Received: from ATHENA-AS-WELL.MIT.EDU by po6.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA24111; Fri, 11 Mar 94 15:24:47 EST
Received: from BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA20443; Fri, 11 Mar 94 15:24:38 EST
Received:  by bloom-beacon.mit.edu (5.61/25-eef)
	id AA06740; Fri, 11 Mar 94 15:20:13 EST
Received: from math.harvard.edu by bloom-beacon.mit.edu with SMTP (5.61/25-eef)
	id AA06725; Fri, 11 Mar 94 15:20:05 EST
From: schuldy@zariski.harvard.edu (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Message-Id: <9403112019.AA10695@math.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: A Plot to keep our burough "members"
To: DCROSS@bentley.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 15:19:46 -0500 (EST)
Cc: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <01H9UA26L2MQ001T0M@bentley.edu> from "DCROSS@bentley.edu" at Mar 11, 94 09:49:34 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1658      

I have been thinking about this idea all day.  I can't quite put my finger
on why it bothers me so terribly much. But it surely does.

Perhaps I think it contains the seeds of exploitation: pretty soon,
newcomers could get the idea that to join the SCA you have to do favors for
a local big shot...

I think that we ought to encourage local long-timers to closely associate
with promising newcomers of all ages and stages, and setting up feudal
relationships or a cash deal is just fine by me.

As Corwin mentioned, we should encourage and reward nobless oblige, wherever
it occurs.

But this purely mundane and monetary commerce has no business being
decorated as our feudal recreation.


Perhaps I am an optimist, but I don't believe it will become an issue. If we
keep the Board aprised of how we feel.

I know that I, for one, will not autocrat an event that is not open to
anyone.  I will not herald, nor volunteer in any way at such an event.  I
will not turn people away, and I will not support autocrats who will do so.

Passive resistance may become the key.  For example, at my event, it was
pointed out to me that the new branch financial policy was being violated.
My answer was "You have a choice: close the event, appoint a new autocrat,
or live with it."  We seemed to live with it.

In fact, I'd like to get local autocrats to sign onto this pledge: "I shall
not autocrat an event under coompulsory membership."  Let's see if we can
get the autocrats of all past events in the last year or two to sign onto
it.  If we can, let's send a letter, jointly, to the Board, telling them
that this is what compulsory membership really means.

	Tibor
