The Armour Archive

[i] 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€

Wow even the SCA is going after cyber bullies.

In a way this is sort of done already, what you say online will effect you when it comes to polling orders and awards.

What would be case where this would apply?

Aaron wrote:What would be case where this would apply?

I am sure someone did something that prompted this rule but as it says at the end this will be a case by case thing. At this point we can only speculate an example.

James B. wrote:

Aaron wrote:What would be case where this would apply?

I am sure someone did something that prompted this rule but as it says at the end this will be a case by case thing. At this point we can only speculate an example.

Oh, they have.

G

Watch what you say folks.. calling Sir Sweatsox out on a forum he isn't subscribed to, or complaining about the actions of certain umm.. 'groups' may be construed as bad, and banishment worthy now..

Because the SCA controls you. It controls what you say (ever been told you MAY NOT talk to the press without clearance from an SCA officer? I have), it controls what you may publish (see, also, scribal debacle a few years ago) and now, to a certain extent, it's trying to control what you write/share totally outside the sphere of SCA influence.

Neat.

I'm pretty sure that any large organization that has a member damaging the group or attacking a member (online) and the like would toss them out. Probably has already happened.

Don't see the problem - they are just putting the policy in writing.



.

Diglach mac Cein wrote:I'm pretty sure that any large organization that has a member damaging the group or attacking a member (online) and the like would toss them out. Probably has already happened.

Don't see the problem - they are just putting the policy in writing.



.

Yup.. with a closed door discussion, no open facts, and no real route of appeal.

Just wait... this _WILL_ be abused by one or more of our more "vindictive" members who feel that any comment about them, no matter how warranted, is an "attack" and that the "attacker" should be drummed out for failure to respect their tin plated ass.

Guaranteed.

Maeryk

First you are dead wrong on the appeal issue.

Second you always preach Armageddon and yet the group keeps moving forward, don't you ever get tired of being so negative?

This is a route for appeal, anyone can attend BOD meetings, and I don't know of many organizations that DO publish the reasons for punishments (outside of professional sports).

It isn't a civil trial, or a military one. The BOD knows why the person got banished, the Crown who does the banishment does, and the person who got banished does. And once you are banished, you can say whatever you like without fear of reprisal.

Want to be part of an organization, company, etc? Don't break the rules.
Don't like the rules? Work to change them.

Yup.. with a closed door discussion, no open facts, and no real route of appeal.

Just wait... this _WILL_ be abused by one or more of our more "vindictive" members who feel that any comment about them, no matter how warranted, is an "attack" and that the "attacker" should be drummed out for failure to respect their tin plated ass.

Guaranteed.

Maeryk,
Its a private organization.
They can make up whatever rules they want that include kicking a member out for the infraction of those rules.
Boy Scouts require religious pledges and forbid gay people.

Anyhow, I don't see any real change to the current policy. What you said outside of an event was always under scrutiny.
In the early 90ies I had some vocal debates on some "news groups" about the rules for SCA fencing (rather - I presented rational arguments while one of the more vocal opponents of change presented streams of adhominem vitriol and slander).
Shokingly, I presented my experience with steel blunts outside of the SCA context as an illustration of some points.
As a result, the local Marshals were told I was not allowed to be a Marshal in training.
The ironic thing is that the current rules are going in the direction I was advocating (ie: use of heavier weapons, use of the cut ...)

No, anyone *may* attend a BOD meeting. Not everyone who would can get there.

Christopher

Maeryk wrote:Because the SCA controls you. It controls what you say (ever been told you MAY NOT talk to the press without clearance from an SCA officer? I have), it controls what you may publish (see, also, scribal debacle a few years ago) and now, to a certain extent, it's trying to control what you write/share totally outside the sphere of SCA influence.

Neat.

Come on Maeryk, you know better then that.

This isn't control, it's influence. The SCA can't control squat. All the SCA can do is apply consequences after the action and warn of possible consequences prior to an action.

This is fairly common. I can say anything to my boss or about my boss that I want. My yearly preformance review will likely reflect my expressed opinons and actions negativly if I make my point too strenuously to the wrong people. Everything from a poor performance review to termination is available as a consequence.

Control on the other hand is a dog leash. I can stop my dog IN THE PROCESS of sniffing crotches or pooping on a neighbors lawn with a swift tug.

