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

[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.