SR - Gang-stewarding events Very Long)
Galen W. Bevel
galenbv at ix.netcom.com
Sun Mar 21 22:35:13 PST 1999
Dennis Grace wrote:
> Salut Cozyns,
> Lyonel aisai.
> Thank you, Graf Galen for sharing the information on the Tournaments of
> the Nine Worthies. I have a few questions. How long ago was the last
> such tournament? Why was the event run as a gang-venture? What
> advantage did co-stewards offer over one steward from a single barony?
Actually, although she forgot to sign it, it was Countess Rebekah who
sent the information on Nine Worthies to the list, in response to
Kazimir's request. As to your questions...
I don't remember what year we stopped doing Worthies. It was decided
that any good tourney, even as complex and interesting as that one was,
generally has a limited lifetime and that Worthies had exceeded it.
Attendence generally tended to show that as well. Although there were a
lot of disappointed protests when we stopped, those were not really
reflected by the gate count that last year. (It is not really very
useful to try to pick nine champions from a field of 18). It was run as
a gang venture for several reasons. One, the start-up costs were
_large_. They entailed field decorations and gimmicks, such as Duke
Hectors quintain and the list boards which we still use at Crown
Tournament, very expensive banners which were handed down as pass along
regalia, very nice medallions for the winners, hay bales for some of the
more complex field scenarios, portajohns for the large (at least for the
first few) crowds, roadwork on the site to be used,and many other
things. The costs were much easier to handle when defrayed across
several groups. Second, there was an enormous amount of work to be done
on such a large undertaking and none of the local groups had the
manpower to do it alone. Therefore the work was parcelled out as was
most efficient. Not necessarily by group, but by committee member ( I
was to handle the list boards and getting the shields painted, Duke
Patrick was in charge of portajohns, etc.) We were not all from the
same group, but that wasn't what was important. What was important was
who could get the job done. As to gang-stewarding, let me state again,
as I have before. There was _one_ steward in charge each year. He set
up a committee, selecting members as he chose from across the groups in
charge. That committee did what it needed to get the manpower, etc.
from across the groups. A budget was formed, the committee took it to
the groups, it was approved and a fair and equitable split of the costs
and the proceeds was worked out. ( I wasn't involved too deeply with
that part, better ask someone else how). So, to reiterate, we did have
one steward, from one Barony, to run the event. The main difference is
that the funding, the manpower, and the materials came from several
groups, and that the committee had to answer to all of those groups.
Disadvantages? Well, the same anytime that you have to answer to more
than one person. Advantages? We had the power of four active groups to
put behind the event.
Against my better judgement, let me go ahead and put in a little about
what I think is the underlying question here, which is the purpose of
the three group rule for regional events. When that rule was enacted,
it was not to make it difficult for a group to put on regional events.
Quite the contrary, it was to ensure that the groups _continued_ to host
those events. A few years ago in this Kingdom there was a tendency for
a few groups to hold a huge number of events, really filling up the
calendar. Whether this is a good thing or not is not an argument I want
to get into right now, catch me in person sometime and we can discuss
it. But I will say that it made life difficult for those who wanted to
support their local groups and also travel. One year, a large Barony in
this Kingdom (along with its Cantons and colleges) had something like 11
calendar events in one year. It was decided that there should be limit
to the number of calendar events (events where official business could
occur) that a group could hold, to help ensure that every one got a
chance hold a calendar event. When this happened, many groups
complained that holding some of the big events, which were more regional
in nature, would take away one of their calendar events, when it was not
really an event solely of that group. Therefore, no one wanted to host
these regional events (can you say, "we don't want to host war college,
we already have two events planned?"). To prevent them from dying out,
an exemption to the event limit was made for regional events. However,
some people wanted to call their events regional and exempt them from
the limit, when actually they were merely large Baronial/Shire events.
This would take us back to square one, with large groups monopolizing
the calendar. To keep this under control, it was declared that a
regional event should really affect at least three groups strongly, and
therefore at least three groups had to host the event. The Kingdom
really did not care where the work came from, as long as three groups
would put their name and their money into it. If three groups signed up
and funded an event, it was a regional event. This is the way that the
Kingdom law regarding regional events came into being. It may be that it
has mutated since then.
Graf Galen Kirchenbauer,
An old, worn out, ex-Kingdom Seneschal who really hates all the rules
lawyering that is sometimes necessary in that position to keep everybody
happy and playing nice.
Galen W. or Rebecca Bevel
galenbv at ix.netcom.com
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.
More information about the Southern