Note the difference between influence and control:

If I don't give a damn about playing in the SCA because I've decided to go off and do LARP/HEMA/Jousting/Whatever then the effect of the influence is greatly diminished. It's like being denied membership to the cigar of the month club when you don't smoke. If I've given 2-week notice and I decide I want to burn my bridges then I can say just about anything I want about my boss (up to legal repercusions).

With control my dog can't elect to wear a different leash or take the leash off himself.

It's not like JT doesn't have this influence over posting to the AA. A few people have been asked to not come back. If they don't care about armor then that's no big deal.

Finally, I bet you can think of at least one person rather close to both of us who after being convicted (pled guilty?) to certain crimes occuring with SCAdians but not at officially sanctioned SCA events was banned. You know someone on the BOD asked "Do we have the authority to do this when he claims that the crime commited was not at a sanctioned activity?" This means that the BOD considered how far their authority should stretch, how far information gathing and influence should stretch and wrote itself a nice broad statement including the word "may" to cover the extreme circumstances.

Sean

OK, 'MAY'

If someone really feels the need to, they would attend.

(shhesh..grammer police...)

RenJunkie wrote:No, anyone *may* attend a BOD meeting. Not everyone who would can get there.

Christopher

Finally, I bet you can think of at least one person rather close to both of us who after being convicted (pled guilty?) to certain crimes occuring with SCAdians but not at officially sanctioned SCA events was banned. You know someone on the BOD asked "Do we have the authority to do this when he claims that the crime commited was not at a sanctioned activity?" This means that the BOD considered how far their authority should stretch, how far information gathing and influence should stretch and wrote itself a nice broad statement including the word "may" to cover the extreme circumstances.

You need to check your sequence of events on that one.

Finally, I bet you can think of at least one person rather close to both of us who after being convicted (pled guilty?) to certain crimes occuring with SCAdians but not at officially sanctioned SCA events was banned. You know someone on the BOD asked "Do we have the authority to do this when he claims that the crime commited was not at a sanctioned activity?" This means that the BOD considered how far their authority should stretch, how far information gathing and influence should stretch and wrote itself a nice broad statement including the word "may" to cover the extreme circumstances.

You need to check your sequence of events on that one.

Chello!

Norman wrote: forbid gay people.

In volunteer and leadership positions but not as participants. I live in (North)East Texas, a very fundy area, and there is a Lesbian couple who took their son to the "Mom and Me" campout this month...together.

Just saying.

Tony

You ever think that maybe you dont say accurate things may be why you are asked not to speak to the media, Maeryk? I hear many things that you openly say that are opinion or conjecture. I am afraid I would have my media officer ask that you not represent the organization, if i were in that situation. The rule exists because of previous abuses, not to exert control. You are making assumptions that a group of volunteers take the time to keep YOU down, not that they believe they are doing what is best. I am not saying they are always right, just they feel they are doing what is in the best interest.

Actually, I'm not being grammar police, I'm being practical. Let's say you need to go and appeal. But they are meeting on the opposite side of the continent. Say you're from Nova Scotia, and they're meeting in LA. CAN you really afford to go there? Maybe yes, likely no. Not if you plan on doing any events. But maybe you have the means.

Now, keep in mind, I'm not as dark on this as Maeryk. But I have similar feelings of colly-wobbles from it. Just not as bad. It should be clearly defined stuff, and really uber-bad stuff.

I can only imagine what some of the threads here might cause to happen if the BOD read them...lol

Christopher

zippy wrote:You ever think that maybe you dont say accurate things may be why you are asked not to speak to the media, Maeryk? I hear many things that you openly say that are opinion or conjecture. I am afraid I would have my media officer ask that you not represent the organization, if i were in that situation. The rule exists because of previous abuses, not to exert control. You are making assumptions that a group of volunteers take the time to keep YOU down, not that they believe they are doing what is best. I am not saying they are always right, just they feel they are doing what is in the best interest.

The SCA has no bearing, whatsoever, on what I can say about events outside of the SCA. Period. Full stop. The fact that people were told they could not speak to reporters about mundane events that occurred is what I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about "speaking for the SCA". I'm talking, quite clearly and plainly, about speaking as a person involved in events that were outside the purview of the SCA.

