[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Banishment

Alfredo el Bufon wrote:
>I gather that the proposed changes are to save the BOD the bother of
>reviewing banishments or listening to appeals, and/or that banishments
>extend beyond the reign of the banisher.  Do I understand true?

The proposed changes were drafted by the Interkingdom Advisory Council (IKAC)
as a proposal to the Board of Directors.  The BoD saw them approximately the
same time we did.  They are not an attempt to "Save the BOD the bother of
reviewing banishments." They are an attempt to reform or revise the
banishment rules.

In my opinion, Level 1 banishments (banishment from the presence of the King/
Queen) should stay unchanged.  There are priviliges one gets for being the
ruler of a Kingdom.  This is one of them.

(I do NOT want to get into a debate of the various merits or de-merits of our
present system of choosing Royalty.  Such a debate is a seperate issue from
banishments and those interested in change should start lobbying the IKAC for
another proposed change to Corpora.)

In general, I could support the kinds of banishments outlined in the
proposal, but NOT the lack of review.  If we, as a Society, are willing to
grant one individual the power to prevent anyone s/he dislikes from
participating in our game, then certainly we ought to make sure that
tremendous power is not abused.

Level 2 banishment is a serious sanction. Corpora states in part "...as long
as the banished person makes no effort to engage in activities subject to
the jurisdiction of any officer..." It prevents a person from doing ANYTHING
under the auspices of an SCA officer, including an Autocrat.  A person under
level 2 banishment cannot vote or participate in council or business
meetings, unevent, curia, order meetings, pollings, etc.  This person cannot
fight, marshal, herald, bear water, organize lists, Troll, judge or enter
competitions, chirugeon, teach at an SCA-sponsered activity, cook, or even
help clean up the kitchen. S/he cannot participate in local A&S days, dance
practices, garb workshops, or even help with newsletters.

No one person should have the unlimited power to sanction another person in our
society this way.  IMO, ALL level 2 and above banishments should not only be
reviewed by a third party outside the kingdom (BoD, IKAC, Grand Council,
what have you), but a court of inquiry ought to be REQUIRED *before*
banishment as well.  This court of inquiry should be made up of an equal
number of people appointed by the Crown and the person being banished.

Level 2 banishments should be for just cause, not because the Crown dislikes
someone.  Review by a court of inquiry and an outside third party will help
prevent abuse. And I think that sanctions against Royalty banishing persons
for frivolous reasons should be pursued.

Requirements for level 3 and level 4 (if we end up with four levels of
banishment) should be progressively more strict.

I also think there ought to be a review after a certain period of time for
persons whose memberships have been revoked.  That shouldn't necessarily be
permanent.  Maybe a review in two or three years?

My six cents.

        - Lady Anarra Karlsdottir                       Terry L. Neill
          Caer Mear, Atlantia                           Richmond, VA