Re: U.B.A.G

[Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>]

Poster: Lance Harrop <lharrop@mrj.com>


His Excellency, Earl Dafydd, writes:

> Excuse me?  Nothing of the sort.  For one thing, I am not under the
> impression that you ever saw the letter I wrote to the principals
> in Tidewater.

True, I had to go by the summation Your Excellency provided.

> For another thing, you are equating the expression
> of disapproval of the Monarch with Atlantian Law, and they are not
> the same. 

Actually, I'm not equating Your Excellency's letter with Atlantian Law at 
all.  I know they are not the same, and I am glad you do too.

> And still another thing, as it turns out I sent the letter
> as David Kuijt, very carefully and EXPLICITLY not wearing my King
> hat, which makes it even harder to maintain that any person was
> outlawed.

I am glad to hear that, Your Excellency.  Now could you please explain where
Mr. David Kuijt derives the authority to tell other members of the SCA 
what they may and may not do at an event?

> And I am similarly confused as to how you could read that I was
> advocating outlawing ANYONE in my recent posts, when all I have
> ever said is that I consider the posts to be inappropriate for
> this forum, and the activity of playing an assassination game
> inappropriate for SCA events.

Actually, I have been responding to the totality of this thread, so 
obviously Your Excellency's positions have blended together with those of
others whom seem to dislike the UBAG.  

I am perfectly happy to believe that Your Excellency would not want to 
outlaw anybody, but only their activities, whether it would be speech on 
the Merry Rose or games at events.

As to your Excellency's two points:

Are the UBAG posts inappropriate?  Assassinations did occur in period.  
Recreating them, therefore, is argueably an activity members of the SCA
might want to undertake.  Therefore I hardly think it is inappropriate for
UBAG to raise the issue in the Merry Rose (though it does make me wonder 
about the taste of my mead?? ;-> >.

Is the assassination game inappropriate?  Well, it is designed to recreate
an aspect of Medieval life (the constant nervousness of the upper classes,
especially Italian ones) in a manner which is both safe and meant to be 
fun for the participants.  Is it fun for the spectators?  I don't find it so,
but then neither is the Atlantian Speed Tourney, or for that matter the 
early rounds of the Emerald Joust, fun for the spectators.  We could 
certainly show a little more care for the fun of the spectators in a number
of our activities, doesn't Your Excellency agree?

> > As long as we reward the activities which enhance our game, we can suffer 
> > the ones which divert it a little.  It is only when we fail to reward 
> > positive activities that negative ones, such as UBAG's assassination 
> > game, become debilitating to the Kingdom.
> 
> I disagree. 

You do?  Ah, I'm crushed ;-).  I was sure any rightminded individual 
would accept that in a totally volunteer organization, the only way to 
lead people is through our award system.  Exempliers, Your Excellency, of 
the conduct we seek to recreate, are the best counter to Vampires and Elves.

> The farther a "game" is from the area of interest of the
> SCA, the more damaging it is to the illusion we attempt to participate
> in.  I would loudly object to anyone wanting to play a Klingon at an
> SCA event.  And so for a Vampire.  And so for an Elf.  And so for a
> Wizard.  I'm sure they are all fun games.  But they ain't the game
  _____
> we're playing in the SCA.
  ^^^^^

So, if I might ask, who are the "WE" in this statement?  The Society has 
over 20,000 paid members, plus thousands more participants.  There is a 
Duke of the Midrealm who takes his name from Tolkein's elves (Duke 
Lorillein Darkbane (sp)).  There is a knight who wears Aztec armour (Sir Ix).

		How can Your Excellency claim any 
		viewpoint fairly defines "The Game"?

I had this argument with Baron Hossein (mka Greg Rose) nearly a year 
ago, and I tried to take Your Excellency's position.  I argued that the 
Society could be defined by a serious of Landmarks, which clearly shows 
what falls into the scope of the game, in time, place, and activities, 
and therefore what falls out.  Baron Hossein argued that much of the 
Society, as it currently exists, would fall outside those Landmarks, and 
that it would not be fair for an upstart like myself to throw Dukes and 
Knights persona's outside of the Society, just because we wanted to have 
a tighter definition of the Game.

And I still think Landmarks would be a good idea, but they don't exist, 
and the Society is pretty much whatever it has grown to be.

Anyway, for a study project, someone in UBAG, or James of Westmoreland,
can answer these questions:

	Were there assassinations in period?		(Well, yes)
	Were there professional assassins available
	  for hire?					(Don't know)
	Were there criminal guilds, or other forms
	  of organized crime?				(Maybe not)

And I think you should ask the autocrat IF you can play your games at the 
event.

In Service
Leifr Johansson
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org