ANST - Award recommendation issues..

[Paul Mitchell]

Galen of Bristol here!

Pug, I appreciate your bringing this up.

Pug Bainter wrote:
> 
> Good Morning,
> 
>   Since this has come up a couple times recently, and since I've heard
>   some different viewpoints on this topic that took me by surprise, I
>   thought I'd see what more people thought.
> 
>   What is making "award recommendations"?
> 
>   I assume that writing a formal letter to the Crown or local Rulers
>   about the person, which award and why is clearly one. Are there others?

Yes, of course there are.

>   Is sitting around discussing "why So-And-So is and So-And-So isn't"
>   a form of award recommendation?

It can be.  If you have this discussion on private e-mail or chat, or
in your own living room or around your own campfire, then no.  But if you
do it as the topic of discussion at your barony's monthly meeting, or on
this mailing list, both of which are essentially public forums, I suggest
that that does constitute an award recommendation, and has no valid place
as a topic of public discourse.
 
>   Is mentioning that you think someone might be worthy in idle passing
>   either in person or email an award recommendation? (As someone recently
>   asked me if it was or not and I was completely shocked.)

Again, it can be.  If I say, "Gee, Lord X sure helped me out last weekend;
he helps a lot of people," that's word-fame.  If I say, "Hey, why isn't
Lord X a Pelican; if he's not worthy, I can't imagine who would be" is
an award recommendation.
 
>   What I've seen as myself trying to figure out what guidelines are for
>   a certain award or what does and doesn't make a peer may have been taken
>   by others as award recommendations. I admit that it may bring
>   individuals into some consideration since whomever I am talking with
>   has to think about what they've done and what they haven't, but I
>   never saw it as recommending them for anything.

Again, no problem with this in private discourse; but when you take it
public, it's exceptionally discourteous to the individual, the circle,
and the Crown.  All are put on the spot.  In a public forum, you _must_
avoid bringing up specific names.

(The following is a _completely_ ficticious example.)
Suppose you publically bring up Lady Z and ask why she's not a peer.
Then suppose I tell you she's not because the circle was very distressed
that her children were taken away from her last month on the suspicion
that she was abusing them.  So we're waiting to see how the trial comes
out.  Did you really want to know that?  Do you think such things should
be aired publically?

Whatever the reason is, it's either going to be embarrassing to the Crown,
someone in the circle, or often the candidate.  If the candidate being
publically discussed is in any way controversial, then the public discourse
is more likely to heat up the controversy, possibly serving to delay the
agreement of the circle.  Feelings get hurt; that's a violation of
Galen's Chivalric Rules of Politics.
 
>   I've never sat down and wrote to the Crown or the Order's circle
>   regarding a potential candidate (since I think it would be
>   presumptuous *especially* since I don't have a clear concept of the
>   guidelines) but am I making recommendations by just discussing different
>   individuals and the guidelines?

Well, Pug, I don't think your ideas of what a peer should be are so
fuzzy.  You've consistently expressed them over quite a long period
of time.  I know that we in the peerage circles can't be everywhere
or see everything, and so another point of view is valuable and welcome.
So give award-rec-writing a try sometime; if you can bring up a discussion
in public about an individual, you could write to Their Majesties and
tell them you don't understand why that person shouldn't be a peer.

>   What do others think about how recommendations are or aren't made.

I believe that private discussions about specific people are fine; they're
not recommendations.  Although if you care enough to spend time discussing
it, you might as well send a recommendation.

Discussing a person's worth -- or lack thereof -- for a given award in a 
public forum is a Bad Thing.  It is embarrassing and stressful for the
candidate, and drags into public deliberations best kept private.  You
wouldn't ask for time in court to discuss this, you wouldn't bring it up 
in a meeting, and I believe we shouldn't discuss specific names in regard
to awards here on the Ansteorra list.

Now, I _do_ believe that it is completely appropriate to use this list 
to discuss standards for awards, what constitutes right and wrong conduct, 
the nature of chivalry, honor, prowess, artistic excellence, or what 
qualities should a peerage circle be looking for, as long as you don't 
start naming names as examples.  The Laurel and Pelican circles both 
have private e-mail mailing lists now (my sincere compliments to Mistress 
Gunnora and Mistress Clare, as well as Lord Pug, for this innovation), 
and the charters of each of those lists ban the discussion of candidates.  
We don't discuss candidates on the private lists; they certainly shouldn't
be discussed on the public list.

- Galen of Bristol
pmitchel at flash.net
http://www.flash.net/~pmitchel/galen.htm
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.