From: aryk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (A.J.S. Nusbacher)
Subject: Re: Pennsic Land Allocation
Organization: University of Toronto -- Hart House
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:50:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.205350.21307@access.digex.com> corun@access.digex.com (Corun MacAnndra) writes:

>...It's not like
>the Society can go out and hire professional Autocrats and historical teachers
>so we can learn the things we want in order to play a more fun game. 

Why not?  There are SCA groups that hire professional chefs to cook their 
feasts, and who better to teach history than a teacher of history?

>...The gods know how much our education
>system is in need of good teachers. Too bad the government can't see that
>and bolster our educational system financially. Books, not bombs.

If Scadians spend the cash now dropped on big, fancy, shiny dress steel on
hiring history teachers...  seminars, not swords?

Of course that is ridiculous.  People spend money on what they think is
important, not on what I think is important.

These are side points.  The main points of
contention are still to come: 

I had said:

>>Autocrats who do _anything_ are "not looked on favourably by the rest of the
>>populace", and accusations that the Pennsic Autocrat has done things because
>>of a personal agenda are common regardless of actual intentions.

Corun replied:

>I will agree with the last statment, but never with the first. I've known
>many Autocrats who have done such splendid jobs that they are asked by
>the populace of the local group to do it again. 

I was speaking in particular of Pennsic War autocrats.  My point was not that
there are no good autocrats, but rather that no matter how hard an autocrat
works, and no matter how good an event he produces, he will still meet people
who aren't satisfied.

>.... Your last statement is true
>only because of the pettiness and self righteousness of so many people. 

No argument from me there.

I had said:

>>The job of War Autocrat has traditionally been taken by somebody with a vast
>>capacity for taking on work.  As such, the job has in the past been a gruel-
>>ling one.  It would be impressive to see it taken on by somebody who is good
>>at delegating responsibility.

And the reply from Corun:

>You imply many things here.

>1) All War Autocrats have a great capacity for work, and noone who doesn't
>has never been War Autocrat. I've only been to seven Pennsics and have only
>known the Autocrats of two, but a desire to do alot of work does not mean
>a capacity for it.

No argument.

>2) The job of War Autocrat will become less grueling in the future. Not!

I believe that unless the job becomes less gruelling in future, it will be
done less well in future because 1. the job will become bigger than any
possible candidate, and 2. anybody with the ability to do the job will not
want to do the job, or will be unable to spare the time.

You said above that willingness to take on work should not be a qualification
for a job--it doesn't imply ability to do the work properly.  Well, if the
job of war autocrat gets much bigger, it will either need 1. a salary or
2. an incumbent whose primary qualification is a willingness to take on an
unreasonable amount of work.

>3) No War Autocrat has ever been good at delegating responsibility....

True

>... I have
>seen Autocrats delegate jobs, but the ultimate responsibility for anyone
>volunteering to undertake any task of the magnitude of Pennsic belongs only
>to that person and cannot be delegated. 

Ultimate responsibility cannot be delegated, also true.

>You are responsible for the actions
>of those you delegate jobs to.... 

Right.  So far we agree.

>...When my household ran Security at PWXX we
>bore the brunt of the actions of a few yahoos from other households who
>volunteered to take shifts and summarily pissed off the populace of Pennsic.
>In some cases we removed these people from jobs that would allow them to
>interact with the populace and gave them something harmless to do like
>lost and found paperwork or manning the base station radio.

Right, but that doesn't mean that the work shouldn't be delegated.  It just
means that important work shouldn't be delegated to any old yahoo who asks
for the job.  As you said before, willingness to take on work does not imply
qualification for the job.

Heck, if work couldn't be delegated, then how would a battalion commander
discharge his duties?  A ship's captain?  Most to the point:  the mayor of
a town?

>The feeling I get from your comments is that you don't see the entire
>picture of running Pennsic. 

Could be.  I think I have a good deal of the picture, though.

The War Autocrat always seems to be miserably overworked, and the job always
seems to devolve on the same people.

[....]
>I also get the impression that you've never Auto-
>crated and event or worked with an Autocrat. I hope I'm wrong. 

Glad to be the messenger of hope.  You are wrong.

My point in discussing the management of Pennsic War is not that previous
autocrats have been bad, or good, or anything.  Just that the job needs
to be delegated and managed better, so that the talents of more contributors
can be better used, and so that the person responsible can keep the big
picture in focus, and not have to micromanage the details that are not the
direct purview of the land manager, the marshal in charge, the chief surgeon,
the security chief and the merchant director.

In the end, I think that the Pennsic autocrat ought to be salaried.

Aryk Nusbacher
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca