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

Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

Expand Messages
  • Carrot Khan
    Thank you for the posting. I m beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for the posting.

      I'm beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and possible compromise to Tree-Girt-Sea loosing it's historical standing. 

      http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Ostgardr

      If the the hottest point to becoming a Barony is to have a representative of the Crown, then there is an alternative and Tree-Girt-Sea can remain a Province.

      Caroline/Jadiwga
    • Scribesquire@comcast.net
      A unanimous decision was not met because not all seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world again getting in the way of our fun. :) Grimkirk, you
      Message 2 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
         
        A unanimous decision was not met because not all seneschals could be reached.  That pesky real world again getting in the way of our fun.  :)
         
        Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like you were being ignored on purpose.  We value all the opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and  encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and open discussion on the subject.
         
        Henry
         
         

      • David Roland
        I ve been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a few times since it was mentioned. I see no publicly available archives. Please let me know how you are
        Message 3 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I've been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a few times since
          it was mentioned. I see no publicly available archives. Please let
          me know how you are accessing them.

          Ian

          --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
          >
          > Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9 of
          > 44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at] yahoogroups
          > [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
          > Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups website
          > available upon request.
          > <---- Begin Quote ---->
          > DRAFT__________________________________________________________
          > To: Regional Seneschal, the Transition Officer,
          > Kingdom Seneschal
          > Subject: Petition to Transition to Baronial Status
          > Date: January 1, 2008
          > This is to express the intent of the groups known as
          > shires of Grey Gargoyles, Foxvale, Rokkheldon,
          > Vanished Woods and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that
          > we wish to persue becoming a shell barony
          > together.
          > Each group has informally polled their active members
          > to show that there is an interest and a willingness to
          > become cantons under a single baronial group. This
          > includes the group currently known as "the Province of
          > Tree-Girt-Sea " , who as a group feel that this
          > is important for the sake of regional unity, to show
          > that we each participate on a level playing field.
          > We have been playing together in an informal fashion
          > and have under the name 'Ayreton' ** have hosted 2
          > events together and are currently planning a third.
          > Weekly dancing, calligraphy, singing, fighting and
          > heraldry get togethers are held involving all 5
          > groups.
          > Together, we wish to formalize this union, to
          > facilitate representation of the area.
          > We await your permission so that we can persue the
          > next step in this change.
          > Thank you for your attention ,
          > <---- End Quote ---->
          >
          > Prudent spellchecking and the prefixing of 'Foxvale'
          > with "(Incipient Shire of)" notwithstanding, it would
          > seem the committee still took enough time last Monday
          > to contact the Kingdom Transition Officer after my
          > request, and then exchange information with each of
          > Seneschals and Etienne in order to decide to refuse my
          > request.
          >
          > As a working grad student, I certainly appreciate the
          > demands of real life and the like. And still, several
          > (working) members of the committee had at least enough
          > time in the past few days to post other messages to
          > this list, including several yourself on Tuesday, in
          > fact discussing the request for the very document in
          > the first place. Only after a different individual
          > requested to see the very same document, today, was it
          > posted to this list, within an hour of that request. A
          > document that's been in electronic form since
          > November, and transmitted (ostensibly) since January
          > first.
          >
          > Sadly, I must agree with you. From what I can tell, it
          > does seem quite simple, really.
          >
          > -- Grimkirk
          >
          >
          > --- Scribesquire@... wrote:
          >
          > > It is simple really. All along we had planned on
          > > posting it for all to see BUT we had an event on
          > > Saturday where many of us put in time to help out.
          > > Then there is the mundane world that we all live in
          > > and that calls upon our time resources. So today,
          > > Thursday, was the first chance to actually list the
          > > exact wording. Like I said, we were going to do it
          > > all along, we just thought it wasn't a pressing
          > > issue.
          > >
          > > Henry
          > >
          > > -------------- Original message --------------
          > > From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
          > > Henry, et al,
          > >
          > > I find it peculiar that you have now seen fit to
          > > release this text to others (or publicly via this
          > > list) upon the request of another individual, in
          > > contrast to your committee's collective decision to
          > > decline a request directly from me earlier this week
          > > (see below).
          > >
          > > It seems a reasonable person could hardly feel that
          > > your previous ruling was anything but a personal
          > > decision to withhold this information from select
          > > individuals (in this case, me). Yet, based upon the
          > > published text (which is consistant with the text
          > > from your Chicago_Barony Yahoogroups list archives),
          > > I cannot fathom what information contained in it
          > > that might have required such safeguarding. As is
          > > plain, my request was both polite and timely, and I
          > > saw no cause for concern other than my known
          > > opposition. Resultantly, I'm sure you can understand
          > > that same reasonable person being concerned about
          > > any future decisions of a similar nature.
          > >
          > > Was the decision to release this today on the
          > > Ayreton list also the product of a vote of your
          > > committee? If so, then perhaps you could explain on
          > > behalf of your committee what the distinction in the
          > > decision was, or why it wasn handled differently?
          > > And will your committee be making similar
          > > distinctions on requests from individuals in the
          > > future?
          > >
          > >
          > > -- Grimkirk
          > >
          > > cc: MK Transitions Officer
          > >
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message ----
          > > From: scribesquire <Scribesquire@...>
          > > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:55:12 PM
          > > Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter
          > > of intent
          > >
          > > Sorry, I left off a footnote:
          > >
          > > "**Ayreton is a name we feel we can neither
          > > document, nor would
          > > wish to use as a baronial name, but was chosen for
          > > fun, several years
          > > ago, as a play on "the windy city", as all groups
          > > are in the
          > > Chicagoland area."
          > >
          > > And to be completely honest, this footnote is being
          > > questioned as
          > > some research shows it may actual be documentable.
          > > Although whether
          > > it is a name people want is another question
          > > altogether. (and one I
          > > hope people will show up at Stone Dog and discuss).
          > >
          > > Henry
          > >
          > > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups .com, "scribesquire"
          > > <Scribesquire@ ...>
          > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Here it is. I have left off only the names of the
          > > seneschals
          > > > since that woudl just be extra bandwidth.
          > > >
          > > > Everyone can now see the evil intentions of your
          > > seneschals (THAT
          > > > IS A JOKE!!).....
          > > >
          > > > "This is to express the intent of the groups known
          > > as shires of
          > > > Grey Gargoyles, (Incipient Shire of) Foxvale,
          > > Rokkheldon, Vanished Woods
          > > > and the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea, that we wish to
          > > pursue becoming
          > > > a shell barony together.
          > > <snipped for brevity>
          > >
          > > ----- Forwarded Messages ----
          > > From: "spdesroches@..." <spdesroches@...>
          > > To: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
          > > Cc: Chicago_Barony@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:08:41 PM
          > > Subject: Re: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Greetings
          > >
          > > I have spoken to the Transitions Officer as well as
          > > the local Seneschals on your request for a copy of
          > > the letter of intent. Although the T.O. feels there
          > > is no Kingdom law or custom prohibiting such, he
          > > wished that it would be agreed upon by the local
          > > seneschals to do so. Unfortunately a unanimous
          > > assent was not reached. As of this time we will be
          > > unable to provide you with the copy.
          > >
          > > In Service
          > >
          > > THL Etienne le Couteau des Roches
          > > Lord Mayor, Ayreton
          > >
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message ----
          > > From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>
          > > To: Etienne <spdesroches@...>
          > > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:11:56 PM
          > > Subject: 'Greater Ayreton Co-Prosperity Sphere'
          > >
          > > Etienne,
          > >
          > > As a resident potentially subject to the changes
          > > being requested by the committee, I would like to
          > > request a copy of the documents provided to Her
          > > Majesty on behalf of the 'Greater Ayreton
          > > Co-Prosperity Sphere' for review.
          > >
          > > - Grimkirk
          >
          >
          >
          >
          _____________________________________________________________________
          _______________
          > Looking for last minute shopping deals?
          > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
          http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?
          category=shopping
          >
        • David&Peg Cook
          This possibility was explored by the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea many years ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was
          Message 4 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            This possibility was explored by the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea many years ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was also raised as a part of this discussion some months ago. Which is reflective of no more than the circular nature of these discussions.
             
            The "problem" of Tree-Girt-Sea's status (and I realize that people may take issue with my use of that word) is, to my thinking, a long-standing and separate, tho interlinked, issue of whether or not Ayreton should pursue shell barony status. The part of the story of the region that explains why there are six separate groups, instead of one barony and five cantons should, maybe, not be the driving factor in making decisions about what happens "today". I personally think that losing sight of that story is foolish, but that's merely one "ghost person's" opinion.
             
            And while Ian's use of the term "ghost people" may rankle, speaking as one myself, I am forced to admit that Ian is right. IMO--if it matters to people what is happening in the region, then they should make some effort to participate--even if only to get to one local meeting to participate in a poll. If your mundane life or other hobby are taking so much priority for you that you can't manage to do so, then--IMO--let it go. Which is largely why I have been keeping my trap shut about these issues. I don't have the time in my life right now to back up my opinons wth some action. So I am opting to stay out of it. Lobbing opinion-grenades from the sidelines is not useful--IMO.
             
            THL Evzenie Apolena Vitkovic
            (who hopes to be able to do more than lob opinions from the sidelines--someday)
             
             
             
            David&Peg Cook
            "The things that are given, not won, are the things that you want" -- Gomez, "See the World"
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: 2/1/2008 7:57:57 AM
            Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

            Thank you for the posting.

