[MR] Peerage questions

[David Wendelken]

>I view the various households as cliques.  And the orders too, to an
>extent.  Please don't be insulted since the word only means 'an exclusive
>group of people who identify with each other and are a subset of a larger
>group', which is precisely what they are, really.  It's absolutely period,
>too.              

The meaning transferred by any word is composed of three components:

1) Denotation 

The dictionary definition of the word.  You supplied one for clique.

2) Connotation

The emotional associations that people attach to a word.  Clique has bad
connotations.  Just watch any "high school movie" to see why.  

3) Context

"... and Brutus is an honourable man" is about the best example of how
context can totally transform the meaning being transmitted by a word.

As for the orders being cliques, cliques choose their members.  The Crown
chooses ours. :)

>> Or, do you mean that the peers are being unchivalrous because someone
>>chooses not to take advantage of the opportunities the peers provide? If
>>so, why? The peers make the offer to teach one on one to their associates,
>>if the offer is refused, why blame the peers?

>What I view as unfair is the notion that it is acceptable for it to take
>unassociated individuals longer to become a peer.  

Well, I think you are looking at this point exactly backwards! :)

It will take a given amount of time for a candidate to learn the skills,
develop the character, and become known for it.

If the candidate accepts the help offered by the peers, it will take less
time.  If they don't, it will take the usual amount of time.

>Maybe they never found a compatible peer who didn't already have many
>associates.  

I agree that's a sad situation.  Find a solution, I would love to hear it!

>Or maybe they were so busy doing an art or science or service they didn't
>stop to pick one peer. 

Their choice, don't fuss at us about it.  Fuss at them! :)


>Respectfully, I still disagree. True story. one person teaches classes at
><snip>

Many actions are not noble or ignoble.  The motives behind them may be.

It's usually not hard to figure out which is which.  Any one of us may be
wrong, but the collective wisdom of the orders isn't wrong all that often.

>>That is what I mean by "a good fit".

>I am not offended and I completely agree (though I'm respectfully curious
>why you thought I would be offended). 

Because you were talking about cliques, which to my mind is a term used when
talking about "the in crowd" vs "the rabble".  I was concerned you might
interpret not thinking someone is a good fit for my student as meaning they
weren't worthy, vs. meaning I'm the wrong teacher for them.

>It is precisely because I understand how strong that relationship is that I
>haven't entered into something similar in the SCA.  All of the students my
>advisor taught all learned to think alike.  We all learned to do everything
>his way.  He gave us the freedom to observe how other professors do things
>but, since we represented him, we had to do things his way while we were
>his students.  I've seen the same thing with squires and apprentices. 

Everybody is different.  Some peers teach that way, some do not.

There are some things I will not bend on, and by God, my retainers know it.
I expect them to be courteous, helpful, generous within their means, and
honourable in their actions.  I expect them to conduct themselves as
gentlemen or ladies, as the case may be.  I expect them to defend those who
need defending.  I expect them to diligently try to improve themselves and
their craft, in that order.  How they go about it is up to them, provided it
works.  :)  They have to find their way, the way that works for them.  After
that, I'm negotiable.

In other words, your assumption about how all peers teach their associates
is wrong.  I recommend you find one or more that aren't in cloning mode like
your professor was, then enjoy both the freedom and the tutelage! :)

>But I do know people who have stayed put, been working hard, are fun to be
>around, and still haven't received the recognition ...

http://atlantia.sca.org/award/

Get busy and write up some award recommendations, if you haven't already.
If you already have, get busy and get others who agree with you to write
some too.  If you've done that, wait six months and repeat.  If you don't
get good results within a year, check your calibration. :)  Seriously, it
does take time to process stuff.  The Royals might make the decision, and a
scroll might sit around forever before the Royals and the recipient are at
the same event.

I've never known a Royal who did not take award recommendations seriously,
and I've never seen one sent to the Knights or Laurels that was not taken
seriously by those orders.  I'm not a Pelican, but I would be astonished to
find any difference on this point.

Andras