ANST - membership

[j_smallw at titan.sfasu.edu]

Personally, I don't think the question is "what's the ratio of paid
members to non-paid members?".  I think the question should be "Why are we
so concerned about paid members now?".

Have the numbers gone down?  Are we in danger of groups getting statuses
pulled?  I figure a little growth is good, but if we're replacing members
that leave with new members (0 growth/loss), what's the problem?  We're
never going to get to where every group in this kingdom is a barony.  So
why the big emphasis on paid members, now?

If we have to recruit, we recruit.  If we get new members (paid or
otherwise), that's a good thing.  OK, maybe it's preferable that they be
paid members in the long run.  We know that some of them are going to
become paid members so let's let them.  We can encourage the others to do
so when they're good and ready.

It would be nice for there to be more incentive to be a paid member.
Currently, (as has been stated elsewhere) you get a Blackstar, a TI, a
discount a Gulf War, the privilege of holding an office, part of the
necessary qualifications to fight in Crown, and you don't have to sign
waivers at gate.  Well if you only have an associate membership, there
goes half of those.  If you're not a fighter or don't go to Gulf War...

It was suggested that we could require membership to compete in Queen's
Champion, or other kingdom level competitions.  I don't think this will
work.  There's a reason membership is required for Crown.  The winner
becomes a legal agent of the society.  This is the same reason with
officers.  As King's/Queen's Champion, Kingdom Warlord, Premier Bard, etc
don't, there is no underlaying reason to require it.

Personally, I feel that if you are in this game for the long haul, you
should get a membership.  Girl/Boy Scouts and other organizations were
brought up as requiring membership.  Whereas they do indeed find a way to
make sure no one is turned away, the fact remains that if you are going to
participate and receive awards, you do become a member.  Every rank I got
in Scouts I worked for and earned, but I still had to be a member.  Was it
an issue?  No.  I haven't read of anyone advocating turning newcomers away
because they aren't members.

As for the financial issues, I understand that, yes, sometimes it's hard
to get $35 together.  I heard the same thing in the early eighties when
memberships were much less.  Funny though, the people that couldn't scrape
together $20 or so dollars were going to events, buying cigarettes & beer,
going to movies once or twice a week,..  On the other hand, there were
those of us who were working our way through college with minimum wage
jobs and still managing to be paid members.  I'm not saying there are no
legit hard luck situations, but I think that if things are that bad off,
they might be better off spending their time and money somewhere other
that at SCA events.  

Bottom line, I think this concern for an increase in paid members is
unfounded.  I haven't heard or read any reason for it.  (Are we going to
lose seats in the House?)  If someone has played long enough to decide
that this is for them, they should become a member.  We need more
incentive for paid membership (especially associate and family).  And most
people probably can afford a membership, but money, like time, can slip
through one's hands way too easily.

Ansgar von Aachen

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.