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

Letter of Intent

Expand Messages
  • Scribesquire@comcast.net
    Greetings unto all, There has been a question as to what exactly the letter that was delievered to Her Majesty and Her Highness during court was. It was a
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings unto all,
       
         There has been a question as to what exactly the letter that was delievered to Her Majesty and Her Highness during court was.   It was a letter of intent signed by the seneschals of Tree-Girt-Sea, Vanished Woods, Grey Gargoyles, Rokkehealden, and Foxvale stating that those groups would like permission to try and form a shell barony. 
       
        Per the baronial advancement requirements listed on the Middle Kingdom site, that was all we can officially do at this time until given persmission to proceed.  Once given permission the next step is to put together the paperwork which must include a list of accomplishments of the group (events, meetings, pracictices, etc), letters of recommendations, and a few other things that I cannot remember.  A main point is that we must have a name and device that has been passed/accepted.
       
        This last is a point where we need you all to start thinking and give us your input.  Do we want the name Ayreton for a barony?  Of not, what other suggestions do you have?  What about a device? 
       
        We will be having an open meeting at Stone Dog Inn in a few weeks and we urge you to bring you suggestions there.  We will record them all, post them here and see what we can come to a consensus on.  
       
      Thank you all for yoru patience,
      Henry of Exeter
      Seneschal, Rokkehealden 
    • Scribesquire@comcast.net
      Please forgive all my grammatical errors. It is what I get for posting in a hurry while at work. My apologies. Henry ... From: Scribesquire@comcast.net
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 29, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Please forgive all my grammatical errors.  It is what I get for posting in a hurry while at work.
         
        My apologies.
        Henry
         
        -------------- Original message --------------
        From: Scribesquire@...

        Greetings unto all,
         
           There has been a question as to what exactly the letter that was delievered to Her Majesty and Her Highness during court was.   It was a letter of intent signed by the seneschals of Tree-Girt-Sea, Vanished Woods, Grey Gargoyles, Rokkehealden, and Foxvale stating that those groups would like permission to try and form a shell barony. 
         
          Per the baronial advancement requirements listed on the Middle Kingdom site, that was all we can officially do at this time until given persmission to proceed.  Once given permission the next step is to put together the paperwork which must include a list of accomplishments of the group (events, meetings, pracictices, etc), letters of recommendations, and a few other things that I cannot remember.  A main point is that we must have a name and device that has been passed/accepted.
         
          This last is a point where we need you all to start thinking and give us your input.  Do we want the name Ayreton for a barony?  Of not, what other suggestions do you have?  What about a device? 
         
          We will be having an open meeting at Stone Dog Inn in a few weeks and we urge you to bring you suggestions there.  We will record them all, post them here and see what we can come to a consensus on.  
         
        Thank you all for yoru patience,
        Henry of Exeter
        Seneschal, Rokkehealden 

      • auldefarte
        Greetings to all Ayreton, and thank you for that update, Henry. Yet, I think that given the results reported from the individual polls previously collected
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment

          Greetings to all Ayreton, and thank you for that update, Henry.

          Yet, I think that given the results reported from the individual 'polls' previously collected in each of the various communities last fall, that moving forward on heraldry might be a bit premature:

          Group:           YES    NO   Abstain  % Not clearly
                                                  in favor
          Vanished Woods:   6     2      5          53.9%
          Foxvale           8     0      3          27.3%
          Grey Gargoyles    12    4      1          29.5%
          Rokkehealden      14    4      3          33.4%
          Tree Girt Sea     15(c) 3(+3)  1          28.6%
            This vote was tied to the motion to drop
            its Provincial status, so as to become an
            equal canton with the other groups participating.
          (c) = Corrected count
                Per Nadezda, Ayreton list 7/19/07.
          (+3)= Missed poll, but known to be opposed,
                including myself.

          Ravenslake         0    19     0          100.0%
            They will likely proceed with their own efforts
            to become a barony.
          ----------------------------------------------
                Average not clearly in favor: 34.54%

          Note: There are several other individuals whom I know for a fact are not represented in these dissenting figures who have as recently as this weekend, clearly expressed opposition to your committee's proposal (including at least two Royal Peers). Their only misdeed was not being available for or aware of the polls at the particular date and time they were conducted.

          As you can see, these are not trivial numbers, and may well reflect opinions contributed by some individuals who do not reside within the groups where numbers were collected (based upon at least one group's administration methods). And while the Kingdom rules for transition do not seem to address issues of dissent or their bearing on decision making, I cannot believe that the Seneschals of these groups would be willing, in good conscience, to drag a full third or more of the entire populace through this unwillingly, especially on the convenient merits of simple majority polling.

          Therefore I wish to respectfully request the committee hold an Ayreton-wide town hall (ONLY) day function to be held within 30-60 calendar days of your committee's receipt of the Kingdom's permission to proceed. This function should be specifically for the purpose of holding collective and open discussion of all points of view on the subject across all groups, particularly for the benefit of those who may not have had an opportunity to hear any opposing arguments (pro or con), or for unavailable commentors to provide adequate and timely proxy for their statements; not just a partial gathering of strongly interested parties convened at a conveniently located group event which would likely require interested parties to pay to attend.

          Also, having reviewed the once publicly available archives of the Chicago_Barony@yahoogroups.com list, I can certainly appreciate the committee's desire to convene in closed session for purposes of crafting their proposal. However, since the proposal has now been submitted, it seems to me more appropriate for all future (official) business to be conducted in open session, for all prospective citizens to participate.

