[SCA] Pennsic policy games

[cellio]

The big new bit of stupidity -- this time not from the SCA board of directors -- is a new Pennsic rule that minors, meaning people under 18, cannot attend classes without being accompanied by an adult. I guess it's just too dangerous for a 16-year-old to learn Italian dance or a 17-year-old to learn how to spin wool, or something. This is totally bizarre, as there is not a general restriction on teenagers at Pennsic. They can go (unaccompanied) to shop (even to the blacksmiths!), or to shoot archery, or to watch the fighting, or to any private camp they choose. (Kids under 12 are more restricted.)

Sadly predictable is the reaction of many people in the face of the ensuing discussions. The original rule said minors had to be accompanied to classes by a parent or legal guardian, which is totally crazy, and in the face of much protest they "clarified" that they really meant a responsible adult, meaning any adult appointed by the parents, and not something involving legal process. And today, with that change, people are saying "oh, well that's not so bad then" and "that's reasonable" and "we can find people to take our kids to classes, then". It's as if they've forgotten that the fundamental policy itself is broken. They're saying "oh, if you're just going to take an arm rather than costing me an arm and a leg, that's ok then". Hello? And it only took a day! Amazing.

I'm not saying people need to Stand Up And Do Something Now, because I don't know what we can do. Yes, I want to fix it, but I don't know what to do today to do that. (I can think of small, tactical things to do to mitigate the damage, but that's not a solution.) It seems obvious to me that there is something deeper going on, and I'm not dialed into it. But I do know that it's a short step from "well, that's less bad" to "that's ok" (we're seeing this already) to "of course that's reasonable and you're a reckless idiot if you don't agree". We've seen this before from the SCA (mandatory membership, no wait an unjust tax instead, to point to biggest but not sole case) and it's certainly not unique to this organization. Heck, we see it in marketing too; remember New Coke?

Regardless of where it happens, its success depends on people focusing on the here-and-now and not taking the longer view. I guess hill-climbing is a popular algorithm. (For the non-geeks, this means you take an alternate path if it will directly improve on where you are, but you rule out paths that make it worse -- even if those paths then lead to something much better.)

I'm talking here mostly about process and meta-issues. As for the base question of how we treat children (of all ages), the best comment I've seen has been from Cariadoc, who wrote: "I have long held that there are two fundamental views of children: That they are pets who can talk, or that they are small people who do not yet know very much. The wrong one is winning." This non-parent says: yes, that.

Comments

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

I've never heard the hill climbing metaphor... can you say more?

[hrj.livejournal.com]

And, as is all too typical in the SCA, they are explicitly refusing to explain the events that led to the policy, thereby not allowing for a larger brainstorming process to address the underlying issues.

[paquerette.livejournal.com]

I think that is the most infuriating thing of it all. Have they found a new way to boil frogs? First you turn the heat up really really high, and then when they start jumping out, you turn it down a few notches and they all get cozy in their new jacuzzi?

[subdivisions.livejournal.com]

This is a common technique in persuasion. First you make a request that is completely over the top. When the persuadee then says no, you make a slightly more reasonable request. In comparison to the over the top request, the second request seems better than it actually is, and people are thus likely to comply.

It's called the "Door-In-Face" technique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

[sethg]

As a parent, although not a SCAdian, I look forward to my children reaching ages when they can be trusted to do stuff without adult supervision. That’s what raising children is all about.

I am also not keen on the idea that parents, even if not expected to shepherd perfectly competent teenagers to class, bear the onus of finding someone to do that chore. If the kid misbehaves in class, are both the child and the proctor ejected?

[siderea]

I'm not saying people need to Stand Up And Do Something Now, because I don't know what we can do.

Strike.

Stop being complicit in the abusive system.

By participating in Pennsic U, one is saying by one's actions that getting to have one's fun is more important that one's principles.

Start canceling classes now with politely formal letters explaining you can no longer in good conscience endorse or support PennU, and you, collectively, have a chance to repeal it by War.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to agree with everything here. I have been toying with a blog post that outlines the problem with this reaction -- compounded by the 'they are our friends/volunteers/good people so they must have a reason which I will now speculate about' or 'since they are friends/volunterers/good people we should not criticize until we know All The Fact which they control and refuse to communicate -- but real life requires I devote energy elsewhere.

I do disagree about children being "small people who do not yet know very much." At least as far as current theory runs, people's brains do change as they get older, and it isn't just getting more information. The essence of the complaint is correct here, however. There is nothing about a 13 year old that requires treating him or her as a potentially dangerous beast tolerated for the sake of others as opposed to actual people capable of learning.

[galeran.livejournal.com]

Ugh. Is there any information on the rationale behind all of this, or even whether any particular incident is triggering this. Speaking as someone who has taught and taken classes at Pennsic, the A&S area during the day has got to be one of the safest possible parts of the war, and potentially one of the most interesting to the class of teenager that is at the war because they love the Society (as opposed to having been dragged there by their parents). I'd hate to think about a 15 year old not being able to join in a class of interest because the rest of their family had other commitments at that time.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

And pretty soon, everyone is wearing their underwear on the outside. "We need to see your underwear for unspecified reasons, so all outer clothes are to be left home." "What? That's crazy!" "Geez, if our absolutely necessary request is so burdensome for you, how about this..."

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

A) I am happy to have friends in the SCA who are smarter than I am.

B) I'll be attending Pennsic for the first time this year (Sun-Fri of War Week). How do people not camping together generally arrange meetings, as I'd be delighted to see you again? I'll be with the Barony of Carolingia, as my friend with whom I am going is Carolingian, and there are some other kosher-keepers camping there.