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

[indigodove.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, I've been away from the SCA long enough that I'm not sure I still have much of an opinion.

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 :-) )