            I'm beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and possible compromise to Tree-Girt-Sea loosing it's historical standing. 

            http://cunnan. sca.org.au/ wiki/Ostgardr

            If the the hottest point to becoming a Barony is to have a representative of the Crown, then there is an alternative and Tree-Girt-Sea can remain a Province.

            Caroline/Jadiwga

          • Carrot Khan
            ... ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was also raised as a part of this discussion some months ago. Which is
            Message 5 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              >This possibility was explored by the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea many years ago and shot down by the BoD. There will be no more Crown Provinces. This topic was also raised as a part of this discussion some months ago. Which is reflective of no more than the circular nature of these discussions.

              That's too bad, as it seemed a plausible compromise.  The Board will only accept a proposal for Shell and nothing else?

              Caroline/Jadwiga



               
              The "problem" of Tree-Girt-Sea's status (and I realize that people may take issue with my use of that word) is, to my thinking, a long-standing and separate, tho interlinked, issue of whether or not Ayreton should pursue shell barony status. The part of the story of the region that explains why there are six separate groups, instead of one barony and five cantons should, maybe, not be the driving factor in making decisions about what happens "today". I personally think that losing sight of that story is foolish, but that's merely one "ghost person's" opinion.
               
              And while Ian's use of the term "ghost people" may rankle, speaking as one myself, I am forced to admit that Ian is right. IMO--if it matters to people what is happening in the region, then they should make some effort to participate--even if only to get to one local meeting to participate in a poll. If your mundane life or other hobby are taking so much priority for you that you can't manage to do so, then--IMO--let it go. Which is largely why I have been keeping my trap shut about these issues. I don't have the time in my life right now to back up my opinons wth some action. So I am opting to stay out of it. Lobbing opinion-grenades from the sidelines is not useful--IMO.
               
              THL Evzenie Apolena Vitkovic
              (who hopes to be able to do more than lob opinions from the sidelines--someday)
               
               
               
              David&Peg Cook
              "The things that are given, not won, are the things that you want" -- Gomez, "See the World"
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: 2/1/2008 7:57:57 AM
              Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Actual wording of the letter of intent

              Thank you for the posting.

              I'm beginning to have a better understanding of some of the conflict going on and only today I discovered a Society precedent and possible compromise to Tree-Girt-Sea loosing it's historical standing. 

              http://cunnan.sca.org.au/wiki/Ostgardr

              If the the hottest point to becoming a Barony is to have a representative of the Crown, then there is an alternative and Tree-Girt-Sea can remain a Province.

              Caroline/Jadiwga


            • John Adams
              You will note, that I ve indicated that they are no longer publicly accessible . The screen shot captured into PDF indicates that at the time they were
              Message 6 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                You will note, that I've indicated that they are 'no
                longer publicly accessible'. The screen shot captured
                into PDF indicates that at the time they were viewed,
                the archives were indeed public, indicating that I was
                the reader logged into Yahoo, and that only some
                portions of that list were restricted to members only,
                the messages not been designated so.

                I will be happy to provide document that if you wish.

                -- Grimkirk

                --- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:

                > I've been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a
                > few times since it was mentioned. I see no
                > publicly available archives. Please let me know
                > how you are accessing them.
                >
                > Ian
                >
                > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams
                > <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9
                > of
                > > 44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at]
                > yahoogroups
                > > [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
                > > Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups
                > website
                > > available upon request.
                > > <---- Begin Quote ---->
                > >
                <snipped for brevity>


                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
              • Christian Fournier
                ... You ll pardon me if the following sounds kind of... fussy. I m trying to be as objective and informational as possible, without editorializing my own
                Message 7 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  That's too bad, as it seemed a plausible compromise.  The Board will only accept a proposal for Shell and nothing else?

                  You'll pardon me if the following sounds kind of...  fussy.  I'm trying to be as objective and informational as possible, without editorializing my own opinion into this answer.  

                  Corpora currently defines a Province as "equivalent of barony without ceremonial representative".
                  So by definition, they won't allow an existing Province to create a ceremonial representative.  Ostgardr keeps its existing system, including the Viceroy as "ceremonial representative", because it's "grandfathered" in-- that is, it wasn't required to change its own structure or status, when the definitions were changed.

                  That said, there are all sorts of other proposals that the Board would consider, including a transition from Province directly to Barony for TGS alone, or transition from Province to Barony of TGS with other groups under it, or the incorporation of TGS into a shell Barony as an equal partner (Canton) with other groups.

                  The particular proposal that's being considered, by TGS, at this time is the last of these.  From my personal recollection of the meeting where that decision was made, the officers and population of TGS present at that time generally agreed that our interest was not in having a ceremonial representative, so much as it was having formal bonds with any of our neighboring groups who chose to be so bound to us.  As such, it was generally conceded that a proposal that made TGS an equal partner with our neighbors would be the most fair and just option.  

