SR - Ballot text?

[tmcd at jump.net]

When I replied to Aquilanne's note, I wanted to raise the issue for
people to discuss and think about.  Do you think it's better to sort
names on the ballot
- pure alphabetically?
- by likelihood of passing (5 stars to 2 stars), and alphabetically in
  each category?
- in any order: you'll find the names you want either way?

If people tend to see #2 as biased, Sosha and everyone else need to
know.  Ditto if you think #2 is better.


On Thu, 20 May 1999, j'lynn yeates <jyeates at realtime.net> wrote:
> On 20 May 99, at 17:30, Timothy A. McDaniel wrote:
>
> > How is it "unfair" to favor things that are more likely to work?
> > How is it "unfair" to favor things that are closer to what the
> > Middle Ages actually did?
...
> in this case, i thought the pupose of a ballot being spoken about is
> to finalize what the populace wants for a name out of *all* the
> proposals, not anyones particular favorite set ...

How does the *ordering* of names deny anyone a voice?  You'll be free
to vote for the same set of names either way.  All that would change
is which ones you see first and where on the page to make your marks.
Whatever the sorting, it would be out of all the viable choices.

>point to remember, as much as you would like it to be so, this isn't
>historical middle ages ...

Bulls---um, you happen to be sadly mistaken.  I *never* want to live
in the real Middle Ages, or a latter-day version of it.  Hell, I hate
camping.  (Something that annoys me about people today who talk about
The Good Old Days: the *reason* we have modern culture is because
people *lived* in The So-Called Good Old Days and improved it.)

>this is CURRENT middle ages.

(Thank you very much for not doing the standard "this is the Society
for CREATIVE Anachronism", which often seems to me to mean "let's do
anything we want and history can go hang".)

>the historical reality is not something that the people in this
>culture would tolerate.  sometimes the "dream" must be tempered with
>"reality", common sense and practicality.

Certainly, there are many historical things we don't want: plague,
famine, oppression, real wars, et cetera.  Ordering of name choices on
a ballot is not in any such category!

> is it fair or reasonable to promote implied favorites by ordering
> them on the ballot?

I have two reasons to say it is.

The philosophical one: IF it's just as easy to be authentic as not on
some particular issue, like this, THEN on that issue we *ought to be*
centered on the real Middle Ages.  To paraphrase Churchill on a far
more serious topic, "I refuse to be impartial between the fire and the
fire department".

(Note that I wrote "IF it's just as easy to be authentic".  That's a
big IF.  That excludes: poor period sanitation, banning glasses or
other modern medical aids, famine, oppression, real wars, et cetera.)

> one, names that will pass heraldically - and correct me if i'm
> wrong, but i was under the impression that the names on the ballot
> have already passed this test. ...

No, they haven't.

First, the only way to say to tell for sure whether a name will pass
or not is to do it: submit it officially and see whether Laurel
registers it or not.  That has not been done for any of these: it
takes a minimum of 4 months.  What we did was circulate the names
among some heralds and say "what do you think about the period style
and registerability of these names?".

It's the difference between saying "Sir Madhi, do you think I'm ready
to authorize?" and going up to the marshal to authorize for the first
time.  Or the difference between sketching a dress at an event for a
few costuming Laurels to comment on, and entering the finished dress
in Gulf Wars A&S.

Second, each name was looked at by maybe one to three people.  He,
she, or they may have overlooked something.

Third, you can't say "period / non-period", "will work / won't work".
When you devise a new name, a dress, a suit of armor, a beer, all you
can say is that it's closer to period style because of these factors,
and further from period style due to these other factors.  It's
multiple sliding scales.

All we can say now is that the only names on the ballot are the ones
that are *probably* registerable.  The more stars, the likelier it is
that it can be registered.

So here's the other reason, the practical one: the five-star and
four-star names are more likely to be registered.  Favoring them saves
effort.

> i was always taught the traditional purpose of a ballot is one man,
> one vote, seeking majority consensus from a population.

In this case, it's one person, up to 21 votes however they like.

> following your initial comments, you seem to want things closer to
> historical middle ages, so why bother even asking the serfs what we
> want, why don't you simply tell us what's best for us and enforce
> the class distinctions ... (grin)

Do you know just how hurtful that is?  "(grin)" doesn't excuse it.

I have tried to do everything I could think of to help make things
open, participatory, consensus-based.  I've discussed issues, like how
do we vote, or how do we get candidates.  I objected when it looked to
me like Sosha was just going to do the ballots on her own without
knowing about the procedures that people had discussed and gotten
comfortable with.  I pointed out the value of consensus.  I put this
nearly-final ballot on the list, after someone suggested "no need to
bother -- just send it to Sosha".

If you don't see that, either I've expressed myself badly somewhere,
I've been lazy, or you're blind.

[snipped other credential-waving and rant on the value of voting and
consensus]

So when you accuse me of wanting "serfs" and wanting to lord it up, me
who hopes to be Viewed With Alarm as a Bomb-Throwing Radical, me who
hopes to push consensus and popular participation against indifference
and "The King's / Baron's Word Is Law" (though isn't as active as he
should be) ... I'm torn between derision and anger.

Daniel "Land, bread, and peace!  Expropriate the expropriators!
ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE'S SOVIETS!" de Petrograd
-- 
                   *** NEW HOME E-MAIL ADDRESS ***
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at jump.net; 
if that fail, my work addresses are  tmcd at austin.ibm.com and tmcd at us.ibm.com.
tmcd at tmcd.austin.tx.us is a lie; tmcd at crl.com is old and will go away.

============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.