NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/15958

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.6 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!siena!mittle
From: [e-mail] (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Group activity
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:08:52 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References:  <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: siena.watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Lines: 62

Greetings from Arval!

Daniel wrote:

> First of all, that a law is unenforcable does not mean it is a bad law...
> IF the law has results in its intended purpose, and IF there are ways
> around it when it should not apple (as there obviously are, given its
> wording), then I would submit that it IS a good law.

You've come straight to the point: If the benefits of the rule outweigh its
costs, then it is a worthwhile.  I think it is far from clear that this is
the case.  Even when they are unenforcable or evadable, rules are coercive.
Simply by virtue of existing, they discourage creativity and
experimentation.  If we have a rule that says that every branch must hold
events, then very few people will even consider the alternatives and we
lose the possible benefits of their alternative efforts.  That's why I
believe that we should always avoid making rules unless we are absolutely
sure that they are necessary.  Various people have suggested problems that
might result if groups were not required to hold events, or problems that
might underlie the fact that a group is not holding events, but none of
them is a certain consequence of relaxing the rule, and all of them can be
solved in other ways.  Homogeneity is always convenient for central
authority, but that should not be a driving force behind the SCA
bureaucracy.


Gwenllian wrote:

> My philosophy would be that if they don't hold events where the kingdom
> is welcome and invited, then maybe they should just be a household... An
> underlying part of this assumption is that the event is the culmination
> of SCA activities.

That assumption is exactly that one that I am questioning.  Are events the
be-all of a branch of the SCA?  I don't think so; the primary goal of a
group is to encourage people to do the learning and teaching.  An event is
one useful way to accomplish that goal, but it is hardly the only one.

> We all enjoy attending events.  So that the plate may be full of events
> to attend, every official group should hold at least one event that any
> who wish may attend.

Is there any kingdom which has a dearth of events?  My impression from
looking at the various newsletters is that the kingdoms have more events
than they can handle.  If there were a shortage of events, then the
requirement would make sense.

> There's another benefit to smaller groups holding events.  In every
> group, there are those who don't travel.  Holding events will allow those
> people to be exposed to the rest of the SCA, rather than just their
> insular group.

Insularity is definitely a real problem, and it is a reasonable part of the
kingdom seneschal's job to encourage every group to learn from and share
with the rest of the kingdom.  If a particular group is stagnating as a
result of insularity, then the kingdom seneschal should take some action.
I do agree that every branch ought to share its skills and resources with
its neighbors, but I do not agree that holding events is the only way to do
it or even necessarily the best way.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       [e-mail]