From: schuldy@zariski.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Message-Id: <9403141546.AA08159@math.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: autocrat's pledge
To: DCROSS@bentley.edu
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 10:46:43 -0500 (EST)
Cc: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <01H9YI8SWB9Q0027XO@bentley.edu> from "DCROSS@bentley.edu" at Mar 14, 94 10:05:19 am
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2608      

Elayne wrote:
  Wouldn't Tibor's suggestion of the autocrat's pledge to not turn away
  non-members, etc. effectively shut down the event.  In the case of a problem
  that required use of the insurance, the SCA, Inc. could disown the event,
  leaving the autocrat legaly responsible.  If I wont turn away unpaid members
  AND won't open myself to legal trauma, I can't ever autocrat under the
  currently proposed (but probably won't stand, so the discussion is somewhat
  irrelevant) "pay-to-play" rule.  If I won't, will others?  Carolingia goes
  underground?

You misunderstood me.  There seems to be a lot of that going around lately,
so it is probably my fault.

The insurance policy covers events which are official SCA events.  Period,
end of story.  So, what is an official SCA event?  Beats the heck out of me,
kids.  And I have looked very carefully.  The last official definition was
written by Hilary of Serendip in 1991.  And it is so vague and loose that it
would cover a garage sale at my house, if I announced the sale at Council.
So, I think we can presume that we don't know, exactly, what an official SCA
event is.

Certainly, however, an event held at a rented site, in garb, with a gate
fee, under the aegis of Carolingia, and advertised in a newsletter as an
event, would qualify.  So, it is insured.  So is the autocrat.

Now, the question would arise, exactly when wouldn't it be insured, if
membership requirements were not being enforced.  Answer: The Seneschal or a
designated representative must be at events like the one described above.
It is an official event, until sanction is removed. Once that sanction is
removed, it isn't an event anymore. The alternative is for the
representative to appoint a new autocrat on the spot, removing the old one.

Would a seneschal or representative actually take that step?  After all, SCA
policies are violated at events all the time.  For example, the event I was
at this weekend didn't collect waivers at the door, as they were supposed
to.  The person on the spot makes the call.  If sanction is removed from the
event, the site needs to be notified. If they want to force closure of the
event, they may.  If not, the former autocrat gets to decide if they want
personal liability for what has gone on.

However, all of that was not my point.  Just as Elayne says, I will not
autocrat an event where membership is required.  I will not work gate and
turn away people.  Heck, I may not volunteer at all.  If the Board places
more emphasis on my money than on my participation, they can have the money,
and not my participation.

	Tibor