[Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment

[Joe Gawron]

   Well met!

   At one time I had the privilege of serving for Artemisia on the Grand
Council, which is basically a think tank for problems like this for the
Board.  This proposal is fairly close to the one that body hammered out for
situations requiring faster action than the banishment procedure.  That
discussion brought up many of the same feelings already expressed in this
list.

   In my opinion, the GC discussion boiled down to 'Which do we fear more, a
corporate entity with the arbitrary ability to restrict or deny our fun, or
the possiblity of behavior endangering an individual, an event, or the SCA?'
In general, the individual feeling was we fear the first, and the group
opinion was the second.  After that it was how do we word it?

   Sir Dan's and Morgan's fears are real, individuals have been prohibited
from playing based on less than complete information or for personal
conflicts.  However, Sir Gregory is also correct, there are no effective
ways of dealing quickly with the kind of ugly situation that occurred at
Pennsic.

   Sir Conrad said "  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."
That's an underlying question here:  Who serves who, and how?  That
question, though is a very, very large can of worms, and I'm not going
there.  Today.

   This proposal isn't perfect. That's one reason it's being sent our for
comment.  Comment on it. Make it better.  We don't vote in the SCA, we
comment.  No comment, no bitchy.

   My comment?  An administrative sanction should speak publically to the
reasons for the sanction.  In secrecy lies abuse.  There are too many
parallels in the daily world; we can do better.

   my four or five pence,
   brendan