          In Service,

          Lord Grimkirk ap Greymoor, OPF CCK
          Citizen, Province of Tre-Girt-Sea
          Former Seneschal, Rokkehealdan

          --- Scribesquire@... wrote:

          > Greetings unto all,
          >
          >    There has been a question as to what exactly the
          > letter that was delievered to Her Majesty and Her
          > Highness during court was.   It was a letter of
          > intent signed by the seneschals of Tree-Girt-Sea,
          > Vanished Woods, Grey Gargoyles, Rokkehealden, and
          > Foxvale stating that those groups would like
          > permission to try and form a shell barony. 
          >
          <snipped for brevity>
          >
          > A main point is that we must have
          > a name and device that has been passed/accepted.
          >
          >   This last is a point where we need you all to
          > start thinking and give us your input.  Do we want
          > the name Ayreton for a barony?  Of not, what other
          > suggestions do you have?  What about a device? 
          >
          >   We will be having an open meeting at Stone Dog Inn
          > in a few weeks and we urge you to bring you
          > suggestions there.  We will record them all, post
          > them here and see what we can come to a consensus
          > on. 
          >
          > Thank you all for yoru patience,
          > Henry of Exeter
          > Seneschal, Rokkehealden 

        • Wolfram von Waldersbach
          My only question regarding this data is this... For the voting in creating a Barony, does it have to be simple majority or a super majority? I m not attempting
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            My only question regarding this data is this...
             
            For the voting in creating a Barony, does it have to be simple majority or a super majority?
             
            I'm not attempting to start up anything further about the Barony issue. This issue has been beaten in the ground repeatedly, and it doesn't seem like anyone's opinions regarding the matter have changed since last Spring. I only want to know what type of vote is needed for a Baronial transition.
             

            In Service,


            -Wolfram von Waldersbach
            "Voca me cum benedictis" 
            Archery Marshal of the Shire of the Grey Gargoyles
            Autocrat - Stone Dog Inn V
            "Es gibt zwei Sachen da sollte man besser nicht wissen wie es gemacht wird- Wurst und Politik"- Otto von Bismarck




            To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
            From: auldefarte@...
            Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:01:53 +0000
            Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Letter of Intent

            Greetings to all Ayreton, and thank you for that update, Henry.
            Yet, I think that given the results reported from the individual 'polls' previously collected in each of the various communities last fall, that moving forward on heraldry might be a bit premature:
            Group:           YES    NO   Abstain  % Not clearly
                                                    in favor
            Vanished Woods:   6     2      5          53.9%
            Foxvale           8     0      3          27.3%
            Grey Gargoyles    12    4      1          29.5%
            Rokkehealden      14    4      3          33.4%
            Tree Girt Sea     15(c) 3(+3)  1          28.6%
              This vote was tied to the motion to drop
              its Provincial status, so as to become an
              equal canton with the other groups participating.
            (c) = Corrected count
                  Per Nadezda, Ayreton list 7/19/07.
            (+3)= Missed poll, but known to be opposed,
                  including myself.
            Ravenslake         0    19     0          100.0%
              They will likely proceed with their own efforts
              to become a barony.
            ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------
                  Average not clearly in favor: 34.54%
            Note: There are several other individuals whom I know for a fact are not represented in these dissenting figures who have as recently as this weekend, clearly expressed opposition to your committee's proposal (including at least two Royal Peers). Their only misdeed was not being available for or aware of the polls at the particular date and time they were conducted.
            As you can see, these are not trivial numbers, and may well reflect opinions contributed by some individuals who do not reside within the groups where numbers were collected (based upon at least one group's administration methods). And while the Kingdom rules for transition do not seem to address issues of dissent or their bearing on decision making, I cannot believe that the Seneschals of these groups would be willing, in good conscience, to drag a full third or more of the entire populace through this unwillingly, especially on the convenient merits of simple majority polling.
            Therefore I wish to respectfully request the committee hold an Ayreton-wide town hall (ONLY) day function to be held within 30-60 calendar days of your committee's receipt of the Kingdom's permission to proceed. This function should be specifically for the purpose of holding collective and open discussion of all points of view on the subject across all groups, particularly for the benefit of those who may not have had an opportunity to hear any opposing arguments (pro or con), or for unavailable commentors to provide adequate and timely proxy for their statements; not just a partial gathering of strongly interested parties convened at a conveniently located group event which would likely require interested parties to pay to attend.
            Also, having reviewed the once publicly available archives of the Chicago_Barony@ yahoogroups. com list, I can certainly appreciate the committee's desire to convene in closed session for purposes of crafting their proposal. However, since the proposal has now been submitted, it seems to me more appropriate for all future (official) business to be conducted in open session, for all prospective citizens to participate.
            In Service,
            Lord Grimkirk ap Greymoor, OPF CCK
            Citizen, Province of Tre-Girt-Sea
            Former Seneschal, Rokkehealdan

            --- Scribesquire@ comcast.net wrote:
            > Greetings unto all,
            >
            >    There has been a question as to what exactly the
            > letter that was delievered to Her Majesty and Her
            > Highness during court was.   It was a letter of
            > intent signed by the seneschals of Tree-Girt-Sea,
            > Vanished Woods, Grey Gargoyles, Rokkehealden, and
            > Foxvale stating that those groups would like
            > permission to try and form a shell barony. 
            >
            <snipped for brevity>
            >
            > A main point is that we must have
            > a name and device that has been passed/accepted.
            >
            >   This last is a point where we need you all to
            > start thinking and give us your input.  Do we want
            > the name Ayreton for a barony?  Of not, what other
            > suggestions do you have?  What about a device? 
            >
            >   We will be having an open meeting at Stone Dog Inn
            > in a few weeks and we urge you to bring you
            > suggestions there.  We will record them all, post
            > them here and see what we can come to a consensus
            > on. 
            >
            > Thank you all for yoru patience,
            > Henry of Exeter
            > Seneschal, Rokkehealden 




            Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
          • Christian Fournier
            ... It has to be the will of the Crown. It sounds flip, I realize, but it s important to recognize that the entire polling process is just there to advise the
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 29, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              For the voting in creating a Barony, does it have to be simple majority or a super majority? 

