What is/are your pet question(s)?

This entry beats even my usual cryptic airing-of-troubles department...

Heh - what Zach said!

Anonymous Coward, the question I've been asking thus far is: Does the candidate fulfill all the requirements for Peerage as set forth in Corpora? One would think that such a question wouldn't even need to be asked, but to my dismay it has not always received an affirmative answer.

(And for the record, I told my own wife that I wouldn't vote "yes" on her until she learned how to play chess. I'm quite happy that she didn't force me to make good on that threat, as she subsequently bought a chess set and asked me to teach her to play.)

My new question will be: Has the candidate contributed new information to our body of knowledge about the period arts and sciences he or she practices? (Simple question, answerable by a single word, right? Ha!) Though upon reflection, it might be more useful to ask What new information has the candidate contributed...; not quite so simple to answer as a yes/no question, obviously, but it would certainly produce a more informative answer.

And Zach, like I said, I'm not at liberty to be any more specific; anything more would bring down a ration of shit I'm really not in the mood to deal with.

Would you like to discuss this?

'Anonymous Coward' was me.

I'm not inclined to ask for shit-provoking specifics; I really don't give a flying for naming names or factionalizing debate, especially when the topic is sufficiently interesting without personalizing it.

Is it really required to know how to play chess? (checking Corpora) Wow, so it is. Not "pastimes of the court" or "games of strategy" but Chess specifically. Wow, that is interesting.
And potentially in conflict with being as "authentic as within their power" if they are not of a Chess-playing culture.

Does anybody know whether the pre y1K Saxons or Gaels played chess?

WRT your question: Has the candidate contributed new information to our body of knowledge about the period arts and sciences he or she practices? (What?)...
Who is "our"? The society as a whole? The candidate's kingdom populace? Society peers? Kingdom peers? Academia?

Inquiring minds want to further inquire. Or should that be 'enquire'?

Sure thing. Email on its way.

Regarding your question about "the body of knowledge", there are really a number of different facets to it.

If a candidate researches a topic but doesn't share the information he or she has gained from such research, then it has not increased our body of knowledge. (By "our" I mean the community of artisans in the SCA.)

If the candidate uses his or her knowledge to make something which nobody else knows how to make, but doesn't share it — through classes, publishing the information online or in newsletters, one-on-one instruction — then it runs counter to our goal (mentioned both in the requirements for Peerage as well as the duties of a Peer) to share knowledge and skills. Not to mention being selfish, a quality which I personally find undesirable in a candidate for our Order.

Another major facet to my question is whether they are bringing new information with them. There are some artisans who are content to simply learn and implement what others are teaching. Some of them do it very well, and can create beautiful works of art without ever researching a thing on their own. But if everyone did that, the arts and sciences in the SCA would simply stagnate, never growing or expanding; it's therefore in our best interests to encourage original research as strongly as we can, and to reward those who do thus enrich us.

And then there's the question of whether the arts they pursue are period. To use an example which (to my knowledge) applies to nobody in Trimaris: someone might be the best electroplater in the SCA, but what does that have to do with pre-16th-century Western Europe? Is that something we should make someone a Laurel for?

Once upon a time our Circle was indignant when a Royal Whim forbade the serving of period feasts; now the pendulum has swung to the point where "authenticity" and "research" are (again!) becoming bad words in our Circle. And this is one of the many things that so greatly saddens me.

I am sad with you. How can a historical craftsperson NOT be in favor of research & authenticity? I can understand one feeling that requiring a high level of authenticity of all people in all circumstances could be undesirable... but the reach for authenticity uncovers so many nifty things, I don't see how anybody who likes learning could not value it.

Also, I'm thinking about the intended audience for sharing of new information, because of some crafts which are esoteric in their native culture/period, in the society, in the real world... So there is not much interest in them except for one or 2 lonely geeks whose "dissemination of new information" resembles intellectual masturbation, not because they don't offer classes or articles, but because nobody else cares.

Which situation can be worsened by a peer-group response such as you describe.

::sigh::

I'll let you know next time T and I go to put on a rebel authenticity geeks revel, shall I?

Please do! I am standing beside Godfrey and his commentary 100%. I miss the days when research was something to be proud of and we didn't even have to wonder if our candidates taught classes or published their findings because we saw it happening right before our eyes. I don't feel like my personal standards have wavered any in the years I have been a Laurel, but I certainly feel like my standards - which was once the norm - are less agreeable now.

Please publish and share your findings. Please teach. Please enter A&S. Please enjoy the work you do. Is it really so much to ask?

At least this circle has something of a criteria. It's worse in other places, trust me.

You are indeed right, Laurel candidates should be publishing, teaching and making more information available. There are Society venues for publishing that are dying for material. There should be no excuse.

Do we really have criteria any more?

I think criteria are great — if they're consistently applied. But to make a big deal about Candidate X not being "ready" because he or she hasn't jumped through a particular hoop, then giving Candidate Y a pass on the exact same thing because it's "not required by Corpora", is shamefully unjust. And that is but one of the problems which I find so disheartening.

indywind, count me in for your revel! If authenticity is only for geeks, then I'm proud to call myself a geek.

I agree. We don't really have an across-the-board criteria for all candidates. Each one is discussed on the merits of their strongest trait - research (or lack of), craftsmanship (or lack of), and even peerly qualities (and yes, lack of). This does frustrate me as well. It's not fair. Not like life is fair. Maybe this is some kind of test? Or a sign of sorts? Or maybe we just need more beer.

While we don't have an across the board criteria, there are certain things we look for as a order. We have tangible things to look at, and that is so important, as opposed to subjective handling of offices.

Unfortunately for us in this situation, what we are willing to accept for each candidate is individual to each of us. I encourage stronger stands and meeting the criteria as listed in Corpora. If we settle for less, we cheat the candidate as well as ourselves.

BTW, more beer makes it better, at least where I'm concerned.

I have no problem with the fact that each of us has individual criteria that we look at.

But I do have a problem when Laurels impose their pet criteria on candidate after candidate, but when a friend (or, worse, their own associate) comes up for a vote, suddenly they have an excuse why the candidate shouldn't be held to the same standard they've been imposing on everyone else's candidates.

And I've really got a problem with Laurels who criticize candidates for behavior they themselves are guilty of.

I agree on that!

Do you think it is possible for a discussion about what the basic criteria is? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the circle were unaware of what is in Corpora.

Well, we did have such discussions back during the "Golden Age" (I think you were still back in Ansteorra at that point). And for a while, things went much more smoothly, with more constructive discussions, and less factionality and heated argument. We proved the maxim that "To disagree, it is not necessary to be disagreeable".

It truly felt like we were an Order dedicated to fostering and advancing the Arts in Trimaris, instead of... well... what we've got now.

And I'd say what we've got now, but it'd probably get me hauled up before the Loyalty Committee even if I didn't name any names.

I really dislike the fact that our ability to express ourselves has been...clipped.