![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not a huge deal, but one of those silly changes that fails the cost-benefit analysis badly. I'm sending my response to the Board now; I recommend others consider something similar. (Especially fighters, who would be particularly affected.)
( The letter from the Board, from the Announcements list )
Essentially what this means is that *anybody* who enters Crown Tourney would be required to take out a multi-year membership, to cover the entire possible reign. Sure, that's not unreasonable for the incoming Royalty themselves -- but requiring it of all entrants is pointless and silly.
This is pure bureaucratic thinking: "why *shouldn't* we introduce this restriction, to avoid the chance that Royalty might possibly allow their memberships to briefly lapse?" To which the answer is, it's an added hassle for many hundreds of people per year, with little-to-no actual benefit to anybody. It would have no reason at *all* if the rules for legality of courts weren't foolishly tied to the Royal's memberships (a bad idea in the first place). And if it's so desperately important to avoid that, a more-appropriate rule would say that Royalty must have sufficient paid membership before being Crowned, not before entering the Tourney.
It's well worth shooting down, so I recommend letters to "comments@sca.org" on the subject. Spread the word.
(Oh, and just for reference: the second change in the letter -- allowing entrants' online receipts as proof of membership -- is completely uncontroversial IMO. It's only the change to require additional membership over and above the current rules that, IMO, is far more hassle than it's worth...)
( The letter from the Board, from the Announcements list )Essentially what this means is that *anybody* who enters Crown Tourney would be required to take out a multi-year membership, to cover the entire possible reign. Sure, that's not unreasonable for the incoming Royalty themselves -- but requiring it of all entrants is pointless and silly.
This is pure bureaucratic thinking: "why *shouldn't* we introduce this restriction, to avoid the chance that Royalty might possibly allow their memberships to briefly lapse?" To which the answer is, it's an added hassle for many hundreds of people per year, with little-to-no actual benefit to anybody. It would have no reason at *all* if the rules for legality of courts weren't foolishly tied to the Royal's memberships (a bad idea in the first place). And if it's so desperately important to avoid that, a more-appropriate rule would say that Royalty must have sufficient paid membership before being Crowned, not before entering the Tourney.
It's well worth shooting down, so I recommend letters to "comments@sca.org" on the subject. Spread the word.
(Oh, and just for reference: the second change in the letter -- allowing entrants' online receipts as proof of membership -- is completely uncontroversial IMO. It's only the change to require additional membership over and above the current rules that, IMO, is far more hassle than it's worth...)
