From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 28 19:08:32 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 15:30:17 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Members of the Council To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have moved to San Jose, CA, where my address is: 3806 Williams Rd. San Jose, CA 95117 408 244-3330 David/Cariadoc From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 29 00:32:14 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 23:41:02 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: hello? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L (so much for a listserv opening up discussions..... there hasn't been a whole lot on here yet - so i thought i'd send this piece along, for commentary, suggestions, and to get the ball rolling. alban) i was reading a copy of _The Economist_, and came across the following piece. it struck some faint chords regarding the sca, especially the last two paragraphs. i offer the whole thing for your perusal, as a sort of "whack on the side of the head" thing to generate ideas? -alban- >from _The Economist_, 16 September 1995, pp. 50-52 If there were a prize for the nation that had rolled back furthest the frontiers of the state, there could be only one winner: the Somalis. In fact they have rolled the state of Somalia - heir to British and Italian colonialism - clean off the map. Or have they? True, it has no national government, no nationwide institutions. Yet there is considerable co-operation between the different parts of the country, and between different clans. Rather than anarchy, the Somalis have created a decentralised society, where life goes on in a surprisingly effective - if peculiar - way. Do they actually want or need "the state" as the world understands it? And if not, what? From a group of academics at the London School of Economics (LSE) comes a "menu of options" suggesting different paths that Somalis could use, if not to reinvent the state, at least to provide a framework for co-operation and perhaps the semblance of statehood - if they want it. Start, they suggest, from the fact that Somalis are extraordinarily individualistic. Richard Burton, a British explorer of the area in the mid-1800's, described them as "a fierce and turbulent race of republicans". Their politics traditionally have been uncentralised, more akin to those of Afghan clans than African kingdoms. The country's 7m-9m people are divided into some 100 clans, based on patrilineal ties that go back about 20 generations. You can call on your fifth cousin several times removed to help you fight your neighbour or claim compensation from wrongs committed by other clans. The call for clan revenge or compensation, rather than punishment by sovereign justice, means that even the most trivial crime is highly political. Of the American and United Nations intervention in 1992-95, the LSE report says: >The international community, with its assumption of universal hierarchical government, requested >the Somali people to "Take us to your leaders", and the Somalis, whose political philosophy is >profoundly different, have taken them to the cleaners. The world then complained of the failure of Somali leadership. The LSE academics point out that this sort of leadership never existed in the first place. Can you run a country based on independent clans made up of very independent-minded individuals? Hard, says the report. Somalia is today split into three main bits: the self-proclaimed Republic of Somaliland in the north-west; the north-east, with its centre at Bosaso; and the riverine area in the south, of the Digil and Rahanweyne clans. Mogadishu, the supposed capital, lies smashed and divided, still a battleground for factions. Its airport is closed, its seaport operates sporadically, ministries are in ruins, water and electricity run at times. Yet Mogadishu is not Somalia and elsewhere things are not so bad. Somaliland, proclaimed in 1991, works. Though its government does not control even the airport of the capital, Hargeisa, three miles from the city, it does hold the port of Berbera. Because customs and controls are light and cheap, Berbera has boomed in the past two years, with a stream of dhows and quite large vessels, taking livestock to Saudi Arabia and brining in oil and manufactures. Other parts of Somalia have ad hoc postal services and telephone links, and a surprising amount of trade. Allow that a centralised state is inappropriate and impossible to restore, what else could the Somalis do? The report offers four options: federation, confederation, a decentralised unitary state with regional autonomy, and "consociation" - a decentralised state based on clan affiliation, not territory. But one of the report's authors, Professor Ioan Lewis, reckons that a further option is the most likely, at least in the short term: practical co-operation in specific fields, without reference to any national political authority. Translation: no government at all, just inter-clan agreements in areas of common interest, such as health, educational, or veterinary services, posts and telecoms, or currency. The result could fulfil the fundamental political wish of all Somalis, summed up by one quoted in a British official report of 1940: "We want to be well governed, but we want to be left alone." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 29 09:04:23 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:33:23 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: The people To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun I have had a long talk with my shire. The people there are for a stronger centralized organization, reducing the emphasis on kingdoms, and closing the membership. They said that they want to be part of a "real" organization, that the SCA should work something like the Boy Scouts and not like an "ad hoc feel good past time." This is not a view that has been expressed frequently in Council discussions. I was surprised by both the uniformity (since we are not a shire that agrees easily) and the passion of the response. These people have been thinking about this and feel strongly about it. I think there are at least two factors at work here. One, a backlash factor, was expressed at the meeting. They are sick and tired of the SCAinc bashing on the internet. They listed the names of a number of people who post frequently, whose views have apparently been rubbing them the wrong way. I have suggested that they post their own views. This indicates to me that there is a substantial silent group out there--are they the majority? It could well be that certain views are getting aired out of proportion to the number of people who hold those views--the tail wagging the dog. The second factor is that the membership of our shire is relatively new. We have a few members who have been in for more than fifteen years, but the greater number has been in ten or less. There was no cleavage on this line in the shire discussion--old timers and newer folk agreed. However, this length of involvement may be significant when we look at the SCA as a whole. Many times I have heard arguments based on the history of the SCA, the original vision, the formation of the corporation, etc. I do not think that these arguments cut any mustard. People who have been in seven years, who have served in offices and been recognized with high awards, do not consider themselves newcomers. They see themselves as full-fledged members whose ideas and visions are as valid as those of the founding generation. Given the growth in membership in the past ten years, it is likely that there are far more people in this new generation than remain of the elder generations. This puts a different spin on the question of who owns the SCA. I do not think that the Council has the energy, will, or resources to canvass the Known World. We can, however, at least go to our local groups. It would be very helpful in our deliberations to have some picture of what the people think. Would the rest of you go to your local groups (not just your like-minded friends), listen to what they say, and try to get an idea of where they are coming from to share with the rest of us? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 29 11:12:36 1995 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 15:38:30 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: The people To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Greetings from Alysoun ...whose comments merit a lot of real careful thought. So I'll proceed to= =20 contradict myself and respond right away. >... The people there are for a stronger >centralized organization, reducing the emphasis on kingdoms, and closing=20 >the membership.=20 As I interpret it, this means reducing the emphasis on kingdoms in favor of= =20 the Society as a whole (or the Board?), and making membership compulsory fo= r=20 participation. Or am I misreading you? =20 >They said that they want to be part of a "real" organization, >that the SCA should work something like the Boy Scouts and not like an "ad >hoc feel good past time." Tell me more - this looks like a *very* short shorthand for a whole bunch o= f=20 opinions and ideas, that don't necessarily entail each other.=20 Criticism against the "ad hoc feel good past time" atmosphere of the SCA is= one=20 of the focal points of the Nordmark secessionists, who say that they want t= o do=20 more of actual historical re-creation, rather than just party in faintly=20 medieval-flavor clothes; on the other hand, mention the Board to some of th= ose=20 people, and they'll start looking around for the nearest barrel of tar and = bag=20 of feathers.=20 I certainly feel that I'm pretty close to the "rabid federalist" end of the= =20 GC spectrum, but I very much believe that the SCA *should* work more like t= he=20 Boy Scouts, in the following sense: The Boy Scouts have a common ground on which they can meet in their activit= ies,=20 regardless of what part of the States, or indeed what part of the world, th= ey=20 come from. When a Scout sees a group of young people in uniform-like clothe= s=20 camping in the woods, he can fairly immediately tell whether they are Scout= s=20 or not; if they are, he will recognize their insignia, understand their=20 organization and be able to take his proper place in their activities witho= ut=20 lengthy explanations. - Where I live, this is true for Scouts from Sweden,= =20 Germany, England or even the Czech Republic, and when US or Australian Scou= ts=20 come over, they fit in without any major trouble.=20 Now: all this doesn't mean that all the world's Scouts are part of the same= =20 *corporation*, just as all the world's soccer players don't belong to the s= ame=20 club. What they do is to play the same *game*. The Scout's Oath is much the= same=20 all over the world, and so are the soccer rules. This has very little to do= with=20 how exactly the local club is organized on the bureaucratic side; that aspe= ct=20 simply has to be legally correct in whatever state or country the club is a= ctive. So... It's very well possible to be a federalist on the organizational side= , and=20 still be convinced that we should all go on "playing the same game" (with m= y=20 apologies to those who resent the terminology; the term "game" is not inten= ded=20 to be demeaning, I just use it as a handy short for the contents of what we= do,=20 as opposed to the "real world" organizational interface). =20 >... They are sick and tired of the SCAinc bashing >on the internet. They listed the names of a number of people who post >frequently, whose views have apparently been rubbing them the wrong way.=20 >I have suggested that they post their own views. Your suggestion is right. Suggest it again, as often as it takes. People co= mplain=20 on the wrong forum way too often.=20 My local group complained for ages that the Kingdom and Society heraldry=20 officers were ignoring us. When I got in touch with Laurel, I found out tha= t he=20 was totally ignorant of our troubles - noboody had bothered to tell *him*, = they=20 only grumbled at Canton meetings!=20 Similarly, if the local members resent the opinions of people who would spe= ak in=20 their name, then they should tell their would-be representatives. And if th= e=20 local members don't think anybody is willing to listen, then we should at l= east=20 try to convince them to the contrary. =20 >... Many >times I have heard arguments based on the history of the SCA, the original >vision, the formation of the corporation, etc. I do not think that these >arguments cut any mustard. People who have been in seven years, who have >served in offices and been recognized with high awards, do not consider >themselves newcomers. They see themselves as full-fledged members whose id= eas >and visions are as valid as those of the founding generation. The funny part is, you can use historical arguments to support just about a= ny=20 thesis on what the SCA ought to be. (In fact, the Nordmark secession was ba= sed=20 on exactly that.) There aren't all that many real, real oldtimers around in= all=20 local groups. Besides, I'm pretty sure that even if you asked everybody wit= h 20+=20 years in the SCA, and still active, a few significant questions, they would= n't=20 all agree on the answers. =20 >Given the growth in membership in the past ten years, it is likely that th= ere >are far more people in this new generation than remain of the elder >generations. This puts a different spin on the question of who owns the SC= A. Hmmm... Not really, in my book. To me the question has always been how to m= ake=20 the SCA work for those who are active now. I don't much care about re-creat= ing a=20 re-creation group of twenty years ago. How about the rest of you people? (I= know=20 there are some *real* oldtimers out there, who may feel that, with my barel= y ten=20 years, I ought to go skip a rope, or something.) =20 >I do not think that the Council has the energy, will, or resources to canv= ass >the Known World. We can, however, at least go to our local groups. It would >be very helpful in our deliberations to have some picture of what the peop= le >think. Would the rest of you go to your local groups (not just your >like-minded friends), listen to what they say, and try to get an idea of >where they are coming from to share with the rest of us? This is exactly what I'm trying to do with the Drachenwald survey. Before w= e=20 assume too much about how Drachenwalders feel, what they need and what thei= r=20 problems are, somebody ought to ask them, and now somebody has. I've sent o= ut=20 49 questionnaires and have so far, three weeks after deadline, received 15= =20 answers, so I go on mailing and phoning to get some more. There will be a r= eport=20 out eventually - but it may take another month or so.=20 A while back I took part in a very lively Internet discussion on the subjec= t of=20 "landmarks" for the SCA, landmarks being the common denominators - in terms= of=20 contents, "the Game", rather than form, "the Corp" - that would define SCA = groups=20 as distinct from other medievalist groups, live role-playing clubs etc. etc= .=20 To my great sadness, the landmark discussion didn't generate a specific pro= posal=20 at that time, but there is hope that a proposal will turn out at least befo= re the=20 end of this year. I'm convinced that such a proposal would provide a good b= asis=20 for discussion on the GC, on the IKC and, via TI and Kingdom newsletters, a= mong=20 people in general. It would give us a well-needed focus for asking people w= hat=20 they think, and I certainly agree with Alysoun that we do need to ask. /Catrin =20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 29 13:23:57 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 46 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:07:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Who owns the SCA? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have been around for over 20 years, and I can attest to the fact that as long as I've been around, there hasn't been a single vision of what the SCA is supposed to be right. I remember a kingdom officer and founding member of a kingdom getting quite cranky about the Board's invention of the Order of the Pelican. Like Tom Paine, I think every generation has a right to consent to the institutions that govern them, and even alter them (otherwise the consent is phony). On the other hand, there are common-sense limits to this kind of thing, too. If one generation has the right to use up all the earth's oxygen, obviously the principle has been taken to a ridiculous extreme. The SCA traditions that hold us together should be mucked with quite carefully, as much for symbolic reasons as practical ones. Symbolism here is practical, as in the Boy Scout example. Unfortunately, the monarchical system we have is both core tradition and a practical expedient that has its severe limitations. Again, a principle (or at least a core symbolic idea) has gone perhaps too far. SCA kingship had coelesced by January of A.S. II (1968). Did anyone then think that kingdoms would grow so large that couples would be spending between 10 and 13,000 US dollars to tour around them and make the royalty accessible? (Recent Midream monarchs.) This is obviously nuts, but how to change it, given the symbolism involved. Many other examples could be brought up -- how many peerages should there be, etc.? All sorts of rationales for changing things can be brought up. However, really significant changes are unlikely to be accepted universally and will lead to schism, permanent schisms. Perhaps a key group of symbols and practices can be agreed on, but I am pessimistic. I am one of those people who think that corporate unity of some sort, based on a purely contemporary set of practices, has an important role in keeping the SCA together. It is a pretty diverse organization already, and without some central non-medieval institutions, I see it blowing to the four winds. I would hate to be in the situation where there was no way of distinguishing, organizationally, the Tuchux from the Middle Kingdom or Trimaris. The schisming of the SCA into a million competing pieces will eventually take place, sometime between now and the year 3000, but I'm not in a hurry for this to happen. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 29 09:04:23 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 08:33:23 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: The people To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun I have had a long talk with my shire. The people there are for a stronger centralized organization, reducing the emphasis on kingdoms, and closing the membership. They said that they want to be part of a "real" organization, that the SCA should work something like the Boy Scouts and not like an "ad hoc feel good past time." This is not a view that has been expressed frequently in Council discussions. I was surprised by both the uniformity (since we are not a shire that agrees easily) and the passion of the response. These people have been thinking about this and feel strongly about it. I think there are at least two factors at work here. One, a backlash factor, was expressed at the meeting. They are sick and tired of the SCAinc bashing on the internet. They listed the names of a number of people who post frequently, whose views have apparently been rubbing them the wrong way. I have suggested that they post their own views. This indicates to me that there is a substantial silent group out there--are they the majority? It could well be that certain views are getting aired out of proportion to the number of people who hold those views--the tail wagging the dog. The second factor is that the membership of our shire is relatively new. We have a few members who have been in for more than fifteen years, but the greater number has been in ten or less. There was no cleavage on this line in the shire discussion--old timers and newer folk agreed. However, this length of involvement may be significant when we look at the SCA as a whole. Many times I have heard arguments based on the history of the SCA, the original vision, the formation of the corporation, etc. I do not think that these arguments cut any mustard. People who have been in seven years, who have served in offices and been recognized with high awards, do not consider themselves newcomers. They see themselves as full-fledged members whose ideas and visions are as valid as those of the founding generation. Given the growth in membership in the past ten years, it is likely that there are far more people in this new generation than remain of the elder generations. This puts a different spin on the question of who owns the SCA. I do not think that the Council has the energy, will, or resources to canvass the Known World. We can, however, at least go to our local groups. It would be very helpful in our deliberations to have some picture of what the people think. Would the rest of you go to your local groups (not just your like-minded friends), listen to what they say, and try to get an idea of where they are coming from to share with the rest of us? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 29 14:25:45 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13:53:17 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Unity; The Society and the Corporation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr writes a nice piece, whose core (I think) is this: >I am one of those people who think that corporate unity of some sort, based >on a purely contemporary set of practices, has an important role in keeping >the SCA together. I largely concur, with one caveat -- while I think we need such a thing, it isn't clear to me that it should be the SCA, Inc. The Corporation has been the focal point of the game -- the common point -- for a long time, for no particularly good reason save that it was the easy option. I think that the time for this may have passed, though. It is *quite* clear to me that the single-Corporation model works poorly on an international level, and it isn't clear that it works well on the national one. Accepting the concept of multiple Corporations, but still a single unified Society, might well be much healthier. Note that I am *not* proposing the dissolution of the center of the SCA here (which some people have interpreted me to mean in the past); rather, I am talking about a shift in focus, with a unifying body that is independent from the Corporate concerns. There are many possible forms for this body (although I personally like the IAC model as a concept) -- the point is, it would be the body empowered to address the in-game issues of Who We Are. (More specifically, it would probably be the proper arbiter of Corpora.) And yes, I know that there are a bunch of practical questions linked to this -- we can't change the top without changing a whole lot of details. This is a somewhat specialized case of a larger issue, which I've been meaning to bring up here for several days. In the Membership Working Group, we've found that it is rather difficult to separate the membership issues from larger issues of Corporate structure. Several of us have been arguing at inordinate length about Big Issues, which seem to need answers before we can get a good answer to membership. And the central question, it seems to me, is this: What is the current relationship between the Society and the SCA, Inc., and what *should* it be? My viewpoint is that the two are separable, and both would be far healthier for a clear delineation; others (most notably Gareth) have disagreed *vigorously* with me about this. I think that this may be The Big Question, which we've been skirting around for months. Until we have a clear understanding of it, I don't think we *can* make solid, consistent long-term plans. This determines what the *purpose* of the Corporation is, and until we know that, we can't really make good plans. So I put it to the Council at large: are the SCA and SCA, Inc. indissolubly linked? Can they be separated? Should they be separated? Go to it... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "To a Russian, death is a serious matter. Life is no joke either." -- from The Assassination Bureau From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 29 14:46:06 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:14:13 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: The people To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <950929083322_32340306@mail04.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun describes how her local shire is very strongly tilted in one direction politically, and wonders if there is a great pro-centralization "silent majority" out there. Actually, it doesn't surprise me at all. SCA branches, like most social groups, tend to develop "group personalities", common mindsets about certain issues. In particular, if one or two fairly influential people are of a strong opinion in one direction, the mass will frequently go along with that, sometimes even amplifying the emotion. Thus, locally, Carolingia tends to be pretty strongly pro-reform. Not universally (Carolingia almost never agrees completely on something), but in a strong broad trend. If you looked at Carolingia and extrapolated, you'd probably conclude that 75% of the Society is pissed at the current structure, and there is an overwhelming mandate for change. This is, of course, nonsense -- it simply reflects the fact that Carolingia equals Boston, and Boston tends to be a strange and radical place. Further, we need to bear in mind that most of the Society, frankly, hasn't looked at the issues. When the crisis started, there were huge numbers of people ready to tar and feather the Board, many of whom didn't know anything about what was going on. We're now well into the backlash from that, with lots of people certain that "The Net" is this big evil group out to destroy the Society. (Indeed, the backlash started quickly -- I remember when the CSOS was getting blamed for all the Society's ills, mostly by people who hadn't the *foggiest* notion what the CSOS was or what it was doing.) In other words -- a) Don't believe simple extrapolations of "what the Society believes". b) If we ever *do* want to use the desires of the membership to drive what we do, we need to do some serious education. Mind, a lot of people believe *both* that the SCA, Inc should be providing far more services and that they should be spending far less money; they just don't connect their appeals to the Board on issue X with the fact that the Board is overloaded. A sense of perspective is rare in politics, whether mundane or otherwise... -- Justin Who has, I'm afraid, grown a little cynical from listening to the swings in opinion over the past 18 months... Random Quote du Jour: Re: Popularity of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles "Of course TMNT are more popular currently than Christ. Does Christ have a daily half-hour animated show? Does Christ have an action figure line (cross, nails, 30 pieces of silver, and action manger playset sold separately)? Does Christ have a comic book? (Well, OK, if Jack Chick is still in business then I guess he does...)" -- Tom Galloway From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 2 11:49:20 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 11:20:39 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: my shire To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951001102303_113615460@mail02.