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

Re: Creeping Bureaucracy

Poster: Corun MacAnndra <corun@access.digex.net>

Mar Yaakov wrote:
>His Excellency Storvik writes:
>>Before we start telling Rabah what we think he ought to do, I think it best
>>that we know something first. I heard this afternoon that, apparently, he
>>and every other kingdom Chronicler have been asked by the Society Chronicler
>>to do this. THink about it a second before your anti-beaureaucracy glands
>>kick in. What is the Acorn? It is an official publication of the Kingdom of
>>(your name here), SCA, Inc. It says so on the inside of every issue you get.
>>It is my understanding (and I will admit to second hand knowledge here, so
>>take this at face value, if I'm wrong, we'll find out soon enough), that the
>>Society Chronicler wants to make sure that web sites for kingdoms are also
>>"official publications".
>What a revoltin' development this is!  Good grief, can't we do *anything*
>without someone on the BOD trying to nationalize it in the name of the
>people.  (Please spare me the usual 'Board members are hard-working
>volunteers' etc.  The road to Hell is paved with such well meaning deeds,
>and I have seen organizations go to ruin through the best efforts of
>dilligent officers.)

Before I begin, I will apologize now for leaving those parts of this post
that were my original comments quoted by Yaakov. I know they take up extra
space, but I will be referring to them, and it's best to have them here
rather than merely allude to them.

Good Yaakov, I know your longstanding hatred for the BoD. It is out of place
here because you are working from the false premise that the Corporate
Offcers are on the BoD. I have looked in the back of the Acorn, and unless I
am much mistaken, the Kingdom Chronicler is not on the BoD. Also note my
comments above. Nowhere in there do I mention the BoD. As far as I know,
this is the idea of one Corporate Officer, and falls well under that one
person's pervue. Also, as far as I know, the BoD has not claimed any
jurisdiction here. Note that I did not say "does not have jurisdiction." I
don't claim to know where their jurisdiction begins and ends.

>>Why? At a guess I'd say legal hassles, the first
>>bastion of today's society (and I mean mundane society folks). People will
>>sue over the stupidest things at the drop of a hat. Also, there may be
>>copyright issues. "Over event announcements?" I hear you say. Well, probably
>>not, but there could be other issues along those lines. Anyway, let's just
>>chill a bit.
>While quite possibly the motivation, such reasoning as evinced above is

Insulting me by calling me a fool is unnecessary simply because I made a
guess as to the motivation (and said so above). My reasoning may be flawed,
but I am no man's fool.

>Yes, people will sue for anything.  This does not make the suit valid.  

Since when does validity play any part in someone bringing a suit against
someone else, bringing them to court, or costing them money to prevent same.
I never said anything about whether a suit brought against the SCA would or
would not be valid, only that it could happen. And yes, it could happen
whether web sites are sanctioned or not. That's just the way people work in
today's society. Whether or not someone is successful in winning an invalid
lawsuit is, as you should well know, irrelevant. It will cost the defendant
(i.e. the SCA) money, whether in actual outlay of cash, or in lost man hours
(often a more expensive commodity).

>does panic reaction with little understanding of the law decrease
>liability.  (Yes, I am an attorney, a clerk of the Court of Appeals of the
>District of Columbia, thanks for asking....)

No one has paniced here except those who immediately jumped on Rabah so
vehemently telling him what a bad idea this was. I don't know that the
Society Chronicler has paniced, nor can you say that the decision by Rabah
to warrant people was a panic reaction. Your assertion to panic is merely

>>Let's not jump on Rabah until we've heard more from him, and let's
>>certainly not tell him his job. I think he knows it well enough on his
>>own. If he want to institute warrants for web owners, that's his business
>>until either Their Majesties say something about it, or until he steps down
>>and the next KC changes things. That's the great thing about change, folks.
>>It's one of the great constants of the universe.
>Do you seriously propose that it is impolite or forbidden to give an
>officer feedback on proposed policy?  And that they should dismiss such
>feedback as mere whining?  (Or that we should dismiss such feedback because
>the people involved are merely the recipients of the policy and have never
>held the office in question?)  While certaionly one of the more polite
>formulations of "my way or the highway," I do not think you have thought
>through the implications of your statement.

I have never anywhere in my words proposed any such thing as you assert. It
is certainly not impolite nor forbidden to offer feedback. However, there is
a way to phrase feedback that does not constitute telling someone how to do
their job, and it was those posts I was addressing. A few of the posts were
overly vehement, and one of them was, in my opinion, downright snotty. This
is not feedback. I will beg you to read what I said above, and not resort to
the role of lawyer by implying things with legalesse (read Orwellian
doublespeak) that I have not said. I have not indicated the "my way or the
highway" attitude that you imply. I have simply asked people to think a bit
before overreacting to something that Rabah has more knowledge of than they
(or so it was at the point of my writing, since now Rabah has given greater
clarification to all). And I will appreciate it if you do not label me as
some sort of devil for sticking up for Rabah and trying to bring a modicum
of calm into what was turning into, in my opinion, a potential flame war.
Calm and forethought was all I was asking for.

Yaakov, you have completely missed every point I made and implied that I
meant something entirely different than what I actually said. I have asked
people to consider what they wish to say before posting words that could
insult or denegrate or even humiliate Rabah. I have asked people to consider
that Rabah may not be working alone here, and may be under a mandate from a
higher authority. You, as both a lawyer and a religious scholar should know
something about higher authorities.

>If Rabbah were not a friend and known to you, how would it effect your
>feelings on criticizing the office or the policy?

It would not affect my feelings one whit. I stand by what I said, and my
friendship with Rabah is not relevant to that. All too often people will
forget that not all jobs are easy ones, and that some are harder than
others. Sometimes it is not a matter of forgetting, but simply not even
realizing that fact. And all too often people will arm chair quarterback for
no better reason than that they see a threat that either doesn't exist for
them or does not exist at all, or they just don't like the idea. Some people
have railed against an implied beaureaucracy, and others have railed against
what "might" happen down the road. The one thing none of them has openly
suggested (I will not say they haven't considered it since I don't know what
they have or have not considered) is that the future KC could cause just the
kind of truble they invision whether Rabah gives his warrants or not. All of
them have, however, suggested that this will happen if he does implement
them. These things may also never come to pass. No one who has spoken
against the warrants has, at least before Rabah's explanation, suggested
that these things might *not* come to pass. Instead they have railed against
the idea, the perceived increase of paperwork, and the perceived threat of
an unkown future KC by telling Rabah "don't do this." Not, "Have you
considered this consequence" but "This is bad, don't do it." Any time you
tell me "don't do this" you have immediately stepped beyond the pale of
offering feedback, and into the realm of telling me how you think I should
be doing my job. There is a considerable difference in my opinion.

In service,

   Corun MacAnndra   |			They also serve
 Dark Horde by birth |		     who only lurk and pry
   Moritu by choice  |					Dark Horde Proverb

List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org