<p>There IS a free sex offenders website.. outside of this, how can you know?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 6, 2010 12:13 PM, "Leif Johnston" <<a href="mailto:leif@resourcecompany.com">leif@resourcecompany.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> Marcolo, that is a good point. Some venting is what we let friends do and<br>
> listening to opinions, even if strongly stated, helps is to focus on our<br>> response and understanding.<br>> <br>> That said and with the experience of having set on many non-profit and 501c3<br>> boards, the job is both easy and difficult at the same time. Status quo and<br>
> smooth waters are easy and stress/issues can be difficult. Orders given to<br>> change the direction of a battleship take a significant time to see the<br>> results. <br>> <br>> A couple of thoughts.<br>> <br>
> * We (SCA Inc.) are incorporated as a protection to the membership.<br>> The corporation is a legal entity and thus can bear the brunt of the legal<br>> attacks. The alternative is the each of us (or the richest of us - not<br>
> me...) could/would be sued instead.<br>> * We are an IRS priviledged organization and that can be very<br>> difficult to orchestrate.<br>> * The more independent entities (seperately filed and managed<br>> corporations) the larger the overall administrative burden and most likely<br>
> the larger the expense to the memebership as a whole. ( It may not be 2*(the<br>> admin burden) but it is certainly more that 1 and likely 1.5-1.75 * the<br>> number of smaller SCA incs but I don't have the operating numbers to support<br>
> that extrapolation. But to continue the thought, if each kingdom were<br>> seperately run and we can beat the expected burden costs per kingdom down to<br>> 1.25 ( or 25% of the overall burden as the admin burden for each kingdom),<br>
> then the overall expense might well is 1 for SCA Inc and (.25*19) or almost<br>> 5 more admin expenses for a total of 6 times our personal membership cost so<br>> just using the extra family mambership cost of $10/year, the cost would be<br>
> $60 per year for each membership. Whatever the actual numbers the approach<br>> strongly suggests a radically increased cost base.<br>> * We could argue away the central SCA Inc and cut that cost to<br>> $50/year, but what would it be like to show up at Pennsic with gear that<br>
> didn't meet a common standard? How would we maintain commonality and<br>> consistency in a distributed organization? We know how the winds of Curia<br>> blow in our own kingdom...<br>> * As a group, the SCA is AMAZINGLY risky from the liability standpoint<br>
> with the activities we like to pursue, be it fighting, or dress/exploration<br>> of topics out of the mainstream context. There are huge sexual overtones and<br>> inuendos frequently. And often that is part of what we do as adults that<br>
> gets complicated when minors are around/engaged.<br>> * We must remember that a jury of our peers will not mean a jury of<br>> SCA peers in a mudane court of law.<br>> * Our board members are people too and as such are inclined to be like<br>
> the rest of us, or at least me in the fact that they will make mistakes.<br>> That said, we should, I humby submit, be hesitant to shoot them as<br>> messengers of evil and perhaps be better suited to engage them in discussion<br>
> of our priorities. Just like we get to elect our congressional<br>> representatives and then they may run off and do things we disagree with, we<br>> can engage them in dialog about where we think things should go. That said,<br>
> based on our core vision, shouldn't that be done with courtesy and the grace<br>> of the courtly manner we seek to emulate?<br>> * There are serious and complicated issues that the board has to face<br>> with insurance and other issues. Clearly this situation has pointed out one<br>
> lesson that needs to be done better or protected diffierently. <br>> * Every time there is an insurance claim, it will tend to point out<br>> where there are issues - just like when you get hit through a spot that<br>
> isn't well amored in the heavy list. But I submit that lesson we learn at<br>> the hands of the opponent on the field (that my armor does not adequately<br>> cover my upper thigh where Ranulph just hit me repeatedly...) is not the<br>
> fault of the opponent but an opportunity to change and improve for<br>> ourselves.<br>> <br>> With that context, in my opinion we should make our voices heard by the<br>> board. Particular points of concern would include how to protect against<br>
> further sexually related suits, how to we limit liabilities across kingdoms,<br>> are there organizational changes to be made, and how can we best continue to<br>> live the vision that we want - with specfics?<br>
> <br>> Unfortunately some of the answers to the questions may be unpleasent to<br>> hear. For example, the Boy Scout solution to sexual misconduct is that two<br>> adults must be present anytime there is a minor/adult interaction. The<br>
> impact of that decision was mandated and it significantly changed the Boy<br>> Scout organization - including annual discussions of sexually appropriate<br>> and inappropriate behaviors and a review process that holds the accused<br>
> guilty until proven innocent removing them from causing further harm.<br>> <br>> Our culture in the US has complicated the implications of minors being in<br>> adult situations. They are adult situations for a reason. When the<br>
> activities are engaged in by adults then they are fairly straightforward.<br>> When minors become involved actively or even passively, much is complicated.<br>> How do we even know some are minors? Are we suggesting that anyone without<br>
> gray hair should wear a badge designating age appropriateness? Clearly<br>> attire can not be considered the mark of age (unless it can be the<br>> unpleasent bulges that show on my aging frame). Even with that I was<br>
> recently carded while buying alcohol, so what does that mean to us as<br>> SCAdians?<br>> <br>> Rebellion can be argued as the right of every american - we have the second<br>> amendment for that purpose according to some lines of thought. Rebellion<br>
> though, is an unpleasant situation, particularly when there may still be<br>> points of discussion and opportunity for changing things as they are. The<br>> challenge then is to continue to effectively communicate the vision that we<br>
> want to see and find ways to make it viable.<br>> <br>> Doesn't courtesy demand that we consider others, their thoughts and seek to<br>> find an amicable solution? Efficiency suggests that we would execute<br>
> prisoners, but courtesy suggest we treat them as honored guests...<br>> <br>> my two shillings<br>> Wiglaf<br>> <br>> <br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:moo-bounces@lists.stierbach.org">moo-bounces@lists.stierbach.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:moo-bounces@lists.stierbach.org">moo-bounces@lists.stierbach.org</a>] On Behalf Of Marcolo DelMare<br>> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:49 AM<br>> To: General Mailing List for the Barony of Stierbach<br>
> Subject: Re: [Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways<br>> <br>> I think a "little" bit of venting amoung friends is healthy. Granting that<br>> opportunity to your friends is one of the duties of friendship. I don't have<br>
> a clear opinion about this topic yet, as I don't feel I know enough about<br>> it. These discussions have at least given me some information to chew on.<br>> <br>> Marcolo<br>> <br>> On 12/5/10, Jonathan Blaine <<a href="mailto:hourumiyamoto@gmail.com">hourumiyamoto@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Already did that myself, but I think he's asking us to boycott? Rebel? <br>>> I don't know, kind of lost as to where the point is on all this..<br>>> On Dec 5, 2010 10:10 PM, "Laurie Clarkston" <<a href="mailto:garadh@verizon.net">garadh@verizon.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Whether we agree or not with the decision of the board, price <br>>>> increases<br>>> are<br>>>> going to happen whether we like it or not for whatever reason.<br>>>><br>>>><br>
>>> Venting to your Barony and/or canton might have a calming, cleansing<br>>> effect for<br>>>> you (kinda like gotta get this off my chest), but I think your inputs<br>>> might be<br>>>> better directed towards the very people who are making the decisions. <br>
>>> The<br>>><br>>>> Board has always been open to inputs from people in the SCA on the<br>>> direction the<br>>>> Society is taking. Hearing from people who play in the SCA, good or <br>
>>> bad,<br>>> can<br>>>> only help them in the decisions they take in running the SCA.<br>>>><br>>>> Please share your opinions with them; this way your voice will be <br>>>> heard<br>
>> and it<br>>>> just might be the voice that inspires them on the decision path they<br>>> choose.<br>>>><br>>>> Cairistiona<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>
>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>><br>>>> ________________________________<br>>>> From: Maven <<a href="mailto:sk8maven@yahoo.com">sk8maven@yahoo.com</a>><br>>>> To: <a href="mailto:moo@lists.stierbach.org">moo@lists.stierbach.org</a><br>
>>> Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 8:03:12 PM<br>>>> Subject: [Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>>> It's eight bucks. Big whoop.<br>>>><br>>>> It's eight bucks *per person*, this time (family memberships excepted <br>
>>> -<br>>> this<br>>>> time - but the "family" cap raised five dollars). With NO guarantee <br>>>> that<br>>> they<br>>>> won't have to raise it again next month, or next year - indeed, with <br>
>>> an<br>>> implied<br>>>> 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<br>
>> raised the<br>>>> membership rates, it's been to cover some screwup by the BoD. Every <br>>>> single<br>>> time,<br>>>> no exceptions.<br>>>><br>>>> In the 1980's it was an insanely expensive and nearly useless <br>
>>> computer<br>>> hardware<br>>>> and software system they were suckered into buying (some friends who<br>>> *were*<br>>>> computer experts said they could have done a much better job for far <br>
>>> less money).<br>>>><br>>>> In the 1990's it was that insane scheme to "streamline and modernize" <br>>>> the<br>>> SCA,<br>>>> Inc., to make it more "business-like" - the one that involved hiring <br>
>>> a<br>>> total<br>>>> mundane to tell them how to organize the game, and nearly tore the <br>>>> SCA<br>>> apart.<br>>>> That was the *first* time they tried Non-Membership Fees (after <br>
>>> seriously considering Pay to Play!), and it went over so badly they <br>>>> backed off and<br>>> waited<br>>>> for years before applying them again.<br>>>><br>>>> Now it's that insanely expensive child molestation civil lawsuit that <br>
>>> is<br>>> going<br>>>> to devour the SCA, Inc. whole, and I don't see any way that it will <br>>>> not do<br>>> so.<br>>>> Even if the SCA, Inc. "wins", the court costs will be astronomical <br>
>>> and our<br>>><br>>>> reputation is *already* irreparably tarnished. The lawsuit exists <br>>>> only<br>>> because<br>>>> the SCA, Inc. is an excessively centralized bureaucracy with one<br>
>> centralized<br>>>> 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 <br>>>> topheavy<br>
>> and far<br>>>> too centralized, and needed to decentralize. But it did not suit the <br>>>> Board<br>>> of<br>>>> Directors to make any serious moves in that direction until conflicts <br>
>>> with<br>>> state<br>>>> and national laws forced them to do so (Australia, Canada, now Illinois).<br>>> Now<br>>>> it's probably too late.<br>>>><br>>>> What we all need to remember, even those who diss the increased <br>
>>> membership<br>>> fees<br>>>> as "big whoop", is that the SCA, Inc. is not the SCA. It's just a<br>>> bureaucratic<br>>>> organization we agreed to add on to facilitate playing our game. But <br>
>>> they<br>>> think<br>>>> *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 <br>>>> and I<br>
>> don't<br>>>> think it is or can be sustainable.<br>>><br>> <br>> <br>> --<br>> Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has<br>> to be us.<br>> - Jerry Garcia<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>> Moo mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Moo@lists.stierbach.org">Moo@lists.stierbach.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.stierbach.org/listinfo.cgi/moo-stierbach.org">http://lists.stierbach.org/listinfo.cgi/moo-stierbach.org</a><br>
</div>