[Artemisia] [LochSalann] Fw: Proposed change to Royalty membership requirements-long

[M Steele]

It looks like the BoD is reacting to the issues in the Midrealm from spring 2008.  http://www.scatoday.net/node/11630

--- On Tue, 1/6/09, morgan wolf <morganblaidddu at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: morgan wolf <morganblaidddu at yahoo.com>
Subject: [LochSalann] Fw: Proposed change to Royalty membership requirements-long
To: "Loch Salann" <lochsalann at yahoogroups.com>, "aerie" <artemisia at lists.gallowglass.org>, "Arrow's Flight" <arrowsflight at yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009, 11:12 AM






Greetings all,

there is currently a proposal by the BoD to change the membership requirements for Royalty, making it so that *anyone* entering Crown Tourney must provide proof that their membership is valid for the duration of their time on the thrones.  In Artemisia, that means that all entrants must have either renewed right before the Tourney in question, or be no more than halfway through a 2-year membership.  As it stands right now (unless there has been a change I don't know about, admittedly very possible), renewing one's membership *replaces* the current one, it doesn't add to it, i.e. if you renew early, you just give up those remaining months you already paid for.

Below are my comments to the BoD, I ask that each of you look at the proposed change (it can be found at sca.org and scatoday.net) , think it through, and comment as you see fit.  If enough of us point out the flaw in their plan, hopefully they will fix it.
 
Buchedda at gweinydda
(I live to serve)
Barwn Morgan Blaidd Du 'r Chloffa 

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: morgan wolf <morganblaidddu@ yahoo.com>
To: comments at sca. org
Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 11:04:06 AM
Subject: re: Proposed change to Royalty membership requirements

Dear BoD,

While I completely agree that Royalty should be required to sustain their membership for the duration of their reign, I see a major flaw in this proposal-  Consider "Bob", who renews his membership in February, to fight in Artemisian Crown in April.  If he wins, he is Prince for 5 months, Crowned in September, king for 6 months, and steps down in March.  Under the proposal he wouldn't qualify to enter unless he did a 2-year renewal.  BUT, what if he did the 2-year renewal, doesn't win in April, and wants to fight in next April's?  He would have to renew early, sacrificing 10 months of his membership to have the dates match up.  Worse, what if his membership is an annual Christmas gift from his wife?  

In effect this rule requires those who would be Royalty to do 2-year renewals less than 2 years apart, generating revenue for the Society in a truly dishonest way.

It is my opinion, which I will cry far and wide, that until you make it so renewals are added on to existing memberships instead of replacing them, i.e. if I, set to expire in July, renew this month in the current system,  my two years will end in January/February of 2011, sacrificing 6 months that I already paid for.   This rule would only be fair if renewing my membership now (again using me as the example) extended my expiration to July 2011, adding 2 years to my current membership rather than replacing it.

To enforce this rule change without making THAT change to the membership renewal system will be tantamount to charging those who wish to enter a Crown Tourney, not even just those who win, a "surcharge" equivalent of up to $35 just to take part.  I believe that doing this will drastically alter the make up of entries into Crown Tournies in all kingdoms, in a way that is NOT beneficial to our Society.
 
Buchedda at gweinydda
(I live to serve)
Barwn Morgan Blaidd Du 'r Chloffa 

__._,_.___ 
Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic 
Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar 

MARKETPLACE