CR - No P-word for now!

Paul Mitchell pmitchel at flash.net
Thu Jan 29 13:39:44 PST 1998


Galen, sincerely enjoying the exchange of ideas between
two intelligent, mutually-respecting people, replies...

Lee Martindale wrote:
> 
> Galen wrote:

> > I wish!  Llereth, you are a very special, very hard-working
> > person of the sort that every branch could use a few of.
> 
> That was precisely my point, Galen.  I *am* a typical member.
> Typical in contribution, most of it either "behind-the-scenes"
> and/or doing things that too many people forget are necessary
> to successful events.  To lapse into mundanity and bluntness,
> a stagehand. The grunt work.  

I still think you do far more than the average member,
Llereth.

More to the point, however, I
> am typical in the perspective of reaching the point at which,
> regardless of how necessary *I* know the work to be or whether
> or not I still enjoy doing it, I am getting "burned-out".  I
> find myself being tempted by other opportunities and other,
> different and - in all honesty - more enjoyable pursuits.

I surely hope you will find a way to make the SCA more
enjoyable for yourself, lest we lose you altogether.  Even
if you're not doing as much work as you have done, that
would still be better than not having you at all.
 
> Any discussion of correcting our problems has to include
> that portrait of a "typical, rank-and-file member" in the
> mix.  Talk of recruitment must be coupled with talk of
> retention.  Talking about new awards, more events, and
> royalty does not answer the root questions and problems.

Maybe I'm failing to understand what you see as the
root questions and problems.  I thought I'd addressed
this.  What do you see as the "root" questions and
problems?
 
> > Many of those on the
> > _con_ side (subject to correction) seem to me to be afraid.
> > I won't presume to guess of what.
> 
> It seems to me that the potential of resolving the
> the conflicts of opinion and working toward regional
> cooperation and, ultimately, establishment of a principality
> necessitates finding out if, in fact, it is fear speaking
> on the "con side", and what those fears might be.

I agree.  It seems to me that such a good faith effort
would preclude guessing.
 
> > 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.
> 
> Perhaps it would help my understanding, then, to put it in
> contexts with which I am familiar.  As Steppes Chronicler, I
> answered to the local seneschale and treasurer, and reported
> to the Kingdom Chronicler by way of the Central Regional
> Chronicler.  As Central Regional Chronicler, I was (theoretically)
> responsible for the local chroniclers in the region and reported
> to the Kingdom Chronicler.  Along the way, requirements were
> in-person meetings were added.
>
> How would the creation of a principality effect the above?

>From the local perspective, you'd only change "regional"
to "principality", and the rest would be the same.  At the
principality level, you'd have a Prince to help appoint and
supervise you (much as the Baron of the Steppes -- you left
him out -- had done when you were local), and you might
be putting out a principality newsletter.  The newsletter's
not a requirement, but some Ansteorran regions have had them
(maybe ours should have one), and the principality wouldn't
_have_ to have one.
 
> > 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.
> 
> I'm afraid that does not speak to the point I was making.
> But it does raise an interesting point.  How would it be
> decided what areas of concentration would have authority
> over other areas of concentration and their relative importance?
> How would such invoke incentive to coordinate efforts, and
> what kind of coordination do you envision?

My thought is that the best thing would be to add another
officer, over the ones we now have.  He'd help appoint
those officers, and would have power to set policy and
suspend or remove them.  He'd also have the power to
reward their good works.  To balance all this, he'd have
a very short term.  Say, six months.  I'd call his office
"Prince & Princess".

> > "Push", you say?  No one's pushing, by any definition of the
> > word I'd use.
> 
> Unfortunately, by my own, there has been an element of it.

I honestly do not want you to feel pushed.  Therefore I ask,
what "element" of pushing do you see?
 
> > What
> > sort of damage do you suppose discussion will do?
> 
> To quote your own words, Galen:
> 
>   > 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.

Touche!  But if we can't discuss, we might as well just go 
watch TV.  Social interactions would be beyond us.
 
> > So, what are you saying here?  We shouldn't even try to work
> > together at a regional level?  At a kingdom level?  Inter-kingdom?
> 
> I am saying what you, yourself, have said.  That it is for each
> of us, individually, to decide our own levels of activity and
> where those efforts are directed.

Oh!  I had the impression that you objected to Richard and
Zara Zina and I undertaking the sorts of projects we'd been
discussing.  My mistake!
 
> > Most groups can't hope to do something as special as a Steppes
> > Warlord Tourney without some sort of cooperation.
> 
> Is that so bad?  Is there no room for diversity in the size and
> complexity of events?  Is it not either desirable or beneficial
> to have a mix of large and small events available on the calendar?

Ample room for diversity!  But while Steppes or Elfsea can put on 
big or little events, most groups can only do small ones.  They're
the ones who don't get a choice.  Unless they combine to do joint
events; Coronet Tourney or Investiture, for example.
 
> > Actually, the "regionalism" proposals originated with Amra and
> > Richard in this forum, and pre-date the suggestion by Llywelyn
> > that we consider principality status.
> 
> That is as I remember it.  But it also seems that the discussion
> of regional cooperation has been replaced by (and please forgive
> for being unable to adequately describe this is other than
> blunt terms), the "selling of the principality".

