Grumble, grumble, Order of Defense, grumble

[jducoeur]

So the movement to create a Peerage for fencing has reached the point of a formal proposal, out for comment. Do I send another letter to the Board?

On the one hand, I think there should totally be a path to Peerage for those who have had a major impact through fencing; I think that's true of every activity.

OTOH, I think this is the *worst* way we can possibly deal with that. Rapier *ought* to be recognized through the Chivalry, and I'm still cranky that that doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of ever happening -- the armored fighters hold the levers of power, and by and large they won't allow it. Failing that, we ought to reinterpret the Laurel or Pelican to be more accepting, or at the *very* worst, have an Order that is designed to be welcoming of all martial activities. As it is, creating a Fencing-Only Peerage means that we are inevitably going to have to create more and more Peerage Orders in the name of fairness. If we're recognizing Fencing today, we should absolutely have one for Archery, and then, I don't know -- Equestrian? Thrown Weapons? (And God help us when someone points out that excellence in execution and behaviour isn't the sole province of the martial arts.)

From an organizational-design standpoint, it's idiotic and damaging: the rise of Zillions of Specialized Awards is one of the worst blights on the SCA today, and I utterly hate the idea of it spreading to the Peerage. We like to say that our awards aren't just "merit badges", but that is certainly what they're coming to look like, and they get steadily less meaningful as they get sliced-and-diced more finely.

All of which said, we have a cultural problem: we are deeply failing all of the martial communities other than heavy list, and that *does* need to be fixed. IMO, the only thing worse than the current proposal is the status quo, and the proposal on the table may be the only politically feasible way to fix it.

Hence, grumble.

(I hate the name "Order of Defense" as well. Would anyone care to argue that "Order of Chivalry" is a name worth emulating? I've always felt that it was one of the more painfully mundane anachronisms we have. I wish someone would show the imagination and backbone to give this proposed Order a real name...)

Comments

[tpau]

with you SO much on all your points BUT... with things as they are i jsut want this damned thing passed and done and completed. preferably before april.

[mermaidlady]

I hadn't realized this had come up again. I'm sadly out of touch with the SCA these days.

I am so against this idea, but I haven't the time to rant right now. Where's the official info? I may write a letter to the Board, for what it's worth, since I'll probably just piss off any Chiv who read it.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. Doesn't seem to have been posted to the website yet; it was sent to the Announcements mailing list last night. I suspect it'll show up on www.sca.org soon...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

http://sca.org/BOD/announcements/APECProposal.pdf

[jducoeur]

Actually, the link that goldsquare pointed to is the original proposal, which is a bit out of date. The actual proposal out for commentary (as mentioned downthread) can apparently be found at http://socsen.sca.org/apec-proposed-corpora-change/.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Huh. I hadn't realized. Thank you.

I've been working off the Announcements mailing, so what I know is still accurate. :-)

[laurion]

Saw the proposal through SCAToday. I agree with you that this is the wrong approach, but it seems like there is a strong 'have the cake and eat it too' background here of trying to acknowledge the problem and do something about it without wading into the political mess of broadening the established peerage. The name ('The Order of the Master of Defense') is inane and seems to come across as of lesser worth than the high virtue of chivalry (we're stuck with that name). But it also coins exactly what is happening. The proposal is a defense against suffering the ongoing slings and arrows, er, rather, foils and schlagers leveled.

Oh, and for anyone looking for some backstory to the proposal, see http://eastkingdomgazette.org/2013/09/17/rapier-peerage-proposal-what-is-it/

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

The name is not the "Order of the Master of Defense." It is, per the proposal, is the "Order of Defence."

Which is a fair bit less of a mouthful.

[laurion]

According to the quoted letter on SCAToday, and to the original proposal, it is 'Order of the Master of Defense', named after London fencing instructors. As I have not seen the current proposal on sca.org, this was what I had knowledge of.

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

My bad, I thought you'd seen the full-on request for comments thing.

That is totally what it was in the original proposal, but in the posted request (http://socsen.sca.org/apec-proposed-corpora-change/) it's got a slightly different name. (Which is still drawn from the London Masters of Defense but also far less cumbersome.)

