<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">> It's eight bucks. Big whoop.<br><br>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".<br><br>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.<br><br>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).<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br><br></div></body></html>