SR - How many stewards does it take...?
Donal & Sosha
catsden at texas.net
Sun Mar 21 08:12:37 PST 1999
Thank you for your discussions.
> Most of the discussion of cohesion I've heard has been related to the
> question of principality: to P or not to P... I have looked outside
> the barony. I see similarities and differences, but no more nor less
> than I saw in the region/principality/kingdom of Artemisia. I guess
> what I'm really fishing for here is a motive. If cohesion is your
> *immediate* goal, what is your long range goal? Do we want cohesion for
> cohesion's sake, or are we trying to forge a principality?
> This is a touchy subject. Some folks (especially in the three baronies)
> have expressed some concern that this call for cohesion will destroy
> their group identities. The way that we each run events differs
> slightly--call this a matter of style. If you run an event by
> committee, you have to select a guiding vision. Typically, the steward
> acts as the director, selecting and maintaining that vision. If the
> group is run by committee, you're going to have far more disagreements,
> often about topics that are usually taken for granted within a group.
I am sure that my views on the principality issue are fairly well
aired and do not need to be rehashed. As for my motives, I took on
the job of Regional Seneschal, not to promote the P word but because a
job had to be done. The first 6 weeks on the job, (melodramatic sigh
with hand pressed to forehead) were very quiet. There were 6 postings
a week to the Southern Regional list. Talk about chortling in glee
that nothing had blown up yet. Then we get the r(R)egional event
discussion. The only guide I have is Kingdom law, stating that a
regional event must have 3 groups, and all H*** breaks loose. So out
come the discussions and the need for everyone to be able to add to
the discussions on all levels to make some of the people happy some of
I am absolutely sure that our baronies, each with its unique ideas,
beliefs, and people, are in no danger of being swallowed up. It just
isn't possible. I cannot envision some one mistaking Baron Pendaren
for Baron David St. David, or confusing the two baronies, nor any
other group in this area.
> Size is not as much an issue here as population centers and distances
> between same. I would contend that you are still talking about an
> essentially untested and theoretically unsound method. Until several
> attempts have been made to utilize three groups to coordinate a single
> event, we have no experiential basis for your optimism. Moreover, I
> have not heard a single argument describing what such a change would
> accomplish beyond the rather vague notion of cohesion. Personally, I
> doubt that having three sponsoring groups will do much in the way of
> fostering cohesion. If anything, I expect such an arrangement to breed
> distrust and annoyance.
There have been several events done in this kingdom by two or more
groups in collaboration. In most if not all of these cases, there was
a single overall autocrat from the primary sponsoring group, who
delegated certain things to lieutenants from the other groups. How
smoothly the event went off depended largely on how willing the
various groups were to cooperate.
It will take more than one try to get this to work. I am sure Isobel
and Ivarr, Ivarr and Isobel, are frothing at the mouth or wondering
how to get out of this mess with any kind of aplomb. Annoyance and
distrust will come from places as close as home or as far away as the
other continents. This is not something new. In response to events,
possible even probable. However on this note I suggest an autocrat
pick/ask their would be co-s with the knowledge going in that he/she
can not micro manage but trust that the person they picked is a
competent individual. It is my idea that after the discussions we
will have a working solution to the 3 group law, that is the guideline
at this moment. I will bring up the Northern regional idea, which was
to rotate their Regional event. This works to minimize the distance
thing and communications errors possibly inherent. However it takes
away from a group's Kingdom Calendar events for the year. If a small
group does badly at this, oh so sad you can't have another event. It
may or may not take into account the lack of work force that small
group may have. Talk about burnout. If they choose to pass it along
to a better equipped group, I admit I have to ask the Regional
Seneschal up there on this, but they may not get another chance till
either the next year of the next coming around of their turn, several
years later. The one region has ONLY the Baronies doing the work for
their regional event. They have 2 Baronies. That's a can of worms
that I won't even try to open.
Well, I hoped that we were doing some hashing out here. As for
> compromise, I must say I think it's vastly overrated. A compromise
> between a good idea and a bad one is not a good thing.
A compromise is the best solution, I can see, at this moment. We are
following Kingdom Law until a better solution can be had. The other
option is for me to make an arbitrary ruling on how r(R)egional events
will be run. This is would be a really BAD idea on my part. It
would NOT promote a cohesive region, with all of it's idiosyncrasies,
and truly make my life miserable.
> My description presumes delegation. I love delegation. I love
> one-minute management. I also believe--to steal a coinage--that you
> should trust everyone but cut the cards.
Would you deal for me at the next poker night? :)
> But how do you dig right in when the sight is a hundred miles away; when
> the only thing you know about the feast, decorations, and other
> accomadations is what you've been told in email letters; when you are
> unfamiliar with the co-stewards' concepts of promptness and urgency?
Hmmm.... A good point. Hopefully the Autocrats and Co- took more
than a moment to compare notes on How To Run a Successful Event, but
spent at least an hour to talk and have known each other for a while
(months, years, etc.)
> Too many cooks may not spoil the broth, but too many chefs certainly do.
> I oppose this effort to require gang-stewardship of regional events. I
> believe it will create undue tension between the groups and create a
> general displeasure with regional activities. This concerns me because
> it will negatively impact our ability to act as a cohesive unit at war.
Hopefully, by the end of May, this will indeed be cleared up. Either
a) it must be 3, or a combination of 1,2 or more may host a
r(R)egional event. I will not disagree that tensions can and will be
encountered. I am going to try easing this r(R) event discussion,
then ruling, as painlessly (less than a dentist drill but more than a
thorn)as possible into the regional workings. I can not promise there
won't be growing pains. It just won't be that easy. We are working
for a larger goal than group(s) running a rather large event, that is
important to the Region. The Southern Region is already an identity
now we work on getting one event running smoothly for everyone to take
part of and pride in. Then we move to the next item. (Don't ask me
what that is, because it hasn't happened yet.)
Sosha Lyon's O'Rourke
> Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
More information about the Southern