-but-sure approach to voting for someone.  They know
that a bad decision will take a long time to correct.

I don't know where people get this notion of "politicking" about awarding
the peerages.  In my experience spanning almost three decades, it simply
isn't so.  Merit is the criteria.  


Sir Andras Salamandra, OL



Lady Sorcha de Glys,

>And then there's the dreaded, "To become "X" in Atlantia, you have to  
>have a web page." I have found that being accused of peerage hunting  
>has kept many from sharing their knowledge with the world via the  
>Internet.  On the other hand, I've also seen many who've been ignored  
>for peerages for years until they've "published" online - and then it  
>was a very short trip.

Please see my missive to Lady Bianca above.  In order to get the support of
the majority of the peers in an order, the skill and character of the person
needs to be known.  If a web page helps establish the level of skill of the
person faster, what's wrong with that?  It's not the only path to getting
people aware of your skill level quickly.  But it's an effective and
inexpensive one, and it also helps satisfy the teaching criteria.

>I suppose this topic pertains more to the Laurels and Pelicans more  
>since the fighting community has other arenas (requiring physical  
>presence) in place to sift the wheat from the chaff.

I would agree here. 

>How is this trend affecting the peerages polling habits?  Is  
>it easier for the peers to familiarize themselves with someone's  
>activities/expertise online than it is for peers to seek/interview  
>candidates? 

Well, duh.  Of course it is easier!  Gas is $4 a gallon, and the person
whose work you want to see might not make the event.  And that assumes you
already know you want to see their work!

>Also, do those hoping for the attention of the peers  
>feel less of a need to travel, teach publicly, or write if they have  
>a website doing that 24/7 already?  

If they do, they are slowing down their path to peerage.  Peerage requires
skill and character evaluations.  Character does not get evaluated by
viewing a web page.  Correction - Good character does not get evaluated by
viewing a web page.  Bad character can be so established!  :)

>What of those with limited ability to attend events or travel?  

They will, on average, take longer to get recognized simply because it will
take longer for other peers to meet them and evaluate their character.  

There is nothing sinister about that, and nothing to be upset about either.
It's just life.

Of course, if the person develops a really strong reputation for their skill
and for being fun to be around, people will want to come see them!

If people don't know about the quality or quantity of your work, you won't
get recognition for it.  If you do things that get you noticed more quickly,
you will get recognition for it - good or bad! :) - more quickly.  Ditto for
how nice a person you are.  That's just common sense.

While I'm on this topic, there is a big, big difference between these two
statements:

"They want to be worthy of being a knight (laurel, pelican)."
"They just want to be a knight (laurel, pelican)."

The first implies the person is actively striving to be considered a person
of fine character and skill, the second implies they want an award for the
sake of the award.

I strongly support those in the first category.  I will strongly postpone
those in the second category until they move to the first category. ;)

Sir Andras Salamandra, OL