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

[Tom Vincent]

So what's wrong with requiring SCA crowns to be charming and gracious?  
They're 'paid' with praise, attention, gifts, crown-bunnies, etc.

Historically, *every* crown was good enough to enough people for enough 
time...at least for a while.  Again, I don't think anybody is promoting 
the idea of cruel, hateful, rude, abusive crowns in the SCA.  That's a 
bad marketing strategy.  It's a sanitized view of Medieval life, so why 
not simply have a sanitized form of Medieval kings?

Your other criticisms and 'what-ifs' don't meet the test of improving 
the current situation.  Pageant winners have 'morals' clauses in their 
contracts, why not require the same of SCA crowns?  Do anything to 
embarrass the organization and you're out, determined by some committee 
or the BoD.  You want to avoid bad behavior?  Identify it ahead of time 
and explain the consequences.  New example comes up?  Add it to the 
consequences explanation.

You seem convinced that your fellow SCA members will back-stab, lie, 
cheat & steal in order to gain victory at any price.  I'm just not 
willing to accept that.  Some open judging, clearly explained policies 
and an agreed-upon set of goals should help member act in ethical ways.

Duriel


Volker Bach wrote:
> 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. 
>
> 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
>
>
>