[Elfsea] Judging character (was: Blogs)

Greg Shetler frayduck at comcast.net
Fri May 13 07:39:59 PDT 2005


Shifting the topic to one more germane to our game that that of blogs:

On the topic of character, I think we have to very carefully separate
treatment of character into a few well-defined "regimes".

First, there is each individual's judgment of character.  That will (of
course) be based on anything the individual chooses - behavior in our game
and out of it, style of dress, color of hair, accent, how many "C's" in
their name, whatever.  We are human beings, and we therefore judge each
other all the time, based on whatever criteria are important to us.  We
don't choose who will judge us or on what criteria they will base their
judgment - and everybody has their own ideas about what is important in
determining the character of those around them, and how and with whom they
will choose to associate. 

Second, there is the judgment of character as it relates to granting awards
to that person for exemplifying ideals we hold dear.  This judgment must
seek to *objectively* take into account the person's adherence to the ideals
for which the award was created, the probability of their future continued
adherence to them, and the desirability to our Society of having that person
represent that award and those ideals.  In my opinion, this judgment must
take into account the person's *actions* but not necessarily their words.
Words must be evaluated in context, given the intended audience, and at the
time of their utterance if they are to be accurately evaluated with regards
to a person's character, and even then are very open to subjective
interpretation that makes objective assessment of fitness for the award
difficult.  In other words, you have to be there, to see the actions
associated with the words, to accurately judge a person's character based on
those words, and even then you need to take that judgment with a grain of
salt.

Third, there is the judgment of character as it relates to granting
responsibility and authority over aspects of our Society to people.  We are
fools to give a convicted embezzler the keys to our treasury, whether their
conviction stemmed from SCA-related finances or not.  Similarly, we are
fools to make a convicted child molester our Minister of Children, or put a
convicted rapist in charge of site security.  Having said that, I also
recognize that there may be circumstances in which the generalizations I
just made don't apply and it is, in fact, the right thing to do.  The point
is that when we are talking about giving somebody responsibility for our
well-being, or for the well-being of an aspect of our Society, I believe we
are duty bound to look at all information relevant to the person's ability
to responsibly do their job in a manner that is beneficial for our Society.

Note that there can be considerable overlap in those three because people
move in all three "regimes" at once, all the time.  The reason I think we
need to separate them when considering judgment of a person's character is
precisely the same as the reason that the BOD stated that conversations in
IRC, Usenet, and by e-mail (and by inference, the phone, written mail, or
even in person that don't relate to the activities of the SCA) are not
things that concern the BOD.  Words in ether are not actions, and cannot be
objectively judged.  And since the BOD is primarily intended to be an
objective body concerned with defining our rules, governing the financial
and legal business of the SCA, and sanctioning people for unacceptable
actions, those words are truly not the BOD's concern.

As for blogs: they are a strange animal that doesn't fit the traditional
pigeonholes of "private correspondence", "public broadcast" or even "public
speech" (as in standing on the street corner and ranting).  I see them much
more like privately published books available at the library.  You have to
seek them out to read their words, and so you have only yourself to blame if
you don't like what you read.  Nonetheless, they are still just words - and
the only action of the author that lends itself to judgment of character is
the perhaps ill-conceived decision to make their private thoughts publicly
available.

In general, bad people will reveal themselves by bad actions - and social
problems tend to be self-correcting.  A bad officer will lose support.  If
one way they lose support is to vent their spleen in public (on a blog or
verbally) then they deserve what they get.

Hold officers to a higher standard?  No.  They are just people, chosen to do
a job because they were willing to do the work on our behalf.  In 24 years
of playing our game, I've known quite a few people I disliked or thought
were bad people who did their jobs just fine - and I'm sure folks have felt
the same about me.

Hold peers to a higher standard?  No.  I would hope they hold *themselves*
to higher standards of ethics, courtesy, work, talent, helpfulness and so on
(as most I know do).  However, the award was *granted* to them because they
were already demonstrating a higher standard of some kind - but that doesn't
mean that I can start telling them how to behave, or demand that they adhere
to *my* vision of the ideal peer.  That is for *me* to demand of *myself*.

Okay, that was my time on the soapbox.  Sorry for the length.

Dux





More information about the Elfsea mailing list