From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Pennsic Land Allocation
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:26:55 GMT

In article <mjc.714928428@NL.CS.CMU.EDU> mjc+@cs.cmu.edu (Monica Cellio) writes:
>whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>	Divide it in half.  Allocate each half to the King of one
>>	of the belligerants.  Let each King divide it among his
>>	allies and other forces.
>
>All well and good, except for one little detail: only about a quarter of the
>people who attend Pennsic fight.  I think there were about 1000 archers
>this year, but I don't know how much overlap there was between them and
>the fighters, so we don't know how many of the attendees contributed
>directly to the battles.

There are also those that see that the fighters (and archers) have
food to eat, places to sleep, and all those other things that support
staffs do.  Indeed--by modern standards, Pennsic has a very lean ratio
of fighters to support personnel.  Think of all the UNhappy fighters
there'd be without their households along (and that's something this
allocation scheme would help the relevant royalty think about).  It
opens up the entire question of logistics . . .

>Are *you* going to tell the other 5000-6000 to go camp in a swamp or just
>stay home?

Hardly--I'd let the incumbent royalty do that . . .  ANd then see how
well their army fought.  (Rather poorly, I suspect.)  Think of it as
part of a bargaining process.  

	(Hypotheitical fighter):  Want me?  Let me bring my household.

>I have seen people so driven by the "we must win the war!" nonsense that
>I can *easily* imagine the non-combattants getting screwed by such a scheme.

I can well see a king who reasons that way losing, too.

>Yes, there's such a thing as collective bargaining, but greed is a factor
>too.

So . . .  Make greed work *for* reasonable solutions, not against
them.

We see, from time to time, discussions about making the SCA more
period.  What, for instance, could be more period thana a king trying
to come up with a usable way to allocate a limited resource than by
giving him an incentive to *work* with a bunch of fractious Barons, et
al.?  Let the *kings* divvy up the land among those in fealty to them,
remembering to save some for the levies that they raise by other
means.  Let the Barons figure out how to divide what the ahve among
those of their Barony--and use the choicer parts to entice the
powerful fighters (or the most neccesary and effective supprt
personnel!) to come and support their side.  Let enterprising folks
use good camping sites and amount of space as a bargaining chip for
allies.  In short, let the maneuvering for advantage involve
*logistics* as well as moving an army around the field.

I realize this scheme is almost certainly completely impractical, but
I think it would be interesting to try--even if only once.  The most
practical way out of the problems normally described and anticipated
is a fairly simple land market.  Charge by the unit area (square foot,
or what ever).  Charge more for the areas in high demand.  It's true
that this is 'unfair'--but *all* schemes are unfair to *somebody*.
Besides--since when was life fair?  The SCA is fairer than most--but
we're far from perfect.  At least with such a market, the forces
natural to such a market have a chance to even things out.  One could
even price the less desireable areas 'below cost' to permit the poorer
members a chance to participate . . .

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare