Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:20:54 -0400 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Why have the SCA, Inc.?

Good gentles,

'RHAVEN' (identity otherwise unknown to me) writes:

11-Oct-92 Re: Why have the SCA, Inc.? by rhaven@cruzio.santa-cruz 

> A:  What makes you think that a local mundane interface would be any more
> efficient/responsive than a national one?

  Because they'd be LOCAL to beat on if they weren't.

  Would you rather have to solve problems with someone you see at
  events on occaision or someone on the other side of the continent?

  < Remember, I'm not necessarily saying there's a NEED to have kingdoms >
  < become independent -- just that it *is* a viable option.             >

> B: There have been numerous splinter groups from the SCA and few have
> survived, and have no doubt that any kingdom or group removing itself
> from the Corporation will be a splinter.  The mailing list itself is
> the property of that Corporation.

  The Kingdom of Acre in the New York area is and has been quite well
  for more than ten years now...   And the whole issue of mailing lists
  is moot if 'members' of EAST KINGDOM, INC. are people who participate
  in EKI activities and subscribers to EKI's newsletter are subscribers
  to EKI's newsletter.

> C: If you do have seperate local mundane entities, people will want to be
> real, legal, voting members, and the rather intriguing, medieval-flavored
> politics will be replaced by mundane politics.

  Like Parliament.  And what's wrong with voting how to run a *mundane*
  corporation that serves people who participate in medieval re-creation?

> D: (continuing from B: I guess).  I was one of the most serious
> Board critics in my day.  I really did investigate what it would take
> to split a kingdom off.  The bottom line is that it doesn't really work,
> especially if the Corporation is at all energetic about protecting the
> use of its name and reputation.  Most scenerios end up with the SCA and
> the splinter battling it out with most of the participants caught in the
> middle and about ten individuals playing Death Politics ("If you play with
> them, you can't play with us", etc.)

  Sorry, but I think the ratio of adult grown-ups to adult children in
  the SCA has changed and that a positive split and cordial continued 
  relations are certainly possibilities, if it ever came to that.

> E: If kingdoms are to collect the money and pass a portion of it on to the
> Corporation, the Corporation then has a survival motive to really
> monitor and interfere with those kingdoms.  States' rights usually
> don't last.  I don't think the IRS would be as happy either.

  There are so many things to say in response to this statement that
  I hesitate to say anything -- but it's not as if the Corporation 
  is keeping their hands off now.  And the IRS could care less....
  
> F: (finally, I answer your question)  What does the SCA need from
> a mundane organization?  It needs obsticles removed from operation.
> Insurance is an obsticle.  Legal consequences of negligence, royal
> action, etc. are obsticles.  Difference kingdoms playing incompatible
> rules is an obsticle.  That about it.  National newsletters and national
> coordination of offices (except maybe fighting, for legal reasons) are
> luxuries.

  The insurance issue has generated a lot of heat but very little light.
  I've been following the insurance discussion for some time, have a
  wife who speaks the language, and have a strong business background
  and as far as I can tell we're paying for a policy that protects the
  corporation, not its members (correct me if I'm wrong, folks).
  No insurance policy is going to prevent a competent attorney
  from suing possibly negligent parties as individuals as well
  as the organization they represent.  The corporation needs to
  spend some effort clarifying just *what it is* members are 
  getting for the money spent on insurance.  Once we understand
  what's going on, _then_ we can go further.

  Different kingdoms playing by different rules is no obstacle to
  our fun -- if it's important interactions can be worked out by
  negotiation and treaty...  Interkingdom wars seem to manage
  just fine without the Corporation's intervention.  

  IN CONCLUSION:
  I lament the Corporation's tendency to take action when inaction
  is more appropriate.  Still, I also have a reasonable amount of
  confidence in the good will (and for the most part 'good sense')
  of the people on the Board of Directors.  They're finding that
  one good way to cope with increased size is to decentralize a
  number of functions -- and we're going through some pains in
  the process as we take one step back for each two forward.

  Still, I believe the credible _threat_ of kingdoms deciding to
  leave if the burden of regulation grows too great would make 
  an important contribution toward keeping excessive regulation 
  in check.
  
  Take care, good gentles -- my best -- 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..."