[Ansteorra] Proposed change in waterbearing

[Chris Zakes]

At 01:22 PM 6/17/2008, Gregor MacBeathain wrote:

>This is a terrible idea.  On the face of it we are putting people at
>practical risk in order to protect against a theoretical risk.
>
>This also sends a message that the Society is devaluing waterbearing.
>You can disclaim that as often as you want, but the message will still
>be there in the subtext of the measure.

No, the real message is that the SCA is paranoid about getting sued. 
That's a different debate than whether or not we have official waterbearers.


>If the Society is this concerned about it, add a clause to the site
>and membership waiver to cover illness received from communal water
>and/or enact society-wide regulations of Society branch-provided
>water.

<shrug> The waiver already says that we're doing this voluntarily and 
if we get hurt it's not the SCA's fault. What more do you want?


>Putting the membership at risk is not a proper response

How is this putting the membership at risk? There's nothing that says 
people can't bring their own water (which they *should* be doing 
anyway) and nothing that says Household X or The Generic 
Waterbearer's Guild can't take over for the Waterbearer's Office and 
hand out water. All it does is withdraw any *official* SCA sponsorship.

         -Tivar Moondragon