[Ansteorra] SCA Vocabulary
Rose & Chad
love at roseandchad.net
Sun Nov 11 15:38:47 PST 2007
I thought this seemed a lively discussion until you, (E.Blackthorne not the other lady), said it was an argument and seems to chastize the rest of us for enjoying our exchange of ideas. I say 'seems' because it's always very hard to tell what people really mean when you only see it in writing, with no expression or vocal inflection to temper it.
If we're talking about appearance, then I'd like to point out that taking a post and dissecting it paragraph by paragraph appears to me to be much more like badgering than anything else I've seen, not to mention a terrible waste of time trying to read what's yours and what's from before amidst all of those annoying little lesser than/greater than symbols. It strikes me as more of a personal attack, although I can't say for sure, since I didn't write it and wasn't there beside the person to see thier expression, body language, etc.
Are you, by any chance, a moderator? If not, isn't it the moderator's job to determine when we're getting past 'lively' and into 'badgering'?
Hmm... And now that I'm thinking of it, does this list even have a moderator? I know that Yahoo! and Smartgroup lists do, but I don't really know how these lists function...
In closing, I'd like to say that if I were new to this kingdom, or to the SCA, I'd be terrified to say a single thing, ever, on this list for fear of having my head bitten off. And I think that, in the end, that is the appearance that might really matter...
Rose the Obnoxious
Elizabeth Blackthorne <eblackthorne at gmail.com> wrote:
Robin of Gilwel wrote:
> "There's no logical connection from "We are discussing which terms are
> better" to "We are not getting along.". Yes, we can get along; no, we
> cannot all agree -- about anything. That doesn't mean we have to hide our
> views; it means we can have an interesting discussion about them"
Unfortunately, on this list it does portray the appearance of not
getting along. Especially when someone starts to badger another.
This has not happened this time, yet. I have been around long enough
to know that it seems to always end up that way.
> I prefer "event steward" to "autocrat" because I know what autocrat means,
> and it's the ruling noble. I prefer "privy" to "shrine", because I know
> what people do in shrines, and that's not what I do in the privy. I
> believe speaking the simple truth in English is better than making up words
> that then need to be explained, so I prefer not to use "troll",
> "feast-o-crat", "Erik", etc.
I prefer Event Steward as well, but for different reasons. I prefer
it because using that term does not start any controversy.
> It does not follow that I will be rude to people who ask me for help.
> Please don't suggest that having an opinion that differs from yours means
> that I will be rude to people. I don't correct people's grammar in
> conversation; I don't correct their spelling in writing, and for the same
> good reasons, I don't correct people who want to go to the "temple of the
> swirling waters". I assume somebody looking for the privy is in a hurry,
> and not particularly interested in discussion of linguistics. (I may go as
> far as to say, "The privy's right up that hill." If he decides to argue
> terms with me, then he probably didn't need the jakes that badly.)
When we badger each other on this list, it is not that far of a
stretch that we will badger each other in person. I do my best to
show our new people that we are a varied sort of people. The fact
that all our forms for being an "Event Steward" have the word
"Autocrat" shows that their is still a group of people who believe
this term is right. This in itself causes confusion, especially those
who haven't been around for long. We should make sure we teach our
newcomers both terms, instead of arguing about which one is "right".
> One more point: "historically accurate" has a specific meaning in a
> re-creation society. Let's not pretend that preserving the SCA's earlier
> historical inaccuracies is "historically accurate". The SCA is established
> to re-create certain aspects of pre-seventeenth century Europe, not to
> re-create late 60s re-creation groups. We have tax-free status as an
> educational organization. Education means learning more than we started
> out with.
As far as I know, there are few female personas who would actually
fight in period. History shows that those who did fight were
perceived as crazy or were executed for treason, or both. Yet, our
society chose to allow females to fight, this appears to be more of a
modern day women's liberation change, than it is to be "historically
accurate" (Please no one try to say that I don't want women fighting,
I love that their are butt-kicking women in our society, this is just
part of making a point.) If that part of American History can affect
how we play, why shouldn't SCA history affect what we call things.
> As a bard, I do try to preserve Ansteorra's history. That means heroic
> tales of Inman leading Ansteorra in a great charge at Pennsic, not stories
> about Ronald looking for the "Shrine of St. John the Latrine". No
I enjoy hearing tales of past events, I am grateful that you work hard
to preserve those stories and our atmosphere.
> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
> P.S. Someday it might be fun to do a re-creation event in which we
> re-create the early SCA -- freon can helms, carpet armor, sneering at
> fencers, not letting ladies fight on the Erik, etc.
Wouldn't be able to with our modern day lawyers, some idiot might get
hurt and sue so we need 70 million regulations so that can't happen.
Another way modern life rears it's ugly head into our game.
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Ansteorra