ANST - re: p-word: political considerations

[Keith Hood]

>From Tomonaga, with all due respect:

	I will address your points one at a time, but first I want to note you
did not dispute the main point of my missive--that all the problems
supposedly caused by this kingdom's size can be solved without splitting
it into principalities.  Dividing the kingdom is not the only answer,
and I have yet heard no good reason for not trying lesser cures first.


j'lynn yeates wrote:
> 
> point of order, if i'm not mistaken term of tenure is defined by
> Corpora and outside the scope of easy change (as it should be).  idea
> had been proposed again and again over the years and always fly's
> about as well as the proverbial lead balloon
> 

	The fact that it may be difficult to do does not prove that it should
not be done, and the fact remains that it would result in solving or at
least relieving a lot of the problems currently being used as reasons
for arguing in favor of principalities.
	Why does it not fly?  Did someone actually *prove* it's a bad idea, or
do people just not like the idea of trying to get the BOD to change
something?

>
> anyone who aspires to "royalty" status does so (hopefully) with a
> clear understanding of the costs involved (time, stress, financial,
> obligations, ....).  it's all there in the job description.
> 

	It is a difficult job--this is a good reason for not making a change
that would benefit the whole kingdom in many ways?  And, as I pointed
out, that the stresses on the royal couple and the time constraints on
them are one of the arguments that pro-principality folks have used.  I
am answering that argument; if this matter really is a concern for those
people, there is a better answer than principalities.

> 
> actually, the people have a great deal to gain from it.  the primary
> reason for breaking up into smaller units is the fact that the work
> necessary to run such a large entity (kingdom) is becoming
> problematic. breaking it down into self-governing regions *should*
> result in more responsive management and smoother running operations.
> 

	The nature of the work needed to run the kingdom/principality/whatever
will not be significantly different because it's a principality instead
of a kingdom.  There must still be letters mailed, calls made, travel
schedules made out, land owners coordinated with for tournament sites,
etc.  The differences are all a matter of scale, not fundamental.
	If the problem is that management is not responsive, you don't have to
split the kingdom to get the managers to listen and be accountable.  In
fact, they certainly will not listen to you if you allow them to peel
off and form their own group.  If you want "responsive" management, you
will have to work on the nature of the managers' jobs and the rules that
govern how they interact with the rest of the group, and forming
principalities will not affect those factors.
	(Tongue in cheek--"responsive" management from a bunch of people who
ambitions are to be knights and barons and dukes?  Does that indicate
the real root of the problem?)
	And again, everything you have said does not pertain to the vast
majority of the population this kingdom.  The kingdom/principality
senechal and the minority of this kingdom who work at that level may
benefit from having a smaller area to cover, but the people from San
Angelo who would like to go to the Stargate Yule revel still have to
drive across the state.  Increasing the number of boundaries they cross
will not reduce the number of banners they have to paint to take with
them, it will not make their work in the kitchen easier, and it will not
reduce the costs of participating in SCA activities.  They will still be
urged to take part in demos and to turn out to repair the pavillion
before the next tournament.  The amount of work done by the kingdom
officers is not a concern in their lives and creating principalities
will do nothing for them.
	In fact, if we are not careful it would actually make things more
costly for them because it is in human nature to want to impress
others.  People are already constantly being urged to help their group
gain more face by putting out their time and money to make extra-special
table settings, or provide largesse gifts to visiting dignitaries, etc. 
Is that going to disappear if the kingdom is divided?  I very greatly
doubt it.  But there is potential for it to increase because having yet
another set of high-ranking people close at hand means yet another group
of people to impress.

>
> smaller units should make for more healthy organizations that are
> more easily managed and grown (and if the stats i have seen on
> membership are an indication, this is a serious concern as membership
> seems to be dropping nation-wide).  if the SCA is to survive and
> remain healthy, it needs to maintain the members it has and bring in
> new ones to ba;lance attrition and provide a managed level of growth
> (and organism or organization that stops growing begins to die ...
> right Rome?(g).
>

	I cannot see how you grow a group by splitting it in half.  I do not
understand how dividing the kingdom can help us retain members we have
now, and I cannot figure how dividing the kingdom will attract new
people to the SCA.  I never thought of fission as a recruiting tool.  If
you have ideas on how to make the SCA more attractive to both existing
and new personnel, you should bring them out instead of the principality
argument.
	How will these new smaller units be healthier?  Creating them will not
automatically create new members.  It will not give existing members
more resources to work with, or cure the bad habits of those who cause
problems.  It will provide more opportunities on both sides of the new
border for people to squabble over new offices and ranks, and I fail to
see how that is healthy.
	I didn't think of the argument in your last sentence.  I have read
works by Virgil, Tacitus, Gibbon, Pliny, Marcus Aurelius, Cato, and many
others who took Rome as their subject--Rome died because it started
splitting into smaller units.  When the crunch came, it did not have the
will to give up its luxuries and take the hard road to maintain itself. 
It took the easy way out and divided into principalities.

>
> > And how can it benefit this kingdom's standing with other kingdoms
> > to make it smaller and weaker?  Aren't we already badly outnumbered
> > at Gulf War without cutting down the size of the recruit pool?
> 
> physical size is not the measure of the man or the kingdom.  so the
> big wars will be fought by *alliances* against other alliances (as it
> was done in history ...).  smaller regional wars would still be
> fought.

	Physical size is not the measure of the quality of the man or the
kingdom.  But as Voltaire said, "God is on the side of the big
battalions." (tongue very firmly in cheek)

>
> > And new boundaries give people a new set of problems in dealing with
> > other people:  can you still go to tournament X without falling out
> > of favor with people at home?  Are the old friends you used to fight
> > beside at war now your enemies?  There must be ways of dealing with
> > the problems without taking measures that may strain and even sunder
> > relationships that may have formed over years.
> 
> sounds like you're describing very basic medieval politics there ...
> so you could argue that smaller organizational entities with their
> inherent military and political considerations are more
> historically accurate and "in period"

	Yes, and this is just exactly one of the reasons why life in medieval
times was so difficult and nasty and short, and is just exactly why we
should avoid the kinds of problems this causes.  Don't we already have
enough trouble with the political bickering and squabbling?  Do you
actually want to cause a situation that increases that trouble?  In
Heaven's name, why?  The motto that I always thought was the best for
the SCA is that we try to recreate the Middle Ages **the way they should
have been**--with penicillin and plumbing and dentists and tolerance,
and without the dirt, disease, ignorance, poverty, and in this case,
without the interminable wars and other problems caused by Balkanizing
the place.

	I know from your snips that you read my entire message, and I see that
you passed over one of my main points; you did not address it at all.  I
repeat it here:

	"Anyone who has ever had a job that involves supervising others knows
good and well that a high personnel turnover rate is a guaranteed cause
of expense, friction and ineffeciency.  It works that way in the
military, at IBM, at McDonalds...anywhere you can think of.  Ease off
the turnover rate of royalty, and a lot of the problems that drive the
push toward principalities will solve themselves."

	The problems that people say are reasons why this kingdom should be
divided into principalities can be solved with less drastic measures. 
We should try pinning the broken bones before we go to amputation.


With sincere concern for the health of this kingdom and the SCA, and
with no malice, I remain, your servant, lady,
				Tomonaga
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.