[laurion]

Much less cumbersome! Still debatable on other merits, but at least the tongue won't trip as much.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

OTOH, I think this is the *worst* way we can possibly deal with that. Rapier *ought* to be recognized through the Chivalry, and I'm still cranky that that doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of ever happening -- the armored fighters hold the levers of power, and by and large they won't allow it.

I agree with your goal. I don't agree with your conclusion.

First of all, Corpora forbids it - there would have to be a Corpora change that would PERMIT Chivalry to accept rapier (or other) combatants).

Second of all, I think that while there certainly are some StickJockInTheMuds that would rather die or resign than see it happen, I find that most Chivalry members would realistically consider candidates. I also think there are candidates that are not Chivalry, but would make tempting choices.

Third of all, I think there are potential candidates for Crowns all around the Society, who would seriously entertain the concept, and would elevate a candidate if there was any way to get a foot in the door.

Tangentially changing the subject a little, what bothers me is that the multiple incarnations of the SCA Board of Directors over the last many years have mismanage this entire process so badly, that (as you say) it is hard to navigate out of the morass. You don't have to look any further for evidence than tpau's comment - that she would rather go against her own self-interest to make the problem go away.

The SCA Board is, again, teetering on the precipice of failure. If this were a referendum on their MANAGEMENT of the issue, we'd have a lot more unanimity than we do over the issue.

[jducoeur]

First of all, Corpora forbids it - there would have to be a Corpora change that would PERMIT Chivalry to accept rapier (or other) combatants

True, but irrelevant -- *any* solution requires Corpora changes. I suspect the proposal on the table calls for *more* changes than widening the Chivalry would, since the tripartite scheme is assumed fairly broadly. (I was somewhat surprised that the actual proposed changes are as concise as they are.)

The SCA Board is, again, teetering on the precipice of failure. If this were a referendum on their MANAGEMENT of the issue, we'd have a lot more unanimity than we do over the issue.

Honestly, I believe you're incorrect -- indeed, I not only think you're wrong that so many people believe so poorly of the Board over this, *I* don't believe so poorly.

If anything, what we're seeing is the fading echoes of the Crisis. Over the years, that resulted in a new Board consensus that is *far* more cautious than it was in the 90's, much more likely to simply follow public opinion and *vastly* more eager to seek that opinion out. They've gotten to the point where even the most trivial changes to wording in Corpora go out for full public comment periods -- arguably a good thing, but it still startles me sometimes when they send out for comments on a two-word change.

I can ding them for lack of political will to make hard calls that would pay off in the long run; I often wish they had more courage to really lead the Society. But compared to what we were looking at 20 years ago, when the Board and officers bordered on misfeasance at times, they've been quite disciplined and decent. I suspect they're much better respected than you think.

There *is* a lack of courage and foresight, and in the long run that's doing us a lot of damage. I wish that the Board was more than it is. But I recognize how the institution got where it did, and I can't *much* fault the members for not trying hard enough to rock the boat. (Although I do regret the loss of Max von Halstern from the Board -- he seemed to be the one person who was asking hard questions, and I am still horribly curious about exactly what happened to cause him to resign...)

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I believe you're incorrect -- indeed, I not only think you're wrong that so many people believe so poorly of the Board over this, *I* don't believe so poorly.

Pity.

I've had the pleasure, ever since the Capital C Crisis, and even more over the last few years, to learn more and more about non-profit management.

The SCA just plain sucks at it. This situation illustrates that for me, perfectly.

The financial precariousness of the SCA teeters precisely on the wrong thing, and a loss of merely a few thousand paid members would financially founder the SCA. The solution to that problem (other than changing the financial income model, which they also fail by avoiding) is to promote more and better support and participation.

Because of their management of this problem, they now have a choice of which SIDE of the issue they will alienate. They can't afford to alienate either side.

The right thing to do (in my opinion) is to bring everyone together more. To take the fetters off the Chivalry, and release an announcement which says in no uncertain terms something like "The day-to-day management of matters of inclusion in the existing Patent Orders is delegated by the Board to the Kingdoms. It is our feeling that these Patent Orders have been insufficiently rewarding participants who primarily exercise the additional military arts of the period. It is our strong expectation that the Kingdoms will develop concrete plans to address that over the next few years, to avoid the Board having to act."

I think that would do it - although it might generate a few more bits of hate mail. Reading those is part of the job.

