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

RE: [EKSouth] Re: Practices and SCA sanction

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Panico
    Fine.. Your Opinion and Point have been made.. so don t send me any of your info and I wish you good luck in hopeing nothing ever happens to anyone at a
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Fine.. Your Opinion and Point have been made.. so don't send me any of your
      info and I wish you good luck in hopeing nothing ever happens to anyone at a
      practice you run. I am not into arguing, I have a job to do and intend to do
      it.

      Therefor for all those Marshalls who do run Practices that are SCA Practices
      Please continue to send me your Contact info so that I may setup a list and
      be ready to maintain those waivers that you will be sending me.

      Thanks to all those who have responded thus far, And to those who have not
      yet gotten the time.

      In Service,
      Senor Pascual Del Mar
      Southern Region Waiver Secretary

      MKA: Patrick J. Panico

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Bob Upson [mailto:wyvern@...]
      Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 5:15 PM
      To: EKSouth@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [EKSouth] Re: Practices and SCA sanction


      On 10 Nov 2003 at 14:13, Patrick Panico wrote:

      > What you are talking about is someone inviting specific people, very
      > different than... if you invite or hold a practice via a particular local
      > group's shared list based on the words of Meg Baron President, SCA Inc.
      > http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf
      <http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf>

      Please quote any *official* doecument that says *anything* about an
      email list being sanctioned by the SCA for official communications
      while I reiterate the bit from Corpora where it clearly says, "C. An
      event, for the purposes of this section only, is defined as any
      recreation function _announced in either the branch, Kingdom, or
      Principality newsletter_." Newsletter -- *not* local email list.

      Meg is entitled to whatever opinion she may have about whether being
      mentioned in an email list *ought* to be considered official, but she
      does not have the authority to make it so. Let me repeat it: The
      SCA does not recognize email lists as official communications. It
      never has nor is it likely ever going to do so. She can suggest all
      she wants but she cannot invent rules that contradict existing SCA
      policy.

      > If you have a household list and you announce a practice there, then i
      > don't care... if you have a list with you and some of your friends who
      want
      > to play, then i don't care... but if you are posting to a list that
      directly
      > deals with and possibly names the SCA in any way in the description such
      as:
      > "EKSouth";"Fighter Practice";"SRfencing"

      I own a dozen email lists with SCA in the name and in the
      description. Are you going to try and tell me that they are official
      SCA lists now?

      > EKSouth: A mailing list for the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism,
      Inc.)
      > for discussion of issues related to the Southern Region in the East
      Kingdom,
      > encompassing Delaware, New Jersey, Eastern Pennsylvania and Southern New
      > York.

      One of dozens of unofficial lists owned and operated by private
      individuals without any SCA sanction whatsoever.

      > I am sure there are more lists out there but these are the ones i have
      > signed up on to try and get this info to do my job to help cover our
      asses.

      All you are doing is putting your nose where it, quite frankly,
      doesn't belong.

      > And based on what Meg Baron says in

      Meg doesn't make policy by herself nor has she a very good track
      record for trying to explain existing policy. (Not she goes on in
      the detailed missive explaining -- erroneously -- that all minors at
      events are required to provide medical treatment releases when
      attending events. She has admitted to me in private correspondence
      that there is no such requirement except for minors participating in
      combat activities -- nor is any such requirement in front of the BoD
      today. Good intentions; poor understanding of the SCA's governing
      documents.)

      > < http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf
      <http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf> >

      Typing it repeatedly doesn't make it any more authoritative.

      > a month send them to me. It's not a difficult task.. and if everyone

      And what do you intend to do about anyone who runs an unofficial
      fighter practice, advertises it on an email list, and doesn't send
      you any waivers?

      > since you don't need a waiver. (Now Keep in mind i have a question about
      > electronic media heading up the chain of command for a ruling but.. till

      Ask anyone who's been doing electronic media in the SCA for any
      significant length of time -- as I have -- and they'll tell you: The
      SCA does not recognize nor sanction electronic bulletin boards, fora,
      newgroups, nor email lists as official communications. Period.

      YIS,
      Macsen



      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

      <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17057675
      03:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o885gmo/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?
      camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>

      <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupmai
      l/S=:HM/A=1524963/rand=911290320>

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bob Upson
      ... Only if the newsletter also exists in print form. The Society requires hardcopy publication for any official business. YIS, Macsen
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On 10 Nov 2003 at 13:27, Dave Calafrancesco wrote:

        > Email lists may not be sufficient, but a newsletter distributed via email is
        > very definately sufficient.

        Only if the newsletter also exists in print form. The Society
        requires hardcopy publication for any official business.

        YIS,
        Macsen
      • Dave Calafrancesco
        ... Care to double check that? The policies have been changing over the past several board meetings on what is an official newsletter. All electronic seems to
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Bob Upson <wyvern@...> wrote:
          > On 10 Nov 2003 at 13:27, Dave Calafrancesco wrote:
          >
          > > Email lists may not be sufficient, but a newsletter distributed via email
          > is
          > > very definately sufficient.
          >
          > Only if the newsletter also exists in print form. The Society
          > requires hardcopy publication for any official business.

          Care to double check that? The policies have been changing over the past
          several board meetings on what is an official newsletter. All electronic seems
          to be allowed as does not charging for electronic if you charge for paper. It
          is possible that a paper copy might need to be submitted into the archives but
          it is possible that that could be the only printed copy made. It might even get
          printed by the archivist instead of printed and mailed. The corporation is
          making many inroads to improving the acceptance of electronic communication.

          Haraldr

          =====
          Dave Calafrancesco
        • W L
          ... Bonjour mes amis! I m really baffled by this, and am wondering if possibly my barony has been operating under some serious misconceptions about the
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Patrick Panico <ppanico@...> wrote:

            > I am sure there are more lists out there but these
            > are the ones i have
            > signed up on to try and get this info to do my job
            > to help cover our asses.
            > And based on what Meg Baron says in
            > <http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf>
            > http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf Any
            > Practices announced through
            > these means would be included and thus i would
            > expect Waiver's from those
            > marshall's.

            Bonjour mes amis!

            I'm really baffled by this, and am wondering if
            possibly my barony has been operating under some
            serious misconceptions about the kingdom's policy.
            Recently in Bhakail, we had a brand-new practice
            trying to get off the ground, unfortunately at the
            same time that our chronicler was having difficulties
            getting the newsletter out. The barony was given to
            understand that unless a fight practice was announced
            in print (in the baronial newsletter or another
            official SCA publication) that it could not be
            considered an official SCA practice and was therefore
            not covered by our insurance policy. We were told very
            specifically that using the baronial email list did
            *not* constitute an approved, official notification.

            Has the policy changed dramatically in the last few
            months, or were we just given bad information?

            -Sabine Kerbriant

            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
            http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
          • Dave Calafrancesco
            ... IMO, you were given incomplete information. As an example, take the case of a shire who doesn t have a newsletter, if the world worked like the info you
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- W L <renflute@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- Patrick Panico <ppanico@...> wrote:
              >
              > > I am sure there are more lists out there but these
              > > are the ones i have
              > > signed up on to try and get this info to do my job
              > > to help cover our asses.
              > > And based on what Meg Baron says in
              > > <http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf>
              > > http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf Any
              > > Practices announced through
              > > these means would be included and thus i would
              > > expect Waiver's from those
              > > marshall's.
              >
              > Bonjour mes amis!
              >
              > I'm really baffled by this, and am wondering if
              > possibly my barony has been operating under some
              > serious misconceptions about the kingdom's policy.
              > Recently in Bhakail, we had a brand-new practice
              > trying to get off the ground, unfortunately at the
              > same time that our chronicler was having difficulties
              > getting the newsletter out. The barony was given to
              > understand that unless a fight practice was announced
              > in print (in the baronial newsletter or another
              > official SCA publication) that it could not be
              > considered an official SCA practice and was therefore
              > not covered by our insurance policy. We were told very
              > specifically that using the baronial email list did
              > *not* constitute an approved, official notification.
              >
              > Has the policy changed dramatically in the last few
              > months, or were we just given bad information?
              >
              > -Sabine Kerbriant

              IMO, you were given incomplete information. As an example, take the case of a
              shire who doesn't have a newsletter, if the world worked like the info you were
              given required, that shire could never have an official practice. Doesn't make
              sense when you realize that arts of peace or arts of war are required officers
              for a shire. What keeps getting dropped in these discussions is that
              information disseminated at a meeting is every bit as official as it can
              possibly be.

              Yes it is best to have a newsletter and in it list the regular practices.
              However, by having the baronial seneschal note the practice, that the baronial
              knight marshal is in attendance or has delegated responsibility to an at large
              marshal and announcing the practice info at a meeting makes it quite an
              official practice. It really comes down to what the seneschal knew and what the
              populace knew. As long as both are informed of the practice, then a warranted
              marshal needs to be in attendance and everyone except waiver members need to
              sign a waiver.

              A waiver member is someone who has a card from corporate that designates a
              waiver is on file, currently these cards are blue. These people do not need to
              sign another SCA waiver at any practice or event. You can track they were at
              the practice/event, but you can't require them to sign another waiver. It's one
              of the only membership benefits we really have. It also helps to dramaticly cut
              down on paperwork as everything with a waiver and a signature needs to be
              collected and sent to the archives, there to live and be accessable for a very
              long time. 7 years for adult waivers and 21 years for minor waivers IIRC.

              Haraldr


              =====
              Dave Calafrancesco
            • Jeffrey Blaisdell
              Frankly, since we are all beating each other with clubs, signing waivers helps limit risk of lawsuits. No need to send them on to Corp if they don t know. Keep
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Frankly, since we are all beating each other with clubs, signing waivers
                helps limit risk of lawsuits. No need to send them on to Corp if they don't
                know. Keep them in local hands. Perhaps the waiver should include
                "Unofficial Practice" in the header.

                (I know I've made the same point numerous times in my posts, just trying to
                counter different angles on the same arguement. Thanks for indulging me.)
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <baronfum@...>
                To: <EKSouth@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 1:08 PM
                Subject: [EKSouth] Re: Practices and SCA sanction


                > As another example- any household in the SCA can hold a practice if they
                like for their members. Households are not officially recognized by the
                SCA, nor are they part of the SCA official structure. The SCA in it's
                governing documents does not govern household organizations, structures, or
                activities and specifically states that they are not an official part of the
                SCA. So, the household practice cannot be an SCA activity despite the fact
                that most if not all attendees are members of the SCA and some may be
                officers. So, how can the SCA, then, require waivers for a household
                sponsored practice when households are not part of the official structure of
                the SCA and are specifically not covered by our governing documents? The
                answer is they can't.
                >
                > If I were owner of a fencing school and also a member of the SCA and I
                held a practice at my home to work with people on fencing fundementals,
                inviting both students from my school and my SCA friends, then how can the
                SCA regulate me in what is also my mundane business? The answer is they
                can't.
                >
                > If I am leader of a historical combat group and we are looking into
                Liechtenauer and want to practice with wasters or bated blades and I invite
                over some of my SCA friends to try it out and also do some rattan work how
                can the SCA regulate my private school and require me to collect waivers
                because we are using rattan weapons and SCA style combat? The answer is
                they can't.
                >
                > Gabrielle and Tim chose to collect waivers, which is their right and may
                give them some minimal protection though they are indeed NOT covered by the
                SCA's insurance, but they did not need to do so for the sake of the SCA.
                They did it more for their own protection. Unofficial practices, and there
                are many, many of them all the time, leave their hosts with the liability
                for any occurances on their property as private citizens, and the BoD, I am
                quite sure, would prefer not to accept liability for them. Our governing
                documents simply do not control members and officers lives 24-7, they
                control the actions of these people in only very specific circumstances for
                which the SCA explicitly accepts liability and control. Explicit acceptance
                of liability can only occur in writing in an official document of the SCA as
                noted in the corpora, because it is a legal issue. You cannot use e-mail to
                sign legal contracts, though you can use a fax of an original document to do
                so, so e-mail lists do not, in terms of law, make something official.
                >
                > Fum
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Bob Upson
                ... I haven t been watching specifically for such a change, but it s something I ve tracked pretty closely ever since the SCA issued it s first policy on
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 10 Nov 2003 at 15:19, Dave Calafrancesco wrote:

                  > Care to double check that? The policies have been changing over the past
                  > several board meetings on what is an official newsletter. All electronic seems

                  I haven't been watching specifically for such a change, but it's
                  something I've tracked pretty closely ever since the SCA issued it's
                  first policy on electronic communications. The BoD has consistently
                  stood by the position that no official communications can take place
                  via "broadcast" electronic media. I'd be very surprised if I had
                  missed a reversal on that stance.

                  > to be allowed as does not charging for electronic if you charge for paper. It
                  > is possible that a paper copy might need to be submitted into the archives but
                  > it is possible that that could be the only printed copy made.

                  A single archival copy would meet the Corpora requirement for hard
                  copy publication. In any event, the issue isn't really with
                  "official" newsletters whether they are published in print or
                  electronic media. The issue is with email lists which are inherently
                  unofficial under long standing SCA policy.

                  YIS,
                  Macsen
                • Bob Upson
                  ... I very much doubt it. The BoD has never looked favorably on using email for official communications. YIS, Macsen
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 10 Nov 2003 at 15:31, W L wrote:

                    > not covered by our insurance policy. We were told very
                    > specifically that using the baronial email list did
                    > *not* constitute an approved, official notification.
                    >
                    > Has the policy changed dramatically in the last few
                    > months, or were we just given bad information?

                    I very much doubt it. The BoD has never looked favorably on using
                    email for official communications.

                    YIS,
                    Macsen
                  • Dave Calafrancesco
                    ... And yet using SCA-ANNOUNCE to augment official notification and get a faster dissemination is viewed very favorably by the board. Sure, the request for
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Bob Upson <wyvern@...> wrote:
                      > On 10 Nov 2003 at 15:31, W L wrote:
                      >
                      > > not covered by our insurance policy. We were told very
                      > > specifically that using the baronial email list did
                      > > *not* constitute an approved, official notification.
                      > >
                      > > Has the policy changed dramatically in the last few
                      > > months, or were we just given bad information?
                      >
                      > I very much doubt it. The BoD has never looked favorably on using
                      > email for official communications.

                      And yet using SCA-ANNOUNCE to augment official notification and get a faster
                      dissemination is viewed very favorably by the board. Sure, the request for
                      commentaries use the long time frame of print publication but the reality is
                      that the lions share of commentary comes in the first few days of the notice on
                      SCA-ANNOUNCE and possibly another spike in the last few days before the
                      deadline.

                      Here is a case where it is official, announced in email and followed up in
                      print 2 months later due to printing cycles.

                      The pronouncement at the board meeting (local meeting equiv) and the printing
                      in the kingdom newsletters dots the eyes and crosses the tees but the real
                      announcement is the email list and website.

                      To toss another aspect into the mix, a notice of the official group practice on
                      the officially recognized website is, in my opinion, as solid as print
                      publication in a newsletter, especially for a group that doesn't have any other
                      newsletter. The reality is the intent to have an official SCA practice requires
                      that the seneschal know about it, that the populace know about it and that the
                      group's knight marshal know about it and that a warranted marshal be present
                      and that waivers be collected from all attendees who don't have a waiver on
                      file membership, that the marshals report the practice upstream, that the
                      seneschal report the local activity in the group and that the waivers be sent
                      to the designated waiver collector. Period.

                      There is a published set of circumstances that will always cause something to
                      become an official sca practice where the above must take place. However
                      anywhere that the above takes place is an official sca practice.

                      Haraldr

                      =====
                      Dave Calafrancesco
                    • Albert Villon
                      Fair Lady Sabine, Nothing has changed. The bottom legal line is that the announcement of a practice has to be thru an Official Publication. Unto this list, I
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 10, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Fair Lady Sabine,

                        Nothing has changed.

                        The bottom legal line is that the announcement of a
                        practice has to be thru an Official Publication.

                        Unto this list,

                        I specifically asked about a new fighter practice, and
                        since we have an official newsletter, the very
                        specifically stated UNOFFICIAL email list was not
                        accepted as an official publication.

                        If an email list is signified as the groups official
                        list for all to see, a list might be sufficient, but
                        usually it is a Newletter that is identified to the
                        kingdom chronichler as the official correspondence.

                        I ran this thur the regioal and kingdom seneschal, and
                        that was their call.

                        The last time I checked, in area of legal matters, it
                        is the seneschal that has the say, as long as it
                        agrees with kingdom and corporate by laws, and not
                        just someones opinion, and that would include the
                        waver collector, unless other wise written.

                        If anyone finds anything that officially revokes what
                        is written on the corporate level, please let me know,
                        so that I may be corrected.

                        I guess its time to post the quote.
                        Please excuse any mis-spellings, rumor is I can't
                        spell.

                        Lord Albert
                        Seneschal of Bhakail


                        From the www.sca.org site

                        'Wavers at Fighter Practices'
                        'C.'
                        'Please take special note of section C. All
                        participants in combat-related activities must either
                        present a valid membership-with-waver card("blue
                        card") or sigh a waiver at any SCA-sponcered, be it an
                        even or a practice. No exceptioins!!'

                        'What constitutes an SCA-sponsored activity? If a
                        practice is listed in the local, principality, or
                        Kingdom NEWSLETTER, clearly that is an SCA sponsored
                        activity. This would slso apply if the EVENT is
                        advertised through other commonly RECOGNIZED means,
                        such as THE shire email list, especially if the group
                        is a small one and does not have a NEWS LETTER.'

                        'If a household or individual decides to hold a
                        practice in somenone's backyard, and they do not
                        advertise it through and SCA MEDIUM, then it IS NOT an
                        SCA-sponsored acivity and THE WAVER POLICY ABOVE DOES
                        NOT APPLY. Note also that, in such a case, the SCA's
                        insureance does not cover that activity.'



                        --- W L <renflute@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- Patrick Panico <ppanico@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > I am sure there are more lists out there but these
                        > > are the ones i have
                        > > signed up on to try and get this info to do my job
                        > > to help cover our asses.
                        > > And based on what Meg Baron says in
                        > > <http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf>
                        > > http://www.sca.org/docs/waiver_treatise.pdf Any
                        > > Practices announced through
                        > > these means would be included and thus i would
                        > > expect Waiver's from those
                        > > marshall's.
                        >
                        > Bonjour mes amis!
                        >
                        > I'm really baffled by this, and am wondering if
                        > possibly my barony has been operating under some
                        > serious misconceptions about the kingdom's policy.
                        > Recently in Bhakail, we had a brand-new practice
                        > trying to get off the ground, unfortunately at the
                        > same time that our chronicler was having
                        > difficulties
                        > getting the newsletter out. The barony was given to
                        > understand that unless a fight practice was
                        > announced
                        > in print (in the baronial newsletter or another
                        > official SCA publication) that it could not be
                        > considered an official SCA practice and was
                        > therefore
                        > not covered by our insurance policy. We were told
                        > very
                        > specifically that using the baronial email list did
                        > *not* constitute an approved, official notification.
                        >
                        > Has the policy changed dramatically in the last few
                        > months, or were we just given bad information?
                        >
                        > -Sabine Kerbriant
                        >
                        > __________________________________
                        > Do you Yahoo!?
                        > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
                        > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
                        >



                        __________________________________
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
                        http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
                      • Matthew Lecin
                        ... Exactly. I am part of a group doing just that, studying the Fechtbucher and working out the moves. All of the participants are also involved in the SCA.
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Sir Fum <baronfum@...> wrote:
                          >If I am leader of a historical combat group and we are looking into
                          >Liechtenauer and want to practice with wasters or bated blades and I
                          >invite over some of my SCA friends to try it out and also do some
                          >rattan work how can the SCA regulate my private school and require me
                          >to collect waivers because we are using rattan weapons and SCA style
                          >combat? The answer is they can't.

                          Exactly. I am part of a group doing just that, studying the Fechtbucher and working out the moves. All of the participants are also involved in the SCA. We are not an official SCA *anything* and the idea of collecting waivers, or checking membership cards, is just plain silly.

                          BTW, so far we've done unarmored work with wasters (longsword, dagger), but we will be expanding into armored pollaxe. If anyone is interested, you can check out our Yahoo Group:

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dieschlachtschule/


                          Since the "Fighter Practice" list was also mentioned in this thread, I will point out that it is not an SCA-exclusive list, and explicitly says so, on the main page. You can check that out at:

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FighterPractice/


                          Mitchell, Bâro et Miles Orientalis

                          _ _ _ | | Winning is enjoyable, but losing does not detract
                          ' )' )' ) | Semper | from the pleasure of playing. - Nakayama Noriyuki
                          / / / | Esuriens |
                          / (_' | | Matthew J. Lecin mjl at all hell dot com
                        • Bob Upson
                          ... The key is that they use it to _augment_ official channels. Items sent out in announcements@sca.org itself are still not considered official in and of
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 10 Nov 2003 at 20:06, Dave Calafrancesco wrote:

                            > And yet using SCA-ANNOUNCE to augment official notification and get
                            > a faster

                            The key is that they use it to _augment_ official channels. Items
                            sent out in "announcements@..." itself are still not considered
                            "official" in and of themselves -- they simply echo official
                            announcements that are sent out to a smaller audience in print form.
                            (Not to be confused with SCA-Announce@yahoogroups.com which is not an
                            SCA sanctioned email list at all.)

                            > Here is a case where it is official, announced in email and followed up in
                            > print 2 months later due to printing cycles.

                            And yet even in this case, it it the printed version that is
                            authoritative.

                            > The pronouncement at the board meeting (local meeting equiv) and the printing
                            > in the kingdom newsletters dots the eyes and crosses the tees but the real
                            > announcement is the email list and website.

                            I disagree. The email version undoubtedly reaches the wider audience
                            and more quickly but it is the print version which legitimzes the
                            "official" nature of the notice under SA policies.

                            > To toss another aspect into the mix, a notice of the official group practice on
                            > the officially recognized website is, in my opinion, as solid as print
                            > publication in a newsletter, especially for a group that doesn't have any other

                            Now that the SCA has finally acknowledged the existence of the web
                            and allowed for the existence of "official" websites, I agree. Keep
                            in mind that a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to just a few
                            years ago, SCA recognized group websites were not the norm.

                            > newsletter. The reality is the intent to have an official SCA practice requires
                            > that the seneschal know about it, that the populace know about it and that the
                            > group's knight marshal know about it and that a warranted marshal be present

                            There is one further step needed. It's not sufficient just that
                            those people _know_ about it, it is necessary that whoever is the in
                            charge of running the practice desires that it be considered
                            "official" and that the appropriate officer agrees to sanction it.
                            There are times when all the other factors are in place but the
                            practice itself still isn't an "official" practice because the person
                            or persons running it don't choose to make it so.

                            > and that waivers be collected from all attendees who don't have a waiver on
                            > file membership, that the marshals report the practice upstream, that the
                            > seneschal report the local activity in the group and that the waivers be sent
                            > to the designated waiver collector. Period.

                            Unless the people runningthe practice choose not to make it an
                            "official" practice. In that case, the SCA has no jurisdiction over
                            waiver collection nor any other SCA rules and regulations.

                            > There is a published set of circumstances that will always cause something to
                            > become an official sca practice where the above must take place. However
                            > anywhere that the above takes place is an official sca practice.

                            As noted above, I disagree. The conditions you have outlined are
                            _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ to make a practice official. It
                            isn't "official" unless the people running it choose to declare it
                            so.

                            (I'm not debating this entirely in the abstract. I have known, over
                            the years, of more than well known local practices that were held
                            intentionally on an unofficial basis for various reasons. There is
                            nothing the SCA can do to regulate such a practice and I don't want
                            to see an overenthusiastic officer create issues trying to enforce
                            SCA regulations over a non-SCA practice.)

                            YIS,
                            Macsen
                          • Dave Calafrancesco
                            ... Only in the case of a difference between an electronic item and a printed item. That doesn t make the electronic item not official, just that in the case
                            Message 13 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- Bob Upson <wyvern@...> wrote:
                              > On 10 Nov 2003 at 20:06, Dave Calafrancesco wrote:
                              >
                              > > And yet using SCA-ANNOUNCE to augment official notification and get
                              > > a faster
                              >
                              > The key is that they use it to _augment_ official channels. Items
                              > sent out in "announcements@..." itself are still not considered
                              > "official" in and of themselves -- they simply echo official
                              > announcements that are sent out to a smaller audience in print form.
                              > (Not to be confused with SCA-Announce@yahoogroups.com which is not an
                              > SCA sanctioned email list at all.)
                              >
                              > > Here is a case where it is official, announced in email and followed up in
                              > > print 2 months later due to printing cycles.
                              >
                              > And yet even in this case, it it the printed version that is
                              > authoritative.

                              Only in the case of a difference between an electronic item and a printed item.
                              That doesn't make the electronic item not official, just that in the case of a
                              dispute, perhaps because of versions, a printed version at the corporate office
                              is the final arbiter of authority.

                              >
                              > > The pronouncement at the board meeting (local meeting equiv) and the
                              > printing
                              > > in the kingdom newsletters dots the eyes and crosses the tees but the real
                              > > announcement is the email list and website.
                              >
                              > I disagree. The email version undoubtedly reaches the wider audience
                              > and more quickly but it is the print version which legitimzes the
                              > "official" nature of the notice under SA policies.
                              >
                              > > To toss another aspect into the mix, a notice of the official group
                              > practice on
                              > > the officially recognized website is, in my opinion, as solid as print
                              > > publication in a newsletter, especially for a group that doesn't have any
                              > other
                              >
                              > Now that the SCA has finally acknowledged the existence of the web
                              > and allowed for the existence of "official" websites, I agree. Keep
                              > in mind that a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to just a few
                              > years ago, SCA recognized group websites were not the norm.
                              >
                              > > newsletter. The reality is the intent to have an official SCA practice
                              > requires
                              > > that the seneschal know about it, that the populace know about it and that
                              > the
                              > > group's knight marshal know about it and that a warranted marshal be
                              > present
                              >
                              > There is one further step needed. It's not sufficient just that
                              > those people _know_ about it, it is necessary that whoever is the in
                              > charge of running the practice desires that it be considered
                              > "official" and that the appropriate officer agrees to sanction it.
                              > There are times when all the other factors are in place but the
                              > practice itself still isn't an "official" practice because the person
                              > or persons running it don't choose to make it so.
                              >
                              > > and that waivers be collected from all attendees who don't have a waiver on
                              > > file membership, that the marshals report the practice upstream, that the
                              > > seneschal report the local activity in the group and that the waivers be
                              > sent
                              > > to the designated waiver collector. Period.
                              >
                              > Unless the people runningthe practice choose not to make it an
                              > "official" practice. In that case, the SCA has no jurisdiction over
                              > waiver collection nor any other SCA rules and regulations.
                              >
                              > > There is a published set of circumstances that will always cause something
                              > to
                              > > become an official sca practice where the above must take place. However
                              > > anywhere that the above takes place is an official sca practice.
                              >
                              > As noted above, I disagree. The conditions you have outlined are
                              > _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ to make a practice official. It
                              > isn't "official" unless the people running it choose to declare it
                              > so.
                              >
                              > (I'm not debating this entirely in the abstract. I have known, over
                              > the years, of more than well known local practices that were held
                              > intentionally on an unofficial basis for various reasons. There is
                              > nothing the SCA can do to regulate such a practice and I don't want
                              > to see an overenthusiastic officer create issues trying to enforce
                              > SCA regulations over a non-SCA practice.)
                              >
                              > YIS,
                              > Macsen
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >


                              =====
                              Dave Calafrancesco
                            • Dave Calafrancesco
                              woops... hit send too soon... ... Only in the case of a difference between an electronic item and a printed item. That doesn t make the electronic item not
                              Message 14 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                woops... hit send too soon...



                                --- Bob Upson <wyvern@...> wrote:
                                > On 10 Nov 2003 at 20:06, Dave Calafrancesco wrote:
                                >
                                > > And yet using SCA-ANNOUNCE to augment official notification and get
                                > > a faster
                                >
                                > The key is that they use it to _augment_ official channels. Items
                                > sent out in "announcements@..." itself are still not considered
                                > "official" in and of themselves -- they simply echo official
                                > announcements that are sent out to a smaller audience in print form.
                                > (Not to be confused with SCA-Announce@yahoogroups.com which is not an
                                > SCA sanctioned email list at all.)
                                >
                                > > Here is a case where it is official, announced in email and followed up in
                                > > print 2 months later due to printing cycles.
                                >
                                > And yet even in this case, it it the printed version that is
                                > authoritative.

                                Only in the case of a difference between an electronic item and a printed item.
                                That doesn't make the electronic item not official, just that in the case of a
                                dispute, perhaps because of versions, a printed version at the corporate office
                                is the final arbiter of authority.

                                >
                                > > The pronouncement at the board meeting (local meeting equiv) and the
                                > printing
                                > > in the kingdom newsletters dots the eyes and crosses the tees but the real
                                > > announcement is the email list and website.
                                >
                                > I disagree. The email version undoubtedly reaches the wider audience
                                > and more quickly but it is the print version which legitimzes the
                                > "official" nature of the notice under SA policies.

                                No, it is the meeting and the minutes of the meeting that legitimize the
                                action. That is the point I am trying to emphasize. This thread was based upon
                                a group trying to start an official practice while their newsletter was down. I
                                was trying to remind people that actions taken at an official meeting, by the
                                officers of the branch are binding. Obviously the intent of those officers was
                                to have the practice be official, but they were being balked by the lack of a
                                newsletter. A printed newsletter is not the only way to get a practice
                                recognized, the seneschal and branch knight marshal (if there is one) can
                                recognize a practice.
                                >
                                > > To toss another aspect into the mix, a notice of the official group
                                > practice on
                                > > the officially recognized website is, in my opinion, as solid as print
                                > > publication in a newsletter, especially for a group that doesn't have any
                                > other
                                >
                                > Now that the SCA has finally acknowledged the existence of the web
                                > and allowed for the existence of "official" websites, I agree. Keep
                                > in mind that a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to just a few
                                > years ago, SCA recognized group websites were not the norm.

                                We aren't talking about history, we are talking about the current rules and
                                policies.

                                >
                                > > newsletter. The reality is the intent to have an official SCA practice
                                > requires
                                > > that the seneschal know about it, that the populace know about it and that
                                > the
                                > > group's knight marshal know about it and that a warranted marshal be
                                > present
                                >
                                > There is one further step needed. It's not sufficient just that
                                > those people _know_ about it, it is necessary that whoever is the in
                                > charge of running the practice desires that it be considered
                                > "official" and that the appropriate officer agrees to sanction it.
                                > There are times when all the other factors are in place but the
                                > practice itself still isn't an "official" practice because the person
                                > or persons running it don't choose to make it so.

                                That was obvious in my chain of approvals for a practice to be official.

                                > > and that waivers be collected from all attendees who don't have a waiver on
                                > > file membership, that the marshals report the practice upstream, that the
                                > > seneschal report the local activity in the group and that the waivers be
                                > sent
                                > > to the designated waiver collector. Period.
                                >
                                > Unless the people runningthe practice choose not to make it an
                                > "official" practice. In that case, the SCA has no jurisdiction over
                                > waiver collection nor any other SCA rules and regulations.
                                >
                                > > There is a published set of circumstances that will always cause something
                                > to
                                > > become an official sca practice where the above must take place. However
                                > > anywhere that the above takes place is an official sca practice.
                                >
                                > As noted above, I disagree. The conditions you have outlined are
                                > _necessary_ but not _sufficient_ to make a practice official. It
                                > isn't "official" unless the people running it choose to declare it
                                > so.
                                >
                                > (I'm not debating this entirely in the abstract. I have known, over
                                > the years, of more than well known local practices that were held
                                > intentionally on an unofficial basis for various reasons. There is
                                > nothing the SCA can do to regulate such a practice and I don't want
                                > to see an overenthusiastic officer create issues trying to enforce
                                > SCA regulations over a non-SCA practice.)

                                Then such an un-official practice has no existance in an SCA context. It isn't
                                our rules. It isn't our officers. It isn't our insurance. It isn't anything at
                                all to do with the SCA. It also mustn't be in our newsletter as if it was
                                something sanctioned by the SCA.

                                To draw an example, the work that Sir Mitchell was discussing isn't SCA. It
                                can't be SCA except under very very rigorous controls which he would know much
                                more than I. It is simply people interested in an aspect of history playing
                                together with that aspect. The tragic part is when a local branch acknowledges
                                these types of activities, lends legitimacy to them and fails to followup on
                                the paperwork to ensure that our rules are followed by all participants. Then
                                those local officers open up both corporate and personal liability in their
                                inaction.

                                Haraldr

                                =====
                                Dave Calafrancesco
                              • Bob Upson
                                ... Thought so. Been there, done that... = ... But not, IMHO, in the Senor Pascual Del Mar s missive nor in the subsequent discussion. At face value, it
                                Message 15 of 19 , Nov 11, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 11 Nov 2003 at 13:14, Dave Calafrancesco wrote:

                                  > woops... hit send too soon...

                                  Thought so. Been there, done that... =>

                                  > > practice itself still isn't an "official" practice because the person
                                  > > or persons running it don't choose to make it so.
                                  >
                                  > That was obvious in my chain of approvals for a practice to be official.

                                  But not, IMHO, in the Senor Pascual Del Mar's missive nor in the
                                  subsequent discussion. At face value, it attempts to require waivers
                                  from any practice advertised in so much as a local email list with no
                                  mention of whether that practice is sanctioned by the SCA.

                                  > > (I'm not debating this entirely in the abstract. I have known, over
                                  > > the years, of more than well known local practices that were held
                                  > > intentionally on an unofficial basis for various reasons. There is
                                  > > nothing the SCA can do to regulate such a practice and I don't want
                                  > > to see an overenthusiastic officer create issues trying to enforce
                                  > > SCA regulations over a non-SCA practice.)
                                  >
                                  > Then such an un-official practice has no existance in an SCA context. It isn't

                                  Agreed. That's the point I have been hammering and which Fum has
                                  echoed and which the good Senor has patently denied.

                                  > our rules. It isn't our officers. It isn't our insurance. It isn't anything at
                                  > all to do with the SCA. It also mustn't be in our newsletter as if it was
                                  > something sanctioned by the SCA.

                                  FWIW, newsletter policy doesn't forbid publishing non-SCA itmes that
                                  might be of interest to SCA members Non-SCA functions are frequently
                                  advertised in SCA newsletters -- publication of such an item doesn't
                                  make it an SCA event. But that's not even the issue. The issue is
                                  making the assumption that advertising something in an email list
                                  makes it official and hence makes waiver collection a requirement.
                                  It doesn't do so by any stretch of the imagination.

                                  > these types of activities, lends legitimacy to them and fails to followup on
                                  > the paperwork to ensure that our rules are followed by all participants. Then
                                  > those local officers open up both corporate and personal liability in their
                                  > inaction.

                                  If "these types of activities" aren't ours, they don't have any
                                  reason to follow *our* rules nor do our local officers have any right
                                  nor responsibility to enforce them. What part of that is so
                                  difficult to understand? The SCA is only responsible for policing
                                  its own activities -- it has no business trying to police other
                                  people's activities.

                                  YIS,
                                  Macsen
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.