              It has to be the will of the Crown.

              It sounds flip, I realize, but it's important to recognize that the entire polling process is just there to advise the Crown as to the desires of the Populace.  The Crown then makes the decision on how the groups are structured.  So, to address your question, it's impossible to say what degree of majority is needed, since the Crown makes its own judgement.  

              That said, there are several things that are clear from the Baronial Transitions document and from Kingdom Law:  First, the populace doesn't get to see the results of the poll: those are sent to the Kingdom Seneschal and the Crown.  

              Second, from Kingdom Law, "Existing groups shall not be permitted a division or advancement which will foster a schism or factionalization of a political nature in the resident population."  It's my hope and belief that we're currently all able to fundamentally work together in a reasonable fashion, regardless of the structure of the groups.

              Finally, "No Baron/Baroness will be appointed over the substantial objection of the populace."  Note that this is in regards to the selection of the specific people who end up serving as Baron and Baroness.  


              Hope this helps,

               Christian
            • AlexdeSet@aol.com
              Greetings! ???? I suggest that those interested in this information go to the Kingdom Seneschal page and check out the information there made available on
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Greetings!
                     I suggest that those interested in this information go to the Kingdom Seneschal page and check out the information there made available on becoming a Barony. Much good info is to be had at a few clicks of a button. I found it...those who know me will attest that if I can find it, anyone can find it.
                Is mise le meas,
                Alexander


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Christian Fournier <cf@...>
                To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 6:22 pm
                Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Letter of Intent

                For the voting in creating a Barony, does it have to be simple majority or a super majority? 

                It has to be the will of the Crown.

                It sounds flip, I realize, but it's important to recognize that the entire polling process is just there to advise the Crown as to the desires of the Populace.  The Crown then makes the decision on how the groups are structured.  So, to address your question, it's impossible to say what degree of majority is needed, since the Crown makes its own judgement.  

                That said, there are several things that are clear from the Baronial Transitions document and from Kingdom Law:  First, the populace doesn't get to see the results of the poll: those are sent to the Kingdom Seneschal and the Crown.  

                Second, from Kingdom Law, "Existing groups shall not be permitted a division or advancement which will foster a schism or factionalization of a political nature in the resident population."  It's my hope and belief that we're currently all able to fundamentally work together in a reasonable fashion, regardless of the structure of the groups.

                Finally, "No Baron/Baroness will be appointed over the substantial objection of the populace."  Note that this is in regards to the selection of the specific people who end up serving as Baron and Baroness.  


                Hope this helps,

                 Christian

                More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
              • Lanina Ysalgue'
                Hello all, (speaking as an individual, NOT senechal) I wish to address Grimkirk s concerns (with the realization I may end up getting attacked). I understand
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello all,

                  (speaking as an individual, NOT senechal)
                  I wish to address Grimkirk's concerns (with the
                  realization I may end up getting attacked). I
                  understand peoples apprehensions of becoming a barony.
                  This discussion has been open since last spring and
                  the opinions have been listened to time & time again.
                  In terms of being not clearly in favor, when has there
                  ever been that in any voting? How many people choose
                  to abstain from our own governmental voting?
                  (especially when it's your own local town hall
                  meetings that will affect the zonings, businesses, and
                  residencies in your own town?) This situation is no
                  different. I'm not saying that the opinions of those
                  that abstained from voting have no opinion or that
                  their opinion was not listened to, but at the point of
                  putting the issue to a vote, they made the choice to
                  NOT vote. It does not mean they agree, IT DOES NOT
                  MEAN THEY DISAGREE EITHER, so do not take their
                  silence as being against the issue. You have your own
                  opinions, others have theirs, and they shall remain
                  seperate.

                  As for a request to have a non-event related town hall
                  meeting, I (personally: not speaking for others)am
                  willing to entertain the notion. If any suggestions
                  can be made on a time, date & place where ALL AYRETON
                  IS ABLE TO ATTEND AND PAYMENT FOR SPACE IS NOT NEEDED
                  I will be there. With this people will need to
                  consider others work schedules, personal priorities
                  and activities as well as not conflicting with other
                  various activities that people will say have more
                  priority over this town hall meeting that has been
                  requested.

                  (as I return to being woodwork)
                  Isabella De Bolsa

                  ______________________________________________________
                  2c. Re: Letter of Intent
                  Posted by: "auldefarte" auldefarte@...
                  auldefarte
                  Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:02 pm (PST)

                  Group: YES NO Abstain % Not clearly
                  in favor
                  Vanished Woods: 6 2 5 53.9%
                  Foxvale 8 0 3 27.3%
                  Grey Gargoyles 12 4 1 29.5%
                  Rokkehealden 14 4 3 33.4%
                  Tree Girt Sea 15(c) 3(+3) 1 28.6%
                  This vote was tied to the motion to drop
                  its Provincial status, so as to become an
                  equal canton with the other groups participating.
                  (c) = Corrected count
                  Per Nadezda, Ayreton list 7/19/07.
                  (+3)= Missed poll, but known to be opposed,
                  including myself.

                  Ravenslake 0 19 0 100.0%
                  They will likely proceed with their own efforts
                  to become a barony.
                  ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------
                  Average not clearly in favor: 34.54%

                  Therefore I wish to respectfully request the committee
                  hold an
                  Ayreton-wide town hall (ONLY) day function to be held
                  within 30-60
                  calendar days of your committee's receipt of the
                  Kingdom's permission to
                  proceed. This function should be specifically for the
                  purpose of holding
                  collective and open discussion of all points of view
                  on the subject
                  across all groups, particularly for the benefit of
                  those who may not
                  have had an opportunity to hear any opposing arguments
                  (pro or con), or
                  for unavailable commentors to provide adequate and
                  timely proxy for
                  their statements; not just a partial gathering of
                  strongly interested
                  parties convened at a conveniently located group event
                  which would
                  likely require interested parties to pay to attend.



                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                  http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                • David Roland
                  Average not clearly in favor: 34.54% Grimkirk ap Greymoor That would mean that 65.46% of people ARE clearly in favor. That is Nearly 2 to 1 or twice
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    " Average not clearly in favor: 34.54%"
                    Grimkirk ap Greymoor

                    That would mean that 65.46% of people ARE clearly in favor. That is
                    Nearly 2 to 1 or twice as many people CLEARLY IN FAVOR as not
                    clearly in favor.

                    To intimate in any way that this is not a clear majority would be
                    nothing more than pot stirring in my opinion and I wouldn't want to
                    be forced to believe that of you.

                    "Note: There are several other individuals whom I know for a fact
                    are not represented in these dissenting figures who have as recently
                    as this weekend, clearly expressed opposition to your committee's
                    proposal (including at least two Royal Peers). Their only misdeed
                    was not being available for or aware of the polls at the particular
                    date and time they were conducted."
                    Grimkirk ap Greymoor

                    Aaah the argument of "ghost" people. With respect, (and I'm utterly
                    certain that these "ghost" people do exist by the way), the same can
                    be said for those that are in favor. Several of them peers as
                    well. Votes were announced well beforehand, over a several month
                    period, there was no subterfuge or attempts to obfuscate. To say or
                    imply otherwise would be to call the honor of those seneschals and
                    involved individuals into question. I was there, I saw, it was done
                    with clarity and announced well before hand.

                    My rememedy is to pay attention to what your local group is doing
                    and things won't slip by you that you are for or against. It would
                    be the same thing if your favorite store had a sale, advertised it,
                    and then you said, hey they should do it again because they didn't
                    come knock on my door and tell me personally.

                    Because of the well announced votes over a time period any
                    discussion based off of "ghost" people clearly in favor or not
                    clearly in favor is null and void before it begins and so therefor
                    is any argument or discussion based off of it.

                    We as the five groups that on average were nearly 2 to 1 in favor, a
                    clear majority, have tendered our letter of intent to the Crown of
                    the Middle Kingdom. We are onto the next step. At this point we
                    wait for word from the Crown. It will come as a yes or no and
                    things will proceed from there as they may. And it is reasonable
                    and good for people, even those who are clearly in favor, to have
                    some nervousness or apprehension about this process. It is equally
                    reasonable to be forward looking and happy about it as well. I'm
                    sure there is a running of the gambit on this.

                    If people wish to think about a period name other than Ayreton, let
                    them. No harm can come of it and something good may. If we never
                    become a barony and we change our name to something else that people
                    like it, then good!

                    If people wish to think about and design heraldry for the Towne, let
                    them. No harm can come of it and something good may. The Midlands
                    Badge, Bob, is a rallying point and nice symbol but the Midlands has
                    not Baron or Prince over it and it is good to have. And Bob is
                    registered to an individual not the region. If this happens for
                    Ayreton and people like it, then good!

                    Ian The Green, APF, AoA
                    And just to clarify - former and first Ayreton Towne Cryer
                  • John Adams
                    Good morning. I hope your anticipation doesn t include me. I have no intention of - attacking - anyone. I do not believe that I stated those who abstained
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Good morning.

                      I hope your 'anticipation' doesn't include me. I have
                      no intention of - attacking - anyone.

                      I do not believe that I stated those who abstained
                      were against the transition.

                      While your point is well taken, as you pointed out,
                      failing to vote in favor of the topic at hand is still
                      failing to vote against it as well. It is then not
                      incorrect to characterize their silence as 'not
                      clearly in favor of' the subject at hand. Failing to
                      vote FOR or AGAINST it is the same as failing to make
                      clear your preference. Therefore, it is not a
                      mischaracterization. As you comment, perhaps those
                      individuals have simply not been convinced one way or
                      another, but then they have not been moved to clearly
                      choose favorably. That was the only point to be made
                      by the numbers I presented.

                      Understand, this is not a spin of, 'Those who are not
                      for us, must be against us'. It is simply indicating
                      that a significant portion of this community are
                      either against supporting this transition or do not
                      clearly believe that this transition is something they
                      can support. That means (to me) that its advocates,
                      including the officers involved, appear to be more
                      interested in assuring the change than being concerned
                      about the potential for a serious 'schizm' in this
                      locality (as opposed to a minor one if the numbers
                      were less significant) that could be the by product of
                      this process. Was all.