                  Hope this helps-- 

                   Christian
                • David Roland
                  Thank you but no, what was posted was sufficient, I was merely curious. Ian ... _____________________________________________________________________
                  Message 8 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thank you but no, what was posted was sufficient, I was merely
                    curious.

                    Ian

                    --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams <auldefarte@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > You will note, that I've indicated that they are 'no
                    > longer publicly accessible'. The screen shot captured
                    > into PDF indicates that at the time they were viewed,
                    > the archives were indeed public, indicating that I was
                    > the reader logged into Yahoo, and that only some
                    > portions of that list were restricted to members only,
                    > the messages not been designated so.
                    >
                    > I will be happy to provide document that if you wish.
                    >
                    > -- Grimkirk
                    >
                    > --- David Roland <mystborne@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > I've been to the Chicago_Barony Yahoo! Group site a
                    > > few times since it was mentioned. I see no
                    > > publicly available archives. Please let me know
                    > > how you are accessing them.
                    > >
                    > > Ian
                    > >
                    > > --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, John Adams
                    > > <auldefarte@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Excerpt QUOTED from publicly available message #9
                    > > of
                    > > > 44 from mailing list 'Chicago_Barony [at]
                    > > yahoogroups
                    > > > [dot] com' dated 11/26/07.
                    > > > Timestamped PDF Screen Shot from Yahoogroups
                    > > website
                    > > > available upon request.
                    > > > <---- Begin Quote ---->
                    > > >
                    > <snipped for brevity>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    _____________________________________________________________________
                    _______________
                    > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                    > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                    >
                  • John Adams
                    Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your response
                    Message 9 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I
                      appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands
                      can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your
                      response is, I think many would have to admit that
                      there are too many detailed circumstances present for
                      anyone to believe that you really can't see the point
                      being made here.

                      Having received a response of any kind, one could
                      hardly interpret that as being ignored, in any way. I
                      think some, maybe many, would agree that inaction or
                      deferment, or even plain silence, would more
                      accurately represent having been ignored. Yet, the
                      response to the original request was none of those
                      things.

                      Let us suppose for a moment what things might give
                      someone pause:

                      A voluntary inquiry to the Kingdom when none really
                      seemed needed to honor the request (your committee is
                      the author and controlling agent of the document(s),
                      and acts of its own accord);

                      Followed by perhaps what might be construed by some as
                      a resounding 'no', authorized by someone on the
                      committee, since Etienne is not one of the Seneschals;

                      Then followed by three days of what, under some
                      conditions could be construed as no follow up (yet you
                      managed to take time to discuss the subject on the
                      list). Even if your stragglers weren't reached
                      immediately, surely a quick and dirty 'yes or no'
                      could have been completed in the ensuing time frame.

                      Further add the coincidence of a request from someone
                      who was not an open opponent being honored within the
                      span of an hour.

                      All this, wrapped up with a claim that there wasn't
                      time to post the text of a document that's been in
                      electronic format since November and anticipated to be
                      in the wild effective 1/1/08 at that time.

                      The response from Etienne as crafted, seemed to make
                      clear that the decision of the committee (in its
                      entirety) was simply unfavorable. There was really
                      nothing to indicate that any follow up or revision of
                      the response was pending, or to be expected. Even if
                      complete unanimity were somehow manditory, a response
                      could have been delayed briefly, or a more clear
                      response provided (on the order of "Gee, we'd like to
                      accomodate you but we require a unanimous decision and
                      we can't reach everyone just yet. We'll get back to
                      you in X timeframe"). But that wasn't the case.

                      In the end, this isn't about me, but the apparent
                      distinction between those who support the transition
                      to Barony and those who don't or can't and how they're
                      being viewed, considered and dealt with by the
                      'committee'. Perhaps no response would have been
                      better than what ultimately appears, on more than just
                      the surface, to be a disingenuous one.

                      Regretfully,

                      -- Grimkirk

                      --- Scribesquire@... wrote:
                      > A unanimous decision was not met because not all
                      > seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world
                      > again getting in the way of our fun. :)
                      >
                      > Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like
                      > you were being ignored on purpose. We value all the
                      > opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and
                      > encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and
                      > open discussion on the subject.
                      >
                      > Henry


                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                    • Scribesquire@comcast.net
                      We have apologized, we have exlained what happened, and we will strive to not make the same mistakes in the future. There were no devious, evil intentions
                      Message 10 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        We have apologized, we have exlained what happened, and we will strive to not make the same mistakes in the future.  There were no devious, evil intentions behind it.  I hope that resolves the issue for everyone and we can move on.
                         
                        This entire process is new and there will be obvious pitfalls along the way.  None of us are perfect which is why we conntinue to ask for everyone's input. Again we urge you to go to Stone Dog Inn and join us in the ongoing discussions.  The seneschals will be working on coming up with a meeting agenda and will post it here prior to the event.
                         
