[Northkeep] "Put out that bloody cigare..." *
ld.blackmoon at cox.net
Fri May 8 19:34:52 PDT 2009
not to step on anyones toes, this is just my opinion .
but the real question should be :
" can the media afford the bad public relations of trying to exploit a
volunteer fund raising attempt for a needy family ??? " ( in a bad way )
odds are more in favor of them using the better p.r angle of " local group
has blast raising funds for needy family "
unless of course you get the national enquirer , which would probably run
the headline " mideaval group sells slaves to highest bidder "
but of course they could just as quickly run the headline " slaves
servicing highest bidders " .
i think it all boils down to what angle " we " put on it .
is it something to put in an event flyer , possibly, especialy if it lets
people know what the money is going for.
do we want to put a full page add in the local paper " slave sale at
upcoming recreationist gathering " uumm i would say no . mainly because
people will jump to conclusions and be all irate , at least till they find
out the real details .
just my devalued 2 centavoes worth ; )
Be Safe , Be Happy, Have Fun
----- Original Message -----
From: <Sigen3 at aol.com>
To: <northkeep at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Northkeep] "Put out that bloody cigare..." *
> In a message dated 5/8/2009 6:33:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
> peterschorn at pdq.net writes:
> Well, why not call them "service auctions" instead? Because that's what
> you're really auctioning, isn't it?
>>The auctions I've seen over the years were always called "slave" auctions.
>>Everyone understood they were done for fun, and usually the auctioneer
>>outlined what the slaves could be used for. They were raucous, a little
>>raunchy, definitely rowdy, and always a riot (in the good sense).
> I don't doubt this was the case. However, just because you haven't had
> trouble in the past doesn't mean other people haven't--or that we
> learn from their example.
> Because I can offer counter-examples of civic and campus groups that held
> "slave auctions" and got slammed for it in the media. Yes, I know it's
> for the media to exercise its power in this way. But it does, and I don't
> see why we should make the SCA in general or Northkeep in particular a
> target for it.
> I referred to the BoD because they have the power of sanction against both
> individuals _and groups_ that they feel are putting the SCA in
> danger--including the danger of bad publicity. So even if we escape
> notoriety in the press, the BoD could well be inclined to take pre-emptive
> action to preclude future risk. And if we do attract notoriety--do you
> think the BoD will defend our right to hold slave-auctions?
> (Bear in mind that we are governed by a corporation seated in Marin
> California. Look that up on Google Earth. Notice where it is. And ask
> yourself how charitably people there might view a bunch of Midwesterners
> playing at slave-games).
> I don't doubt the goodness of anybody's motives or the innocence of
> anybody's intentions. I know they are all of the best. But I think you've
> got a blind spot here and in that blind spot lies some risk--avoidable,
> unnecessary and considerable risk-- to the SCA from the media, and to
> Northkeep from the BoD. I am trying to warn you of that risk.
> It's like...we're all in a trench during wartime, at night, and you want
> smoke a cigarette. Now, though I don't smoke myself, I don't have any
> objections to you smoking--*but*not*here,*not*now.* Because if you do, you
> could attract a sniper or a shell. And that would be very, very bad for
> of us, not just you.
> Please consider what I have said. Please consider at least changing the
> name to "service auction"--I've never heard of one of those getting ripped
> by the media.
> Please don't take a risk that endangers those who didn't consent to take
> I have duly considered what you have written, and after some
> I will agree with Mistress Talana. There have been many such auctions in
> the past (and hopefully many in the future), with no problems, and much
> If we do things only with the concern that someone, somewhere, someday
> might possibly be uncomfortable, offended, or otherwise discombobulated,
> we probably should stay in bed. Anyone may choose to be offended by
> anything. That is their privilege, but should we cease any activity that
> might possibly be their target? I believe that political correctness has
> indeed gotten out of hand. Everyone is afraid of doing something to
> offend someone. In my own humble opinion, if someone is offended
> by a "slave auction", perhaps they should stay in bed, because they
> will find *something* to offend their delicate sensibilities no matter how
> hard we all try to avoid doing just that. If we stop doing all the things
> that potentially inflame someone, we might as well do nothing at all.
> Have I missed somewhere that there was BOD involvement/concern over any
> such thing? I can't even imagine it. I know from personal experience that
> BoD is much too busy to worry about a fund raising project. I think that
> someone actually rats the auction out to the media, chances of it being
> and exploited are very unlikely. And so what if someone does complain?
> likely the BoD would feel compelled to make another silly rule that bans
> the use
> of the term "slave auction". So what? The SCA has survived *much* worse
> in the press, I promise.
> If it were up to me, I would give it my approval, without any hesitation
> other than making sure I got my chance to bid. I would say go for it,
> and bid generously...it's a good cause, regardless of what you call it.
> it is not up to me.
> Sigen Northkeep
> **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2
> Northkeep mailing list
> Northkeep at lists.ansteorra.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.22/2105 - Release Date: 05/08/09
More information about the Northkeep