This was sent March 1, 2007 by Ælflæd to Duckford II, a.k.a. the Wednesday night discussion, which met from late September 26, 2006 to March 7, 2007.
-=-It's supposed to be about being an exemplar of the type of person the SCA encourages you to be. -=-
Not only peerage. Even grant of arms. MANY awards (most or all) that Queens give.
Someone had written about resumes and basic requirements. If even one of the requirements for an award involves attitude and behavior, then immodesty and covetousness and dissatisfaction can disqualify a person.
I was written to on the side, which I don't like, by someone wanting me to back down or change my tone. I'm sorry if the tone was uncomfortable. I'm used to writing about ideas, not responding to individuals about exactly what they might or might not have intended by their word choice. The idea that it's okay for people to wonder aloud why they don't have something has not proven to be a good idea in my experience. And if the qualifier "in private" is added, still... at my house the "in private" lately has involved a few peers and usually the king. It's not so private.
We can't know who the next king will be. If someone bares a dissatisfied soul to a newcomer, he might end up being someone very influential before long, or vice versa. Someone who might have had a sterling reputation as a peer can mar that potential by too much negativity, even if it's "in private."
Character and virtue don't have "time out."
AElflaed of Duckford
While I don't really think it would be worth going there, the discussion is open and it's here. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.sca/browse_thread/thread/cd1644b628bf4f4c?hl=en But it's kind of a dive, and I'm not really inviting any of you, just letting you know where it is I'm practicing my pugilism (Mordygan reference... ).
I've been accused of attacking a straw man, for taking something one step further than stated (or by assuming the statement reflected real situations such as I've seen). They're big, there in that discussion, on citing who exactly said what. In the discussions I'm used to lately (the two biggest unschooling groups), we ask people to discuss the ideas separate from the particular situations, as pure ideas. It's much more civilized, and people don't get to keep claiming ownership of whatever they've thrown out there for examination.
But really I want to discuss "time out" which used to be a regular discussion topic at philosophy discussions. People have claimed variously in the past that what they did didn't count because they weren't in costume, or weren't at an event. But much of what officers and autocrats do is not in costume and not at an event. If there's a time and place that "doesn't count," then people shouldn't be credited for things they do there either. For some people sure, there's tons of time out. But for those who are playing at the level of wanting to be more virtuous, of using the SCA as a place to learn and grow, what they do and how they are is the essence of the whole deal. If I tried to speak only truth when I was in costume and then I told different stories as soon as I touched jeans and a t-shirt, my "truth" wouldn't be worth a damn.
If someone never complained about anything in costume, but as soon as he got in the car to leave he commenced to complain to his travel companions, did he complain or not?
Does what we do on Wednesdays "count" less than Thursdays in costume? Not to me they don't. I'm more likely to be "Mistress AElflaed" in costume and I'm not expecting more than "AElflaed" on Wednesday. I would object more to "Sandra" on Thursday in costume, and would totally balk if it were Crown Tournament and someone yelled "Sandra" across the room, so there are levels of formality and expectation, but that doesn't mean (for me, anyway, when I apportion my respect and regard) that there's a time when nothing counts.
Is there time out in armor? If someone's the model of honor in a tournament but he's pretty much awful at practice, then what?
We can't impose our best ideas on other people, we can just use all the ideas we come across to check, shape and hone our own beliefs. Thanks for being people I could check and hone my own beliefs against. I've really enjoyed our Wednesdays, and considered it entirely "game on."
Questions, objections, comments can be deposited here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThinkWellTNG/message/292 (you can read without joining, but would need to join that list to post).