[Ansteorra] Pay-2-play, Pay-2-fight, Pay-2-whatever...
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
sirlyonel at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 9 15:02:41 PST 2008
Of course Caelin is correct. I made a leap in logic, thinking back on recent discussions (on another list) concerning kingdom costs.
Impedimentum via est
(The obstacle is the path)
> From: rjt at softwareinnovation.com> To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:50:19 -0600> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Pay-2-play, Pay-2-fight, Pay-2-whatever...> > I would argue that the costs for authorization cards (I assume you mean> fighter authorization cards) is borne by the kingdom and the officers who> contribute their time and sometimes money. Paying the BoD for that is hardly> offsetting any of that cost. If you mean authorization to be a non-member,> that seems a bit weird to say the least.> > Caelin on Andrede> > <snip, snip>> > > Should we require paid memberships for any of these privileges? I really> don't think so. The potential negative impact on> > recruitment outweighs the need to increase the income to SCA Inc. If that> income needs to be raised, increase the > > non-member surcharge. I'm not a conservative thinker, but I think the> membership requirements are appropriate as they > > stand. If the income to SCA Inc. is inadequate, perhaps the GC should> consider a small increase in the non-member > > surcharge. I also think an administrative charge for authorization cards> for non-members would be appropriate (a > > dollar or two would not be outrageous).> > > mes dous centimes,> > En Lyonel > > _______________________________________________> Ansteorra mailing list> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
More information about the Ansteorra