[Ansteorra] Underage Participation In The SCA

[Cisco Cividanes]

Cionaodh,

We're looking at the net resources of the north american segment of
the SCA being summarily depleted by about 18%, and you're
hypothesizing about cutting memberships to some of the most hard
working, dedicated, devoted and resourceful members we have.

How about we climb out of this mess *before* you start talking about
cutting our ranks?

Tacky, Cionaodh,  And I don't mean "not a good time" tacky. I'm
talking about "other than your husband, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln"
type tacky.

Ivo

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Cionaodh O'Hosey
<CionaodhOHosey at verizon.net> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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