interesting - SCA Grand Council + social media, banishment

[Derian le Breton]

Well now apparently the crown can banish you for non-criminal activities outside of SCA events. Prior to this I am not aware of any banishment that was both non-criminal AND outside of an SCA event.

What level of banishment? A Lesser Royal Sanction can be applied for <i>any</i> reason.

As you go up in severity of banishment, the set of things one must have done to get to that state becomes smaller (though the rules are vague, purposefully I suspect).

-Derian.

[Maeryk]

For those who are not up on the West Kingdom happenings, I am guessing that this is somewhat related to a recent banishment in the West. Several charges where brought up against an individual that where based on the postings of a private "livejornal" blog. Apparently some one copied and forwarded these private postings to other people and eventual it was used as ammunition by the crown to effect a banishment. There was an appeal by the banished and the BOD upheld the Banishment.

What does that mean for the SCA?

Well now apparently the crown can banish you for non-criminal activities outside of SCA events. Prior to this I am not aware of any banishment that was both non-criminal AND outside of an SCA event.

Oh, I am.

[James B.]

I don't see how this differs in any way than schools, work place, or other clubs. I got news for you the same thing has happened in all instances; social media is not private and anything you say there is like talking out loud because if someone reads it they can re-post it elsewhere.

It all comes down to this; don't be a stupid asshole when you put fingers to keyboard, there is accountability for your words.

[Peikko]

It all comes down to this; don't be a stupid asshole when you put fingers to keyboard, there is accountability for your words.

+1 and yet it's amazing that this is still news to some folks

[Maeryk]

The only question, to me, is whose definition of "asshole" becomes the standard?

If I quite honestly comment on a blog that I found much of the garb to be not even medieval, but fantasy, the food atrocious, and the merchants overpriced, I am now "bad mouthing" the SCA, and, if implemented, the BOD now has the power to sanction over that.

And if you don't think there are people who will grind an axe like that.. I have some bridges for sale.

[Baron Alcyoneus]

As you go up in severity of banishment, the set of things one must have done to get to that state becomes smaller (though the rules are vague, purposefully I suspect).

-Derian.

As a former BoD member I like said to me, yes they are vague. It gives them the leeway to do pretty much anything they like.

And this rule is giving retroactive approval for actions they've taken in the past w/o authority.

[Leo Medii]

OK, so I went out and read some of the stuff I could find. It was pretty interesting stuff at 2 AM.

There is an interesting case in Michigan right now about this, where Michigan’s assistant attorney general Andrew Shirvell has been engaging in a bizarre internet campaign against Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student assembly president at the University of Michigan. He did the same thing, using a public blog like Livejournal to basically bash on this guy and the "gay agenda". To this point, he has had no disciplinary action taken against him, or lost his job, or anything, all under the "protection of the 1st ammendment".

Personally, I don't like the idea of anything that restricts what you can do legally on your own time, be it off work, off "whatever" (ie, not at functions of X). The funny thing about people who are almost always pro-1st ammendment folks, or the "if you don't like it, turn the channel/don't read it" folks seem to forget that (as with most rights, religious stuff) when it's them or their group involved. Just an observation of human nature.

[James B.]

The only question, to me, is whose definition of "asshole" becomes the standard?

If I quite honestly comment on a blog that I found much of the garb to be not even medieval, but fantasy, the food atrocious, and the merchants overpriced, I am now "bad mouthing" the SCA, and, if implemented, the BOD now has the power to sanction over that.

And if you don't think there are people who will grind an axe like that.. I have some bridges for sale.

I know some folks are like that but will their complaints get traction? People complain about a ton of things in the SCA and nothing happens. Those who are banished have really horrid charges brought against them, some fight them and clear themselves too; the SCA has the right to ask you to leave it is a private club and they have the right to hold you to a standard.

The SCA is not looking to make a major member purge what would they accomplish with that?

You always predict doom and gloom that never happens.

[Maeryk]

The only question, to me, is whose definition of "asshole" becomes the standard?

