[Ansteorra] Non-Member Surcharge

[Jay Rudin]

Armand replied to me:

>> (It goes back to the silly idea that people who make costumes and
>> armor, teach classes, clean up after events, pay site fees to pay for
>> sites, volunteer at demos, etc., are somehow not doing their fair share
>> if they don't also buy a newsletter from a California corporation.)

>That makes perfect sense *if* that is the only value you perceive or derive
>from the corporation. 

It also makes sense if the person cleaning the privy is supporting us, even without a membership card.

> However, I perceive the value in a body that sets some
>minimal level of standardized rules (or framework) of play, 

This pre-dates the corporation and does not require a corporation.  We go through the process of deciding standardized rules for Gulf War fighting and other competitions every year, and the corporation offers not one dime of support.

The BoD did in fact establish the Pelican -- badly.  It took a few years to fix it and get rid of the imperial Pelican.  The BoD did not set up Crown, knighthood, Laurel, Grants, AoAs, baronies, kingdoms, principalities, Duchies.

> provides relatively convenient access to insurance to help secure event sites, 

This costs roughly $2 per person per year, and would be trivial to do by kingdom.

> and
>the sense that I'm supporting the game beyond my local area and am part of a
>larger Knowne World, among other things. 

I have taught at Known World events or wars in Ansteorra, Atenveldt, Outlands, Middle, Northshield, East, Meridies, Gleann Abheann, and Calontir.  I have helped write fencing rules in three kingdoms.  I've marshalled at inter-kingdom events in Meridies, Gleann Abheann, Calontir and Outlands.  I've helped put on Known World events for rapier, arts & sciences, and dance.  My sense that I'm supporting the game beyond my local area doesn't stem from writing a check, but from doing work.

They did not set up the White Scarf treaty.  They didn't write the first fighting rules, or war rules.

They don't even produce the newsletters.  That's done locally, by volunteers.  They take the money, give back some of it, and compile the mailing labels.

They don't help pay for Pennsic, Estrella, Gulf War, Known World Academies and Symposia, etc.

In any event, your sense that you're "supporting the game beyond [your] local area" is a valid reason for you to buy a membership, not to imply that people who don't buy memberships are inherently not supporting it, just as marshals shouldn't imply that heralds don't support the tourney.

I'm a herald -- it's worth it to me.  I won't speak against non-heralds, or imply they ought to pay a surcharge for not doing what I do to contribute.
I'm a teacher -- it's worth it to me.  I won't speak against non-teachers, or imply they ought to pay a surcharge for not doing what I do to contribute.
I'm a marshal -- it's worth it to me.  I won't speak against non-marshals, or imply they ought to pay a surcharge for not doing what I do to contribute.
I'm a member -- it's worth it to me.  I won't speak against non-members, or imply they ought to pay a surcharge for not doing what I do to contribute.

> Perhaps I'm deluded, but so be it.

I don't think you're deluded, just mistaken.  You appear to believe that money to the corporation is a far bigger help in creating the Society than I do.

>Regarding Member Discount vs. Non-Member Surcharge: 
>
>One could argue that, without the NMS, when a "member" and a "non-member"
>pay the exact same site fee, that the non-member got a discount. Because the
>_member's_ "extra" membership fees helped pay a portion of the corporate
>insurance used to secure the site. (Probably not $3 or $5 worth, but that's
>another issue.) My point is that when some claim the "truth", it is still a
>matter of perception.

No, it's not another issue; it's at the heart of the issue.  The NMS is not intended to pay for the non-member's share of the insurance, which is roughly $2 per year.  It's a straightforward revenue source.  (I suspect that we could pay the entire insurance just with non-member fees.)

>As one who continues to "pretend" a surcharge is not necessarily a
>surcharge, I would hope you do not imply that I'm intentionally trying to be
>un-chivalrous or deceptive, while I (and others) speculate on a marketing
>approach intended to be improve the organization.

First of all, speculating on a different marketing approach is one thing, trying to re-name the one we have is another.

If somebody wants to try to convince the BoD to change to members discounts or temporary memberships, I have no problem with that.  It won't work, but go ahead and try it.  (It won't work because the BoD *wants* it to feel like a penalty -- they want to convince people to buy memberships.)

If people want to avoid characterizing the surcharge at all, and just list the fees without breakdown, I have no problem with this either.

But people who wish to use inaccurate language to make the current surcharge sound like it's not a surcharge are in fact attempting to be deceptive.  I don't think they are doing this out of any un-chivalrous reasons, but out of a desire to help the organization, while using fuzzy thinking.

A surcharge is in fact a surcharge.  Why try to deny that tautology?

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin

P.S.  I just spent ten minutes trying to find a "nicer" way to say that trying to give a false impression about the NMS is deceptive.  Then I realized I was falling into the same fallacy I'm trying to correct.  A member discount and a surcharge don't operate the same way.  Calling the NMS a members discount is deceptive, regardless of noble intent, and even if the person doesn't realize it will deceive.

________________________________________
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com