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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.