Pros and Cons of Principalities (wasRe: principalities)

[Burke McCrory]

At 10:35 AM 9/24/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>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).
>

Gunnora, I agree,  While it is somewhat easier to measure the fighting
quality of a candidate for my order (just go out and fight them) that is
not always fair, what if they just have a bad day).  Plus it is much harder
to determine whether a person is a peer from 6 minutes on the field.
Principalities would allow us to really get to know and work with all the
potential candidates in our area.  Now we have to spend so much time
checking out everyone kingdom wide that we probably seem shallow, like we
don't care to know the person behind the face.  But if you do choose to
work closely with everyone in your area, you are branded as not caring
and/or not traveling. 

 
>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!
>

In a principality setting it might necessary to work with potential
"flesh-eaters" and turn them around.  Today our system would seem almost to
encourage "flesh-eater" tendencies, as candidates are told that they need
to get to know all the peers in their potential order if they want their vote.


>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.
>

This is the old quantity vs quality issue.  Where ever possible I am in
favor of quality.  We just can't be everywhere for everyone.


>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
>



Burke McCrory
burkemc at ionet.net
aka. Sir Burke Kyriell MacDonald