Well, those few of us who have lived in principalities
are trying to explain it to those who haven't.  You've
asked questions about how it would work, and so have 
others.  I've engaged in this the previous three times
principality proposals have come up in Ansteorra (when
I always opposed it).  In the past, people made
extravagant claims about what could be achieved under
a principality (more peers, for example), and I've had
to point out that a Prince is (in terms of authority)
more like a big baron than a little king.  This time,
a few of us are expressing the effects we hope a
principality would have on the groups in the region,
and we're hearing extravagant claims about how we
can't communicate or work together, or how it would
hurt the local groups.

I have a point of view, I hope I am communicating it
with courtesy and good humor.  I make no apology for
using what I intend as reasoned arguments to bring 
people around to my point of view.  I haven't engaged
in name-calling, nor used falsehoods nor emotional
appeals.  At least I don't think I have.  I have been 
responsive to those who've offered to debate my points.  
I think a principality would be the best thing for
our region, and I don't apologize for trying to
persuade others of my view.  Llereth, your website
suggests to me that you're not above doing a 
little persuading in your spare time, yourself...

At the same time, I am giving considerable thought
to what I might best do to help those groups who need
and/or want my help.  My first two conclusions are
that I can go to the demo the first weekend of April,
which Richard mentioned Rosenfeld is hosting, and
I can skip Lyonesse for Graywood's event.  Both of
which I will do, and try to influence others to do.

> > > 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.
> 
> As long as there is no suggestion of disregard for those who
> decide to concentrate efforts on a local basis, I certainly
> have no problem with this.

We can't have an SCA without local groups, as you've pointed
out.  How could I countenance the disregard of people who
keep the local groups going?

But if your objection to principality status is that people
wouldn't support the local groups anymore (which, if it
happened, would certainly have disasterous results) isn't
this the resolution of that objection?  You've said that
you haven't been told how it would benefit the typical
member; I've given examples.  You've suggested it would
draw support from the local groups, I've shown that
this needn't be so.  You've suggested that the issue is
being rushed, and I'll show presently that this is also
not the case (in my next-to-last point in this post).
 
> >  If you were to decide that, it
> > might be at the expense of spending energy on the Steppes.
> 
> Exactly the concern I had in questioning the possible
> weakening of local branches.

Whereas I, in making that commitment, am merely re-directing
energy which I've spending at the kingdom level this past
year.

Maybe it would provide a lure for burned-out people who
no longer care about local groups, and can't travel
enough to play at kingdom level.  Maybe; maybe not.
 
> > How would it benefit the "typical member"?  I dispute that there
> > is such a thing.
> 
> A mindset which, I believe, limits the ability to think in
> terms of overall benefits/disadvantages to the membership
> as a whole.  Are we, perhaps, merely tangled in semantics?

Maybe.  My statement was meant to reflect my belief that 
each person has different motivations, different things
they value, and is rewarded by different things.

But didn't I do a decent job of answering your question?
Did I not explain how it would benefit the rank-and-file?
 
> > 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.
> 
> And were I to take your arguments into any one of a number of
> other organizations with which I have been or currently am involved,
> they would sound very much like those that were used to promote
> overly-enthusiastic or prematurely-attempted recruitment and/or
> reorganization campaigns.  Both your statement and mine and
> leads me, once again, to the conclusions that:
> 
> 1) As much as we would like to think that the SCA is unique,
> it has more in common than not with other organizations; and
> 
> 2)  Organizational experience, regardless of where gathered,
> translates.

I'm not arguing against either of these points.  I recognize
your organization experience (read your webpage) and I think
I'm treating your arguments with respect.

But when I opposed the principality issue, I described what
would be required to get my support -- which has now happened.
What would the world look like before you'd support upgrading 
our region to principality status?  Assuming you'd agree that
having Ansteorra organize into a principality wasn't a mistake,
what made that OK?

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

Now, I want to make two more points.  To make the first point,
I have to quote Llereth's previous post:

> No additional level has been added between the populace and the
> Kingdom, no additional "chiefs" have been added among which to
> divide the volunteer efforts of a finite number of "Indians".

I want to make clear that there was never a possibility that
these might be the immediate or direct results of the meeting
held last weekend.  If every person had agreed with me that
we were ready for a principality now, we'd be holding more
meetings just like that one to try to find those who object,
and give them a chance to say their piece and persuade whom
they could.  As I'd said before, there was never a chance we'd
wake up any day this year to find ourselves living in a 
principality.  In my most ambitious scenario, which I never
shared with anyone before now, I never thought we could hold
a Coronet Tourney before spring '99.  For one thing, we'd have
to have _approved_ name and armory first!  I'm not rushing
this.

My final point:  Let me offer a metaphor that might be a little
more accessible than Zara Zina's pregnant woman.  Think of a 
region as another kind of shire.  Is it so terrible to want 
to be a barony?  Is it evil to want a ruling noble, an award
of our own, enhanced status for the branch?  This region has
the membership, the peers, the record to qualify.  No one wants
to "break off" to become a principality, I just want a 
promotion for us.  No one wants to stop being Ansteorran.  
What I want is another way to serve both the kingdom and the
local branches.

I don't see the harm.

- Galen of Bristol, Viscount, KSCA, Pel., etc.
pmitchel at flash.net
http://www.flash.net/~pmitchel/galen.htm
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.



More information about the Central mailing list