Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:05:34 -0400 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Paying the Pennsic Autocrat

Good gentles --

In the interest of seeing this debate continue (with other points
of view) may I suggest that in a way we DO pay the Pennsic autocrat --
just not in legal tender.

The payoff for "pulling off" the massive job of autocratting Pennsic
without alienating a large proportion of the attendees is an often
a large number of "points" of one sort or another within the Society.
If the person is not now a Pelican, they become an "instant" strong
candidate.  If the person is already a Pelican their prestige increases.
There are other ways the Society "rewards" Pennsic autocrats as well
(often by giving them chances to do it again and thereby refine and
improve their skills).

Along with what the Society can offer, there are also personal, internal
"payoffs" -- the reward of doing a difficult job well, for example.

Personally, I believe that _all_ the autocrat's expenses should be
covered, but a "real" salary should not be paid.  There are enough
highly competent people in the Society working at mundane jobs that
are flexible and don't challenge their abilities to provide a pool
of autocrats whose depth has not yet been determined.  

The other question is one of masochism.  In a very real way, taking
on _any_ massive job in the Society -- Steward, Laurel-Sovereign-of-Arms,
TI Editor, Kingdom Seneschal, Herald, or Chronicler for a large kingdom,
autocratting Pennsic -- fits the Groucho Marx paradox, namely:

"I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me for a member."

The "Catch-22" of the problem is that anyone who volunteers to take on
one of these jobs _is_ by definition CRAZY (since they're such back-
breaking undertakings) and therefore should be unqualified to hold
the position.  (This spoken by someone who has held one of the jobs
noted above).   I mean this in a tongue and cheek way, but there is
a nugget of truth in the notion.

Somehow, reasonably competent people step forward to take on big jobs
that they often proceed to do reasonably well.  I think a large part of
the problem stems from:

  1) People doing big jobs with the *primary* aim of getting the
     SCA benefit (often a Pelican) that tends to go along with
     doing big jobs well

  2) People doing big jobs because something in their heads seems
     to force them to keep proving themselves over and over again
     (a not uncommon neurosis, by this layman's observations)

  3) People doing big jobs because their egos need constant stroking
     and they get it by being the center of attention

These reasons, and others like them, are not restricted to the SCA.  
We see them every day in business, academia, and government.  Of 
course, ideal "big job holders" are ones with demonstrated
capacity to do big jobs well who take on specific "big jobs" 
to prove to themselves that they indeed _can_ do still bigger
undertakings and have them turn out right.

Do others have more to add to this off the cuff analysis?

Given my tendency to see goblets as half-full rather than
half-empty, I'm pleased to note that by-and-large the SCA
functions a good deal _better_ than most organizations in
society at large.

So, rather than ask "Why are things so bad?" perhaps it might
be useful to turn it around and ask "Why are things so good?"

More on that at a later date, folks -- I have to change a diaper.

My best to you all -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..."