No Subject

[jjhale@alpha.ncsc.mil (John J. Hale)]

Since I do not know the address of the Grand Council member to whom I should direct my comments, I will submit it to the list and he who knows how may forward it to the appropriate gentle.

milord,

I have heard recently of the Proposed changes to the banishment rule and have this opinion on the matter.

I urge not to implement the proposed change.  I myself am against banishment at all, but I do recognize the fact that some mechanism needs to be in place should the need arise.  However, given that banishment is a necessary evil, great measures should be taken in order to prevent its very side from appearing (that is its abuse).  

IMHO the only way to do this is to either take banishment out the hands of the Royalty entirely or at least ensure that there is some recourse for the banished individual be it a member or no.  The Crown is an institution for which, as far as my readings in the Corpora lead me, is not answerable (directly at least) for his/her actions.  Certainly having a loose cannon is bad enough without giving the gunner ammunition in the form of unreviewed banish powers to remove whoever displeases him/her (or worse yet -- those who are able to beat him in crown list).  

It is wholly unnecessary that a banished individual be permanently so.  If the person is indeed someone who has caused serious problems in the past, perhaps he/she has mended his ways and would now be a valued member to the society.  If not the next crown can rebanish him, and this can continue until the person either shapes up or tires of the SCA and leaves us alone to play our game in peace.  This may seem like it is wasting the Crown's time by requiring him/her to always question the previous royals edicts.  However, even convicts are allowed to amend their ways and obtain parole.  Should exiles who have committed less vile deeds be denied that chance.

Also, having the BOD review all banishments may seem to waste the BOD's time.  Conversely, I argue that banishments (ideally) should not occur with such frequency that the BOD is bothered by reviewing banishments.  And if that should occur because of a Crown fond of banishment that Crown can be removed for insufficient reason to issue a banishment.  

As to my hint of moving banishment out of the Royals hands entirely, I mean giving it to the BOD.  Perhaps the Crown may be allowed to _suggest_ banishment since the BOD cannot be up to speed on the local situation, but can be apprised of the situation, perhaps by some third party, perhaps by a combination of the Crown and the accused (but I stress _not_ just the Crown -- one-sided argument are always lost).

I thank you for your time, milord.

Yours in service to Atlantia,

Fhearghuis Ghillechriost mac mheic Iain
jhale@eng.ua.edu