[Ansteorra] Group Status Changes

[Jay Rudin]

R the O wrote:

>  If the admin system doesn't work for an entire region of our
> Kingdom, isn't it better to change the rules than to dissolve the region?
>
>  The the current waterbearing system doesn't work under
> the current laws, isn't it better to change the rules than to
> dissolve the waterbearing?

That's exactly what they've done, in both cases.  Keep bearing water; stop 
filling out officer reports.  Keep having guilds and practices and revels; 
stop filling out officer reports.

>  What's next to be dissolved?

Any branch that won't file reports consistently, as has been true for the 
history of the SCA.  This isn't the first time this has happened.

>  It seems like the framework that is supposed to support us has
> taken on a life of its own. It seems like the framework wants
> the populace to pander to it, instead of the other way around...

Pander to it how?  If you have a branch, play SCA and fill out monthly 
local reports.  If you don't have a branch, play SCA and don't fill out 
monthly reports.  They've said to pander to the framework *less*, not more.

> I think the rules are supposed to let us safely have fun. Were
> the people in the Western Region dangerously having fun?

I suspect so, but I haven't been able to look into it.  Under the current 
SCA-wide rules, a kingdom can lose its status (and the SCA can lose its 
tax-exempt status or its insurance) if we don't get the financial and 
waiver reports in on time consistently.  I'm sure that if the branch 
officers reported consistently, this wouldn't have happened.  (But as I 
said, I haven't taken the time to find out what the exact issues were yet.)

>  Has anyone else noticed this trend, or am I just being weird?

You're not being weird; many people agree with you.  But I think you're not 
actually analyzing the situation.  There is no activity except 
report-writing and bookkeeping that those groups have been asked to stop 
doing.

> If there were a good reason, I wouldn't neccesarily mind. But if
> there is a good reason that the general populace would agree
> with, why the secrecy?

This is a good question, and I don't know the answer.  I'll try to find 
out.  But the unfair guesses about it that we've seen here won't help us 
find out.

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin