[Ansteorra] The waterbearing brouhaha

[Joe McGrew]

> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:27:30 -0500
> From: Chris Zakes <dontivar at gmail.com>

> >Less availability of water = more risk of heat related casualty -
> >especially, as you noted elsewhere, at melees.
>
> That presumes that the current waterbearers will simply take their
> bottles and go home if the Board's proposal passes. Judging by the
> response here, that's not going to happen.

I've also seen people counsel waterbearers (in this list and on the
AA) to be careful about the liablity that the corporation wants to lay
on their shoulders.  If this goes into effect the *best* case scenario
is that waterbearing keeps the same number of volunteers.  It's more
likely to decrease the number of people who want to deal with it.  "If
the whole big corporation can't deal with this liablity, what makes me
think I can on my own?"

> Also, as I said above, people *should* be bringing their own water,
> not expecting on someone else to do it for them; ideally the
> waterbearers should just be a more convenient way of getting water,
> not the sole source. Are we becoming such a nanny-state that we have
> to depend on someone else for something as simple as a drink of water?

Absolutely they *should* bring their own water.  They *should* also
not rhinohide.  They *should* also not rip each other to shreds in
internacine politics.  They *should* all just get along.

I bring my own water - but I sure apreciate those folks who give me
the drink when I need it instead of having to leave the field.

I've seen you and a couple other folks say "We got along just fine
before waterbearing was made a formal office."  So my question is
this:  Why was it made a formal office?  What reason caused it to
become so?  Has that reason changed?  If so, how did it change?  If
not, does this paranoia about lawsuits trump whatever that reason was?

I made a cursory seach of the Florilegium and caressed google a bit
but didn't find any discussion of why waterbearing was made an office.

Y'all also used to wear freon cans and attach carpet to your bodies
with duct tape.  I like the way we do it now better.

> No, but we thought our Children's Activities were fine, too, until a
> sexual predator used them as a way to lure kids to his house and
> abuse them. Now we're being sued for that incident as well as having
> to deal with backgrounds checks for the folks working with the kids.
> I don't like it, but I can understand why the Board is a little gun-shy.

I can understand being gun-shy, too.  But I ask what happened to
"Millions for defense but not one damned penny for tribute."?

> Yes, but... Are you familiar with the concept of "deep pockets"? It's
> something bad lawyers look for when they want to sue somebody. If,
> for example, I get shot during a robbery, the gun manufacturer would
> have *far* more money than the gunman, thus a bad lawyer might try to
> sue the gun manufacturer, trying to make the case that it's somehow
> *their* fault.

Well, I hope a well-off gentle never undertakes to waterbear, then.
By that logic they're a prime target.

Also, that bad lawyer would sue the SCA even if it was a private guild
doing the waterbearing at an event where people got sick, by the logic
that the SCA permitted it on their site.

I still encourage everyone who hasn't done so to send their opinion to
the board - whatever that opinion might be.

Gregor MacBeathain