Court Reporting (was Re: ANSTHRLD - Plenary Meeting at Red Ta pe)

[Chandranath]

On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 08:42:31PM -0800, Ray Smith wrote:
> 
> --- Chandranath <chandra at plumes.org> wrote:
> > 
> > My undocumented example aside, the fact is easily
> > documented that
> > all sorts of preposterous stuff has made it into the
> > OP -- not absences,
> > I stress, but things that are simply wrong.  All of
> > them must have
> > occurred by one of the above (or by the court herald
> > himself or herself
> > sending something wrong, which seems less likely
> > than the above).
> 
> Not as less likely, at least in my experience, than
> one might think.  I know that there have been times
> when doing a court report that someone that I don't
> know has received an award, and I have had to resort
> to trying to spell their name phonetically - which in
> the SCA can be a dicey proposition.  I just hoped that
> someone down the line was in a position to correct it.

Well, this was exactly my point, if I understand you
correctly, at any rate.  When I am the court herald,
I can make the court report by reading the scrolls -- which
is ALSO no guarantee that things are accurate, but at least
it makes them consistent.  I am in a position to be giving
the definitive information.  If you are sitting in the
audience and trying to decide what name I am calling out
in and whether I really have a mouthful of marbles and how
to spell "TEE YER NOCK" anyway, your version is going to
likely be less accurate to some degree.  And mine should be
taken over yours, because _my information is more direct_.

For the most part, the court herald shouldn't send anything less
accurate than the scrolls themselves -- the obvious exception
being awards given without scrolls.  These are, frankly, the
distinct minority, and in no way change the general notion
that priority should be given to sources with a greater chance
of accuracy.

I resisted an example, but what the heck.  My Don is in the OP,
right now, as being a Centurion.  (He keeps asking for his cloak,
but nobody's made him one yet.)  I can only think of a few ways
this could have happened, under the current system:

- Zodiacus (or someone associated with said office) entered him
as a Centurion without receiving that information on a report.
(Possibly by something as simple as misreading a row.)

- The court herald of some court inaccurately sent a report that
said Tim is a Centurion.

- Soem other herald inaccurately sent a report that said Tim is
a Centurion, and their list was used, at least in Tim's case,
instead of the court herald's.

The first possibility, I concede, seems quite possible (particularly
the notion of misreading a row, if a Centurion was indeed made at
the same court).  The second possibility seems rather unlikely,
although again, who knows, particularly given the peculiar check-grid
nature of the only forms I've dealt with.  The third worries me,
and it's what I'm on about.  (Why?  Because the first option can
only be handled through careful checking on the part of Zodiacus,
and correction by the local heralds, neither of which are
controversial, I should think, and the second is likewise just
worth a reminder "check your forms" and possibly a suggestion that
the check-grid does more harm than good.)

But I can't do more beyond this than repeat myself, so I'll shut up
now.

Chandra

-- 
Shri Chandranath, Cadet to Don Timothy
Pursuivant Extraordinaire
Captain of the Plumes of the Shire of Mooneschadowe
( mka Russ Smith - http://www.randomgang.com/ )
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.