[Ansteorra] What's happening here?

[Lisa]

> On the other hand, Milady Elizabeta, I think you have done many people on
> this list a serious disservice. You say, "Yes, authenticity is nice, but
> it's not something that everyone aspires to.  If you're in the SCA for the
> cookies, then yes you'll want to be more authentic in your costume as well
> as everything else, but that's not everyone's desire. "

I have no issue with people who choose to be as authentic as possible simply
because they enjoy being more authentic.  I am currently making an
Elizabethan gown because "I" want to be more authentic in my costume.  I
have issues with people who try to push their level of authenticity onto
others and who will berate a well made, authentically cut piece of garb
because the person used the wrong trim, wrong cloth for the time period,
etc, without asking the person if their opinion is desired and without
taking into consideration possible financial or other limitations.  I also
have issue with people who are authentic only to get "cookies" and could
care less about authenticity for any other reason.  That's their choice, not
mine, and there's no need to tell me I won't get any cookies until I'm more
authentic, because I'm in the game for fun, not cookies.

>
> Funny. I guess we just don't hang out with the same folks. I know
armorers,
> costumers, duelists, heralds, and brewers who aspire to authenticity for
its
> own sake. I consider Diarmaid a hardcore authenticity scholar, yet in
recent
> posts he has repeatedly pressed for an even hand in judging other's
efforts.
> I've also known some damned annoying award-seekers who never did more in
the
> authenticity area than just enough to get by.

I also know a number of people who aspire to high levels of authenticity for
it's own sake.  As I said in the above section, I have no problem with these
people.  I know Diarmaid and his reputation and I have nothing but respect
for him.  He and I actually share a couple of interests and I would love the
opportunity to sit and chat with him about those interests.  Diarmaid does
not push his love of authenticity off on anyone else unless asked, and he
warns people who ask him his opinion that he can be very blunt, and that's
on a good day. :)

> You also, milady, say, "I'm seeing people telling others how they should
> think, dress, act, and what they should do." Really? I do recall one or
two
> posters claiming to have been rudely handled by authenticity snobs, but I
> don't recall anyone--on this list or at the few events I've attended
> recently--telling anyone how to think, dress, or act. I've seen arguments
> about what is and is not period. I've seen no one say, "Thou shalt not."
> I've even seen a number of postings addressing the opposite end of this
> question: how to help someone improve in authenticity *without* being rude
> or insulting.

I will admit that this complaint is more appropriately addressed under
households, as households are where I am seeing most of this behaviour.  BUT
households are still a part of the SCA and many times household rules and
dictates spill over into regular SCA life.  I can specifically cite
households that require you to wear x, do y, and yes even think z, or you
are not accepted into the household, or can be removed from the household
for not "following the rules".    I will admit that lately people have been
trying to be of more assistance to newbies, but the last conversation
rapidly went from "how do I make a more period kit on a limited budget" to
"Which is more period, cotton, linen or wool?"  I do understand thread
drift, but part of that drift came from suggestions to use cotton broadcloth
for their first few pieces until they get an idea of what they actually want
to do.  Cotton broadcloth is inexpensive and the person said they were on a
budget.  Apparently there are those who think that cotton broadcloth is
still not suitable, even for a beginner, first time piece of garb to get you
to an event.

>
> When did the SCA become political? Probably about the time that the first

> kingdom was formed. When did the SCA become a litigious arena? Probably
> about when their membership passed a thousand. If you think Ren Faires are
> free of politics and litigation, then you haven't been involved with
setting
> one up, running one, or handling the books.
>
> As for the claims that you've seen--
>
> >groups torn
> >apart because a choice was made that was not the one everyone wanted.
I'm
> >seeing people hurting long time friends because of misunderstandings and
> >unintended slights.  I'm seeing fits thrown over stuff that COULD cause a
> >problem if someone wanted to push it, but are things that have always
been
> >done and until now have not caused offense.  I'm seeing politics out the
> >ass, people arguing over stupid stuff and people asking for help being
> >either blown off or overridden.
>
> --I think you're trying to lump several problems under one ill-fitting
> cover. Perhaps these issues would be better addressed individually and
> specifically.

You may be right about lumping several things under one umbrella, but I was
making a point.  The SCA is a GAME... it's supposed to be fun, and when
negative politics take it to the point where it's no longer fun what
happens?  If you would like details or more specific information on the
litigous or politicing aspect that I have issues with right now, write me
privately and I will be happy to be more specific, as I am not the type
person to air everyone's dirty laundry in public.  Believe me, it took
hitting a very high threshold of disgust for me to post what I did to the
lists where it was posted.

Elizabeta