[Stargate] Waterbearing proposal request for comments

[Hugh Killingbury]

My interpretation was nothing has changed but it is up for a change. If you have comments please forward them to the BOD so they can be muddled over. 

Please forward your thoughts and opinions to the BOD. <--------

My question on the end of the two emails I sent was simply:

Is Feast next? And why can't this be added to the pre-existing waiver?

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

YIS,
Lord Hugh Killingbury
Stargate Baronial Waterbearer


--- On Tue, 6/17/08, Michael Tucker <java_kensai at verizon.net> wrote:

> From: Michael Tucker <java_kensai at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [Stargate] Waterbearing proposal request for comments
> To: "Barony of Stargate" <stargate at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 1:20 PM
> On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Maria Buchanan wrote:
> 
> > FYI - We may have to discontinue having people walking
> > around with water and food.  It looks like we can
> > still have a table where the water and food can be
> > placed and people can serve themselves.
> >
> > You know, I'm getting tired of the stupid people
> who
> > want to sue everyone.  They really take the fun out of
> > things.
> >
> > Maria
> 
> Maria,
> 
> Thanks for forwarding this. It's certainly of interest
> to anyone who  
> attends events in the heat (and that's pretty much all
> of us),  
> whether they fight or not.
> 
> However, I don't think I read the proposal the way you
> did. I  
> understand it to say we can continue waterbearing exactly
> the way we  
> are now -- folks on the list field, walking the perimeter,
> etc. -- if  
> we want to. The only difference is that the activity
> won't be  
> "regulated, warranted, organized, controlled, or
> sanctioned by the  
> SCA, Inc.".
> 
> I.e. there won't be an official Waterbearer officer.
> I.e. we'd be  
> back to exactly the way we used to do it: volunteers and
> households  
> doing this because they want to, and because it needs
> doing. We're  
> free to continue doing it pretty much any way we want as
> long as it  
> isn't an official office. The new rule "does not
> either address or  
> restrict such volunteer activity or the methods by which it
> occurs."
> 
> In fact, I read it to mean we can still have the same
> officers,  
> training and organization structure that we currently have
> in place,  
> which would be great. Mistress Hillary worked hard to get
> that ball  
> rolling, and it would be nice to see it continue. We just
> have to  
> call them a *guild* instead of *officers*. Big woop. :P
> 
> That being said, I agree that living in a litigation-crazed
> world  
> (and having a hobby headquartered in one of the most
> litigious states  
> in the country) can "really take the fun out of
> things". On the other  
> other hand, I'm glad we've got folks thinking ahead
> like this, so we  
> can just publish a rule change and keep on keepin' on.
> It's a much  
> better use of our dues money than paying off some stupid
> lawsuit.
> 
> My 2 coppers.
> 
> Michael Silverhands
> _______________________________________________
> Stargate mailing list
> Stargate at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/stargate-ansteorra.org