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

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

er... not trying to be completely daft, but um... what is a "peer" in an SCA context? I'm gathering it's less a peer in the conventional sense and more a, well, um, an expert in a field? Someone who has attained some distinction in a field?

[cellio]

Yes, rank/distinction. Like knights, but broader.

The SCA bestows three orders of peerage, and these are the highest recognitions you can receive except by being royalty. They generally come after many years of work in the area being recognized (10+ is not unusual). The order of Chivalry (usually = knights) recognizes fighting prowess. The order of the Laurel recognizes achievement in the arts and sciences; usually this means one area in particular, though generalists have received the award. (My Laurel is for music.) The order of the Pelican recognizes service.

While each order has a particular area of focus, they all have things in common too. Candidates for peerage are expected to behave appropriately; sometimes otherwise-viable candidates are rejected because of a perceived lack of "PLQs", or "peer-like qualities". The characteristics you probably think of when hearing the phrase "knightly virtues" are what we're talking about here. A question often asked when evaluating candidates is "would I feel comfortable sending a newcomer to the SCA to this person for guidance?"

(Oh, I should mention that awards are the gift of the royalty (after counsel from the orders); you don't apply for them. The set of candidates under consideration is a secret outside the order.)

Peers are also expected to be well-rounded within the SCA; they shouldn't be people who only fight or only practice one craft or whatever. (So they really should be able to help out arbitrary newcomers instead of saying "oops, not my specialty".)

[jducoeur]

Just a terminological followup, which may help clarify: the SCA term "Peer" in this case is drawn from the sense of "Member of the British House of Lords", not "Someone who is a peer of everyone else around". (The former sense derives from the latter, but winds up meaning something very different...)