[Ansteorra] Participation vs. Recruitment (long)

[Cionaodh O'Hosey]

On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Casey Weed wrote:

> Hosey, your argument hinges on absolute statements, some of which are
> unsupported and others of which are just patently false.
>
> " You are only supporting the MET when you go to the MET"...
>
> This is just ridiculous- humming with your fingers in your ears.   
> We've
> already established in this thread over and over with hard data-  
> not your
> wild conjecture and loud personal opinion- that local growth DOES
> manufacture Kingdom level growth and event participation.

I have never said that local growth does not manufacture Kingdom  
level growth and event participation, what i have said is resources  
dedicated to people who want two attend one or more events a month is  
more productive than time and resources dedicated to people who want  
to attend one or more events a year.

> It just doesn't
> prioritize it to your liking.  Your.  Argument.  Is.  Invalid.  It  
> does not
> hold water.  There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, both  
> anecdotal
> AND clinical and you have been provided with both and addressed  
> neither,
> which, in terms of debate displays a very weak position.

It is a very weak position to say it is a better allocation of time  
and resources to develop players that will go to one or two calendar  
events a month than it is to dedicate time and resources to  
developing players who will attend one or two events a year? lol,  
ok......
>
> To couch it in your own metaphor: people who never GO to the Met  
> still help
> PAY for the met via monetary contributions (Cherie and I support  
> several
> museums that we don't frequent but once every four or six years-  
> and in
> parallel, our SCA memberships help pay for infrastructure for  
> events we
> don't attend),

The membership dues are important but the infrastructure they support  
only makes possible to run calendar events as SCA events. Your dues  
only cover the insurance portion of the event. Imagine if the support  
you gave to the MET only paid for the insurance, how would the MET  
pay for it's space, it's utilities, it's employees,  and all of the  
other things necessary to actually open it's doors? It could only  
stay open if people went to the MET. Lets say the average calendar  
event takes $2000.00 to put on, none of that cost is paid for by your  
membership, but with 200 people that support calendar events by  
showing up, that is $10 a person. Now 48 events a year times $2,000  
dollars an event is $96,000 dollars a year, not trying to open a can  
of worms but can you imagine us trying to raise that $96,000 a year  
by adding that costs to the membership dues? But understand that with  
out that money the calendar events end. Also understand that the  
calendar events run on volunteer labor, with out that labor the  
events end unless we hire people to put on the event. My point is  
that none of your $45 dollars a year pays for any of that. So while  
dues are important because they cover our insurance they in no way  
cover any of the costs incurred by your local group when your local  
group puts on a calendar event.

> through direct referrals ("Oh, you'll be in Chicago this
> weekend?  Hey, DON'T MISS the Institute of Art...

I have given this much praise because this is encouraging people to  
go to a calendar event.

> they have this Cranach
> painting that is AWESOME."), and we evangelize constantly to the  
> people we
> mix with at the local level ("Someday, you simply MUST see this  
> piece of
> art in person- this photo doesn't do it justice.")

  But our "paintings" are the rest of us, and if our paintings don't  
show up we all lose. It does me no good in recruiting to say "I know  
a guy who is great at historical "something" in our group in Austin  
may be one day he will come to a calendar event or you could drive to  
see him", but to be able to say "there will be a guy at our next  
event who is great at that" does wonders .........
If you only come to local events then you can only share with those  
who are also local and will only attract those with the same  
interests as the local group, this is why some groups are good at one  
thing and other groups are good at something else, local groups only  
attract what is happening locally. It is only when we ALL get  
together at calendar events that we can offer ALL the SCA has to  
offer, my local group my not have a fighter practice but at fighting  
events i can always get to fight.

> We understand that you
> passionately believe all scadians should have your value set about  
> events
> and gatherings
> but sooner or later you will have to embrace the fact that
> 1.) that ain't gonna happen

of course you are right there

> and 2.) you're already outnumbered by a
> landslide,

lol, true also because there are more who go to Calendar events only  
once a year as opposed to once a month

> and 3.)  by people who have laid out better arguments using data
> rather than opinion.

only in your opinion because you prefer your interpretation of that data

>
> Wake up, and nod to at least the * possibility* of a plausible  
> position of
> dissent to your ideals.  We understand what you think the SCA  
> should want-
> a majority of members who place a high value on large and frequent  
> events-
> and it might be a valid one.  But you hold to a diminishing tenet: "We
> should focus recruitment efforts on people who will value eventing-
> particularly wide and frequent eventing."  You have yet to  
> establish a good
> reason why we should share this opinion that is, so far, not  
> popular by
> comparison, and also not well thought-out.  We understand what you  
> believe
> but you have yet to convince your opposition why *we* should  
> believe it.

You confuse what is popular, your side, with what leaders do, my  
side. The 9600 who go to events once a year will always have the  
"popular vote" because they out number the 400 who go twice a month,  
but as has been stated as a fact on this discussion, who are those  
200, the ones who lead the most and the ones who do the most that  
counts the most. Our Kings and Queens do the most that counts the  
most for us all and they all most always do two or more events a  
month, and when they are not at a calendar event they are getting  
prepared for the next calendar event. I believe I should try to live  
up to the example set by my King and Queen, I am sorry you chose to  
disagree or have to be convinced to agree.

Cionaodh O'Hosey