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >I have worked with volunteer organizations for a long time and I know that >groups pass through developmental stages or cycles. Most likely, Justin's >group in Boston once went through this excitement stage. We are delighted >that we are starting a Latin group (even the people who don't want to be part >of it think it is a Good Thing). Justin's group has had a Latin group for >years so it is not thrilling to them. Brief digression on this topic: actually, I've found that this stage can to some degree be institutionalized. The key is new blood. One thing I've always liked about the way Carolingia works is that we have lots of both extremely experienced members and raw novices. (It's the nature of a college town like Boston.) The former provide a lot of support and stability, while the latter provide excitement and energy. This is *why* I tend to hang out with the younger crowd as much as possible, and why I'm always so sensitive to anything that I see as endangering recruitment in the Society -- as far as I'm concerned, the younger crowd are a large part of what keeps the SCA *fun*. (And, in fact, one can continue developing new groups and activities almost indefinitely. For example, I'm in the process of trying to get people seriously into period games this year, and exploring the notion of a Moneyer's Guild of some sort. And our Latin group actually never got far off the ground, although it might happen one of these days...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "My *God*! He's eating that man's *head*!" "It's *okay*, it's *okay*! I'm a *senator*!" -- from LSH From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 2 12:54:19 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:29:00 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: The people To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199510011826.OAA28484@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Sun, 1 Oct 1995 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT)) Forwarded for Tibor. People, please take note that "scagc-l@lists.princeton.edu" is *dead*. Dead, dead, dead. Please update your aliases to point to "scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" instead. Thank you... -- Justin Who should point out that Tibor isn't the only person making this mistake... >Sender: Mark Schuldenfrei >Subject: Re: The people > >Forwarded without comment, by Tibor > >Unto Alysoun (and members of the GC), >Greetings, > >On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Carole C. Roos wrote: > >> Greetings from Alysoun >> >> I have had a long talk with my shire. The people there are for a stronger >> centralized organization, reducing the emphasis on kingdoms, and closing the >> membership. They said that they want to be part of a "real" organization, >> that the SCA should work something like the Boy Scouts and not like an "ad >> hoc feel good past time." > > > >> Would the rest of you go to your local groups (not just your >> like-minded friends), listen to what they say, and try to get an idea of >> where they are coming from to share with the rest of us? > >Well, here is one data point. > >Early in 1994, soon after the Board meeting of January 22, we polled >the populace of the Barony of Montengarde (Calgary, Alberta, Canada). >The official written statement from the Board was available for >reading. > >The group began to form in 1979, but the majority of members have >been here less than ten years. > >There were 67 responses, plus 3 persons declined to be surveyed. >The following table has been converted to percentages. > > Strongly Strongly > Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree > >1) I agree with the new 2 12 9 28 49 > policy that requires > membership for all > SCA activities. > >2) I agree with the 4 21 22 25 28 > rate increases. > >3) I think that the 15 30 36 13 6 > Board should be > asked to resign. > >4) I support decentral- 45 30 19 3 3 > ization and reorgan- > ization of the SCA. > >5) I believe that An Tir 25 42 21 2 10 > should be prepared to > secede from the SCA > Inc. if necessary. > >There will undoubtedly have been some changes in opinions since >then, but I have no reason to believe that any massive shift has >taken place. > >I am sending a copy of this message to Tibor, with the request >that if he thinks it appropriate he should post it to the list. > >All my best, Thorvald Grimsson, Baron of Montengarde James Prescott (james@nucleus.com) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 2 12:54:29 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 12:23:13 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: my shire To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Justin; originally from Solveig... -- Justin >From: Solveig Throndardottir >Subject: Re: my shire >Date: Sun, 1 Oct 95 11:31:11 EDT >In-Reply-To: <951001102303_113615460@mail02.mail.aol.com>; from "Carole C. > Roos" at Oct 1, 95 10:23 am Noble Cousins and especially Lady Alysoun. Lady Alysoun wrote: > First, we don't divide the SCA into Society and SCAinc. We are very proud to > be part of an international organization that promotes research and > re-creation of the Middle Ages through an "act it out" format. We think of > ourselves as the human part of SCAinc, our shire is the South Bend branch of > SCAinc, we distribute SCAinc flyers to interested people, and our > understanding of the Game was informed by the Handbook published by SCAinc. > This doesn't mean that we don't see room for improvement. We get angry at the > board, the business office, the Kingdom seneschal, the Crown, and our own > local officers, depending on who we think is messing up at any one point in > time. Thankyou for posting what you understand about your underlying feelings about what is important to you and your group about the corporation. I wrote a private message to Master Justin a day or so ago saying that it is important to understand what these feelings really are so that we solve real problems and do so in a way that does not hurt people. Basically, it seems to me that one of the important things about the corporation for you and your group is the sense of legitimacy which it (and some sort of membership in it) gives you. Dear gentles. The society as a whole and many members have for many years laboured under a false sense of inferiority or illigitimacy. You can read echos of this any day of the year on the Rialto. Yes. The society is an amateur organization. Yes. It does admit anyone who want to join. Yes. It lets its members do pretty much what they want to. But, that does not detract from what it does being educational, worthwhile, etc. Speaking more to the corporation. While many people in the Reform Movement think that the present corporation should be either changed or replaced, that does not mean that they see themselves as enemies of the society or in many cases even of the corporation itself. The corporation has suffered from a variety of missmanagement and at least one case of embezelment. The corporation has in recent years been suffering from a general confusion about its relationship to the membership. Currently, if you call Milpitas on a Friday, you will get an answering machine refering to itself as "Customer Service" for the society. This bespeaks an attitude of separation, of lesser involvement, even a sense that members are outsiders. This is one of the things which bothers many members in places like Carolingia. Also, as Carolingia is a very old group, Carolingia has a group memory of other times when the corporation has treated either members or the East Kingdom as aliens in one way or another. So, to some extent, Carolingians are striving for some of the same sense of belonging that your group is. Add to this the historical development of who is a "member" of SCA, Inc. At one point, anyone who attended an event was (according to Corpora) a "member" of SCA, Inc. Now, it appears that even people who buy membership cards may not be "members". That was part of the position taken by corporate council (according to accounts posted by the CSOS) during the mandamus hearings. What the mandamus suit was really about was forcing the corporation to treat members like insiders instead of like outsiders. Specifically, it was about compelling the corporation to make financial disclosures to members. These disclosures were provided for by the governing documents of the corporation. Beyond all of this, concern for the existing corporation itself demands that some action be taken. If you wish to identify the society with the corporation, then there are many problems. First of all, there can be no single corporation for an international society. Corporations are dejure (legal) persons. These are creatures of local jurisdictions. Technically, the SCA, Inc. is a legal person in California and may not even be a legal person in say Nevada. Why? Well at one time the corporation was very lax about even registering itself as a foreign corporation in all 50 states and other places and the various territories and posessions of the United States. The situation is even worse for local groups in Canada, Europe, etc. Several Canadian groups have solved the problem by setting up local corporations, so have the Swedes and the Australians. At first, the SCA, Inc. was completely unprepared and unwilling to deal with these other SCA corporations. Things may have gotten better. What does this mean? Well, it means that in many places, the SCA actually operates either as an unincorporated association or as an illegally operating foreign corporation. Which of these is the case depends upon whether or not the local jurisdiction actually recognizes the existence of SCA, Inc. on its soil or not. In either case, there are potentially severe problems with limitation of liability, ownership of assets, etc. The SCA has to date been able to get away with actually doing business because of a general laxness of checking corporate documents when opening chequing accounts. People have generally assumed that because the succeeded in opening a chequing account that the corporation exists in their area. This is hardly the case. So what is going on (at least from at least one Carolingian perspective) is that we are trying to secure ourselves as members of the society in sense which is traditional for Carolingians. We are also trying to look after the financial and legal health of the society. Finally, we are trying to deal with accountability of the corporation itself. This is again one of the things about the Mandamus Suit (of which I was not personally a party). The plaintifs were claiming that the corporation was answerable and accountable to them (a normal presumption for a member to make) the corporation was asserting that they were "customers" and that the corporation was only answerable to the extent to which it expeditiously delivered Tournaments Illuminated and other publications. So to sum up. No there can not be a single international corporation. That is not really possible. (At least no single international corporation can legally sanction local events. Further, there have been multiple national or local corporations quietly coexisting for years. The exsiting SCA, Inc. has in recent years taken a hostile attitude towards "membership" and prefers to think of "members" as "customers". Further, the SCA, Inc. has at various times take a hostile attitude toward local corporations. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar Incidentally. I have a current "membership card". From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 2 14:45:22 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:11:44 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: separation of church and state To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin said: >What is the current relationship between the Society and the SCA, >Inc., and what *should* it be? My viewpoint is that the two are >separable, and both would be far healthier for a clear delineation; >others (most notably Gareth) have disagreed *vigorously* with me >about this. >I think that this may be The Big Question, which we've been >skirting around for months. Until we have a clear understanding >of it, I don't think we *can* make solid, consistent long-term plans. >This determines what the *purpose* of the Corporation is, and >until we know that, we can't really make good plans. >So I put it to the Council at large: are the SCA and SCA, Inc. >indissolubly linked? Can they be separated? Should they be >separated? Go to it... (i tend to think that we discussed a lot of this already, both here and on sca-reform - but it probably needs to be gone into periodically, just to keep discussions focussed.) (and a minor quibble: i prefer to see some term used other than "corporation"; how about "headquarters"? SCA, Inc., is incorporated in the U.S., and we haven't officially settled yet whether SCA, Inc. (U.S.) should have the legal right to impose rules on all the other nations with groups. Headquarters can make rules, but a U.S. corporation might not be able to. is this term okay for the rest of you?) back to justin: there's a predecessor question: what does the society do? what is its function? are we a recreation group? a re-enactment group? a "living archaeology" group that researches and recreates period artifacts and activities? a bunch of history fans? it's difficult to reform a structure until we know what needs that structure has to serve. over several months (years?) of discussing, and watching other discussions, about this, i sort of got the feeling that the headquarters was there to make it easier to do our thing by providing an overall structure. said structure includes things like national and regional newsletters that allow for information dissemination; and sets of rules (e.g. marshalling and armor standards, standards for names and coats of arms) that allow us to travel widely without too much change of the game. given that there have to be rules (else anarchy arises, and we become several thousand individuals all playing our own game), for me the question then becomes: what standards and rules should be imposed >From Above? the corollary to that is, how much freedom should local and regional groups have to play the game they want to play? the difficulty for us comes in deciding these two questions: whether to have a top-down structure (headquarters decides most), or a bottom-up structure (let freedom ring), or both (continuous and ongoing constitutional conventions). i tend toward the bottom-up idea, preferring more flexibility on the local level and minimal interference from above, but then again i'm a don't-trust-them- damned-bureaucrats-with-my-hard-earned-tax-dollars hippie. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 2 14:53:54 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 687 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:26:39 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: What would we do? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Tibor. I've been working on a report for a while, and became rather stuck on one point. So, I'd like to ask for advice and assistance. What ought to happen, in order to preserve the game, if the SCA Corporation suddenly became unavailable? This is not a particularly idle question. What assets of the corporation (tangible and intangible) would be needed to continue? What would take place, in what order? How could our Directors best prepare themselves and us, if they thought this was a likely eventuality? I think the only thing that really NEEDS to be replicated, is the mailing list of "members", and the rest could be rebuilt. But by whom, and how? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 2 16:22:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 15:50:30 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: What would we do? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199510021826.OAA00628@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Mon, 2 Oct 1995 14:26:39 -0400) Tibor asks about a scenario: >What ought to happen, in order to preserve the game, if the SCA Corporation >suddenly became unavailable? > >This is not a particularly idle question. What assets of the corporation >(tangible and intangible) would be needed to continue? What would take >place, in what order? How could our Directors best prepare themselves and >us, if they thought this was a likely eventuality? > >I think the only thing that really NEEDS to be replicated, is the mailing >list of "members", and the rest could be rebuilt. But by whom, and how? It all depends on your definition of "need"; this varies a lot. Personally, I suspect you could rebuild *most* (but not all) of the Society even without that mailing list, but only with the easier-to-obtain list of groups and contacts. You'd probably be able to get 90% of the SCA that way, but some people would be lost in the cracks. Other than that, it's a matter of priorities. A lot of groups would go through a lot of pain if their bank accounts vanished (although most would survive); others probably would barely notice. A lot would go through even more pain if the physical assets of the group were somehow seized. (I suspect Carolingia would care more about losing our Stuff than our money.) Ultimately, the one critical item needed would be one of the purer intangibles: the communications net. I don't mean "net" in terms of electronics -- I mean the network of contacts and communications that run through the Society. The formal part of that network is useful; at least the informal part would be *vital* to surviving a major upheaval. If people fell out of touch, that *could* really wreck the SCA. Your membership-list guess is sort of a subset of that; I assume that the *reason* for wanting that list is to keep communications lines open. I don't care quite so much about the exact mechanism, but *some* means of communication (probably several redundant means) would be essential... Also, even more intangibly, a certain measure of goodwill would be needed, in order to reconstruct such infrastructure as might be necessary. This is why, despite the fact that I think the Corporation may be doing more harm than good, I've never taken any steps to hurt it -- that could harm the *community* of the Society, and that could be irreparable... As for who would rebuild it: it would depend on the circumstances, I suspect. I'd bet that the Royalty and Kingdom Seneschals would find themselves on the front lines, heavily pressured into finding fast solutions. What those solutions might be would depend on a lot of pretty random factors... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "If at first you don't succeed -- destroy all evidence of having tried!" -- Jhanos From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 11:37:31 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:08:32 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: What would we do? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >From: Solveig Throndardottir >Subject: Re: What would we do? >To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM (SCA Grand Council Discussion list) >Date: Mon, 2 Oct 95 19:10:59 EDT Noble Cousins! Because of the the public doomesday books and phone lists, all that need happen to reconstruct a mailing list would be to call them in from the local groups and scan them. The resulting list would probably be considerably larger than the list being sent out each month by Milpitas. Again, what this does require is continued good-will between the kindoms and the local groups. Master Justin already pointed out something which I have repeatedly pointed out. The locally held "stuff" is even more important than the bank accounts. Further, the ownership of some of this "stuff" is open to question. Some of the stuff was purchased by the local group, some of it was made by members. Who owns this latter "stuff"? That could result in nastly law suits. Certainly, if the stuff were seized, locals would be much less willing to give things to a group which reported its assets externally. (That is as the assets of an external body.) The groups would survive the best if the "stuff" was sold at public auction so that it could buy back its own relics. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 12:43:30 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 11:55:36 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun (Come on, people, let's keep this thing going. There is a sword stuck in a stone and we can't get it out unless everybody gives it a try.) So far I count six specific problem areas. I could use help on finding the best way to express them. 1. The attitude of the central body toward the members. 2. The past ineptitude of the central body in legal and technical matters (Solveig's letter) 3. Lack of confidence in the central body (has there been improvement in problem 2?) 4. Gross lack of support and consideration for non-US groups 5. Present lack of technical support for local officers 6. Lack of clear articulation of the Game Problems 2-5 are related in my mind because they are about things that have to be considered no matter how we define the game or how we are organized. (If we divide along national boundaries, there will still be some questions about interactions.) Nobody in our group knows all the legal/technical stuff and we cannot afford professional advice, so local incorporation is out for us. If we incorporate by kingdom, advice might be affordable but expensive since there would be fewer of us footing the bill. We would still have the confidence problem and the local support problem. Umbrella organizations as were discussed in earlier chronicles can work, but given the present situation we could just as well have the worst of two worlds: an unreliable umbrella corporation with a bad attitude and poorly advised, poorly organized smaller corporations (possibly also with a bad attitude). From this perspective, kicking the central body into shape would seem a reasonable first step even if we ultimately want to divide into multiple corporations. My personal thought is that the attitude problem results from the combination of the other problems. When well-meaning people are put in a position where they don't know what they are doing (2-5) or why they are doing it (6), they will defend their sanity by building walls. I'll make an opposite argument in regard to the Game. Unless the rest of you think there's a real chance of a definition that will suit everyone, we should give serious thought to ideological division. It is ridiculous to think that SCAinc has a monopoly on medieval re-creation. Wouldn't it be in the best interest of all concerned to help develop alternative organizations? I have heard of four approaches to the Game. One could be called Authenticity Plus, a serious living-history approach. Another is Learn as You Go, a continuing adult ed. model. Then there is SCA-Lite, a no documentation, go with what looks good approach. And finally there is Medieval Fantasy, which can range from Camelot to whatever. Who is left out? In the early days, when the Game was in a fledgling state, we may have needed every warm body willing to wear a costume to get anything done. I don't think that this is true now, at least in the older kingdoms. As it now stands we are losing people rather than gaining by this mix of interests. Newcomers with a interest in history are put off by the fantasy element, and people who are less serious are put off by the scholarly element. A lot depends on who is the first person they talk to. I am not arguing for four different organizations since I think that some of these approachs can work together. And I am definitely not saying that the Board should pick one and get rid of everybody else. In an earlier chronicle I pointed out that there has not been a big tendency to take the idea and develop it independently. Why not? I think it may be because part of the attraction has to do with the Known World effect--having kingdoms and a network larger than the local group. If so, this is something we can help with. Division does not have to mean bloody revolts and bad feelings. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 14:09:07 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1845 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 13:33:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: What would we do? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510031508.AA21743@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Oct 3, 95 11:08:32 am Greetings from Tibor. Well, the membership lists are routinely given to Chroniclers, Kingdom Seneschals and Principal heralds, right? The stuff is also easy... Items reported on inventory lists (which are not yet fully depreciated) belong to the SCA Incorporated. Others, probably not. There is a small grey area of items that were given in exchange for tax-deductible receipts, and not recorded as assets, but those would be almost impossible to trace. The larger question remains. Who would or should take what steps or actions, in what order, to preserve our game, should the American corporation cease acting? What actions should local groups take? What role should Kingdoms take? How could a new organization be organized? How ought it to be organized? Where? Shouldn't we have at least a paper model? Disaster planning can be your friend. (Says the man who has worked on database systems designed for amazing amounts of off-site redundancy.) Tibor Quick anecdote. Fidelity Investments keeps it's major computing site in Texas, with remote mirroring and full system duplication at another building in the same office park. It also has a remote mirrored system in Boston, and is building a FOURTH mirrored system in a nearby suburb. The disaster plan calls for FULL reboot on any site, within one half hour of loss of one site. During the short time I was there as a contractor, a fire in the machine room in Texas caused an evacuation of that building, and use of the second Texas site. I didn't even notice the switchover, or the switch back. Contrariwise, I was hired to do data recovery for a small company whose systems failed, and who had never done backup on their system. It took me 4 days, and they never quite recovered. (Their system vendor said it couldn't be done at all. Heh, heh.) Planning helps... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 14:21:09 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1176 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 13:49:30 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951003115536_70516244@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Oct 3, 95 11:55:36 am Greetings from Tibor, nitpicking on one thing that Alysoun wrote: Nobody in our group knows all the legal/technical stuff and we cannot afford professional advice, so local incorporation is out for us. Mancuso's book, from 10 Speed Press, on how to incorporate in every state, is widely available, and easy to follow. Not that expensive, either. For that matter, I think it's called the Company Corporation, based in Delaware, will incorporate you for around $100 dollars in Delaware, in 3 days. Individual states cost more, frequently. Last time I checked, for example, Massachusetts charged $435 dollars a year in corporate filing fees. Tax exempt status costs more, and takes longer, but there are compeling reasons to avoid that, anyway. Make your corporate documents claim you are a nonprofit, and whatever profits come out stay with your local corporation, instead of people. No sweat. Of course, you cannot and should not use SCA Incorporated funds to do this, nor cycle private funds through an SCA account, nor transfer assets to the new corporation at other than market rates for physical assets or services. Tibor (Been thinking about it, I have...) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 16:59:18 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:27:40 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: GC: local mailing lists To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded from Jessa... -- Justin >Return-Path: <0003900943@mcimail.com> >Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 12:53 EST >From: Marla Lecin <0003900943@mcimail.com> >To: Justin du Coeur >Subject: GC: local mailing lists Justin, Solveig suffers from the advantage of having lived in (the well-organized) Barony of Carolingia. Down here in Settmour Swamp, which covers 6 and a half counties in populous north-central NJ, there are likely more than 300 SCA participants. However, we do not have an official phone list or contact list, and the baronial newsletter subscription list only has about 70 names and addresses of actual subscribers. (excluding complimentary copies) I have actually taken on the job of assembling an address and phone list for the Barony, and expect it to take a while. You can forward my comments to the Grand Council discussion. Jessa d'Avondale From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 17:05:39 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:25:54 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: What would we do? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199510031733.NAA19830@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Tue, 3 Oct 1995 13:33:06 -0400) Tibor writes: >The larger question remains. Who would or should take what steps or >actions, in what order, to preserve our game, should the American >corporation cease acting? What actions should local groups take? What role >should Kingdoms take? > >How could a new organization be organized? How ought it to be organized? Well, I can see a bunch of possibilities. (Mind, I'm doing a combination here of "What I Think *Should* Happen" and "What I Think Would Be *Likely* To Happen" here.) If the Corporation were suddenly swallowed into a back hole through no particular fault of its own, I would expect there to be *enormous* pressure to simply take the existing ByLaws and Corpora, and set up another Corporation just like it. This is probably not great, but it would be relatively fast, so I could easily see it happening. Inertia is a *very* powerful force, as is general fear of change. If some fault were found in the Corporation, I still would expect the same pressures to be there. People would be pressuring the Royalty and Seneschals for a quick fix. The likeliest such fix would be to take the existing rules, change them just enough to get around the problem, and set up a new Corporation along those lines. Again, not optimal, but it could be agreed relatively quickly, and requires little courage for taking leaps into the unknown. How feasible the above are depends on how badly broken the Corporation was found to be. If the problem were due to *major* problems with the Corporate setup, there might be enough pressure for change to cause things to go differently. In particular, if we weren't able to create a new Corporation along the lines of the old, we would likely fall into just the kind of morass we've been experiencing here, with many different alternatives being argued about endlessly. That could take quite some time. What might happen then? Local groups would be clamoring for some kind of insurance cover, as quickly as possible. If no central organization appeared quickly, capable of providing that, I think simple market pressure would result in the creation of a bunch of little Corporations, providing insurance to subsets of the Society. Some would be Kingdom-wide, some smaller, possibly some bigger. (I can easily see a really capable Corporation slowly growing through the Society, if people perceived it as doing a good job.) There would be a lot of fretting about whether the Society could hold together. We'd probably wind up with another big Royal Pow-Wow, like the one at Estrella last year; if no central Corporation had appeared by then, they would almost have to create some sort of treaty to hold things together. It's unlikely that any Kingdom would try to wander off at this point, although it's possible that some local groups would do so. This is a potential flashpoint; if the Royals couldn't agree on a satisfactory framework, things could fall apart badly. Long term is hard to be at all sure of. The mildly optimistic view is that the general social pressure to hold the Society together would be strong enough to do so. The early treaties would wind up evolving into a broader framework, with semi-autonomous Kingdoms operating within broad guidelines agreed upon at the top. The communications nets would evolve a lot, probably with a lot more horizontal communications for special interests so things can keep moving in synch. Kingdoms would be forced to do a lot of growing up *very* fast, lacking a force to keep the Royalty in line. There would probably be several years of growing pains, but it's unlikely that that would actually shatter any Kingdoms. Essentially, a medium-grade decentralization would happen, with the center existing mainly at the will of the regions. (The pessimistic view is that, without a strong center, we would all quickly drift apart. I don't buy that line of reasoning -- it appears to me that the main thing that has always held the SCA together is a general desire to stay more-or-less together. I don't see that changing.) Personally, I find this scenario pretty appealing, which is one reason I don't find myself all that scared of the prospect of the SCA, Inc vanishing somehow. But it must be noted that there are pitfalls all through this, and a *lot* of internal politics glossed over. With good will, I expect something like the above would (and should) happen; without it, it's hard to say where things would go. (Probably nowhere good...) Yes, I've avoided talking about most of the details Tibor really wants. Frankly, I think it's impossible to draft them now. The essence of good disaster planning is knowing what disasters are likely to happen; that way, you can prepare for when they do. Lacking knowledge of the likely disasters, I think it's hard to figure out how we might adjust around them, although I think one can speculate about rough magnitudes and directions... -- Justin Who has always found psychohistory to be a fun art, albeit a difficult one... Random Quote du Jour: "How does the prisoner plead?" "Cerebus *demands* that you release him or he'll call upon his dark masters to turn you into a flock of pious pink toads..." "That's not a half-bad defence." -- Black Magiking From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 18:03:22 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:27:10 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: What would we do? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Kevin, who is replying to my message; I've edited his message down a little (just chopping out some of the quoted material) and have a brief comment at the end... -- Justin Who *is* going to exercise some editorial prerogative if people persist in sending messages to me... >From: Dennis Clark >Subject: Re: What would we do? >Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 15:07:01 MDT > There would be a lot of fretting about whether the Society could hold > together. We'd probably wind up with another big Royal Pow-Wow, like > the one at Estrella last year; if no central Corporation had appeared > by then, they would almost have to create some sort of treaty to hold > things together. It's unlikely that any Kingdom would try to wander > off at this point, although it's possible that some local groups would > do so. This is a potential flashpoint; if the Royals couldn't agree on > a satisfactory framework, things could fall apart badly. Hmmm. While we are at it, lets stop treating the Royalty as if they had a corner on the common-sense and eternal chumship market. My experience is that this just isn't so. The collective that should meet to hammer out a "treaty" are the Kingdom seneschals, they understand the setup, know the laws as set down before, and usually know what is happening in the rest of the kingdom much better than the current "king/queen of the month club". Not to offend any past monarchs out there, but we will need true organizational ability, not "noblesse oblige" in order to stem the tide of chaos should the central organization fold or be destroyed, royalty is not chosen for this, kingdom officers are. Kevin -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Dennis Clark (303)229-4313 telnet 1-229-4313 email dlc@fc.hp.com | | Hewlett Packard WSY Perf. Lab, 3404 East Harmony Rd. Ft. Collins CO 80525 | | Be well, Do good work, stay in touch -- Garrison Keillor | ------------------------------CUT HERE---------------------------------------- Comment by Justin: Yes and no. On the one hand, I somewhat agree. However, as I said, I was doing a fair bit of what I think *would* happen here. And my observation is that, for better or worse, the Royalty *do* wind up dealing with things like this. I don't find that entirely bad; Kingdom Seneschals have a tendency to see things through bureaucratic filters that aren't appropriate to every situation. On par, I think the collected Royalty did as good a job reacting to last year's crises as I'd expect the Kingdom Seneschals to have, possibly better... Any single Royal I probably wouldn't trust to do it. Collectively, though, they seem to do an adequate job... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Excerpts from The Usenet Oracle's Top Ten Things About Monday: "10. Monday is really easy to spell, not like Teusday or Wensday. 9. You can tell everyone you see on Monday, about what a great weekend you had. 8. You can call in sick on Monday, to recover from the great weekend you had. 6. The solar system hardly ever blows up on a Monday. 5. Without Mondays, the rhyme would go "26 days hath September (usually)". 4. The Mamas and the Papas would have had one less hit record. 3. Monday is named for the moon, which used to be a really cool planet." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 19:51:19 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:07:04 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan... -- Justin >Date: 03 Oct 95 18:49:30 EDT >From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: Keep going Tibor said to Alisoun: >> Tax exempt status costs more, and takes longer, but there are compeling >> reasons to avoid that, anyway. Make your corporate documents claim you are >> a nonprofit, and whatever profits come out stay with your local corporation, >> instead of people. No sweat. Yes sweat. And I have not found that it takes much more in time or money, just paperwork. Corporate documents may claim you are NFP, but you can suffer nasty tax consequences, and the structure of an NFP differs significantly from a for-profit corporation. But I'm only a corporate/NFP/etc. law attorney, what do I know? I do know that laypersons often confuse legal NFP status with a corporation that makes no profit and/or simply makes no payouts to shareholders. As for the Ten Speed Press book, I know that Nolo Press also publishes a lot of information for do-it-yourselfers. I can check the latest flyer for any titles and their address, I know it's somewhere in California. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 21:17:39 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:29:33 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: What would we do? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199510021826.OAA00628@abel.math.harvard.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, > Greetings from Tibor. > > What ought to happen, in order to preserve the game, if the SCA Corporation > suddenly became unavailable? I think a lot depends on what you mean by 'the SCA Corporation suddenly became unavailable'. Option 1. By an act of God, the Milpitas office (or its current replacement) is eradicated. Option 2. Some human agency disolves the corporation. Option 1 preserves the liquid assets of the corporation but leaves us the problem of reconstructing the lists of members in order to fulfil outstanding obligations. Also, the insurance remains in force and the branches can continue to operate with free access to their assets. Option 2 preserves the records but denies everyone access to funds to do anything. The insurance is now invalid, branch bank accounts are likely to be frozen so holding events of any size becomes problematic. Response to Option 1. Kingdom Seneschals and Chroniclers get together to discuss reconstructing the membership lists (worst case, from the membership listing used to verify entrants to crown, five months ago). The board orchestrates finding and staffing a new central office and borrowing funds to cover the startup expenses. Average member goes "Oh" and ignores the incident. Response to Option 2. Average branch takes panicy, illegal actions to preserve access to liquid assets. Branches hold events in the first two weeks post crash have a chance of keeping the take at the gate out of the bank account and preserving it. After this, the emphasis switches to finding ways to hold events. Branches prevail on members to underwrite branch newsletters. Seneschallate chokes trying to deal with agency closing down SCA Inc. Crown leans on peerage orders to underwrite crown events and ends up driving the solution for their kingdom. Net works overtime offering suggestions. After six months most kingdoms and branches are back in business. A number of expensive events disappear from the calendar, never to return. Corpora remains the unifying document. TI dies. Kingdom newsletters are slow to come back. The problem being not so much the access to the membership list but the primary concern of the membership being to get the branches back on their feet followed by the Kingdoms. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 21:53:48 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 21:21:00 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510032307.AA26036@dsd.camb.inmet.com> |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > As for the Ten Speed Press book, I know that Nolo Press also publishes a lot of > information for do-it-yourselfers. I can check the latest flyer for any titles > and their address, I know it's somewhere in California. > How to Form A Non-Profit Corporation By Anthony Mancuso, Attorney" Nolo Press 950 Parker Street Berkeley CA 94710 $24.95 (when I bought it...) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 3 22:52:43 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 21:59:07 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: various To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greeting unto the Council from Serwyl, Re "What if the Society folded Scenario": The Mailing lists and regalia items (the 'stuff') are probably our most important assets. The mailing list for communication and the Stuff as an asset to the game (and for the sentimental value). Most of the important regalia is part of our regular financial reports and so would belong to the Corporation. In the event of a liquidation, it could be sold off just as group bank accounts could be siezed to pay corporate debts. All of these items are corporate assets. Justin writes: >If the Corporation were suddenly swallowed into a back hole through no >particular fault of its own, I would expect there to be *enormous* >pressure to simply take the existing ByLaws and Corpora, and set up >another Corporation just like it. This is probably not great, but it >would be relatively fast, so I could easily see it happening. Inertia >is a *very* powerful force, as is general fear of change. Agree. I seriously doubt we would end up with a better system than we have now. And it would be the Seneschals, not Crowns that will probably end up forging any agreements. In my experience, most Crowns are not equiped to handle such a situation. Their first move would be to turn to the seneschal and say "Well, DO something". Trimaris would probably not be in too bad a shape. We publish a complete telephone book for the Kingdom each reign (sponsored by the Heralds Office and funded by special fundraising activities). Incorporation in some form or another would be easy due to our geographic situation (basically one state). I do not look forward to this possibility though since we have no real desire as a Kingdom to incorporate on our own. A few people have shown an interest, but hardly anyone with the capability to run such an organization wants to do it. There is no problem here with the concept of the SCA incorporating separately in foreign countries. This seems both necessary and correct. We just don't want to try it ourselves. Alysoun: Re separate groups within the SCA framework. We already have a variety of subgroups in the SCA. For the authenticity mavins, we have groups such as the Order of the Star, which while separate from the SCA inc, still consists almost wholely of SCA members. Others form households or guilds etc that promote their own interests or world view. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 00:54:44 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 23:27:36 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951003115536_70516244@emout04.mail.aol.com> Excellent. a pure simple restatement of the ROOT problems and I agree with virtually everything your wrote. I'll comment on your listing of the problems here, and with your ideas about 'the gameS (plural!) separately. On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Carole C. Roos wrote: > 1. The attitude of the central body toward the members. > 2. The past ineptitude of the central body in legal and technical matters > (Solveig's letter) > 3. Lack of confidence in the central body (has there been improvement in > problem 2?) > 4. Gross lack of support and consideration for non-US groups > 5. Present lack of technical support for local officers > 6. Lack of clear articulation of the Game The short form of what I have to say is as follows: Solving 1 and 3 will solve 2,4, and 5. 1 and 3 can be solved by making the board accountable to the membership through selection and recall powers 2, 4, and 5 can be solved by the improved working relationship between the corporation and its willing and talented labor pool. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To elaborate: As defined by the By-laws the reletionship of a member to the board is OFFICIALLY that the board can tell you to do what ever they like, and you cant tell them ANYTHING. You cant select them, you cant remove them NOTHING. Oh, you can say all you like But in the documents, the chain runs DOWN. I have a problem with that on its own merits, but as a side issue this is not a relationship model likely to result in a need for sensitivity and communications on the part of the board, or in tolerance and patience on the side of the membership... we dont even have the salve of 'I guess we deserve it, after all we picked'em' I really do think this is the LIONSHARE of the cause behind items one through five.... and its that current structure which so thoroughly DIVIDES the SCA that results in a board with a siege mentality and a group of often angry outsiders with AN IMMENSE SKILL POOL AND A MILLION WILLING MAN/WOMAN HOURS OF VOLUNTEER WORK that go unused at the corporate level. When the board and the members 'are as one' and trust and work and communicate with each other, or at least when the chasm is breached enough that the board feels able to expand it resources through the use of volunteers on an institutional basis, they will more effectively be able to guide the corporation... Sincerely (and saving concrete suggestions for a separate post) Arthur The Dented From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 10:07:30 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 153 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:30:30 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "arthur dent" at Oct 3, 95 09:21:00 pm Thanks to Morgan, and Arthur, for the correction on Mancuso's book. It was at home when I wrote from work, and I'd thought I'd gotten it right. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 10:19:02 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 09:51:16 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: clarification To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alysoun sends thanks to Tibor and everyone for advice on incorporation on the local level. Incorporation is only one of the legal/technical points I was referring to. What is the best accounting system to use? What liabilities does the corporation have? Since we are near the stateline, have Michigan residents as members, and may hold events, etc. in Michigan, does this make any difference? I find it curious that so many of you are quick to point out how SCAinc has muffed legal/technical matters yet assume that the average local group won't have any problems. If the local groups incorporate, what incentive is there for a larger entity (kingdom, whatever) to help with this? And can they, unless everyone incorporates the same way, with the pretty much the same bylaws, etc.? How do we structure medieval gaming to accord with state law? Can we serve homemade cheese at feasts? What ordinances would relate to having horses at events or a sheep shearing and how do we find out about them? We have all sorts of questions like these. If we have to spend our own time and money researching everything ourselves, we will end up settling for the safe and known. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 12:08:49 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 11:33:56 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951003115536_70516244@emout04.mail.aol.com> On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Carole C. Roos wrote: > I have heard of four approaches to the Game. One could be called Authenticity > Plus, a serious living-history approach. Another is Learn as You Go, a > continuing adult ed. model. Then there is SCA-Lite, a no documentation, go > with what looks good approach. And finally there is Medieval Fantasy, which > can range from Camelot to whatever. Who is left out? > > In the early days, when the Game was in a fledgling state, we may have needed > every warm body willing to wear a costume to get anything done. I don't think > that this is true now, at least in the older kingdoms. As it now stands we > are losing people rather than gaining by this mix of interests. Newcomers > with a interest in history are put off by the fantasy element, and people who > are less serious are put off by the scholarly element. A lot depends on who > is the first person they talk to. A great method of doing this would be to "tag" or "rate" events as to thier intended authenticity level... You'd look in your newsletter at events and see something like: " --------------------------------- October 32 Crown revel The Barony of Wirlixia: will host (fill in promo with material extolling the virtues of the small but VERY period site, the well researched rues for the tourney andthe restriction on non-period armor, the period games and contests, and probably a period background for the event) THIS WILL BE AN ENCHANTED GROUND EVENT ------------------------------------- October 32 Feast of the Foolish: The Canton of Duxtkukabar will host (fill in standard SCAdian promo) Standard SCAdian conventions will apply. ------------------------------------ October 32 Collegium/Workshops/meetings and Demi-Revel: WurdMarche will host(Fill in promo detailing workshops, including the ones on how to prepare for next weekends 'Enchanted Ground' Event) Garb/Psuedo Garb optional. there will be a demi-revel afterwards. ------------------------------------------------------------ " Frankly I'd be hard put to select between the three events. I Enjoy discussions in (not OF, IN) personna and frankly see so little of it in the SCA that when it shows up it usually catches me by surprise before it unravels with references to "firedrakes" and "farspeakers" (why not just say 'wagon/horse' and 'message/messenger/corier/letters etc.) the thing is that its A LOT OF FUN, but also A LOT OF WORK. it can be exhausting, and its going to take some time to build up the neccesary conventions and skills to make staying in personna for day on end easy and possible. On the other hand I *REALLY* enjoy the synthesis of the modern and medieval which SCAdians often create and are force d to be ashamed of cuz its "Not Period". god know most of the most moving songs I've heard in the SCA couldnt pass for period, (let alone the funniest), and its that very fusion which may actually be the end PURPOSE of the SCA, not tocreate a sterile museum replica of the past, but to make the things we value from the past a living part of our modern world. If you're thinking that this would fragment the society. in some ways you're right. It would mean more and smaller events, but frankly we constantly outgrow our sites, ESPECIALLY our period ones, and I've alwasy enjoyed a small but well done local (or even distant) event more than 'just another day in the SCA' on a grand scale. Now that I've enjoyed myself though, I figure this line of discussion is only going to become relevent AFTER we figure out how to solve the corporate level problems and deal with Mundane organization... let alone come up with GC procedures for focussing and finishing a discussion and moving on to the next part of the problem... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 12:33:49 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:02:15 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: GC Procedure To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L 1) we should set particular periods for each PHASE of our discussion, I figure one quarter (3 months) for each. 2) I'd suggest the first area be procedure... so we can make an attempt at establishing some fairly linear process which establishes the consensus on an issue and then ratifies it so we can get to the next one... 3) After we establish a procedure though I'd like to suggest we break the discussion into three major phases, A) 'what do we want'(results: What we are trying to accomplish) B) 'whats the way to get it'(Methods: Structure/mechanisms which will, when in place result in item 'A') C) 'how do we get from here to there'(Implementation: dates and actions by specific offices/persons that will but 'B' into place)... recap: ----- Four sections, one quarter each, one report each, one year to results. Lord Knows ( in fact anybody who Knows me also Knows) that I'm not an incredibly organized person. Unless I have to be. If we wish to accomplish ANYTHING we will need a mechanism to coordinate and then limit that discussion so that we can achieve those three thing TOGETHER otherwise, we'll just INDIVIDUALLY come up with a 50 or more brilliant but incompatible plans which have no change of happening and remain 'individual idea forwarded through GC' rather than 'the GC vision, solution, and implementation plan' which the board CAN (probably wont, but can) decide to use right out of the box... yet again, by Arthur From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 12:38:14 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:05:23 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: GC Structure question To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Committees/workgroups... we seem to have them what are they, whos on them, how do you get on them etc.? I seem to have missed this bit. clues would be appreciated. Arthur ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 13:21:56 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:49:24 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: dead corporation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L on tibor's question on the sudden unavailability of SCA, Inc.: welllll. membership rolls should be easy to resurrect, unless something nasty happens to the corporate registrar's database. (i sincerely hope renee makes regular daily or weekly backups, and stores them offsite; if she doesn't, someone should force her to...) regalia and the thousand and one other physical items would still exist, although they'd need to be legally transferred somehow to the new corporation. us participants (official members and non-members) will still participate. corporate publications would probably stop coming out until the new corporation is in place; and the bank accounts would need, i guess, some old corporation