SCA: badly-behaving peers
Jul. 11th, 2005 11:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioA question has come up among some SCA folks, and I'm interested in hearing a broader perspective. Particularly because I've been a peer for a while and have become less active in recent years, it's possible I'm a bit out of touch.
Non-peers: to what extent do you look up to peers (define "look up" however you like)? Are you negatively affected (again, define how you like) if a peer does something bad?
Peers and non-peers: if a peer does something bad, is that significantly worse to you than if a non-peer did it? To what extent does the behavior of an individual peer reflect on his order or on the peerage in general? Does the answer vary based on what the peer did?
I'll post my own thoughts later; I want to hear others' first.
Clarification: "bad" = "behaves badly", not "produces substandard work". Sorry I didn't make that more clear.
Non-peers: to what extent do you look up to peers (define "look up" however you like)? Are you negatively affected (again, define how you like) if a peer does something bad?
Peers and non-peers: if a peer does something bad, is that significantly worse to you than if a non-peer did it? To what extent does the behavior of an individual peer reflect on his order or on the peerage in general? Does the answer vary based on what the peer did?
I'll post my own thoughts later; I want to hear others' first.
Clarification: "bad" = "behaves badly", not "produces substandard work". Sorry I didn't make that more clear.
Non-peer here.
Date: 2005-07-12 03:43 am (UTC)If you're talking about quality of workmanship on a project, and the work is outside someone's peerage, then I think it might strike me slightly more than if someone who wasn't a peer had done the work, but not too much. If it's in someone's area of expertise and it's done poorly, then I might notice if I knew anything about the topic, and it might affect my impression of that kingdom's peerage requirements.
On the other hand, if you're talking about an interpersonal interaction, I do think it behooves peers to behave decently toward one another and other people in the SCA. I don't think I have different standards for peers than everyone else, but I DO notice people with awards more than those without awards. Tin hats are a dead giveaway, and I would be shocked and outraged to see someone with a major award (tin hat, white belt, etc.) who's publicly behaving poorly toward another person.
I'm not sure that's the question you're asking, but that's the question I'm answering. :)
Re: Non-peer here.
Date: 2005-07-12 03:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 04:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 01:59 am (UTC)Excellent point! In my time in the SCA I've only seen two people turn down the offer, which must have been really hard with the entire kingdom watching.
A non-peer's view
Date: 2005-07-12 04:28 am (UTC)I've been an apprentice for about 20 years, and I've been paying attention.
To what extent do you look up to peers (define "look up" however you like)? Are you negatively affected (again, define how you like) if a peer does something bad?
If I know somebody, the peerage -- or lack thereof -- doesn't color my opinion of them so much. Mistress Rosanore is Rosanore. Lord Colin is Colin. She attends Laurel meetings. He fights in armor. (Either of these committments might keep them from Northshield Choir rehearsals...) The peerage is just another aspect of the person.
If I don't know somebody, their peerage is kind of like a letter of introduction from the body of peers of their kingdom. (A court baronage is like a letter of introduction from their Crown.) I look up to them because of their companionship in any order in the same measure I respect that order.
If a peer does something really bad (and yes, I read the AEthelmearc e-list), that affects me in the same way that, mundanely, a war hero doing something underhanded does; it embarrasses me because it casts doubt on the ability of the peerage order / military awards committee to recognize people of merit.
If a peer does something bad, is that significantly worse to you than if a non-peer did it?
Only if they're unapologetic. Everybody makes mistakes. Fighters lose their cool. People get snarky. But peers ought to have the virtue of humility, allowing them to see their errors cleanly, and courage, driving them to better themselves no matter how ashamed it might make them feel.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 04:31 am (UTC)Now, looking at the set of people who've amassed substantial influence, I tend to believe in a sort of noblesse oblige - the people who consistently use that to keep things fun for others, who are forces for sanity and cooperation, impress me greatly.
That's the ideal. More importantly, you have a responsibility to make sure any of your Reindeer Games aren't hurting innocent bystanders, people who don't have the political capital or chops to even be in the game, much less have coping strategies. How much I roll my eyes at "Evil Politics" versus actually getting my hackles up depends on how much it's actually hurting people that shouldn't have to be involved. After all, one of the costs of having a Big Boy's Sword instead of a feast dagger is understanding you never have the luxury of treating it like a butter knife.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 02:01 am (UTC)Yup, yup -- completely agreed.
How does an order police its own? It's one thing when the Reindeer Games are something the order as a whole is doing; what about renegades?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 05:14 am (UTC)A question with no one good answer. Shunning, mentioned elsewhere, can be useful if the peer is a glory hog, but many Problem Peers are either ornery and don't care or get all their strokes from people too junior to know better anyway. Sitting them down for a "intervention" chat may help (especially if you can leverage a Royal or former mentor who they may respect as an "elder" on some level, though sheer numbers can help too.)
Beyond that, you're into the realm of "what can anyone do in the face of other organization members being jerks." That varies greatly depending on what they've done and what the damage is. Is there continuing hemorrhaging, such that something drastic needs to happen to stop that first? Is it one big trauma that just needs to be fixed, maybe with some efforts to keep it from happening again? Is it just a matter of working with the problem peer's neighbors to "innoculate" them against a toxic attitude?
The downside, of course, is that it always takes more work and precision to fix something than it does to break it, and often you need to look carefully at how to fix things while doing as little new damage in the process. And that's almost always a matter of an individual - or several likeminded individuals working in parallel, or quietly cooperating - rather than something with the "official face" of an order.
[Disclaimer, which is no news to
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 04:38 am (UTC)I can't give you all the fine details of this (kingdom, group, circumstances etc.) as it's quite possible that someone will figure out who I am talking about.
When I first joined the SCA, I was present at a meeting where two very rude men shouted down a couple of sweet young women who had been unexpectedly dumped with a office they were trying to handle but knew little about. These woman ended up in tears. After the meeting was over, I found out that these two guys were knights and I walked away from that meeting in shock and thinking that the SCA was definitely NOT for me. Where was the chivalry in that behavior? I loved the idea of the peerage--good, committed people living the SCAdian life and being recognized for that commitment and hard work--but if I hadn't promised to fulfill the job I HAD taken on, I would have been "outta there" after that meeting.
Luckily, one of the very next peers I had any dealings with was one of the most friendly, knowledgeable, un-tiring people I have ever met--in the SCA or out. AND since then, I have met a LOT more of those type of people in the SCA than the rude mean types.
I think I am just wise enough to realize that there will be a few "bad apples" no matter what I'm involved in. The trick is to stay away from them and enjoy my involvement in the group(s).
Does it tarnish my idea of the SCA???? NO, hopefully most of us are working towards our ideals and that's what makes it fun and challenging and worthwhile.
Does it tarnish my idea of the peerage???? Well, every once in a while, I meet someone who's a little full of themselves and think "What the heck were the Knights/Pelicans/Laurels thinking that time?" But I love the SCA enough to trust that THEIR "peers" know something about those people that I don't. And anyway, I like to live my life like that--looking for the good in people and trusting that someone else sees it, even when I don't.
As a peer, are you concerned that others don't respect or understand your fellows or the IDEA of the Peerage, maybe? That might just be an individual personality thing--I'm still not sure we'll all playing the same game, sometimes.
I'm really interested in hearing other opinions.
Thanks for listening to mine.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 02:06 am (UTC)I think I am just wise enough to realize that there will be a few "bad apples" no matter what I'm involved in. The trick is to stay away from them and enjoy my involvement in the group(s).
In an ideal world there wouldn't be bad apples. In a slightly-less-ideal world, the bad apples wouldn't encounter newcomers. Sadly, we live in the moderately-less-ideal world. :-(
Well, every once in a while, I meet someone who's a little full of themselves and think "What the heck were the Knights/Pelicans/Laurels thinking that time?"
One possibility, of course, is "it looked like a good idea at the time" -- the person later turned out to be less peerly, or the order misjudged. Not an excuse; just an observation.
As a peer, are you concerned that others don't respect or understand your fellows or the IDEA of the Peerage, maybe?
I'm trying to figure out how concerned I should be about bad behavior from another order member reflecting badly on the whole order. More in a followup post coming soon.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 03:03 am (UTC)Usually they are thinking "Yes, Your Majesties". :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 04:50 am (UTC)I guess that to some extent, I do hold Peers to higher standards of behavior. Part of that is the whole nebulous thing about "Peer-like qualities" that Corpora talks about vaguely, and which pops up in discussions from time to time. And part, I suspect, is that I probably always have figured that non-peers *would* look up to peers and be negatively influenced by their bad behavior.
I'm not sure what the actual extent *is* to which I hold peers to a higher standard. But to that extent (whatever it is), I believe that the peer's behavior reflects on the peerage in general. It does not necessarily reflect on the peer's specific order(s) unless the behavior is related to the field recognized by that peerage order. (Example: a Knight behaves badly in response to comments made on his entry in an A&S competition. This would not, to me reflect badly upon the Chivalry specifically, but it would reflect badly upon peers in general. But if a *Laurel* should exhibit such behavior at an A&S comp, it would reflect badly upon *both* the peerage in general *and* on the Laurelate.)
And yes, my answer *would* vary based on what the peer did (both in nature and in magnitude), and also on the circumstances under which the action(s) took place. (As implied above in my example.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 04:56 am (UTC)I guess what I am saying is that I do not expect much from peers as a whole. I know that everyone who plays this game, peers or not, are human and therefore able to make mistakes and often do. Because of that, because I have seen peers make mistakes and errors of judgement, I don't think more highly of "the whole group" nor any less of them either. But, I will admit that takes some of the "shiny" off the game for me and I bet for others too.
I guess what I am saying is that when I see a peer behaving badly, I sort of shrug my shoulders, sort of a "what-can-you-do/what-do-you-expect" sort of thing. On the other hand, when I see a peer behaving in a Peer-Like-Manner (if there is such a thing,) it literally takes my breathe away. I just wish I had more of those moments.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 11:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 07:18 pm (UTC)-- Dagonell
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:49 pm (UTC)-- Dagonell
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 08:50 pm (UTC)Sorry. If you know Robin Gallowglass, he hosts the list on his site, and he can tell you if there is a history available. If there is, but only to members, let me know. I can go digging....
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 01:37 am (UTC)The archives are at: http://lists.gallowglass.org/pipermail/servicenet/
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 03:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 01:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 02:40 pm (UTC)The SCA bestows three orders of peerage, and these are the highest recognitions you can receive except by being royalty. They generally come after many years of work in the area being recognized (10+ is not unusual). The order of Chivalry (usually = knights) recognizes fighting prowess. The order of the Laurel recognizes achievement in the arts and sciences; usually this means one area in particular, though generalists have received the award. (My Laurel is for music.) The order of the Pelican recognizes service.
While each order has a particular area of focus, they all have things in common too. Candidates for peerage are expected to behave appropriately; sometimes otherwise-viable candidates are rejected because of a perceived lack of "PLQs", or "peer-like qualities". The characteristics you probably think of when hearing the phrase "knightly virtues" are what we're talking about here. A question often asked when evaluating candidates is "would I feel comfortable sending a newcomer to the SCA to this person for guidance?"
(Oh, I should mention that awards are the gift of the royalty (after counsel from the orders); you don't apply for them. The set of candidates under consideration is a secret outside the order.)
Peers are also expected to be well-rounded within the SCA; they shouldn't be people who only fight or only practice one craft or whatever. (So they really should be able to help out arbitrary newcomers instead of saying "oops, not my specialty".)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-14 09:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 03:21 pm (UTC)I would say that someone being a peer colored my opinion/expectations of the person when I was first involved in the SCA. As my time went on in the group, I came to view them as people who had a certain level of expertise or dedication (often both). Honestly, I met enough people who were peers who were badly behaved in some way that I came to view them more as persons who had been around long enough to get good at something or clock many hours of service. So, I gave a small level of respect for the title/order, and a great level of respect to people whose behavior earned it.
Honestly, I encountered several peers whose behavior wasn't too bad, except for a certain level of egotism based on the fact that he/she was a peer. Of course, I may have met some of the wrong people.
(And no, you were not one of the badly behaved peers I met...not even in your "three bad peers" days :-) )
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 04:30 pm (UTC)And then there's the issue of knights as the unofficial police of the SCA; I'm not sure how strong this is in BMDL, but depending on where you are it seems to come and go: if you have problems with someone, grab a knight, and have him(/her(Go Nikki!)) make it right. Some people feel this way strongly. If the Knights grabbed thereby enforce poor behavior, you're in trouble...
Do I look up to peers? A bit. Certainly within the context of the society, though perhaps not as much as I once did. Peerages, from my more involved perspective, are clearly more dependent on social issues and less dependent on behavior or expertise than I had first understood.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 05:21 pm (UTC)Disclaimer: I am not a peer. I am a 20+ year veteran of the SCA. At this point in my life, I strongly prefer to play SCA strictly at the local level. You couldn't pay me to attend a royal progress. I admit to being somewhat bitter and disillusioned.
Very early in my SCA career, I found it necessary to make a mental distinction between "a member of the peerage" (the Crown considers them a role model, give them a bigger benefit of a doubt) and "a peer" (I consider them a role model, the Crown may or may not have noticed) There is far less overlap between the two than I would like in an ideal world.
Do I 'look up to' "a member of the peerage"? No. I've been disillusioned too often. I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt. Do I 'look up to' "a peer"? Yes. That's why they're _in_ my personal category. When I'm in a particular situation, I do consider "What Would 'X' Do?" to guide my responses. Are they human and capable of making a mistake, yes. Are they willing to admit they've made a mistake and offer to correct it, yes, that's part of the distinction.
"If a peer does something bad, is that significantly worse to you than if a non-peer did it?" No. See above for most of it. I would be more hurt if one of the people *I* looked up to did something to me, but if 'a member of the peerage' did something, they would no longer receive 'the benefit of a doubt'.
"To what extent does the behavior of an individual peer reflect on his order or on the peerage in general?" A lot, hence part of my disillusionment. In an ideal world, I'd like to see some active policing of orders within their own ranks. I know of a household that physically dragged one of their own members to a lady whom he had offended and forced him to his knees in front of her. The fact that he had to be forced to apologize speaks little of him, but worlds of his household.
