Pros and Cons of Principalities (wasRe: principalities)

[Gunnora Hallakarva]

>
>Galen replies to Gunnora -
<snip Gunnora's argument about peerage and principailities>
>I'm sorry Gunnora, but it sounds like you feel guilty about not having 
>travelled to Oklahoma lately, and you want a principality to excuse you
from >needing to go up there.  

Gunnora responds:
Actually, Galen, I have been up there two or three times in the last
quarter.  I go whenever I can afford to do so.  However, I still do not get
enough intensive time with the artists in the Northern part of our kingdom
to know them well, or even to know them well enough to be able to give the
Crown useful feedback when they ask my opinion.  Practically none of the
Laurels consistently travel to the opposite end of the kingdom.  This makes
polling the Order a nightmare sometimes, since we have people (and probably
always will have people) whose attitude is "If I don't know them well they
can't possibly be Peerage material."  I shouldn't HAVE to vote on candidates
which I know nothing about, but nonetheless there are some Crowns that
absolutely will not allow us to abstain on a vote in the Circle (which I hate).

Galen goes on to say:
> With principalities, you would not be better informed about 
> artists in the north or the west, you'd just have a good excuse to ignore
them. 

Gunnora says:
I think we'd do a lot better to be polled only about artists in our regions.
I think that if the folks in your region, peers and populace alike, are
going around saying "Damn, that person should have been a
Laurel/Knight/Pelican *years* ago!  Why dont the
Crown/Laurels/Knights/Pelicans do something about recognizing them as
Peers?" then it is time to make that person a Peer.  However, I do not think
it is absolutely necessary for the whole kingdom to know you well... while a
peer serves the kingdom, in the real daily life of the SCA, any peer
normally serves the most in his or her own region.  

It cannot be useful to the Crown to get votes on candidates for any Peerage
from people who don't know the candidate from Adam.  Not having
Principalities will not ever make that situation better.  I'd rather be
responsible for observing and working most closely with a smaller group of
people in my own region.  

Galen said:
> They would not benefit more under principalities from the teaching and
example of
>Gunnora Hallakava, instead they'd be less likely to have heard of you, or
care if they did.

Gunnora answers:
I'd still be interacting with artists kingdom wide, as I am frequently asked
to come up for arts practicum or special classes of one sort or another, and
furthermore, we'd still have Kingdom-wide Arts and Sciences events such as
the Kingdom A&S competition, the displays at Gulf Wars, Laurels' Prize
Tourneys, Kings Colleges, etc.  Plus many of the Laurels make a point of
trying to attend the local areas' A&S championships on a regular basis as
well.  We'd still interact with the artists from other areas, about as much
as we do at the present time, while still only being responsible for voting
on peerage candidates from our own principality.

As for having heard about me or caring if they did, that's already the case.
I'm consistently amazed at how many people have no idea who the non-Knight
peers are in their areas, much less in other areas of the kingdom.  If they
come to Kingdom A&S events, Principality or not, they will have access to
Laurels from the Kingdom as a whole.

Galen said:
>It's a bummer that every peer can't blanket the whole kingdom, learning 
>about >up-and-comers and teaching what we can.  All we can do is our best.
>That's going to vary from person to person.  So you'll meet Oklahoma people in
>Steppes or Elfsea; that's less likely under this three-principality
proposal.  And
>when you do, you'll both be less likely to care.

Gunnora answers:
I don't believe that's the case.  I (as well as many others) have good
friends in Namron, Steppes, Elfsea... I'll still travel to their events, and
can you imagine that anyone who knows a quality event won't travel to
Lyonnesse, no matter what Principality it's in? (We get out of Kingdom
fighters attracted because of the good reputation of the event even now!)
The Northern folks who we meet in the Elfsea-Steppes area will still be
there, as will I.  

Another advantage that just occurred to me about having Peers vote on
candidates in their own regions rather than kingdom-wide would be a
reduction in the number of flesh-eaters (definition of "flesh-eater" is a
person whose entire life revolves around getting awards, to Hel with the
rest of the SCA, and they consistently brown-nose Peers, Landed nobility and
Crowns to achieve those awards).  If I wasn't involved in having to vote on
candidates from other principalities, why, the flesh-eaters from the other
Principalities wouldn't waste their time on me!  What a concept!!!  Boy,
this is the best argument I've hit on yet, from my POV!  I'd only be dealing
with people who really wanted to talk with me, and the occasional
flesh-eater from my own region!

Galen said:
>But under principalities, we won't be better informed about candidates, 
>we'll be paying attention to far fewer candidates.

We will be better informed about those candidates that we will be asked to
vote on.  The fewer candidates that I will be expected to  concentrate on
will get much better quality attention from me, and the quantity of the time
I can give them will increase.  Right now I think all the Peerages are being
stretched too thin in trying to be everything to everybody everywhere in the
kingdom.

It's patently obvious, Galen, that you and I are going to have to agree to
disagree... we are in completely opposite camps on this issue.

In Service to the Kingdom and in Frith to my countrymen,

::GUNNORA::


Gunnora Hallakarva
Herskerinde
===========================================
Ek eigi visa (th)ik hversu o(dh)lask Lofstirrlauf-Kruna
heldr hversu na Hersis-A(dh)al