The Armour Archive

Wow! After all these flame wars, this discussion looks as violent as the Teletubies group hug!

I would still like to know if universities and colleges revoke degrees.

The most effective means of social control that any group has is peer pressure. If self discipline does not work, then it might.

Can you imagine the havoc that would be caused if a social group such as the SCA or any other similar group decided to punish someone for activities outside its limits would cause? The lawsuit could bankrupt it and really harm it's public image. Social groups probably ought to stick to their limits.

OJ Simpson isn't banned from any golf courses as far as I know.

Bill Clinton is still a member of the Democratic Party (I voted for him once).

Guy Laking authenticated forgeries, and participated in the theft of armor (helped arrange "replacement pieces" in order to satisfy some collectors), but at least kept his book clean by not including the forgeries.

I know you can be disbarred, or lose your medical liscence, or pharmacy liscence for certain crimes...

-+G

At Gulf Wars this past year a visiting knight did a rather nasty thing, was un-appologetic about it, and even though marshalls got involved, nothing happened.
Well, he didn't wear his heraldry for the rest of the battles, does that count?

I'm pretty much of the opinion that once you get that belt, you can be as big a dick as you want to be, and nothing will happen to you unless you piss off the royalty or do something so stupid it CAN'T be ignored.
I'm glad it's only a certain percentage of the chiv that CHOOSE to go that route though.

Might makes right, sad but true.

VvS

The state granteth the licence, the state can taketh it away.

Those are examples of state actions, Rev. They don't take away the medical degrees.

The state can set certain standards for who can practice medicine or law (medical/bar exams).

And only the church that frocks a priest can defrock them. (Can't remember the actual word.)

I can only say that the Laurels of Caid were shocked when told we could not publish our censure in our kingdom newsletter. It had been done occasionally by the Chivalry over the years and since it is not a full banishment, it was not against any Law. It was carefully worded not to be slanderous. We figured we owed the populous a reason.. not to humiliate the person, but to be public enough to show that we police our own. We didn't feel that hiding dirt under the rug does anyone any good. I don't recall if anything was ever published or if we argued enough for it. There was a public court reading at a major kingdom event.

The idea of censure has been used on a number of occasions in Caid. We normally see this in Knights or other fighters who refuse to play by the rules and ignore all advice and council of the marshallate and Chivalry.

One that I've seen used several times is that a fighter is not allowed to play in the melee or war, is only allowed to fight under determinate marshalling and two Knights must supervise the fighter at all times, even during practice. Another addition I've seen is to ask a fighter to go through the training to become a full Marshal so that they can understand what the Marshals are seeing. One other modification is to ask them to write notes on every fight and then ask their opponent to comment in a book which is reviewed every month. These were for serious "rhinos" and either they quit or they went through and in all cases I recall where the fighter completed the censure, they came out the better for it.

Banishment is pretty complicated to get through nowadays. It was not nearly as difficult in years past. Most actions deserving policing do not warrant removal of peerage, but I agree that striking heraldry, ranks, titles and their symbols of their order are reasonable to do in some cases.

As in any problem, the resolution (or punishment if needed) should be engineered to fit the problem. The real goal must be to prevent it from occurring again, though it is reasonable for some reparations. I think one of the main problems in the SCA is that nothing heinous actions are dealt with and it takes a big hoo-haw for people to react. By then people get in bad habits.

My goal lately is to start more new people on the road to their medieval recreation careers informed about the period ideals of Chivalry and the expectations of behavior in the SCA and Adria - as well as guiding toward interest in authenticity from the start.

Juliana

Actually, SCA Corpora states they can take away SCA "stuff" for mundane civil crimes, or at least seems to be planning on it:

http://sca.org/BOD/announcements/sanctionsproposal.html

[This message has been edited by Morgan (edited 01-07-2002).]

That's actually scary-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Membership in the SCA may be revoked for the following reasons:

Conviction of violation of civil or criminal law
Actions that endanger the SCA;
Violation of the Governing Documents or other rules of the SCA;
Formal recommendation arising from procedures defined in Corpora.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, technically, they can revoke my membership. if I'm convicted of speeding (civil law)! And who gets to decide when actions "endanger" the SCA?

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

It is not scary at all, it is how it should be.

Membership in the SCA is not a right, it is a privilege. And if the SCA chooses to exclude convicted murderers, child molesters, rapists and thieves from membership in the SCA, I say it is right and proper. I want the SCA to be a safe place for my family to participate without being surrounded by convicted criminals.

