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