Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1962Shell without Ravenslake (was...)

Expand Messages
  • Christian Fournier
    Feb 1, 2008
      > This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial
      > meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a
      > possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it
      > later if that slight possibility became a reality.
      >
      > Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going
      > to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

      My recollection of those early meetings, before the straw polls
      began, includes a general response that the possibility of one or
      more groups opting out was a real possibility, but that it would not
      necessarily mean that the remaining groups couldn't or oughtn't
      proceed. In fact, the one thing that I recall being seen as a "deal-
      breaker" would be if TGS wasn't in, because TGS shares borders will
      all of the local Shires, and so can form a contiguous land-mass with
      any subset thereof, whereas the "donut barony" wasn't as appealing...
      (It's very possible that I was at different meetings than you were,
      though-- I was mostly attending meetings at Grey Gargoyles, at that
      point).

      At the TGS business meeting, where the "straw poll" happened, I
      recall an unconfirmed report being given, that "Ravenslake is likely
      to pursue a Barony on their own," shortly BEFORE the straw poll took
      place-- so, if I remember that one meeting correctly, then the TGS
      membership voted to proceed, in full knowledge of Ravenslake not
      being party to the shell.

      So, from my perspective, there's nothing to "sweep under the rug"--
      it's just a thing that doesn't seem particularly relevant, to me.
      Knowing now that it's relevant to YOU, however, makes it more
      relevant to me, too-- since I'm primarily concerned that everyone has
      an opportunity to feel that their concerns have been heard, and are
      satisfied that those concerns are addressed.

      > There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the
      > shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates,
      > a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer
      > be the case.

      I don't think that I agree. Being five instead of six is, I think,
      no impediment to unity among those five.

      > The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections
      > between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

      On the contrary, Ravenslake has chosen not to join the other groups;
      they'll by no means be excluded, but have chosen not to share those
      formal connections. I'm not sure I understand why you think that
      five groups cannot unite, without the sixth, nor why you see
      exclusion in any of this-- can you elaborate, or enlighten me to your
      viewpoint?
      >
      > ...You cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups
      > when such structural boundaries are put in place.

      For my part, I certainly don't deny that a Barony with Ravenslake as
      a member will be considerably different than a Barony with Ravenslake
      as a neighbor. I think that either situation is viable.

      > When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards,
      > baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which
      > were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and
      > individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will
      > not.

      And it's right and fitting that each group (and each individual, by
      way of his or her voice within that group) has the choice to
      participate, or not. Ravenslake has *chosen* not to be part of the
      shell Barony. By all accounts I've heard, they've so chosen, in
      order to pursue their own Baronial advancement-- but whether that
      rumor is true or not is beside the point: they got to choose, and
      that's the important thing.

      > I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
      > structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.
      >
      Sorry if you've felt like your concerns were brushed aside-- as I
      said above, I personally hadn't addressed them, because I didn't
      realize that you had such a different perspective on what "we" knew
      going into this process than you did, so I was much less surprised by
      Ravenslake's choice than you were...

      By all means, now that everyone knows that Ravenslake isn't part of
      the advancement proposal, let's talk about HOW that changes what we
      might become, so that everyone can follow their own conscience in
      terms of what's being done, and why, and how.

      Christian
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic