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

[yorkshirelad.livejournal.com]

I am not a peer and to be honest to not respect them any more or less then anyone else. I know we are all human and prone to human faults. I think as far as the SCA goes perhaps peers should be held to a "higher" standard. After all they have been playing the game for a longer time and should have a better understanding about what is expected.

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.