From: DEW@PSUECLC.BITNET
Subject: Eschew courtesy while discussing it...
Organization: The Internet
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:23:00 GMT

Greetings all!

(at no peril to myself...)

Courtesy and tolerance are the two minimal characteristics that you have to
have to play in the SCA...this does _not_ mean that you tolerate discourtesy in
discourse.


Arval resonds to the question:

> Should there be a "courtesy" requirement for peerage orders?  And should
> it be enforced?

>Yes, I believe so.  Peerage is a recognition that an individual is a model
>of what the SCA strives to be.  It has preconditions - one must achieve a
>certain level of skill or show a certain level of service to the Society -
>but in the final analysis, it should not be given if the candidate does not
>embody the qualities of courtesy and honor that the Society holds as its
>prime virtues.  That is basically what I meant a few days ago when I wrote
>that our awards are given for what you are, rather than for what you've
>done.

(I just can't take this serious...so know that this whole comment is ridden
with smileys)

Recognizing Virtues?  Embodiment of Qualities?  Great concept, but last time I
checked, feet of clay was one of the aspects that all humans have in common.
"Recognized for prowess" OR "given a pacifier" is the most prevalent reason
given for granting awards like these (the exception is were you hear nearly
everybody make the comment, "well, it's about time!")

>I think it is clear that there must be _some_ requirements for entry to the
>peerage other than skill and/or learning alone; otherwise, there are
>thousands of musicians, dancers, embroiders, etc. in the real world who
>could walk into an SCA meeting and be peers the next day.  I sometiems put
>it this way: Peerage is a recognition that the candidate has made the SCA
>part of herself, and herself part of the SCA.  It is a recognition that the
>candidate needs no further reward, and is one of the people who make the
>Society wonderful for the love of it.

Come on, Arval!  Everybody KNOWS that peers are Born...not created by hard
work at thankless tasks (without botching them, like losing important
documents or violation of policy).  Of course, they might have made an
exception for those who "served their office well", rather than the people for
whom that office was created to serve...you never know.

>I know that the Order of the Pelican (at least in the Pennsic kingdoms)
>takes the courtesy requirement very seriously.  The logic, I think, is that
>to serve the Society effectively, one must have a courteous outlook toward
>everyone.  If you go around pissing people off, you can't accomplish much
>of anything.

From this passage, one might conclude that once you have one of these awards
that you may "piss-off with impunity"!  Pelicans take courtesy serious?!?
Shirely you jest...

>Not being a member of any other peerage order, I cannot say how those
>orders view the courtesy requirement.  From the outside, it appears that
>the Chivalry do weight this factor in their discussions, but that their
>focus is primarily on courtesy on the field.  There have been times when it
>seemed that the Laurel was giving very little weight to the courtesy
>requirement, and other times when it seemed they were considering it quite
>seriously.

So you conclude with allusions to the lack of courtesy in the other
peerages--where does this leave you in the balance?


(The preceeding was closed captioned with smileys for the humor impaired.)

Salam,
Dale E. Walter     |Dur of Hidden Mountain
dew@ecl.psu.edu    |Orluk Oasis on the War Road (of Aethelmarc)

"I'm the Baron!  Ya gotta loath me!"
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca