[Steppes] An informal poll and February Populace

[Russell & Erika Kinder]

Hi everyone! First off, let me say that I completely agree with Count  
Gunthar. He said nothing that I disagree with. Since it rarely occurs  
that an opinion is articulated with which I agree one hundred  
percent, hooray for him!

Also, for those folks who have actively looked for alternative sites:  
hooray for you and your initiative.

Here is my list of pros and cons in regards to the Canton location,  
with a bit of commentary.

Pros:

1. Some people in the Steppes are really attached to the site. They  
will be mostly dissatisfied with any other site. We can expect a  
certain number of people, due to the memories attached to the Canton  
site, or certain amenities they enjoy, will be hard to please if we  
move the site. I think this is a big part of why Warlord hasn't been  
moved anywhere else.

2. Showers are nice.

3. There is a hall - but this hall is more of a con (see #2 below)  
than a pro

Cons:

1. Many people really hate this site. I know we prefer events not  
held at Canton. Many of our friends won't go to events at Canton.

2. Yes there is a hall - but the hall is impossibly mundane,  
expensive, and really loud. I've never been to a good court inside  
that hall, even when a microphone has been present. (There has to be  
a microphone, because there isn't really a way for people to hear  
otherwise.) One reason it is so loud is because the hall echoes...  
every chair that moves, every cough, every time the doors open... You  
get the idea. The hall is not conducive to feasts, since there isn't  
really a good kitchen. And as far as any physical activity in the  
hall... a concrete floor is killer on the feet, and brutal to the  
joints.

3. There isn't a right to drink alcohol, by the way. Unless I am  
mistaken, it is technically supposed to be a dry site, but this isn't  
enforced.

4. It's kind of far away. Surely there are closer sites.

5. The site is either very muddy or very dusty. Either way, it is one  
of the most unpleasant sites in this respect (except for the Camp  
Cimmaron site in OK).

6. Bugs have been an issue. As my sister put it: "Remember the great  
grasshopper migration during Ansteorra's Twentieth Year?"

7. Shade really is a problem.

8. Flooding is a problem.

The rest of my cons address what many people see as pros, but I  
mostly see as cons:

The site can host a large number of people, and large number of  
activities simultaneously. In reality this means that while a largish  
number of people pass through gate, they come to do their thing, in  
their area, and then leave. And if you want to do multiple things,  
the event is simply to spread out and overbooked to be conducive to  
this.

Because the site is ugly and doesn't feel timeless in the least - and  
because it is a pretty terrible place to camp (read: bugs, no shade,  
dust/mud, flooding), lots of people do stay in the available hotels.  
This means that in addition to everyone being spread out, not many  
people stick around on the site. That is not really a good thing. I  
agree with Count Guntar on this one - other sites will always have  
hotels within a 30 mile radius. The hotels are not a big factor here.

The issues of accommodating equestrian & archery - or any of the  
other events that aren't the Chivalric or Rapier tourneys - seems  
like one that is not an absolute. Since when did the term Warlord  
come to mean "a series of competitions for everything that anyone  
want to do in the SCA"? People asked us to plan for dancing at  
Warlord in the past few years, and we've been reluctant - it doesn't  
really fit in with the tone of the event. Dance is more courtly  
pursuit than Warlord requires, and fits in better with a more court  
centered event - in the same way that bardic competitions are often  
better done at night, around a bonfire or surrounded by torches.  
Shoving in a bunch of activities purely for the sake of "doing it  
all" means that all but the central activities become marginalized.  
Also, with the limited participation some things have the activities  
can lose their purpose, ambient feel, or substance.

Nobody means insult to folks who want to do non-fighting related  
things at Warlord. But it is an unreasonable expectation that we find  
a site that can accommodate all of the activities. I think that  
people should be open to a new site. If we try a new site and hate it  
BIG DEAL! We can always go back to Canton or try something new the  
next year. Being attached to a place because it meets some needs  
shouldn't prevent us from trying other sites that meet other needs.  
The general lack of flexibility the debate about the Canton site is  
why the event has stagnated into something we haven't enjoyed for  
years. In a way, it is a clear example of the general problem of day- 
trippers and events that aren't really worth going to.

Shaking things up often brings a bit of energy to a tired group.  
Maybe we should try it.

~ HL Isabeau

> Master Robin said:
>
> Easy minimum requirements are:
> A large list field,
> Parking for over 600,
> Camping for over 400,
> A hall big enough for court,
> Nearby hotel rooms for over 200, that are normally empty on a holiday
> weekend.
>
> The harder requirements are:
> A safe archery range,
> A big enough place for equestrian events (and the right to have horses
> onsite),
> the right to drink alcohol, and
> enough showers for 400.


> Count Gunthar said:

> Why are archery or equestrian so important that a site is to be  
> negated
> if they can't be accomodated? Less than 5% of the attendees combined
> pay much attention to these. I'm not saying they aren't part of the
> SCA or important in their own right. But we lose a great site because
> 5% of people can't play their game for one event that isn't focused
> on them?
> Warlord is about the armored championship primarily. The rapier
> second. The courts. The bardic. Ect...
> If there is space for the archery or equestrian and such I love having
> them there. I also like motels and air conditioning. But why are these
> required? We did quite well without them for many years.

> And this isn't being said because I'm some bigoted stickjock.
> I'm looking at attendance and what people are doing as well
> as what the event is about. If we find a great site for 12th Night
> but there is no room for armored combat, I'm all for it. 12th Night
> isn't about fighting. The main concern for 12th Night is kitchen
> facilities and seating.
>
> I don't hate archery or equestrian or air conditioning or nice halls.
> I LOVE equestrian. But that isn't the focus of the event. Armored
> combat, rapier, bardic, dancing, courts, etc...can all be utilized in
> the same space. Equestrian and archery demand a large area that
> may not be available. So we lose a good site because of this?