Just to be TOTALLY clear.

and I'm just saying.. I'm waiting. This _WILL_ be abused. Probably not much. But it will only take one incidence to ruin somebody's hobby due to someone elses utterly overinflated ego.

Just FYI on meetings with the BOD, if the issue is big enough they will come to you, I have seen it done. Also they call people that ask for appeals. They don't expect the mountain to come to Mohammad and they don't eat babies as some people think. They are not some group of tyrants hiding on the mountain tops passing judgment on us mere mortals, from what I have seen they work hard to be fair.

Maeryk wrote:

Finally, I bet you can think of at least one person rather close to both of us who after being convicted (pled guilty?) to certain crimes occuring with SCAdians but not at officially sanctioned SCA events was banned. You know someone on the BOD asked "Do we have the authority to do this when he claims that the crime commited was not at a sanctioned activity?" This means that the BOD considered how far their authority should stretch, how far information gathing and influence should stretch and wrote itself a nice broad statement including the word "may" to cover the extreme circumstances.

You need to check your sequence of events on that one.

I'll accept that the order of events I quoted are probably be out of order. I am intentionally not very familiar with the incedent.

Will you accept that certain members of the BOD may have questioned the authority of the SCA to ban said individual because the actions he was accused of did not occur at a sanctioned event? Will you accept that the wording of this statement now states that the BOD may exert what little influence it has without violating their own internal procedures? Will you accept that this level of influence does not constitute control?

::::::::

Zippy,
Maeryk wasn't refering to himself in the specific. The BOD has passed a rule to limit access from general SCA member to specifically appointed people when speaking to the media... especially in regards to things like court-cases where a member of the SCA may be involved.

This rule is casually violated all the time when some photographer at a demo asks a fighter their name and permission to use their photo in a 'local color' piece in the town paper. I don't know anyone who says "I can't tell you my name, you need to speak with the local media liason."

Likewise you probably know some socially chalenged individuals who may be just fine fighting or weaving or cooking in the kitchen but you DON'T want them talking to the media... EVER! This is the purpose of the rule Maeryk refered to.

Sean

Maeryk wrote: 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.

Leo Medii wrote:

Maeryk wrote: 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.

Oh.. I guarantee it has. However, now they have a "rule" to back up the action, where before it was just viewed as being pissy and having friends.

One point: This is just the Grand Council yammering. This doesn't mean the BOD will adopt it, or even consider it.

apologies
i retract my statement

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

It's just one more tool in the toolbox of people who are already willing to pull out the stops in order to marginalize and ostracize people.

Ideally, it would get used to drive those people out. In reality, it's more likely to be used BY those people already most likely to hide behind the rules to be utter asshats.

Why is this even necessary? let people resolve or not resolve their disputes as they see fit, there is no need for the SCA to get involved.

How often does that REALLY happen? Yeah, once is bad enough, but people act like the BOD is R&D'ing 100 people per meeting just for the fun of it - and that just isn't so.

Keep looking hard enough for the very worst in everyone and everything, and you'll probably find what you are looking for.

You might even have a hand in it's creation.


.

Unless the dispute drags the SCA into it, or threatens it's existence.

chris19d wrote:Why is this even necessary? let people resolve or not resolve their disputes as they see fit, there is no need for the SCA to get involved.

Diglach mac Cein wrote:Unless the dispute drags the SCA into it, or threatens it's existence.

chris19d wrote:Why is this even necessary? let people resolve or not resolve their disputes as they see fit, there is no need for the SCA to get involved.

And there's the sticky wicket, no? Go read their "widely varaint list of actions and punishments" again.

few if any actually threatened the SCA.

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.

Interesting...

The topic was assigned to the GC by the Board. The report has 2 recommendations regarding social media, based on the discussions that took place. The quoted section is a very small part of it.

This recommendation makes no new policy, just codifies what is already happening.

If you want to know what is discussed or has been discussed, you can subscribe to the list. Posting is limited to members, without moderation, but anyone can post through the moderators once subscribed. And subscriber can also go back and read the archives, which will have the discussions.

Once you've read the entire report and the discussion leading up to it feel free to PM me or drop me an email if you have questions.

Dan

Godric of Castlemont wrote: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.

I can think of one or two off the top of my head. Based on discussions with other people it seems it has happened other places as well, when the problem behavior affects the SCA or it's participants directly.

Dan