[Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways

[Jonathan Blaine]

There IS a free sex offenders website.. outside of this, how can you know?
On Dec 6, 2010 12:13 PM, "Leif Johnston" <leif at resourcecompany.com> wrote:
> Marcolo, that is a good point. Some venting is what we let friends do and
> listening to opinions, even if strongly stated, helps is to focus on our
> response and understanding.
>
> That said and with the experience of having set on many non-profit and
501c3
> boards, the job is both easy and difficult at the same time. Status quo
and
> smooth waters are easy and stress/issues can be difficult. Orders given to
> change the direction of a battleship take a significant time to see the
> results.
>
> A couple of thoughts.
>
> * We (SCA Inc.) are incorporated as a protection to the membership.
> The corporation is a legal entity and thus can bear the brunt of the legal
> attacks. The alternative is the each of us (or the richest of us - not
> me...) could/would be sued instead.
> * We are an IRS priviledged organization and that can be very
> difficult to orchestrate.
> * The more independent entities (seperately filed and managed
> corporations) the larger the overall administrative burden and most likely
> the larger the expense to the memebership as a whole. ( It may not be
2*(the
> admin burden) but it is certainly more that 1 and likely 1.5-1.75 * the
> number of smaller SCA incs but I don't have the operating numbers to
support
> that extrapolation. But to continue the thought, if each kingdom were
> seperately run and we can beat the expected burden costs per kingdom down
to
> 1.25 ( or 25% of the overall burden as the admin burden for each kingdom),
> then the overall expense might well is 1 for SCA Inc and (.25*19) or
almost
> 5 more admin expenses for a total of 6 times our personal membership cost
so
> just using the extra family mambership cost of $10/year, the cost would be
> $60 per year for each membership. Whatever the actual numbers the approach
> strongly suggests a radically increased cost base.
> * We could argue away the central SCA Inc and cut that cost to
> $50/year, but what would it be like to show up at Pennsic with gear that
> didn't meet a common standard? How would we maintain commonality and
> consistency in a distributed organization? We know how the winds of Curia
> blow in our own kingdom...
> * As a group, the SCA is AMAZINGLY risky from the liability standpoint
> with the activities we like to pursue, be it fighting, or
dress/exploration
> of topics out of the mainstream context. There are huge sexual overtones
and
> inuendos frequently. And often that is part of what we do as adults that
> gets complicated when minors are around/engaged.
> * We must remember that a jury of our peers will not mean a jury of
> SCA peers in a mudane court of law.
> * Our board members are people too and as such are inclined to be like
> the rest of us, or at least me in the fact that they will make mistakes.
> That said, we should, I humby submit, be hesitant to shoot them as
> messengers of evil and perhaps be better suited to engage them in
discussion
> of our priorities. Just like we get to elect our congressional
> representatives and then they may run off and do things we disagree with,
we
> can engage them in dialog about where we think things should go. That
said,
> based on our core vision, shouldn't that be done with courtesy and the
grace
> of the courtly manner we seek to emulate?
> * There are serious and complicated issues that the board has to face
> with insurance and other issues. Clearly this situation has pointed out
one
> lesson that needs to be done better or protected diffierently.
> * Every time there is an insurance claim, it will tend to point out
> where there are issues - just like when you get hit through a spot that
> isn't well amored in the heavy list. But I submit that lesson we learn at
> the hands of the opponent on the field (that my armor does not adequately
> cover my upper thigh where Ranulph just hit me repeatedly...) is not the
> fault of the opponent but an opportunity to change and improve for
> ourselves.
>
> With that context, in my opinion we should make our voices heard by the
> board. Particular points of concern would include how to protect against
> further sexually related suits, how to we limit liabilities across
kingdoms,
> are there organizational changes to be made, and how can we best continue
to
> live the vision that we want - with specfics?
>
> Unfortunately some of the answers to the questions may be unpleasent to
> hear. For example, the Boy Scout solution to sexual misconduct is that two
> adults must be present anytime there is a minor/adult interaction. The
> impact of that decision was mandated and it significantly changed the Boy
> Scout organization - including annual discussions of sexually appropriate
> and inappropriate behaviors and a review process that holds the accused
> guilty until proven innocent removing them from causing further harm.
>
> Our culture in the US has complicated the implications of minors being in
> adult situations. They are adult situations for a reason. When the
> activities are engaged in by adults then they are fairly straightforward.
> When minors become involved actively or even passively, much is
complicated.
> How do we even know some are minors? Are we suggesting that anyone without
> gray hair should wear a badge designating age appropriateness? Clearly
> attire can not be considered the mark of age (unless it can be the
> unpleasent bulges that show on my aging frame). Even with that I was
> recently carded while buying alcohol, so what does that mean to us as
> SCAdians?
>
> Rebellion can be argued as the right of every american - we have the
second
> amendment for that purpose according to some lines of thought. Rebellion
> though, is an unpleasant situation, particularly when there may still be
> points of discussion and opportunity for changing things as they are. The
> challenge then is to continue to effectively communicate the vision that
we
> want to see and find ways to make it viable.
>
> Doesn't courtesy demand that we consider others, their thoughts and seek
to
> find an amicable solution? Efficiency suggests that we would execute
> prisoners, but courtesy suggest we treat them as honored guests...
>
> my two shillings
> Wiglaf
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moo-bounces at lists.stierbach.org
> [mailto:moo-bounces at lists.stierbach.org] On Behalf Of Marcolo DelMare
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:49 AM
> To: General Mailing List for the Barony of Stierbach
> Subject: Re: [Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Moo mailing list
> Moo at lists.stierbach.org
> http://lists.stierbach.org/listinfo.cgi/moo-stierbach.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stierbach.org/pipermail/moo-stierbach.org/attachments/20101206/16719431/attachment-0003.htm>