![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
SCA: badly-behaving peers
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.
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.
no subject
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!
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!
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!
WHY?
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?
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?
"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?
no subject
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
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
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.