CR - No P-word for now!

[Paul Mitchell]

Lee Martindale wrote:
> 
> Paul Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > As consensus is, itself, a requirement for advancement,
> > those who argue against the proposal successfully disqualify
> > the region from advancement.
> 
> As one whose intention was to have attended that meeting but for
> whom personal and family matters took precedent, I am not
> displeased with this outcome.

Now, Llereth, don't gloat, it isn't seemly.

> I am one of those "typical" rank-and-file members whom several

I wish!  Llereth, you are a very special, very hard-working
person of the sort that every branch could use a few of.

<snip>
 
> Had I been able to attend that meeting, it would have been in
> that last capacity, and it would have been to speak against
> the move toward a principality.  And my reasons for doing so
> would have been the very reasons I've read here presented as
> arguments in favor of such.
> 
> > Which leaves the region where it was, if not even worse off.
> 
> If this is disappointment speaking, such is understandable.  But
> it is a statement which begs to be elaborated.  Worse off how?

To a large extent it really is disappointment speaking.  Emotions
always get involved in debates like this.  Those of us on the
"pro" side tend to get starry-eyed and metaphorical (like
Zara Zina), or make statements that just aren't true (like
Richard's claim that there'd be no more events -- not only
do I doubt it, I _want_ more events).  Many of those on the 
_con_ side (subject to correction) seem to me to be afraid.  
I won't presume to guess of what.  I was hoping it would be 
less emotional.

How might we be worse off after last Saturday's meeting?
If people have become less inclined to work together, if
friendships have been strained, or respect lost, or if 
problems we could address get shunted aside, then the region 
is worse off.

> No additional level has been added between the populace and the
> Kingdom, 

The Central Region exists now, as an administrative level
between the populace and the kingdom.  No one has suggested
abolishing it.  Our proposal would simply change the level
from "region" status to "principality" status.   No one
ever suggested adding an additional level.

no additional "chiefs" have been added among which to
> divide the volunteer efforts of a finite number of "Indians".

Frankly, I think the chiefs we have could use a chief providing
a little overall direction.  None of the regional officers
have any authority over any of the others, and they have
little incentive to coordinate their efforts.

> And, if we are very lucky, efforts to push for this after
> it is clear that the consensus needed to advance the proposal
> is lacking will not cause more damage than the "problems" said
> proposal was supposed to "correct".

"Push", you say?  No one's pushing, by any definition of the 
word I'd use.  Discussing, yes.  In this forum, and perhaps
in others.  Taking seriously the honest opinions expressed
by the opposition, and addressing their issues (especially the
assertion that we can't and don't work together), yes.  What
sort of damage do you suppose discussion will do?
 
> > (But wait!  _Are_ they OUR problems?  Surely Emerald
> > Keep's problems are Emerald Keep's?
> 
> Perhaps.  Let us hear from Emerald Keep was those problems
> might be.

I have.  Both as Regional Seneschal, and when Earl Gerard
came to Elfsea for Saturday's meeting.  Emerald Keep wants
help.  So does Rosenfeld, so did Black Oak Keep, so does
Dragonsfire Tor.
 
> >  To what extent
> > is Elfsea responsible to help out Rosenfeld?
> 
> I would think that would be for Elfsea to decide.

Quite so.  And not at the baronial level, either; but 
at the individual level.  We must each decide where
our efforts and resources are expended, whether at
local, regional, or kingdom level, or even the national
level, or on the local Star Trek clubs, or ECS, or
keeping up with the soaps and mundane politics.
 
> >  Who's to
> > criticize Steppes for the inward focus of most of its
> > membership?
> 
> In practical terms, anyone who cares to.  In terms of who has the
> right to do so, I would have to say that it remains the business
> of the populace of the Steppes and no one else's.

Quite so.
 
> >  The regional structure isn't designed to
> > foster intra-regional loyalty or cohesiveness.)
> 
> Perhaps we need go back and determine if such are even
> desirable.  My experience in this and other groups to
> which I've belonged is that the backbone and the strength
> of an organization are the local groups.  Every group I've
> ever belonged to has, at one time or another, tried to
> take resources away from the local group to feed a larger,
> broader entity.  And, in every case, such a move has been
> detrimental to the local groups, the members (let's not forget
> the rank-and-file members), and - in short order - the organization
> itself.

