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

[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.

[jducoeur]

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

*Only* woman to win a Crown, still. There have been other women who have won coronets, but AFAIK she's still the only Queen by Right of Arms.

I continue to wonder why "opposite sex" remains the default.

Playing Devil's Advocate: I do actually sympathize somewhat with the bind that the Board is in. The Census produced a lot of interesting results, and one of those results was that this issue is *extremely* contentious. And not just in the conservative South -- even in the East, one of the most pro-change Kingdoms, the margin in favor of the Same-Gender Crown proposal was far from overwhelming.

They're in a very tough spot. It's quite clear that whatever decision they come to, it will piss off a large fraction of the Society. So they're taking it very slowly, floating trial balloons and experimenting to see how they can minimize the psychic damage. I happen to think this particular experiment was surprisingly badly thought out, but I'm not surprised that they appear to be grasping at straws a little...

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

I really don't like the idea of a case by case review - if we're trying to anticipate every unhappy scenario, personal grudges or something might be imagined to come into play.
While I totally support the idea of same-sex couples being monarchs, I also don't think we necessarily have to have "couples" in the sense of any kind of long-term relationship. I like the inspirational idea, but I also kind of like the idea of a completely "marriage of convenience" equivalent, which would be gender-neutral in this case. Someone who is a good fighter would be on the lookout for a consort who is good with business details, can safely drive all night after an event, has a lot of period camping gear in his or her basement, etc. Strictly based on practical considerations. That would be not have been uncommon in the middle ages, after all. ;-)

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

The existing rules and laws allow seated Crowns to disqualify entrants already.

I don't suspect that ability is going to be removed as part of this change, if for no reason than it needlessly complicates an already complex situation, one that is already highly political. To reduce the powers of the Crown further would make the situation a harder sell.

[jducoeur]

And is quite common in the East, yes. (King Edward has won for two ladies, neither of whom is his wife. She is wise enough to know that she wouldn't enjoy being Queen.)