From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 16:16:42 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:07:13 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9606051901.AA14159@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Jun 5, 96 03:01:18 pm I understand the motivation here, but I don't believe it'll work. Bluntly -- Crowns are *busy*. I know that the Crowns of the East are always haring off in six directions at once; it's very much being at the center of the whirlwind. I sincerely believe that out-Kingdom problems are going to get short shrift; the average Monarch has *far* more important things to be doing than acting as a judge. Hmmm. Perhaps so, and perhaps not. I think you underestimate the Crowns desire for justice, and their dedication to the Society. But, even so: what do you propose instead? Don't just naysay... (:-) Also, from a purely political standpoint, I don't *trust* it for a minute. This proposal creates quite a neat little cabal at the top. If a dispute involves the Crown, the other Crowns have *considerable* motivation to support that Crown, regardless of the merits of the case. Remember, the average Kingdom has a few Dukes who control it for most of the time. Letting them sit in judgement of each other makes for an altogether too-cozy situation... You presume that they have more in common than they have as differences. Frankly, while that may be so, the temporary hat isn't the big thing. Justin, you and I live in the same Kingdom. Please, name those Dukes, and tell me what they have controlled, recently, that really matters? If I had a fear, it would be that each of our Kingdoms has its own style of social contract that is distinct. I don't think that "foreign" Crowns that don't know the Kingdom well can instantly understand that culture. For example, I don't think an Eastern Crown would easily understand the Western duality toward "The Kings Word Is Law". Heck, I don't understand it yet. (And putting a less sinister spin on the same idea -- given a case where a Crown behaved unfairly towards a subject, the other Crowns are going to inevitably be far too sympathetic towards that Crown, as a matter of course. You're setting up a trial situation where only one side gets a trial of their peers; I dislike that *intensely* in principle...) Or, they may despise the Crown that picks on the little guy, and makes them all look badly. I don't trust *anyone*, or any small group, with that much power without accountability. Galleron's proposal at least has the constituents of the council at the top answerable to *somebody*. This proposal just creates a group that owns everything as thoroughly as the Board does now... This is the exact inverse of "Little fleas have lesser fleas". Where does it end? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 16:39:45 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:29:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606051951.MAA29219@netcom4.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at Jun 5, 96 12:51:38 pm Greetings from Tibor, responding to Cathal's suggestion. Summarized, Each Kingdom has one paid member randomly selected from it, until one says yes, they serve for a year, the SocSen will act as General Counsel, and votes are secret. The foregoing works for mundane juries. To a point. I'd prefer to see people volunteer for community service, rather than drafted and asked to refuse. Not to mention, the formal membership stuff will always stick in my craw... Same with barring someone for three years. Also, using the Society Seneschal as judge-equivalent seems a trifle odd. Especially since there is nothing to prevent the Society Seneschal from breaking the rules, as the first one has. Private justice makes me wheeze... Give me public justice, every time. Tibor (Full craw and wheezing: things look bad. :-) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 16:51:00 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:40:35 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Re Tibor on Fiacha Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor writes, of a Royal Review Panel: >You presume that they have more in common than they have as differences. >Frankly, while that may be so, the temporary hat isn't the big thing. > There is evidence that the narrow selection filter is a significant factor. Remember the Knighthoods-for-Laurels-and Pelicans polling a while back? The status quo was not supported by a plurality of the whole membership polled. It got a modest plurality among the peerage. But the status quo had massive and overwhelming support among the royal peers. Suppose some King decides to have the victor of the next Crown Tourney chosen by a panel of ladies. Is that a violation of Corpora? I don't think so. Would three Kings that got in by winning double-elimination tourneys think it was a violation of Corpora? I certainly think they would be likelier to think so than the average member of the Society. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 17:02:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:41:48 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960605144002_211103131@emout09.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Will McLean wrote: > Aside from the disadvantage of vesting still more power in a rather narrowly > selected class of the Society, having a Committee whose members turn over > every 4-6 months is not an ideal recipe for efficient operation. > > Galleron I feel that you mistake the proposal. The proposal is that the society seneschal form an ad hoc committee of three to address a single issue. The pool of potential members changes rapidly. The committee is frozen as soon as it is formed. The society seneschal has the burden of twisting arms to get three people to agree to be the committee and getting the available information to them. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 17:13:10 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:55:42 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9606051901.AA14159@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Mark Waks wrote: > Bluntly -- Crowns are *busy*. I know that the Crowns of the East are > always haring off in six directions at once; it's very much being at > the center of the whirlwind. I sincerely believe that out-Kingdom > problems are going to get short shrift; the average Monarch has > *far* more important things to be doing than acting as a judge. I disagree and I feel that most crowns would rather pick up the burden than pass it on to a set of faceless bureaucrats. Admittedly some will not have time when asked to participate. However, I feel that the pool is big enough for the scheme to work. > > Also, from a purely political standpoint, I don't *trust* it for a > minute. This proposal creates quite a neat little cabal at the top. > If a dispute involves the Crown, the other Crowns have *considerable* > motivation to support that Crown, regardless of the merits of the > case. Remember, the average Kingdom has a few Dukes who control it > for most of the time. Letting them sit in judgement of each other > makes for an altogether too-cozy situation... I hear and understand, but I feel that this proposal will be better than the status quo. > I don't trust *anyone*, or any small group, with that much power > without accountability. Galleron's proposal at least has the > constituents of the council at the top answerable to *somebody*. This > proposal just creates a group that owns everything as thoroughly as > the Board does now... Fine. We want to take this power from the board and so we must give it to someone. That someone must be acceptable to the populaces that grew up with 'the King's word is Law' philosophy. We want to give this power to a group that can respond to problems quickly and efficiently, which a committe that meets once a year is not. We want this someone to not cost the average member money better spent on the average member. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 17:24:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:14:13 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha writes: >The proposal is that the society >seneschal form an ad hoc committee of three to address a single issue. >The pool of potential members changes rapidly. Worse. Having three people who have never worked together before and (probably) never done this before is a disadvantage. Not a crippling one, but a disadvantage. The big disadvantage, however, is turning more power over to a particular small class of the Society with very exclusive entry requirements. "You have a right to a King. If you are not a King, one will be appointed for you" Your proposal, by the way, says "Crowns" which in Corpora means the King and Queen jointly. When you say three people, do you mean three Sovereigns, or does someone that doesn't fight get a chance to make these decisions? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 17:49:40 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:38:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha writes: >We want this someone to not cost >the average member money better spent on the average member. > If these problems can be solved without face-to-face meetings, the cost is trivial. If face to face meetings are needed, Three Royals don't cost any less to fly around than three commoners. By the way, I am not advocating regular quarterly meetings for the review panel. I think they should meet only as needed. I am guessing that as needed will be about four times a year. I would be delighted to be proved wrong Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 17:51:17 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:39:01 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Cathal Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal writes: >The foregoing works for mundane juries. > One point. Juries are never supposed to determine matters of law ("Is it contrary to Corpora for the King to banish someone for calling him a Butthead?") but only matters of fact ("Did Duke Testy call the King a Butthead?") Galleron (Atlantian law has some interesting sections on this subject) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 17:51:40 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:40:38 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin From: "Pat McGregor" Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 05 Jun 1996 16:07:13 EDT." <199606052007.QAA15516@abel.math.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 13:38:07 -0700 Greetings from siobhan, popping up for a moment in the midst of packing (well, I'm _resting_ from packing here in the Air Conditioning. It's 104 outside...) I think Justin wrote: > Also, from a purely political standpoint, I don't *trust* it for a > minute. This proposal creates quite a neat little cabal at the top. > If a dispute involves the Crown, the other Crowns have *considerable* > motivation to support that Crown, regardless of the merits of the > case. Remember, the average Kingdom has a few Dukes who control it > for most of the time. Letting them sit in judgement of each other > makes for an altogether too-cozy situation... and Tibor replied: >Justin, you and I live in the same Kingdom. Please, name those Dukes, and >tell me what they have controlled, recently, that really matters? Uh, what about Atlantia? I don't know about the East, but certainly what I hear out of Atlantia about Dukes In Control makes me scared. A whole household I am affiliated with in Atlantia has gone inactive because of this situation. These are folks who are not without influence and experience, but even they can't "lead by example" with the situation as it stands. >If I had a fear, it would be that each of our Kingdoms has its own style of >social contract that is distinct. I don't think that "foreign" Crowns that >don't know the Kingdom well can instantly understand that culture. For >example, I don't think an Eastern Crown would easily understand the Western >duality toward "The Kings Word Is Law". Heck, I don't understand it yet. Unfortunately, I think this is the most telling thing. I've now lived in a Western Rite Kingdom for almost 3 years, and while I'm glad to have escaped some of what's happening "back home", I still am confounded to my marrow by some of what the West does under the rule of "The King's Word is Law." All my instincts are still Eastern Rite, and I'm trying as hard as I can to learn to understand this culture. Hope to chat with some of you about these issues at 30 year, regards, siobhan ====================================================== Pat McGregor pat@lloyd.com Consultant, Lloyd Internetworking +1 916 676 1147 Cameron Park, CA +1 916 676 3442 (fax) http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg Co-Author, "Mastering the Internet, 2nd Ed" Sybex Books, May 1996 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 19:03:18 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 5 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 18:52:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Draft report to Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha, I think a little more emphasis on the fact that many people want a transnational structure to maintain the basic medieval rules is in order. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 19:05:01 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 23 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 18:50:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Review panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L If some people don't like the idea of kings being reviewed by other people who aren't kings, there are plenty who feel quite differently. Currently, the actions of kings and queens are reviewed by people who aren't and never have been kings or queens. This is not some astonishing innovation. The whole idea of a review panel was to give some of the review/constitutional power to a different group of people than those who run the American corporation, and a body that crossed over national lines. Let's not lose track of that. We will not have a transnational elected authority that can effectively restrain the power that kings and queens already have under Corpora. Such restraint is occasionally necessary. We can't take out the mundane restraint on the medieval game powers without setting ourselves up for terrible problems. Finnvarr Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 19:26:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 5 Jun 1996 19:16:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Review Panel? Costs? Interference with the kingdoms? Umm, I'm confused, I am. Wasn't the review panel supposed to be called in to settle a problem, or to review a frisky crwon, and _not_ to set policy on its own, or act before the action? In other words, I sort of thought it was a reactive thing, not a proactive thing; and it would only be invoked after the fact, not before. You know, sort of like an appeals court, not a legislature? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 19:43:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:33:53 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Counterbalancing the Crown/ Fiacha's Suggestion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, The Board and the Society Seneschal spends a lot of its working time dealing with Crown related problems that could not be worked out at the Kingdom level. Admittedly, our current system does not foster the development of local solutions (the Board has held tight to its power as the final arbiter for far too many years), but placing the power of arbitration in the hands of other Crowns frankly scares me. It doesn't hurt to go over points that others have already made: 1. the Crowns are already overworked. I live in a relatively small Kingdom (Trimaris), and the Crowns here are already overburdened. I can't imagine a Crown wanting to take on the extra responsibility. 2. Crowns would be biased. This is not really a fair statement when applied when generally, but there may well be a PERCEPTION on the part of the populace the the Crowns will always 'stick together' so us peons won't ever get a fair shake. 3. The Arbitration panel is not representative. This is a bigger problem. We would be limiting arbitration to individuals who have an aptitude for fighting but not necessarily for making sage descisions (leaving the consorts out of this for the moment). Considering some of the more democratic proposals members have put forth for doing business in the past, this seems more a step backwards than forward. In the best of all possible worlds there is some check on royal power at the Kingdom level, with few if any problems resolved at a higher level. The problems to be overcome are substancial though and would vary considerably >from Kingdom to Kingdom. I don't forsee the Board imposing such systems on individual Kingdoms, the Kingdom's would not stand for it. A better solution would be to convince the Board to adopt a general guideline on Kingdom arbitration procedures and leave the implementation to each region. The question then becomes: What characteristics do we think are important for Kingdom level arbitration? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 20:21:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 19:56:39 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Goddamn. It brings back memories to see my name in headers in a heated controversy once again. Smiling contentedly, Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 21:01:06 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:50:54 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Away for 3YC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Ditto, except I'm leaving tomorrow PM. Is there some kind of GC meeting at the event ? I can't remember... Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 21:28:32 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 21:17:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Away for Lilies To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The Thirty Year Celebration is beyond my means, and would have been even if I hadn't gone to Sweden for the Double Wars (a squire of mine was being knighted). I will, however, be at Lilies in Calontir all next week, and unavailable from this Saturday to the second Tuesday thereafter. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 21:47:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 18:30:40 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Away for 3YC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960605205052_550200445@emout15.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Corwyn da Costa wrote: > Is there some kind of GC meeting at the event ? I can't remember... Yes, check your handout for details and if you still can't find a reference I'll have it announced somehow. Fiacha. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 5 23:39:09 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 689 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:27:16 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: Cathal Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960605173900_319510748@emout16.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 5, 96 05:39:01 pm > > Cathal writes: > > >The foregoing works for mundane juries. > > > > One point. Juries are never supposed to determine matters of law ("Is it > contrary to Corpora for the King to banish someone for calling him a > Butthead?") but only matters of fact ("Did Duke Testy call the King a > Butthead?") > > Galleron > (Atlantian law has some interesting sections on this subject) > Cathal to Galleron, Greetings: Absolutely correct. That is why I stipulated the matter of the Society Seneschal to serve as a General Counsel on the matter of the laws. The Review Board would consider only the facts of the individual cases within the parameters of the current SCA dicta. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 00:00:19 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1002 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 20:46:39 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606052030.QAA16636@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 5, 96 04:29:59 pm Cathal to Tibor, Greetings: As a matter of clarification, the Society Seneschal would act more in the role of the District Attorney in a Grand Jury situation. He/she would act solely as the source of the letter of the law and would not "instruct" the Board on "how" they must use them in the deliberations. The matter of membership as a point of selectio negotiable. I proposed it as an easily established point of reference to define the potential pool of participants. Besides, I am a proponent of membership based perks. The delimma of public versus private justice is not really applicable here. The facts would be a matter of public record, the criteria for adjudication would be the governing documents of the SCA, and the results would be public knowledge as well. The secret ballot was suggested as a mode of decision which would allow the exercise of conscience without fear of direct, personal disapprobation. For the full craw might I suggest a good seltzer. . .;-) Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 00:30:10 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 6 Jun 1996 00:18:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Away for 3YC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Oh, pfooie. Just when the discussion's getting interesting, y'all get up and go on vacation. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 09:22:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:12:11 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban writes: >Umm, I'm confused, I am. Wasn't the review panel supposed to >be called in to settle a problem, or to review a frisky crwon, >and _not_ to set policy on its own, or act before the action? That was my intent. Reactive, not Proactive. Is that part of my proposal unclear? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 09:35:05 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:23:00 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Curbing Abuses (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Katerine, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 18:24:13 -0500 From: gfrose@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu (Terry Nutter) Subject: Curbing Abuses Tibor, kindly post for me again.... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Greetings to the members of the Grand Council, from Katerine Rountre. I have been listening with growing despair to the conversation on controlling royalty My despair is rooted in three points. (1) Without fundamental changes to how people in the SCA relate to the kinds of problems you are concerned with here, I don't believe that _any_ body could succeed at curbing abuses, for the very simple reason that no body will ever have either the quantity or the quality of information that it needs to do the job. To get that information, the body will have to get letters (or email, or phone callse, or _something_) from the people in the kingdom in question -- lots of them, from people on all sides of the disputes. Several people have cited problems in Atlantia in this thread. As an exercise in reality checks, it might be worth someone asking recent members of the Board just how many letters the Board has received over the entire of the past decade that indicate the nature of the these problems. Then reflect that no body that we charter will be able to subpoena testimony. (2) People keep talking about appeal after exhausting means of complaint within kingdom. In my experience, complaints within kingdom, and attempts to resolve these problems at that level, are even scarcer than letters to the Board. (3) We have fostered a system under which every living SCAdian can tell him- or herself, "It's not my personal job to do this. This is my hobby; I don't want to play the heavy, alienate my friends, and generally slit my Society throat." So long as that is true, sociopathic twits, with or without crowns -- I have seen quite as much improper action, and quite as much tyranny, out of seneschals as out of crowns, much of it in far more damaging arenas and far more sweeping in scope -- will continue to behave like sociopathic twits, and everyone else will continue to sit around and lament that behavior within their personal circles, and wonder why "nobody" does anything about it. I am now speaking as a former Great Officer of State who stood up and told her crowns that they were acting dishonestly and dishonorably, and backed it up, when they did not respond, by resigning. As (to the best of my fairly extensive knowledge) the only GOoS in the history of Atlantia to resign on a point of principle, I think I have an unusual perspective on this problem. My personal take is that we will never solve it unless and until we make it _very_ clear to everyone that these problems _must_ be addressed within kingdom, and that they _must_ be addressed by the people who know about them, and most of all, that anyone who sits by in silence is giving consent. You need not, of course, always shout from the rooftops. But if you see tyranny in action, you _must_ always take some step that may put into action the steps necessary to put a stop to it. Ansteorra has a system that, as an outsider, I find intriguing. It works there. It would not work elsewhere, because our lands are all different. But I think it's worth looking at how it works. What follows is my impression of how this works. I'm writing this without consulting Hossein; if I've gotten any of it badly wrong, I'm sure he'll speak up. There is an award given in the Kingdom of Ansteorra called the Order of the Lion. It carries no precedence. By kingdom law, it can be given at most once a reign; and several reigns have gone with no Lion created. It is given to those who are seen, above all, as embodying the principles that the kingdom and society care about most. The Order has a very interesting prerogative. They are the holders of the Sword of State. By a unanimous vote, under kingdom law, they can _withhold_ that sword, or_take it back_. The effect of the first is to prevent the heirs ascending the throne. The effect of the second is to remove the crown. What actually happens, when an Ansteorran crown starts to get out of line, is that the Lions start to talk to each other. If the Lions aren't in a position to observe the problem on their own (but they usually are), somebody quietly goes to a Lion and fills him/her in. If, after looking it over, a reasonable number of Lions think that there's a really serious problem, they generally pass word of this quietly back to the crown, sometimes through one of their number who is close to them, sometimes through an intermediary. The crown's universal response, to date, has been to find out what they have to do to make the problem right, and do it. Partly because they don't want to be removed. But more, because I don't think there's an Ansteorran alive who, having been told by the Lions that s/he was _that_ far out of line, would not promptly get out maps and compasses, and try to figure out just where s/he has wandered off to. People may dislike or distrust individual Lions, of course; but everyone I have ever spoken to reveres the order as a whole. This system has actually been invoked within the past several years to control a king. It controlled him. Ansteorra has a tradition of very absolute monarchs -- but it has no tradition of tyranny. Largely because they have an equally strong tradition of dealing with their problems at home. In Ansteorra's case, that tradition grows partly out of the local culture, but probably more out of a deeply ingrained distrust of the Board of Directors. I don't think we could hope to bootstrap off either of those throughout the kingdoms, even if we thought it was a good idea. But without restoring some sense that it _is_ your responsibility, sometimes, to be the heavy, and it _is_ your job to help fix these problems, and you _can't_ pass it off on some distant group that you never contact and are never associated with -- I don't think that _any_ solution will ever solve the original problem. The most we can hope for, in that case, is that the "solution" we put in place does not introduce new abuses; because it is unlikely to have any significant effect on existing ones. Submitted for your consideration... -- Katerine Rountre/Terry Nutter From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 09:48:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:39:44 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Cathal Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606060327.UAA13743@netcom6.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at Jun 5, 96 08:27:16 pm Absolutely correct. That is why I stipulated the matter of the Society Seneschal to serve as a General Counsel on the matter of the laws. The Review Board would consider only the facts of the individual cases within the parameters of the current SCA dicta. There is always the problem, however, that our system of laws is not nearly as complete and baroque (thank the gods) as the modern legal system. Rarely are our disputes simple matters of fact. Nor do we have an organized system we can use for "stare decisis". Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 10:19:28 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:12:21 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein on Counterbalancing Crown To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606060346.UAA16130@netcom6.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at Jun 5, 96 08:46:39 pm The matter of membership as a point of selectio negotiable. I proposed it as an easily established point of reference to define the potential pool of participants. Besides, I am a proponent of membership based perks. Hmm, I wouldn't describe this as a perquisite, Cathal. Would you? The delimma of public versus private justice is not really applicable here. The facts would be a matter of public record, the criteria for adjudication would be the governing documents of the SCA, and the results would be public knowledge as well. The secret ballot was suggested as a mode of decision which would allow the exercise of conscience without fear of direct, personal disapprobation. Ahhh. I can relate to the issues of pressure and disapprobation, pretty darned well. Thanks for the clarification. I don't like the secret ballot notion, but in a real world it would be hard to find people that will render an unpopular verdict if it had personal consequences. I'd hate to have to rely on finding them. For the full craw might I suggest a good seltzer. . .;-) Just the thing, bubbi. Tibor (I like my bubbles immersed in beer, thanks) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 10:23:17 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:11:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Costs of travel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >From Hrolf, forwarded by Finnvarr Depending on when / how they are bought, tickets to the USA from Australia run from US$1000 to US$1500 per person per trip. This could be an unsupportable expense. It may be more cost efficient to have this group, as a review / appeals body meet by internet only and pay the costs of providing modems etc to those without. Hrolf Herjolfssen Baron Ynys Fawr Tasmania From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 10:32:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:22:03 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Cathal Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Kwellend. Remember, folks, I'm about to leave, so anything sent to the list address for forwarding is just going to sit for weeks. Send directly to some *other* Councillor if you want your submissions to be posted... -- Justin From: "David W. James" Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 17:58:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: Will McLean "Galleron: Cathal Plan" (Jun 5, 5:39pm) Subject: Re: Galleron: Cathal Plan On Jun 5, 5:39pm, Will McLean wrote: > >The foregoing works for mundane juries. > One point. Juries are never supposed to determine matters of law ("Is it > contrary to Corpora for the King to banish someone for calling him a > Butthead?") but only matters of fact ("Did Duke Testy call the King a > Butthead?") > Galleron Lawyers would like you to believe that, but it is not true in English Common law, nor was it in the US until about 100 years ago. The Jury does, in fact, have the right and the responsibility to judge the law as well, though few and none are informed of this these days. David From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 11:27:33 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:17:42 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Counterbalancing the Crown/ Fiacha's Suggestion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960605193353_319620114@emout08.mail.aol.com> from "Chuck Hack" at Jun 5, 96 07:33:53 pm The question then becomes: What characteristics do we think are important for Kingdom level arbitration? I suspect the same things that make for any decent system of justice: fairness, impartiality, accessability, appropriate speed, and openess. Somehow, I suspect this answer is not what you were looking for. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 11:51:32 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:23:29 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Costs of travel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hrolf writes: >Depending on when / how they are bought, tickets to the USA from Australia >run from US$1000 to US$1500 per person per trip. This could be an >unsupportable expense. It may be more cost efficient to have this group, >as a review / appeals body meet by internet only and pay the costs of >providing modems etc to those without. Thanks for the info, Hrolf. So, let's see. Suppose you've got a nine member panel, and one of them is >from overseas. Sub panels of three meet four times a year. The overseas member is on one of the sub-panels one or two times a year. Say the average cost of his ticket is US $1250, or $750 more than the average travel cost for American members. So that adds $750-$1,500 to the total cost, for a total of $9,450-10,200. Still less than fifty cents per Society member for the expenses of the review panel. Less than the Society currently pays its accountant, or for maintenance on its office equipment. Yes, it would be cheaper to do it all by e-mail (or conference call) If that works, great. But there are disadvantages to both those mediums. Observe how the GC takes about a month to figure out what toppings it wants on Pizza. Galleron "The voting on toppings has been aborted, since five Councilors would like to explore the question of ordering Chinese instead" Grand Council Digest 12/2/96 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 11:57:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:47:07 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Re Tibor on Fiacha Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960605164035_211185200@emout08.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 5, 96 04:40:35 pm Greetings from Tibor. I'd responded to the notion of a Royal Review panel, as poo-pooed by Justin: You presume that they have more in common than they have as differences. Frankly, while that may be so, the temporary hat isn't the big thing. Galleron answered: There is evidence that the narrow selection filter is a significant factor. Remember the Knighthoods-for-Laurels-and Pelicans polling a while back? The status quo was not supported by a plurality of the whole membership polled. It got a modest plurality among the peerage. But the status quo had massive and overwhelming support among the royal peers. Galleron, let's compare apples to apples: I'm not talking about commonality of interests and view point: they all fight, for example, or they all have ruling in common, after all. I stipulate some commonality of interest. What I don't think we can fairly stipulate, is that their points of commonality outweigh their differences, to such a degree that it would make for a fundamentally injust system. Not that I don't like other solutions, notably something based upon Cathal's notions, superior. However, let us not confuse finding something superior, to finding the Royal notion to be basically unworkable. Suppose some King decides to have the victor of the next Crown Tourney chosen by a panel of ladies. Is that a violation of Corpora? I don't think so. Would three Kings that got in by winning double-elimination tourneys think it was a violation of Corpora? I certainly think they would be likelier to think so than the average member of the Society. The King that made that choice, belies your entire point. Don't you think? (It violates much of the implicit language in Corpora, discussing the list, requirements for elevation of Principalities and Kingdoms, G&PD 5, and so forth. But, that's not a discussion for the here and now.) As for the average member of the Society? I've spent the last several years correcting and quoting Corpora in response to the average members misunderstanding of the language, or complete ignorance of it. I dare say that I have a lower opinion of the average members knowledge of Corpora than most people do. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 12:07:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 11:02:28 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Cathal Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9606061422.AA27409@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Jun 6, 96 10:22:03 am Forwarded for Kwellend. Remember, folks, I'm about to leave, so anything sent to the list address for forwarding is just going to sit for weeks. Send directly to some *other* Councillor if you want your submissions to be posted... I shall be here, and reading my usual 5 days a week. Sigh. Tibor From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 12:49:54 1996 Return-Path: From: "Potter, Michael" To: Grand Council Subject: Review Boards and such Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:45:00 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.837.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This message was originally submitted by Michael.Potter@ALLIEDSIGNAL.COM to the SCAGC-L list at LISTSERV.AOL.COM. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be distributed and the explanations you are now reading will be removed automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should be able to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply" function of your mail program. ----------------- Message requiring your approval (50 lines) ------------------ I have been fairly quiet on the topic of how to reorganize the corporation and the BoD, mainly because I think that there is no great need for a change other than recognizing foreign corporations and working out some sort of TI subscription arrangement. If the foreign corporations had a level of membership that required a subscription to TI, they can be considered "members" (able to vote, etc.) of the SCA as a whole. I think that the BoD and SCA, Inc. format works pretty well right now (with the exception of the selection process) and it just needs to gradually change as international membership grows. I'm not sure if the "final appeal" aspect of the BoD really takes up all that much of their time. BoD members that I've talked to have told me that it is the most trying type of work (egos and emotions tend to be fully engaged over appeal issues), but I do not get the idea that they are swamped. If the BoD became elected, then they will be even more answerable for their decisions. I know that there is a perception that "game control" should be separated from the business affairs of the corporation, but that isn't the way that most companies run. SCA, Inc. is very similar to most companies as the local officers tend to run almost everything and the BoD sets the rules and general direction of the company. I am hesitant to have an all royalty appeal board. I do not think that it will be thought of as being a fair body (whether or not the people on the review board really are fair or not), and that will lead to problems. I do think that royalty will tend to sympathize with other royalty unless the issue is very egregious and clear. I have faith in the power of social pressure to keep the royalty generally in check. I know very few peers in fealty that regard the oath as meaning blind obediance. Most think of it as requiring them not to actively and publically oppose the king and queen, but in Peerage meetings and in private, much stronger opinions tend to be stated. The term limit tends to help as well, and there is the option of not allowing the offensive royalty to fight in Crown Tournament. The royalty really doesn't have that much power because we all volunteer to participate and we can avoid the royalty if necessary. The only kingdoms where I hear of real trouble is where one or two people are so skilled that they win over and over again. If this were really perceived to be a problem, I would simply add to Corpora that you could only serve as royalty once every two years (or maybe once every two years once you're a Duke/Duchess to give a break to people who are "hot" in fighting skill to give them a chance to reach that level). The three reigns (or more in the West) in between would give plenty of time to help mitigate a bad set of royalty. regards, Michael Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 12:50:24 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 17 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:25:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Ansteorran methods To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Thanks to Katerine R. for the description. I fully agree that people have to use the backbones that God gave them. I think the Ansteorran custom is interesting, and if it works, great. "Poetic justice" springs to mind. Note, however, that the "powers" of the Lions of Ansteorra are entirely "extralegal." I have no problem with "extralegal" social pressure, but to have it as the only effective method of curbing the use of "legal" powers by an officer of a corporation -- is a sad commentary on the way we have set up our system! Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 13:14:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:04:44 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Review Boards and such To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Myrdin... -- Justin From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Review Boards and such Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:45:00 -0700 I have been fairly quiet on the topic of how to reorganize the corporation and the BoD, mainly because I think that there is no great need for a change other than recognizing foreign corporations and working out some sort of TI subscription arrangement. If the foreign corporations had a level of membership that required a subscription to TI, they can be considered "members" (able to vote, etc.) of the SCA as a whole. I think that the BoD and SCA, Inc. format works pretty well right now (with the exception of the selection process) and it just needs to gradually change as international membership grows. I'm not sure if the "final appeal" aspect of the BoD really takes up all that much of their time. BoD members that I've talked to have told me that it is the most trying type of work (egos and emotions tend to be fully engaged over appeal issues), but I do not get the idea that they are swamped. If the BoD became elected, then they will be even more answerable for their decisions. I know that there is a perception that "game control" should be separated from the business affairs of the corporation, but that isn't the way that most companies run. SCA, Inc. is very similar to most companies as the local officers tend to run almost everything and the BoD sets the rules and general direction of the company. I am hesitant to have an all royalty appeal board. I do not think that it will be thought of as being a fair body (whether or not the people on the review board really are fair or not), and that will lead to problems. I do think that royalty will tend to sympathize with other royalty unless the issue is very egregious and clear. I have faith in the power of social pressure to keep the royalty generally in check. I know very few peers in fealty that regard the oath as meaning blind obediance. Most think of it as requiring them not to actively and publically oppose the king and queen, but in Peerage meetings and in private, much stronger opinions tend to be stated. The term limit tends to help as well, and there is the option of not allowing the offensive royalty to fight in Crown Tournament. The royalty really doesn't have that much power because we all volunteer to participate and we can avoid the royalty if necessary. The only kingdoms where I hear of real trouble is where one or two people are so skilled that they win over and over again. If this were really perceived to be a problem, I would simply add to Corpora that you could only serve as royalty once every two years (or maybe once every two years once you're a Duke/Duchess to give a break to people who are "hot" in fighting skill to give them a chance to reach that level). The three reigns (or more in the West) in between would give plenty of time to help mitigate a bad set of royalty. regards, Michael Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 13:15:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:02:17 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Re Tibor on Fiacha Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor writes (of Fiacha's Plan for having Royalty serve as Society Review Panels): >What I don't think we can fairly stipulate, is that their points of >commonality outweigh their differences, to such a degree that it would make >for a fundamentally injust system. If I was suing my doctor for malpractice, I would certainly be concerned if I looked up and saw twelve doctors in the jury box. If the judge started chatting with them about the latest AMA convention, I would be even more concerned. It's just not a level playing field. Sure, you can find many individual Monarchs who believe that naughty Royalty should be slapped down hard, just as there are many commoners who think The Crown Can Do No Wrong. But it stacks the deck. And regardless off whether the individual sovereigns can put aside their prejudices, the system will inevitably be *perceived* as unjust by a great many people. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 13:19:10 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:08:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Jun 5, 96 01:41:48 pm I feel that you mistake the proposal. The proposal is that the society seneschal form an ad hoc committee of three to address a single issue. The pool of potential members changes rapidly. The committee is frozen as soon as it is formed. The society seneschal has the burden of twisting arms to get three people to agree to be the committee and getting the available information to them. In this, perhaps we can borrow a leaf from the American Arbitration Association. Each party picks a rep, and the two reps pick a third... I don't know if this is a better idea, or not, but it's a log for the bonfire... Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 13:21:53 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 09:12:13 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Cathal Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal writes: >The Review Board would consider only the facts of the individual >cases within the parameters of the current SCA dicta. > Yes, but sometimes these cases hinge on questions of law. Example: Recently the Board was asked to rule if you get County rank automatically the instant you complete your reign, or if it isn't effective until the next King gives it to you. The essence of the case is what corpora means, not the facts of the case. The not-as-hypothetical-as-you-might-think Banishment for calling the King a Butthead case I mentioned is another example. The facts are not in dispute. Duke Testy freely admits that he called the King a Butthead. The King concedes that, yes, he banished Duke Testy. But is calling the King a Butthead the sort of serious transgression against Society rules that Corpora allows banishment for? The governing documents of the Society will often require interpretation. Do you want to leave that interpretation in the hands of the Society Seneschal? I don't. Galleron (I suppose Duke Testy might base his defense on the theory that calling the King a Butthead was a simple statement of fact, and ask the panel to determine whether or not the King was in fact a Butthead. But let's assume he doesn't) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 14:02:10 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 13:53:35 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: While the cat's away To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Tibor. Kwellend-Njal noted Justin's point, that he will be away and mail from non-posters will languish. He has asked me to take that responsibility while Justin is away, and I agreed. So, to all readers: please feel free to post, and I will forward them soon as I can. Justin, when you get back, let me know if you want the job back, or if this temporary solution is permanent. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 14:42:01 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:27:19 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Morgan: My NFP Board Experiences To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I started getting behind when the trackball on my laptop went on the fritz, and have been rather busy the last couple months as a complication. Some of my comments may seem a bit outdated, I am only focussing on the ones to which I have not found an answer, or on which I have a strong opinion or some possibly useful past or current experience. I am trying to read and catch up in chronological order, so the answer may yet appear, please bear with me. ========================== Galleron said to Solveig: >> Here's how I see it: >> Review at game level, with right of appeal to: >> Mundane Governing Body, with right of appeal to: >> SCA-World review panel, which must submit major rule >> interpretations to: >> World Council I don't like the idea of having Mundane review Game. I am of the belief that these can and should be separate. Part of my background is legal history (it's why I ended up going to law school in the first place) and I am minded of the levals of review and different courts available in Anglo-Saxon Britain in the 10th-14th Centuries. In those days, the courts were based upon (1) social class, and (2) geography. I think something similar would be more workable. Basically, I agree with Gunwaldt, but answer in greater length in case you forgot his wonderfully succinct message, and to springboard into another discussion: I see questions as arising in one of three areas: Game-only; Mundane-Legal-only; and combined. Most will be one of the first two, of all the recent issues, only the question of waivers has been a combined issue. If we can determine which body handles what, and LEAVE IT THERE, life would be a lot easier for everybody. At some point, you have to lay trust in the people you have chosen to make the decisions. [More on choosing in another message.] Also, we need a FINAL point. I think Galleron's suggestion of four levels of review is just too big. In the mundane legal world, you get no more than two reviews, except for some administrative law oddities. Most cases, you have the trial court, appellate court, and supreme court. The Supreme Court doesn't have to review everything with which it is presented, it gets to choose. So the majority of cases will get no more than one review. This is expeditious and offers some finality in reasonable time. (Please, no comments about the congestion in the courts, I know about that!) More on this when I have read a few more messages, I know there's 'supreme court' discussion coming up in some of the more recent mail. ========================== I was asked to provide information about the NFP Board on which I sit. There are two different ones, and I'll discuss both. On one, I am on the Assembly, on the other, the Board, and I run two of its more active Committees. ASSEMBLY: Members from all over Illinois and some of the collar areas. We meet twice a year, have a fairly extensive agenda. Through the year, we have received agendas and information from the Board of Governors, which meets about once per month or six weeks, and does much of the routine or 'daily' work. Certain things are referred to us for action or approval, usually items of policy which would affect the entire membership. The meetings are in conjunction with the group's Midyear and Annual Meetings, times when most of us are in attendance anyway, and there's space for all of us. We get reimbursed for transportation cost (actual or mileage) plus a per diem which goes to housing and food. We get a buffet continental breakfast at the meeting. Not sure of the total membership, I'm sure it's over sixty. We are expected to attend ALL meetings, and can be removed if we miss two in a row. BOARD: Members from the county (Cook County is fairly large), chosen based upon a wierd formula. We meet in a central location at least once every other month, sometimes more often. Dinner meetings with a deli buffet, and no reimbursement for transportation. There are about twelve or fifteen of us, but rarely do more than eight or nine attend the meetings. No sanction for missing meetings, although we check on each other, so there's peer pressure, and a person can be not-reappointed if s/he does not attend. We have had meetings where no action was taken because we lacked a quorum. The Committees are expected to meet as required, some meet more often than others, and Committee members may be working outside the meeting as well. Board must approve everything from the budget and real estate transactions to major employment issues to policy decisions not dictated by outside forces. Once per year we have an all-day meeting, usually in midsummer, which is part training and part true meeting, and at which we get a buffet continental breakfast and deli lunch. Feeding people does seem to help get them there on time and keep them there as long as necessary. Plus, we sometimes work informally over the luncheon. ========================== Galleron asked about overseas flight costs. I've flown overseas more than once (although Finnvarr just got back and has more current information; I was almost going to Japan next month but that's been changed) in recent years and as I recall, without going through my records or checking online, the cost was $650.00 to $900.00 depending upon where, when, and with how much advance notice. I always bought advance-ticket, nonrefundable coach (although I usually ended up flying business class) and flew United Airlines. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Sewing and repairing for tourney season. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 14:43:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:27:07 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Morgan: Business Entities and Affiliations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I talked about this earlier this month I think it was, in reasponse to questions about trademark ownership. I have just reread Caitrin's message of 4/21/96 (!!!) about why non-North Americans don't bother the BoD and aren't looking for a World Judicial Council. Very good points. My history includes working with groups like Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, including as their attorney. I rather like their models as something for us to consider. I am also drawing upon my experience in licensing and franchise (not much of the latter, but it gets talked about in legal ed programs and I do stay awake and listen), and in working with interlocking business entities. I agre with Justin that the corporations should be national entities and coordinated on an international level. As far as I am aware, this is no way to establish a corporation which is valid in multiple companies; most countries require the corporation to become legally recognized in that country to do business. In the USA, technically we have corporations only on the state level, and they must register to do business in most other states. (Which means that SCA, Inc., may be violating the laws of an untold number of states by not registering there, but that's not an issue for us to address.) You can also have multiple "sister" corprations in the same state. For example, you can have the Blue Barony, Inc., the Red Barony, Inc., and the Chequy Barony Inc., all in Illinois. Each one gets to do ALL the corporate and tax paperwork for itself. Each one can individually affiliate with the Baronial Game Corporation, Inc. ("BGC") which may or may not be in Illinois. Because of the financial wrinkles, and because of site rental requirements, groups may be required to be recognized legal entities to be part of BGC. This is where we shift to licensing and franchise issues. For Blue or Red or Chequy to be part of BGC, "with all the rights and responsibilities" etc., it must agree to abide by the agreement presented by BGC. This can outline the basics of the game, or it can be painfully detailled, depending upon what BGC wants, how much control and what it considers to be the key elements of the type of game they play. For example, fast food franchises may be required to buy only certain brands of condiments, or to wash the floor a certain minimum number of times per day. However, they can get the advantage of bulk buys on papergoods or plastic cutlery through a central warehouse. To analogize, we have the 4567th Regiment of Civil War Volunteers. To join the mythical Civil War Reeneactors Authenticity Ensurance Entity, Inc., they must agree that all members will cut their hair in 1860's styles and will wear only clothing that is actual or based upon actual samples, from the skin out, and that any member maybe asked to submit to an underwear inspection at any time. However, they can patronize any sutler or other source for their goods. To apply this to the SCA, we have the Official SCA, Inc. It allows other groups to affiliate, by which the members get instant cross-recognition. Someone in Carolingia, Inc., (SCA-approved) can move to The Mists, Inc. (SCA-approved) and all awards are recognized -- BUT THE PERSON IS ALSO TREATED AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN A NEWCOMER. Why? Because the person moved in from an approved group, therefore everybody in the new group knows the person has A Clew and understands the groundrules of SCA, Inc. If the person moved in from Blue Barony, Inc., which is part of BGC, Inc., and not of SCA, Inc., then you know the person needs to be briefed on how SCA folk play the game. Note that for the group to belong to SCA, Inc., and use all of its symbols, titles, etc., it must agree to meet the standards and follow the rules and regulartions of the SCA, Inc. If it does not, or if the agreement ever ends, then the group must IMMEDIATELY cease using anything connecting it to the SCA, Inc., including symbols (trademark), titles of members, and the name. If Kingdom X decides it wants to belong to BGC instead of SCA, Inc., then it cannot any longer grant peerages, use the laurel wreath, etc. It cannot rely upon SCA, Inc., for any support, information, or products. Local corporations can act independently for daily activities, but work within the greater SCA, Inc., on issues of group policy. EASY EXAMPLE: Peerages are group policy. Intermediate awards are not. An Tir, Calontir, and the Middle work together to set some standards for What Is A Pelican, but Calontir and the Middle get no more input into What Is A Goute De Sange than An Tir does for a Cross or Purple Fret. And the Barony of Adiantum gets to decide for its ownself who should receive the Baronial Brownie, without hearing from Three Mountains or Madrone or even from the higher levels in An Tir. Yes, this pretty much is How It Is Now. See how little would be affected? I know where everybody has a hang-up: What happens to SCA, Inc., and the Worlde-wide publications if the Kingdoms/Principalities are allowed/required to have their own corporations? (I include Principalities to recognize those in countries other than the home Kingdom, which may be REQUIRED under local law to have its own corporation.) One of two answers: membership in SCA, Inc., can be separate from membership in the local corporation, OR the SCA, Inc. simply gets streamlined, as it is no longer responsible for much of the paperwork it now has to manage. EXAMPLE THE FIRST: The American Bar Association is optional. People can be a member, get the ABA Journal, and through it belong to specialized subject-area subgroups. For the SCA, these subgroups would be Marshallate, A&S, Heralds, etc. If someone wants to affect Worlde-wide policy, they join SCA, Inc., and participate in one of these subgroups. If they don't take that step, they shouldn't complain. Representatives in the ABA governing bodies are elected >from the membership. TI would go only to members of SCA, Inc.; I think CA should still be by separate subscription. EXAMPLE THE SECOND: The only difference I can think of is with the tax forms. OK, not so simplified. I honestly don't think the current form of the Game/Inc. is rational, because there's too much unnecessary overlap. If we get SCA-FIRST, Inc., the ABA model, people know that their areas of interest will have a uniform standard through the SCA. There may be regional differences (no face thrusts in some Kingdoms, allowed in others, for example), but the basic issues would be standard. You know that if someone has a fighter car that says "S&S", the person has met a certain minimum competency in sword and shield, no matter in which Kingdom the person authorized. The interest area has certain people in the upper positions, but anybody with the interest can participate in discussions or raise an issue. The governing body of that interest area ("GBIA") resolves or mediates disputes concerning that area. Only if the GBIA can't resolve it does it go to a general review. It looks like I am coming up with a counter-proposal. Probably too late to submit one, but I hope you think about this model. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Sewing and repairing for tourney season. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 14:56:57 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 14:44:53 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Disentangling Threads To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L We have a number of related issues under discussion. Let me try to disentangle them a bit. Should Kingdom review, with the power to overrule and sanction Royalty, be permitted? (I say yes) Should it be mandatory? (Yes, if that's what the Society wants. No, if it would spoil the game for several Kingdoms) What is a good detailed example of how such local review might work? (Needs work) Should appeal from the local review be allowed? (Yes, sometimes the local people are too close to the problem, and it needs another look from someone less involved.) What is the best model for higher level review? (Under discussion) Should the higher level review panel be a standing body, or pulled together Ad Hoc for each case? (Especially if part of the body's task will involve interpreting the governing documents, there are advantages to have a group that works together over time, instead of making a fresh start with new members for each new case. Remember that the review panel will not just review atrocities. Someone will have to review requests for affiliation as they come in to make recomendations to the whole World Council. And friendly questions of "We want to do thus-and-so. Do you think it would be in conflict with the Great Charter?) Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 21:58:22 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 6 Jun 1996 19:40:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Something strikes me suddenly athwart the head. The Ansteorran solution to whacko, er, irregular Crowns has been mentioned. Here, in Calontir, we've been fortunate in that we haven't really had all that many bad Crowns; an occasional incredibly stupid one, maybe, and a couple of others that haven't understood the notion of Being The Crown (in other words, totally clueless); but we haven't really had any really *bad* ones. On the other hand, katerine rountre mentions at least one set of really, really bad Atlantian Crowns. So, my question is, isn't all this fuss lacking an interkingdom anthropology outlook? Yes, some kingdoms have bad spells. Others don't. How many bad crowns, in total, over the Known World, over the past 30-odd years, have there been? And how should we structure a review board to handle these cases, in general, rather than how should we structure the board to handle the specific cases that've happened? Alban, being confused From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 22:07:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 6 Jun 1996 20:00:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I said >Umm, I'm confused, I am. Wasn't the review panel supposed to >be called in to settle a problem, or to review a frisky crwon, >and _not_ to set policy on its own, or act before the action? and Galleron responded >That was my intent. Reactive, not Proactive. Is that part of my proposal unclear? No, your proposal was quite clear. What I was getting confused on was certain commentary posted this past week about faceless bureaucrats, intereference with kingdoms, and other nasty thangs. It struck me then, and strikes me now, that having a review panel that can't work on its own, but comes into being *only* when asked to, to resolve a particular problem within a specific timeframe, is probably a Good Thing. Having a floating review board that sticks its nose into whatever business it sees fit to, to prevent bad things from happening, is a Bad Thing. (And having people on the review board that actually turns possible reviews down, as the Supreme Court does, often, is even better a Good Thing.) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 22:22:22 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:06:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Having a floating review board that sticks its nose into >whatever business it sees fit to, to prevent bad things from ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >happening, is a Bad Thing. Did anyone ever suggest this? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 23:37:43 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 978 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:27:39 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I5LLXD90OK8Y7C1S@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jun 6, 96 07:40:22 pm Cathal to Alban, Greetings: Well, I can attest to at least one. Mistress Bevin Fraser of Sterling, Earl Kevin Perigrynne and I sat as a Court of Inquiry to review allegations of high crimes and misdemeanours lodged by the populace and Peers of a Kingdom against a Crown regnant. This was the only such Commission (to my knowledge) specifically empaneled by the BoD with authority to set aside a Crown in the history of the SCA to date. The Crown was allowed the latitude to resign at the Crown List the weekend after the Inquiry; however, for all intents and purposes, they were indicted, tried and condemned based on the 20 odd hours of open court and private deliberations held. It was (IMHO) a fair trial. The verdict was as dispassionate as "Corpora" and common sense could make it. It could not have been solved by any internal recourse within the Kingdom---things were that bad. I will not envy the members of the Review Panel if they ever sit. Salve Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 6 23:37:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 653 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 20:15:54 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I5LMOK5FA88Y7C1S@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jun 6, 96 08:00:37 pm Indeed the ability of the Review Board to be the sole purveyor of its own discretion in the choice of cases is necessary. The principle of the Grand Jury with the right to create an indictment to proceed can only further its effectiveness. Inevitably there will arise situations in which the intervention of the Review Board will be viewed as improper; however it will only be with time and a track record that the true effectivness can be measured. No application of arbitration is ever 100% approved or appreciated. Cathal. BTW, the idea of a Review Board is even period (at least to a degree) in England, q.v. Commission of Oyer and Terminer. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 01:40:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 01:31:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal mentions >in England, q.v. Commission of Oyer and Terminer. I read Bracton and Glanvill the first time to find out about fealty and homage oaths and ceremonies; I'm reading them again to find out more about trial by ordeals. Now I have to read 'em a third time to find out commission of oyer and terminer? Someone wanna give me a JD? All of which is a roundabout way of saying, um, Cathal? What's a commission of Oyer and Terminer? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 09:22:58 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:10:09 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal writes: > The idea of an intrusive right on the part of such a committee >to enter into a internal dispute or administrative detail on their >own volition and without some substantial call for redress by the >involved parties gives even me the willies (this from an adherent of >the right of mediation by the current Bod system). Umm, Cathal? What do you consider a substantial call for redress? A plea from an injured party, showing standing and reasonable cause for complaint? Or more than that? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 10:01:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:52:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Ansteorran methods (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Katerine, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:13:49 -0500 From: gfrose@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu (Terry Nutter) Subject: Re: Ansteorran methods Greetings, from Katerine. You respond to me: : Note, however, that the "powers" of the Lions of Ansteorra are entirely : "extralegal." I have no problem with "extralegal" social pressure, but to : have it as the only effective method of curbing the use of "legal" powers by : an officer of a corporation -- is a sad commentary on the way we have set up : our system! Obvious I wasn't clear, so you missed a major point. The powers are _not_ exgtralegal. They are grounded in Ansteorran law. They have the _legal right and power_ to remove the cornw, or to prevent the ascension of the heirs. They've never had to go that far, but they have the legal power if they ever need to. Please forward to the Council for me. Cheers, -- Katerine/Terry From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 10:17:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:09:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I5LLXD90OK8Y7C1S@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jun 6, 96 07:40:22 pm Greetings from Tibor. So, Alban wrote: So, my question is, isn't all this fuss lacking an interkingdom anthropology outlook? Yes, some kingdoms have bad spells. Others don't. How many bad crowns, in total, over the Known World, over the past 30-odd years, have there been? And how should we structure a review board to handle these cases, in general, rather than how should we structure the board to handle the specific cases that've happened? And, let's think about the Atlantian situation a little more closely, shall we? Even when the errors have been most egregious, the current system was unable to place any sanction on those Crowns. (I'm thinking of the M of B knighting.) The systems that we currently have don't address the issue. What is the real situation in Atlantia? A combination of Hatfields and McCoys, and a willingness to make innocents the victim of that feud, and a dedication to factionalism on both sides. In other words, an example of poor human nature, coupled with the athletic skill to pull it off, and become Crown. The ability for a dedicated arse to make others miserable, yet stay within a set of bounded rules, cannot be denied or removed. What conceivable methodology exists for combating human nature, that isn't of itself a form of tyranny? Tibor (Reaching for that lion hunter analogy again) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 10:20:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1635 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 07:10:55 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607091008_129865431@emout10.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 7, 96 09:10:09 am > > Cathal writes: > > > The idea of an intrusive right on the part of such a committee > >to enter into a internal dispute or administrative detail on their > >own volition and without some substantial call for redress by the > >involved parties gives even me the willies (this from an adherent of > >the right of mediation by the current Bod system). > > Umm, Cathal? What do you consider a substantial call for redress? A plea from > an injured party, showing standing and reasonable cause for complaint? Or > more than that? > > Galleron > There needs to be evidence that the problem has exhausted _all_ reasonable venues of redress within the original Kingdom of jurisdiction. Without this caveat the reach of the Review Board becomes too intrusive against Kingdom's Rights. In the matter of inter-Kingdom disputes at least some attempt at public consiliation should have been attempted. A joint, public curia such as was used by the Wardens of the English/Scottish marches would be a reasonable action. The foregoing assumes the best case scenario with reasonable participants who actually want a solution. That, regretfully, will never always be possible. Hence some sort of merchanism needs to exist to force the issue; albeit only under _very_ extraordinary circumstances. The sole precedent to the matter is in the Commission of Inquiry which I metioned in a previous posting to Alban. This intervention was authorized only after petitions >from a sizeable number of the Peers and populace were received. Oddly enough no formal request from the Kingdom government was ever received. . . Salve, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 10:31:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1283 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 07:21:52 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I5LYB7PYW48Y7UK5@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jun 7, 96 01:31:26 am > > Cathal mentions > >in England, q.v. Commission of Oyer and Terminer. > > I read Bracton and Glanvill the first time to find out about > fealty and homage oaths and ceremonies; I'm reading them again > to find out more about trial by ordeals. Now I have to read 'em > a third time to find out commission of oyer and terminer? > Someone wanna give me a JD? > > All of which is a roundabout way of saying, um, Cathal? What's > a commission of Oyer and Terminer? > > Alban > Cathal to Alban, Greetings: No problem. Citing from _Black's Law Dictionary_: OYER AND TERMINER-"A half French phrase applied in England to the assizes which were called from the "commission of oyer and terminer" directed to the judges, empoering them to "inquire, hear and determine" all treasons, felonies and misdemeanors. . ." A more specialized usage was that of a Commission of Royal officers sent into an area to hear problems and offer redress above that available from the local authorities. A good treatment of this aspect may be found in Rachel R. Reid's _King's Council in the North_ (East Ardsley, Longmans, Green & Co., 1921). BTW one of the most prolific users of this authority was Richard of Glouchester when he was Edward's Lt. of the North. Salve, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 10:37:47 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 425 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 07:28:20 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Ansteorran methods (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606071352.JAA06296@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 7, 96 09:52:47 am Cathal to Katherine, Greetings: Am I to understand that the Lions are accorded to statute right to contravene the succession even if it fulfills the requirements of "Corpora"? What about the caveat that Kingdom Law cannot contravene the authority of the governing documents above it? Has this portion of Ansteorran KL been formally reviewed in this respect? Cathal. (who finds it a useful thought but a dangerous tool) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 10:38:39 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 25 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:26:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >The ability for a dedicated arse to make others miserable, yet stay within a >set of bounded rules, cannot be denied or removed. What conceivable >methodology exists for combating human nature, that isn't of itself a form of >tyranny? > Tibor (Reaching for that lion hunter analogy again) No review system solves all problems, but existing review systems have prevented some injustices. If we are going to give the rules to some body other than the Board of a US corporation (the reason we are talking about reviews!) I want it to be capable of counterbalancing royal or kingdom-officer authority, at least as well as the current system does. We cannot let the hot stick of the month have all the authority that we imagine medieval kings had without any of the counterbalancing factors of real politics: i.e., assassination and revolt. That's all I've ever been saying. This has been the way the SCA has worked ever since it was incorporated. Why is this such a big problem? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 10:42:01 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:29:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Further To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Unless we have some agreement that the rules will be owned by some other group than the SCA, Inc. of Milpitas, to accommodate our international character, the whole discussion of "review panels" is moot. Right now the rules are owned by a group, which has shown some ability to enforce serious breaches. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 11:10:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:49:21 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal writes: > There needs to be evidence that the problem has exhausted >_all_ reasonable venues of redress within the original Kingdom of >jurisdiction. Agreed. But it is also reasonable to require that Kingdom venues of redress be reasonably speedy. Otherwise it's too easy for the guilty parties to stall- especially if the guilty party is a King who will collect a Peerage if he stalls long enough. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 11:14:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:49:19 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor writes: >The ability for a dedicated arse to make others miserable, yet stay within a >set of bounded rules, cannot be denied or removed. Yes, but it matters what the bounded rules are. Much easier to make others miserable if the rules say that nobody in the Kingdom can touch you. Especially if you also have the power to rewrite some of the rules to suit your own convenience. Like making it a crime under Kingdom law to embarrass you with awkward questions about whether you are breaking Kingdom law. " What conceivable methodology exists for combating human nature, that isn't of itself a form of tyranny?" The Rule of Law, Consent of the Governed, and Independent Judiciary seem to have met with some success where tried. I'm willing to give them a shot. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 11:40:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:26:57 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L When the Council is allowed to start voting again, I will insert the following in my proposal: The Society Review Panel will not intervene in a matter without a plea from an injured party, showing standing and reasonable cause for complaint, or other substantial call for redress. Provided that methods of redress within the Kingdom are proceeding in a reasonably speedy fashion, the Review Panel will not intervene until they are exhausted. Except in cases occurring very late in the reign, matters so serious that they might require sanction against offending Royalty should be resolved before the end of the reign. Cathal, does this satisfy you? Others? Galleron (This is always what I had in mind. I'm happy to make it more explicit) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 12:10:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:01:32 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607104920_409266620@emout17.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 7, 96 10:49:21 am Greetings from Tibor. Galleron wrote (agreeing with Cathal about exhausting in Kingdom redress means): Agreed. But it is also reasonable to require that Kingdom venues of redress be reasonably speedy. Otherwise it's too easy for the guilty parties to stall- especially if the guilty party is a King who will collect a Peerage if he stalls long enough. I've always been of the opinion that, for those majority cases where it matters, that holding a Ducal or County coronet in abeyance until all outstanding problems are resolved, isn't much of a hardship. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 14:01:07 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:42:13 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607112657_551357680@emout09.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Will McLean wrote: > Except in cases occurring very late in the reign, matters so serious that > they might require sanction against offending Royalty should be resolved > before the end of the reign. I am not happy with this. I cannot see any grievance procedure taking less than three months at the local level and I cannot see any arbitration or review mechanism kicking in and producing a response in less than two more. My point is that trying to impose sanctions on sitting Royalty is pointless. Instead, the arbitrators should focus on how to redress the damage done to the victims. In any case, I am not convinced that there are any effective sanctions. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 14:20:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:10:09 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Ansteorran methods (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal, The rights of the Lions of Ansteorra are accorded by tradition and the clause of kingdom law which accords equal status to tradition and statute law. The circumstance which you describe has never empirically occurred, although I suppose that it is possible. If the Board were to try to review this tradition and forbid it as contravening Corpora, I suspect that the response would be a petition from the Lions and most of the Ansteorran populace to the Crown, asking that the Crown enquire of the Board exactly who they expect to be the representatives of "SCA, Inc." in Texas and Oklahoma, because it wouldn't be everybody who plays in Ansteorra anymore. Tampering with sacred traditions is an excellent way to start revolutions, a lesson which one might hope the corporation has learned in the last few years. I suspect that the response of the average Ansteorran to a question like that which you posed would be "Who the hell cares what the corporation says? We run things here and we like it that way." I find that a healthier response than the kowtowing to corporate policy I've found elsewhere. I should note that none of what I said is an "official" Ansteorran opinion; it is rather the view of someone who has studied the sociology of the kingdom from the inside and out for a very long time. Hossein Ali Qomi, Lion of Ansteorra (Greg Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 14:25:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:14:51 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Crowns should not be given absolute power without the traditional medieval safeguards. I personally favor revolt myself. If the majority of the populace of a kingdom want an unjust king gone, then they should treat him as no longer king. I'd even be willing to countenance formal structures to simulate revolt. But I think that some review board from outside the kingdom is just another way of institutionalizing the death grip of bureaucracy which already threatens the Society's institutional and social health. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 15:41:06 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:26:45 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I wrote >> Except in cases occurring very late in the reign, matters so serious that >> they might require sanction against offending Royalty should be resolved >> before the end of the reign. Fiacha: >I am not happy with this. How about adding: "Failing that, the County or Ducal coronet may not be assumed until the problem is resolved" I do not want to give royalty any incentive to delay the process. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 15:42:05 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:26:48 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hossein writes: >Crowns should not be given >absolute power without the traditional medieval safeguards. Nice to find some common ground. Yes, I agree with that. But until those medieval safeguards are in place and proved effective, I do not want to give up any of the safeguards now in place, imperfect as they are. I'm uneasy about having using those safequards too much a part of the game, because it will encourage too many people to view that as some sort of fascinating blood sport. Rather it should be as dull and unpleasant as possible, like root canal. Rather than an exciting and fascinating revolt, with enthusiastic crowds screaming from the sidelines, the King should be whisked offstage. A few grunts and scuffles should issue from behind the curtain. there will be a scream and a thump, and someone will explain that the King's persona has expired from a surfeit of lampreys, God save the King. Yes, it should be an open process, and done by the people that play the game. But it shouldn't be an integral part of our jolly medieval fun. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 15:56:13 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:42:57 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron, As someone who has participated in leading a revolt in the SCA, I solemnly assure you that the financial, emotional, and social costs are sufficiently high that only a madman would regard such a thing as "some sort of fascinating blood sport." Ask anybody who was involved in CSOS or the mandamus action just how much goddamned fun it was. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 17:01:21 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:49:56 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hossein, I apologize if I have given offense. Let me suggest, at least, that it is possible that whenever we think of Kingdom problems as "Treason against the Throne' or "Royal Tyranny" we invest them with an emotional weight that makes it more costly and painful to deal with them than when we say "The head of the Club has messed up". Please, let us concentrate on where we can agree. Neither you nor I want to see unchecked royal power. Given the culture and history of the Society, it will be impossible to institute completely effective local checks and balances instantly. Some places may regard binding, within-the-game checks as abhorrent. We cannot see how well those checks will work in advance. I regard it as very dangerous to reject some of the balances we now have on royal power before we have shown that the new ones can do the job. Once the new mechanisms are up and running, we can talk about dismantling the old ones. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 17:46:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:11:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606071942.PAA01967@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Jun 7, 96 03:42:57 pm As someone who has participated in leading a revolt in the SCA, I solemnly assure you that the financial, emotional, and social costs are sufficiently high that only a madman would regard such a thing as "some sort of fascinating blood sport." Ask anybody who was involved in CSOS or the mandamus action just how much goddamned fun it was. Or is... If you add up the job changes, house losses, hospitalizations, social damage or total burnouts from the Society amongst the members of CSOS, you would see that it isn't a lot of fun. (Not one of us hasn't gone through at *least* one of the above, more or less related to the Mandamus action.) I know that Galleron wasn't speaking against anyone on a personal level: and neither am I. It's a pretty good measure, though, of what fighting such fights really means. Tibor (I'd do it again, but ech, what a cost.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 17:46:36 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:29:15 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607104919_409266641@emout18.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 7, 96 10:49:19 am Greetings from Tibor. I had written: >The ability for a dedicated arse to make others miserable, yet stay within a >set of bounded rules, cannot be denied or removed. Galleron answered: Yes, but it matters what the bounded rules are. Much easier to make others miserable if the rules say that nobody in the Kingdom can touch you. Especially if you also have the power to rewrite some of the rules to suit your own convenience. Like making it a crime under Kingdom law to embarrass you with awkward questions about whether you are breaking Kingdom law. Understood. Judicial systems should, in and of themselves, be beyond the reach of modification by fiat. Good point. " What conceivable methodology exists for combating human nature, that isn't of itself a form of tyranny?" The Rule of Law, Consent of the Governed, and Independent Judiciary seem to have met with some success where tried. I'm willing to give them a shot. With respect, Galleron, these are nearly slogans in value. We have a Rule of Law, we have, as I learned in my early days "Absolute Monarchy by Consent of the Governed" and you could construe the Board as something of an independent judiciary. Albeit, the last could use improvement, hence our discussions. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 17:48:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:36:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Ansteorran methods (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hossein writes: > If the Board were to >try to review this tradition and forbid it as contravening Corpora, I >suspect that the response would be a petition from the Lions and most >of the Ansteorran populace to the Crown, asking that the Crown enquire >of the Board exactly who they expect to be the representatives of "SCA, >Inc." in Texas and Oklahoma, because it wouldn't be everybody who plays >in Ansteorra anymore. I would be surprised if the Board would open that can of worms on its own initiative. On the other hand, if some thick-skinned hot stick were to move in from somewhere else, win Crown, and tell the lions to jump in the lake, the Board would be in the uncomfortable position of admitting that the letter of the law was behind the new King. Which is one limitation of extra-legal methods. Better to find a way to change your laws to permit your good traditions, than to have your laws say one thing and your traditions another. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 18:07:03 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:47:49 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for Second Quarter 1996 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is it. Thanks for the corrections and I hope you can live with the changes. It goes in the mail to Renee this evening as I leave for 3YC. Tibor is officially it for the next week. Fiacha ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 11:45:49 -0700 From: Nigel Haslock To: fiacha@premier1.net Cc: haslock@dgii.com Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for Second Quarter 1996 To: SCA Inc. Board of Directors From: Nigel Haslock/Fiacha Mac Neill Subject: Grand Council Report for April to June 1996 ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE BOARD Please confirm the appointments of James Pratt/Cathal Mac Edan na faeled to the Council. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE COUNCIL The Council discussed the issues surrounding international participation at length. A simplistic solution based solely on reciprocal membership rights found no support. Nevertheless, reciprocal membership was seen by many as fundamental to resolving international issues. Instead, the Council believes that it will be necessary to create a new body to be responsible for the rules structuring our medieval activities. There is a clear need for this body to be seen as either representative of the populace or answerable to the populace. There is no agreement about how this might be achieved, but a popular suggestion is to form the body from individuals appointed by each kingdom and principality. There is a definite need for this body to be seen to be transnational This body would also be responsible for ensuring that the membership of any corporation wishing to be integrated into the SCA was and will continue to play the common game. There are a number of thorny issues that the council is aware of and is attempting to address. Not the least of these issues are the centralized membership registry and subscriptions to periodicals like Kingdom Newsletters and TI. Almost as bad is the issue of funding the new central body. It is envisioned that the central body, like the Grand Council, will not have face to face meetings as a whole and will do most of its communicating electronically. Although, still like the Grand Council, meetings at interkingdom events are highly recommended. As chairman, I would like to inform the Board that the Council is close to the end of its life, both according to its charter and in terms of the willingness and ability of the councilors to participate. A recent roll call elicited responses from 22 councilors, at least two of whom admitted that they are on the verge of giving up. Respectfully Yours Fiacha, Chairman SUMMARY for the minutes. Requests James Prat/Cathal Mac Edan be appointed to replace John Fulton/John Bearkiller. Discussing international issues. Developing a proposal to transfer control of 'game' issues to a body representative of game interests in all countries while allowing non-game issues to remain in the hands of contry specific organizations. The Council will reach the end of its term in 6 months. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 18:14:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 14:52:53 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607152645_551505161@emout10.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Will McLean wrote: > How about adding: > "Failing that, the County or Ducal coronet may not be assumed until the > problem is resolved" > > I do not want to give royalty any incentive to delay the process. I agree with the sentiment, but I do not think that the threat is significant. A goodly number of kings are already dukes in which case there is no threat at all. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 18:36:32 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:19:17 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607164955_212697373@emout17.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Will McLean wrote: > Please, let us concentrate on where we can agree. Neither you nor I want to > see unchecked royal power. Given the culture and history of the Society, it > will be impossible to institute completely effective local checks and > balances instantly. Some places may regard binding, within-the-game checks as > abhorrent. We cannot see how well those checks will work in advance. > > I regard it as very dangerous to reject some of the balances we now have on > royal power before we have shown that the new ones can do the job. This was, to a large extent, why my Ugly Compromise left control in the hands of the Board. I can see the board supporting a handover of Corpora to a respresentative body. I cannot see them releasing their review duties until they have a lot of confidence in the alternative. Even my proposal is weak in using a crown council for review. I am more than willing to amit that we need a public review board and that we need arbitrators to resolve individual issues. I am convinced that the divine right kingdoms will not accept arbitration from anyone less than an active royal peer because there would not be a problem to resolve if the crown was listening to folk of lesser rank. I understand the fear that the royal peer will close ranks and be unjust. On the other hand, this has happened before and one could view it as a normal risk for those invovled in the game. I do firmly believe, that more often than not, crown arbitrators would be biased in favour of what they believed was fair for the populace. The biggest problem is that there is no effective sanction that can be applied to a participant in our activities. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 18:46:56 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:31:43 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Morgan's Opinions on Disentangling Threads To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am springboarding from Galleron's summary. 1) Should Kingdom review, with the power to overrule and sanction Royalty, be permitted? This is touchy, since it conflicts with the precept that "The King's Word is Law." Analogize to the near-impossibility of suing the President of the US. I don't think the Kingdom should sanction its own Royalty; superior-authority review of Royalty (such as Board interpretation of Corpora re: County, or the impeachement described by Cathal(?)) is different. In such cases, the panel should consist of appropriate Peers from other Kingdoms. 2) Should it be mandatory? No. 3) What is a good detailed example of how such local review might work? Since I don't like the idea, I'm skipping this. 4) Should appeal from the local review be allowed? I agree with Galleron that "sometimes the local people are too close to the problem, and it needs another look from someone less involved." How to select these people? My suggestion would be equivalent-or-higher-level people from other groups, if possible. This parallels the medieval court structure and the theory of a jury of one's peers and betters. 5) What is the best model for higher level review? I have done higher-level review on an administrative level, once or twice. We reviewed all the documents provided, could elect to contact (by conference call) any person named in the documents for further information, and held a meeting/hearing at which the party(ies) could speak. Written report issued within a reasonable time. More important, I think would be a determination of what is reviewable on a higher level, and what decisions stand at the lower level, no matter who is unhappy. In the USA legal system, at some point your case stops, and it is often BEFORE you reach the Supreme Court (except in death penalty cases). 6) Should the higher level review panel be a standing body, or pulled together Ad Hoc for each case? My suggestion would be a standing pool of persons, one representative per , serving for three-year terms which one-third appointed each year and incumbents cannot be reappointed, and from these a random draw of 3-5 to review the situation. For example, if we have one per Kingdom, we have a pool of fourteen currently. If review is needed, automatic disqualification of the representative(s) from any involved Kingdom(s), and random draw from the remainder, trying to skip anyone who was on the last review panel. This of this as the equivalent of a venire. If you are picked for jury duty, you go to the courthouse and sit in the venire. All day, all week, whatever. You sit there and wait. If you are picked for a jury, you sit on the jury. If you aren't picked for a jury, at the end of your time you go home. Within a Kingdom, maybe one per region, and two-year terms, with one reappointment allowed. I would suggest for these appointment by the regional Witan/Curia. Alternatively, any regional officer from ANOTHER region can be chosen, from at least two different offices per each three panel members. I don't like Fiacha's suggestion of the Society Seneschal choosing panel members; this could lead to a weighted committee/panel. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Sewing and repairing for tourney season. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 18:47:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 18:31:46 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Tibor to Galleron Re: Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor said that: >> I dare say that I have a lower opinion of the average >> members knowledge of Corpora than most people do. Mine is down there, too. Never mind the people who don't read it; I've found in my practice that many people don't read the contracts and other agreements which control their relationships. Then they complain when they don't get what they want, which may not be in the document at all. However, Corpora is unnecessarily complicated. In this era of "clear legal writing," it would seem a good time to do, as Ghita indicated is in the works, a complete cleanup of Corpora and the other documents so they are relevant to today's SCA and comprehensible by today's members. I think it shows the worst of much mending, and we need to construct a whole new garment. Legislatures do this every so often to clean up the laws, and it can be a blessing. Those who cite Corpora without reading it, IMHO, get what they deserve in the end. Tibor does a useful service, but the members who want to cite Corpora should get their own, current copies. IMVHO again. ---= Morgan (who owns at least one) |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Sewing and repairing for tourney season. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 18:47:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 470 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:25:00 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607104920_409266620@emout17.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 7, 96 10:49:21 am > > Cathal writes: > > > There needs to be evidence that the problem has exhausted > >_all_ reasonable venues of redress within the original Kingdom of > >jurisdiction. > > Agreed. But it is also reasonable to require that Kingdom venues of redress > be reasonably speedy. Otherwise it's too easy for the guilty parties to > stall- especially if the guilty party is a King who will collect a Peerage if > he stalls long enough. > > Galleron > Amen. Cathal From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:11:41 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1272 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:24:04 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960607112657_551357680@emout09.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 7, 96 11:26:57 am > > When the Council is allowed to start voting again, I will insert the > following in my proposal: > > The Society Review Panel will not intervene in a matter without a plea from > an injured party, showing standing and reasonable cause for complaint, or > other substantial call for redress. Provided that methods of redress within > the Kingdom are proceeding in a reasonably speedy fashion, the Review Panel > will not intervene until they are exhausted. Yes and no. Since the "injured party" in a dsipute sufficently large to embroil the Kingdom is generally more than one individual, I would suggest a specific definition for both individuals and class action. The matter of degree of complaint would also have to be addressed > > Except in cases occurring very late in the reign, matters so serious that > they might require sanction against offending Royalty should be resolved > before the end of the reign. Add the matter of no County/Duchy until the matter is reconciled and the right to deny them if the Crown is found culpable. Cathal (who may be a bit influenced because he just finished rewatching "Cromwell") > > Cathal, does this satisfy you? Others? > > Galleron > (This is always what I had in mind. I'm happy to make it more explicit) > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:12:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 917 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:18:38 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606071601.MAA11056@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 7, 96 12:01:32 pm > > Greetings from Tibor. > > Galleron wrote (agreeing with Cathal about exhausting in Kingdom redress > means): > Agreed. But it is also reasonable to require that Kingdom venues of redress > be reasonably speedy. Otherwise it's too easy for the guilty parties to > stall- especially if the guilty party is a King who will collect a Peerage if > he stalls long enough. > > I've always been of the opinion that, for those majority cases where it > matters, that holding a Ducal or County coronet in abeyance until all > outstanding problems are resolved, isn't much of a hardship. > > Tibor > I've always been a proponent of a narrow definition of a "successful reign" for the bestowal of the Royal Peerages. If the outgoing Crown has an action pending against the holders for problems occurring in violation of statute, then nothing should be bestowed until the books are cleared. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:13:31 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 994 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 13:11:46 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Ansteorran methods (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606071810.OAA00893@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Jun 7, 96 02:10:09 pm Cathal to Hossein, Greetings: Thank you for the clarification. The delimma I feared is the old bugbear of Common law (Tradition) through an elastic clause having status with statute. Several reigns ago we had just such a problem with a willful Crown in Meridies. They changed the interpretation of several ancient charters of Meridian Orders which the first Crown of Meridies had agreed, as a consideration of their Coronation oath to receive maintain as a part of the patrimony from Atenveldt. I argued the coexistance of tradition with statute and as was advised by both BoD members residing in Meridies that the BoD did _not_ recognise that equality. Luckily the reign ended and the successors had enough sense to restore the original considerations. BTW, my field notes on the "Lions" came from Countess Aeruin ni hEarain (9th Lion) who resides in the Downs. I questioned the original posting on statutory right only because it was missing from that information. Salve, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:17:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:04:55 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Ansteorran methods (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron, I doubt seriously that an Ansteorran king who told the Lions to jump in the lake (by which I infer you mean defied the Lions on a matter of kingdom tradition or justice) would have a single subject who paid him either respect or mind within a day of it happening. You can't be king if everybody treats you like a craven arsehole. The only effective sanctions in the SCA are social ones which the membership imposes on itself. I don't think that the specifically Ansteorran model would work well in most other places. But I do think that formal institutions are no substitute for the only real sanctions we have. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:25:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2960 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:10:55 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Jun 7, 96 03:19:17 pm > > Greetings from Fiacha, > > On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Will McLean wrote: > > > Please, let us concentrate on where we can agree. Neither you nor I want to > > see unchecked royal power. Given the culture and history of the Society, it > > will be impossible to institute completely effective local checks and > > balances instantly. Some places may regard binding, within-the-game checks as > > abhorrent. We cannot see how well those checks will work in advance. > > > > I regard it as very dangerous to reject some of the balances we now have on > > royal power before we have shown that the new ones can do the job. > > This was, to a large extent, why my Ugly Compromise left control in the > hands of the Board. I can see the board supporting a handover of Corpora > to a respresentative body. I cannot see them releasing their review duties > until they have a lot of confidence in the alternative. Even my proposal > is weak in using a crown council for review. Would we then be correct in assuming that the path of least resistance would encompass the BoD having the final sign-off on the decision of any panel/board? The creation of a review panel would then create a "public" venue whereby (irrespective of its composition) a "fair" hearing could be given to the respective petitioners. It would also serve as a cautionary to the final consideration of the BoD since an action contrary to the public evidence and recommendation of the impartial panel/board would lay the BoD itself open to public censure. It would also minimize the time the BoD would have to spend on the consideration of such cases. > > I am more than willing to amit that we need a public review board and that > we need arbitrators to resolve individual issues. I am convinced that the > divine right kingdoms will not accept arbitration from anyone less than an > active royal peer because there would not be a problem to resolve if the > crown was listening to folk of lesser rank. I understand the fear that the > royal peer will close ranks and be unjust. On the other hand, this has > happened before and one could view it as a normal risk for those invovled > in the game. I do firmly believe, that more often than not, crown > arbitrators would be biased in favour of what they believed was fair for > the populace. Especially if they understood theirs was not the "final" word and the BoD would have the ultimate responsibility of promulgating their recommendation. > > The biggest problem is that there is no effective sanction that can be > applied to a participant in our activities. There is a capital response available. If their action is sufficently odious and damaging to the Game, then remove them from it. Lesser penalties could include removal of honours and banning from future ability to regain them. Yes this is harsh; however the dictum of pour encourager les autres workes more often than not. Salvete, Cathal. > > Fiacha > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:36:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:23:57 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor, I think that your appreciation of the Atlantian situation is a touch out of date. As someone who lived there not so long ago, I suggest that the Oldcastle/Bedford feud is largely history. The more current problems stem from the alliance of Bedford and Duke Anton (and some of Anton's household), which seems to be chiefly a measure to abet a theory of monarchy in which no one is allowed to have any input into the decision making on any matter of real importance who is not beholden to one of those two principals. When this is coupled with the bureaucratic model on which the kingdom is administered, it is a thing at which Stalin might have gazed longingly for such efficiency in the implementation of tyranny. Voices of opposition are quickly stilled, as much from disgust as from oppression. It is a dreadful place in which to play SCA. If I lived there still, I would not attend events. But I think it is ludicrous to base solutions for the SCA as a whole on an outlier case, even an outlier as painful as this. If we had to plan for Bedford or Anton as the general model of our kings, the safer and saner procedure would be to simply shoot them in the head at coronation, not some board of review. If things have really gotten bad enough in the Society at large than we must legislate on such a model, then our whole enterprise is lost. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:47:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:35:35 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal said " There needs to be evidence that the problem has exhausted _all_ reasonable venues of redress within the original Kingdom of jurisdiction. Without this caveat the reach of the Review Board becomes too intrusive against Kingdom's Rights. In the matter of inter-Kingdom disputes at least some attempt at public consiliation should have been attempted. A joint, public curia such as was used by the Wardens of the English/Scottish marches would be a reasonable action." In_ter_-Kingdom disputes? This debate, so far, seems to have focussed on _intra_-Kingdom disputes. Was this simply a minor mis=spelling, or are you widening the scope of the Review Board to involve multi-Kingdom disputes? (Hmmm, sounds like good reasons to have Wars to my mind. ) And I would like to add in the same question asked before, but this time to this new section: What multi-kingdom disputes have there been that've needed to be settled by the Board? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 19:59:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:45:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha said >My point is that trying to impose sanctions on sitting Royalty is >pointless. Instead, the arbitrators should focus on how to redress the >damage done to the victims. In any case, I am not convinced that there are >any effective sanctions. (Especially in the West, with four-month reigns.) Not only damages owed to victims, but some sort of ruling or suggestion as to how to avoid the problem in the future, or how to deal with it such that the review board doesn't have to be called in again for the same thing..... Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 20:02:04 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:50:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron said I regard it as very dangerous to reject some of the balances we now have on royal power before we have shown that the new ones can do the job. ER, ah, I hesitate to suggest such a thing, considering everyone's opinions on the matter (including mine).....but, er, ah, rather than coming up whole hog with a new improved plan, can we look at how the Board deals with such matters _now_, and tweak it? Rather than starting de novo? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 20:16:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 20:04:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hossein said " But I think it is ludicrous to base solutions for the SCA as a whole on an outlier case, even an outlier as painful as this. If we had to plan for Bedford or Anton as the general model of our kings, the safer and saner procedure would be to simply shoot them in the head at coronation, not some board of review. If things have really gotten bad enough in the Society at large than we must legislate on such a model, then our whole enterprise is lost." Exactly. Yeah. Yup. This is why I suggested, a couple of days ago, that the review board should be set up with general rules to handle the Known World, rather than specific worst-case scenarios based on one or two kingdoms. (Hmmm, Hossein and I agree. One wonders.) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 7 22:42:56 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1900 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:31:19 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I5N04VZHBS8Y84UY@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jun 7, 96 07:35:35 pm > > Cathal said > " There needs to be evidence that the problem has exhausted > _all_ reasonable venues of redress within the original Kingdom of > jurisdiction. Without this caveat the reach of the Review Board > becomes too intrusive against Kingdom's Rights. In the matter of > inter-Kingdom disputes at least some attempt at public consiliation > should have been attempted. A joint, public curia such as was used > by the Wardens of the English/Scottish marches would be a reasonable > action." > > In_ter_-Kingdom disputes? This debate, so far, seems to have > focussed on _intra_-Kingdom disputes. Was this simply a minor > mis=spelling, or are you widening the scope of the Review Board > to involve multi-Kingdom disputes? > > (Hmmm, sounds like good reasons to have Wars to my mind. ) > > And I would like to add in the same question asked before, but this > time to this new section: What multi-kingdom disputes have there > been that've needed to be settled by the Board? > > Alban > My sometimes execrable typing skills aside, it was not a misspelling. Unless I am mistaken the original post on this topic was inclusive of problems re: both inter and intra Kingdom disputes. Granted the former is less likely to occur so long as there is a central authority regulating the allocation of territory and a general consensus amongst the Kingdoms as to reciprocity on awards and such. To date, there have been no real disputes in the Known World which required a Peacekeeping effort by the BoD between Kingdoms. Most of the problems which even shadowed this situation were simply spillages of intra-Kingdom vitriol through partisan connections across borders. Opinions, luckily, have not developed the mouths to cry "Havoc". However we have no guarantee that such will not be the case in the future and the erring toward prudence never hurt anyone. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jun 8 09:12:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 09:05:11 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Jun 7, 96 02:52:53 pm > How about adding: > "Failing that, the County or Ducal coronet may not be assumed until the > problem is resolved" > > I do not want to give royalty any incentive to delay the process. I agree with the sentiment, but I do not think that the threat is significant. A goodly number of kings are already dukes in which case there is no threat at all. There are obvious solutions to such a thing: demotion. Bing, you're a count now. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jun 8 09:52:38 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1205 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 06:43:49 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606081305.JAA06836@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 8, 96 09:05:11 am > > > How about adding: > > "Failing that, the County or Ducal coronet may not be assumed until the > > problem is resolved" > > > > I do not want to give royalty any incentive to delay the process. > > I agree with the sentiment, but I do not think that the threat is > significant. A goodly number of kings are already dukes in which case > there is no threat at all. > > There are obvious solutions to such a thing: demotion. Bing, you're a count > now. > > Tibor > Yes! There is also the matter of making the punishment fit the crime. Given the magnititude of the misbehaviour, it could also encompass complete loss of regnal diginties and, for those hard-core/headed cases, forfeiture of the right to participate in future Crown/Coronet lists. At least in this model the matter of noblesse oblige has some of the teeth which its period counterpart possessed. Social disapprobation is hollow when the recipient is sufficently powerful to ignore it. I doubt that the foregoing will have to be imposed more than once or twice before it becomes a permanent momento morii in the collective Royal psyche with the attendant benefits to good governance. Salvete, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 9 15:35:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.837.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 12:22:00 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'm a little worried that there is discussion of situations in Atlantia and these discussions are not stated more strongly as opinions instead of being treated as fact. What I'm saying is that it is being presented as an example of what can go wrong and used to support the need for some sort of review board. I also have spent time in Atlantia and know some of what goes on there. My opinion is much less severe than others. However, it is an opinion and I state it as such. In my travels around the SCA, I've been to quite a few Kingdoms that have royalty that rotates within a very small circle. That does cause some concern for many people in those kingdoms (mainly due to human nature type fears where they think a small group "controls" everything). I proposed a few days ago one solution, putting into Corpora (so it isn't subject to kingdom law) a stipulation that there must be a preset time period between reigns (say only reign once every two years). That will help to reduce this problem. Michael Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 9 21:12:33 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1881 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 18:03:01 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Potter, Michael" at Jun 9, 96 12:22:00 pm > > I'm a little worried that there is discussion of situations in Atlantia > and these discussions are not stated more strongly as opinions instead > of being treated as fact. What I'm saying is that it is being presented > as an example of what can go wrong and used to support the need for some > sort of review board. I also have spent time in Atlantia and know some > of what goes on there. My opinion is much less severe than others. > However, it is an opinion and I state it as such. To date my impression of the references to politics in Atlantia has been simply that. . .a point of reference to an extreme which under- writes the necessity of a review process outside the direct influence of local coercive factors. I agree that this is neither the forum for the pointing of fingers nor the venting of spleens. > > In my travels around the SCA, I've been to quite a few Kingdoms that > have royalty that rotates within a very small circle. That does cause > some concern for many people in those kingdoms (mainly due to human > nature type fears where they think a small group "controls" everything). > I proposed a few days ago one solution, putting into Corpora (so it > isn't subject to kingdom law) a stipulation that there must be a preset > time period between reigns (say only reign once every two years). That > will help to reduce this problem. This is a positive, proactive consideration. I've seen the results of fighters who become "all het up" for the strawberry leaves and plunge into a second reign before the lessons of the first were well digested. There is also another consideration from that same basket. If the number of reigns which an individual is allowed to have is limited (to say, three in the same Kingdom) would that not serve an equivalent purpose? Comments? Salvete, Cathal. , > > Michael Potter > Sir Myrdin the Just > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 9 21:34:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 21:26:44 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Katerine, by Tibor. [Message reformated to handle indentation] Forwarded message: Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 17:10:44 -0500 From: gfrose@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu (Terry Nutter) Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel Tibor, please forward again. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Greetings to the members of the Grand Council, from Katerine Rountre. Tibor wrote: >> There are obvious solutions to such a thing: demotion. Bing, you're a >> count now. and Cathal responds: > Yes! There is also the matter of making the punishment fit the >crime. Given the magnititude of the misbehaviour, it could also encompass >complete loss of regnal diginties and, for those hard-core/headed cases, >forfeiture of the right to participate in future Crown/Coronet lists. > At least in this model the matter of noblesse oblige has some of >the teeth which its period counterpart possessed. Social disapprobation >is hollow when the recipient is sufficently powerful to ignore it. Cathal, why do you think these people want to rule, or to have the fruits of the reign? So that they can ride the subway free? It's _all_ social. No review body can take away your birthday. The _most_ it can do, if the misbehavior does not merit total refusal of the right ever again to participate in an event -- which itself is a social sanction -- is to place upon you what it hopes will be received as a stigma. If the people of your kingdom decide that the reivew board convicted you wrongly, and call you "Your Grace" anyhow, and continue to treat you with respect and reverence, the review board's action will have little effect on the future actions of any monarchs. If the people of your kingdom decide that the review board _acquitted_ you wrongly, and never again address you by anything more respectful than "Sirrah", that will have more effect on the future actions of monarchs than anything the review board could have done. An appeal mechanism may occasionally be useful to undo damage to others. If it is not at least _accompanied_ by social sanctions, it is profoundly unlikely to affect future behaviors by crowns, except in that they probably won't bother to do that particualr form of damage again -- they'll go for something else instead. This is the _clear_ lesson of the Society's decades of experience with Michael of Bedford. It's like trying to block a stream with a twig: it just finds another path around. I am not saying that review bodies are worthless. I think they _can_ be useful to bring restitution in cases of injustice. But as purveyors of _discipline_, in a voluntary social organization, they have in principle nowhere _near_ the power of social sanction; indeed, what power they have directly _derives_ from social sanction, and is empty without it. We can't send people to jail, you know. -- Katerine/Terry From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 9 22:08:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 22:00:13 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606100103.SAA02539@netcom23.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at Jun 9, 96 06:03:01 pm Greetings from Tibor. Cathal wrote: There is also another consideration from that same basket. If the number of reigns which an individual is allowed to have is limited (to say, three in the same Kingdom) would that not serve an equivalent purpose? Comments? I'm reminded of an Eastern situation. Once upon a time in the recent past, a Kingdom Seneschal decided that she wanted to get rid of a certain regional seneschal. This was certainly within her power: but to do so would raise quite a stink, as Eastern Seneschals tend to hold the position until their local group has them step down. She instituted a rule requiring local Seneschals to step down: the rule was tortured, and removed only about 4 or 5 local group seneschals. It also contained an exception provision, and she pre-authorized exceptions for all but one Seneschal. The furor was rather intense, personal, and twice as vitriolic as it could have otherwise been: and every group and subject of the East was involved. To me, the lesson was clear. Have the stones to handle problems in and of themselves, rather than create blanket rules to handle potential ones. This plays back to the question of what is justice. Justice would punish specific instances, not generic potential classes. I too, had wondered to myself why or how to confine Crowns to fewer reigns. I can think of several compelling reasons why that is unwise. For example, I know of several people whose relationships didn't survive, and who chose to place their new partners on the throne, as well. I can think of others. Note that a reasonably short cooling off period is not the same as fiat limits. The East, currently, requires at least one reign off between reigns. I presume most or many Kingdoms do likewise. If we were to contemplate such a regulation and recommendation, it must consider several factors. One, is the alternate regnal length of the West (and perhaps future areas), two is the issue of wanting to reign in differing seasons (ie, summer Crowns of the East get Pennsic...) and three is how this would be an administrative issue, and not an organizational one: medieval issues are not within our purview. Frankly, I believe the better mechanism is to reduce the power of the Crowns, so that they are, generally, more medieval people than regional officers. Once that was so, the stakes are lower. This would be within our purview, if tangential to our current point of discussion. Forgive me if I wandered: it was a long and lovely weekend, and I am a bit tired. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 9 22:54:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3289 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 19:44:21 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606100200.WAA10541@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 9, 96 10:00:13 pm > > Greetings from Tibor. > > Cathal wrote: > There is also another consideration from that same basket. > If the number of reigns which an individual is allowed to have is > limited (to say, three in the same Kingdom) would that not serve an > equivalent purpose? Comments? > > I'm reminded of an Eastern situation. Once upon a time in the recent past, > a Kingdom Seneschal decided that she wanted to get rid of a certain regional > seneschal. This was certainly within her power: but to do so would raise > quite a stink, as Eastern Seneschals tend to hold the position until their > local group has them step down. > > She instituted a rule requiring local Seneschals to step down: the rule was > tortured, and removed only about 4 or 5 local group seneschals. It also > contained an exception provision, and she pre-authorized exceptions for all > but one Seneschal. > > The furor was rather intense, personal, and twice as vitriolic as it could > have otherwise been: and every group and subject of the East was involved. > > To me, the lesson was clear. Have the stones to handle problems in and of > themselves, rather than create blanket rules to handle potential ones. > > This plays back to the question of what is justice. Justice would punish > specific instances, not generic potential classes. Agreed. I prposed the "limitations of reigns" simply to broach the matter now rather than have it pop up later as an "oversight" with the attendant (and often unproductive) debate. > > I too, had wondered to myself why or how to confine Crowns to fewer reigns. > I can think of several compelling reasons why that is unwise. For example, > I know of several people whose relationships didn't survive, and who chose > to place their new partners on the throne, as well. I can think of others. > > Note that a reasonably short cooling off period is not the same as fiat > limits. > > The East, currently, requires at least one reign off between reigns. I > presume most or many Kingdoms do likewise. If we were to contemplate such a > regulation and recommendation, it must consider several factors. One, is > the alternate regnal length of the West (and perhaps future areas), two is > the issue of wanting to reign in differing seasons (ie, summer Crowns of > the East get Pennsic...) and three is how this would be an administrative > issue, and not an organizational one: medieval issues are not within our > purview. Meridies does not allow a Crown to succeed itself. Aside from that there is no limitation or restriction > > Frankly, I believe the better mechanism is to reduce the power of the > Crowns, so that they are, generally, more medieval people than regional > officers. Once that was so, the stakes are lower. This would be within > our purview, if tangential to our current point of discussion. But what would constitute a reduction of powers? I think a topical list rather than a consideration of the "mechanics" would be more appropriate at this juncture. We need to isolate the potential problem points, agree on our scope of consideration and then limit the subsequent deliberations to it. Cathal. > > Forgive me if I wandered: it was a long and lovely weekend, and I am a bit > tired. > > Tibor > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 9 23:06:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3585 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 19:56:23 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606100126.VAA09831@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 9, 96 09:26:44 pm > > For Katerine, by Tibor. [Message reformated to handle indentation] > > Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1996 17:10:44 -0500 > From: gfrose@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu (Terry Nutter) > Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel > > Tibor, please forward again. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Greetings to the members of the Grand Council, from Katerine Rountre. > > Tibor wrote: > > >> There are obvious solutions to such a thing: demotion. Bing, you're a > >> count now. > > and Cathal responds: > > > Yes! There is also the matter of making the punishment fit the > >crime. Given the magnititude of the misbehaviour, it could also encompass > >complete loss of regnal diginties and, for those hard-core/headed cases, > >forfeiture of the right to participate in future Crown/Coronet lists. > > At least in this model the matter of noblesse oblige has some of > >the teeth which its period counterpart possessed. Social disapprobation > >is hollow when the recipient is sufficently powerful to ignore it. > > Cathal, why do you think these people want to rule, or to have the > fruits of the reign? > > So that they can ride the subway free? > > It's _all_ social. No review body can take away your birthday. The > _most_ it can do, if the misbehavior does not merit total refusal of > the right ever again to participate in an event -- which itself is > a social sanction -- is to place upon you what it hopes will be received > as a stigma. > > If the people of your kingdom decide that the reivew board convicted > you wrongly, and call you "Your Grace" anyhow, and continue to treat > you with respect and reverence, the review board's action will have > little effect on the future actions of any monarchs. > > If the people of your kingdom decide that the review board _acquitted_ > you wrongly, and never again address you by anything more respectful > than "Sirrah", that will have more effect on the future actions of > monarchs than anything the review board could have done. > > An appeal mechanism may occasionally be useful to undo damage to > others. If it is not at least _accompanied_ by social sanctions, > it is profoundly unlikely to affect future behaviors by crowns, > except in that they probably won't bother to do that particualr form > of damage again -- they'll go for something else instead. This is > the _clear_ lesson of the Society's decades of experience with > Michael of Bedford. It's like trying to block a stream with a > twig: it just finds another path around. > > I am not saying that review bodies are worthless. I think they _can_ > be useful to bring restitution in cases of injustice. But as > purveyors of _discipline_, in a voluntary social organization, they have > in principle nowhere _near_ the power of social sanction; indeed, what > power they have directly _derives_ from social sanction, and is empty > without it. > > We can't send people to jail, you know. > > -- Katerine/Terry > No, the regulatory ability of the Review Board would not be anywhere near perfect. Its sole and most useful purpose is to alert the general populace of a problem and to show that the SCA cares enough to provide a venue of relative equality for its solution. If the people choose not to acknowlege its authority, then that it their right. The fact that its redress is available is the important factor. Jails come in many guises. Salve, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 04:01:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:32:19 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Absolute power, and safeguards To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 14.14 07-06-1996 -0400, Hossein/Greg wrote: > Crowns should not be given >absolute power without the traditional medieval safeguards. I personally >favor revolt myself. If the majority of the populace of a kingdom want >an unjust king gone, then they should treat him as no longer king. ...which is just about what happened in Nordmark a year ago, although it was just our baron that started acting up. Funny enough, one of the reasons for his actions was that we were not allowed to write into our principality laws that the "ting" (general meeting) should have power to negate decisions of the coronet! >I'd even be willing to countenance formal structures to simulate revolt. How about a general meeting of the populace, deciding that the king is no longer? (To the barricades! Down with the King! etc) >But I think that some review board from outside the kingdom is just >another way of institutionalizing the death grip of bureaucracy which >already threatens the Society's institutional and social health. Speaking (typing?) as a swede with *some* familiarity with bureaucrats and the running of small to medium non-profit-org's, I feel that a not even a bureaucrat has more power than people are willing to give hir. I doubt that a swedish NPO can be bound by decisions from an outside rewiew board. Decisions affecting the org. and it's members must be made by a general meeting of the organizations members. Decisions can, and usually are, delegated to the board, but can always be appealed to the GM. Note that the board and/or the General Meeting can always follow recommendations from any outside body if they so choose! Since mundane law takes precedence over SCA Kingdoms law, I think that the governing documents of a swedish NPO must take precedence over the laws of the SCA group it supports. Ergo: A decision by the ruler of the Principality of Nordmark (if and when there is one) that affects Nordmark's members or operations can be overturned by the Board of SKA-Nordmark, and the boards decision can be appealed to SKA's general meeting. "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!" Monthy Python, "Constitutional Peasant" Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 04:56:32 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:27:16 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Frithiof Re: Morgan's Opinions on Disentangling Threads To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 18.31 07-06-1996 EDT, Morgan wrote: >1) Should Kingdom review, with the power to overrule and sanction > Royalty, be permitted? > >This is touchy, since it conflicts with the precept that "The King's Word is >Law." Analogize to the near-impossibility of suing the President of the US. I >don't think the Kingdom should sanction its own Royalty; superior-authority >review of Royalty (such as Board interpretation of Corpora re: County, or the >impeachement described by Cathal(?)) is different. In such cases, the panel >should consist of appropriate Peers from other Kingdoms. This runs into inter-kingdom anthropology: Kingdom sanction of Royalty fits rather well into the "King's Word is just words" precept, and with the idea that intrenal problems should be solved internally. A panel of Peers from other kingdoms would be unthinkable for much the same reason. >6) Should the higher level review panel be a standing body, or > pulled together Ad Hoc for each case? > >My suggestion would be a standing pool of persons, one representative per >, serving for three-year terms which one-third appointed each year and >incumbents cannot be reappointed, and from these a random draw of 3-5 to review >the situation. >Within a Kingdom, maybe one per region, and two-year terms, with one >reappointment allowed. I would suggest for these appointment by the regional >Witan/Curia. This seems a workable set-up, and would probably be acceptable to most people. (At least as long as there is no specifications on who may or may not sit on the panel.) BUT I do not think that local procedures should be imposed from above. Let each kingdom arrange their internal complaints procedure according to local laws and customs! Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 05:17:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 10:52:06 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 16.10 07-06-1996 -0700, you wrote: > Would we then be correct in assuming that the path of least >resistance would encompass the BoD having the final sign-off on the >decision of any panel/board? I assume that this means that the BoD of SCA,Inc. has the final say in disputes involving members of groups affiliated with said corporation, and (for example) the BoD of SKA-Nordmark in disputes involving members in Nordmark. But what about disputes involving individuals >from groups affiliated with different corporations? >> The biggest problem is that there is no effective sanction that can be >> applied to a participant in our activities. > > There is a capital response available. If their action is >sufficently odious and damaging to the Game, then remove them from it. That is equivalent to revoking or denying membership to a person. For a swedish non-profit organization, such a decision by the board can always be appealed to a general meeting of all members. >Lesser penalties could include removal of honours and banning from >future ability to regain them. That is at least to severly infringe on membership rights, which is almost as bad as denying membership. See comments above. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 05:24:56 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:01:38 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha Plan for more Royal Power To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 19.23 07-06-1996 -0400, Hossein/Greg wrote: >Tibor, > I think that your appreciation of the Atlantian situation is a >touch out of date. As someone who lived there not so long ago, I suggest >that the Oldcastle/Bedford feud is largely history. The more current >problems stem from the alliance of Bedford and Duke Anton (and some of >Anton's household), which seems to be chiefly a measure to abet a theory >of monarchy in which no one is allowed to have any input into the decision >making on any matter of real importance who is not beholden to one of >those two principals. When this is coupled with the bureaucratic model >on which the kingdom is administered, it is a thing at which Stalin might >have gazed longingly for such efficiency in the implementation of tyranny. If the implementers/bureaucrats vere answerable to and could be removed by the general populace, a situation like this could be resolved quite easily: Kick out the yes-people and get some officers with spine! Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 11:59:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:48:55 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: More on Review Panel Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban writes: >And I would like to add in the same question asked before, but this >time to this new section: What multi-kingdom disputes have there >been that've needed to be settled by the Board? If memory serves, some years back one King knighted a subject of another Kingdom, in a way that was later determined was contrary to Corpora. Not precisely an inter -Kingdom dispute, but one that affected more than one Kingdom Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 12:00:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:48:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Katerine writes: >It's _all_ social. No review body can take away your birthday. The >> _most_ it can do, if the misbehavior does not merit total refusal of >> the right ever again to participate in an event -- which itself is >> a social sanction -- is to place upon you what it hopes will be received >> as a stigma. Well, yes. But formal review and informal social pressure are a lot stronger if they can work in tandem, rather than if you must rely on only one or the other. We are taught that a Peerage can only recognize the merit that you already have. And yet a lot of people care a great deal about whether or not they get the formal award. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 12:05:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 11:56:51 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606100244.TAA26700@netcom9.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at Jun 9, 96 07:44:21 pm Greetings from Tibor. I had written: Frankly, I believe the better mechanism is to reduce the power of the Crowns, so that they are, generally, more medieval people than regional officers. Once that was so, the stakes are lower. This would be within our purview, if tangential to our current point of discussion. Cathal answered: But what would constitute a reduction of powers? I think a topical list rather than a consideration of the "mechanics" would be more appropriate at this juncture. We need to isolate the potential problem points, agree on our scope of consideration and then limit the subsequent deliberations to it. Reduction of powers? Confinement to the game, I suspect. Remove from them the ability to hold courts of chivalry over mundane matters, take away their ability to appoint and control offices that are not medieval in nature. In short, make the King a King, and not a bureaucrat. This does mess up, however, what I feel is a fine and unintended offshoot of our current system. Every few months, the existing heirarchy gets a new, and unpredicted boss, to which it must become accountable. This has certain positive side-effects. I don't see how we can get one without another, unless we choose our Seneschals with archery tournaments, or something. (:-) Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 12:53:24 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 194 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 09:38:43 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606101556.LAA28153@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 10, 96 11:56:51 am Cathal to Tibor, Greetingûs: ûRE: The choosing of Seneschals via archery tournaments. . . Would that be along the St. SebastianøÄ model?:-) Salve, Cathal (Seneschal quandam et nunc. . .)÷³ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 13:07:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:57:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Further (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Kwellend-Njal, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: "David W. James" Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:10:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Further On Jun 7, 10:29am, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > Right now the rules are owned by a group, which has shown some ability to > enforce serious breaches. > Finnvarr And commit some. Lets not forget why we are here. Kwellend-Njal From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 10 18:56:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1830 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:41:41 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606100852.AA01314@akka.kemi.uu.se> from "Sven Noren" at Jun 10, 96 10:52:06 am > > At 16.10 07-06-1996 -0700, you wrote: > > > Would we then be correct in assuming that the path of least > >resistance would encompass the BoD having the final sign-off on the > >decision of any panel/board? > > I assume that this means that the BoD of SCA,Inc. has the final say > in disputes involving members of groups affiliated with said corporation, > and (for example) the BoD of SKA-Nordmark in disputes involving > members in Nordmark. But what about disputes involving individuals > from groups affiliated with different corporations? > > > >> The biggest problem is that there is no effective sanction that can be > >> applied to a participant in our activities. > > > > There is a capital response available. If their action is > >sufficently odious and damaging to the Game, then remove them from it. > > That is equivalent to revoking or denying membership to a person. For a > swedish non-profit organization, such a decision by the board can always > be appealed to a general meeting of all members. > > >Lesser penalties could include removal of honours and banning from > >future ability to regain them. > > That is at least to severly infringe on membership rights, which is almost > as bad as denying membership. See comments above. > > Frithiof the friendly herald > Cathal to All, Greetings: Frithiof's comments on the procedural variants for the Swedish affiliated groups brings up a reasonable consideration. What other legal requirements imposed by non-USA governments should effect our considerations? If we are to assist in the restructuring of the SCA entity, then a basic knowledge of these criteria can only expedite the deliberations. If the differences cannot be _legally_ reconciled, then it is indeed material to our efforts. Comments? Salve, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 11 17:08:11 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:17:10 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos, returning from an enforced hiatus (painfull things, those hiati (:-)). At 02:58 PM 30/5/96 -0700, Nigel Haslock wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >On Thu, 30 May 1996, Will McLean wrote: > >> Another thing. If we assume that these groups have a structure like SCA, >> Inc., they will also have a local corpora. If they follow our example, it >> will be a governing document of their corporation (safest place to put it, >> where the Kings can't mess with it). This was the main reason why I wanted >> the world body to vet the other corps: to make sure there wasn't anything >> there that would prevent them from playing our common game. >> >> Galleron > >I begin to see. My model has been based on my experience of NSCA, the >corporation that supports Lions Gate and possible some other branches in >British Columbia. NSCA has, to the best of my knowledge, an offer >structure that is independent of the Lions Gate officer structure. The >President is not 'de facto' seneschal, or vice versa. The NSCA does not >have a charter to match Corpora because no part of its function is >related to controlling or administering the game. > >This is clearly a different model to that used in other places. The Australian incorporation works more like Fiacha's than Galleron's. The governing body have no game positions, and are constrained by the local rules to not hold certain offices (eg seneschal of any group). This was done (I think) to mirror the same restrictions for Board members, for whatever reasons they have that constraint. > >Given that we are trying to formulate a world organization to assume >control of the game, it would make sense to require that all corporation >amend their charters to accept the authority of the world organization in >all game matters that are not at odds with local laws of the land. > The Australian incorporation has already done this, and more. The Committee is subordinate to the BOD (in ways that are not entirely clear, except that rule changes must be ratified by the BOD), not only for game issues, but for mundane issues as well. This might not be an altogether bad thing in those cases which span the two jurisdictions, eg banishments and punishments arising from courts of inquiry. On the other hand, in my opinin it is not necessary to have this direct a subordination in order to perform the day to day functions of the corporation. This is why, when I designed a system for allowing incorporations subordinate to the Australian "corporation", I developed the Memorandum of Affiliation concept, wherein is defined the boundaries between the corporate entities, and the mechanisms they both use to interact with each other. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 11 17:12:25 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 17:15:59 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Catrin writes: >I'm looking forward to the day we'll be able to put in, instead, that we >endorse the Great Charter of SCA-World, and that membership in the local >group entails membership in SCA-World, with no US (or German, or British, >or whatever) corporation involved. > To which I concur wholehartedly. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 11 18:42:19 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 18:15:07 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606100852.AA01314@akka.kemi.uu.se> from "Sven Noren" at Jun 10, 96 10:52:06 am Frithiof wrote: I assume that this means that the BoD of SCA,Inc. has the final say in disputes involving members of groups affiliated with said corporation, and (for example) the BoD of SKA-Nordmark in disputes involving members in Nordmark. But what about disputes involving individuals from groups affiliated with different corporations? Well, if it a a game issue, or a violation of the rules of the game, then it's easy to figure. But if it's a mundane one, then the organization should disavow the problem. One of the biggest problems I have encountered in the Society, is our urge to rush in to solve problems. Usually, a healthy dose of skepticism, and a requirement that you "convince me of the problem" is worth a moment. To digest a funny story down to it's moral. When I was in Trimaris, I (through ignorance) upset a local big name person. She was quite irate, and let a lot of people know about it, including the autocrat. Her associate was also required to become involved, and tried desparately to help. In the morning, I sat down with this big name person, and said "Hey, I meant no harm: what did I do, and how can we make it right?" Problem solved within a few minutes, we had a long talk about life in general, and we walked to breakfast together, and had a nice time. We had a new problem. Her associate wanted so badly to be a part of the solution, that now SHE was upset. Whenever the urge comes over me to help solve someone elses problem, I try to remember that new trouble we borrowed, back that day. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 11 19:52:19 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 08:46:47 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 11.56 10-06-1996 -0400, Tibor wrote, about kings: > >Reduction of powers? Confinement to the game, I suspect. Remove from them >the ability to hold courts of chivalry over mundane matters, take away their >ability to appoint and control offices that are not medieval in nature. In >short, make the King a King, and not a bureaucrat. Amen to that! >This does mess up, however, what I feel is a fine and unintended offshoot of >our current system. Every few months, the existing heirarchy gets a new, and >unpredicted boss, to which it must become accountable. This has certain >positive side-effects. I (of course) prefer accountability to the populace. Can be rather unpredictable, too. > I don't see how we can get one without another, unless >we choose our Seneschals with archery tournaments, or something. (:-) What's the opposite of "advancing target"? :-) Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 11 19:53:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 17:16:02 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Galleron: Another contentious offshoot To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Galleron writes: > >Which is why, in the long run, you can't just say "OK, you must follow the >Corpora of SCA,Inc. to play our game." Unless you strip the non-game stuff >out of it, and turn it into something like the Great Charter I've been >pushing. > Quite so. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 11 21:41:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:15:08 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal writes: > Frithiof's comments on the procedural variants for the Swedish >affiliated groups brings up a reasonable consideration. What other >legal requirements imposed by non-USA governments should effect our >considerations? If we are to assist in the restructuring of the >SCA entity, then a basic knowledge of these criteria can only expedite >the deliberations. If the differences cannot be _legally_ reconciled, >then it is indeed material to our efforts. I believe these questions can be resolved. On the one hand, (if I understand it correctly) Swedish law gives ultimate control over revocation of membership in a Swedish NFP to the membership. On the other hand, an World SCA governing body can set conditions for recognition of any individual corporation as part of the Society. So *if* the Society decides that one of conditions of recognition by the Society is accepting the jurisdiction of some higher appeals panel, an individual corporation could refuse to accept the judgement of the appeal body. (Not just a Swedish one. Others could do the same thing by amending their governing documents) But the consequence would be losing recognition as part of the Society. The corporation that made that decision could continue to function just fine, but it would lose recognition of its awards by other Society groups, and might have to change what it called itself. It wouldn't take such a step lightly. It's like a Swedish fencing association. They have legal power to start using different rules, but they can't make the other fencers play with them if they do. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 12 14:04:10 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 13:45:40 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960611101505_214970102@emout15.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 11, 96 10:15:08 am Greetings from Tibor. I've been trying to sneak time to look at this for days... I believe these questions can be resolved. On the one hand, (if I understand it correctly) Swedish law gives ultimate control over revocation of membership in a Swedish NFP to the membership. On the other hand, an World SCA governing body can set conditions for recognition of any individual corporation as part of the Society. Perhaps membership has a different meaning in Sweden, so I invite Frithiof and others to fill me in. We are talking about punitive measures that curtail forms of participation. Does membership require participation? Does participation require membership? If not, then we can separate the two. And that means that SCA Inc can control sanction against participants in, say, Sweden, independent of the membership status and privileges of a paid member of Nordmark, Inc. Not that I'm fond of the resulting mess: but it does solve a logic puzzle. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 12 22:14:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:59:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: So called problems (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Gunwaldt, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: GUNWALDT@ASTRO.DASD.HONEYWELL.COM Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 8:00:21 -0600 (MDT) Subject: So called problems Please Forward. Unto the Grand Council does Gunwaldt send greeting. Tibor writes: The East, currently, requires at least one reign off between reigns. I presume most or many Kingdoms do likewise. . . . Cathal writes: Meridies does not allow a Crown to succeed itself. Aside from that there is no limitation or restriction I'am a little surprised by these two statements from these two gentles since it is stiplutlated by Corpora (VI.A.1.f.2) " No Sovereign or Consort may fight or be fought for in any Royal Lists, nor may anyone hold more than one royal office, except for those held by virtue of holding another. . . ." This has long been one of the basic tennents of SCA royalty and has not previously been discussed here as an item to change unless one considers it part of removing medieval issues from Corpora. For my part, I think that discussions regarding reign limits as a policy change does not belong in a discussion about punitive actions from a review board. Gunwaldt From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 12 22:19:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 09:51:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Fwd: Review Board (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Tibor. Katerine sent Galleron a note, with permission to repost it if he thought it appropriate. He wanted it reposted, but as a "posting guest" he wasn't sure if he should repost others messages. I am reposting it for him. Further, Galleron, it is my estimation that you have posting privileges because we value your input, and your exercise of discretionary powers. While I am not Chairman, I'd urge you to exercise those powers as you see fit, and repost messages if you find them worthwhile. Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 09:31:19 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Review Board Tibor, Katerine sent this to me, with permission to repost to the Council. Since, as a non-councilor, I was not given explicit permission to repost others' messages to the list, I thought it more appropriate to pass it on to you. Your call. Galleron --------------------- Forwarded message: From: gfrose@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu (Terry Nutter) To: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: 96-06-10 17:43:37 EDT Greetings, Galleron, from Katerine. > >It's _all_ social. No review body can take away your birthday. The > >> _most_ it can do, if the misbehavior does not merit total refusal of > >> the right ever again to participate in an event -- which itself is > >> a social sanction -- is to place upon you what it hopes will be received > >> as a stigma. > > Well, yes. But formal review and informal social pressure are a lot stronger > if they can work in tandem, rather than if you must rely on only one or the > other. Agreed. That's part of the reason I like the Ansteorran approach (for Ansteorra -- and BTW, I've checked Corpora, and I can't find a syllable anywhere that reserves the right of removal of Crowns for cause to the Board, and there is such language all over the place for other cases). It combines what is informal (the fact that anyone who told the Lions to take a long walk off a short dock would be ostracized) with what is more formal (a precise understanding of the rights granted by tradition, and an explicit statue recognizing the SCA equivalent of mundane common law). What I was arguing against, was the claim that formal review gives the process teeth, where social responses lack them. In fact, in a group like ours, the social level is the only place where the teeth really live. We may get into the habit of prodding that level into action through "statute". But if the social level is toothless, the statutory obdies will only be able to gum people. And if it has teeth, it is a far better idea to enlist them than to try to forbid their use. > We are taught that a Peerage can only recognize the merit that you already > have. And yet a lot of people care a great deal about whether or not they get > the formal award. Also agreed. But they care even more, in my experience, that they can command the respect of the others who have it. Forward to the Council, if you like. Cheers, -- Katerine/Terry From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 12 22:19:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 11:04:08 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: So called problems To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Tibor. Corpora quibble time: Gunwaldt wrote: Tibor writes: The East, currently, requires at least one reign off between reigns. I presume most or many Kingdoms do likewise. . . . Cathal writes: Meridies does not allow a Crown to succeed itself. Aside from that there is no limitation or restriction I'am a little surprised by these two statements from these two gentles since it is stiplutlated by Corpora (VI.A.1.f.2) " No Sovereign or Consort may fight or be fought for in any Royal Lists, nor may anyone hold more than one royal office, except for those held by virtue of holding another. . . ." This has long been one of the basic tennents of SCA royalty and has not previously been discussed here as an item to change unless one considers it part of removing medieval issues from Corpora. Technically, I don't believe Crown tourney has to be held before a Crown steps down. A Kingdom could, if it chose, have the Crown step down Friday night, hold Crown Tourney Saturday, and Coronation Sunday. Under those circumstances, a back to back reign would be possible. (While not a strictly SCA Kingdom, Acre does a version of this.) Kingdom laws specify when Crown Tournament will be held, and if it must be part of the reign. For my part, I think that discussions regarding reign limits as a policy change does not belong in a discussion about punitive actions from a review board. Not qua such, no. But, again, it makes sense in the context of reviewing and checking the power of the Crowns, if that appears to be important. If our sole recommendation in this matter was to announce regnal term limits, that would be inappropriate. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 13 00:30:14 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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, 13 Jun 1996 00:19:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Fwd: Review Board (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Katerine/Terry said >What I was arguing against, was the claim that formal review gives > the process teeth, where social responses lack them. In fact, in > a group like ours, the social level is the only place where the teeth > really live. Why did I suddenly flash upon the Klingon Act of Discommodation? If one person tells the Crown they're being obnoxious and disliked, the Crown is likely to shrug it off. If several dozen people suddenly start turning their backs on the Crown, refusing to speak to them, and in general refusing to have any dealings with them at all.... it might have an effect. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 13 08:34:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:23:57 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal writes, of Review processes: > Yes and no. Since the "injured party" in a dsipute sufficently >large to embroil the Kingdom is generally more than one individual, I >would suggest a specific definition for both individuals and class action. >The matter of degree of complaint would also have to be addressed Cathal, could you go into a little more detail about what you're looking for here and how you might want to see such requirements framed? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 13 08:54:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 08:45:00 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Social Pressure To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Katerine writes: > and BTW, I've checked Corpora, and I can't find a syllable > anywhere that reserves the right of removal of Crowns for cause to > the Board, and there is such language all over the place for other > cases). " d. Reservation by the Board. The Board explicitly reserves unto itself the discipline of members for actions taken while serving as Sovereign or Consort of a kingdom." One could certainly make a case that removal from office was a form of discipline. But the main point I'd like to make is that the effectiveness of informal social pressure is enormously sensitive to the size of the group. The larger the Kingdom, the longer it takes for people to notice that someone has committed an atrocity, and the easier it is for the offender to find some cronies that don't care. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 13 13:22:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:04:54 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: GC discussion (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tetchubah sent this to me, and said that I could forward it, if I chose. Tetchubah, I believe Directors have direct posting privileges, if you want to exercise them. Tibor Forwarded message: From: Carolyn Richardson Date: 13 Jun 96 9:21:40 Subject: GC discussion Was reading thru the digest and thought I'd make a couple comments - you can pass these along if you want: Katherine/Terry writes: >BTW, I've checked Corpora, and I can't find a syllable > anywhere that reserves the right of removal of Crowns for cause to > the Board, and there is such language all over the place for other > cases). I think what she's looking at is probably Corpora Section VI.A.1.i which refers to failure of the Reign or Succession, and essentially leaves it up to kingdom law and custom. But in Section VI.A.2.d, it specifically states "Reservation by the Board. The Board explicitly reserves unto itself the discipline of members for actions taken while serving as Sovereign or Consort of a kingdom..." This would be "removal for cause" and while it doesn't specifically state anything about removal, disciplinary action against a Crown could include such a step - that's up to the Board to decide according to this section. And in regards to the argument you've been having about whether or not a Crown could succeed itself, I think you were the one who stated: >Technically, I don't believe Crown tourney has to be held before a Crown steps >down. A Kingdom could, if it chose, have the Crown step down Friday night, >hold Crown Tourney Saturday, and Coronation Sunday. Under those >circumstances, a back to back reign would be possible. No, not possible - whoever quoted the section on Corpora that says "No Sovereign or Consort may fight or be fought for in any Royal Lists..." didn't read far enough. The next section (VI.A.1.f.(3) says "Neither the Sovereign nor the Consort may become either Sovereign or Consort of that realm in the reign immediately following their own." So even with an Acre-like system, under Corpora succeeding oneself isn't possible unless you move into another kingdom (and most kingdom rules for Crown Tourneys have some sort of minimum residency requirement, that I've seen, that would prohibit this). However, there isn't anything that prohibits having Crown Tourney in the manner stated. In Western Seas, for example, the Baronnial coronet list is held on Saturday and the winner made Baron/ess on Sunday. When I first became active in the SCA we had a waiting period in Western Seas (a few months) but after having several Baronnial successors burn out or move BEFORE they could actually become Baron, we changed it (and when I lived there, we had the Baronnial Saturday and investiture on Saturday night). Just my 2 cents worth. Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 13 15:12:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:02:11 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Fwd: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Lindorm --------------------- Forwarded message: From: Christer.Romson@abc.se (Christer Romson) To: WMclean290@aol.com (Will McLean) Date: 96-06-13 12:13:47 EDT Can you forward the following to the GC for me, please? Lindorm > Swedish law gives ultimate control over revocation of membership in > a Swedish NFP to the membership. I don't think that is true. According to Swedish traditions, the by-laws of NFP's give such control to the membership. Frithiof, have you found a law or precedent to that effect? > if one of conditions of recognition by the Society is accepting the > jurisdiction of some appeals panel, an individual corporation could > refuse to accept the judgement of the appeal body. But the consequence > would be losing recognition as part of the Society. If Frithiof is right about this being illegal, this corporation has very good reasons to expect to be granted an exception to the rule. Aren't you mixing two different topics here. The appeal panel is a part of the separation of game powers from the board, not a part of the international structure. Drachenwald and/or Lochac could have their own appeal systems if the American one is awkward for them. The issue should of course be addressed eventually, but you'll need to adress the rest of the international issue too. Lindorm From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 13 19:29:40 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1910 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:13:48 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960613082356_216434134@emout07.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 13, 96 08:23:57 am > > Cathal writes, of Review processes: > > > Yes and no. Since the "injured party" in a dsipute sufficently > >large to embroil the Kingdom is generally more than one individual, I > >would suggest a specific definition for both individuals and class action. > >The matter of degree of complaint would also have to be addressed > > Cathal, could you go into a little more detail about what you're looking for > here and how you might want to see such requirements framed? > > Galleron > Having had to sift through the morass of complaints and general "bitching" attendant to the long past matter of Ansteorra vs. the Crown of Ansteorra, one of the things I have found is that the number of folk with actionable complaints in a process such as this are few. This exercise in LeBon's theory of "the mob mentality" ususally confuses the situation more than it assists in its resolution since it detracts from the genuine issues by giving a forum for the "well I just don't like the way they handled things. . ." faction. Hence, in a "class action" only those complaints which can stipulate specific statutory infractions or attendant misuse/refusal of due process should be included. The "I just don't like him" crowd can queer a good case quicker than poor evidence simply because they create a window of doubt through the sympathy for the accused not getting a "fair" trial. Individual claims for redress must be just as specific. Frivilously brought actions such as the "he called me Toots" case in ancient Meridian history both limit the popular acceptance of the authority and responsibility of the Review Panel and waste the assets (especially that of time) available. The bottom line is simply this: If you want redress on this level you bloody well better be prepared to be specific in your allegations, show an actual loss to be remedied, and be prepared to go the limit. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 09:31:56 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:16:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: GC discussion (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Kwellend-Njal sent the following: I am taking the liberty of sending him the email addresses and names for the Board... Tibor Forwarded message: From: "David W. James" Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 16:45:35 -0400 Subject: Re: GC discussion (fwd) On Jun 13, 1:04pm, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote: > Subject: GC discussion (fwd) > Tetchubah sent this to me, and said that I could forward it, if I chose. > Tetchubah, I believe Directors have direct posting privileges, if you want to > exercise them. > Tibor Well, in theory. But unless I've been told to add them, with addresses, it doesn't happen. David From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 10:03:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:52:49 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron here. Since the question of what belongs in what governing documents is relevant to my proposal for a new international structure, I'm going to take a stab at the issue. Currently, there are three sorts of rules in Corpora. 1) Rules defining the medieval practices of the whole Society. The definition and requirements for the peerages is a good example. 2) Medieval practices of the Society that are too important to be subject to royal whim, as Kingdom law is, but that could reasonably vary from Kingdom to Kingdom. The selection of Territorial Barons is one example. The East manages quite well with de-facto local election without doing violence to the unity of the Society. 3) Matters of essentially mundane administration. The appointment of Treasurers and Chroniclers are good examples. Now 1) and 3) can be straight forward. Society wide medieval practices belong in something like Corpora, or a Great Charter. Mundane administration belongs in the governing documents of the appropriate corporation. 2) is slightly tricky because we have given any King virtually unlimited power to change Kingdom law at will (so long as he does not violate Corpora or Mundane Law). We need to either change that (which I regard as nifty but unlikely, considering our traditions) or find a safe place for that kind of rule. The current solution is to put that kind of thing into a governing document of the mundane corporation, Corpora. This is workable, although it does cut against the idea of keeping corporations out of the medieval side as much as possible. And it's awkward when the Corporation spans several Kingdoms. Another approach would be to say in Corpora or the Great Charter that each Kingdom and Principality could have its own Lesser Charter. The Kingdom Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents of the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not Conflict with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. *However*, the Great Charter would say that Lesser Charters could only be changed by the manifest agreement of the members of the Kingdom or Principality. For example, this could by either by Kingdom wide polling, or by a favorable vote by representatives from a majority of all the groups in the Kingdom. Comments? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 11:14:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 11:01:14 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Appeals and Revocation of Membership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Frithiof and Lindorm raised some questions about a Society review Panel and Revocation of Membership. I was looking at the Society Review Panel as a body to look at Medieval Issues. Corpora limits third level banishment, which initiates a call for revocation of membership, to matters of health, safety and things you might need to call the police for. I have a hard time thinking of a purely medieval issue that would fall into this category. I would think that sanctions, if called for by such a review panel, might include warnings, declaring a reign incomplete, or barring the offender from again entering Crown Lists, either for a set period, or, in extreme cases, permanently. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 12:16:00 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1352 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:02:51 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Appeals and Revocation of Membership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960614110114_217280165@emout10.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 14, 96 11:01:14 am > > Frithiof and Lindorm raised some questions about a Society review Panel and > Revocation of Membership. > > I was looking at the Society Review Panel as a body to look at Medieval > Issues. Corpora limits third level banishment, which initiates a call for > revocation of membership, to matters of health, safety and things you might > need to call the police for. I have a hard time thinking of a purely medieval > issue that would fall into this category. I would think that sanctions, if > called for by such a review panel, might include warnings, declaring a reign > incomplete, or barring the offender from again entering Crown Lists, either > for a set period, or, in extreme cases, permanently. > > Galleron > The closest connection could be a request by the Review Panel (after it completes it scope of authority) for the current Crown to review the proceedings and take any actions it might feel appropriate by the matters evidenced therein. It would be a request and not binding; however it would also become a matter of record and available for review if subsequent situations involving the same individual(s) occurred. The Crown and/or any attendant procedure authorized by the governing documents of the Society would, of course, be responsible for the recommendation regarding revocation or limitation of membership. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 12:34:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3877 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 09:21:57 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960614095249_556187109@emout13.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 14, 96 09:52:49 am > > Galleron here. > > Since the question of what belongs in what governing documents is relevant to > my proposal for a new international structure, I'm going to take a stab at > the issue. > > Currently, there are three sorts of rules in Corpora. > > 1) Rules defining the medieval practices of the whole Society. The definition > and requirements for the peerages is a good example. Agreed, since we need a firm set of criteria upon which to anchor the matter of reciprocity. > > 2) Medieval practices of the Society that are too important to be subject to > royal whim, as Kingdom law is, but that could reasonably vary from Kingdom to > Kingdom. The selection of Territorial Barons is one example. The East manages > quite well with de-facto local election without doing violence to the unity > of the Society. Agreed. > > 3) Matters of essentially mundane administration. The appointment of > Treasurers and Chroniclers are good examples. Agreed, however there needs also to be a stipulation of subrogation of "national mandated rights" to participate within the SCA framework; i.e. that mandated by the Great Charter. I generally dislike a Federal system; however the diversity demanded by inter- national participation mandates a common ground which is a sine qua non for playing the game (and one which it is not easy to circumvent). > > Now 1) and 3) can be straight forward. Society wide medieval practices belong > in something like Corpora, or a Great Charter. Mundane administration belongs > in the governing documents of the appropriate corporation. > > 2) is slightly tricky because we have given any King virtually unlimited > power to change Kingdom law at will (so long as he does not violate Corpora > or Mundane Law). We need to either change that (which I regard as nifty but > unlikely, considering our traditions) or find a safe place for that kind of > rule. Well, an Imperial system of semi-autonomous Kings with recourse to an impartial review board would take the edge of _most_ of the problems. Remember there needs to be a line of demarcation for participation in the game and if it is overstepped on a game level that action technically invokes the mundane adminstrative clause. > > The current solution is to put that kind of thing into a governing document > of the mundane corporation, Corpora. This is workable, although it does cut > against the idea of keeping corporations out of the medieval side as much as > possible. And it's awkward when the Corporation spans several Kingdoms. > > Another approach would be to say in Corpora or the Great Charter that each > Kingdom and Principality could have its own Lesser Charter. The Kingdom > Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents of > the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not Conflict > with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not > restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. But by requiring that the LC's are in concord with the GC doesn't that limit them? If we have a common clause in the CG which mandates the SCA (or whatever) as a "Medieval" group and the Kingdom of Bugtussel wants to include English Civil War in it scope, then what recourse is there? I daresay the entire process would be similar to the internal adminstration of the Austo-Hungarian Empire in the late 19th. century--- what is the crisis of the hour and how can we change the GC to accomodate it. > *However*, the Great Charter would say that Lesser Charters could only be > changed by the manifest agreement of the members of the Kingdom or > Principality. For example, this could by either by Kingdom wide polling, or > by a favorable vote by representatives from a majority of all the groups in > the Kingdom. Yes, but limit the scope of the choices. Cathal. > > Comments? > > Galleron > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 14:14:17 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:01:25 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron here. I wrote: > Another approach would be to say in Corpora or the Great Charter that each > Kingdom and Principality could have its own Lesser Charter. The Kingdom > Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents of > the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not >Conflict > with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not > restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. Cathal wrote: > But by requiring that the LC's are in concord with the GC doesn't >that limit them? If we have a common clause in the CG which mandates >the SCA (or whatever) as a "Medieval" group and the Kingdom of Bugtussel >wants to include English Civil War in it scope, then what recourse is >there? Well, yes, the Kingdom Charters would be somewhat limited in what they contain, just as Kingdom law cannot conflict with Corpora now. But I see the Great Charter as being considerably less prescriptive than the Medieval section of Corpora now. Quite simply, it would mandate fewer things. And anything not prohibited or reserved would be permitted. Cathal, you write: " Agreed, however there needs also to be a stipulation of subrogation of "national mandated rights" to participate within the SCA framework; i.e. that mandated by the Great Charter. " Could you explain what you mean here in a little greater detail.? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 20:12:25 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2648 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:00:01 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960614135329_135020133@emout13.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 14, 96 02:01:25 pm > > Galleron here. I wrote: > > > Another approach would be to say in Corpora or the Great Charter that each > > Kingdom and Principality could have its own Lesser Charter. The Kingdom > > Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents > of > > the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not > >Conflict > > with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not > > restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. > > Cathal wrote: > > But by requiring that the LC's are in concord with the GC doesn't > >that limit them? If we have a common clause in the CG which mandates > >the SCA (or whatever) as a "Medieval" group and the Kingdom of Bugtussel > >wants to include English Civil War in it scope, then what recourse is > >there? > > Well, yes, the Kingdom Charters would be somewhat limited in what they > contain, just as Kingdom law cannot conflict with Corpora now. But I see the > Great Charter as being considerably less prescriptive than the Medieval > section of Corpora now. Quite simply, it would mandate fewer things. And > anything not prohibited or reserved would be permitted. > > Cathal, you write: > " Agreed, however there needs also to be a stipulation of > subrogation of "national mandated rights" to participate within the > SCA framework; i.e. that mandated by the Great Charter. " > > Could you explain what you mean here in a little greater detail.? My consideration is simply toward the fact that all groups which participate in the SCA world-wide will have to give up a bit of their several autonomies. The accord which must be reached is one in which all of the particpants agree on a series of mutual conditions will must be followed if the group is to enjoy reciprocity with the rest of the players. There may well be specific rights which are accorded to those groups by their respective mundane law codes and the mechanism must be established and recognized whereby those rights, if they conflict with the common ground of the GC, will be voluntarily set aside. The general fiction of our participation waivres in the USA is a good example. It acknowledges the potential of damage and sets forth a procedure for redress; however that redress is not necessarily in full concord with the full exercise of one's civil rights; ie. you can't be compelled to sign away your right to litigate. (Let's not argue the example; just the concept, please!) This will have to be voluntary but with the understanding that once agreed to it is irrevocable. Unless the change is justified by the GC's own mandate. Cathal. > Galleron > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 19 14:45:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 46 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 14:29:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: GC as Think Tank To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. The idea of a standing "think tank" has some merit, but unless it was carefully defined and designed, there would be no point to it. We already have the Rialto -- anyone with access can throw out an idea and get some reaction. One important element would be the assurance that serious effort would actually lead to action on the part of authorities with the power to implement ideas. There have been many frustrating aspects of this exercise, but perhaps the worst one has been the lack of certainty that anyone is listening (including some of our supposed members) or that our painstaking efforts to explain important concerns to a fairly small group is actually increasing the amount of mutual understanding in the Society as a whole. Making the GC open ended would increase this source of frustration among serious contributors. Say two of my big concerns in the SCA are international organization as seen from an Ontario perspective and royal prerogative. Experience here shows that I might have to explain to this group these concerns several times, with no real assurance that (a) I am understood (b) I have gained some sympathy among other members and (c) expressing said concerns will lead to any improvement in the organization (improvement as defined by me, natch). The only thing I know I have accomplished is getting it off my chest, to a greater or lesser extent. If no concrete action results from my work, I will either decide that doing this work is a thrill in itself worth doing ad infinitum, or quit. In the second case I will be replaced by someone else, who will start talking about his/her concerns, possibly in complete ignorance of what has been said before. You might even get someone from Ontario with a concern about royal prerogative duplicating everything I have said, either in front of the same audience or in front of another. Voila, le Rialto! Like Alban, I am not interested in working on a constitution of some group like this. To take up this project would be an admission that we will not in this term come up with any recommendations likely to be enacted by the Board. If the primary purpose of the GC becomes replicating GC discussions unto eternity, I will quit. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 19 19:06:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:43:57 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: GC as Think Tank To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31C871D9@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 19 Jun 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > The idea of a standing "think tank" has some merit, but unless it was > carefully defined and designed, there would be no point to it. We already > have the Rialto -- anyone with access can throw out an idea and get some > reaction. So here is your chance to define and design it so that there will be a point to it. > One important element would be the assurance that serious effort would > actually lead to action on the part of authorities with the power to > implement ideas. I am not sure that this is either possible or reasonable. > There have been many frustrating aspects of this exercise, > but perhaps the worst one has been the lack of certainty that anyone is > listening (including some of our supposed members) or that our > painstaking efforts to explain important concerns to a fairly small group is > actually increasing the amount of mutual understanding in the Society as a > whole. This is surely what position papers are for. If the mandate of a permanent council was to create and maintain an archive of position papers and the first phase of any discussion was to review exist position papers on the topic as well as related topics, the need for explanations would be reduced. Proving that the participants had actually done the reading might be more difficult. > Like Alban, I am not interested in working on a constitution of some group > like this. To take up this project would be an admission that we > will not in this term come up with any recommendations likely to be enacted > by the Board. Our mandate is to examine all aspects of how the SCA operates. The creation of a permanent think tank attached to the governing body is a significant change. I feel justified in opening discussion of the topic and seeing where it goes for the next month. > If the primary purpose of the GC becomes replicating GC > discussions unto eternity, I will quit. The purpose of the GC remains that of proposing long term beneficial changes to the organization of the SCA. A permanent think tank is such a change, albeit not as dramatic as telling the board to give up control of the medieval game. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 20 01:09:32 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 21:24:12 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, I don't think we can get completely away from some sort of review/court of appeal above the Kingdom level. I've seen too many issues that just couldn't be worked out at a local level because they were either complicated legally, dealt with very basic game issues (such as withholding a county from a 'bad' king), or just too emotional. However, we can limit such appeals by insisting that each Kingdom establish, according to local custom and preference, internal appeals and controls. The existance of such controls would be a prerequisite for recognition by any pan-SCA governing body. The question remains as to what elements would be required in order to meet the requirements. Ansteorra's Lions are a perfect foil for especially bad Crowns. Always a threat, but seldom if ever needed because the very fact that the Lions are watching would tend to keep Crowns in line. Galleron's system of voting to permit someone to reign again is interesting but puts too much weight on punishment after the fact. To a Crown that has no intention of ever fighting again it is no threat at all. Ideally, controls on Crowns should be both formal and informal. Trimaris would technically be a "Kings Word is Law" Kingdom. We do have a number of balances though. The officer corps is strong and professional, with all of the Greater officers and many of the lesser officers and deputies being fully funded from the Treasury. This has also tended to build a mindset that funds have to be appropriated, even for the Crown. The Crown has a travel budget, and any extras must come from fundraisers they have someone organize for them. Large expenditures are discussed with and approved by the Seneschal and Treasurer. It's not an idiotproof system, but it works tolerably well. Actually, I like Artos's idea of a review panel (despite the fact that like Galleron's 'Pretty Good Crowns' it only deals with issues after a reign is over). It might be better if it could be convened During a reign or at least had the power to withhold a county after a particularly bad Crown. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 20 09:44:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 09:34:37 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gallero here. Serwyl, In a message dated 96-06-20 00:57:27 EDT, you write: >Galleron's >system of voting to permit someone to reign again is interesting but puts too >much weight on punishment after the fact. Actually, the intent was to frame it not as a punishment for the bad but a reward for the good. Less demonization required. And using it wouldn't prevent you from having other systems of control as well. Belt and suspenders. " However, we can limit such appeals by insisting that each Kingdom establish, according to local custom and preference, internal appeals and controls. The existance of such controls would be a prerequisite for recognition by any pan-SCA governing body." "The question remains as to what elements would be required in order to meet the requirements" Actually, I think two separate questions. What are the minimum requirements for a local review body that examines issues before the higher review body gets a crack at them? (Independence, fairness, and reasonable speed, to my mind) What other checks and balances are required or permitted? Mechanisms intended to prevent abuse could themselves be used to create abuses, or could possibly turn the game in a Kingdom into a different one than played elsewhere. For example, the power of the Crown to exclude undesirable candidates from Crown tourney could conceivable be used by a clique of musical-throne Dukes to suppress all outside rivals. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 20 09:46:21 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 09:35:16 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Permanent Think Tank? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron here. Currently, the GC is performing functions not unlike a steering committee. Lots of organizations have them. They're usually not permanent bodies, but are formed every five years or so to look at the long term direction of the organization. The problem is, the Society has gone for six five year cycles without doing this, so there is a huge backlog of issues to be looked at. Ideally, the steering committee would take a year or two, make some recomendations, see them enacted, and go home. But things have slid for thirty years and there's so much to do. I would be surprised if the GC could clear its plate by January. If it can agree on something like my proposal (or another adresssing those issues)) by the fall Board meeting, there's still an awful lot of implementation ahead. And a number of other issues of concern to some people haven't even gotten that far. So perhaps it's worthwhile to think about who, after January, will be looking at these issues. But like Finnvarr, I don't want to see the GC become a mini-rialto. That way lies madness. Discussion, proposal, consideration by Board, action, closure. Speaking of which, it might be nice for the GC's morale if someone on the Board could tell the Council what happened to all those "selecting the Board" proposals the Council produced? Accepted, rejected, thinking about them, reply hazy try again later? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 20 13:19:34 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:06:41 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: SCAGC-L Digest - 18 Jun 1996 to 19 Jun 1996 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Tabitha, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:27:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Diana Parker Subject: Re: SCAGC-L Digest - 18 Jun 1996 to 19 Jun 1996 Tibor, I would appreciate it if you would forward this to the GC. ------------------------------ Fiacha in response to Finnvarr wrote: > So here is your chance to define and design it so that there will be a > point to it. > > > One important element would be the assurance that serious effort would > > actually lead to action on the part of authorities with the power to > > implement ideas. > > I am not sure that this is either possible or reasonable. > > but perhaps the worst one has been the lack of certainty that anyone is > > listening (including some of our supposed members) or that our > This is surely what position papers are for. If the mandate of a permanent > council was to create and maintain an archive of position papers and the > first phase of any discussion was to review exist position papers on the > topic as well as related topics, the need for explanations would be > reduced. Proving that the participants had actually done the reading might > be more difficult. Many Canadians are someone cynical of the process known as Crown Commissions. "Think Tanks" where potentially thorny or embarrassing or difficult questions are shoved off to hopefully mire in their over-broad mandates or open-ended terms. While I can think of a few Crown Commissions over the last 20 years that actually resulted in decisive action or full airing. I can think of many more issues that sunk beneath the waves of positions papers. Some issues have suffered wave upon wave of Commissions, and 20 years later have not been faced. I am not suggesting in any way that the GC or its future incarnation might suffer that fate, merely suggesting that someone thinking from a Canadian perspective must be forgiven a little cynicism on think tanks & never-ending commissions. cheers Tabitha Diana Parker parkerd@mcmaster.ca (905) 525-9140 (x24282) CUC - 201 Security Services McMaster University Notice --- Due to ongoing cutbacks, the light at the end of the tunnel From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 20 13:22:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:11:30 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Permanent Think Tank? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Solveig, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 11:20:48 -0500 From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Permanent Think Tank? Noble Cousins! It seems to me that the Grand Council is now edging into a mode of thought that eventually catches up with just about any committee or other essentially political group. The Grand Council is now envisioning itself as being somehow indespensible and thus worthy of being a permanent institution. Yes, I understand that people haven't quite reached that point of view yet, but the Grand Council seems to edging in that direction. What the Grand Council was set up to be was a sort of fact finding group, think tank and constitutional convention. Its primary job was to advise the BoD on how to restructure the society. That means that if the Grand Council fulfills its appointed job, then it will make concrete recommendations on how to restructure the society which will include all of the various organs necessary to keep the thing running for a significantly long time. (At least the beginings of those organs, they should be expected to organically evolve a bit.) The notion that the Grand Council will stick around to tell these organs how to evolve is a quintesential case of "micro-management". These groups and institutions should be set up in such a way that they can adapt to circumstances and not require another 2 years of angst on the part of the Grand Council in order to add an extra member or to rearrange their business. Consequnetly, I do think that instituting the Grand Council itself would signal a general failure of the "reform" movement itself. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 14 23:59:22 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"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: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 23:57:35 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L So, I hear all these messages complaining about how the Crown has occasionally done nasty things. Even I can understand that the Crown has done nasty things, and I'm from Calontir. Problem is, I am not convinced that a set of rules could be promulgated that would a) prevent future Crowns >from abusing power in the same fashion, _and_ b) keep future Crowns from abusing power in a totally new fashion - other than a sort of generic "If we think You've gone too far, we're going to impose social pressure" thing. Be specific. What _specific_ rules can be written to avoid nasty crowns? Or are we going to be relegated to writing only rules that punish unspecified High Crimes and Misdemeanors, without specifying what those H.C. and M. are? (Laws are wonderful things; they can be misinterpreted in so many creative ways.) Alban From TIHOR@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU Sat Jun 15 20:45:07 1996 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:17:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Tihor Subject: Re: TR: Introductio In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Sat, 15 Jun 1996 13:08:56 -0400 (EDT)" To: Charles Sumner Cc: Stephen Tihor , alexx@netcom.com, sales@sug.org, sumner@sug.org, justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT References: <01I5PZ34TV1GA8CXHD@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU> > Speaking of games... Steve, you may not know yet that time pressure has > caused us to drop the computer component of the game for exploring > Cathedral. We're replacing it with a table top map of Cathedral with > envelopes placed around it for rooms that players can discover and for the > security systems they must defeat to get into different zones. We were > thinking about using puzzle-games to model the security system (solve the > puzzle = disabling or rewiring the alarm or monitor). I'd prefer to use > electronic puzzles (like "Light's Out" or similar stuff) but will use cool > looking physical puzzles as well, though I'd like to avoid wooden and > metal "bar" puzzles. Do you have anything appropriate? A few maze puzzles that might qualify though all are solvable just with time, and a few plastic or metal ones that amount to counting in Grey code. Simple repetative pattern work, good for simulating standard locks/eating a bit of time for such moves. I assume the idea of use RC vehicles for the drones is out if its a table top rather than room floor sized game. Assuming you get the Bits and Pieces catalog you know half the stuff I have. [Sick thought of the day, using a cathedral board as a puzzle. Purely for the pun value of course.] Of course one realyl wants to ask on the casting questionaire about the player puzzle skill or knowledge and use that to assign people to skilled scientists/lockbreakers/etc. SHouldn;t there eb one blue sheet for each heresy of the religion, even if you don;t hand it out until peopl get their memories back? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 16 00:43:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1727 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:28:50 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I5X19CXUZ890QPOA@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jun 14, 96 11:57:35 pm > > So, I hear all these messages complaining about how the Crown > has occasionally done nasty things. Even I can understand > that the Crown has done nasty things, and I'm from Calontir. > Problem is, I am not convinced that a set of rules could > be promulgated that would a) prevent future Crowns > from abusing power in the same fashion, _and_ > b) keep future Crowns from abusing power in a totally > new fashion - other than a sort of generic "If we think > You've gone too far, we're going to impose social > pressure" thing. > Be specific. What _specific_ rules can be written > to avoid nasty crowns? > Or are we going to be relegated to writing only rules > that punish unspecified High Crimes and Misdemeanors, > without specifying what those H.C. and M. are? > > (Laws are wonderful things; they can be misinterpreted > in so many creative ways.) > > Alban > Perhaps the most encompassing statement that can be considered is that "The Crown is not above the Law". Once it is clearly understood that the Crown is subject to the statutes and traditions already existant at the time of an action and may not, by the exercise of its general prerogatives, remake the rules to cover its actions, then a large percentage of the opportunity for "nasty" actions will be lost. The creation of a code to deal with the vagarties of "possible " Royal misaction is too dense a study in human nature to even attempt. Link the accountability of The Crown's actions to the existant governing concepts (ie. SCA Governing Documents, Kingdom Law, and Kingdom Tradition) and back it up with a Review Board which can exercise its authority. Disapprobation to that degree should given even the most dissolute pause. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 16 07:06:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:07:24 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Fwd: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Lindorm wrote: >Aren't you mixing two different topics here. The appeal panel is a part >of the separation of game powers from the board, not a part of the >international structure. Drachenwald and/or Lochac could have their own >appeal systems if the American one is awkward for them. The issue should >of course be addressed eventually, but you'll need to adress the rest of >the international issue too. > Lochac has its own appeal system. Unfortunately (IMHO), because we don't have our own members, the final say as to sanctions rests with the USA BOD. The membership issue is of some importance in this discussion because it can (and I think should) limit the scope of influence of the highest level of the mundane structure. It is, I think, a bad thing for the highest level corporation (the "holding company", as it were) to be involved with such things as disciplining members of subordinate corporations. Such considerations should be left to the corporation to whom the member belongs. I see no reason to have any appeal mechanism above the level of the corporation holding the membership. If the member has a legitimate legal grievance it should be taken into the existing legal system of whatever country the problem is occurring in. We should not be duplicating the infrastructure of any legal jurisdiction, nor should we be setting up a complex judicial system of our own. We have neither the resources nor the need for such an effort. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 16 07:07:07 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:07:28 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Galleron: Review Panel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Cathal writes, in response to Galleron > > Individual claims for redress must be just as specific. >Frivilously brought actions such as the "he called me Toots" >case in ancient Meridian history both limit the popular acceptance >of the authority and responsibility of the Review Panel and waste >the assets (especially that of time) available. This problem can be solved by allowing the review panel the ability to refuse to hear frivolous and vexatious cases. Alternatively, the level below (whatever decision is being appealed) can be given the power to refuse permission for the litigant to appeal. Both of these mechanisms are used in mundane legal jurisdictions around the world. I think, though, that a better solution would be to not create the review panel at all, and to give each kingdom the judicial autonomy it needs to have an effective judiciary. If we are going to set up a judiciary in parallel with the mundane judiciary, we should do it properly. It should also be noted that in a dispute in Australia (from where I write), any decision by a review body outside Australia can be set aside by an Australian court with the relevant jurisdiction. This may mean that we are wasting our time creating a judiciary larger than an individual mundane country. > The bottom line is simply this: If you want redress on this >level you bloody well better be prepared to be specific in your >allegations, show an actual loss to be remedied, and be prepared to >go the limit. > Quite so. And the furthest extent is beyond any judiciary within the SCA. Any plaintiff can go to the mundane legal system in their country and seek redress, regardless of the outcome of any proceedings held within the SCA. In Australia this availability is limited to potential breaches of the Rules (by-laws & corpora equivalent) of the association involved, or the Act under which the association is incorporated. But there might not be such a restriction in other mundane structures within the SCA, and even this restriction is not as restrictive as it seems. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jun 16 08:34:19 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 22:02:49 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Nasty Crowns (Was: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. At 11:57 PM 14/6/96 -0500, Alban St. Albans wrote: >So, I hear all these messages complaining about how the Crown >has occasionally done nasty things. Even I can understand >that the Crown has done nasty things, and I'm from Calontir. >Problem is, I am not convinced that a set of rules could >be promulgated that would a) prevent future Crowns >from abusing power in the same fashion, _and_ >b) keep future Crowns from abusing power in a totally >new fashion - other than a sort of generic "If we think >You've gone too far, we're going to impose social >pressure" thing. >Be specific. What _specific_ rules can be written >to avoid nasty crowns? >Or are we going to be relegated to writing only rules >that punish unspecified High Crimes and Misdemeanors, >without specifying what those H.C. and M. are? > >(Laws are wonderful things; they can be misinterpreted >in so many creative ways.) > >Alban > > I don't think there is a way to legislate away all potential wrong-doing. If there was, some law-maker in the past would have done so and that would have been the end of all other law-making. If the professional law-makers can't do it, why should we be able to? The best we can do (IMHO) is to: a) Limit the damage that can be done by one crown (each kingdom already does this, each in its own way); b) Smooth the path to repair the damage once done (again, all the kingdoms have (albeit informal) mechanisms for accomplishing this); c) Make the price for "bad" changes high. (a) is accomplished by most kingdoms simply be virtue of the short length of reigns: there is a limit to what one can do in four or six months. Some kingdoms go beyond this and require the involvement of a "parliament" (called "curia" in some kingdoms) in any significant royal proclamation. I think the existing mechanisma work relatively well, all things considered, so I see little need to change here. (b) is usually automatic: the next crown simply proclaims the opposite of the original proclamations, or restores the laws to their previous wording. The mechanism in (a) above usually doesn't get in the way in this repair process because any statute changes made in the last four or six months should take less time than that to repeal. Other damage can't be completely repaired in one reign, but the process can be started by the reign following the damage and continued by succeeding reigns. (c) is the hardest to accomplish, and also to explain. To some extent, it relates to the discussion on social sanctions as limits to power. To be sure, ostracism or similar is powerful, but its effects are limited to people whose intentions are essentially benign. Anyone else simply won't care that no-one comes to their courts, or that the events they go to are poorly attended. If they want to do damage, no social mechanism is going to prevent them. Power is power. There is a wider principle at work here. If one wants to change the establishment (any establishment), one must be prepared to accept the consequences of speaking out against the establishment. The consequences to a person can be as final as death, and have been many times in the past. Look at the events leading up to the Reformation in Europe. The price to be paid by anyone challenging the status quo is high, and for good reason. A stable status quo is stable because most people in it don't oppose it. The high price paid by people opposing a status quo is a consequence of the stability of the status quo. The price should be high, but not too high. If the price is so high that not many people speak out against the status quo, there is something fundamentally wrong with the society that has the status quo. Change is not necessarily bad; indeed, a constant low-level undercurrent of change is essential to the health of a society. The trick is to make the price high enough to ensure that the changes have grass-roots support, but not so high that no-one wants to pay them. I therefore propose that the price paid by the crown that makes a significant change is that they be tried after they step down, by a court convened for the purpose. In other words, they should take personal responsibility for their actions as King and Queen. The powers and methods of this court I leave for the moment, as they are not germain to my proposal. The mechanism for the triggering of the court should be relatively simple and automatic. For instance, a change to any of certain sections of Kingdom Law; petition by the Officers and/or Peers; direction of the following Crown. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 05:55:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:40:16 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Fwd: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 15.02 13-06-1996 -0400, Lindorm wrote: >> Swedish law gives ultimate control over revocation of membership in >> a Swedish NFP to the membership. > >I don't think that is true. According to Swedish traditions, the by-laws >of NFP's give such control to the membership. Frithiof, have you found a >law or precedent to that effect? No, there is basically no laws that govern the running of non-profit organizations. (This was proven in a doctoral thesis recently presented at the Uppsala University!) There are, however, very strong traditions. So strong that most people actually belives that there are such laws. Lots of people also belives that there is no other way to run NPOs. I have had a hard time explaining the workings of SCA,Inc. to new members here. I expect that an organization set up in any other way would have a hard time explaining to authorities that they are in fact a swedish NPO, and that could make it very difficult and maybe expensive to rent sites for example. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 08:57:26 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:58:24 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Nasty Crowns (Was: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong) (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Breuse, by Tibor. (Remember, I forward nearly everything, whether I agree with it or not.) Forwarded message: From: Smaugipfoc@aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 16:20:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Nasty Crowns (Was: Where the Contents of Corpora Belong) Perhaps one simple solution is to take the governance of kingdoms out of the hands of the stick-jocks and find a way for everyone in the society to be king rather than limit ourselves in this way Lord Breuse Hartswood (someone who is somewhat more than a fighter) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 09:41:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 15:20:55 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 13.45 12-06-1996 -0400, you wrote: >Greetings from Tibor. > >Perhaps membership has a different meaning in Sweden, so I invite Frithiof and >others to fill me in. > >We are talking about punitive measures that curtail forms of participation. >Does membership require participation? Does participation require membership? If we are speaking of a swedish standard NPO, the only requirement for membership is paying the membership fee and follow the statutes of the organization. And you do not have to be a member to participate in an event. >If not, then we can separate the two. And that means that SCA Inc can control >sanction against participants in, say, Sweden, independent of the membership >status and privileges of a paid member of Nordmark, Inc. The starting point of this debate was that SCA,Inc. cannot arrange events in Sweden, since it is not a swedish organization. That is the reason for the existence of SKA-Nordmark. And SCA,Inc. cannot enforce sanctions against participants in SKA-Nordmark's events. How common are banishments, anyway? If the right of the Crown to banish people from events is removed, would that be a severe problem for the society? Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 10:10:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 09:59:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron here. There are (at least) three different ways Crowns can be nasty. Each requires a different solution. 1) Breaking the existing laws of Society and Kingdom. You would think, given the vast power Kings are given to rewrite Kingdom law and make violations unnecessary, that this would not be a problem. Yet it is. The solution is review by a higher power, with the power to negate the illegal act, issue warnings, and if necessary, impose sanctions on severe or repeat offenders. 2) Making Bad Laws that do not contradict Corpora. This problem can be reduced by allowing greater requirements for consent of the governed at the Kingdom level, and by putting more explicit protections for the rights of subjects in governing documents outside the reach of Kings (I keep coming back to the Magna Carta here). 3) Generally acting like a jerk without actually violating any statute. Weeding out this problem is where our system falls down. Look, in any ordinary club, if the President behaves like a brainless flapjack, it's very simple to make sure he doesn't get a second term without have to prove him guilty of high crimes and misdemenors. The club just doesn't re-elect him. Now, the problem with flat term limits is that for some Kings three reigns are to few, and for others two is to many. Well, actually one is to many for some of them, but it's often hard to know that ahead of time. Now, I don't want this to wander too far from the international structure, which was the topic, but here's one way you could approach this issue: THE ORDER OF THE PRETTY GOOD KING At the end of every year, some independent body (Ansteorran Lions, Eastern style Curia with one rep from every group, whatever) chooses the best King and Queen of the year. They can split their choices between different reigns if they want. The Order of the Pretty Good King (or Queen) conveys the right to a nifty medallion, another set of initials after your name, and the right to another reign (if you or your consort win crown). Only candidates who have not been King or Queen before, or have earned the O.P.G.K. in their last reign may enter, or be fought for crown tourney. If this custom was specific to only one Kingdom, you could also let former Crowns from Kingdoms that did not award the O.P.G.K. enter Crown. So everybody (if they can win Crown) has the right to one reign. But only above average Monarchs get more than one. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 10:39:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:29:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Artos, In a message dated 96-06-16 07:07:14 EDT, you write: >I see no reason to have any appeal mechanism above the level of the >corporation holding the membership. In my vision of a New World Order, the higher appeal mechanism would be primarily concerned with question of whether the different Corporations were still playing the common game. If a requirement for due process was part of the common rules of the game, then the appeals body might reasonably examine if due process had been followed. If it had been, the appeals body would not need to examine the case further. Remember too, that both in Europe and Canada, you have many Corporations within a single Kingdom. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 10:43:00 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:17:42 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 10.15 11-06-1996 -0400, Galleron wrote: >Cathal writes: > >> Frithiof's comments on the procedural variants for the Swedish >>affiliated groups brings up a reasonable consideration. > >I believe these questions can be resolved.... > ... an World >SCA governing body can set conditions for recognition of any individual >corporation as part of the Society. > >So *if* the Society decides that one of conditions of recognition by the >Society is accepting the jurisdiction of some higher appeals panel, an >individual corporation could refuse to accept the judgement of the appeal >body... > ... But the consequence would be losing recognition as >part of the Society. Good points. Question: Should the acceptance of an outside body having final judgement in disputes be considered an essential part of the "SCA game"? Essential enough to refuse recognition of a group that otherwise plays the SCA game? My own wiew is simple: NO to both questions. Resolving of disputes should not be part of the SCA game. It's a purely mundane problem, and should be handled by whatever mundane support organization the SCA group is affiliated with. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 10:58:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 16:31:38 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 10.29 17-06-1996 -0400, Galleron wrote: >In my vision of a New World Order, the higher appeal mechanism would be >primarily concerned with question of whether the different Corporations were >still playing the common game. If a requirement for due process was part of >the common rules of the game, then the appeals body might reasonably examine >if due process had been followed. If it had been, the appeals body would not >need to examine the case further. Absolutely. Trying to specify what should or should not be due process in all possible jurisdictions is completetly unneccessary. Leave that to the local and national corporations. I think we have been confusing the "is this group playing our game" question with the "what to do with a nasty crown" question. These are entirely different questions, and could very well be handled by different bodies. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 20 20:58:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:39:59 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: John - Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606201833.NAA74559@indyunix.iupui.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, I fear that this discussion has wandered too far and that it is not going to reach any kind of conclusion. On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, marci haw wrote: > About the means to review or disipline unruly Crowns. Unless they are breaking > mundane law I would leave it to social pressure. My conclusion is that while it would not be wise to allow Kings or Queens to dictate Kingdom law or to ignore the provisions of Corpora, we cannot come up with a single acceptable means that would be accepted in every Kingdom. It is even clear that some kingdoms already have a formal check on the powers of their sovereigns. I would support an addition to Corpora that it is not inappropriate for kingdom law to contain some check on the power of the sovereigns to radically alter the laws and customs of the kingdom. However, the detailed reworking of Corpora is also beyond the scope of what we can handle. Can we go back to the issue of international corporations and recognition of members? > Do to the nature of Crown tourney it is very difficult to prevent someone from > entering and winning knowing they will not be a good Soveriegn. But it is > simple to tell a popular and well liked Crown from the not-so's. The Middle is > a large kingdom so there will always be at least a small crowd for even the > worst royalty. But when TRH's are looking for Coronation bids two months > before Crown don't expect large turn-outs at Royal Courts for the next six > months and get used to the crowd responding to the Herald with " ......or > someone who will accept for them." We will be thouroughly ignored if we attempt to legislate the internal workings of any kingdom. We must step back and look at the bigger picture. We must also avoid preempting the prerogatives of the mundane legal system. Most of all, we need to be sure that we suggest things that will work if implemented. My greatest fear in discussing reviews of royal behaviour and sanctions against royals is that the populace will simply ignore the system. If the peers of the realm cannot persude a sovereign that they are out of line, what makes you think that a bunch of outsiders can do any better. I maintain that withholding County rank is both ineffective and unworkable. I maintain that the only effective sanctions against a kingdom are withholding newsletter subscriptions and withholding insurance. Both of which punish the populace for the sins of their sovereign and so are not acceptable. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 21 11:50:39 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Approved-By: Carolyn Richardson Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:32:04 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Carolyn Richardson Subject: Re: Galleron's question re: Board selection To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Speaking of which, it might be nice for the GC's morale if someone on the >Board could tell the Council what happened to all those "selecting the Board" >proposals the Council produced? Accepted, rejected, thinking about them, >reply hazy try again later? >Galleron As far as I'm aware of, we haven't received a report from the GC yet regarding the outcome of that discussion. I followed it for a while but got real busy (and out of the office a *lot*) about the time the votes were being taken so I don't know what the results were. Who did you charge with writing up the report? And are they going to get it in to the office soon enough for the July meeting? So in answer to your question, Galleron, we haven't seen it yet so it's currently not under consideration. Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 21 12:50:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:28:36 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron's question re: Board selection Comments: To: Carolyn Richardson To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9606211534.AA0719@notes.cch.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Carolyn Richardson wrote: > As far as I'm aware of, we haven't received a report from the GC yet regarding > the outcome of that discussion. I followed it for a while but got real busy > (and out of the office a *lot*) about the time the votes were being taken so I > don't know what the results were. Who did you charge with writing up the > report? And are they going to get it in to the office soon enough for the July > meeting? > > So in answer to your question, Galleron, we haven't seen it yet so it's > currently not under consideration. > > Tetchubah With all due respect, the various proposals were submitted to the board for the April meeting. Admittedly they were not in the packet, but a copy was snail mailed to each sitting board member in what should have been time for consideration at the April meeting. Could you please check to see if a report from the GC was presented at that meeting? Fiacha