I never forget the rank-and-file members.

So, what are you saying here?  We shouldn't even try to work
together at a regional level?  At a kingdom level?  Inter-kingdom?
Most groups can't hope to do something as special as a Steppes
Warlord Tourney without some sort of cooperation.
 
> That is how I see both the proposal for formation of a
> principality, and the subsequent proposal toward regionalism.

Actually, the "regionalism" proposals originated with Amra and
Richard in this forum, and pre-date the suggestion by Llywelyn
that we consider principality status.
 
> You keep saying "we" must do this, and "we" must do that, but
> it is unclear to me just whom you mean when you say "we".

To me, "we" means whomever might decide to focus more on the
improvement of the region.  If you were to decide that, it 
might be at the expense of spending energy on the Steppes.
For myself, when I made that decision, it meant I'd spend
less time at kingdom level; thus, for instance, I'm skipping
Lyonesse for an event in Graywood the same weekend.

> For me, "we" are others like myself - the rank-and-file member
> for whom this is a hobby, who volunteer because we want to,
> who do the work because we enjoy doing it and for as long as
> we enjoy it and occasionally someone says "thanks".  "We"
> who may not be peers or recipients of this honor or that, but
> who continue to play until burn-out or efforts to devalue what
> we do and where we do it gets to be too much.

That's me as much as it is you, Llereth.  I'm not different or
special for being a royal peer and a double peer.  I still volunteer
because I want to, to do the things that look fun, or seem to
me rewarding, or that I recognize simply need to be done.  And
sometimes people say "thank you", just as you've said.  Over two
decades, those "thanks yous" can add up.  I like awards -- no
denying it! -- but I don't do things in order to get awards,
and I don't withhold my service if awards don't come.  I 
helped clean in the kitchen at Steppes 12th Night as a 
personal favor to Gunthar, and because I expected to enjoy
it -- as I did.  I never expected nor wanted an award for it.
 
> For all the talk of "fun" and "new danglies" et al that preceded
> that meeting, I saw nothing that told me how a principality would
> benefit the typical member.  And there, in a nutshell, is why
> I would have spoken in opposition to it.  I hope that this new
> discussion on regional identity will address it.  I certainly hope
> it does more than merely provide an excuse for insult to the
> larger local groups.

Insult?  Those opposing the principality measure said a number
of things about lack of cooperation and inability to work 
together (oddly, it looked to me like a mixed group of laurels
from Steppes & Elfsea who've done some wonderful things together).
My inference, though I may be incorrect, was that they felt
that Steppes wouldn't cooperate west of the Walton Walker
Freeway.  Or even west of I-35E.  I have faith that folks
in the Steppes would have a fine time, and would be major
participants in a central principality, if it were to happen.

How would it benefit the "typical member"?  I dispute that there
is such a thing.  How it would benefit you (any "you" who reads
these words) depends on what you like in the SCA.  Do you like
the hope of earning awards?  There'll be more.  Do you enjoy
competitions?  There'll be more.  Do you like pomp and ceremony?
There'll be more.  Do you enjoy service?  There'll be more
oppotunities.  Do you enjoy heraldry?  There'll be new heraldry
and ways to display it.  Do you like SCA traditions?  We'll
be establishing new ones.  Would you like more time with your
friends?  Principality events needn't be so meeting-crowded
as are kingdom-events.

There'll be costs, notably a more-crowded calendar (which even
then gives the smaller groups a chance to hold events that
draw more people -- somehow I think a Coronet Tourney would
attract more people than Emerald Tourney), but there'll be
more of the good things.  But there won't be _much_ more
bureacracy, nor any new "intermediaries" between you and
the Kingdom Officers.  And many people, "rank-and-file" and
otherwise, do see how it would benefit them.

> --
> Lee Martindale / Llereth Wyddffa an Myrddin / The Copper Bard
> email: lmartin at airmail.net
> http://web2.airmail.net/lmartin

Llereth, I think if I took your arguments back in time 21 years
or so, I could use them effectively against upgrading the Region
of Ansteorra to principality status.

- Galen of Bristol
pmitchel at flash.net
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.