                        thanks for everyone's patience and understanding
                        Henry
                         
                        -------------- Original message --------------
                        From: John Adams <auldefarte@...>

                        Henry, you are a well-respected leader, and I
                        appreciate your candor. And yes, real world demands
                        can be tedious, to be sure. Yet, as genial as your
                        response is, I think many would have to admit that
                        there are too many detailed circumstances present for
                        anyone to believe that you really can't see the point
                        being made here.

                        Having received a response of any kind, one could
                        hardly interpret that as being ignored, in any way. I
                        think some, maybe many, would agree that inaction or
                        deferment, or even plain silence, would more
                        accurately represent having been ignored. Yet, the
                        response to the original request was none of those
                        things.

                        Let us suppose for a moment what things might give
                        someone pause:

                        A voluntary inquiry to the Kingdom when none really
                        seemed needed to honor the request (your committee is
                        the author and controlling agent of the document(s),
                        and acts of its own accord);

                        Followed by perhaps what might be construed by some as
                        a resounding 'no', authorized by someone on the
                        committee, since Etienne is not one of the Seneschals;

                        Then followed by three days of what, under some
                        conditions could be construed as no follow up (yet you
                        managed to take time to discuss the subject on the
                        list). Even if your stragglers weren't reached
                        immediately, surely a quick and dirty 'yes or no'
                        could have been completed in the ensuing time frame.

                        Further add the coincidence of a request from someone
                        who was not an open opponent being honored within the
                        span of an hour.

                        All this, wrapped up with a claim that there wasn't
                        time to post the text of a document that's been in
                        electronic format since November and anticipated to be
                        in the wild effective 1/1/08 at that time.

                        The response from Etienne as crafted, seemed to make
                        clear that the decision of the committee (in its
                        entirety) was simply unfavorable. There was really
                        nothin g to indicate that any follow up or revision of
                        the response was pending, or to be expected. Even if
                        complete unanimity were somehow manditory, a response
                        could have been delayed briefly, or a more clear
                        response provided (on the order of "Gee, we'd like to
                        accomodate you but we require a unanimous decision and
                        we can't reach everyone just yet. We'll get back to
                        you in X timeframe"). But that wasn't the case.

                        In the end, this isn't about me, but the apparent
                        distinction between those who support the transition
                        to Barony and those who don't or can't and how they're
                        being viewed, considered and dealt with by the
                        'committee'. Perhaps no response would have been
                        better than what ultimately appears, on more than just
                        the surface, to be a disingenuous one.

                        Regretfully,

                        -- Grimkirk

                        --- Scribesquire@ comcast.net wrote:
                        > A unanimous decision was not met because not a ll
                        > seneschals could be reached. That pesky real world
                        > again getting in the way of our fun. :)
                        >
                        > Grimkirk, you have our apologies if it seemed like
                        > you were being ignored on purpose. We value all the
                        > opinions of the residents of the Ayreton area and
                        > encrouage everyone to continue the civilized and
                        > open discussion on the subject.
                        >
                        > Henry

                        ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                        Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                        http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs

                      • Teleri
                        Ian said I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has left the fold nor do I think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on their own in
                        Message 11 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ian said>>

                          I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                          think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                          their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                          into forming a shell barony together.

                          ***

                          The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

                          This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

                          Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                          I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

                          Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

                          I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                          Teleri


                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                          http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                        • Christian Fournier
                          ... My recollection of those early meetings, before the straw polls began, includes a general response that the possibility of one or more groups opting out
                          Message 12 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial
                            > meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a
                            > possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it
                            > later if that slight possibility became a reality.
                            >
                            > Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going
                            > to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                            Christian
                          • marie_la_f
                            BIG FURRY GLOWING SAFETY-ORANGE DISCLAIMER: I am speaking here solely for myself, a person who plays in Ravenslake, and not as an officer or representative of
                            Message 13 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              BIG FURRY GLOWING SAFETY-ORANGE DISCLAIMER: I am speaking here solely
                              for myself, a person who plays in Ravenslake, and not as an officer
                              or representative of The Shire of Ravenslake.

                              That said...

                              --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...> wrote:

                              > <snip> It will have a major affect on the regional structure of
                              this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members. <

                              Mrrr, no. (Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your use of the
                              term, which is entirely possible!) The "region" is a purely
                              administrative device to facilitate report collection. Whether a
                              group is an independent Shire, an independent Barony, or a part of a
                              collective such as a shell barony, does not affect the regional
                              structure.

                              Ravenslake isn't packing its bags and moving to Constellation or
                              Northshield or Lochac. It's staying right here in the Midlands where
                              it belongs.

                              > <snip> I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in
                              the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the
                              initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional
                              disadvantages. <

                              What are the disadvantages of 5 instead of 6? I ask this sincerely, I
                              would like to know what problems you're seeing. Would you kindly
                              elaborate?

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

                              That would indeed be the case if a group were being excluded against
                              their will. As commented in a previous post, the Ravenslake poll was
                              0 in favor and 19 against joining the shell barony. That sounds like
                              a choice from within, not an exclusion by the rest.

                              > Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a
                              certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield,
                              now that it has become it's own kingdom. <

                              Indeedy. I don't think you'll see fewer Ravenslakers at Ayreton
                              events, nor will Ayreton folk be "un-invited" to Ravenslake doings,
                              regardless of the size or name or structure of our groups. We'd miss
                              out on too much fun!

                              > However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between
                              groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it
                              comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial
                              championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were
                              proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and
                              individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will
                              not. <

                              Absolutely true. That's part of the choices you make when you decide
                              whether to participate in a barony.

                              > I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
                              structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside. <

                              I'm sorry you feel these concerns are (or were) being brushed aside.
                              I've felt that the entire process has been quite open so far. But I
                              also appreciate your bringing up your questions--I hope we can come
                              to a friendly understanding and resolution on all of them.

                              Marie la Fauconniere
                              just some Lady who plays in Ravenslake
                            • AlexdeSet@aol.com
                              Greetings! ???? Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony,
                              Message 14 of 28 , Feb 2, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Greetings!
                                     Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                     In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.
                                     While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                Is mise le meas,
                                Alexander de Seton,
                                Some Guy From Ravenslake


                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...>
                                To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                Ian said>>

                                I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                                think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                                their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                                into forming a shell barony together.

                                ***

                                The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

                                This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

                                Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

                                Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

                                I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                                Teleri

                                ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs

                                More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
                              • Valerie
                                Even though I no longer live in the area I must say I for one look forward with excitement to the prospect of the Ayreton Barony and I really look forward with
                                Message 15 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Even though I no longer live in the area I must say I for one look
                                  forward with excitement to the prospect of the Ayreton Barony and I
                                  really look forward with hope that Ravenslake will become one as well.
                                  Having spoken to a number of folk from Ravenslake before I left the
                                  area about the barony issue I'd know of their decision to go a
                                  different path 7 months ago and some of the reason's sited to me at
                                  the time was in part the distance Ravenslake was from everyone else.
                                  Some of the other reasons was a desire to form their own barony. This
                                  led to the discussion of what if there was TWO baronies in the
                                  area.....Ahh the schitck to be had with border skirmish between the
                                  groups and friendly rivaleries. It opens up room for even greater
                                  banter and lets face it it's not like they wont still help out with
                                  events and the like. Imagine events potentially being hosted by two
                                  baronies. Quite Impressive really and opens the door for many fun
                                  interactions between the groups while still giving Chicago it's more
                                  cohesive feel.

                                  I look forward to the day when I may attend event in the barony of
                                  Ayreton.

                                  Moira O'Dorran
                                  Formerly of Ayreton.

                                  --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, AlexdeSet@... wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Greetings!
                                  >
                                  > ???? Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when
                                  the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a
                                  Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we
                                  decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                  >
                                  > ???? In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are
                                  baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a
                                  bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will
                                  also be a good thing.
                                  >
                                  > ???? While I think it is good that others are concerned that
                                  Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still
                                  here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a
                                  slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and
                                  Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                  >
                                  > Is mise le meas,
                                  >
                                  > Alexander de Seton,
                                  >
                                  > Some Guy From Ravenslake
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Teleri
                                  The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue. My concern is the affect
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue.  My concern is the affect that has on the logic of forming a shell barony out of the remaining five groups in the local area.

                                     

                                    Maybe my perspective is different because I have been happily thinking of myself as a citizen of Ayreton (meaning all 6 groups in the greater Chicago area) for the last several years.  With the efforts spent by so many people to promote the unity between groups, it has been wonderful to be able to participate in the activities and events of all groups, without worrying about what geographic location it is in, or which group it "belongs" to.

                                     

                                    I was not especially in favor of the Ayreton entity of all six groups advancing to barony status, but I at least understood the logic of the folks proposing it.  It would have maintained the unity of the area that we had all been working toward.  The newly proposed shell consisting of only part of the greater Chicago area groups has no such obvious logic to it.

                                     

                                    During the initial advancement discussions, many argued against individual groups advancing in status because of the barriers to unity that such structures could impose.  The newly proposed area-wide organization will have to deal with these issues of division.  I am now looking at the prospect of ending up quite close to the boundary of the Barony of Five and the Whatever of Ravenslake, which is quite unappealing.  While, of course, no wall will go up, and we won't stop talking to each other, my experience with the Midrealm is that people take Baronial boundaries much more seriously.  During the polling process, I already had people question my right to express an opinion outside my geographic zip code.  While the majority of people in the area did not support that type of exclusion, such attitudes only become stronger under a baronial organization structure.

                                     

                                    Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer considered important?  My experience with the advancement process is that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there is little to spare for other matters for a long time.  If we want to maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony and Ravenslake?  Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the purview of just the Shell Barony?  Will we now need a new separate email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five groups without Ravenslake?  How does it make sense to try and form this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion of the entire set of six groups?

                                     

                                    Yours in Service,

                                    Teleri



                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                    From: "AlexdeSet@..." <AlexdeSet@...>
                                    To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:00:18 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                    Greetings!
                                         Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                         In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.
                                         While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                    Is mise le meas,
                                    Alexander de Seton,
                                    Some Guy From Ravenslake


                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                                    To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                                    Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                    Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                    Ian said>>

                                    I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                                    think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                                    their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                                    into forming a shell barony together.

                                    ***

                                    The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members.

                                    This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality.

                                    Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                    I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups.

                                    Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not.

                                    I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                                    Teleri

                                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                    Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                    http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs
                                    More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!



                                    Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
                                  • Christian Fournier
                                    Thank you, Teleri, for clarifying your feelings. You raise some excellent questions, and I wouldn t want to belittle them by immediately countering them in
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thank you, Teleri, for clarifying your feelings.  You raise some excellent questions, and I wouldn't want to belittle them by immediately "countering" them in turn.  

                                      Rather, for my part, I'll plan to consider the questions you raise, and see what difference they make in my thoughts about the Baronial issue.  I encourage others to do the same-- give some real thought to the questions below, and let's take them up as we continue discussions at the next Towne Hall.  Some of these questions are interwoven tightly, with each other and with the already open questions of what happens to the Ayreton infrastructure we already have in place.

                                      Thanks again, Teleri and all,

                                       Christian

                                      Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer considered important?  My experience with the advancement process is that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there is little to spare for other matters for a long time.  If we want to maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony and Ravenslake?  Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the purview of just the Shell Barony?  Will we now need a new separate email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five groups without Ravenslake?  How does it make sense to try and form this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion of the entire set of six groups?

                                       

                                      Yours in Service,

                                      Teleri



                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                      From: "AlexdeSet@..." <AlexdeSet@...>
                                      To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:00:18 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent


                                      Greetings!
                                           Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                           In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will also be a good thing.
                                           While I think it is good that others are concerned that Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                      Is mise le meas,
                                      Alexander de Seton,
                                      Some Guy From Ravenslake


                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                                      To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                                      Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                      Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

                                      Ian said>>

                                      I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I 
                                      think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on 
                                      their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look 
                                      into forming a shell barony together. 

                                      ***

                                      The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact all 6 local groups and their members. 

                                      This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it later if that slight possibility became a reality. 

                                      Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?

                                      I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and exclude other groups. 

                                      Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield, now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that it changes the relationships between groups when such structural boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to participate and some will not. 

                                      I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.

                                      Teleri

                                      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. 
                                      http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs
                                      More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!



                                      Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 

                                    • Galen of Bristol
                                      Having been at the Ravenslake meeting at which it was agreed that we would not join the Ayreton shell barony, I would just like to point out, in case it hasn t
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Feb 4, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Having been at the Ravenslake meeting at which it was agreed that we
                                        would not join the Ayreton shell barony, I would just like to point
                                        out, in case it hasn't been made clear, that Ravenslake never intended
                                        to make or imply any statement of opposition to the remaining Ayreton
                                        groups forming a barony.

                                        We have no wish to veto, prevent, impede, undermine or discourage the
                                        advancement of the other five groups.

                                        Sometimes, growth doesn't happen quite the way you might want or
                                        expect. That's just life.

                                        - Galen of Bristol
                                        another guy in Ravenslake

