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

Re: [Ayreton] Re: The Apology - A reply

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