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

Re: [Ayreton] Re: Letter of Intent

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.