If I quite honestly comment on a blog that I found much of the garb to be not even medieval, but fantasy, the food atrocious, and the merchants overpriced, I am now "bad mouthing" the SCA, and, if implemented, the BOD now has the power to sanction over that.

And if you don't think there are people who will grind an axe like that.. I have some bridges for sale.

I know some folks are like that but will their complaints get traction? People complain about a ton of things in the SCA and those who are banished have really horrid charges brought against them, some fight them and clear themselves too.

The SCA is not looking to make a major member purge what would they accomplish with that?

You always predict doom and gloom that never happens.

I don't "always predict doom and gloom" James. I just see what I consider loopholes you can drive a truck through and point them out, that's all.

And like I said.. when someone with an axe to grind runs up against someone with some power, you will see this implemented. Whether they _deserve_ it or not is another question. But the barn door is now open that "snark communities" and the like are pretty much red flags saying "if you can figure out who I am, please banish me!"

[James B.]

I doubt this is about snarking. Ever read the crap that is said in a cyber bully case? It is sickening, goes way beyond your outfit is ugly.

[Sean Powell]

If I quite honestly comment on a blog that I found much of the garb to be not even medieval, but fantasy, the food atrocious, and the merchants overpriced, I am now "bad mouthing" the SCA, and, if implemented, the BOD now has the power to sanction over that.

They have always had that power. They have the power to sanction. period. They have had it for a long time and will continue to have it for a long time. This rulling changes this not at all.

Previously some people thought that their AUTHORITY extended to sanctioning for 'bad mouthing' ONLY if it occured at an event and other people thought it went farther. Now they have stated and published that they feel they have the authority based on how the second group thought and not limited as the first group thought.

This is the difference in evidence being admited only if it occurs in a area under a warant vs evidence being admited if it is publicly available. And before you go off on 'private blog', how something becomes public doesn't mater once it is public. Inside my front door is private space. If a friend enters and leaves the door hanging wide open to the public then all rights to privacy are negated.

Rant and rave if it makes you feel nice. Very little trumps your constitutional right to free speach. But don't think you are immune just because it isn't at an event. If nothing else the SCA is a social organization. Act like a dick and word gets around and people treat you like a dick. Act like a dick large enough and loud enough and the BOD will treat you like a dick, 'nuff said.

The objective is to keep the BOD large enough that the whims of select individuals can not be wielded with impunity. Likewise the objective is to keep it small enough that they don't have the resources to go all KGB and start monitoring mailing lists, blogs and forums looking for excuses to weild their power.

"The best check on a powerful organization is an inefficient organization."

The BOD strikes me as incredibly inefficient at times.

Sean

[Maeryk]

I doubt this is about snarking. Ever read the crap that is said in a cyber bully case? It is sickening, goes way beyond your outfit is ugly.

Which has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Grand Council's reccomendations.

and I quote:

[quote]The Grand Council believes that poor behavior in Social Media settings is not a problem with Social Media but rather is a behavior problem just as poor behavior in any other setting is a behavior problem. The Grand Council does not believe that a policy specific to Social Media is required or would be beneficial. Rather, the Grand Council believes that poor behavior in any setting should be treated equally. The definition of where the Board will take note of poor behavior and consider sanctions needs to be broadened. Currently most people believe that if the behavior doesn't occur at an SCA event it cannot be the basis for sanctions.

The Grand Council would recommend that the Society policies regarding when and where sanctions may be applied, for bad behavior, be changed to:
"IF the SCA becomes aware of SCA-related behavior in any venue which grossly violates the spirit of courtesy and chivalry expected of all Society participants, aims at marginalizing a participant or participants or that aims at forcing them out of the Society or making their participation difficult, or which can cause harm to Society, then the SCA “MAYâ€

[James B.]

Really nothing is new here, they could do it with or without this rule.

[Diglach Mac Cein]

And nobody is saying that you CAN'T say whatever you like about the SCA, or individuals. Though I do think websites like "Period or Not" have the maturity of a bunch of cliquish 13 year old girls.

They are saying that if you do step over the line, that you won't be part fo the organization anymore.

And you can keep on saying whatever you want. Though one would hope you would be willing to discuss your problems face to face, or at least one on one, instead of some public attack from behind a keyboard. (Yeah, I know - but it is the interwebz!)

You make your play, you take your chances. Haven't people on AA been clamoring for people to take personal responsibility anyway?

But you know, if a rule like this makes a few people think twice before hitting the send button - it might be a good thing.



.

[Maeryk]

Though I do think websites like "Period or Not" have the maturity of a bunch of cliquish 13 year old girls.

Another who didn't get it. When AIPON was originally started, it was a snark of snarks. That's why the garb put up was almost always amazing level stuff, and the "snarks" totally ridiculous. Like "Oh, it has wrinkles around the bodice. Paintings don't have wrinkles". and "Your skin is the wrong shade for that impression", etc.

It was taken down when people actually started using it to, well, honestly snark that which was DESERVING of snark, rather than "snarking the snarks".

James: Yes, perhaps you have a point. Although, one could consider some of the comments made here, as to how folks who choose to arch, for isntance, are base scum and honorless dogs, to be unchivalrous and uncourteous. Think about that.

Do I think abuse of it would run rampant? No. Do I think abuse of it once is enough to make it a BAD RULE, Mmmkay? Yes.

Just what we need. MORE open ended, ill defined, impossible to describe "standards".

[Leo Medii]

Oh man...no more Bad Garb Bingo at Pennsic!

[Diglach Mac Cein]

Maybe when it started, but that isn't what it ended up as.

Another who didn't get it. When AIPON was originally started, it was a snark of snarks. That's why the garb put up was almost always amazing level stuff, and the "snarks" totally ridiculous. Like "Oh, it has wrinkles around the bodice. Paintings don't have wrinkles". and "Your skin is the wrong shade for that impression", etc.

It was taken down when people actually started using it to, well, honestly snark that which was DESERVING of snark, rather than "snarking the snarks".

OK, so how SHOULD it be addressed?

Just what we need. MORE open ended, ill defined, impossible to describe "standards".

[Maeryk]

Maybe when it started, but that isn't what it ended up as.

Another who didn't get it. When AIPON was originally started, it was a snark of snarks. That's why the garb put up was almost always amazing level stuff, and the "snarks" totally ridiculous. Like "Oh, it has wrinkles around the bodice. Paintings don't have wrinkles". and "Your skin is the wrong shade for that impression", etc.

It was taken down when people actually started using it to, well, honestly snark that which was DESERVING of snark, rather than "snarking the snarks".

As I said, it was taken down when it stopped being what the site owners had originally intended.

OK, so how SHOULD it be addressed?

Just what we need. MORE open ended, ill defined, impossible to describe "standards".

I don't know that it -needs- to be addressed. If people are doing legally actionable things (James' "cyber bullying" strawman) then legally act. If they are raving bungholes, banish them in person. If they never come to events, and just sit and bitch.. ignore them. It's not like you are forced to interact with anyone online. You choose to read what they write.

[Jonny Deuteronomy]

But it will only take one incidence to ruin somebody's hobby due to someone elses utterly overinflated ego.

Who is to say this hasn't occured to people already. I bet it has.

It has most assuredly happened many times over the years, and not necessarily through the BoD.

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

Well now apparently the crown can banish you for non-criminal activities outside of SCA events. Prior to this I am not aware of any banishment that was both non-criminal AND outside of an SCA event.

What level of banishment? A Lesser Royal Sanction can be applied for <i>any</i> reason.

The Gentle in question (a Royal Peer, BTW) was given a level 2 sanction (aka 6 month banishment).

I would also point at that in this - and AFAIK all other Banishment/Sanction cases that go before the BOD - the vast majority of "evidence" and complaint documentation is WITHHELD from the populace and the Royals, Senechalate and BOD are not permitted to talk about it in detail. However, what Godric has stated in this specific case -- re: social network posts & leaking is "generally" known (although it is not known what fraction of the case this makes up).

Oh, and if this stuff worries / interests / bothers you - read Corpora.