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
    View Source
    • 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


    • 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 2 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 28 , Feb 1, 2008
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 28 , Feb 2, 2008
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 28 , Feb 4, 2008
                            View Source
                            • 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.