Log in

No account? Create an account
whitewater consciousness -- the journal fellow travellers itinerary meet your guide whitewater consciousness -- the website upstream upstream downstream downstream
stop me before I snark again - when you don't know what to do...
do the next thing
stop me before I snark again
The SCA-garb Yahoo!Group is arguing AGAIN over the fucking cut-off date of the SCA.


I'd say exactly that on the list, but I already got moderated this week for going off about clipping posts, so I'm reluctant to court banning.


i feel: irritated irritated

17 trips or shoot the rapids
From: nutter4 Date: June 12th, 2004 03:24 am (UTC) (base camp)
Don't tell me - revenge of the renaissance junkies?

We've had a similar problem this year with English Heritage (govt. body that controls a number of historic sites round the country), one of our main 'employers'. We're up to 11th century (1066, to be precise) and some dizzy bint thought 11th century = 1100s so we ended up having to do a show for 1120. I was tempted to tell the public, "Well, you know, granny left me this dress, she made it the year William the Bastard invaded..."
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 09:43 am (UTC) (base camp)
No... there's an article in a well-known SCA publication that says the cut-off date is 1650, and people take it as official gospel, since they have to order the publication from SCA headquarters. Between that and word of mouth, people still believe what they want to believe, even when handed documentation.

I wouldn't be so mad if we hadn't already gone through this a week ago.
(Deleted comment)
ladymorgaine From: ladymorgaine Date: June 12th, 2004 06:50 am (UTC) (base camp)
So, ummm, see, my persona was born in 1599, and i'm ummm, 32 yrs old, so I can wear stuff from 1631. Right?

I'm KIDDING. Seriously, I have to wonder why, when we have such a broad scope to work with, people insist on pushing the limits. My persona is quite happily grounded in the 13th and 14th centuries, and one day I'd like to narrow her down to a specific date.

It must just be something about human nature that when rules are set, there are always people who want to see how far they can push those rules. As a herald, I see that so often, but I don't understand why, when the rules for garb are soooo simple, that people still have to push that end date.
(Deleted comment)
ladymorgaine From: ladymorgaine Date: June 15th, 2004 12:04 pm (UTC) (base camp)
There's a woman with a Japanese persona in the barony. Every time a discussion comes up of a group project with individual's heraldry she reminds people that HER arms are called a MON and it's on a CIRCLE.

I admire your patience. That would drive me insane, and very quickly. Not that I would actually say or do anything about it, but I would run away singing lalalalalalalalala.... ::shudder::
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 09:45 am (UTC) (base camp)
I think it's that stupid article in the Knowne World Handbook. It's wrong and yet hasn't been corrected.

I wouldn't be so mad if we hadn't gone 'round about this a week ago.
(Deleted comment)
jducoeur From: jducoeur Date: June 12th, 2004 08:15 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

Pretty much what I was going to say.

Also, just to put a finer point on this, keep in mind that the Board of the Society was self-created, and was *reviled* by many people in the early days. I mean, think about it: you've been playing this game happily for a couple of years, and these people come along without your consent, appoint themselves as your boss, and start imposing rules on you. The politics that swirl around the Board these days are as nothing compared to the stories I hear about its beginnings.

As a result, the groups that had been using the 1650 cutoff felt no particular moral obligation to conform to a restriction that had been imposed upon them by a Board that they hadn't elected in the first place.

And just to make it worse, the Board didn't really publicize its rules well in the early days. I have the first couple of volumes of Corpora online, and they (mostly for economic reasons, I believe) were only printed for high-level officers. So even for years *after* the Corporation was set up, far more people were learning the 1650 date from Queen Carol's Guide than the 1600 date from the Articles of Incorporation. (Which is actually where the 1600 comes from -- it wasn't even in Corpora last time I really read it.) That got very deeply set in the bones of many areas.

The SCA is far more about culture than rules; always has been. The *rules* unambiguously say 1600. But the *culture* has never been anywhere near so clear. It's a fine object lesson in the limitations of rules when they try to oppose consensus reality...
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 09:52 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

Okay, then explain to me why someone said that the cutoff date was 1620, because that was the closest decade to when Elizabeth I died? It's undeniable that she died in 1603, so why wouldn't it then be 1610? Huh? Huh? Idiots and morons, I'm telling you.

I wouldn't be this bent if we hadn't had this discussion just last week.
jducoeur From: jducoeur Date: June 12th, 2004 10:22 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

Well, the 1620 is either someone rationalizing furiously, or getting faulty information through a large-scale game of telephone. Both of those happen pretty frequently -- I've heard any number of different dates cited due to each of those causes.

