[MR] Peerage Questions

[Becky McEllistrem]

--- On Thu, 7/22/10, David Wendelken <david_wendelken at nc.rr.com> wrote:

> From: David Wendelken <david_wendelken at nc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [MR] Peerage Questions
> To: atlantia at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
> Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 12:01 AM
> 
> >My concern that comes up from what I've seen on orders
> where I'm a member, 
> >is members talking about people like they were
> witnessing their actions
> from 
> >yesterday when in fact they haven't interacted with or
> seen that person for
> more than a year.

> 
> >A lot happens in a year.  At that point your
> knowledge could only be what
> they want a peer to see via email.
> 
> Yes and no.  Generally speaking, a lot of skill and
> knowledge can be gained
> in a year.  Barring some unfortunate accident or
> disease, that same skill or
> knowledge won't be lost in a year.
> 
> A person's character is generally pretty consistent over
> time.  Striking
> changes for good or ill do happen suddenly, but they are
> not common and do
> not usually stick unless mental illness is involved.


Actually I've seen behavior changes happen frequently based on increased maturity and the influence of others so I disagree with the character comment completely.  Sometimes people just grow up when they realize the bad boy days aren't so fun after the immediate attention disappears and they have been shunned instead.


> 
> "not having any associates for many years is a concern to
> me"
> 
> Many peers are very generous with their time and skills to
> anyone who shows
> an interest in their area of expertise.  As long as
> they are teaching and
> leading, they are fulfilling their duties.  The
> craftsman knows their tools,
> let them work in the way that works best for them.  We
> do not all have to
> fit into a cookie cutter mold, and our society is better
> for that.

I disagree.  Teaching and leading is nice.  But I believe  they are also responsible for associates and the encouragement of associates forward by education and experience.


> >My concern are those who haven't played in many years
> who want to have the
> same weight 
> >on a polling as those that have played regularly and
> those peers who
> continue to do 
> >their own while not accepting and encouraging
> associates.  
> 
> The Crown is the only one who needs to be concerned about
> that, because they
> are the ones who receive the council.


Since everyone has a potential to be Crown I think we should all be aware and discussing issues.  If rule changes happen as a result that's OK.


> I haven't served as one of the Crowns, but I've been in the
> royal household
> 11 months out of every year for more years than I ever
> wanted to be.  
> Other than wanting folks to get along and have a good time,
> I don't believe
> most Crowns care how much a given peer wants to have their
> counsel weighted.

Actually Logan made the most important point which is the Crowns often weigh the responses automatically on their won.  And I believe Crowns always care about opinions of anyone.  Whether or not they agree is always a difference per reign.


> The Crown doesn't have to do what the peerage
> advises.  That's just the
> plain and simple rules of the game.  

No but the Crown isn't living on an island either.  And most realize quickly or slowly that ignoring large the opinion of a large group of people in one reign is to lose volunteerism in a future reign.

> 
> 
> The next sentence isn't intended to be mean, but it reads
> that way.  That's
> a failing on my part, I can't find a way to express it
> better.  It's
> midnight and I'm going to bed with it "as is". :)
> 
> It's just not your concern until you're on the throne or
> giving counsel in
> the peerage. 

If it influences law change it's everybody's concern since the Crown is expected to follow law.

> 
> If you become a member of the peerage, and you're not quite
> sure about
> someone's skill or readiness, you'll look for additional
> info from others to
> fill in the gaps in your knowledge.  If you fill those
> gaps, you'll
> recommend accordingly.  If you don't, you'll
> abstain.  Everyone in the
> peerage works the same way.  

I'm sure some like me hunt this candidate down and fill the gaps with their own knowledge since there are so many capable of exaggerating knowledge or taking comments and moments out of context.


> 
> No one outside the peerage besides the Crown is supposed to
> know which
> candidates are being discussed or polled.  Since how
> well the peer knows the
> candidate and their skills is the single most important
> variable in how
> useful their counsel would be, such a public rating system
> would be
> worthless.  At best, it could only say "this peer
> isn't active", which
> pretty much anyone who has the interest in can find out for
> themselves
> pretty quickly and accurately.

Actually in this economy when travel is so much less even for peers it's very hard to tell who is active and physically at events versus who is only active online.  And since I've seen so many exaggerations in the past by all people I hesitate to take advice and find out my own information.

Rebecca