[Artemisia] This week's edition of "Security Theater"

Wed Apr 18 10:31:20 CDT 2007

huh....*re-reads the original announcement* I can definitely see that.  
However, it does do what it's designed to do.  It protects the SCA from 
liability, which is equally important because none of us want to see the SCA 
disbanded over a legality.  And, in this sue-happy day and age, that is a 
possibility.  I work for the SLC Fox affiliate...we air court TV all day and 
people sue over the most ridiculous things (don't believe me?  Watch one 
hour of daytime TV on your local Fox station...it's ridiculous).

This conversation DOES raise a very important topic though.  We can't count 
on anyone else to protect the kids in our Kingdom.  And, as the numbers 
posted in the email prove, and all of the missives I referred to in my 
previous email about things being stolen and people being attacked at 
various events, these things are happening.  They've happened in our very 
own Barony, when the Loch Salann regalia was stolen out of TE Ulrich and 
Rachel's garage after an event.  So what do we do as individuals and as a 
group to keep our neighbors safe?  As I said before, we all want to see the 
SCA as a safe haven.  Where we can leave our stuff out and allow "free range 
kids" (I love that term!).  Whenever I am responsible for children at an 
event (siblings, friend's kids that I've brought along, etc.) I don't let 
them out of my site unless they're with someone I trust, and even then I 
make sure to get visual contact every 30 minutes to an hour.  I was raised 
by a somewhat protective mom who knew where I was all of the time.  It kept 
me safe when I was one of those precocious 12-year-olds surrounded by adults 
on internet chatrooms.  I keep the same eye on my friends' kids.  The kids 
don't necessarily know I'm watching, but I am (usually my friends don't even 
know I'm watching), it's simply for my own piece of mind.  I have also had 
small things disappear at events.  The biggest of which was a wallet that 
disappeared off a table in front of my tent (it was one of my last events 
before Uprising and had a good bit of cash in it that was to be used to pay 
for various Uprising things...I almost had to skip it that year).  So, how 
do we, as a group, make sure that predators are not in our midst?  In 
theory, the background checks are a good thing, how do we provide that same 
security in a practical way?  How do we maintain that safe haven that we all 
want to believe we have in the SCA?

I honestly don't have answers to the questions I've just raised, that's why 
I'm putting them out to the Kingdom.  My previous email regarding the safety 
of the children in our Youth Program still stands.  I still believe all of 
those things about the necessity of us, as adults, keeping the kids of our 
Kingdom safe.  So I'm looking for thoughts on how we do that.

-Maysun

>From: El Hermoso Dormiendo <ElHermosoDormido at dogphilosophy.net>
>Reply-To: Mad Lard Sean <ElHermosoDormido at dogphilosophy.net>,Kingdom of 
>Artemisia mailing list <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>To: "Aerie" <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>
>Subject: [Artemisia] This week's edition of "Security Theater"
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:40:20 -0600
>
>This "background checks" thing disgusts me, though probably not for the 
>reason
>you might guess.
>
>It doubly fails to affect me directly, since I have no interest nor 
>intention
>of ever being in charge of youth activities in the SCA, and even if I did, 
>I
>would be even more shocked than anyone else if I failed a background check
>for the purpose.  And, is there really anyone at all who WANTS child 
>abusers
>(or adult abusers, for that matter) in the SCA at all?  The apparent
>intention of the policy is to Protect the Children, which is obviously a 
>good
>thing, right?
>
>The problem is, this appears, so far, to be nothing more than a typical
>corporate-style attempt to avoid legal blame without actually doing 
>anything
>about the problem.  And here's why:
>
>As stated, it sounds as though this is meant to relate to formally
>sanctioned "Youth Activities" coordinators and the like and wouldn't affect
>anyone else.  However, as stated in an earlier post (one of several in the
>same general theme):
>
>"From what I understand of this it only involves those who will or could
>potentially be in close contact with our minor children."
>
>Therein lies the problem.  The SCA is not a day-care center with 
>well-defined
>children's areas - instead, we seem to tend towards "free-range children" 
>in
>the society.  (And why not?  The SCA has historically seemed to be made up 
>of
>a substantially better average class of people than a typical population.  
>If
>you can't be safe in the SCA, where CAN you be safe?)  Given this fact -
>nearly EVERYONE who shows up at an event may fall into the category
>of "potentially in close contact with our minor children", especially at
>larger events.  Background checks on the handful of individuals publically
>expressing interest in running formally-sanctioned youth activities seems
>ridiculously unlikely to catch the people we really ought to be worried
>about.  ACTUALLY protecting children will require going much further.  Do 
>we
>implement a policy of background checks for all members (and allow only
>people who have undergone background checks to participate?)  Do we limit 
>SCA
>activities to adults only?  Do we require children to remain in designated
>areas under close supervision of formally designated youth monitors when 
>not
>under direct and immediate supervision of their legal guardians?  (Perhaps 
>we
>could outsource this to a 3rd-party certified day-care organization much as
>the chirugeonate-type activities appear to have been outsourced at 
>Pennsic?)
>Not that they'd have to be absolute - we could always alternate
>between "adults-only" events (not requiring background checks) and 
>"children"
>events (where everyone would require background checks), for example.
>
>These aren't sarcastic suggestions - I really think it'll take going to 
>this
>kind of extreme to actually reach any effective level of action against the
>problem.
>
>This policy isn't about protecting children.  This is purely about 
>Corporate
>avoidance of blame.  Even THIS much doesn't really bother me in and of
>itself - "limitation of liability" is a valid concept in running a 
>corporate
>entity.
>
>What really, really bugs me is that this "CYA" attitude is so utterly alien 
>to
>the fundamental culture of chivalry, service, and responsibility that was
>central to the SCA that I joined.  If someone is having a problem, members 
>of
>the populace spontaneously step forward to help solve it, not to just try 
>to
>find a way to avoid blame for it.  Corporate "necessity" or not, an empty
>responsibility-avoidance scheme that doesn't actually address the problem
>effectively just doesn't seem right.
>
>The *membership* of the SCA is still largely about the chivalrous 
>tournament,
>the romance of courtly behavior, and the educational historical research, 
>but
>the *organization* is turning into some sort of Byzantine corporate
>Dilbertian thing that just plain doesn't seem to belong.  I don't think 
>this
>dichotomy is stable.  As the "Society of Corporate Asininity, Inc." slowly
>dilutes the Society for Creative Anachronism out of existence, it reminds 
>me
>more and more of the sort of corporate environment many of us spend our 
>days
>working in.
>
>If I wanted a corporate parody of "The Dream", I'd go to Disneyland(tm) or
>McDonalds(tm) instead.
>
>signed,
>El Hermoso Dormiendo - getting increasingly less tolerant of these kinds of
>shenanigans as he ages...
>_______________________________________________
>Artemisia mailing list
>Artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org
>http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/artemisia

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office 
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/