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

Re: [Ayreton] Town Meeting recap

Expand Messages
  • spdesroches@att.net
    Greetings Good Gentles For those of you who could not attend yesterday s Town Meeting at Ravenslake s event, I will offer two things, a recap, which will take
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 24, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Greetings Good Gentles

       

      For those of you who could not attend yesterday's Town Meeting at Ravenslake's event, I will offer two things, a recap, which will take place subject by subject over the next few postings, and this:

       

                                                             I Apologize.

       

      I did not realize just how passionately I felt about the big question of creating a barony here that would encompass all the Chicagoland groups. My intention in gathering and tallying your opinions and reporting the results back was initially to assess our group's standing about our progress as a region. What I gathered from all those who were kind enough to respond here and in person was staggering to me and to those with whom I shared only the numerical results (privacy was respected at all times). I came into this job thinking most of you did not wish to create this exciting new possibility, yet the results show otherwise. A little more than half of those who replied stated they were in favor of creating a barony, even though I took care not to specify the type of codification in the final question. My sharing of the numbers with those who attended opened up the discussion publicly for the first time, and in my excitement I went outside my stated intention as a moderator , into a devoted proponent. If I stepped on some toes verbally, then I am sorry.

           I am, however, going to try to continue the discussion by carrying the idea to all of the individual groups' business meetings in the near future.  I hope those who attended, and those who read this will do the same.

       

      Other subjects included were:

           1. The next Ayreton event. Should we have another Carnivale at the same site, or should we offer the site as a Spring Crown Tourney bid, and hold the Carnivale at another location?  Currently the Crown has no viable bid. We need to get cracking on this ASAP.

           2. Ayreton symbols and regalia. Those who attended the meeting saw on the banner the segmented ring. You can also see it on the (fuzzy) photo I posted of my medallion on the Ayreton website. Is this good or shall we try something else? Submit here your ideas and pictures, and in the near post-Pennsic future, we'll vote. There is also the possibility of having an A&S display at the next Carnivale of regalia created with the winning symbol.

           3. Mayoral Selection. In my opinion we should make the process more accountable. Suggestions?

       

      A lot to talk about. As with all subjects on this list, I ask that the comments and suggestions be well-considered and positively stated, without screeds and flame wars. The big question above is one which will not be quickly or off-handedly resolved. I also do not wish to endanger the visible progress we have made by the use of the Ayreton group, or engender any ill will between the groups. All mature discussion is valuable, all mature opinion voiced will be respected.

       

      In Service to the Crown and Ayreton

      THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches

      Lord Mayor

       

       


       

    • Wendy Pastrick
      Tedesco stated: One big issue I keep harping on with this Ayreton thing is we don t force anyone to do anything. I don t want to take away any shire s
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Tedesco stated:
        One big issue I keep harping on with this Ayreton
        thing is we don't force anyone to do anything. I
        don't want to take away any shire's autonomy, money,
        regalia, members, etc. The purpose of this is to
        advance the groups, not take away from them to form
        something else.
        ----------------------------

        Absolutely! I have no idea where this all came about
        with talk of TGS taking over or becoming the seat of
        anything...that for sure is not the feeling of the TGS
        group at large.

        Please keep in mind that just because there are some
        loud voices, that does not mean the majority agrees.

        I'm quite sure that when TGS has it's next meeting, we
        will discuss the options available and determine as a
        group which way we will go. I'm sure it will be a
        mixed bag just as the discussions are here (which are
        still great, btw!)

        One thing I know without a doubt however - TGS does
        not want to be the 'mom' or 'grandfather' or anything
        else as far as a local barony would be concerned. All
        parts equal, that's the ticket! We all have such a
        great time supporting each other and playing our game,
        it would be a loss to have one group appear superior
        over the others.

        In service,
        Jale
      • Scribesquire@comcast.net
        One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and what not). 

          Anything with a particular group becoming a barony/crown province/grand poo bah would have the issue of the other area groups than being beneath that group.   

          Again, it is up to each group to decide if thay want to go the baronial route or not.  My suggestion is that at the July meetings for all the 6 area groups, the topic be brought up and dicussed.  Then at the August meetings, each individual group can vote on it.  The seneschals of each group can then either appoint someone to be the laison from thier group to the mayor for this or the seneschal can do it themselves.

