Many years ago my Beloved and I were members of the SCA, but dropped out due to life interference. I was thinking about getting back into it but I keep hearing stories about how political and inclusive it has become and I wonder how true those stories are. If you are current members or have knowledge of what is going in in the Society, could you clue me in?
My most recent info was from a ranking member in Colorado, pre-COVID, so secondhand and a bit dated, fair warning. According to him, it was indeed getting political and a bit xenophobic. If you wanted to rank, or have influence, you basically had to not only work harder than anyone else, but you needed friends in high places (which you earned with much sucking up and low-scale bribery) and needed to keep those with tenure as it were happy with you with more of the same. So honestly not too different from IRL.
The biggest issue he mentioned was that membership was down, and that people who were long-termers/lifers were NOT interested in getting new blood unless it was, pardon the language, hot and loose (and generally female). So the group, which often recruited heavily on college campuses, was starting to age noticeably.
Still, this was part of the Colorado group, and things may be healthier elsewhere. And the info is rather dated, as my friend was an early long-haul COVID patient, and pretty much had to cut his participation to the bone.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
What word do you think would be more appropriate?
What do you mean by “inclusive”?
Bleah, I can see why one might not want to get entangled in that.
? What’s wrong with that? [ETA: ninja’d by puzzlegal.]
Your potential concerns sound a bit puzzling to me: like I said, I could see wanting to avoid a recreational organization that’s gotten too political, but I don’t see what’s objectionable about inclusivity. What is it supposed to be, exclusive? That’s a different kind of club. [ETA: though from ParallelLines’ description, it sounds like that Colorado chapter is successfully pursuing exclusivity, with a side order of corruption and exploitation.]
I’ve never been an SCA member but some friends of mine were pretty involved in it back in the '00s, and IIRC it was quite inclusive then. Anyway, here’s their website statement about it:
Sorry, just woke up. I meant to say “exclusive”, as in excluding newbies.
Pfft, another potentially interesting argument spoiled by a commonsensical clearing-up of a minor misunderstanding.
Insular is probably a good word for what you’re describing
Pretty much the same official statement they put out when I was still a member.
Perfect.
So the SCA is experience a similar problem as the SDMB?
Not even remotely. Please don’t.
Another poster mentioned an aging demographic and difficulty attracting younger members in the SCA. That sounds exactly like a thread about the SDMB that was started within the last few months.
Do you have anything to say about the SCA as it is currently run?
Become? It was like that when I left in the 80s. The last straw was when the senechal had to shut down a chivalric competition the Baroness had set up, which only her boyfriend could possibly have won.
I recall a lascivious eating contest near Memphis in the 1980s.
SCA has had a couple of scandals recently - a king expelled (and convicted of murder) and another king deposed for unspecified reasons - which may be affecting its fortunes.
They have kings and queens? Sounds awful. I always thought it was just a medieval combat group.
I thought it was more of an anarcho-syndicalist commune where people take it in turns to act as sort of executive officer for the week.