A proposed Corpora change worth shooting down

[jducoeur]

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.)

Please note that the following proposed change has been previously discussed in a variety of forms, but is now being distributed for commentary.

 

The Board of Directors would like commentary on the proposed change to Corpora:

 

 

Section IV A 2

 

From:

 

2. Each competitor and prospective consort must hold a valid membership on the day of the Royal Lists, and must maintain that membership until their term of Royalty is over. Positive confirmation that the Registry has processed the membership application is required before anyone may fight or be fought for in a Royal List. Positive confirmation consists of a valid membership card, appearance of the name with a valid membership on a printout from the Corporate Office, a membership label issued by the Corporate Office showing the name and expiration date, or a postcard or letter from the Corporate Office confirming that the membership has been received.

 

To:

 

2. Each competitor and prospective consort must hold a valid membership on the day of the Royal Lists, and must maintain that membership until their term of Royalty is over. Positive confirmation that the Registry has processed the membership application****and that it is valid through the end of their prospective reign ***** is required before anyone may fight or be fought for in a Royal List. Positive confirmation consists of; a valid membership card, appearance of the name with a valid membership on a printout from the Corporate Office, a membership label issued by the Corporate Office showing the name and expiration date, ****receipt of online membership (as downloaded from the renewal website)****, or a postcard or letter from the Corporate Office confirming that the membership has been received.

 

 

The additional wording is in bold type, and would require all combatants and consorts to show, prior to acceptance in Crown Tournament, that their membership will remain valid throughout the duration of their potential Reign.

 

All commentary should be sent to comments@sca.org. All Commentary should be received on or before April 1, 2009.

 

As ever, the Board of Directors and Corporate staff welcomes any and all input.

 

You can subscribe to Announcement by going to;http://www.sca.org/BOD/announcements/

 

 

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...)

Comments

[hugh-mannity.livejournal.com]

I was wondering about that myself. It's only the winners who count. So I have fired off an email, politely suggesting that the heirs be asked to offer proof of membership before coronation.

[ladymacgregor.livejournal.com]

I'm going to argue CON on this one. Frankly, I feel that anyone entering Crown ought to be ready to be king/queen (see: Balfar's first reign. He was a squire to . . . Feral, I think, at that time, and had not been in the SCA long at all). We all seem to agree that this multi-year registration is good for the winners of Crown. So - anyone who is serious enough about the SCA and fighting and possibly becoming royalty should ante up their membership.

[jducoeur]

I disagree *very* strongly. I do *not* agree that multi-year registration is good for winners of Crown -- I think it is a silly bureaucratic hassle that is thrown up by the Powers That Be because they can. Extending that dumb rule fifty-fold is simply making a bad idea fifty times worse. My suggestion was simply a way to make an absolutely minimal change that accomplishes the theoretical goal (making sure that the Crown doesn't lapse while on the throne) with the minimal hassle.

Seriously, you're falling into "Why *shouldn't* everyone comply with this rule?" thinking. That's exactly why the SCA is getting harder and harder to deal with, with ever-growing rulebooks that get in the way of people actually doing things and having fun. It should *always* be resisted.

Just as an example, think through what you are saying. By putting this restriction in, you are making all no-hopers think yet harder about entering Crown. Currently, many do so: probably half the people who enter do so knowing that, while they might *want* to rule, and are willing to do so, they stand not the slightest chance. Currently, that's a fairly easy decision to make. This change will cause a non-trivial number of those people to not enter, simply because it's too damned much *hassle* for a no-hoper to bother with. As a consequence, Crown becomes less interesting and fun, and less of a way for the newer fighters to briefly play with those at the top level, and learn from them. As a consequence, we get less inspiration for the young fighters, less chance for them to show off and enjoy themselves. As a consequence, far fewer people bother to attend Crown to get pummeled by a Duke (or watch their friends do so). That lessens all of us, and the entire game, in the name of a dumb and pointless rule.

The Law of Unintended Consequences governs *all* other laws. *Every* law has drawbacks and side-effects. *Every* law costs, and costs more dearly than the people pushing it want to admit. Each individual one is survivable, but together they gradually turn the game into a chore. That's why *every* law needs to be questioned stringently, and minimized to only what is actually necessary to accomplish the desired goals...

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

[obsnark]Why not just require it of participants in all events![/obsnark]

[cellio]

Yeah, it's pointless and possibly a money grab. This extra requirement is being proposed to address problems caused by a rule that the BoD can change. Really, there is no earthly reason to invalidate a reign over a one-day lapse in membership. Fix it, move on. If it's good enough for the kingdom seneschal or exchequer, both of whom have more real-world power than kings, then it's good enough for royalty.

If they do pass this, then consistency would call for requiring full-term-length membership for all applicants to all offices, at all levels. I'll bet no one on the board is willing to require four years of advance membership from everyone on the board nominee list...

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

I've been out of this in any meaningful way for a number of years now. This does, though, speak to issues which were "hot" when I was younger and more foolish (and hence involving myself in the discussions).

Of course, there were the demands by some that all participants great and small be paid members. Here in Carolingia there was great resistance to such an idea, but it held great support elsewhere. In a society with near-universal membership, the proposed requirement would be far less onerous. It would be an "of course" thing. Question: are those who are most behind this proposal also the ones who (years ago) tried to insist on universal membership?

There were also the (related) calls for increasing membership, without requiring it across the board. If paid membership is declining, or at least nearing a low borderline, this may be a way to boost that number. I can see people arguing that anyone willing to put themselves up for consideration for crown should be willing to pony up the cash.

Not that I agree with these, mind you.

[jducoeur]

There were also the (related) calls for increasing membership, without requiring it across the board. If paid membership is declining, or at least nearing a low borderline, this may be a way to boost that number. I can see people arguing that anyone willing to put themselves up for consideration for crown should be willing to pony up the cash.

Oh, I'm sure they do. (I'm not on the Rialto or GC right now, so I don't know for sure, but I'm familiar enough with these arguments that I'd be astonished if this point wasn't being made.)

But it's penny-wise and pound-foolish, as usual. By making the game ever-so-slowly more expensive and more hassle, we discourage more and more people from playing -- especially the younger and newer ones that we need the most. The difference is mainly at the statistical level, but statistics do matter in the long run, and can be the difference between upward trends and downward ones...

Back of the envelope calculation

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

The costs (and thus the money to the Inc.) are interesting. At minimum, the fighter and consort would have to buy a one-year membership that they wouldn't necessarily have already, at $20 (Associate) each = $40. (Sustaining is $35, and then one Family membership could be bought; that would be $45; the change doesn't say which type of membership is required.)

How many pairs fight in the East? I don't know. I do know that the West often has very large tournies indeed; at least when I was there, 100 combatants not uncommon; it was known to have the tourney go well into darkness, even in the summer. The West has Crown tourneys three times a year. $40 x 3 x 100 = $12,000 (One can argue that some of these folks would be repeats, so it wouldn't be that high, of course.)

And that's just one kingdom. Twelve thousand dollars just to make sure that no royal pair in one kingdom lapses during a reign? That is not reasonable.