From: schuldy@math.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Message-Id: <9401181748.AA11872@math.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Principality Debate
To: kkelley@MIT.EDU (Cinaed of Tirowen)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 12:48:25 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9401181539.AA11794@bolognese.MIT.EDU> from "Cinaed of Tirowen" at Jan 18, 94 10:39:25 am
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 4605      

Cinaed wrote:
  Why are the various people involved concerned with conducting "official
  polls"?  After all, won't the only relevant VOTE be the final decision?
  Everything before that is just gathering opinions on where they want to
  draw the lines.  Once they've drawn the line, then we need an official
  poll.

The idea is to develop a concensus as to what most groups want, and what
percentage of their members want it.  Once a documented concensus is
reached, that information is handed to the Corporation, which makes a
decision based upon the evidence.

I cannot heartily defend the method as perfection, but I'm hardpressed to
come up with a superior solution. Certainly people will discuss things
amongst themselves, but that produces no written evidence. Plus, in the
initial pollings you are still trying to find what of all eligible groups
will become members.

I voted no in the last polling. But say the results turned out to be
extremely weak in the furthest north, and moderately OK in the southern
groups.  In a second polling I would vote yes, because I believe a Central
Region principality is a good thing.  So the repeated polls would have an
effect. Chances are, we won't know which polling will be the final one until
we have two in a row with nearly identical results.
  
  For example, imagine a brony with lots of unregistered members, all of
  whom are very much anti-Principality.  None of these opinions are being
  collected in these polls, but I'm willing to bet that when the time for
  a vote comes up, maany of them will be willing to shell out the X dollars
  to obtain membership, just for the privelege of being able to mke that
  one vote.

If they really care, they will pay their memberships. And if they don't they
won't. Truly, I can't see that many people becoming members just to vote. If
the will, they already would have.
  
  And if some people want to determine where the best place to draw a line to
  form a principality would be, then who cares how they do this?  I for one,
  would want them to take the most efficient path.  Or the one that
  yeilds a border which accomodates the most people.

Because solutions imposed from above have a strong tendency to provoke
reactions. If there is documentary evidence that most of a group wants to
join (or leave) a P-movement, there is little the minority can say or do.
You can bet, however, that if Sedalia instituted a random border, there
would be many people fighting that border drawing, even if a polling would
show that it followed the majority.

Besides, "We Have Always Done It This Way". But that's just a stupid
reason.
  
  Oh, and could someone point out some of the advantages/disadvantages of
  the formation of a Principality, to both those included, and those not
  included?  I'd really like to form an opinion here, but find myself
  woefully short on data.

People cite the size of the East Kingdom, the sheer inconvenience of being a
Kingdom Officer, the inability to travel, the lack of award recognition, the
creation of new orders, awards, more local events to travel to.

I agree that the East is very large, yet I would think that there are
bureaucratic solutions that could be tried without creating a principality.
There is a certain truth that large kingdom events cannot conveniently be
held at the very edges of the East Kingdom, because of the travel
inconveniences. For example, a Crown Tourney in Ruantallan or Riversmeet
would be a real hassle for many people.

But there are convincing arguments that adding an additional layer of
bureaucracy via a Principality would only make matters worse. Officers at
the P-level would have two levels of Royalty to work through (Crown and
Coronet). It would increase the delay in getting Peerages: right now, one
general must get the Kingdom level award before one can receive a Peerage:
imagine having to garner both a Kingdom and Principality award first.

I find my schedule full enough of events to attend, without the additional
burden of a rotation of Principality events to attend as well. I can assure
you, that scheduling my event so it wouldn't conflict with others was a real
hassle.

My most fundamental argument against a Principality is simple: it should be
like a peerage. I believe we should recognize when a Principality exists,
not create one, just as we recognize peers, and not just hand out the honor.
I believe the Central Region groups are very much a core of a decent
principality, and I would rather recognize that, than split off some of
those groups into the southern edge of a northern region.

	Tibor