[Elfsea] RE: [Steppes] Blogs?

[Trish Kvamme]

I totally understand your feelings I really do.  But I think that the BOD 
addressed this with the early days of email, web sites and the IRC, anyone 
who has read rec.org.sca can scratch their head in wonder.

If a person lets use your example has bad business practices, and has harmed 
many by them within the SCA community, you betcha it is brought up in a 
circle and other less formal discussions.

But it all goes back to the basics of first person confrontation of the 
problems at hand.

I read Gunnora's repsonse and I think she summed it up outstandingly.

Unless the BOD ruling has changed, the word was that the electronic domain 
is not the affairs of the SCA.

As a peer, and a past Crown, if someone came to me with words or asking for 
action regarding a persons private blog or anything regarding an electronic 
correspondence, I would most likely tell them to go and work it out 
themselves.

The one exception is if you link that blog to an SCA official site, or if 
you endager the non profit status of the SCA with a blog entry.  The latter 
would be hard to do.

I think that one thing the electronic media of the internet has done for us 
is to think that since information is more readily available, that things 
that are certainly not our business have become so.

I completely respect apposing views on this matter, because it has layers 
and layers of issues, what if's, and complications.

However, ***my opinion*** personally is that this is an inappropriate topic 
for the SCA lists, and more appropriate for groups of friends to discuss as 
philosophy.  *** is to reiterate that my opinion equals 1 in the list of 
many who have had their say on all this.

Larissa
>From: Tim Rayburn <trayburn at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Tim Rayburn <trayburn at gmail.com>
>To: Barony of Elfsea <elfsea at ansteorra.org>
>CC: DaleRN at aetna.com, steppes at ansteorra.org, ansteorra at ansteorra.org
>Subject: Re: [Elfsea] RE: [Steppes] Blogs?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:42:20 -0500
>
>On 5/10/05, Trish Kvamme <ladyoftherose at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So basically my comment on the subject is since it is not something
> > recreating the middle ages or an Ansteorran tradition, it isn't really
> > something that should affect peers, royals, populace, etc.  Because it 
>isn't
> > medieval, it is 21st century, and we wont be reinacting that for many 
>years
> > to come ;)
>
>Robert Fitzmorgan and others have well address the points regarding
>the First Ammendment so I will not go further on that other than to
>say I agree with them.
>
>On the other hand the quote above in my opinion represents one of the
>greatest dangers of our game.  Her grace is not the only person to
>express this opinion in their comments thus far, she is merely the
>most recent so I selected her quote.
>
>No matter how much people would like it not to be so, the person you
>are inside the game and the person you are outside the game are the
>same person.  What you say on a blog or anywhere else in public is of
>course reasonable to judge you by.
>
>If you are involved in deceitful business practices outside of the
>SCA, I don't care how chivalrous you play the game you are not putting
>forward the qualities I expect of a peer.  You are the same person in
>and out of the game.  If within the game you "play" the "perfect"
>Knight but you are abhorable outside the game then I think that
>everyone has a right to have that affect their opinion of you ...
>including the Crown and the circles.
>
>I full well realize that no one is truly perfect, none of us are
>"without sin" but there are lines which civilized people may draw.
>Suggesting that what you say outside the SCA should not affect you
>within the SCA does not work.  I think that recent years should have
>proven to everyone that be they child molesters, thieves, or just
>deceitful and dishonest there are people we do not want in positions
>of leadership.  Especially if you are a peer, noble, officer, etc the
>group is fully justified to expect you to behave in a fashion that
>would not disgrace the group inside or outside of the SCA.
>
>--
>Tim Rayburn
>trayburn at gmail.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>Steppes mailing list
>Steppes at ansteorra.org
>http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/steppes