Re: *WH* Recognition of deserving gentles, a further look

["Jonathan Blackbow" <blackbow@sprynet.com>]

Poster: "Jonathan Blackbow" <blackbow@sprynet.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Steeves <ricks@acpub.duke.edu>
To: windmasters@trinet.com <windmasters@trinet.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: *WH* Recognition of deserving gentles, a further look


>
>Poster: Rick Steeves <ricks@acpub.duke.edu>
>
>If someone wants to forward my comments further, feel free, but
>since i'm not subscribed elsewhere, I'll stay local for now.
>
>
>At 01:59 PM 3/2/98 -0000, Jonathan Blackbow wrote:
>
>>Ansteorra has a ranking system in its army based, IIRC, on the number of
>>weapons forms a fighters is authorized in.  This is a tangible, simple
>>system of recognition.
>
>Umm, what, exactly, are tournaments for then? If I do well fighting,
>people notice. Tangible, simple.
>
>>
>>While it works well, I don't know if they have a similar system for the
arts
>>and sciences.  It seems to me to be essentially similar to a system of
merit
>>badges, like that of the Scouts.
>
>Frankly, if I wanted to be a scout, I'd be a scout. Been there, done that.
>Prefer our system.
>
><bunch a stuff about ranking system deleted>
>
>You know, I think Blackbow's comments are just WAY off of what Duchess
Seonaid
>said.
>
>She said (and I paraphrase) that people want another level of awards above
>baronial, but that right now people don't make recommendations for the
>awards that DO exist. And I think she's right. I know _I_ don't write
>enough of those letters. Does anyone?
>
>I don't want a complex rating/ranking system, if only because I don't want
the
>SCA do be just what Blackbow describes, a toting up of "merit badges".
>Sometimes I feel people are underrecognized (which has an easy soln, I
>should write an letter saying so to someone), and sometimes I feel they're
>overrecognized, at which I just grin and bear it; that problem tends to be
>self-correcting.
>
>Blackbow says (in a later post)
>>right now, formally or informally, it is essentially assumed that Fighter
>>receives Sea Stag -> Fighter is knighted, as well as Person receives
Golden
>>Dolphin -> Person receives Pelican, and Person receives Pearl -> Person
>>receives Laurel.  Unless I have those last two reversed.  This way,
there's
>>a system of recognition in place that points up the actual amount of work
>>done that (eventually) ends up in that track.
>
>Yup, and that perception should be WRONG. You do NOT have to be any of the
>preceeding steps to receive recognition later. The fact that they seem to
>step is because the system is working more or less like it should, with
>greater and greater recogn. with more accomplishments. But that should NOT
>be a scoring system. What if someone's an amazing fighter with tons o'
"points",
>but a complete and utter !@#$ the rest of the time.  A point system would
say
>"knight them!" BLECH!
>
>Blackbow says in (yet another) post:
>
>>1.  I couldn't tell you how many fighters I know/hear about who genuinely
>>enjoy fighting but whose single "complaint" (I hesitate to call it even
>>that) is that "I'll never get knighted."
>
>And? There are many people who _should_ never get knighted. If everyone
>could, it wouldn't be nearly as special. The knight I know generally ARE
>better than me, but it's becasue they DO practice more than me, and want
>it enough to go that extra mile. I don't know any fighters who are
>amazingly good AND courteous that aren't either knights or will be soon.
>Why should those who are NOT both those categories be knights?
>
>
>>From Blackbow's comments on "bad" recognition being or carrying more
>weight than "good" recognition, I'd say that's generally true.
>However, if a half dozen people have written to the Crown because they
>think someone's swell, the Crown (who's prob. never heard of their local
>foibles), will make awards based on those recommendations. And the
>Crown certainly changes often enough if you're worried about bias.
>
>That there aren't enough  recommendations is, I believe, the problem. And
if the
>individual doesn't do enough good stuff to outweigh the bad stuff in
>at least a few people's minds, do you think they should be getting awards?
>
>
>Also, any points system would necessitate a complete other SCA order to
keep
>track of them. Yet more paperwork? No thank you. And why would any system
like
>this be any less prone to abuse than the current system?
>
>Finally, the system we use is ay least somewhat medieval. We don't give
>direct ttle by
>the amount of taxes one pays, or by heredity; people don't
>always get rank by merit, and sometimes (whether for good or bad) sucking
up
>gives recognition. Although that sometimes irks me, it's a lot better than
>a direct "earning your knighthood" because I have enough points.
>
>
>Just my 2 farthings.
>Lord Corwyn Sinister
>Canton, Buckston on Eno
>>
[Corwyn:  how is it that you managed to miss every reference I made to this
system having no real, direct effect on what's already in place?

Regardless, it's obvious that this isn't something that anybody favors, so
I'll let it die.]

Ld. J. Blackbow
Clan O'Shannon

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