[etherial.livejournal.com]

"The right thing to do (in my opinion) is to bring everyone together more. To take the fetters off the Chivalry, and release an announcement which says in no uncertain terms something like "The day-to-day management of matters of inclusion in the existing Patent Orders is delegated by the Board to the Kingdoms. It is our feeling that these Patent Orders have been insufficiently rewarding participants who primarily exercise the additional military arts of the period. It is our strong expectation that the Kingdoms will develop concrete plans to address that over the next few years, to avoid the Board having to act."

I think that would do it - although it might generate a few more bits of hate mail. Reading those is part of the job.

I think that would just lead to more infighting, unfortunately. While a strong majority agrees to the concept of Peerage for Rapier Prowess, we got to where we are because the existing Peerage Orders all want it somewhere else. Giving them permission to be inclusive won't make them inclusive.

One of the two core changes I would make if I had root access to the SCA would be to make the Peerage Rank come first, and the Peerage Order come second.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

The Peerages already all rank at the same level.

VIII.A.2.
Order of Precedence Within the Peerage

The Crown may establish the order of precedence within the peerage according to the laws and customs of the kingdom. However, the Chivalry, the Laurel, and the Pelican are of equal precedence and must be considered as one group.

Heralds have long interpreted this to mean that no matter HOW you got your Patent, the person that got it first ranks higher than the person who got it later.

What's your other "Root Privilege Change"?

[etherial.livejournal.com]

What's your other "Root Privilege Change"?

Crown Tournament is fought for a Royal Pair that cannot include yourself.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Understandable. (Although BOY: does that create new problems. Kingmakers, money, influence, sex. Maybe too medieval. LOL)

But more to the point, rather than make an intellectual answer, I'll just admit: I don't like it. :-)

While I've read a lot on the realities of the Chivalric system and what a practical, ugly, brute thing it could be, I've also read a great deal about the romance of Chivalry. Not just the post-period 19th century romantization and crap, or the 20th century stuff. But even the trouvere stuff of the period.

Honestly: I don't WANT to spend my weekend fun recreating the politics and brutality. I love the romantic idealism of the trouveres, where your inspiration drives you to new heights of success.

I know it's a stupid and counterfactual narrative. I just love it. :-)

[etherial.livejournal.com]

I agree it's too medieval. But in some ways, I think it's more romantic.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

It starts to get "saintlike", and while that is medieval, it's religious.

I have two eyes, and they see different things. One eye is the romantic one. The other eye is the practical one.

The power-block politics around Crown and power are already about as much as I can take.

Imagine if someone fought for a Crown, but could plausibly deny and disclaim any responsibility for what happens after? The block power politics could get too ugly too quick.

I see (or think I see) why you want what you want. If I had only one eye, I'd agree. :-)

[etherial.livejournal.com]

Heralds have long interpreted this to mean that no matter HOW you got your Patent, the person that got it first ranks higher than the person who got it later.

What I meant was, the Crown gives you a Naked Peerage and elevates you to Knighthood and then an Order can welcome you if there is one for your Thing.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

That's why I'm a Court Baron. :-)

My gut-check is similar to the previous one. On one level, that's a fantastic way to generate nasty ugly politics. Even though it would be a lot closer to period.

People can be nasty, and given something they think is worth fighting over, they can be particularly nasty. Some of the history of the Knights of the Chain illustrate that.

I don't think we need to invite more nasty into the SCA than it has. I think we need to excommunicate nastiness.

[rosinavs.livejournal.com]

StickJockInTheMuds

Best. Term. Ever.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

I'd just thought of it, and was rather pleased with myself. :-)

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

In no particular order!

- Yeah, in a perfect world the Chivalry would be opened to other combat forms and we would all hold hands and sing. That's really just a nonstarter though, and not letting the perfect be the enemy, etc. Perhaps in a decade when people realize that recognizing other martial arts for excellence in performance of them doesn't cause the sky to melt, the Mod Squad can be rolled into the Chiv, I dunno.

- I legit hear you on the Time Of The Million Billion Peerages.

- I admit to my (understandable, I feel) bias here, but I do think it's the only way to start the fix-it process.

- To be fair, widening the Laurel wouldn't really work for this, given the whole "this is for prowess at sword-tag" thing happening. I know in other Kingdoms, Laurels have been bestowed for excellence in teaching and doing specifically historic technique, but that's not prowess, y'know?