                      -- Grimkirk

                      --- Lanina Ysalgue' <yslagy@...> wrote:
                      > Hello all,
                      > (speaking as an individual, NOT senechal)
                      > I wish to address Grimkirk's concerns (with the
                      > realization I may end up getting attacked).


                      > In terms of being not clearly in favor, when has
                      > there
                      > ever been that in any voting? How many people choose
                      > to abstain from our own governmental voting?
                      > (especially when it's your own local town hall
                      > meetings that will affect the zonings, businesses,
                      > and
                      > residencies in your own town?) This situation is no
                      > different. I'm not saying that the opinions of those
                      > that abstained from voting have no opinion or that
                      > their opinion was not listened to, but at the point
                      > of
                      > putting the issue to a vote, they made the choice to
                      > NOT vote. It does not mean they agree, IT DOES NOT
                      > MEAN THEY DISAGREE EITHER, so do not take their
                      > silence as being against the issue. You have your
                      > own opinions, others have theirs, and they shall
                      > remain seperate.


                      > As for a request to have a non-event related town
                      > hall
                      > meeting, I (personally: not speaking for others)am
                      > willing to entertain the notion. If any suggestions
                      > can be made on a time, date & place where ALL
                      > AYRETON
                      > IS ABLE TO ATTEND AND PAYMENT FOR SPACE IS NOT
                      > NEEDED
                      > I will be there. With this people will need to
                      > consider others work schedules, personal priorities
                      > and activities as well as not conflicting with other
                      > various activities that people will say have more
                      > priority over this town hall meeting that has been
                      > requested.


                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                    • JC Ravage
                      What remedy do you suggest? Any re-vote will have the same problems as the last one, with regard to people not voting. The voting was well-announced and
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What remedy do you suggest? Any re-vote will have the same problems
                        as the last one, with regard to people not voting. The voting was
                        well-announced and proxies were available, so the only reason someone
                        could not have made their vote recorded would be if they weren't
                        paying attention at all until it was too late. Any re-vote that had a
                        fixed deadline could not do better. What assurance do we have that
                        enough people to satisfy you would turn up at the Towne Hall you
                        suggested in your first post, when they didn't vote or send proxies to
                        the voting that already took place?

                        If instead you're asking for the polls to remain open until everyone's
                        said "yea" or "nay," that's effectively asking for us to never do
                        anything about it.



                        William Atherbridge

                        On Jan 30, 2008 9:03 AM, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Good morning.
                        >
                        > I hope your 'anticipation' doesn't include me. I have
                        > no intention of - attacking - anyone.
                        >
                        > I do not believe that I stated those who abstained
                        > were against the transition.
                        >
                        > While your point is well taken, as you pointed out,
                        > failing to vote in favor of the topic at hand is still
                        > failing to vote against it as well. It is then not
                        > incorrect to characterize their silence as 'not
                        > clearly in favor of' the subject at hand. Failing to
                        > vote FOR or AGAINST it is the same as failing to make
                        > clear your preference. Therefore, it is not a
                        > mischaracterization. As you comment, perhaps those
                        > individuals have simply not been convinced one way or
                        > another, but then they have not been moved to clearly
                        > choose favorably. That was the only point to be made
                        > by the numbers I presented.
                        >
                        > Understand, this is not a spin of, 'Those who are not
                        > for us, must be against us'. It is simply indicating
                        > that a significant portion of this community are
                        > either against supporting this transition or do not
                        > clearly believe that this transition is something they
                        > can support. That means (to me) that its advocates,
                        > including the officers involved, appear to be more
                        > interested in assuring the change than being concerned
                        > about the potential for a serious 'schizm' in this
                        > locality (as opposed to a minor one if the numbers
                        > were less significant) that could be the by product of
                        > this process. Was all.
                        >
                        > -- Grimkirk
                        >
                        >
                        > --- Lanina Ysalgue' <yslagy@...> wrote:
                        > > Hello all,
                        > > (speaking as an individual, NOT senechal)
                        > > I wish to address Grimkirk's concerns (with the
                        > > realization I may end up getting attacked).
                        >
                        >
                        > > In terms of being not clearly in favor, when has
                        > > there
                        > > ever been that in any voting? How many people choose
                        > > to abstain from our own governmental voting?
                        > > (especially when it's your own local town hall
                        > > meetings that will affect the zonings, businesses,
                        > > and
                        > > residencies in your own town?) This situation is no
                        > > different. I'm not saying that the opinions of those
                        > > that abstained from voting have no opinion or that
                        > > their opinion was not listened to, but at the point
                        > > of
                        > > putting the issue to a vote, they made the choice to
                        > > NOT vote. It does not mean they agree, IT DOES NOT
                        > > MEAN THEY DISAGREE EITHER, so do not take their
                        > > silence as being against the issue. You have your
                        > > own opinions, others have theirs, and they shall
                        > > remain seperate.
                        >
                        > > As for a request to have a non-event related town
                        > > hall
                        > > meeting, I (personally: not speaking for others)am
                        > > willing to entertain the notion. If any suggestions
                        > > can be made on a time, date & place where ALL
                        > > AYRETON
                        > > IS ABLE TO ATTEND AND PAYMENT FOR SPACE IS NOT
                        > > NEEDED
                        > > I will be there. With this people will need to
                        > > consider others work schedules, personal priorities
                        > > and activities as well as not conflicting with other
                        > > various activities that people will say have more
                        > > priority over this town hall meeting that has been
                        > > requested.
                        >
                        > __________________________________________________________
                        > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                        > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                        >



                        --
                        "Hard it is to lift a full cup without spilling."--Gorice XII
                      • John Adams
                        Good my Lord, you do cut to the chase, don t you. I give you my thanks for it. Everything you say is indeed most true. A re-poll (we don t vote) would be
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Good my Lord, you do cut to the chase, don't you. I
                          give you my thanks for it.

                          Everything you say is indeed most true. A re-poll (we
                          don't vote) would be fraught with the same pitfalls.
                          And is quite unnecessary, as there would seem to be
                          sufficient evidence of dissent within the numbers
                          already collected. The point I make is that given
                          significant dissent (or, in the case of those who
                          choase to abstain, a failure to be convinced of the
                          issue's merits), there is reason for concern that
                          making this move might not be wholly in the best
                          interest of the community in this locality.

                          A community is comprised of more than simply the
                          numbers of its constituents. There is the kinship
                          which one feels for their neighbor. There is the sense
                          of belonging, that you co-exist with others of like
                          mind and spirit. When any segment of that community
                          cares so little for those factors, especially enough
                          to draw a line down the middle of Main Street and say,
                          'We outnumber you and therefore do not care what you
                          think', the 'community' is genuinely emperiled.

                          The 'remedy' you seek from me is not easily manifest.
                          It would require that those who supposedly seek to
                          'facilitate (formal) representation of this area' to
                          actually care about the potential for negative impact
                          upon this group, and not just the prize at the end of
                          the journey.

                          -- Grimkirk

                          --- JC Ravage <ravagio@...> wrote:
                          > What remedy do you suggest? Any re-vote will have
                          > the same problems as the last one, with regard to
                          > people not voting. The voting was well-announced
                          > and proxies were available, so the only reason
                          > someone could not have made their vote recorded
                          > would be if they weren't paying attention at all
                          > until it was too late. Any re-vote that had a
                          > fixed deadline could not do better. What assurance
                          > do we have that enough people to satisfy you would
                          > turn up at the Towne Hall you suggested in your
                          > first post, when they didn't vote or send proxies
                          > to the voting that already took place?
                          >
                          > If instead you're asking for the polls to remain
                          > open until everyone's said "yea" or "nay," that's
                          > effectively asking for us to never do anything
                          > about it.
                          >
                          > William Atherbridge


                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Looking for last minute shopping deals?
                          Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
                        • John Adams
                          Given the length of Ian s missive, I ll answer inline. -- G ... Anything over 50% is a majority . And of course, the farther you get from 50%, the clearer
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Given the length of Ian's missive, I'll answer inline.
                            -- G

                            --- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
                            > Grimkirk ap Greymoor wrote:
                            >> "Average not clearly in favor: 34.54%"
                            >
                            > That would mean that 65.46% of people ARE
                            > clearly in favor. That is Nearly 2 to 1 or
                            > twice as many people CLEARLY IN FAVOR as
                            > not clearly in favor.
                            >
                            > To intimate in any way that this is not a
                            > clear majority would be nothing more than
                            > pot stirring in my opinion and I wouldn't
                            > want to be forced to believe that of you.

                            Anything over 50% is a 'majority'. And of course, the
                            farther you get from 50%, the 'clearer' some things
                            become, especially for the winners. However, if this
                            issue was 'clearly' about it being 2:1 in favor, and
                            nothing else mattered, then you might as well take the
                            remaining third or so out back and shoot them (winners
                            writing history), so that those in favor can go along
                            their merry way with unfettered conscience.

                            Yes, Ian, in a democracy, losers of a vote generally
                            have to live with the will of the 'majority'. But I do
                            not care to think that the members of *this* community
                            are so self-centered as to want to fracture our
                            carefully crafted harmony.

                            You may believe what you wish of me, especially if you
                            are among those who can so easily discard the 1/3rd of
                            the population this proposal's advocates are prepared
                            to leave in the dust, or drag through this mess. I'm
                            pretty sure nobody's got a knife at your throat
                            'forcing' you to think anything you don't wish to
                            think of your own accord.

                            > Grimkirk ap Greymoor also wrote:
                            >> "Note: There are several other individuals whom
                            >> I know for a fact are not represented in these
                            >> dissenting figures who have as recently as this
                            >> weekend, clearly expressed opposition to your
                            >> committee's proposal (including at least two
                            >> Royal Peers). Their only misdeed was not being
                            >> available for or aware of the polls at the
                            >> particular date and time they were conducted."
                            >
                            >
                            > Aaah the argument of "ghost" people. With
                            > respect, (and I'm utterly certain that these
                            > "ghost" people do exist by the way), the same
                            > can be said for those that are in favor. Several
                            > of them peers as well. Votes were announced
                            > well beforehand, over a several month period,
                            > there was no subterfuge or attempts to obfuscate.
                            > To say or imply otherwise would be to call the
                            > honor of those seneschals and involved individuals
                            > into question. I was there, I saw, it was done
                            > with clarity and announced well before hand.

                            I don't recall the words subterfuge or obfuscation
                            ever entering into my dialog. These are your words,
                            Ian, and sadly, they are the words of inflamation and
                            baiting. As I indicated, those who missed the simple
                            poll, simply missed it. A minor transgression, but
                            their voices should still be important to this
                            project's architects, if the goal is to genuinely
                            benefit the community, and is not just a self-serving
                            one. Creating significant conflict isn't usually seen
                            to be beneficial.

                            As for your 'ghosts' (and Peers), their voices deserve
                            to be heard as well. However, it comes as no surprise
                            that they're not here proclaiming their right to be
                            heard, since 'Me Too!' as an echo to a victory which
                            has already been declared seems a poor use of the
                            forum. But they're certainly welcome to.


                            > My rememedy is to pay attention to what your
                            > local group is doing and things won't slip by
                            > you that you are for or against. It would be
                            > the same thing if your favorite store had a sale,
                            > advertised it, and then you said, hey they
                            > should do it again because they didn't come
                            > knock on my door and tell me personally.

                            Ian, I'm glad that worked for you. Nobody is saying,
                            'Hey! Poll us again.' What is being said is that 'If
                            your intentions are indeed noble, then perhaps you
                            should take a second look. Especially since the
                            numbers are so glaring.' If you don't care, go right
                            ahead. Numbers in the 60's are hardly a mandate. If
                            they'd been in the 80's or 90's, I'd probably be
                            grousing in my Guinness, and that'd be the end of it.


                            > Because of the well announced votes over a time
                            > period any discussion based off of "ghost" people
                            > clearly in favor or not clearly in favor is null
                            > and void before it begins and so therefor is any
                            > argument or discussion based off of it.

                            'Null and void' are convenient legalese, and not
                            terribly SCA. Unless, of course, you're in Milpitas
                            these days.

                            The numbers I posted only reflected the opinions of
                            the 3 additional people in one specific group. Even
                            without them, those not clearly in favor would have
                            been 21.0%. The numbers from other groups stand
                            unaltered. If you re-average on that, the percentage
                            not clearly in favor drops only to 33.0 percent, still
                            a 'clear' third of those polled at the time of
                            polling. Are you now claiming those individuals who
                            were present and failed to cast their lot in with you
                            'null and void'? While I am fairly certain you are
                            not, your commentary certainly gives that impression.
                            At the very least, to me.


                            > We as the five groups that on average were
                            > nearly 2 to 1 in favor, a clear majority, have
                            > tendered our letter of intent to the Crown of
                            > the Middle Kingdom. We are onto the next step.
                            > At this point we wait for word from the Crown.
                            > It will come as a yes or no and things will
                            > proceed from there as they may. And it is
                            > reasonable and good for people, even those who
                            > are clearly in favor, to have some nervousness
                            > or apprehension about this process. It is
                            > equally reasonable to be forward looking and
                            > happy about it as well. I'm sure there is a
                            > running of the gambit on this.

                            'We'. Meaning 'us' (you) as opposed to 'them' (the
                            others). Yeah, this is a Barony we can ALL look
                            forward to (including the 2/3 who thought it was a
                            good idea at the time).


                            > If people wish to think about a period name
                            > other than Ayreton, let them. No harm can
                            > come of it and something good may. If we never
                            > become a barony and we change our name to
                            > something else that people like it, then good!
                            >
                            > If people wish to think about and design
                            > heraldry for the Towne, let them. No harm can
                            > come of it and something good may. The Midlands
                            > Badge, Bob, is a rallying point and nice symbol
                            > but the Midlands has not Baron or Prince over
                            > it and it is good to have. And Bob is registered
                            > to an individual not the region. If this
                            > happens for Ayreton and people like it, then
                            > good!

                            True, people may spend their time as they wish. And
                            the heraldic aspects of the SCA are certainly some of
                            the most enjoyable. My original suggestion simply
                            promotes the idea that perhaps it would be better to
                            see to the welfare of the community before putting
                            painting a house in the rain.

                            In Service,

                            -- Grimkirk


                            ____________________________________________________________________________________
                            Be a better friend, newshound, and
                            know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                          • Wolfram von Waldersbach
                            Thanks for the response, Master Christian. I have to dig through more than enough statutory law in the course of my day job, and I really didn t feel like
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks for the response, Master Christian. I have to dig through more
                              than enough statutory law in the course of my day job, and I really
                              didn't feel like having to do it in my fun time too... haha.


                              In Service,


                              -Wolfram von Waldersbach
                              "Voca me cum benedictis"
                              Archery Marshal of the Shire of the Grey Gargoyles
                              Autocrat - Stone Dog Inn V
                              "Es gibt zwei Sachen da sollte man besser nicht wissen wie es gemacht
                              wird- Wurst und Politik"- Otto von Bismarck