One additional comment. Becoming 'a member of the peerage' changes you. There are three possible responses. "Ohmyghod" and the person thinks they have to prove they're worthy of the honor that was given and they start volunteering to the point they start burning out. "Wellofcourse" and the person starts becoming more pompous than ever. On a private note, I had noticed that this occurred in a particular individual about six months after they had become a peer (the usual timeframe, however I've seen it occur within 48 hours) and somewhat later I overheard this person tell another that 'it took about six months for me to get a handle on what it means to be a peer'. The final version is "Awshucksguys" and no visible changes occur. Unfortunately, this is the least common response.
And this post is sneaking towards becoming the longest entry, so I'm going to end it here without posting further examples.
Hey Dag!
Date: 2005-07-12 07:27 pm (UTC)A big element of this is time. I have a very high demand job. I have a wife and child. But the events of "the BoD Crisis" and the behaviors of folks invovled left a lingering bitterness.
This wanders far from the peerage thing, of course. Briefly, it all depends. I think far more damage is done by peers ignoring the bad behavior of other peers than is done by peers behaving badly. Any group can have a bad apple, it is the willingness of the group as a whole to protect its bad apples that causes serious tarnishment, IMO.
Yaakov
Re: Hey Dag!
Date: 2005-07-12 07:50 pm (UTC)Yeah, same here. I did strive to stay active for several years after the worst of the unpleasantness, but eventually other demands on my time arose. I became religious and found that it posed a difficulty for many events, particularly non-local ones, and I got married (to someone who also did not enthuse "event! now! must go!"). And there's the usual job stuff, and some (gasp!) non-SCA recreational interests. So between that and the fact that some aspects of the SCA have grown a tad hostile, I just haven't given it the time I once did. I still participate locally and of course I go to Pennsic (my big chance to see distant friends), but at my height I was doing SCA stuff about five days a week and that hasn't been true for a long time now.
Re: Hey Dag!
Date: 2005-07-12 08:57 pm (UTC)WHY?
Date: 2005-07-12 11:56 pm (UTC)Because you're more active in the SCA than we are? No.
Have you done something dishonorable we should hate you for?
-- Dagonell
Re: WHY?
Date: 2005-07-13 12:16 am (UTC)I was in none of your three categories. I was in the "too late for it to matter" category. I did notice that it affected other people somewhat.
Re: WHY?
Date: 2005-07-13 01:58 am (UTC)"Too late for it to matter" is a sad state. I see people I know and respect who are in that position and despite letters and comments to the right people, things don't happen. I wish I knew what to do (other than win crown :-) ).
Re: WHY?
Date: 2005-07-13 03:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 02:13 am (UTC)I wonder what peerage orders can do, and what it's appropriate for them to do. The head of a household can kick a member out if he's behaving inappropriately; orders can't do that. Orders, and individual members thereof, can petition the crown for a remedy. Is it appropriate for an order to announce "we condemn such-and-such actions"? What if only 90% of the order agrees; are they still speaking as an order? What if it's 60%? If the order doesn't do it as an order, is there value in individuals doing it? Or is that seen as pompous -- those people think they're good enough to pass judgement on others?
More in a followup post (and I'll be interested in seeing your post when you're ready).
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 02:31 am (UTC)The problem is there's so few penalties that they're reserved for the most heinous offences, banishments of various levels and courts of chivalry. There's almost no hand-slap, go to your room, you will apologize and stop acting like an idiot penalties. That's what we need more of.
Am I correct in understanding that Courts of Chivalry are reserved for the peerage and the only outcomes are stripped of peerage or not guilty?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-13 03:05 am (UTC)Yes. Recently the board made some changes to the grievance procedures to try to address this; it's as yet untested. There is now support for things like "cannot display symbols of rank" rather than "stripped of rank", for instance. I think it still requires the crown of the relevant kingdom to pass sentence, just like in a court of chivalry.
Am I correct in understanding that Courts of Chivalry are reserved for the peerage and the only outcomes are stripped of peerage or not guilty?
Courts of chivalry can be called against anyone so far as I know. Banishment (for a period or for forever) is also a possible outcome. I'm not up on the CoC rules.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-12 05:38 pm (UTC)Not to sound cheesy but there is a sceen in the movie Kingdom of Heaven where a priest asks Orlando Bloom's character if "making a man a knight makes him a better fighter". Orlando answers "yes". I think there is a lot to be said for this type of attitude. Both in the SCA and in general society.
In the end though people will be people. As such you will have good ones and bad ones. Ones who you get along with better then others. As such I think the best thing is to look for those you can get along with and ignore those you can't. Something I am wresting with as far as the SCA as a whole goes.
I hope that answers your question.