[Artemisia] A New Debate - Pay to Play

[Julia Jackman-Brink]

Chuck Heisler Jr. wrote:
Conrad von Zuberbuhler wrote:

> Here is a topic of discussion I'd like Artemisians to consider 
> and discuss (as rationally as possible please). The concept of "Pay-to-Play".  
> This means that you would have to be a member of the SCA (any style of 
> membership allowed) before being allowed to compete, fight, be an officer,
> vote on any subject, etc.  
>    
> How does Artemisia feel about this subject?

Well I can't speak for Artemisia as a whole, but for myself...

One has to pay to participate in a great many things non-SCA, so it 
makes perfect sense to me to have to pay for things to participate IN 
the SCA.  I'm a member of several organizations, and they run $50-$200 a 
year, and there isn't even a newsletter with some of them! Let me tell 
you about the cost of hockey tickets...or even dinner and a movie. 
Compare it to the $35 yearly membership for SCA and it's dirt cheap.

On that note:

I think one should be a member to reap the cost benefits or have a voice 
in the direction of the Society. While I am not above guesting a new 
person for an event or an occasional combat practice. After a period of 
time they are no longer new and are now a person who is actively 
partaking of the work/facilities that go into putting on the game we 
play. If they aren't going to become a member then they should beputting 
forth something else for that privilege...see non-member surcharge. And 
yes, compared to other organizations...it is still far too low. Right 
now the member benefit to non-member benefit ratio is not very great. 
That needs to be reevealuated to where there is an active benefit to 
being a member.

Down to the tacks...If one isn't going to participate fully well...one 
should get what you pay for.

My 2 cents worth...

Baroness Juliana