Let's Talk about Wording

[jducoeur]

[This is SCA politics; folks not in the SCA aren't likely to care about it.]

So it sounds like last weekend's BoD meeting was mostly uneventful -- nothing I've heard so far is head-exploding. That said, it does seem to have had its bits of Special.

The one interesting problem is the new change to the wording of the Same-Gender Crown Proposal. Specifically, the addition of a sentence, "No one may take part in the list as both competitor and also consort." This is a *huge* policy change, and a surprisingly bad idea -- it would have far more effect on traditional opposite-gender couples in Crown. I'm a bit surprised that the Board is even entertaining it.

So I'm contemplating a letter to the Board. Here's a draft, for commentary.

To the members of the Society's Board of Directors, from Mark Waks, known in the Society as Justin du Coeur: greetings.

I've read the informal reports of the Board meeting on October 27th, and most of it seems uncontroversial. However, I must express my concerns about the proposed change to law, in response to the Same-Gender Crown Proposal, to add the sentence, "No one may take part in the list as both competitor and also consort."

This seems like an extremely bad idea -- deeply at odds with established practice in many Kingdoms, and harmful in a number of ways. In particular, it is likely to lessen the number of women in the Crown List, since many of them are fighting for the man who is fighting for them. And indeed, given how many female fighters cite Duchess Rowen (who would have been excluded by this rule) as a primary inspiration to them, this rule change seems to have the potential to be quite damaging to the Society.

My understanding is that the proposed change is in response to concerns about "Ducal Daisy Chains" -- collections of Royal Peers who choose to collaborate in a massive rules-hack to improve their chances of winning. I'll be frank: I think this is unwarranted catastrophizing, the typical sort of rationalization people come up with to argue against the Same-Gender proposal to begin with. The prime rule of the SCA is "Don't Be a Jerk", and trying to legislate against the ten thousand ways one *can* be a jerk is just a recipe for tying ourselves in knots. I honestly don't think we should be spending so much attention on something that should instead be handled by social censure.

But let's take the concern at face value. If we really are concerned about this happening, a much more correct rule change would be, "Couples may compete for each other in the Crown List, but neither may compete for a third party". That is, it should absolutely be allowed for two Dukes to compete for each other, just as Rowen and Hector did and just as many opposite-gender couples do today. (I suspect that the social hassles given to the first pair to do so will help discourage subsequent rules-hackers.) We should call a spade a spade, and forbid only the sorts of unlikely grand conspiracies that seem to be the basis of the catastrophizing, without harming those couples who sincerely wish to fight for each other and are following decades of tradition in doing so.

You will also note that this wording has little to do with the Same-Gender proposal, intentionally. These "daisy chains" are already possible -- if people aren't worrying about that case, it is only because they are not taking the female fighters sufficiently seriously. The fact that this issue is only coming up in the context of the Same-Gender proposal is, honestly, quietly insulting to the many talented female fighters of the Society.

I hope you take this suggestion into consideration.

Sincerely,
Mark Waks

(Wow, it goes against my grain to use my mundane name in SCA correspondence, but as I've remarked before, the Board appears to be deeply embarassed by the notion of the game intruding into their sphere of operations at all.)

Opinions?

Comments

[tashabear.livejournal.com]

I like it; it's exactly what I was thinking about last night. One must wonder why your proposed language was not what was presented. It seems as though it would be more obvious and more inclusive than what was actually put forth.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

You might look at my comment on the Gazette.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

It seems obvious and reasonable to me. In fact, I'm inspired to put in a similar letter, expressing similar thoughts, to my own Board member.

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this. I read the EK Gazette summary and was confused, but I don't follow fighting enough to have understood the alleged reasons for the change. Now I get it.

[rosinavs.livejournal.com]

This is the same idea I had, of allowing a couple to fight for each other but not allowing daisy chains, posted in comments on an f-locked lj. It would keep a romantic triad from all fighting for each other, but I think that is a much smaller possibility than the known practice of couples fighting for each other already prevalent in heterosexual pairs.

[crosslet.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty munch in line with your recommendation. Its essentially in line with current EK traditions except that we allow we allow for same sex pairings. I suspect most Easterners would agree with you but I'm curious on the reaction of kingdoms that allow for the daisy chain approach. But that might be the intent of the BoD with this language.

Per the Gazette:
The Board stated that they are actively attempting to provoke a response by their use of language. They want communication from membership on this topic. They want to know, what other things can we gain by allowing or disallowing these changes?

[bleemoo.livejournal.com]

but as I've remarked before, the Board appears to be deeply embarassed by the notion of the game intruding into their sphere of operations at all.

I don't... what? Perhaps it is because I am not in the SCA, but this statement confuses and befuddles me, and is I think representative of one of the reasons I am wary to get involved. Is not the game the entire reason for the board's existence? What do they think they are the board of?

[anastasiav.livejournal.com]

It's pretty clear that *some* folks just plain don't ever want two Dukes fighting for each other, and are weaseling rationalizations to avoid coming out and saying that in as many words.

You allude to it, but I'm going to come right out and say it: it's very telling that someone, somewhere seems to feel that "superdukes" could never, ever be inspired by someone of their own gender. Or, indeed, find it far fetched that two Dukes could fall in love. What does that say about how we mentally separate "great fighter" and "same sex consort"?

You allude to Duchess Rowan, and so I had to go look it up, to make sure. I think it needs to be explicitly stated that the creation of this rule would have likely eliminated the first woman to win a Crown by her own hand from competing. It most certainly would have changed the story.

I continue to wonder why "opposite sex" remains the default. I wish they'd just remove all the gendered language, and say something like "If a Kingdom wishes to bar couples of the same sex from entering a Crown list, the Kingdom may apply for a waiver from the board. These waivers will be evaluated on a case by case basis." Why make equality the exception? If Kingdoms want to be discriminatory, make them step forward and make their case for it.

[aishabintjamil.livejournal.com]

This is very close to my thoughts on the topic. I was thinking I would wait to send my letter until the formal request for comments came out, to be sure that it went to the proper place.

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

Your revised wording doesn't cover what I think you hope it would. As I understand it, you want to make sure that if a couple is fighting in crown, that they're fighting each other. More to the point, if a competitor in crown is also another competitor's consort, that they fight reciprocally for that competitor and not for a third party. However, your wording (I think) sets it up so that no member of a couple may fight for anyone else regardless of whether both members are fighting or not. *That* is, I think, equally damaging and should be avoided.

Of course, this doesn't touch polyamorous relationships and the fighting/consort pairs that could be legitimate in such a setting. But I've had a hard day and don't want to touch that can of worms apart from bringing it up. :-)

[zydee.livejournal.com]

Oh my gosh, I knew Rowan and Hector when I was active in Texas. I'm so happy to hear she's still around and doing so well. And I hope the BOD listens to you. That sounded very well thought out.