                                        --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Teleri <alta_gioiosa@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > The fact that the people Ravenslake chose to remain independent of
                                        their own will, and have every right to do so is not at issue. My
                                        concern is the affect that has on the logic of forming a shell barony
                                        out of the remaining five groups in the local area.
                                        >
                                        > Maybe my perspective is different because I have been happily
                                        thinking of myself as a citizen of Ayreton (meaning all 6 groups in
                                        the greater Chicago area) for the last several years. With the
                                        efforts spent by so many people to promote the unity between groups,
                                        it has been wonderful to be able to participate in the activities and
                                        events of all groups, without worrying about what geographic location
                                        it is in, or which group it "belongs" to.
                                        >
                                        > I was not especially in favor of the Ayreton entity of all six
                                        groups advancing to barony status, but I at least understood the logic
                                        of the folks proposing it. It would have maintained the unity of the
                                        area that we had all been working toward. The newly proposed shell
                                        consisting of only part of the greater Chicago area groups has no such
                                        obvious logic to it.
                                        >
                                        > During the initial advancement discussions, many argued against
                                        individual groups advancing in status because of the barriers to unity
                                        that such structures could impose. The newly proposed area-wide
                                        organization will have to deal with these issues of division. I am
                                        now looking at the prospect of ending up quite close to the boundary
                                        of the Barony of Five and the Whatever of Ravenslake, which is quite
                                        unappealing. While, of course, no wall will go up, and we won't stop
                                        talking to each other, my experience with the Midrealm is that people
                                        take Baronial boundaries much more seriously. During the polling
                                        process, I already had people question my right to express an opinion
                                        outside my geographic zip code. While the majority of people in the
                                        area did not support that type of exclusion, such attitudes only
                                        become stronger under a baronial organization structure.
                                        >
                                        > Regardless of what happens to the name Ayreton, how do we plan to
                                        maintain the unity of the greater Chicago entity, or is that no longer
                                        considered important? My experience with the advancement process is
                                        that takes so much effort and resources from the group involved, there
                                        is little to spare for other matters for a long time. If we want to
                                        maintain the larger area cohesion, will we now need a Governor instead
                                        of a Mayor to represent the larger entity comprising the Shell Barony
                                        and Ravenslake? Are things like this mailing list and the Carnival
                                        event going to continue to represent the larger group or become the
                                        purview of just the Shell Barony? Will we now need a new separate
                                        email list and new baronial events to promote the unity of the five
                                        groups without Ravenslake? How does it make sense to try and form
                                        this shell of five, if we have been stressing for so long the cohesion
                                        of the entire set of six groups?
                                        >
                                        > Yours in Service,
                                        > Teleri
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ----- Original Message ----
                                        > From: "AlexdeSet@..." <AlexdeSet@...>
                                        > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                                        > Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:00:18 AM
                                        > Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent
                                        >
                                        > Greetings!
                                        > Speaking as a member of the Shire of Ravenslake, present when
                                        the voting took place, I will say the Shire is excited about having a
                                        Barony, shell or otherwise, as a neighbor. We were not excluded, we
                                        decided ourselves to opt out and choose another path.
                                        > In the Land of Milk and Honey (tm), Fair Caid, there are
                                        baronies everywhere, many adjacent to each other. This is far from a
                                        bad thing-it is actively a good thing. If it happens here, it will
                                        also be a good thing.
                                        > While I think it is good that others are concerned that
                                        Ravenslake has been "left out", please understand that we are still
                                        here, still interacting, sharing, and helping. We have chosen a
                                        slightly different path, and forsee no problem between shire and
                                        Barony, or Barony and Barony.
                                        > Is mise le meas,
                                        > Alexander de Seton,
                                        > Some Guy From Ravenslake
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        > From: Teleri <alta_gioiosa@ yahoo.com>
                                        > To: Ayreton@yahoogroups .com
                                        > Sent: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:17 pm
                                        > Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Ian said>>
                                        >
                                        > I, today do not feel that Ravenslake has "left the fold" nor do I
                                        > think their choice to look into the potential of becoming a barony on
                                        > their own in anyway affects the five groups that have decided to look
                                        > into forming a shell barony together.
                                        >
                                        > ***
                                        >
                                        > The initial proposal submitted for consideration in the poll was for
                                        the 6 groups of the region to form a shell barony, and this has now
                                        changed to only 5 of those groups doing so and one remaining
                                        independent. I think this change to the proposal as has a large affect
                                        on the decision to continue forward with the process. It will have a
                                        major affect on the regional structure of this area, which will impact
                                        all 6 local groups and their members.
                                        >
                                        > This issue was in fact brought up and discussed during the initial
                                        meetings before the poll. The general response was that such a
                                        possibility was terribly unlikely, and that we would deal with it
                                        later if that slight possibility became a reality.
                                        >
                                        > Well, here we are, unlikely as it seemed at the time. Are we going
                                        to in fact deal with it, or try to sweep it under the rug?
                                        >
                                        > I think the inclusion of only 5 of the proposed 6 groups in the
                                        shell barony cancels out many of the suggested advantages of the
                                        initial proposal, and brings into play a number of additional
                                        disadvantages. There was a strong opinion that one of the major
                                        advantages of the shell barony format was to form, as the letter of
                                        intent indicates, a coherent structure for regional unity. Well, that
                                        will no longer be the case. The new proposed structure will
                                        institutionalize the connections between some of those groups and
                                        exclude other groups.
                                        >
                                        > Of course, people are always free to ignore such boundaries to a
                                        certain extent, just as some of us still go to events in Northshield,
                                        now that it has become it's own kingdom. However, you cannot deny that
                                        it changes the relationships between groups when such structural
                                        boundaries are put in place. When it comes to such things as baronial
                                        events, baronial awards, baronial championships, baronial mailing
                                        lists, etc., all of which were proposed as advantages of the shell
                                        barony, some groups and individuals in the region will be able to
                                        participate and some will not.
                                        >
                                        > I think these changes to the initial scope of the proposed regional
                                        structure need to be taken seriously, not just brushed aside.
                                        >
                                        > Teleri
                                        >
                                        > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                        > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                        > http://www.yahoo com/r/hs
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                        > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
                                        > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.