[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Pennsic Letter
Poster: Heather Swann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Phillip Jones
> Triplette Competition Arms
> > Yeah, I think a big part of the whole uproar got kicked off by
> > the fact that they discribe the operation of the Senechal's Court,
> > then go immediately to a half-page discussion of dress code before
> > discussing the things that the court is really meant to cover. So
> > we end up arguing *past* each other...
> But what if the authors wanted us to concentrate on the dress code red
> herring, ignoring the incredibly potent stuff that comes later, as most
> people are doing?
Actually, I think there are potential problems on either end of it, but the
thing that worries me is when people say it wouldn't have caused as much
uproar if it were described as a 'review' vs. a 'court'. Either one seems
to me unnecessary and potentially unpleasant and a thing that could be used
for personal political reasons by whoever has the controls.
The SCA rules already state that the autocrat has the authority at their
event to toss someone off the site or to deal with problems. This is
already taken care of. It seems to me that the addition of a 'review' or a
'court' is more of a random 'kangaroo' affair, or has the potential to be
Pennsic has always been different from any other SCA event. Is the point
here to try to make it more like the others or what?
As I understand the SCA rules, there are already ways of dealing with
problems in place. Do we just need to make better use of them, perhaps?
I don't know.......I'm just asking here, because it seems that the rules
are gradually getting tighter and more numerous, and I'm not so sure if
that's a good thing....
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
Admin. requests: email@example.com