[MR] Pollings and Associates and the BIG "P" Word (politics)

[Glynis Gwynedd]

Absolutely not. By forcing the peers to have associates (and I am assuming
here that you mean squires, apprentices, protegees), you are forcing them
(the peers AND the associates) to play politics, whether they want to or
not. Truthfully, a person should stand on their own merits, not on the
merits of someone who's already a Peer. It is the behavior, skills, and
deeds of the candidate for the order that are in question - not whose apron
strings they're tied to. This would encourage Peers to take on students (any
student, just someone to fill a hole so their vote counts) whether the
relationship is a good fit or not.

Please do not think that I don't appreciate the value of having a Peer as a
mentor, or of a Peer having students (apprentices, protegees, squires),
because I do feel that it's exceptionally important for Peers to guide
others. But not allowing the opinion of a Peer to carry as much weight if
they don't have a student devalues the achievement they have made, and at
that point they aren't a "Peer" any more, because they're "not as good as"
the Peers who have students.

By extension, this hypothetical situation would have the potential to extend
out to "You don't have a Peer? Then you're not really eligible for our
Order." We'd have a lot of people who suddenly would not be eligible for
Peerages simply because they don't feel a need or desire to attach
themselves to one person.

This idea is bad juju, in my opinion. I hate politics, and I hate seeing
people be held back because they are associated with this Peer or that Peer.
It's not as bad in Atlantia, but I've seen it in other Kingdoms, and it's
very sad when it happens.

~Lady Glynis Gwynedd
Barony of Highland Foorde
"Have you hugged a harp today?"
--
"Never argue with an idiot. People watching may not be able to tell the
difference."


On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Becky McEllistrem <bmcellis at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Here's an interesting follow up question that came up during a group
> conversation online last night.
>
>
> Should knights (and perhaps all peers) be required to have associates in
> order for their opinion to be considered valid on a polling?
>
>
> IE you have no associates?  Then you may discuss candidates for an order
> but your polling is invalid or carries half the weight of the pollings from
> those that do have associates.
>
> Don't know of kingdom or society law would have to change for that to
> happen which is the direction most of the discussion took most of the time.
>
> A side tangent to that was - do you live in kingdom?  No then your polling
> is half the weight of those that do live in kingdom.
>
> Doubt any serious change in this direction would ever happen but it was an
> interesting subject I'd never thought about before.
>
> Rebecca
> ========================================================================
>                   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
>