Tibor, can you post a link to the census summary document again? I'd like
to refresh my memory on the numbers you mention.


Qui mieux fait, mieux vault.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Mark Schuldenfrei <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 12/4/2014 6:05 PM, Steven Boyd wrote:
>> Whether there should be three peerages, with or without recognition
>> of "ancillary martial arts", or four peerages with the fourth
>> including all three of those activities is a reasonable question to
>> discuss.  The current proposal condemns the Society to another decade
>> arguing what is worth a peerage.
> My thinking of our structure for Peerages is relatively unchanged -
> and has been this way for a very long time.
> Someone forwarded a Facebook post to me, that has added to that
> opinion. (I hate Facebook.)
> I prefer to have a "framework" as a way of thinking about things,
> and for me the Peerages are a simple framework for rewarding the
> best of what makes this organization tick.
>   Pelican: is for doing service and infrastructure work for the SCA.
>   Laurel: is for doing what the SCA does, training and teaching.
>   Chivalry: are the ur-Peerage, and are "sports heroes".
> While, on paper, the Chivalry are just an award for being
> excellent at knocking bodies with sticks, in practice the
> Chivalry are the inspiration and source for everything we
> have ever come to be as an organization and the men and
> women in it take that inspirational role very seriously.
> You don't get a Peerage for being just "good at something".
> You get it for helping the organization be, and grow, and
> remain true to itself.
> In some places within the Society (maybe not yet Calontir,
> but certainly in some), it may be time for the Chivalry to
> be PERMITTED and ENCOURAGED to add martially inspirational
> people to their Peerage who do not perform their art with
> rattan.
> This would have the benefit of leaving the core framework
> alone, while slowly encouraging rapier to integrate more
> fully into what exists.  I am not a member of the Chivalry,
> but I think if faced with that possibility/opportunity,
> and if made aware how it could heal the discord that exists,
> I think they'd slowly consider it.
> I think the Board should remove the Corpora language that
> prevents the Chivalry from accepting qualified C&T or
> rapier practitioners, and then it should strongly encourage
> the Chivalry (and the other orders, as appropriate) to act.
> And wait.
> If, in a few years or so, the Chivalry (and other Peerages)
> haven't worked to heal the rift, perhaps then it is time
> for the Board to upset the applecart.
> Right now (if the 2010 Census means anything), most people
> don't want changes, but those that answered the rapier
> question positively, mostly wanted to use existing Peerages.
> Why don't we do what people wanted?
>         Tibor
> --
> Manage your subscription at
> lists do not accept incoming email from,
> or due to their DMARC policies.

Manage your subscription at lists do not accept incoming email from, or due to their DMARC policies.