[jducoeur]

I somewhat disagree on the last point, but that comes down to a philosophical debate about the Laurelate, and the Orders in general.

One of my personal cornerstones about SCA awards is that all of them are given, to one degree or another, for leadership. More specifically, for leading the SCA and its members to be better than we would otherwise be, in some respect. In that light, I don't consider the Chivalry to be given for simple prowess -- I think of it being given more for providing inspiration, expressed *though* that prowess.

The Laurelate is for leadership within an artform: making that art better within the Society. Some folks interpret that quite narrowly, as being all about Research Dammit, but I don't agree, and really *can't* agree, because that isn't why *I* got the freaking award. I got my Laurel for being a great *teacher*, but I was a lousy researcher at the time. (My dance research is still quite weak, although my games research has wound up a bit more substantial.)

So while granted, the definition of the Laurelate *would* have to be widened to a broader interpretation of leadership within an art, I personally wouldn't mind that too much. I've gotten very weary and annoyed at the people who apply such an academic focus to it, and extending it to people who people who lead their art through demonstration of excellence wouldn't be the end of the world. (And I am *very* outspoken in my opinion that martial arts can and totally should be considered "arts".)

Mind, it's not likely to happen: the Laurelate are collectively just as jealous of their territory as the Chivalry, and no more likely to countenance a widening of their remit. So, y'know, grumble...

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

And I am *very* outspoken in my opinion that martial arts can and totally should be considered "arts".

Then why should prowess with the rapier (for instance) be included in the Laurel, where prowess with rattan not be?

I mean, I've seen plenty of fencers who are great folks, stone killers, courteous, (dare I say) chivalric, are fantastic with that combat form, but don't use a lick of period technique.

[jducoeur]

Then why should prowess with the rapier (for instance) be included in the Laurel, where prowess with rattan not be?

Because The Chivalry Are The Exception. That is, I accept (out of necessity) that the Chivalry simply don't fit in with any neat categorization: they occupy a weird and particular place in the SCA, and yes, they violate attempts to create a nicely consistent system. I simply throw up my hands at that, and try to work around it...

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

Hah! Okay, that's perfectly fair. ;)

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I mean, I've seen plenty of fencers who are great folks, stone killers, courteous, (dare I say) chivalric, are fantastic with that combat form, but don't use a lick of period technique.

Same for Chivalry. :-)

Justin and I differ a little. I think the Patent Orders (ignoring Rose) are:
1. People who make what we do, better. (Laurel)
2. People who make what we do, possible (Pelican)
3. Sports Heroes. (Chivalry)

I can, and have, argued the less-popular position that the Chivalry is about classic armored combat, because that's what the SCA was, is and must remain being primarily about. I'm prepared to compromise on that, because even if I am right, it's not a sufficiently supported position. So, if necessary, I'll abandon that in favor of a more generous definition of Sports Hero.

If I do, then it seems obvious to me that Rapier (and eventually any other martial sport from period) can be a Sports Hero.

I think the right solution is to allow the Chivalry to accept anything other than Rattan (which, right now, it may not) and then pressure the Kingdoms and Orders to more generously accept people who perform any martial art: by authenticity (Laurel), by service to it (Pelican) and by being an SCA Sports Hero (Chivalry).

I think any other solution sucks by comparison. Not just because of my cognitive model, but because we can't afford the loss of people that might very well come from an Either/Or decision around a new Order.

[nomadmwe.livejournal.com]

Same for Chivalry.

Yep! Which was why I pointed that out, because I think that widening the Laurel to accept people like that is in my mind silly, because that wildly dilutes what the Laurel is about.

I do like the Sports Hero comparison, and I honestly agree with you, but I also think that it just won't happen without a push, and maybe this will end up being the push that starts it. I dunno.

[lanome.livejournal.com]

As a Laurel, I would happily see all the people on your list of "don't have a peerage because there is no fencing peerage" inducted into our order rather than start a new one. (Assuming they aren't total dicks, that is.)

[tpau]

pretty much ditto as a Pelican...

[miraclaire.livejournal.com]

I haven't been involved in SCA stuff since college, but I just thought I should say that I'm reading along and find all this stuff fascinating, from a people-watching perspective.

