SCA: badly-behaving peers

[cellio]

A 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.

Comments

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

I would say, notably, one bad Knight can affect an entire group, especially if they're the only knight around. Fighters, perhaps more than the other peerage paths, are hierarchical, and self-taught, and so a twisted authority figure who is, after all, ready, able, and willing to kick your ass if you do something some other way can have a major impact. And misbehavior off the field usually follows onto the field -- or maybe it's vice versa.

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.