And as far as who gets to decide, it should be decided by our representatives in the SCA corporate administration.

Oh, that's right. I forgot my buddy Owen is a liberal. Many liberals believe these criminals should not have their civil rights infringed upon and they should be able to participate in group that allows you to wear daggers and swords and camp with women and children who don't know they are surrounded by armed felons and rapists

As far as the Aonghais issue goes, I did not agree with some Eastern Kings who struck Aonghais name from the reading of the list of former kings of the East. It is part of the history of the SCA. We should never ignore our history or alter the reporting of it. I would not however have a problem with Aonghais losing his membership in order to protect the safety of the SCA and the safety of our membership. I come from a unique perspective as I know Aonghais, he was my knight's knight. Cariodoc was Aohghais' knight and it is a very short step back to the beginnings of the Society from there. I liked Aonghais, he could be very generous and the perfect medieval Duke. He could also be an arrogant, mean, petty person who hurt those around him for no reason.

The SCA often polices itself, but it does so very inconsistently and not always effectively. It is generally very hard to hold someone accountable for what they do outside of the SCA, we simply don't have the staff resources to try to keep track of non-SCA activities and to evaluate whether or not someone's non-SCA activities indicate a risk to the SCA. When you have something like a known murder conviction however, it is pretty obvious that there is a problem. Still, I generally don't agree with taking away people's SCA awards away for non-SCA activities, but I do believe in yanking membership where problems are caused within the SCA or where non-SCA activities such as criminal activites become known.

It is not just peers that are a problem. We have had a hell of a time getting fighters authorizations yanked, to the point where the board has forced us to let at least one member pariticipate even though the kingdom level marshal's wanted her out for good.

-Richard.

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-07-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-07-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-07-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Richard Blackmoore (edited 01-07-2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
<B>It is not scary at all, it is how it should be.

Membership in the SCA is not a right, it is a privilege</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am in total agreement, and I believe in a Bozo clause.

re: Anghois: Once someone has been booted and had their belts removed in two kingdoms, I think people should have gotten a clue. It was very clear that he could inspire loyalty and love in people and quite the opposite, but regardless of that, when someone does things to a point where completely separate groups of relatively socialistic politically correct liberal people toss a person out and strip them of rank and privilege more than once, I think it should be considered a good sign that we should remove the privilege of membership.

The real truth is that even the SCA is a mundane corporation and there are some mundane rules that corporations have to address. One issue is the safety and well-being of its members, and you are right, child molesters, rapists, thieves, and even sexual, religious and gender harrassers put the mundane corporation at risk and need a way to be addressed.

Juliana

Sir Richard- I have no trouble with excluding "real" criminals, it's just that, as written, the clause could be used to revoke the membership of someone for being convicted of a moving violation! More importantly for a liberal like myself, I could be excluded for having been arrested in an act of civil disobedience. It's overly broad. Yes, I know that it is unlikely to be used that way, but it's there. In the same way, how is "endangering the SCA" defined? Could they include "endangering the status quo"?

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Well, FORTUNATELY, I believe that the BOD would be unlikely to vote in majority to revoke membership for someone arrested for civil disobedience or jaywalking. Now, if an INDIVIDUAL could revoke another's membership for those offenses, I'd be worried. But as long as it has to get up the chain and convince the BOD, I don't worry about it.

Those are good points Owen and I agree that the Societies ability to enforce severe punishments should be used with discretion. Part of the problem here is that if you try to make the statute less broad, instead of counting on responsible exercise of executive and board power by the corporation, you can make the statute less capable and subject to legal challenge.

It is much easier to have a simple, broad statute that is enforced by reasonable people, than to try to have extensive statutes.

On the topic of moving violations, that actually came up recently in the East. One of our problem people was also driving like a maniac in parking lots, nearly running our membership over. If she had gotten a ticket, it would have been easier to add that to the list of her transgressions and have the BOD boot her, instead of leaving it off in order to avoid having to try to prove it was not heresay.

I agree you should not lose membership in the SCA for a speeding ticket. Unless you happened to be speeding through an event site parking lot where you ran over or almost ran overr other members and non-SCA spectators. See? Moving violations can be appropriate cause. If we had written it in that they were not, I can guarantee this specific lunatic would have used it to her advantage (I believe you know who I am referring too by the way, I simply don't choose to publicize her name in this forum).

