[Ansteorra] Bad things

[Brian O'hUilliam]

Your Excellency,
   While I applaud your well thought out options and commend you for staying
on topic, I must disagree with your first option.  As a former youth, I must
say that I did attend a couple of events with persons other than my father
and went through the necessary hassle of getting all the forms properly
filled out, signed, and notarized.  I think it quite unfair to punish the
children if their parents are called elsewhere or are no longer interested
in the SCA.
   One of the personal instances was when my father, Baron William of the
Loch, was called to hold court in a shire in the south of the Coastal Region
and there was a youth rapier tournament in the Shadowlands.  If I had to be
in the physical presence of my father, I would have gone with him and not
been allowed to fight because there was no youth rapier at the other event.

   Also, I am reminded of a young lady who was in college but was only 17.
Her parents do not play, but she came to several events under the
guardianship of another member of her shire.  She is now over 18 and an
officer of her shire.  However, if she had not been allowed at events, she
probably would have lost interest and stopped playing.
   This also gets us into a slippery slope.  What about a child who is left
unattended while their parent is changing in the privy or went to retrieve
something from their vehicle?  These are common slip-ups and, while I cannot
disagree with the reasons behind this option, I do not find it practical.
   As for your others options, I think they are fine.  Though option three
may be a little too strict to be practical for things other than events.
For instance, at the local (Loch/Stargate) practice last week, there were
two young men about the age of 15 who came by.  These potential members, by
this option, would need to be picked up by the authorities.  I do not think
that is a good way to get new members.  But, then again, I may be
misinterpreting what you are saying.
   Thank you, Your Excellency, for your thoughts on this issue.

Brian O' hUilliam


On 5/14/07, Ian Dun Gillan <ian1550 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Now that this thread has an opportunity to stop being personal conjecture
> and is now turning in a better direction I have something to say.  Thank
> you
> to Don Robin for the redirect, and thank you to Burke and Ivo for
> following
> along with that.
>
> The first option would be to require parents to be physically present at
> any
> and all SCA activities involving their child. This also means that
> children
> of any age under 18 would have to be in the physical presence of their
> parent at all times. If the parents are present and involved in the same
> activity as their minor child then if something wrong does happen it would
> most likely not be the SCA who is at fault. .
>
> Sincerely,
> Ian Dun Gillan
> Baron of Northkeep