SCA: badly-behaving peers
Jul. 11th, 2005 11:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioA 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.
Hey Dag!
Date: 2005-07-12 07:27 pm (UTC)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!
Date: 2005-07-12 07:50 pm (UTC)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!
Date: 2005-07-12 08:57 pm (UTC)WHY?
Date: 2005-07-12 11:56 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 2005-07-13 12:16 am (UTC)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?
Date: 2005-07-13 01:58 am (UTC)"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?
Date: 2005-07-13 03:15 am (UTC)