legal by-law/policy decision/formal declaration that funds have been passed to, and should therefore be deposited into, new accounts using the new corporation's tax id number. the new corporation would have to be a temporary quick- fix thing, with just enough structure to let us continue doing what we do; and it would intentionally have a short life (a year or two), one just long enough for a Really Good corporation to get up and running. of course, there'd be a hell of a lot of politics, gossip- mongering, and nasty rumors flying all over the place. this might be controlled slightly (and i mean _slightly_) if plans for the fail-safe corporation were already in place so there'd be no loss of insurance or such. in a later letter, tibor continues: >The larger question remains. Who would or should take >what steps or actions, in what order, to preserve our >game, should the American corporation cease acting? >What actions should local groups take? What role >should Kingdoms take? >How could a new organization be organized? How ought >it to be organized? Where? Shouldn't we have at least a >paper model? the grand council is organized to reform the old corporation. what you're asking (i think) is, given what we know of what's gone on for the past 30 years, if we had a clean slate, what should Ye Perfect SCA-like Corporation be like? in other words, rather than use band-aids, what would we do for radical reconstructive surgery? you don't ask small questions with easy answers, do you? we could, you know, come up with two plans: one set for short- to medium-term fixes (including things like outsourcing, or moving corporate offices, and the like), and one long-term plan, for converting the whole kit and kaboodle into Ye Ideal Group, Inc. long-term planning has not been one of the board's strong points. i'm not sure it's even existed.. (and your story about the fail-safe fall-back mirrored sites for fidelity investments? i hear tell that the tokyo stock market (or one of tokyo's Really Really Major financial companies), had invested in a full fall-back, fully mirrored safety system. problem is, the backup system was stored in the next room. . . ) as for particulars on the new organization: i'm not saying anything, yet. we have a year and a half left, more or less, and we still haven't decided on what we're supposed to decide on. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 13:46:55 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:19:12 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: GC Structure question To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Wed, 4 Oct 1995 12:05:23 -0400) Arthur asks: >Committees/workgroups... >we seem to have them >what are they, whos on them, how do you get on them etc.? Well, the Membership Working Group has been running for a few months now. It has consisted of eight people (in no particular order: me, Gareth, Edward, Alysoun, Serwyl, Corwyn, Finnvarr, and Kyle), who are reasonably representative of the conservative<->reformist spectrum. We're pretty much wrapping up now. The discussion has been, to say the least, vigorous -- probably more actual text than has appeared in the Chronicle. Some of it is available on the Web, on the GC Home Page, some isn't there yet. (My fault; I just haven't had time to get it properly assembled.) We haven't come up with any dramatic solutions, but we've mapped out several possible alternatives. With any luck (and a little free time) we'll have some draft proposals for the GC as a whole to consider, sometime in the near future. (The working theory is that we will produce a few major alternative proposals, maybe with some variants, and commentary pro and con on each.) One thing is quite clear: the exact form of membership is *intimately* tied up with what the Corporation(s) look like. We've actually spent more time arguing about the broader issues of possible Corporate structure than about membership per se. This is why I've been trying to encourage discussion of the question of What Kind of Corporation Do We Want -- the membership schemes appropriate to, say, a Corporation that is heavily integrated with the Society are quite different from those of a smaller Corporation or Corporations that are less involved with the Game. Context and philosophy matter a lot here. -- Justin Creator, but not particularly chairman, of the Membership Working Group Random Quote du Jour: "More irregular verbs: I address the issues, you launch ad-hominem attacks, he's a flaming maniac and should have his access pulled." -- Dani Zweig From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 14:10:17 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2161 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 13:38:37 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: GC Structure question To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510041719.AA08473@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Oct 4, 95 01:19:12 pm Justin gave his background, and then asked the question: This is why I've been trying to encourage discussion of the question of What Kind of Corporation Do We Want -- the membership schemes appropriate to, say, a Corporation that is heavily integrated with the Society are quite different from those of a smaller Corporation or Corporations that are less involved with the Game. Context and philosophy matter a lot here. OK, one man's off the cuff opinion. Unlike a Ren Faire, or say, Epcot Center as it would do period re-creation, the organization I belong to does not provide a re-creation environment that is ready-made. I think this is one of our strong point: we are a grass-roots organization sine qua non. Our growth has been a do-it-yourself phenomenon, our skills and culture, and so forth. This may be our greatest strength. I would actively oppose any attempt to re-arrange this. We do not build roller-coasters, we do not throw medieval themed weddings, we do not do themed charity balls, and so forth. I am ALL for anything which assists the medieval and early renaissance re-enactor in their coordination with others, and in their travails. The world that each re-enactor lives in can vary by a variety of circumstances, by town, county, state or province and country and international treaty or union. To assist with (or combat against) such circumstances, or in order to gain plebian advantages, a corporation might be useful. Actually, given the list of circumstances above, lots of corporations might be useful. And, as the Society is showing (at least 10 corporations and growing) it is useful. But, only as an ancillary tool. I believe that for the last many years, the tail has been wagging the dog, and it's time to put things right. We are a social group, that needs to recognize that internationl (or even intra-national in the case of the US) differences make having One Corporation Uber Alles something that actively interferes with re-creation. So, what kind of corporation do I want? Lots of small, responsive, subservient, legal, useful and unimportant. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 20:37:15 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 19:47:52 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: responses to Tibor, Arthur To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Tibor- The necessity or even the desirability of multiple incorporations within the US is still a subject of debate. I doubt that Trimaris would want to incorporate, even if we could find any good reasons to. What practical purpose would separate incorporations serve? I think you and I have diametrically opposed viewpoints on what kind of corporation we want. I want a central structure that devolves as much power as is practical to the local groups. Functions such as membership, insurance would be administered at the corporate level. Game functions are handled by Kingdoms and interkingdom bodies such as the IAC. The problem is where to draw that line. I don't mind a strong central authority as you seem to, I just want one that is more responsinve and focuses on the right things (such as legal matters and strategic planning). That's why I like the Board feedback idea I presented a few weeks ago. The Board can use Kingdom seneschals (or their deputies) to hold forums that will discuss the most recent board meeting, provide feedback and suggestions, and act as a sounding board for issues the Board wants to quiz the populace on). Arthur the Dented re tagging events: A lot of groups do this now be the wording of their event flyers and announcements. We can already accomodate both ultra period events as well as silly ones and many stages in between. I'm not sure what you want to change about our structure that would provide a positive benefit. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 4 21:50:33 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 17:18:13 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: responses to Tibor, Arthur To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951004194752_116352896@emout06.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 4 Oct 1995, Chuck Hack wrote: > Greetings from Serwyl, > > What practical purpose would separate incorporations serve? The main purpose that I see is the ability for a kingdom to distance itself from problems in other areas. It requires a high degree of paranoia to imagine cases where this is effective but 'you pays your money and you takes your chances'. > I don't mind a strong central authority ... , I > just want one that is more responsinve and focuses on the right things (such > as legal matters and strategic planning). I do not believe that we will ever see such a limited central authority. The big stumbling blocks are the response mechanisms and the unwillingness to relinquish authority on the part of the corporate officers. Note also that fiscal responsibility is a big issue. > That's why I like the Board feedback idea I presented a few weeks ago. The > Board can use Kingdom seneschals (or their deputies) to hold forums that will > discuss the most recent board meeting, provide feedback and suggestions, and > act as a sounding board for issues the Board wants to quiz the populace on). I dislike saying 'that's a bad idea' unless I can come up with a better one. It seems to me that the seneschallate has other things on its mind and is a poor choice for running this information channel. If you are trying to be responsive, you also need to be timely. If the Kingdom Seneschal waits for the Board minutes to be printed, any hope of timeliness is gone. AnTir does inclusive crown events, i.e. they are the best attended events on the calendar. However, the largest ever (Sept '94) drew 1500 people of which about 30 attended curia. I simply do not believe that the seneschallate can organize and maintain a responsive information channel between the board and the populace. TI isn't it either. If fact, I am having difficulty convincing myself that the Board is interested in creating such an information channel. Thus, I would like to consider removing the need for such a channel. More on this later. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 09:02:02 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:37:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Who owns the SCA? Umbrella Corp? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I reiterate that there can and should be one SCA International Inc. This group can and should be the licensing authority for continuity between multiple National, or Kingdom or even State Organisations. In this way all required National or State legal considerations can be dealt with while having only one SCA. Who will control it? I personally think that each sub-corp (I'm leaning toward Kingdoms and/ or Mundane Nations) selecting members of the Board of Directors of SCA International, INC. This gives some degree of accountability while still keeping things at a manageable level. Who'd be elected? Drachenwald Inc could elect a L. A. Stock Broker if they want or they could elect their Seneschal. Calontir could elect their Childrens Minister or hire a Duluth, MN Attorney to represent them on the Board. Each of the Umbrellad Organisations could use what ever method they desire. Let the SCA International take care of, or address International Society wide issues and let the Kingdoms or National Corps take care of the rest. Any subcorp would be able to meet the required Society wide standards while taking care of National legal considerations. The set up would be a LOT of work but not too difficult. A question tho: How well is the Corp/BoD/Office dealling with the Canadian and other corps these days? I've not heard much recent news. An Umbrella? /\ Magnus suggests: / \ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 09:08:40 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:37:15 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-10-03 12:24:18 EDT, you write: >I have heard of four approaches to the Game. One could be called Authenticity >Plus, a serious living-history approach. Another is Learn as You Go, a >continuing adult ed. model. Then there is SCA-Lite, a no documentation, go >with what looks good approach. And finally there is Medieval Fantasy, which >can range from Camelot to whatever. This does seem to cover most all. This Medieval Fantasy doesn't belong tho. A problem arises: I personally would interpret that the Camelot stuff is very period. Maybe not 5th Century but certainly belonging to the later Medieval period. I'd even go so far as to state that this is one of the fudaments of our entire Society. Another problem: Should we as a GC come up with some suggestions on stateting the parameters of the Dream, or the Game or whatever?...I think so.... Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 09:08:55 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:37:24 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-10-03 13:59:47 EDT, you write: >Mancuso's book, from 10 Speed Press, on how to incorporate in every state, >is widely available, and easy to follow. Not that expensive, either. For >that matter, I think it's called the Company Corporation, based in Delaware, >will incorporate you for around $100 dollars in Delaware, in 3 days. >Individual states cost more, frequently. Last time I checked, for example, >Massachusetts charged $435 dollars a year in corporate filing fees. I have NOT read the book. I still have to consider this BAD advice. Just cuz someone files a peice of paer with a State doesn't make you a Corporation. You have to act like one too. You have to have Articles and By laws that allow and direct you how to act like a Corp. You have to have an organisation that fits your needs. You don't get these from a book and you don't get this by having some company file a sheet of paper in Delaware. Magnus J.D. Where do I send the Bill? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 09:31:03 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 194 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:57:10 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Who owns the SCA? Umbrella Corp? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951005083705_36951823@mail04.mail.aol.com> from "Magnus MagUire" at Oct 5, 95 08:37:06 am Magnus wrote: I reiterate that there can and should be one SCA International Inc. Quibble question. Why Inc? Where Inc? I don't see the value in it, but there might still be some. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 09:35:52 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 232 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 08:58:01 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951005083714_36951904@mail02.mail.aol.com> from "Magnus MagUire" at Oct 5, 95 08:37:15 am Magnus wrote: Another problem: Should we as a GC come up with some suggestions on stateting the parameters of the Dream, or the Game or whatever?...I think so.... I would have thought this more a matter for the IKC. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 11:13:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:36:42 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: dead corporation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded from Margo. I would like to address one point in advance, though: >I will put on my >lecturer's robes and hope that Justin allows this to post: Folks, please pay attention to the way things work, which has not changed. If a non-member of the Council submits a message to the list, they are effectively submitting it to *me personally*. When I decide whether to pass it on or not, it is as an ordinary member of the Council, *not* as a formal moderator. Sometimes I will pass messages on, sometimes not; if you don't like it, submit them to someone else. My personal policy is that I will usually pass messages on if I feel they are polite, reasonably concise, relevant to the points at hand, and not redundant. But there is a large subjective element in this, and I am not going to apologize for that. I am, frankly, being drowned in messages. You can see the large number of messages that I am forwarding; that is only about half the number I am being sent. I would *deeply* appreciate it if non-members of the Council would work through some other Councillors as well. *Any* member of the Council has an equal right to pass messages on; I just happen to be the default... -- Justin >Date: 05 Oct 95 04:06:49 EDT >From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> Alban made a number of comments in response to question about what would happen if SCA, Inc., went defunct: >> .... membership rolls should be easy to resurrect, unless something >> nasty happens to the corporate registrar's database. * * * regalia >> and the thousand and one other physical items would still exist, >> although they'd need to be legally transferred somehow to >> the new corporation. There is a problem with all of the theories of what happens if SCA, Inc., disappears. You are not taking into account the basics of business and/or bankruptcy law. As I have had some experience in these areas (not personally, at least in the bankruptcy area!) and recently watched two companies of which I am fond go into receivership or have their doors forcibly shut, I will put on my lecturer's robes and hope that Justin allows this to post: SCENARIO THE FIRST: The Board or whomever decides that the game is not fun any more, and they decide to voluntarily dissolve SCA, Inc. While I do not have the California Code in front of me, and as I am 32,500 +/- feet up on my way out to the Bay Area not likely to get it son, I will not presume as to the notice and other requirements for winding up the business and informing subsidiaries, creditors, members, etc. The Illinois BCA has them. This would allow us-the-members to start (or activate, where they now exist in dormancy) our own corporations, and possibly buy certain of the assets which would be useful to us, or simply acquire them from SCA, Inc. before the tents are folded and the last lights extinguished. There are mechanisms for this. SCENARIO THE SECOND: Judicial dissolution, or other legal action against SCA, Inc., aimed at forcing dissolution or reorganization, and not including bankruptcy. It is likely that the assets would be frozen for a certain period, and if the dissolution is ordered, it may be possible to acquire them. However, the transfer would not be as smooth as in the first scenario, and could be some months or longer down the road from the initiating action. These can include: no registered agent, inappropriate activity of the corporation, and other activities that draw the attention of the attorney general or the court. Again, I don't have the California Code handy, but they usually specify the underlying grounds for a forced dissolution. (Having just helped rewrite some of the sections in the Illinois BCA, I can tell you what they are for those corporations, but that doesn't apply to SCA, Inc.) SCENARIO THE THIRD: Bankruptcy or similar financial reorganization. UGH. This freezes the assets, ALL the assets, from the computers to the information on them to the pencils on the desks to the name of the corporation. Usually, the bank or government agents come in, sometimes with armed guards, and simply order everybody to leave NOW. Or they will sneak over in the dead of night and padlock the doors. Whatever is inside is potentially the bank's, down to the pictures of your family on your desk and the snacks in you desk drawer. If it is determined that any of the assets have a value, they an be sold at auction or by arrangement with the trustee in bankruptcy. However, it could be a question of whether the trustee realizes that the information (mailing lists, etc.) has value separate and apart from the computers on which they reside. And it can take months to shuffle through everything in a business bankruptcy or reorganization. [I distinguish from individual ones, which can take a person nine to fourteen months, maybe less.] SIDE NOTE: Tibor has spoken against the use of non-profit corporation status. One of the best benefits we have found in our small group is the no-sales-tax advantage of being a non-profit as opposed to a for-profit. In Chicago, sales tax is nearly 10% on most things. that is a significant chunk of the money a college-based group may have. >> the new corporation would have to be a temporary quick-fix thing, >> with just enough structure to let us continue doing what we do; >> and it would intentionally have a short life (a year or two), one >> just long enough for a Really Good corporation to get up and running. Not necessarily. The basic structure of a corporation is VERY simple. Many times, you just fill out a few one- and two-page forms, send them in with registration fee, and that's it. The trimmings come in the bylaws and other governing documents, and those can be revised by agreement of the appropriate persons (directors, shareholders, whomever). the cost of starting up and winding down corporations is not worth any "advantage" you may perceive in redoing them. It's not like retaking a licensing exam -- trust me on that. [Yeah, I know, a lawyer said "trust me." However, I've done both, speak from experience.] Many of the NFPs with which I have continuing association allow the locals to incorporate separately, almost like franchises. This has a lot of advantages, not the least of which is easing the stress of tax filings and other repeat governmental documentation. It's a good thought. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 12:00:42 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 825 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 11:21:01 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: dead corporation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510051436.AA25963@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Oct 5, 95 10:36:42 am Morgan the lawyer wrote: SIDE NOTE: Tibor has spoken against the use of non-profit corporation status. One of the best benefits we have found in our small group is the no-sales-tax advantage of being a non-profit as opposed to a for-profit. In Chicago, sales tax is nearly 10% on most things. that is a significant chunk of the money a college-based group may have. I have spoken against tax-exempt status. Not a minor quibble. I am all for nonprofit status, and would insist upon it. College based groups are, presumably, using college based funds. Those funds, being cycled through a different exempt organization, can still be used along with the tax id of the university or college, to waive sales tax. 10%? Move to Boston: it's only 5% here. (But, then again, everything costs more... sigh) Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 12:07:39 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1593 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 11:28:10 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510051502.AA26210@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Oct 5, 95 11:02:17 am Justin wrote: Actually, due to our rules, the Authenticity Plus model fits even worse. The fact is that there is a *very* strong tradition in the Society that an event must tolerate the lowest common denominator, which tends to foil any *serious* attempts at living history. (You can do sort of "living history lite" with themed events, but my experience is that these always fall short of what the serious folks would call "living history".) I'm not sure I see it that way. I see our openness as allowing in visitors, and in not penalizing the new or ignorant when they get things wrong. Marking events as Alysoun suggested (It was Alysoun, right? I'm going on memory) describes what people should ATTEMPT once they arrive, or what they should expect. One of the nice things about the Society (as well as one of its major weaknesses in the authenticity department) is that the entry level of knowledge is deliberately low. I agree that pure living history is difficult in the Society, not just for it's intrinsic difficulty at all, but because the re-enactor must also be prepared for error and faux pas. But while the result may be flawed, the attempt can be glorious, and the value of the attempt even more glorious. I've been thinking about this lately. I've been finding my desire for personal authenticity to be increasing, just as my spare time for research and preparation is at "historic" lows. With the Society, I can be as authentic as I like in the areas I have time to research, while only minimally authentic in the areas I have not reached yet. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 12:30:55 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:01:24 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Who owns the SCA? Umbrella Corp? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >A question tho: How well is the Corp/BoD/Office dealling with the Canadian >and other corps these days? I've not heard much recent news. > > An Umbrella? I don't know about Canada, but two Board members, one of them the Drachenwa= ld=20 ombudsman, are currently visiting "over here" and I talked to them yesterda= y.=20 We seriously discussed an "umbrella model" as the most plausible solution t= o=20 the international issue. But... that's somewhere in the remote future and *= if*=20 they can sell it to the rest of the Board. A GC proposal would certainly he= lp. So far, the Corp is simply in the slow and painful process of discovering o= ur=20 existence, and facing the fact that we function in a set of legal contexts= =20 different from the "central" (=3D US) parts of the SCA. There is a European= =20 version of the insurance policy, and we've at last been explicitly told tha= t=20 the new waiver isn't applicable here. That's about it.=20 They may have gotten a bit further in Canada and Australia; let's have peop= le=20 >from there tell us. =20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 5 12:33:19 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 16:40:32 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Keep going To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Magnus wrote: > Another problem: Should we as a GC come up with some suggestions on > stateting the parameters of the Dream, or the Game or whatever?...I=20 >think so.... > >I would have thought this more a matter for the IKC. > > Tibor Theoretically, Tibor is right, but... Anyway, those of you who were there,= =20 remember the Landmarks discussion? Those of you who weren't, it was a livel= y=20 and thorough discussion about the "parameters of the Dream", on Internet la= st=20 spring. I've asked the lady who coordinated it for a copy of the archives=20 and, two weeks after I receive it (I haven't, yet), I plan to have a propos= al=20 ready. I think that it should be presented both to the IKC and the GC for=20 comments. Who knows, it may even give the IKC something solid to sink their= =20 teeth into, if that's what they're waiting for.=20 /Catrin =20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se