Another viewpoint on the "period neutral" thing

[jducoeur]

For those playing along with the home game: siderea has posted her own thruppence on the subject, with some intriguing observations and suggestions. Worth checking out...

Comments

[new-man.livejournal.com]

Siderea's thoughts are primarily a thought experiment for her, though, right? I don't remember the last time I saw her at an SCA event, and being active in SCA on-line communities isn't quite the same thing...

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

No doubt it is a thought experiment of her own, but she did attend the event in March (Twelve Goddesses).

[new-man.livejournal.com]

I must have missed her.

I certainly think the anti-period argument comes more from folks who attend fewer SCA events (and therefore see their SCA friends less frequently).

I do agree with your hypotheses about fewer post revels and fewer open parties being one of the contributing factors to more modern conversation at SCA events.

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

I really don't see the "sides" as being "period" and "anti-period."

I don't think that's a fair way to phrase.

But you have a point. The more you see peopel at events (or in real-life outside of events), the less you have to talk to them about things non-SCA.

Oh, and we do have a non-SCA area already cordoned off. It's call the changing room. Hard to be period when you're standing around in your jockeys.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Did you miss the number of times she said "Spaces which are comfortable. Spaces which are accomodating. Spaces which are adequate to the volume of people who want to use them and the purposes to which they wish to put them. Spaces which demonstrate the deep respect and consideration which you have for the role of OOP-conversation in social bonding and the fostering of the community which is precious to us all." I've only rarely seen a changing room that even came close to meeting that description, and never one that fully met it.

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

OK, so the smiley was missing.

;)

It was a joke.

;)

<-- see smiley

[new-man.livejournal.com]

I really don't see the "sides" as being "period" and "anti-period."

I don't think that's a fair way to phrase.

I don't think "Authenticists" vs. "People who like fun" or "People who like freedom" is a fair way to phrase things. Period/Anti-period is accurate; would you prefer Period/Modern?

[jducoeur]

As msmemory pointed out, she's keeping her finger in -- largely gafiated, but not quite completely.

But that's largely beside the point, which is that she's *right*. Her argument shouldn't be pooh-pooh'ed just because she's less active. As others have remarked (here and elsewhere), there's a very real social need for the less inhibited communication. Every club has "out of game" space where you can let your hair down and just schmooze. In Masonry, it's dinner; at Intercon, it's the con suite and the post-game parties. Post-revels can serve some of that purpose, but even if we managed to get them back to the level they were once at (and I'm dubious that we can), it's only a partial solution, that only gets back to a less bad situation. I mean, it's not as if there is *that* much more OOP conversation than there used to be -- I'd guess that it's up about 50% over the years. (It's a little more conspicuous now, because so much of it is specifically about computers, but the general amount is only moderately up.)

siderea's proposal is both intriguing and scary precisely because it has the potential to radically change the situation. If it worked, the end result would be better than it has *ever* been (if you regard more period-neutral as a good thing), at the cost of an extra custom layered on. I haven't decided whether I like the idea or not, nor what the likely repercussions would be (all good ideas wind up having unforeseen consequences), but it's interesting enough to be worth thinking about...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

She is right? Interesting.

Let me spring another idea on you - that the SCA is one of the largest and most successful re-enactment or re-creation programs - and that her suggestion is to take the primary form of social interaction, and place it in a ghetto.

Right? I can hardly find her more incorrect. Yeah, if people were tokens you could move around on a chess board, without them noticing or disagreeing, perhaps this grand experiment might work.

jducoeur, you used to know how to motivate people. Have way more fun than they are, and show them how to do so. Entice them - this is a hobby, after all, and you can't enforce things.

Poulet Gauche did what siderea proposes. It was a glorious success, I was glad for my small part in it. (And it was a damned small part.) LePG had very little lasting effect, was not much imitated, and while the social impact within Carolingia can still be seen, it is also not a major one any more.

How does one declare a new social norm, and make it stick, when people are already having fun with the old social norm? Only by farbling, I think.

[jducoeur]

No, no, no -- she's right about the *analysis*. Jeez: I *said* that I wasn't sure I agreed with the prescription. But she's dead-correct that you can't simply wish away the modern talk: it's an important social lubricant, and not only won't go away, it *shouldn't*...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about the prescription, either, interesting though it is. "Separate but equal" does not have a shining history.

However, if it weren't very much separte -- such as different sides of the same large room, that might work.

There's one big thing I haven't seen discussed yet, though (although I haven't read everyone's commentary in their own LJs.)

Most of the people saying this are oldbies. I've been in for 24 years, most of my pals, the same. How do people who have been in for 5 years feel about Period Neutral?

[new-man.livejournal.com]

"Separate but equal" does not have a shining history.

I'm sorry -- who says that the desire for modern social interaction (which can be had anywhere) and the desire for an historic experience of some sort (which can only be had in select places and times) are "equal" in the S.C.A.?

Suppose I'm a football enthusiast. I really like football and it's how I want to spend my time. I've got a bunch of friends who like football too. As it turns out, we also like art galleries. We don't get to see each other that often (we're all kinda busy). At our next outing to an art gallery, Phil says to me "Go long!" and chucks a perfect spiral at me over by the Mondrian. It's great! Now we can combine our love of football with our love of art! I don't understand why the gallery owner got so mad at us. He's infringing on my freedom to play football. I know! We ought to get the gallery owner to take half of his space and set it aside for football games. That seems fair...

This isn't intended to be nasty, Cyn -- but why do we have to be fair? Fairness waters everything down andmakes us a society of the lowest common denominator. Why are we putting the onus on the SCA to include the modern world? Why not put the responsibility the other way? "Hey, I'm sorry you miss having a place to socialize with your SCA friends. I miss having SCA experiences that weren't diluted by moderisms. Why don't you host a post-revel or open party? They used to be very popular".

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

I think you should read a little more closely; I said I wasn't sure about the prescription of separate but equal, so arguing against me as espousing the prescription is not a sensible thing to do.

[new-man.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I'm tired, but I read pretty closely.

I was taking exception to the notion that the "Period Space" and the "Out of Period" space at an event should somehow be treated equally. They're not equal, at least not in the context of the S.C.A. and saying they should be, just because people want them to be, is like... well... playing football in a gallery, just because we like both of those things equally.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

The equal thing was part of siderea's long post on the topic.

[jducoeur]

A reasonable point, but it kind of misses the essence of siderea's, which isn't that a strong social space is fair, but that it's necessary. The core of the point (as I read it) is that, without *some* kind of comfortable, uninhibited social area, the social equation of the club falls apart.

I'm quite sure that *that* is absolutely correct, since it matches my observations about how all clubs work. Every club is a mix of two elements: a purpose and a social entity. I know of no club that people *care* about that doesn't have a strong element of both. Really healthy and enduring clubs have extremely strong components of both; the ones that have trouble typically seem to be out of balance one way or the other.

I read your point as being essentially that the SCA is currently out of balance in the direction of the social; I still think the jury is out on that point (note that a lot of people in this thread who have been around at least as long as you disagree with you on it), but I'm taking it at face value. If that's the case, pulling things into better balance might well be appropriate.

But siderea is also dead-right in pointing out that you can't go too far in the other direction, either. Her prescription, which is *very* interesting, is to explicitly give both sides equal weight, possibly to the benefit of both. I honestly don't know if that works (I can see some negative pathologies that could arise if we weren't careful), but I really don't understand the negative reaction you seem to be having here. Her idea would in all likelihood result in a *more* period atmosphere in much of the event than is otherwise possible. What's the problem with that?

In other words, "fair" isn't even remotely relevant here -- what *works* is the question. If it isn't already clear from the other reactions in this thread, you *can't* simply get most of the crowd to refrain entirely from OOPisms at events. You can wish that you might, but it just plain ain't gonna happen -- you're indulging in wishful thinking if you think it will. But siderea is proposing a way to get that atmosphere in *much* of an event, and her proposal *might* actually work. That's interesting. Not a slam-dunk, but interesting enough to examine carefully and honestly...

[new-man.livejournal.com]

If it isn't already clear from the other reactions in this thread, you *can't* simply get most of the crowd to refrain entirely from OOPisms at events.

No, and the "Disenchanted Ground" concept makes a place where OOP conversation is welcome. I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the concept that the place where modern conversation is encouraged is equal to the rest of the event. I'm picking up on the line "different sides of the same large room" -- effectively giving the same weight to the modern interactions as the historical ones.

[jducoeur]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. We may have to agree to disagree on the semantics here. I do think they're equally *important* to the organization, albeit in dramatically different ways.

Actually, to put it a bit differently: I don't believe that the SCA would successfully continue to function in the long run without both happening in *some* fashion. That being the case, I consider both to be strictly *necessary*. So I think of "equal" here as mainly being in the sense of all necessary things being more or less equal in importance to each other: if they're both necessary, it isn't very useful to worry about which is more important.

Mind, I don't think that separate sides of the same room is necessary, or even a good idea: I suspect that the needs of both aspects are rather different. Mostly, I'm in concord with the original point, that the OOP space should be both pleasant and appropriate to its needs. (I suspect that in practice we're in rampant agreement here, and just having a fairly nitpicky semantic debate...)

[calygrey.livejournal.com]

It's a little more conspicuous now, because so much of it is specifically about computers, but the general amount is only moderately up.)

There's *always* been a *huge* amount of conversation about computers among SCA folk. I've been doing this for 30 years, you for 20. I'd been much less active for the last 15, and changes are that much more obvious for my coming back in after so long away. I've found *less* conversation about computers, not more. (I'd notice; I dislike the topic.)

The SCA has become much more sophisticated in research, doing, and making than it was 15 years ago. Garb is way better. Many, many more individuals are doing serious work.

It's not uncommon to find oneself irritated and less enthusiastic about the SCA at points in ones SCA 'career'. It can be a challenge to decipher what's really bothering one, and to find a way to stay interested. Restructuring a system that already works fine for most other people may not be especially appreciated by those other people. Enthusiastic presentation of new ideas and better ways of doing things seems to me to be as winning an approach to this as it is to garb.

[richenza.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to agree with Cassandra.

I suppose in this crowd I seem a newbie with only 15 years in the SCA, but it seems to me also that the out of period conversations are less frequent since I started, not more.

I've been following this discussion but have not weighed in because I have largely dropped out in the last few years. On the occasions I do wander by, I pretty much just drop off a subtltie or come only for the dancing.

One thing to note: for me, my persona isn't someone entirely different from myself with entirely different motivations (as a roleplaying character is). The relationships I have with other SCAdians out-of-character are very similar to the ones I have in character, and this seems to be true for most people I know.

It's easy to slip - I do try not to make OOP references. However, spending the whole event policing my speech isn't enjoyable, either - particularly when I'm trying to catch up with friends I haven't seen in years.

I don't know that having a separate space for OOP stuff would help. I certainly wouldn't come back for it.

One of siderea's points is that her experiment won't work unless people genuinely believe that some amount OOP conversation in the context of the SCA is valuable - and behave accordingly and with courtesy.

I'm extremely skeptical that this would happen.