[Sca-cooks] OP/OT: Wanted: Opinions on Controversial Florilegium article
carlton_bach at yahoo.de
Tue Aug 11 11:19:17 PDT 2009
--- Stefan li Rous <StefanliRous at austin.rr.com> schrieb am Di, 11.8.2009:
> The comments included:
> "This article does nothing but portrait the SCA as a group
> of backstabbing sexual deviants who engage in sexual
> harassment and under-age drinking of the worst kind with
> enough members who are aware of such behavior yet turn a
> blind eye or two." and
> "I was deeply disturbed and concerned about what this young
> lady is intimating about the SCA. As a parent this
> would scare me off from the organization and really puts us
> all in a bad light that we would continue to allow this
> behavior by our members and turn a blind eye."
> My own feeling was that none of what the author said was
> untrue. I've seen much of it in my 20 years in the Society.
> This list is a collection of diverse individuals with a lot
> of different opinions at times. I would appreciate hearing
> your opinions on this article. I am not in a Peer-protoge
> relationship with anyone to turn to. There are however a
> number of Peers, and others that I highly respect on this
> list. I am interested in comments from non-Peers and folks
> with and without children or teenagers, as well.
> Should I remove it because it puts our Society in a bad
> light? Or leave it as a useful article for the teenagers in
> the SCA?
I have never experienced anything like this in the SCA or seen any situations that suggested it happens, but then, my experience of events is outside the USA and ours are rather smaller. That said, I do not believe anything in this article is unwise or untrue, and it is certainly not libelous. It does raisae the dark sidee pof the SCA, but since it's supposed to be advoice on avoiding trouble, that is the idea, isn't it? A rewrite may be in order to temper the impression IF the author agrees, but even that should not really be necessary.
> The author was under pressure from her local group and then
> her Royalty to remove the article and have threatened her
> father, a Peer, with loss of his Peerage. I probably will
> remove the article because of her request.
If you do, can you PLEASE put up a notice explaining the reason for this, naming the royalty in question and ideally, posting the information to every list, message board and indivdual that normally gets Florilegium updates, separately from the usual update information? The article may be a little on the overcautious side and a bit prude (my inner Eurotrash weas about to theatrically sigh 'Americans'), but THIS reaction is exactly the kind of thing that we do not want to see in the SCA. I am pretty far away from the fray, so I don't see there is anything I can do except maybe write an angry e-mail to Their Alleged Majesties, but surely the kingdom's chivalry should be glad to take up the matter with the pointy hat in question. In my book, that ought to be reason for immediate removal from office. I don't know if there is an official procedure for that, but a traditional one suggests itself.
> I am unlikely to grant the request of a Royal just because
> they are a Royal. On the otherhand, I am willing to be
> convinced that I was wrong to have ever considered adding
> this article to the Florilegium.
> I don't think this is appropriate discussion for this list,
> so please email me with your comments, pro or con.
> Thank you.
> THLord Stefan li Rous
> THLord Stefan li Rous Barony of Bryn
> Gwlad Kingdom of Ansteorra
> Mark S. Harris
> Austin, Texas
> StefanliRous at austin.rr.com
> **** See Stefan's Florilegium files at: http://www.florilegium.org ****
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Sca-cooks