Re: Just more peerage stuff, kill file now

[Mark Schuldenfrei <schuldy@MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

Greetings from Tibor:

More about "Peers are RECOGNIZED":

Leifr wrote:
  That's nice, it's all over the eastern seaboard.  But is it POLICY in the 
  East and Trimaris, or does it just describe how the orders think about
  identifying candidates for elevation?

Trick question?  I am unaware that there is a binding policy ANYWHERE in the
Society for kingdoms to elevate.  Unless you want to consider the vague
wording in Corpora.

Zeitgeist is all we have, Leifr.

  I wrote:
  > In fact, I'vechad this discussion with people, and they all pretty much
  > agree that our peers should have one thing in common: pretty much everyone
  > agrees that they are (or could be) a role model of peerage.  (Although they
  > never agree on what exactly that is.)
  
  That's a nice definition.  Unfortunately, it seems the aspect to be 
  considered last in the order meeting, from what I've been told.  Apparently
  objective measures of documentation (for Laurels), tourney wins (for 
  Knights) or events autocrated (for Pelicans) and the such are considered
  first and foremost.

I am not privileged to have first  hand knowledge of the discussions in
Peerage circles.  Certainly, for the two orders I belong to, we make mention
of objective criteria wherever we can.  We also discuss many intangibles.
But we each weigh the results as best we can, and make our individual
recommendations from there.  For example, for one service order, I tend to
weigh on "do they get things done well, and in such a fashion that people
are glad they helped?"  For the other it's "are they exemplars that will
make the order look good?"  This is because each order has a different
charter, and focus.

Not even I could tell you if I weigh objective or subjective criteria first
and foremost.

This leads me to believe, from my limited experience, that the
generalizations you are levelling simply do not apply well.  Each by each
will use the criteria they think best.

It may well be that, of all the things that are said in a peerage circle,
only the subjective ones bear repeating.  After all, the subjective ones
only make sense in the context of who said them, and confidentiality means
not identifying the speaker.

                             Of course, it would be nice if each faction 
  would have the courtesy to recognize the other faction's right to make 
  peers without all the unnecessary sniping.  When a count tells you hechad 
  to chose between two worthy candidates because he "couldn't" make both of 
  them knights, there are problems.

In bold fairness, Leifr, you are sniping too...

There are quite probably, reasons why a Crown must limit the number of
candidates they award Peerages to.  I can surmise a few, and I am sure there
are some I cannot begin to guess at.  It dosn't mean there are "problems" or
that the problems are worse than any cure one could prescribe.

One of the things I DETEST about order meetings, is to have to chose between
several candidates, when all of them are really good people.  As I try to
remind folks each time we meet, these are the best that we are discussing:
those that are less than the best we waste no time on.  It's really
difficult to have to make decisions amongst the very best.

Leifr, you are forgetting that committees have no personality...

	Tibor