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

Re: Hey Dag!

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Y'all must hate me very much. :-)

WHY?

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

Because you're a peer? No. So's Monica, twice over.
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?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

'Cause I'm a Peer, and until recently was quite active.

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?

[cellio]

I'm certainly not mad at you for being active. :-)

"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?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I got a lot of love from friends, and that was nice. But I'd already made up my mind about how I was going to behave. :-)