From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Basic Courtesy
Date: 24 Jul 92 20:17:07 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: SCA

Greetings to all, especially Esmeralda, from Angharad.  I've already said 
that I think a lot of the judgements concerning courtesy are in the eye of 
the beholder; perhaps this may help explain what I mean.  You, and Bertram,
are both concerned that Stephen's response to a posted filk may discourage
the author from further efforts, and have the effect of slamming someone
down instead of encouraging him to do better.

This is a reasonable concern; the primary reason my lord and I reacted
differently is that we both had the impression of seeing this gentle's
name around before, and -- in my lord's case -- the strong impression that
he's been in at least as long as Stephen, and should be able to deal with
this.

With that parallel established: you say,

>What definition of blunt are you using? It can mean 'abrupt in speech
>or manner' and 'straight to the point', or it can mean 'slow or deficient
>in feeling: INSENSITIVE'.
>
>Yes, Stephen's comment was blunt all right.

and again,

>Wanting to change something for what you and Stephen (and me for that matter)
>consider the better does NOT mean actively discouraging a person's efforts
>and not even bothering to make suggestions for improvement. What Stephen
>did was say 'What you did was inappropriate and wrong' and then offer no
>words to help the individual come closer to doing something more authentic.

And later,

>                            Stephen may be the man of honor you say he is.
>But his comments to someone who was at least trying are a real funny way
>of showing it.

So: how do you suppose Stephen will respond to your posting?  He has made 
an effort to discourage gross violations of medieval atmosphere.  His effort, 
may not have been the best possible.  How many suggestions for improvement 
have you given him?  How sensitive does this post show itself to _Stephen's_ 
feelings, or to the ways in which gross violations of medieval atmosphere 
make the game less worth playing for him?  Does it acknowledge that he was
trying to do something worthwhile, or simply discourage any future attempt?

What _you_ have done, is _also_ to say, "What you did was inappropriate
and wrong," with only the most indirect indications of how to do something
better.  You have added the _personal_ judgements of insensitivity and 
"a real funny way of showing" honor (while criticizing him for using irony).

I'm _not_ saying you're being rude: I'm questioning your basis for saying
that Stephen was rude -- let alone denying that he is a man of honor!

In my experience, it is dreadfully difficult to be sensitive to everyone
all the time.  It is also not entirely clear to me that someone who has
done something hurtful should always be handled with kid gloves -- and
that includes the original poster as well as Stephen.  Perhaps, if we less
expected that everything we got would be rosebuds, we would be less pierced
by the occasional thorn.

Initially, the two seemed about equally matched; if the poster had wanted
to answer Stephen, I see nothing to stop him.  But since then, two peers 
of the realm have jumped in on the original poster's behalf, perpetuating 
Stephen's name in a negative context.  This seems to me both overkill and
-- well, insensitive.  Try it all from Stephen's side, for a moment....

Best wishes,

-- Angharad/Terry
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca