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

Re: Actual wording of the letter of intent

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
      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 2 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008

        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 3 of 28 , Feb 3, 2008
          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 4 of 28 , Feb 4, 2008
            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.