[MR] Peerage Questions

[David Wendelken]

>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.

In a geographically dispersed group, in which the members have financial and
time constraints, it's certain that different people will have interacted
with the person over different periods of time.

Most recommendations or commentary that I've seen over the last 30 years in
the peerage has been very clear on the limitations that go with the
recommendation.

Each peerage circle in each kingdom deals with it in a way that works for
them.  If it stops working, they change it.

Over the decades, I've seen very formal rules and seen ad-hoc, case-by-case
approaches.  Given the overall caliber of the people involved, it generally
works pretty well regardless.

>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.
What is much more common is a slow change in personality and behavior over a
period of years, again for good or ill.  Either way, someone in the circle
is bound to have noticed.  If not, and the person is recommended by anyone
at all, several people will go find out.
 
>There is the important idea that one associate not forwarded in any way 
>from 10 years isn't necessarily credible either but not having any
associates 
>for many years is a concern to me. 

I'm not quite sure of your meaning here.  I'll make a guess, but if my
answers don't seem to be addressing the right question, you'll know why. 

"one associate not forwarded in any way from 10 years"  ?

I'm guessing that means someone was an associate for 10 years and still
hasn't been made a peer.

Many years ago I took a very fine gentleman as my squire.  He had little
fighting skill and was unlikely to ever gain any, either. 
He was one of the finest squires I ever had.  Were he still in the SCA and
hereabouts, he would be welcomed like a long lost son - even though he's
older than me.
He learned from me and I learned from him.  It was a relationship that was
beneficial to everyone around us.  

"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 understand that some peers are too busy doing themselves but shouldn't
they also be encouraging students." ?

I'm guessing this means busy doing their own art.  I don't know about you,
but when I see someone doing something really cool, and having a really good
time doing it, I'm encouraged to do it too!
In fact, having lots of fun doing something cool is the single best way I've
ever found to encourage folks in the SCA to do anything.

>Another important point is that yes most peers encourage all people to do
their best.  

Agreed.

>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.
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.
The Crown doesn't have to do what the peerage advises.  That's just the
plain and simple rules of the game.  In my experience, the Crowns will add
weight the opinions of the peers based upon their proven track record of
good advice, depth and breadth of personal knowledge of the candidate or the
skill in question, and all the intangibles that go with who does one trust
and how much does one trust them.
Some stranger that hasn't been seen in years won't rate highly on the
trust-me-meter unless they make a darn good case and back it with evidence.

>I believe the responsibility of a peer is to do both and
> while most of my peerage friends do both, my concern is the peer who
doesn't yet still wants the same weight in a polling order. 

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 you were on the throne, you know which peers whose opinion you would give
more weight to, all other things being equal, don't you?  
You'll assess the evidence, count the numbers, weigh in the factors you've
mentioned, and then give it your best shot.  I've never known anyone on the
throne who did it any differently.

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.  They differ only in the amount of personal
experience with the candidate they require vs indirect knowledge thru other
peers and trusted individuals.

>Logan brings up an important point, that Crowns automatically apply the
weight of the voice as they see fit already. 
>I think it would be nice to have something more obvious.

I think it would be totally pointless.

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.

Very Respectfully,

Andras Salamandra

PS  There is one guaranteed way to know whether a person is being discussed
by the Peerage.  Write a recommendation letter for them and send it to the
Secretary of that peerage order or to the Crown.  I can assure you that
every such letter is treated seriously and respectfully.