From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Local awards
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:31:33 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

Greetings from Arval!  

I would like to ask, Fiacha, that you not characterize disagreements with
your arguments as "attacks".  No one is attacking you.  Several of us think
you are wrong and have tried to explain why.  So far this has been a
friendly discussion; let's keep it that way.

Fiacha wrote:

> Arval then demonstrated that the East is a soft line kingdom which
> tacitly ignores local awards in non Baronial branches. 

Not at all.  What I pointed out is that there is a difference between a
formal, precedence-bearing award and an informal gift or public thanks.  I
don't think anyone would think it improper for the seneschal of your branch
to stand up at the feast, read a thank-you letter to a long-time servant of
the barony, and deliver a gift from the grateful shire members.  They would
correctly object if he phrases it as induction into a shire order, bestowal
of a named shire award, or granting of a shire title.  Those are privileges
reserved to landed nobles.

> However, I believe that honor and courtesy demand that we allow and
> encourage fair treatment of our membership. Reserving a class of treatment
> to a select group on the basis of where they live seems dishonorable.

Nonsense.  It is inequitable, but the SCA is filled with inequity: Why
should some man or woman be entitled to royal rank simply because s/he is
friends with a good fighter?  Why should the royal household share the
privileges of the Crown?  The existance of high-ranking nobles assumes the
existance of low-ranking nobles and requires some differences in privilege.

Your historical analysis is incomplete.  There is a very good period model
for lands without a local feudal overlord: fiefs held in chief.  A high
lord held some (perhaps most) of his land through vassals, but he held some
of it directly.  Our shires are held in chief by the Crown or Coronet.  On
the other hand, I entirely agree that the Society needs more feudal
nobility.  I think that shires should be able to have reigning lords -
though I still don't think those nobles rank high enough to grant rank and
awards.  Our awards and orders, to the extent that they are based on
anything medieval, model recognitions given by kings, emperors, and a few
dukes and counts.  I know no evidence of barons granting ceremonial awards,
let alone even lesser nobles.

> I ask you to go back to my requirement that a branch split before
> applying for advancement. Without some sort of requirement on the
> sub-group, there is nothing to stop a branch from forming a a paper
> sub-group whose only function is to satisfy this requirement. Requiring
> it to justify its existance seems essential. Requiring a public event
> seems a reasonable requirement and has the advantage that it is trivial
> for the Kingdom Seneschal to verify that the requirement has been met.

If you believe this is a logical consequence of your proposal, then I
consider it an excellent demonstration that your proposal would cause more
problems than it solves.  However, I think your logic is strained: The only
reason you've given for distinguishing between workshops and practices on
one hand and published events on the other is convenience for the kingdom
seneschal.  It is no more difficult for the kingdom seneschal to read the
branch's quarterly report to see that they are holding local meetings.
Aren't we trying to get away from running the Society for the convenience
of the bureaucracy? 

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca