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

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

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