[Sca-cooks] Re: Food-related Meta-Issue

[Volker Bach]

Am Mittwoch, 19. April 2006 19:36 schrieb Tom Vincent:

>   'Best' of period royalty:  Go to any Renn Faire.  The crowns are
> charming, elegant, graceful, entertaining, praiseworthy, carry themselves
> regally, don't break character, dress the part, are shown deference &
> respect.  What's wrong with that?

I don't know about most Renn Faires, but at our commercial 'medieval events' 
in Germany, the nobility are paid actors (though we don't often have 
nobility, the scene is not happy with them). They had better be charming and 
gracious. 

>   Look, the SCA has already removed (for good or bad) the unquestionably
> single most potent force in the Medieval world, the church, from its
> structure, so what's wrong with excising wretched & corrupt crowns, too?
>
>   Well, some people have written extensively about the comparison between
> the SCA and a cult structure, but, frankly, I think you could say that
> about many social organizations of significant age.
>
>   Why not improve the structure, expand the pool of candidates and raise
> the standards?  Wouldn't that be a step forward?

It *could* be a step forward. The problem I have is that we are not likely to 
find a way of getting only good monarchs for the simple reason that 
historically, nobody has come up with one. 

So any system we institute instead would likely be an incremental improvement, 
but come bundled (like Microsoft products) with the law of unintended 
consequences. That is why I would advise caution. I know it is not 
fashionable to say so these days, but change carries considerable risks and 
should only be undertaken with care and consideration. Societies establish 
traditions to work around inefficiencies and flaws in existing systems that 
do not work in the new system, so any flaws become much more glaringly 
obvious. That is why I would need to be convinced that the specific system 
proposed will produce benefits that will outweigh the inevitable trouble and 
strife its introduction will cause. I'm sure  such a system could be devised, 
but it will be a lot of work, and I'm notv bothered enough by the current 
structure's flaws to want to take that upon myself. 

As to various suggestions made, I believe they all have significant downsides. 
Elections mean campaigning, and campaigning creates bad blood between people. 
Do you want a king who cheated on his girlfriend when she needed his support 
most? Probably not, but do you really need people dredging out that kind of 
story? And that will happen. Also, an election creates a mandate that a 
tournament does not. Crowns might well come to assume that they are actually 
entitled to do things. Battles to establi8sh who raises the greatest 
followership are not really that much better than tournaments, but carry the 
twin risks of being more susceptible to 'unfair' practice (a battle can be 
decided by tactics and trickery in ways that a duel can not) and being fought 
with greater rancour (a candidate who slips up and loses just has let himself 
down, but in the battleline, if you slip up you're letting your side and your 
mates down). An additional A&S contest just raises the bar on skill, which in 
itself has little to do with regal bearing. And my favourite idea - a 
rotation of alternating heavy, archery, rapier, A&S and Bardic crown 
tournaments - would not hwelp to improve selection, merely expand the pool of 
candidates. I don't think the benefits outweigh the cost for any. 

Which leaves me with the heretical question whether we really need crowns...

Giano


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de