[fredrickegerman.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the SCA has realized that in HEMA people don't particularly distinguish the rapier-ish world from the non-rapier-ish world? Because, oh, the later sources that teach us tend to include both in an integrated system?

[hudebnik.livejournal.com]

In discussing Laurel candidates, I've often found myself saying "yes, this person is really good at X, but has no apparent interest in historically-informed technique, so (s)he belongs in a different Order." I would say the exact same thing for a combat candidate. I would have no problem welcoming into the Laurel somebody who was really good at a historically-informed combat form.

That said, it would be more difficult to make rattan combat historically-informed than to do the same for fencing or archery, because the hardware is more inaccurate -- sorta like trying to build historically-informed women's clothing on top of a bra, or do historically-informed calligraphy with a ball-point pen.

[dreda.livejournal.com]

Tangentially - too many awards is one of the worst blights? That's a strong statement, and I don't get it.

[jducoeur]

It's a longstanding gripe, and somewhat complex, but the heart of it is that the system is steadily getting harder and harder to *understand*. Plain and simply, the more different awards there are, the less people can keep track of them, and indeed, the less they try. Heck, even I can't remember what all of the East's awards mean any more, and I'm a relatively serious court junkie.

The result is that I've observed a growing trend of people having no clue what any given title means, simply throwing up their hands at the whole thing and ignoring it. Which hurts the Society in a subtle way, because one of the major points of the award system is to say, as a society, "This is what matters to us". It's one of the more concrete ways in which we define ourselves. I observe that to be less and less true over the years, and best I can tell, the single greatest cause is the proliferation of ever-more-specialized awards.

Or putting it more simply: the more finely-defined the awards are, the less each award *means* to the average member, and therefore the less it means to us as a collective.

Personally, I find that sad. I really wish we had the courage and generosity to keep our existing awards wider and more welcoming, rather than putting Do Not Enter signs on them and forcing us to slice-and-dice things so finely. (And I use the word "keep" advisedly -- remember that, once upon a time, the Laurel was for everything except armored combat, and just in my time it has narrowed considerably. The current state is the result of a steady erosion in the definitions of the awards...)

[dreda.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the fuller explanation. I think this is a YMMV situation - I don't see it this way - but I understand the position more clearly.

(I have some pretty specialized awards that mean a great deal to me.)

[jducoeur]

As I said, it's complex. And I understand that some highly-specialized awards can be personally meaningful: when asked which of my awards matter most to me, I often list the FF, GS and RS -- the Felding Favor, Gingersnap and Rampant Squirrel, which were given to me by various boroughs over the years for help I gave to them.

But the whole fencing-peerage thing puts my teeth on edge because it illustrates the tendencies I most dislike: the way we create ever-greater specialization instead of finding ways to be more welcoming in the existing structure. As you say, YMMV, but it makes me sad that we've reached a point where this seems to be the only viable answer...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

For a slightly different opinion.

I think jducoeur was indulging in rhetorical flourishes when he said it was a worst blight. But I think he and I are in basic agreement that it is a problem, and it is an important but ignored and subtle danger.

Let me digress for a moment, and revel in YOU. You seem to have an unnatural sense of the right way to exist, and to play the game. You seem to instinctively avoid bad choices. I admire that, but I think the way the right thing is blindingly obvious to you, means that you may not appreciate that the right thing is not always so obvious to others.

That said: what do people who come to the SCA do within it, and why do they do it? It turns out that the award system can be both "something they do" or a too-powerful motivator for what they choose to do.

To expand and support that particular remit, is something I think Justin and I feel is a bad thing.

Ironically, for those who do not fall into that remit, when the award system gets too diffuse and complex, it ceases to have sufficient meaning. If I can't remember if "the yellow pony is for service to juggling or music", the fact that others have such a thing becomes meaningless. Plus, if the "juggler service" people are mentally subdivided from the "music service" people, we lose the cross-pollination and support we can provide one another, and perhaps even get a little tribal.

Award dilution not an existential threat, to me, but it's definitely something I think is Not Helpful.

That is different from how we feel as individuals about the rewards and awards we get. Which, again, are more explanatory of our maturity and personality than the systems which gave them to us.

[dreda.livejournal.com]

You are most kind.

