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.