[Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways

[Marcolo DelMare]

I think a "little" bit of venting amoung friends is healthy. Granting
that opportunity to your friends is one of the duties of friendship. I
don't have a clear opinion about this topic yet, as I don't feel I
know enough about it. These discussions have at least given me some
information to chew on.

Marcolo

On 12/5/10, Jonathan Blaine <hourumiyamoto at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>


-- 
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has
to be us.
  - Jerry Garcia