principalities, baronies, etc., oh my

["David H Ritterskamp" <dhritter@dpcmail.dukepower.com>]

Poster: "David H Ritterskamp" <dhritter@dpcmail.dukepower.com>

[Like I said, Get your programs here!  You can't tell the players without a 
program!]

On Tue, 08 Apr 1997, Tom Brady <tabrady@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Poster: Tom Brady <tabrady@mindspring.com>
>
>Greetings to all from Duncan MacKinnon!
>It is with some bemusment that I find myself in agreement with Lord Jonathan
>(nothing personal, Jonathan - in the past, I have not always shared your
>viewpoint, though).
>

[Well, it had to happen sooner or later.  Anybody in Hell want a space heater?
;>]

>In corresponding with Lord Leifr, Jonathan wrote (quoting Leifr):
>>     I disagree.  Everyone in a group can answer the question the same way.
>>     That is what is meant by consensus.  
>>     [If everyone in a group answers the question the same way, who asked 
>>     the question?  If there was a question, then obviously there was a 
>>     difference of opinion, or at least an uninformed person.]
>
>As was pointed out earlier, consensus != unanimity. Also, sometimes
>leadership by consensus requires you to ask a question to which you know
>everyone's answer will be the same - if only as a courtesy.
>
>>     [A question becomes an issue when there is a difference of opinion.  
>>     It's that simple.  To continue that example, a question that becomes 
>>     an issue is inherently politically oriented.]
>
>Granted. But I still refuse to believe that just because something is
>political, it must shied away from.
>
[Sorry, but I didn't think I ever said that it had to be shied away from.  Did 
I?  Let me check my script...]

>>     Well, that I think is not a universal belief.  I know those who 
>>     believe
>>     all politics, no matter how well conducted, are bad.  Bad politics I 
>>     think are either badly conducted, or leave a bad taste in one's mouth.
>>     
>>     [In terms of "politics" as a whole, I would say that Good Politics (or 
>>     a Good Politician) is somebody that can get what he/she wants and 
>>     leave his/her opponents feeling good about it.  
>
>The secret here is that "Good Politics" are not seen as politics at all - it
>may not even have a name. Sometimes, it's just, "We sat down and talked it
>over and everything's fine now."
>
[That may bear out Leifr's concept of the word "politics" meaning "bad politics"
because "good politics" isn't generally referenced by name.  Sounds good, 
anyway.]

>Leifr said:
>>     Actually, it is the BS brought into the discussion.  Or it is the 
>>     mechanism misused to solve one problem by disquising it as another.  
>
>Among other things. It is incivility, it is revenge, it is any number of
>things. Perhaps it is the refusal to see the validity of another's point of
>view, perhaps it is an utter refusal to be swayed from one's opinion. Any
>way you put it, to my mind it's a personal problem, not necessarily a
>problem with the process.
>

[But if you won't allow your viewpoint to change, for whatever reason, that's 
generally where the politics comes in.  I was once a member on a mock jury in 
high school where most of the rest of the jury was people I had been to earlier 
grades with, but then we had gone to different schools.  We hadn't gotten along 
before (and this was four or five years later) and we got along even worse when 
the vote to convict was 11 to 1, with me being the 1.  Talk about politics...it 
was sad.  Funny, though.]

>Then we get to the Principality stuff:
>(Duncan's stated opinion - it might work, it might not. I have yet to be
>swayed that the formation of a principality would be better than the status
>quo. But I'll also admit that I would liek to know more.)
>
[I don't know.  Possibly a straw poll would work, and if a bunch of people up 
north don't like the status quo, maybe we could have them branch off and become 
the equivalent of the Anglesidhe [spelling?], who are geographically located in 
Atlantia but don't have any official status.  Maybe that would make them happy.]

>Back to Jonathan:
>>     I have also seen a 
>>     couple of instances (North Augusta, GA for one) where it was deemed 
>>     smarter to attach a city to a different kingdom simply because it was 
>>     nearer a population center in a different kingdom.  For instance:  
>>     IMO, Johnson City, TN belongs in Atlantia because it's closer to 
>>     Boone.  Either that, or Boone belongs in Meridies.  Hey, Border Wars!  
>>     Meridies fights Atlantia and the winner (loser? ;>) gets the Johnson 
>>     City/Boone area for the year.  Heh...
>
>Actually, I think Boone might be closer to Asheville than Johnson City
[No way!  Johnson City is only about 50 miles from Boone at most.  I've driven 
that and I've driven to Asheville from Boone, and I can promise you that you 
would rather drive to Johnson City.]

>(unless there's a shire in the teeming metropolis of Erwin :-). But there
>are other reasons for a group to stay/split with a kingdom - culture
>differences and group history, for example.
>
[ I think this one was nothing more than state lines, though - consider the fact
that I've heard people often talk about the fact that Boone is geographically 
distant from the Barony of Sacred Stone.  Well, true, it's 2.5 hours from 
Charlotte and (roughly the same for) Asheville.  But it's not the _distance_, 
it's the headache you have trying to get there up 321.  Johnson City, though, 
has a shorter drive over roads that aren't quite as much of a headache.  Not 
quite.]

>>     BTW:  I think Corpora sets the minimum for a principality at 200, not 
>>     100.  Either way, I find it fascinating that it doesn't set an UPPER 
>>     limit.  They probably didn't ever think they would have to worry about 
>>     it...
>
>Actually, it's 100. 

[quote from Corpora snipped]

I'll be darned.  I wonder if it changed in the past few years?  Last I heard it 
was 200 for Principality and 400 for kingdom.  Of course, I haven't stopped to 
look in a long time.
>
>>     And the only reasonable way I could see to set an upper limit would be 
>>     to base it on the population of the area in question.  For instance, 
>>     Wash. DC would have a larger limit than the entire state of North 
>>     Carolina.
>
>I would think that the split would be made more on cultural than population
>lines. I also think setting an upper limit would be rather silly - as was
>stated elsewhere, there are cantons with enough members to become a barony,
>yet they don't for various reasons. The same would apply to principalities,
>I should think.
>
>Regards,
>Duncan
[Wouldn't you agree that population centers are the cultural lines you're 
talking about?  Inside DC - city people.  Outside DC - rural people.  If you 
live halfway between DC and Richmond, though, where would you go?  Well, gosh 
darn if we don't have a good reason to have another war...;>]

[You've discovered my secret...EVERYTHING is just a subtle way to get into 
another melee!  I mean, if people can drive from all over hell and half of 
Georgia to fight over PITTSBURGH...;>]

Ld. Jonathan Blackbow
O'Shannon Travel Sales Rep



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