[Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment

Tue Mar 28 20:52:51 CST 2006

VIVAT!!!!!!!


>From: "Joe Gawron" <jgawron at rmci.net>
>Reply-To: jgawron at rmci.net,Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list 
><artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>To: "'Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list'" <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>Subject: RE: [Artemisia] Comments regarding latest BoD announcment
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:21:29 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mail.coyotetechnical.com ([207.235.5.207]) by 
>bay0-mc7-f9.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 28 
>Mar 2006 17:27:22 -0800
>Received: (qmail 26623 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2006 19:27:21 -0600
>Received: from localhost (HELO wiley.coyotetechnical.com) (127.0.0.1)  by 
>localhost with SMTP; 28 Mar 2006 19:27:21 -0600
>Received: (qmail 24367 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2006 19:25:05 -0600
>Received: from mail.exis.net (HELO rmci.net) (72.236.205.62)by 
>wiley.coyotetechnical.com with SMTP; 28 Mar 2006 19:25:05 -0600
>Received: from dadstoy (unverified [67.41.41.210]) by sitestar.net 
>(Sitestar Advanced Mail Server - www.sitestar.net) withESMTP id 45340856 
>for <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:29:28 -0500
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jExpI7ByKqOnjd58Z/zV+VoGjqXpTWGf6Q=
>Return-Path: <jgawron at rmci.net>
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
>X-Authenticated-User: jgawron at rmci.net X-IP-stats: Incoming Last 2, First 
>30, in=15, out=0, spam=0
>X-External-IP: 67.41.41.210
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on 
>wiley.coyotetechnical.com
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10 autolearn=no 
>version=2.63
>X-Spam-Level: X-BeenThere: artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: Kingdom of Artemisia mailing list 
><artemisia.lists.gallowglass.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia>,<mailto:artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/artemisia>
>List-Post: <mailto:artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia>,<mailto:artemisia-request at lists.gallowglass.org?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: artemisia-bounces+smaschek=hotmail.com at lists.gallowglass.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2006 01:27:23.0035 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[EDF126B0:01C652CF]
>
>
>    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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Artemisia mailing list
>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia