[Ansteorra] Member or Not?
gilli at hot.rr.com
Thu Jan 10 15:05:48 PST 2008
I think A while back the BOD changed it to where "any" membership counted
toward the number for a branch.
Burkhaven, An Odyssey of Learning
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Rudin" <rudin at ev1.net>
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Member or Not?
>R the O wrote:
>> But being counted as a member is certainly a benefit, and should be a
>> right for every member... Esp. since my local group can be disbanded
>> for not having enough members. And once again, I'm defining a member
>> as someone who has paid for a membership, which I most certainly have
> Please stop trying to define the word "member" as if it has a single clear
> single meaning in this context. There are different kinds of membership,
> and they are treated differently -- which you know. A family member has
> the contractual right to be counted as a family member. You paid for this
> contractual right. A sustaining member has the contractual right to be
> counted as a sustaining member. Any member will be counted where it says
> "any member".
> You will not be counted as a sustaining member unless you buy a sustaining
> membership. Only sustaining memberships sustain the local branches in
> Ansteorra, and you were never told otherwise.
> The membership requirements for shires and baronies, since I joined in the
> 1970s, have been based on sustaining memberships. You will not be counted
> as a sustaining member unless you buy a sustaining membership. This is
> "unfair"; this is not denying your rights. This is simply part of the
> rules of the game.
>> So once again, I ask... Who decided that people who paid for memberships
>> weren't members, and when did it happen?
> Nobody has decided that you aren't members, and it didn't happen, and you
> already know that. You decided that you wouldn't be a sustaining mamber
> when you purchased a different kind of membership. You will be counted as
> the kind of member you are, and not as some other kind of member.
> If you were focused on learning the truth, rather than pretending
> that's not true, you would ask the legitimate question, "Who decided that
> only sustaining memberships count for sustaining group status?" This is a
> legitimate question, and the answer is that the corporation decided that
> decades ago. At some point they changed and allowed the kingdoms to make
> the final decision, subject to a minimum level defined in Corpora. That
> minimum is five mebers of any type, but the kingdom can choose to have
> higher requirements.
> Based on the difficulties small branches have filling officers, Ansteorran
> law still requires 5 subscribing memberships (sustaining or
> But don't blame the corporation for that. Ansteorra can choose to have
> stricter standards, just like it can have stricter armor requirements on
> the fighting field.
>> I have been on hiatus for about 7 years while my kids were really little
>> and I
>> worked in a nights-and-weekends job, and apparently the whole place has
>> been turned upside-down in these last few years... :)
> For purposes of shire and baronial status, there has been no change in how
> family memberships are treated in that time, or indeed, since the 70s.
> Only sustaining memberships have counted as sustaining Ansteorran shires
> baronies for the last thirty years. Nothing's turned upside down
>> To wit, I am *not* counted as a member and I did *not* get exactly what
>> the documents promised.
> It really doesn't matter how many times you repeat this using the generic
> term "member" in a context refering to sustaining members. You are
> as a member; you are not counted as a sustaining member.
> If you would stop trying to force an untrue meaning, you would realize
> your complaint isn't that "you aren't counted as a member"; it's that you
> think all members should be counted to sustain shire and baronial status.
> Your problem is that you didn't realize what "sustaining membership"
> It means a membership that sustains the group.
>> Please be advised, sir, that it is not up to the purchaser to have to
>> call up
>> someone and ask if it's the same, just in case it's not. That asinine.
> Yes, it is, and I did not say it. In fact, I will go further. It is not
> up to the corporation's marketing group to know all kingdom laws, and to
> advise you on them. You seem to believe that the people who write the
> for the corporate membership forms are the same people who write
> Ansteorra's laws. It's not so. The former are office workers in
> California, and the latter are volunteers in Oklahoma and Texas.
>> It is up to the seller to detail if it is different. Imagine the hell
>> that would
>> be raised if I advertised a size 7, one carat diamond ring, and then
>> offered a smaller ring size, say a size 6 that obviously has less gold,
>> less money. And then I shipped out a size 6, half carat diamond ring. I
>> would be sued and rightfully so.
> The analogy is not analogous. If you offered a size seven, one carat ring
> for one price, and another one for a lesser price, and somebody pays the
> lesser price, then you would ship them the lesser ring. You chose to buy
> the cheaper product.
> As I said before, you *are* counted as a member, with exactly the
> membership benefits you were promised when you joined. Kingdom Law
> a certain number of sustaining memberships, and you were never promised
> that a non-sustaining membership would be counted as a sustaining
> membership to sustain the branch..
> By trying to pretend that you bought all rights assigned to any members,
> you are missing what may be your actual legitimate complaint, so let's get
> back to it.
> The kingdom, not the corporation, can decide what kind of memberships
> towards local branch status. If you don't think the kingdom's decision is
> correct in this case, don't complain that the corporation didn't give you
> all the rights it claimed that family membership will get you. Instead,
> you should petition the kingdom to change kingdom law.
> It's possible that you'll succeed -- that the requirements for a shire
> might be changed from 5 sustaining memberships to some larger number,
> say 10, memberships of any type. (I don't think a single family of 5 can
> sustain a shire for the long term, so I'm pretty sure that any change in
> type would include a change in number.)
> But please stop acting as if you were promised that all memberships would
> be treated as sustaining. That promise was never made, and will never be
> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
> P.S. Right now would be a poor time to try to loosen membership
> requirements, though. The kingdom officers have spent years trying to
> several branches to get more members to be more viable, and it hasn't
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Ansteorra