[MR] Laws/Rules & pesky 10% - was "furry friends"

[Karen Summerfelt-Hume]

I got the impression that all the lady was asking was to have a specific
comment in the event announcements as to whether or not pets were
permitted.  That simply falls in the category of having a complete set of
info in an event announcement - not changing rules, regulations or anything
else.

The SCA has, to my knowledge, always had to option of removing 'problem
attendees' from event sites.  That, really, is all we should need.  If the
event steward or autocrat or Seneschal has had enough complaints then the
offending parties should be asked or told to vacate the site.

Chagan - who remembers when some groups wre unhappy if parents brough babies
and toddlers!



On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:26 PM, <sigrune at aol.com> wrote:

> Gorm of Berra posted:
>
>  ...As lovely as that would be...let me give you my point of view
>>> as the Seneschal of a group that chooses to ban animals from
>>> most of our events because of previous issues...
>>>
>>
>  ...We found out when the dog's barking disturbed the next
>>> camp over...
>>>
>>
>  ...the camp in question denied the dog's existence,
>>> until directly confronted with "We know it's here, the
>>> Option is to come clean, or all of you go home now"...
>>>
>>
>  ...however, to be blunt, it is a case of the 10% ruining it for
>>> the other 90%, like most of the restrictive rules in the SCA are.
>>>
>>
> Please humor me a moment, tis my birthday and am feeling mischevious.
>
> The first excerpt is concerning when the SCA group decides to ban animals
> as opposed to it being a requirement of the site or the site negotiations.
>
> The second excerpt... Umm were not barking dogs period?
>
> The third and fourth excerpts do detail the root of what I wish to address
> The growing tendancy for us as a modern group to create rules and codes
> to elimanate the chance of specific incidences which are not overly common.
>
> We are supposed to be emulating the noblility and the virtues that
> accompany it.
> Even with these restictive rules put in place because some people didn't
> get a clue,
> these rules exclude other responsible persons...  In this particular case,
> the rule that
> was in place failed to prevent that pesky 10% (as often does) and resulted
> in an
> intervention by the authority.
>
> Instead of comming up with restrictive rules as this, why not enforce the
> idea of
> personal responsibility.  After all if I act inappropriately I may be
> kicked off a site, I
> may be subject to modern law, or Society sanction/penalty...  But rarely
> used and
> implimented now is the historic power we emulate, we have royalty to turn
> to.
> Courts historically were more than award ceremonies, courts were offical
> meetings
> of business, law, politics...
>
> All I ask is prior to implimenting a rule, why not consider implimenting a
> standard
> and expecting people to hold to it?  And if they do not, utilize what we
> aer trying to
> recreate?
>
> Thank you for your patience in this rant.
>
> -Takeda
> ========================================================================
>                  The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
>   List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
>  Submissions: Atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Subscriptions:
> http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org
>