"If Chivalry and the honour of Chivalry really mean anything in an SCA context, then it is the imperitive duty of the members of the 'chivalry' to discipline unchivalrous members - publicly, and with ceremony? That is the way it was done (check the history of the Toisson d'Or if you would like examples)",
"Go and check your 'period' references to chivalric behaviour. You don't have the excuse that people below ones station do not merit chivalric behaviour, as everyone is assumed to be of equal station.
To not do so is to have blots besmirching the honour of the entire chivalry of the Society. I am sure you gentlemen who actually practise chivalry know at heart that this is the truth of the matter."

Bob
Just a few thoughts on Authentic Chivalry
"If Christ were a Knight He would be a bandit" - French proverb (hundred years wasr era) quoted by Barbara Tuchman
Morte D'Arthur was writen by Mallory while in prison for (as I recall it) arson, robbery, and rape, I had thought there was also a murder charge, but one friend (more familiar with Mallory than I) didn't believe so.
The sight of an armored knight leading a lance towards a village was not anything that gave peasants through most of the era a warm fuzzy.
This is not said to in any way excuse the actions of the gentlemen mentioned earlier in this chain, but Chivalry as you are using it has more of a victorian than a medieval flavor
Rich

Hi Rich,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This is not said to in any way excuse the actions of the gentlemen mentioned earlier in this chain, but Chivalry as you are using it has more of a victorian than a medieval flavor
Rich</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but I am repeatedly told that the SCA recreates the good aspects of "The Middle Ages as they should have been", and I am told that the Victorian ideal is an intentional addition to Historic Chivalry. Historically, Chivalric behaviour did not apply to peasants. And, to boot, none of you are peasants, you are all "gentlemen",


------------------
Bob R.

I have yet to purchase it, but Maurice Keen has written other books besides "Chivalry" (got that one). One that deals with the rules of war, gives an example of a Knight being interogated under orders of his liege, with pliers. The incident also involved his teeth.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chef de chambre:
[B]Hi Rich,

Yes, but I am repeatedly told that the SCA recreates the good aspects of "The Middle Ages as they should have been", and I am told that the Victorian ideal is an intentional addition to Historic Chivalry. Historically, Chivalric behaviour did not apply to peasants. And, to boot, none of you are peasants, you are all "gentlemen",
********************************************
I cringe when I hear the comment about the middle ages the way they should have been. If you look close it's usually used by the SCA members you seem to not care much for.

For 21 years, that is precisely the way I and those around me have described the SCA; "The Good Parts Version" of the middle ages. Tournement, feasts, Kings and Knights, Lords and Ladies; without details like plague, no central heat, no running water, etc. That's why we're not reenacting.



------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Vermin wrote:
"At Gulf Wars this past year a visiting knight did a rather nasty thing, was un-appologetic about it, and even though marshalls got involved, nothing happened.
Well, he didn't wear his heraldry for the rest of the battles, does that count?"

Hey,Vermin, could you contact me privately and let me know what incident you are referring to? You can reach me at earl.marshal@meridies.org Thanks!

Regards,

Conal

e-mail sent

"For 21 years, that is precisely the way I and those around me have described the SCA; "The Good Parts Version" of the middle ages. Tournement, feasts, Kings and Knights, Lords and Ladies; without details like plague, no central heat, no running water, etc. That's why we're not reenacting."
***************************************
and for @ 27 years I've hated the phrase "the good parts"
If you choose to treat the SCA as not a re-enactment that's your business, if I try to treat it as one that's my business.
the one thing I love most about the SCA is that the "tent" is large enough for everyone

Sir Richard- having been vicitmized by a broadly worded contract, I am not comfortable with relying on "reasonable people" to NOT abuse power they have been given. Remember, Ken Starr said that he thought that he, as Special Prosecutor, was given too much power and leeway, but he continued to use it! For instance- I think I've pretty well demonstrated my ability to piss people off; what if I manage to flame 51% of the BoD, and they decide to axe me? I'd rather it be worded to enable them to exclude the people we need to.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

Owen, I see your point and I understand it. Unfortunately you are correct that people often fail to act reasonably or responsibly. At the same time, one of the things I hate about our modern world is the need to legislate everything we do to the n'th degree. All I have to do is see one 18th century personna fighting with a Madu in the SCA lists in order to get the urge to legislate to prevent it, since they abuse the existing rules. At the same time, my feeling remains that broad statutes enforced by reasonable people are better than having to have tons of narrowly defined statutes.

There are pro's and con's to both approaches.

Just to help clear up one point and comment on another:

1) The topic of Angus and his "status" came up recently on another, private discussion group (restricted to royal peers). The response from at least one particant -- a sitting BoD member -- is that the Board has never reviewed Angus' status since it has never formally been requested. In short, the Board cannot act on an issue that has not been brought before them. Who should present such a petition, though, was never fully determined (he was knighted and re-knighted in the West, but prosecuted while residing in Trimaris). This means that Angus could, if paroled tomorrow, appear at the next event in full regalia -- and even fight in a Crown Tournament and reign if victorious(anywhere save CAID, that is).

2) The question of self-policing among the chivalry was also a topic on still another, private list to which I subscribe (restricted to knights). This was an interesting discussion, though I was personally disappointed at the lack of interest in formalizing the process within the Orders. Still, in addition to Angus and the case cited from the Outlands, I know of at least one knight who was openly reprimanded in a Western court and two who were 'encouraged' to resign their belts in the Middle. So, while it happens (too) infrequently, public discipline is not unknown in the SCA among the knights.

-c-

So....to play Devil's advoacate here..

for those who have seen public rebuke, and private "peer pressure" .....

which is more effective?

Is the public humiliation more likely to get a spiteful, reactive response or the private?

Is the Private more likely to work or be ignored?

Sarnac asks which works better -- private or public discipline. In my experience, the personal approach sometimes works for minor transgressions. Unfortunately, I have not seen this successfully applied to more chronic behavior, or for acts that -- most notably due to a very public component -- are invested with a greater quantity of pride than the perpetrator can "swallow".

-c-

What crimes were punishable by derogation? Is there a consistent answer to this across the European time line or was derogation used as a means to heap humiliation upon those in political disfavor or as a means to take over estates?
I ask because the reason behind a punishment often controls the form of punishment. Public humiliation of a modern individual may not be the best way for an organization to police its own.
In the case of the SCA there has to be an acknowledgement of the fact that none of us actually live in a middle ages world. We do have access to all of the legal recourses of the modern world and that certainly colors the process. Further for us it is just a hobby. If you make playing that hobby too uncertain, by the use of tyranical whimsy; or too dramatic with public humiliation you run the risk of paring your membership down to zealots that are there for some other purpose than what the hobby started for. Rational, well-adjusted persons will move on. A medieval knight has only the recourse of his own world, he can not move on to something else. The comparison of the enforcement of a modern hobby organization's rules to a medieval system of justice is invalid because the two serve very different people.
Besides, I don't want to spend my hobby time watching somebody get reamed in a court. It is not my idea of fun and it I believe it to be innappropriate.


------------------
Captain Jamie-a marvellous valorous gentleman, that is certain

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>Sarnac asks which works better -- private or public discipline. In my experience, the personal approach sometimes works for minor transgressions. Unfortunately, I have not seen this successfully applied to more chronic behavior, or for acts that -- most notably due to a very public component -- are invested with a greater quantity of pride than the perpetrator can "swallow".

-c-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true.

I feel sometimes public statements are required to counter negative PR that is sometimes spread by the perpetrator being disciplined. If there is no public statement, then I've seen the person who is being censured spreading counter-PR against the Order or group responsible to gain sympathy against the "evil unfair people picking on them".

Though personally I am not against posting period style broadsides at an event or using other period disciplines if the case warrants it. Public humiliation is a very period way to discipline people.

Maybe I'll make some up about ficticious people and instances just for fun..

Juliana

There was a time when I thought that Duke Andrew should have been formally stripped of his titles and honors, but he got something worse.
He became excommunicated- seperated from the body of honor.
-Vitus

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>There was a time when I thought that Duke Andrew should have been formally stripped of his titles and honors, but he got something worse.
He became excommunicated- seperated from the body of honor.
-Vitus</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what happened recently in my kingdom to a Laurel. No titles or rights were denied this person. Basicly the person is not allowed admittance to meetings and is denied Official communication from the Order. It was done to address a problem where there were multiple incidents of breaking confidentiality in a damaging way.

I think group shunning is the most effective punishment of all. Or as a friend of mine describes most cases of SCA discipline "He'll never be invited to lunch in this town again!"

Juliana

Excommunication is as bad as it gets. Then, all of the trinkets mean nothing.
-V

http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs200110.pdf

States that Peerages can be taken away.

Section VIII paragraph E.

Giles

Actually, Cheval, I hate to correct you, but I believe he's probably only even technically eligible in Trimaris. I think most kingdoms have a residency requirement. He woulnd't be eligible in Ansteorra as he's not been a resident of Texas or Oklahoma for the past year.

Just being a smartass.