[Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment

[Chuck Heisler Jr.]

Greetings,
   
  God forbid I should agree with Sir Dan and Morgan, but . . . 
   
  What happens if the Society Seneschal and the Crown DISAGREE on continuing sanctions?
   
  I didn't see anything addressing that.
   
  I've been on both ends of this argument, being the person who needs to ask someone to leave for conduct unbecoming (or an accusation thereof) and being the person accused of conduct detrimental to the society (I'm not the 'Black Baron of One Thousand Eyes' for nothing).  Although it was not elevated to a 'paperwork' level in either case.
   
  I am in complete agreement with this sentiment "Don't tear down th efence 
untill you know why it was built", but in this case, I agree with Morgan and Dan that the current system seems to be working well for banishments and etc., so why 'improve' upon it?  Why take the local juridiction out of the decision loop for any reason?  I guess I just don't see any situation in which the Society Seneschal would need to supercede or 'add' to the decision a Crown decides on.
   
  Who knows more about an individual case than the people closest to the issue and in authority?  In this case, the Crown of that particular Kingdom.
   
  In any case, I believe that this is a bad idea.  I just can't concieve of a situation  " . . . when Royal Sanctions are inappropriate or logistically impractical, . . ." and the action of the Society Seneschal is appropriate and logistically practical.  Short of the Crowns being stone dead and no replacements in the offing.  
   
  So, I don't think its paranoia to want to limit the power of BOD in this respect.  I think it is the BOD's duty be at the call of the Society, not the Society's duty to be at the will of the BOD.
   
  Sincerely,
   
  Sir Conrad von Zuberbuhler 

Spencer Maschek <smaschek at hotmail.com> wrote:
  With all due respect to you both, I think you are taking it waay to 
seriously. A word of advice from a great man, Don't tear down th efence 
untill you know why it was built. Let me leave you with this thought, 
Before cars were invented people got around "fine" and wondered the same 
thing. (If I may quote you your Lordship) >This system as it is has worked 
fine for 40 years, why fix it now?
A lot of people wondered why we need to travel faster, by a piece of 
machinary that could be potentially dangerous? Now look at society in 
general, where would we be without the invention of teh "automobile" that 
people labeled as "unnecessary, if we have been traveling th way we have 
been for ""40 years why fix it now?" Just a thought. I still say "don't 
tear down the fence till you understand why it was put up." I don't think 
it would let someone as to be so petty as to label a homosexual or a cranky 
individual as a person for banishment, or to be "investigated" as such. I 
agree that you could put a few words out in my direction that could make me 
investigatable, but think about how many people in the Mundane world may 
have tried to get others in trouble for petty nonsense things and gotten 
nowhere. I think that the integrity in question is not so much a question 
of liking or not liking someone based on unmatched morals, the quewstion is 
how childish is someone going to be and if they decide to be that childish 
then let them, there is not that much time for the BOD to investigate every 
whiny persons little "oh woah is me, he hurt my feel bads, and I want him 
investigated." Or "He said, she said called me a poo-poo-head, and I want 
him/her banished"

Seriously guys, paranoia.

Vlad's Lady
(Who wants to make clear that these are the opinions of me and me alone with 
no feed back form my Lord who has not yet read this, and may comment later 
if he sees fit)

>
>
>With respect to Vlad's lady, and others who may agree with her, I have to
>make a couple of points here-
>
>I have, at various points in my life, been one of those who some people
>considered to be a "negative depiction of the Society". In some circles, I
>still am considered such. Does this mean I should be temp-banished until
>the Society Seneschal decides I'm really not that bad of a guy because
>someone filed a complaint about me?
>What about those who's conduct I find questionable? Those who's morals
>don't match mine? What if I was one of those poor fools who think being a
>homosexual is a "negative depiction", could I get them all temp-banished?
>
>This system as it is has worked fine for 40 years, why fix it now?
>
>HL Morgan Blaidd Du
>
>_______________________________________________
>Artemisia mailing list
>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia


_______________________________________________
Artemisia mailing list
Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia


		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.