NK - Arghhh!!!!(Somewhat long) WAS: Toy Tourney...

[Hugh Niewoehner]

Let's start off with the note that although I'll be using parts of
peoples posts, this should not be construed as an attack, condemnation,
back stab, whatever at that person.  The quoted comments simply bear on
my rant.  

Before responding read the whole thing, think about it, then read your
reply twice before sending.

> I've seen only a few, and all in support 
> of the Barony of Northkeep and their role in the Tourney. 
While the _general_ response has been supportive, some has been...shall
we say, less than humble.  I believe the term was "Kick their asses". 
Great for rabble rousing, not so good for civil discussion.

> >Then I was 
> >reminded that of course, none would complain in the open! This type of 
> >underhanded backbiting can only be done in the dark. Complaining 
> >because the "baby" barony does too good a job at giving toys to 
> >children. I'm afraid, your Excellencies, you will not see speakers 
> >admit to this gutter-sniping publicly.
"Complaining" without cause, and "backbiting" are certainly poor form. 
BUT, the simple act of saying that there's something which seems to be
bothering people and that it needs examination should not be considered
backbiting.  In this case the statements were made in public forum.  The
person who made them has claimed them, therefore it's not rumor
mongering or backbiting.  Sure, statements and complaints should be
substantiated with something more than "some people think".  But that is
brought out in civil discussion.  It's the unclaimed or or mysterious "I
heard someone say..." or "Such and such said..." that _I_ believe should
be condemned and terminated with malice aforethought.    

> I don't have a CLUE what I'm talking about, I'll get back to my other stuff,
> and you all can go back to be mutually supportive, rather than looking to 
> see if there *might* actually be a *problem* that needs to be examined.
Also the wrong answer.  There must always be someone willing to examine
what any group does with the worst case scenario in mind.  (Note: This
does not require the expressed view to be those of the person voicing
them.)  Then, that person, (Devils Advocate) MUST be willing to take the
matter directly to those involved.  It that means everyone, so be it.
It's a good way to be misunderstood and make enemies, but in the long
run may be worth it.  Any group which is unwilling to, or incapable of,
examining itself critcally is in trouble.  However, once the problem has
been rigerously examined _by_those_who_can_fix_it_, regardless of the
results, drop it.  Pick a new problem or relax a while and say that at
least you tried.  Continuing on the same theme is like hitting a wall. 
Rather painful to you and the wall doesn't much care. 

This does not mean giving up.  If you see something that really needs
changing there ARE ways.  I know of at least one man who has a Laurel in
_TREASON_.  (Ask for an example of Juan's rules of treason sometime. He
played a big part of Calontir's birth and those rules are why the BOD
will never be able to FORCE light weapons on Calontir.)

> You are right, everyone loves Northkeep and how they do things, and they 
> love it SO much that no one EVER gets fed up and leaves, 
"It's tough to be a despot in an all volunteer society.  We are NOT,
however, a democracy."
- King Talymar III 
"We don't have to have the SCA to live.  If you make the SCA no fun,
we'll find it elsewhere."
- CTS MS Arwyn Antarae
"Regardless of subject. When it stops being fun, it's time to leave." 
- ME paraphrasing many of my mentors.
etc., etc. We'll never see the day everyone is happy with everything.

> and everyone in 
> the SCA is ALWAYS one big happy and loving family.  
Marrik covered this pretty well but let me add that we can be a family
even if we're not happy about it.  

> The alleged problems about Northkeep winning from "INSIDE" the Barony are
> from those who can never, and "will" never be satisfied.  But this is a
> volunteer organization, you don't even HAVE to pay your dues to show up and
> be negative, depressing, or holier than thou.  You can even be a member when
> you get nothing out of the S.C.A. except dissatisfaction. 
The net even spawned a word for it...Irritainment.   

It takes a strong person to examine themselves and reallydetermine the
source of ones dissatisfaction.  Is it because there _really_ is a
problem?  Is it because I'm unhappy about something?  Or, is it simply
because I have decided to be in opposition to the prevailing
power/attitude/whatever? Review, regroup, and move on.

Now then.  I don't remember the Law but I'm sure someone will provide
it.  NAZI!!!
There, this arguements officially over.  We now return you to your
regularly scheduled program in progress.

	Damon