LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CALONTIR Archives


CALONTIR Archives

CALONTIR Archives


CALONTIR@LISTSERV.UNL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CALONTIR Home

CALONTIR Home

CALONTIR  January 2015

CALONTIR January 2015

Subject:

Re: Current Peerage Orders Was: From SCA.org: 4th Peerage

From:

Mark Schuldenfrei <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Historical Recreation in the Kingdom of Calontir <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:26:47 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (71 lines)

On 1/20/2015 10:58 AM, Rex Deaver wrote:
> This whole thing has been a shambles; first, the whole idea of a
> separate peerage was a long shot. Then, after proposing a peerage that
> would cover all non-rattan prowess, suddenly the archers and equestrians
> get left out of further discussion with no satisfactory explanation.
> Finally, after three years of this, the rapier community gets told 1) we
> aren't going to give you a separate peerage because you belong in the
> Chivalry and 2) we aren't going the make the changes necessary for you
> to be in the Chivalry.

As unhappy as I am with the situation we are in, I don't see it
as being all that bad.

Some of the people who opposed other people (on all sides) have
been acting badly - but that's not the same thing, and not the
lion's share.

The initial work on an additional Peerage came from a place of good
heart and spirit - albeit one that I fundamentally cannot agree
with.  They felt that certain activities should be eligible for
Peerage, which were largely foreclosed from Peerage.  (I'm not
going to get into why I disagree.)

The 4peerage Yahoo Group discussed the matter for a long time,
worked hard on the idea, and then presented it to the Board.
They wanted to see membership in the Chivalry opened to them,
but felt that was impossible, so they recommended a new
Omnibus Peerage.

Nothing happened.

Certain people took the idea, and added it to the SCA 2010
Census as a series of questions.  (Again: I think there were
both technical problems in how they did that, and political
problems with doing it at all, but they did it.)

They looked at the results, and found that there was more
support for an additional Rapier Peerage by far, than for
an Omnibus Peerage or any other individual new Peerage.

This put them on the reasonable horns of a dilemma - go for
what appeared to be the sole possible result (which was
still a long shot) or fight the absolutely impossible
fight for an Omnibus Peerage.

They chose - that wasn't an unreasonable choice.

The Board has certainly given advocates and opponents every
opportunity to be heard and to provide input, and (for the
SCA) an extraordinarily large number of people did so.

And, while the Board voted no, it did so for REMARKABLE reasons:
   3 Directors voted for a New Peerage for Rapier
   2 Directors were in favor of Peerages for Rapier in the Chivalry
   2 Directors were in favor of an Omnibus New Peerage

This is hardly a fiasco for Rapier: it's a setback, sure.

BUT NOTHING HERE SAYS THE WAY FORWARD IS CLOSED.

In fact, the way forward is open.  2 Directors wanted the goal
the originators of the movement desired most, 2 wanted the
goal the originators compromised against, and 3 wanted the
least desired compromise of them all.

	Tibor

--
Manage your subscription at  http://listserv.unl.edu.
listserv.unl.edu lists do not accept incoming email from Yahoo.com, AOL.com or Dropbox.com due to their DMARC policies.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.UNL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager