[Stargate] Waterbearing proposal request for comments

Michael Tucker java_kensai at verizon.net
Tue Jun 17 12:31:14 PDT 2008


On Jun 17, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Hugh Killingbury wrote:

> My question on the end of the two emails I sent was simply:
>
> Is Feast next?

The Society President has promised "no".

> And why can't this be added to the pre-existing waiver?
>

The proposed change seems to be intended to shift the burden of suit  
away from the Society (which can be sued) to individuals (who  
probably can't be, under the Good Samaritan rules, but even if they  
were that wouldn't be the Society's problem). Adding text to the  
waiver might accomplish the same thing, but what text do you add to  
get the Society off the hook in 50 states (with different rules) and  
hundreds of countries (with *way* different rules)? I agree with the  
President's strategy for the SCA Inc. to just wash their hands of  
being responsible for waterbearers.

I agree, though, that the logic becomes strained if you start  
comparing activities. If we're better off not regulating  
waterbearers, then why not fighters, too? If waterbearers need a  
specific "we don't regulate that activity" clause in the corporate  
rules, then why not those who cook and serve feasts? It gets crazy  
fast. I don't begin to understand the litigious mindset.

> I also see the possibility of attending an event and there being no  
> water stations set up if this is handed down. Go Prepared!
>

That's a possibility *now*. If no one volunteers *now*, there is no  
water station set up. This proposed change has nothing to do with  
whether there are (or ought to be) volunteers; just whether we treat  
them as "officers" (official representatives of the SCA) or an  
unofficial "guild".

I say: don't worry, be happy. If you're waterbearing now, continue to  
do so (please!). The corporate president might have to add a  
paragraph to her rulebook. The local seneschal might have to strike  
"Waterbearer" from the list of official local officers. And event  
planners might have to strike the $10 (or whatever it is) from their  
budget for waterbearing supplies. Other than that: il n'est pas un  
différence. At least, that's the way I read this. :-)

> YIS,
> Lord Hugh Killingbury
> Stargate Baronial Waterbearer
>

Michael Silverhands


More information about the Stargate mailing list