[Ansteorra] Underage Participation In The SCA

[Andreas von Meißen]

Tivar has the right of it.

-- Andreas the
in-not-nearly-as-long-as-Tivar-but-still-wants-to-play-when/if-he-has-kids


On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Chris Zakes <dontivar at gmail.com> wrote:

> At 04:32 PM 2/5/2012, you wrote:
>
>  In the SCA we have always done things we did not want to have to
>> reduce or eliminate our liabilities. We have weapon and armor
>> standards that we hope reduce our liabilities, waivers we sign and
>> rules we follow because all we hope that doing so will reduce our
>> liabilities. These rules we follow we hope make sense in a risk
>> verses cost way, that is the root of risk management.  With that in
>> mind i say the following.
>>
>> It is now apparent that having people underage participation in the
>> SCA accounts for over 90% of all of our liabilities in the SCA.  This
>> asks the first question: Does under age participation and / or their
>> parents provide enough revenue to the SCA to cover those expenses or
>> is every one else having to make up the difference? Personally, I
>> don't see how with the SCA charging half price with family maximums
>> at calendar events and family rates on memberships how those underage
>> participants and their families can possibly be covering those costs.
>> That means those of us who are not underage and who don't have
>> underage members in our families are covering the costs incurred by
>> having those underage participants in the SCA. Is that fair?
>>
>> For instance when you ask "Why are membership dues so high?" a large
>> part of the answer is now "We all have to pay more, so underage
>> people and their families can play"
>>
>> So an interesting question would be "How much less in cost and how
>> many fewer regulations would we have if we went adult only?"
>>
>> And, "How much more should we charge for underage participants to
>> cover the costs involved in continuing to serve them?"
>>
>> Or "Is it OK to everyone that we all have to pay more so we can have
>> underage participants?"
>>
>> I understand this will offend a lot of people and i apologize for
>> that but these are the questions faced in the "mundane world" we live
>> in every day by all sorts of organizations.
>>
>> Cionaodh O'Hosey
>>
>
>
> I think that's an *incredibly* short-sighted idea. I've ben in the SCA
> for... <sound of mental gears grinding> ...36 years. For 25 of those years
> we had underage children. If you'd told us when our first child was born
> that we couldn't come to SCA events unless we found a babysitter for the
> weekend, or one of us stayed home while the other went to the event,
> well... let's just say that the reply wouldn't have been suitable for
> delicate ears, and the most likely result would be that we dropped out of
> the SCA for good.
>
> Look around you for a moment. How many of the folks in your local group
> have kids? What about the local office holders? How about the regional and
> kingdom officers? Barons and Baronesses? Current and past Crowns? You're
> going to tell *all* these people that they're not really welcome in the SCA
> until their kids grow up?
>
> I think that would be a far more effective way to destroy the SCA than the
> recent lawsuit.
>
>        -Tivar Moondragon
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> In order to make changes and manage your account please go to:
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/**listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-**ansteorra.org<http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org>
>



-- 
Andrew R. Mizener/ Herr Andreas von Meißen
Cadet to Warder Brighid MacCumhal
Barony of Elfsea - Nautilus Pursuivant