[MR] I'll Probably Regret This Later

Thu Feb 19 23:20:44 PST 2009

Greetings from Terafan,

    Herveus stated:
> We *are* being asked to judge Janos. 

I am willing to agree to disagree, but perhaps it is the semantics that we disagree on.  I would submit that we are being asked whether we want Janos back in our club...

That is a completely different question than whether he did something inappropriate, illegal, or criminal.   The Board made their ruling and took action. Those are facts.  We are now being asked whether we want to allow him back in the club.   Understanding the privacy of all the individuals involved, I think it is reasonable to believe that the Board weighed all the available evidence when they made their decision.  I am not being asked to re-examine the facts regarding that decision, nor are those fact public information.  

I don't want to know those facts because most of them aren't relevant to the current question.  I would submit that honor is one of the very few things that we treasure most highly in the SCA and our ladies and their dignity a close second.   It is not acceptable to *me* that even a single one of our ladies, let alone any minors, are inappropriately treated nor is that honorable behavior.  It simply violates a basic tenet of the dignity of humanity and care for others that I think we hold dear.  

When someone is absolutely circumspect in every situation, then rumours never get started.  Even though rumours may often be blown way out of proportion, there is usually a certain amount of truth which is the basis.  Again, a single instance of inappropriate behavior is one instance too many, especially when it comes to treatment of ladies or minors by a lord, and I care about our organization too much to want those kinds of people in my club.  

The only judgement of Janos I am being asked to make is whether I want him in the club.  Is that a "judgement"?  Yes.   Is it a judgement of whether he performed some criminal act?   Absolutely not.   I am not going to speculate on that topic because it isn't relevant (in my view).  That decision has already been made.

So, again I would submit that I am *not* being asked to be "judge, jury, and executioner".   I am only being asked if I want him "released on parole" (so he can play in the club again)...  

You said:
> I cannot support this request from the Crown.

I would also argue that you CAN support the request from the Crown, which is to simply give them your opinion.  The crown doesn't care what your opinion is (yes, no, or abstain), only that you provide it on a signed form so they can include it with the forms from the rest of the kingdom's peers (and anyone else who submits one).   

The Board would like to know that Atlantia's peers care enough to respond (one way or another).  The Board wants to make sure that they have heard from *all* of Atlantia's peers, and no response is simply an indication that you don't care enough about the SCA to bother...   From what I know of you, I find it hard to believe that you don't care.   We may not agree on yes or no, but we can agree that it is important to provide our viewpoint to the Board. 

cheers,
  Terafan

________________________________________
From: Michael Houghton [herveus at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:15 PM
To: Barclay, Peter C LTC USA CIO/G6
Cc: Alan MacNeill; atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: Re: [MR] I'll Probably Regret This Later (UNCLASSIFIED)

Howdy!

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Barclay, Peter C LTC USA CIO/G6
<Peter.c.Barclay at us.army.mil> wrote:
> Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Greetings unto Gorm (and the kingdom) from Master Terafan,
>
>    I think an important issue is being mis-construed (or perhaps mis-understood)...
>
> In one note Gorm stated:
>> There was a hearing before the BoD, a sanction was issued, so far as I
>> know it has been followed...
>>
>> What, exactly, is wrong with letting the people who are the judge,
>> jury, and executioner do their job and be satisfied with the outcome?
>
> Followed with (in another email)
>
>> I have no knowledge of whether the accused is guilty of the crimes
>> he is accused of or not
>
>
> Many of the peers don't know either, but that is NOT the question.
>
> As you stated, the BoD conducted a hearing and made a ruling.  Those issues are fact, but they are also history.  Nobody is being asked to be "judge and jury" on the issue.  That was already done and we are "satisfied with the outcome".
>
Actually, the explanation I saw regarding the choices on the petition
was that peers were asked to agree/disagree with the request that
the board make the revocation and denial of membership permanent
again. In order to make a reasoned choice, one needs to know the
relevant facts in order to make a judgement. We *are* being asked
to judge Janos. The stated reason for revisiting this question with
the BoD is that Atlantia was apparently not notified of the appeal
and thus was not able to present counter-arguments. It is notable
that Janos was not provided the particulars of the reason for his
banishment until four months after the banishment -- somewhat
later than the two weeks (or so) mandated in Corpora.

Clearly, the BoD saw some reason to soften their sanction, but
they only relented on permanence. Given the apparent lack of
diligence on the part of Atlantia in the initial stages, complaining
about the subsequent actions by the BoD seems a bit much.

I have taken the time to inquire directly of Janos (via Rachel) for his
side of the story. Putting together all of the data I have available to
me, I do not see the purpose in continuing to pursue this matter. In
good conscience, I cannot support this request from the Crown.

yours,
Herveus, Pelican and Laurel
--
Michael Houghton   | Herveus d'Ormonde
herveus at gmail.com         | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA            | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
                          | http://whitewolfandphoenix.com