I would submit that most if not all of these awards were created to address a gap that, when presented to the existing Order, was not found admissible. So the idea that these are being created as some sort of top-down fiat that is at odds with the populace is a bit disingenuous.

Interestingly, I find that the greatest number of new awards are for particular kinds of martial accomplishment. I do not see a great deal of splintering elsewhere - there is a newish subset of awards for the under-18, and they mimic the OHM divisions of the adults.

I will add one small piece of anecdata - that some of the loveliest forays out of my own little bailiwick have been when I did not understand someone else's award and/or regalia, and elected to go and ask them.

[jducoeur]

So the idea that these are being created as some sort of top-down fiat that is at odds with the populace is a bit disingenuous.

Yes and no. Some awards have been created due to real ground-level demand; indeed, the proposed rapier peerage is one of the best examples. But in my observation, many (perhaps the majority of) Kingdom-level awards have been, frankly, due mainly to the ego of various Royalty -- a desperate desire to Make Their Mark on the Kingdom permanently, which often shows up in new awards.

You can often recognize these by how rarely some of them they are actually given by their successors. There are some examples of dramatic successes that enhanced the award system, such as the Tyger, which are taken very seriously by each reign. But in my observation, they're a modest minority.

I do not see a great deal of splintering elsewhere - there is a newish subset of awards for the under-18, and they mimic the OHM divisions of the adults.

Well, yeah -- and that's one of the examples of splintering that most annoys me. We used to give the adult awards to kids. It was not especially rare to give an AoA or even a Silver Crescent to a minor when I started, but nowadays it is almost unthinkable: the universal reaction is, "Don't be silly, they should get the kids' award instead". I am *deeply* repulsed by that -- I think it damages one of the SCA's greatest strengths, which is the way we give actual responsibility and recognition to our kids -- and AFAICT it is a direct and immediate side-effect of this particular splintering...

[dreda.livejournal.com]

How do the kids feel about it?

(And again, I feel that most of the awards you are tagging as "splintery" are martial. Am I missing some?)

[jducoeur]

Well, the trend started way back, and certainly includes A&S awards -- for example, I would probably put the Order of Terpsichore (one of the first ones I received) as an error in retrospect, since many people have wound up treating it as a stepping-stone blocker before getting a Manche in dance. (A fight I find myself in from time to time.) Similarly, the kids' awards include at least one A&S variant, IIRC.

I won't deny that the martial side is where this tendency is worst, and I have a suspicion that that is an unfortunate side-effect of the original rule, dating back to the beginning of the club, that The Chivalry Are Different. But it does show up in a number of other ways.

Really, the larger point is that we have never, as a society, really given much thought to the award system as a *system* -- what it means, what we're trying to accomplish with it, what is good and bad about it. Instead, we've tended to treat each award individually, on an ad hoc basis. IMO, the end result isn't nearly as powerful and useful as it could be; indeed, I think it confers less social benefit than it once did. That rankles. But of course, that viewpoint is driven by my personal views of what it could and should be, as well as some counter-factual speculation of how it ought to have evolved.

The programmer in me desperately wants to refactor the whole bloody thing. Sadly, societies can't be tweaked and adjusted nearly as easily as software. So I am left with the constant low-level project of trying to encourage such change as I think is beneficial, and pointing out where I think a mistake is imminent...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Your last paragraph suggests the answer to the question you posed in your original post, does it not?

::wink::

[jducoeur]

Well, yes and no. I *already* sent the Board a letter when this proposal was originally floated. I probably wouldn't say anything different this time around. And I generally prefer to stick to Kobi's "new and different" rule in debates of this sort...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I'm looking across the Society, as much as at the East, and so when the East takes steps to do things that other Kingdoms do in excess, I have a different reaction.

I'm not as "inside the system" as I once was, but my historical view in the East informs that, in the past, most of these awards are not there to so much address a gap. Plus, of course, we have the awards/orders whose definitions have mutated over time, the many now-closed awards and honors and so forth.

I, personally, don't care for the under-18 "Junior Lite" style of awards. Our younger members often qualify for the real thing - I'd like to see that happen much more.

I happen to like your "anecdata", both for the label and the truth behind it. Sometimes I get the same result when I say "nice sweater" to someone at work. :-)