I'm not saying that everyone has good justification for the numbers that they toss around, merely that the situation isn't entirely cut-and-dried...
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 10:29 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

Oh, I know, and I know that people cling to these opinions with near-religious fanaticism for no other reason than "I can". But when the person says "I'm new" and then says something as obviously stupid as that, and the rest of the list is actually discussing the cut-off date barely a week after the last time it got discussed...

Yeah, it's bloody irritating. Too much idiocy, not enough sewing techniques.
ladymorgaine From: ladymorgaine Date: June 15th, 2004 12:01 pm (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

I tend to use the Elizabeth I cut off myself, just for reference, and those 3 years hardly make a difference. If it was during her reign, it's within the scope. To push THAT to 1610 or even 1620 just seems silly to me. New reign, new era. Just IMHO.
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 10:14 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

...but it does amuse me that a woman who camps in a Ger/Yurt, in an organization whose governing document talks about Western Civilization.... get's bent up over the cut-off date but not the geographic scope.

Sorry, sweetie, the Mongols pushed well into Europe -- are you going to tell the Hungarians and the Poles and the Turks that they can't play as well, or should I really twist tails and build a Siberian steppe shelter? They looked a lot like Plains Indian teepees...

Actually, I have plans percolating in my head for a knock-down Viking longhouse. Wolfie wants an A-frame tent, but I hate the loss of space with sloped sides like that, and it's not nearly enough of a challenge.
(Deleted comment)
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 08:16 pm (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

Well, here's the thing. Do I care? Not really.

People are making stupid and unsupportable statements on a mailing list not a week after they were told the answer to the question. The SCA has a cut-off date. That date is 1600. Regardless of long-held opinion, cultural belief, or founder's intent, the cut-off date as stated in Corpora is 1600.

As for why I camp in a ger, it's documented that there was intermarrying in both directions in the Russo-Mongol capital of Sarai after the invasion and conquering of Russia in 1241. Guess where my persona is from? And when? (For now... I seem to be migrating again...) Are we now going to have the argument that Russia is not European?

I choose to get bent out of shape over the temporal scope of the SCA, not the geographic. Why is that so wrong?
(Deleted comment)
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 09:17 pm (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

it's just silly to care about one and not the other....

(Deleted comment)
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 13th, 2004 09:18 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

I still can't understand how you can care about time, authenticity and versimiltude and NOT realize that geographical scope might play into that to an equal degree.

Because I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and must pick and choose what to care about, else I would get overload.
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 12th, 2004 09:23 pm (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

BTW, I think you missed my point about what I don't care about.

I don't care what you wear. I don't care where you're from. I don't care when you're from. I reserve the right to think the most outrageously snarky things behind the backs of people wearing purple lame' prom dresses to Birka, though.

What I care about is the inability of people to read for content from decently reliable sources. The Knowne Worlde Handbook s not a reliable source for the cut-off date of the SCA. Corpora is a reliable source (the only reliable source) for the cut-off date. When the list has the same (off-topic) discussion two weeks in a row, and people again state with near-religious certainty things that were disproved just the week before, I get a little testy.
(Deleted comment)
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 13th, 2004 09:35 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

When did I ever say that the SCA needed an earlier cut-off? I never said that. Ever. I would not. It's not my call to make. (You'll probably argue that point with me, too, butI am not and do not wish to be a policy maker.)

I still have a fairly black and white, literal view of the world (though that is ever so slowly changing -- you spend your late teens and 20s in a military environment and see what your world view looks like). Is the KWH an official document, outlining the policies of SCA, Inc.? Official, maybe, but policy-making, I tend to think not (if I have one, I don't know where it is. I will not buy one, I think it useless). So if it does not delinate official policy, then what does? Ooh, look, there's Corpora, and it says 1600. That's good enough for me, and it should be an argument ender when the question is, "What is the official cut-off date for the SCA?"

If the question is "What is the cut-off date in practice in the SCA," well, then, that's a whole different ball of fish, and I will in future refer the querents to you. :-)

I still don't understand why the bloody mailing list had the same stupid argument two weeks in a row, with still more stupid assertions, that's all. I'm this --><-- close to dropping it anyway. I get better information from the specialized lists. SCA-garb is way too chatty. I don't care who's got the biggest stash or the most garb, and that's what they're talking about now.
(Deleted comment)
tashabear From: tashabear Date: June 13th, 2004 10:53 am (UTC) (base camp)

Re: Why are they confused?

Oh. I thought you meant I said "earlier than 1600". No, 1650 is too close to the Colonial period, and we have other groups doing that already.

It is easier to change regulations - but is that right? I don't know.

Maybe, maybe not. We'd certainly hear about it if it was locally unpopular.
17 trips or shoot the rapids