                              --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Christian Fournier <cf@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > For the voting in creating a Barony, does it have to be simple
                              > > majority or a super majority?
                              >
                              > It has to be the will of the Crown.
                              >
                              > It sounds flip, I realize, but it's important to recognize that
                              the
                              > entire polling process is just there to advise the Crown as to the
                              > desires of the Populace. The Crown then makes the decision on how
                              > the groups are structured. So, to address your question, it's
                              > impossible to say what degree of majority is needed, since the
                              Crown
                              > makes its own judgement.
                              >
                              > That said, there are several things that are clear from the
                              Baronial
                              > Transitions document and from Kingdom Law: First, the populace
                              > doesn't get to see the results of the poll: those are sent to the
                              > Kingdom Seneschal and the Crown.
                              >
                              > Second, from Kingdom Law, "Existing groups shall not be permitted
                              a
                              > division or advancement which will foster a schism or
                              > factionalization of a political nature in the resident
                              population."
                              > It's my hope and belief that we're currently all able to
                              > fundamentally work together in a reasonable fashion, regardless of
                              > the structure of the groups.
                              >
                              > Finally, "No Baron/Baroness will be appointed over the substantial
                              > objection of the populace." Note that this is in regards to the
                              > selection of the specific people who end up serving as Baron and
                              > Baroness.
                              >
                              >
                              > Hope this helps,
                              >
                              > Christian
                              >
                            • mandy lemke
                              Good day to all! I do not normally post. Especially when it is about things I am truly unknowledgeable about. Thank you to those who have posted answers to the
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 30, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Good day to all! I do not normally post. Especially when it is about things I am truly unknowledgeable about. Thank you to those who have posted answers to the questions that have been raised, such as the majority voting, and such. I greatly appreciate that.
                                With that being said, I would like to say something. I abstained from the vote to become a barony. Not because the idea doesn't sit well with me, or the idea is just so great I can't sit still, but because of my inexperience. I am fairly new to the society. I have been in 6 yrs, however, I play more with my local group due to money issues, school schedule and such. I have been a college student over these last years, working, going to school and have fun in the sca. There fore my time has been limited. I can honestly say, I don't know how baronies truly differ from the way the aryeton group has been playing together. I think it would be wonderful to be able to give newer people awards to say thank you, or even recognize those older members, who are often over looked because people assume what they have. I also think it would be nice to not have to wait more than two reigns before a crown comes to the chicagoland area again.
                                So truly please understand, some have abstained either for or against the barony, not because of thoughts on things, but on inexperience. I have not been here when there wasn't a time when everyone didn't get along, and that groups worked together and truly supported each other, the way they have over the last five or so years. So please take this into consideration for your thoughts, and even for a possible topic at the town hall meeting.
                                Thanks Much and hope everyone stays warm!
                                Francesca del Mar,
                                Mandy from Foxvale
                              • James McAdams
                                Greetings to one and all, I have two questions I would like to offer for consideration. First - one to help describe everyone s expectations. How many people
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jan 31, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Greetings to one and all,

                                  I have two questions I would like to offer for consideration. First
                                  - one to help describe everyone's expectations. How many people should
                                  support forming a barony before it progresses? The assumption so far
                                  has been a simple majority, and much in our lives encourages that as an
                                  obvious response. Lord Grimkirk seems to feel that a higher standard
                                  should be met, in excess of 2/3rds of those responding.
                                  Or perhaps the correct baseline is not those responding, but the
                                  larger population? That is a thorny issue that (to my mind) can only be
                                  resolved in 2 manners - gatherings such as we have had, and a formal
                                  polling of paid membership which will occur if the process continues.

                                  Which leads to my second - rhetorical - question. While those of us
                                  who live locally may have our own biases and blindnesses when it comes
                                  to local affairs, do we trust the officers of the Kingdom to use their
                                  perspective and experience to judge an eventual poll, the process (as
                                  the discussions here will doubtless be available to them), and the rest
                                  of the proposal; and to decline or defer advancement if there is
                                  sufficient cause?

                                  Xavier
                                • Ryan Pierce
                                  On the subject of official polling by the Kingdom.... I know that, should a Barony form, the issue of which people to put in the office of Baron and Baroness
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jan 31, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On the subject of official polling by the Kingdom....

                                    I know that, should a Barony form, the issue of which people to put in the office of Baron and Baroness will be put to the populace of paid members via a poll that is mailed to them.

                                    But will the question of whether or not to form a Barony in the first place be put to an official poll?

                                    In service,
                                    Ryan Mackenzie



                                    Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
                                  • Teleri
                                    The last time I went through this process, which was several years ago and a single group advancement, they were looking for more than a simple majority vote.
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Jan 31, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      The last time I went through this process, which was several years ago and a single group advancement, they were looking for more than a simple majority vote.  They were looking for a consensus among the populace that this was the best thing for the group.  This is a highly subjective measure, and the poll was used as supporting evidence on whether there was a strong consensus.  There were also months of meetings where we debated the pros and cons of the barony, and the final form of the barony (term lengths, baronial awards, etc.).  At that time the process was overseen by a mediator not belonging to the group, who reported the progress of the meetings back to the kingdom level to help them make their decision.
                                       
                                      Again, group advancement and the choice of landed Baron/ess(es) is all at the pleasure of their Majesties, with advice from their Officers, so the final decision, and how they use the poll to make that decision, will always depend on the individuals currently in those positions.
                                       
                                      Teleri

                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                      From: James McAdams <jmcadams@...>
                                      To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 5:32:08 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re:Letter of Intent


                                      Greetings to one and all,

                                      I have two questions I would like to offer for consideration. First
                                      - one to help describe everyone's expectations. How many people should
                                      support forming a barony before it progresses? The assumption so far
                                      has been a simple majority, and much in our lives encourages that as an
                                      obvious response. Lord Grimkirk seems to feel that a higher standard
                                      should be met, in excess of 2/3rds of those responding.
                                      Or perhaps the correct baseline is not those responding, but the
                                      larger population? That is a thorny issue that (to my mind) can only be
                                      resolved in 2 manners - gatherings such as we have had, and a formal
                                      polling of paid membership which will occur if the process continues.

                                      Which leads to my second - rhetorical - question. While those of us
                                      who live locally may have our own biases and blindnesses when it comes
                                      to local affairs, do we trust the officers of the Kingdom to use their
                                      perspective and experience to judge an eventual poll, the process (as
                                      the discussions here will doubtless be available to them), and the rest
                                      of the proposal; and to decline or defer advancement if there is
                                      sufficient cause?

                                      Xavier




                                      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.