          Henry

        • nadezda_zezastrizl
          The handful of people I ve talked to in TGS do not have any inclination towards a TGS barony of any type, but would support a shell barony--as we discussed at
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            The handful of people I've talked to in TGS do not have any
            inclination towards a TGS barony of any type, but would support a
            shell barony--as we discussed at the town meeting this past Saturday.
            The feeling is that nothing else would be practical in the current
            political climate of the area. As Lord Ryan pointed out, all area
            groups have been working on an equal footing for some time. There is
            no reason to presume to want to change that now. To do so would be to
            the detriment of what we've built up in the Ayreton area the last 5
            years.
            We will discuss it at out upcoming moot in greater detail and with the
            full group, however, to determine our participation due to the impact
            of a potential status change to a canton.
            -Nadezda
          • ayretontownecryer
            Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being at work) From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being
              at work)

              From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf

              Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.

              100 members

              Canditates for great officers are acceptable

              Name and device registered with College of Heralds.

              Concensus favoring advancement

              Record of well attended events.

              Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to foster development
              in the appropriate areas

              Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for Coronet

              A body of principality law.

              IN short we have the raw number of members for supporting a
              Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering patents) but I
              don't know the exact numbers or if they would be sufficient.

              Ian the Green
              Ayreton Towne Cryer
            • twlyon24
              Just as a point of history .... Traditionally, the Middle was only interested in awarding principality status to those regions that were seen as moving toward
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Just as a point of history ....

                Traditionally, the Middle was only interested in awarding
                principality status to those regions that were seen as moving toward
                kingdom: Calontir, Ealdomere, and Northshield. This attitude may have
                changed, but I doubt it.

                There was some discussion of the Midlands becoming principality, but
                it went nowhere because many felt that as the original core of the
                Middle Kingdom, why should it become a principality? Of course there
                are many in Michigan who dispute that Illinois and TGS are the
                original core and founding group of the Midrealm. (It's a friendly
                dispute.) Some hold the view that if either Illinois or Michigan go
                Principality, they would concede away their claim as the core of the
                kingdom. I realize it's goofy, but it's out there.

                Logos
                --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "ayretontownecryer"
                <ayretontownecryer@...> wrote:
                >
                > Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being
                > at work)
                >
                > From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf
                >
                > Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.
                >
                > 100 members
                >
                > Canditates for great officers are acceptable
                >
                > Name and device registered with College of Heralds.
                >
                > Concensus favoring advancement
                >
                > Record of well attended events.
                >
                > Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to foster
                development
                > in the appropriate areas
                >
                > Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for Coronet
                >
                > A body of principality law.
                >
                > IN short we have the raw number of members for supporting a
                > Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering patents) but I
                > don't know the exact numbers or if they would be sufficient.
                >
                > Ian the Green
                > Ayreton Towne Cryer
                >
              • Tedesco da Venezia
                That is what is supposed to happen as per the town meeting that was held at Border Skirmish... ~Tedesco~
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  That is what is supposed to happen as per the town meeting that was held at Border Skirmish...

                  ~Tedesco~


                  On 6/29/07, Scribesquire@... <Scribesquire@...> wrote:

                  One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and what not). 

                  Anything with a particular group becoming a barony/crown province/grand poo bah would have the issue of the other area groups than being beneath that group.   

                  Again, it is up to each group to decide if thay want to go the baronial route or not.  My suggestion is that at the July meetings for all the 6 area groups, the topic be brought up and dicussed.  Then at the August meetings, each individual group can vote on it.  The seneschals of each group can then either appoint someone to be the laison from thier group to the mayor for this or the seneschal can do it themselves.

                  Henry


                • Wendy Pastrick
                  I seem to recall somewhere that previous Crowns had determined there will be no more principalities in the Middle Kingdom, *unless* each state (midlands,
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I seem to recall somewhere that previous Crowns had
                    determined there will be no more principalities in the
                    Middle Kingdom, *unless* each state (midlands,
                    constellation, etc) were to become a principality,
                    thusly making the Middle Kingdom a collection of
                    principalities.

                    I don't remember where I heard that previously, but it
                    was around the time Northshield went Kingdom.

                    Your mileage may vary...

                    Smiles,
                    Jale

                    --- ayretontownecryer <ayretontownecryer@...>
                    wrote:

                    > Principality Requirements (shortened but good
                    > summary due to being
                    > at work)
                    >
                    > From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf
                    >
                    > Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.
                    >
                    > 100 members
                    >
                    > Canditates for great officers are acceptable
                    >
                    > Name and device registered with College of Heralds.
                    >
                    > Concensus favoring advancement
                    >
                    > Record of well attended events.
                    >
                    > Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to
                    > foster development
                    > in the appropriate areas
                    >
                    > Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for
                    > Coronet
                    >
                    > A body of principality law.
                    >
                    > IN short we have the raw number of members for
                    > supporting a
                    > Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering
                    > patents) but I
                    > don't know the exact numbers or if they would be
                    > sufficient.
                    >
                    > Ian the Green
                    > Ayreton Towne Cryer
                    >
                    >
                  • Dougal MacAlister
                    Thanks Ian for the look-up. Saves me some time here at the office. Lord Dougal MacAlister the Tardy Archery Marshal for the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks Ian for the look-up.  Saves me some time here at the office.
                       
                      Lord Dougal MacAlister the Tardy
                      Archery Marshal for the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea
                      Drop-Dead Deputy Midlands Regional Archery Marshal


                      ----- Original Message ----
                      From: ayretontownecryer <ayretontownecryer@...>
                      To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:34:44 PM
                      Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Barony Question

                      Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being
                      at work)

                      From Corpora http://www.sca. org/docs/ govdocs.pdf

                      Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.

                      100 members

                      Canditates for great officers are acceptable

                      Name and device registered with College of Heralds.

                      Concensus favoring advancement

                      Record of well attended events.

                      Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to foster development
                      in the appropriate areas

                      Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for Coronet

                      A body of principality law.

                      IN short we have the raw number of members for supporting a
                      Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering patents) but I
                      don't know the exact numbers or if they would be sufficient.

                      Ian the Green
                      Ayreton Towne Cryer




                      Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
                    • Folo Watkins
                      ... You can talk about the North Woods and the first of Treegirtsea. They re the founders of the Midrealm, on that we all agree. But when you cross that Wabash
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >There was some discussion of the Midlands becoming principality, but
                        >it went nowhere because many felt that as the original core of the
                        >Middle Kingdom, why should it become a principality? Of course there
                        >are many in Michigan who dispute that Illinois and TGS are the
                        >original core and founding group of the Midrealm. (It's a friendly
                        >dispute.) Some hold the view that if either Illinois or Michigan go
                        >Principality, they would concede away their claim as the core of the
                        >kingdom. I realize it's goofy, but it's out there.

                        You can talk about the North Woods and the first of Treegirtsea.
                        They're the founders of the Midrealm, on that we all agree.
                        But when you cross that Wabash River, hoss, that just don't mean a thing.
                        Cuz once you're talkin' Riven, Ole Moonwulf's still the king!

                        Cheers, Folo
                      • twlyon24
                        Great... now I m having post-revel flashbacks. L. ... but ... there ... the ... thing.
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Great... now I'm having post-revel flashbacks.

                          L.
                          --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Folo Watkins <folo@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > >There was some discussion of the Midlands becoming principality,
                          but
                          > >it went nowhere because many felt that as the original core of the
                          > >Middle Kingdom, why should it become a principality? Of course
                          there
                          > >are many in Michigan who dispute that Illinois and TGS are the
                          > >original core and founding group of the Midrealm. (It's a friendly
                          > >dispute.) Some hold the view that if either Illinois or Michigan go
                          > >Principality, they would concede away their claim as the core of
                          the
                          > >kingdom. I realize it's goofy, but it's out there.
                          >
                          > You can talk about the North Woods and the first of Treegirtsea.
                          > They're the founders of the Midrealm, on that we all agree.
                          > But when you cross that Wabash River, hoss, that just don't mean a
                          thing.
                          > Cuz once you're talkin' Riven, Ole Moonwulf's still the king!
                          >
                          > Cheers, Folo
                          >
                        • Scribesquire@comcast.net
                          Exactly. I just reiterated it here for those who did not make the meeting. Henry ... From: Tedesco da Venezia That is what is supposed
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Exactly.  I just reiterated it here for those who did not make the meeting.
                             
                            Henry
                             
                            -------------- Original message --------------
                            From: "Tedesco da Venezia" <tedesco@...>


                            That is what is supposed to happen as per the town meeting that was held at Border Skirmish...

                            ~Tedesco~


                            On 6/29/07, Scribesquire@ comcast.net <Scribesquire@ comcast.net> wrote:

                            One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and what not). 

                            Anything with a particular group becoming a barony/crown province/grand poo bah would have the issue of the other area groups than being beneath that group.   

                            Again, it is up to each group to decide if thay want to go the baronial route or not.  My suggestion is that at the July meetings for all the 6 area groups, the topic be brought up and dicussed.  Then at the August meetings, each individual group can vote on it.  The seneschals of each group can then either appoint someone to be the laison from thier group to the mayor for this or the seneschal can do it themselves.

                            Henry


                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.