[Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways

[Jonathan Blaine]

Already did that myself, but I think he's asking us to boycott? Rebel? I
don't know, kind of lost as to where the point is on all this..
On Dec 5, 2010 10:10 PM, "Laurie Clarkston" <garadh at verizon.net> wrote:
> Whether we agree or not with the decision of the board, price increases
are
> going to happen whether we like it or not for whatever reason.
>
>
> Venting to your Barony and/or canton might have a calming, cleansing
effect for
> you (kinda like gotta get this off my chest), but I think your inputs
might be
> better directed towards the very people who are making the decisions.  The

> Board has always been open to inputs from people in the SCA on the
direction the
> Society is taking.  Hearing from people who play in the SCA, good or bad,
can
> only help them in the decisions they take in running the SCA.
>
> Please share your opinions with them; this way your voice will be heard
and it
> just might be the voice that inspires them on the decision path they
choose.
>
> Cairistiona
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Maven <sk8maven at yahoo.com>
> To: moo at lists.stierbach.org
> Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 8:03:12 PM
> Subject: [Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways
>
>
>> It's eight bucks. Big whoop.
>
> It's eight bucks *per person*, this time (family memberships excepted -
this
> time - but the "family" cap raised five dollars). With NO guarantee that
they
> won't have to raise it again next month, or next year - indeed, with an
implied
> threat that they *will* have to "because of ongoing lawsuit expenses".
>
> I've been in the SCA a *long* time, and every single time the BoD has
raised the
> membership rates, it's been to cover some screwup by the BoD. Every single
time,
> no exceptions.
>
> In the 1980's it was an insanely expensive and nearly useless computer
hardware
> and software system they were suckered into buying (some friends who
*were*
> computer experts said they could have done a much better job for far less
> money).
>
> In the 1990's it was that insane scheme to "streamline and modernize" the
SCA,
> Inc., to make it more "business-like" - the one that involved hiring a
total
> mundane to tell them how to organize the game, and nearly tore the SCA
apart.
> That was the *first* time they tried Non-Membership Fees (after seriously
> considering Pay to Play!), and it went over so badly they backed off and
waited
> for years before applying them again.
>
> Now it's that insanely expensive child molestation civil lawsuit that is
going
> to devour the SCA, Inc. whole, and I don't see any way that it will not do
so.
> Even if the SCA, Inc. "wins", the court costs will be astronomical and our

> reputation is *already* irreparably tarnished. The lawsuit exists only
because
> the SCA, Inc. is an excessively centralized bureaucracy with one
centralized
> source of money - and the lawyers think they can grab it all.
>
> We were warned, again and again, that the SCA, Inc. was far too topheavy
and far
> too centralized, and needed to decentralize. But it did not suit the Board
of
> Directors to make any serious moves in that direction until conflicts with
state
> and national laws forced them to do so (Australia, Canada, now Illinois).
Now
> it's probably too late.
>
> What we all need to remember, even those who diss the increased membership
fees
> as "big whoop", is that the SCA, Inc. is not the SCA. It's just a
bureaucratic
> organization we agreed to add on to facilitate playing our game. But they
think
> *they* are the game and *we* aren't important.
>
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like that attitude and I
don't
> think it is or can be sustainable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stierbach.org/pipermail/moo-stierbach.org/attachments/20101205/a55ca9a7/attachment-0003.htm>