[Artemisia] Re: Artemisia Digest, Vol 30, Issue 46

[gregero]

In theory the SCA is divided into two parts... The corporation and the
game.  The BOD and corporate officers (why they are given SCA titles is
somewhat beyond me) are supposed to perform duties that serve and protect
the game... (accounting, risk management, communications, etc.).
The "game" is essentially local officers, royalty and populace who also
serve, but are mainly playing a game of historical research, dress-up,
hitting people with various blunted objects and social interaction.

And we have two corresponding types of removal...banishments (game) and
membership suspension/removal (corporate).

Currently banishments are about the only way stop a person from
participating (which by the way are not easy and the people in charge of the
paperwork risk sanctions themselves if they aren't doing due diligence).
R&D's (revocation and denial of membership) typically only happen after a
banishment happens.

As I read it, this new procedure is meant for situations which would
primarily involve corporate functions and/or need immediate attention.

Back to the molester case (this person has since plead guilty but insane -
Benjamin Schragger), the media was jumping all over the BOD and local
officers, LONG before any banishment procedures could have even been put
into effect. This was no a game issue, it was corporate, furthermore it
effected the corporate functions (PR, and financial liability mainly due to
the bad press and possibility of families suing the SCA). What would your
answer be to a lawyer be if they asked you in a court room "Why didn't you
remove or suspend this member" immediately. Beyond that in the real world,
suspensions is severe cases are far from rare.

One last note directly about Dan saying no  R&D's until mundane
convictions.  I have run the paperwork end of these (on the banishment
sides). In the one where the mundane authorities were involved, they flat
out said it wasn't worth their effort to continue with a criminal
investigation eventhough the proof was very solid. So obviously your
solution doesn't take everything into account. Not everything is black and
white.

Gregory