# What is your opinion of the S.C.A. as it stands today **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 19, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945 "2013-07-19T15:59:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/141 "2016-01-13T16:17:12Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > IMO this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which prominently features the word “today” in it. Oh? Has _ **today’s** _ local Order of the Laurel, with (no doubt) an entirely new membership, so well reformed itself that it has vigorously remedied all those old injustices of the dusty dreary past? What, no? Not in 1985? Not in 1990? Not in 1995? Not in 2000? Not in 2005? Not in 2010? Not in 2015? No movement whatsoever on these issues? The same coteries and cliques are holding to the same positions? Which means the same cronyism is still going on? Look at those two canaries in the cages, MrDibble. They’re still gasping on their floors. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/142 "2016-01-13T17:10:07Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > I have been mistaken in my life… but if the Laurel was _ **not** _ being given for the Handbook, why then was the offer _withdrawn_ when her authorship was falsified? In fact, if she already had “the quality and volume of work” needed to justify a Laurel, _ **why did she bother** _ to type up someone else’s entire Handbook and put her own name on it as author? The offer was probably withdrawn because she showed she lacked honor and a sense of responsibility, and they needed to investigate whether some or all of the remainder of her body of work wasn’t really hers either. It is entirely possible that most of the “quality and volume of work” that had been offered to justify her Laurel was somebody else’s work she’d retyped and stuck her own name on. It is unlikely that this incident was a one-off, because people tend to fall into patterns. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/143 "2016-01-13T17:19:47Z")
… and what you see here of _ **today’s SCA** _ are two Kingdom Great Officers actively defending the actions taken back by the SCA then, so it’s not just a matter of the dim bygone past, is it? ---
**Author:** ![Jane\_Elliot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jane_elliot/32/6166_2.png) [@Jane\_Elliot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jane_Elliot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/144 "2016-01-13T17:38:39Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > … and what you see here of _ **today’s SCA** _ are two Kingdom Officials actively defending the actions taken back by the SCA then, so it’s not just a matter of the dim bygone past, is it? Honestly, you take everything I say, twist it into something sinister and somehow make me a bad guy. I’m done being beaten over the head for something that happened 30 years ago. People who hold grudges for 30 years are part of the bad side of the SCA, you are bitter about things that, most likely, the people it happened to have probably forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/145 "2016-01-13T17:53:15Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > The offer was probably withdrawn because she showed she lacked honor and a sense of responsibility, and they needed to investigate whether some or all of the remainder of her body of work wasn’t really hers either. It is entirely possible that most of the “quality and volume of work” that had been offered to justify her Laurel was somebody else’s work she’d retyped and stuck her own name on. It is unlikely that this incident was a one-off, because people tend to fall into patterns. This is an entirely reasonable answer … save that, in the documentation I’d read, no other such work was alluded to, no need to _investigate_ other such work was alluded to, thus there was no “remainder” beyond the one Handbook. The “pattern” seems to have been sheer intellectual laziness: she picked just one book, retyped the text, traced the pictures, and submitted it, _voilà!_ (Apparently she counted on “connections” for the rest.) Full disclosure: I was shown all this because some of the original artwork had been mine (heraldic designs: the officers’ seals, Golden Key etc., used by Feilimidh with my permission), and the tracings were indeed unmistakably such. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/146 "2016-01-13T18:16:33Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > Nor heard eyewitness descriptions of Midrealm Laurel meetings from the early 1980s on, I take it, nor why that Order was shut down for a reign. No shame in not having been everywhere nor in nor having heard everything. The trick is to keep listening, and not cover up your ears when you do hear something you don’t like. > > Remarkable thing about songs like “The S.C.A. Game” and “The Midrealm Laurels” is the reaction they draw from SCA “establishment” even far from the Midrealm, almost never “That’s terrible and should be changed” but ranging from a defensive dismissal of the thesis to a vengeful hostility toward the writer. > I have been mistaken in my life… but if the Laurel was _ **not** _ being given for the Handbook, why then was the offer _withdrawn_ when her authorship was falsified?l. Nope, but still- that’s not how we do it today, nor for the last few decades. One Kingdom of 20- one year of 50. Why are you fixated on something that occurred so long ago, in one Kingdom, and has been rectified? Obviously mistakes were made. And, they \*were fixed. \* Because if that Gentle did that, that would be _unchivalrous_, and that’s a requirement for a Peerage. Like if a Fighter wins a major Tourney (not Crown) that’s _not_ gonna get him a Knighthood, but if he cheated- then any considerations of a Peerage would be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/147 "2016-01-13T18:20:39Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > Oh? Has _ **today’s** _ local Order of the Laurel, with (no doubt) an entirely new membership, so well reformed itself that it has vigorously remedied all those old injustices of the dusty dreary past? > > What, no? > > Not in 1985? Not in 1990? Not in 1995? Not in 2000? Not in 2005? Not in 2010? Not in 2015? > > No movement whatsoever on these issues? The same coteries and cliques are holding to the same positions? Which means the same cronyism is still going on? > > Look at those two canaries in the cages, MrDibble. They’re still gasping on their floors. Yes. That’s not how it’s done today, nor for the last several decades. As long as I have been a Peer, anyway. What you indicated was the way things were done has \*no resemblance at all \*to how they are done today. But just because someone got screwed, it doesnt mean they get a Peerage as a consolation prize. By and large, the same coteries and cliques are dead or gone. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/148 "2016-01-13T18:23:19Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > … and what you see here of _ **today’s SCA** _ are two Kingdom Great Officers actively defending the actions taken back by the SCA then, so it’s not just a matter of the dim bygone past, is it? Not at all. What I have said is that that’s no longer how it’s done, and altho certainly mistakes were made back then, that was one year out of 50 and one Kingdom out of 20. However, again- the things you indicated that were critical for a Peerage are not and have never been. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/149 "2016-01-13T22:18:48Z")
> [@Jane\_Elliot](#): > > People who hold grudges for 30 years are part of the bad side of the SCA, you are bitter about things that, most likely, the people it happened to have probably forgotten. A verrry interesting point of view. “Grudge” generally means “resentment for a wrong against _ **oneself** _”. But here you seem to use the word to mean “recognition that a wrong was committed against someone _ **else** _”; and _that_ trait, you say, is “part of the _bad_ side of the SCA”? Gosh, I would have thought it a capacity required in order to claim a conscience. And as to amnesia, no, neither has suffered a traumatic brain injury at last notice. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Why are you fixated on something that occurred so long ago, in one Kingdom, and has been rectified? > > Obviously mistakes were made. > > And, they \*were fixed. \* Oh my goodness, Feilimidh and Gwynfreya were given Laurels? Let me look in the OP! … and… Nope. Why did you say that? > [@DrDeth](#): > > But just because someone got screwed, it doesnt mean they get a Peerage as a consolation prize. In Gwynfreya’s case, you mean? Screwed out of a (sole) winner’s announcement? And watching the (bogus) tie-winner get a Laurel, while she, a 2nd-time (true) winner, got none? Fitting to call a Peerage a “consolation prize” in that case, since it was the actual 2nd-placer who received it! No, it’s merely that the “quality” criterion is blatantly manipulated at will (as with the MK A&S rules) and someone who had dutifully met all the Corpora’s requirements (although of course she had never _asked_ for a Laurel) was run over by someone else’s ambition train, because she hadn’t the same “connections” – a matter that has never been “fixed”. In Feilimidh’s case, how she got screwed was not by being refused anything (she hadn’t _asked_ for a Laurel either) but by getting an explicit ban placed on her name – which was never taken off. Was that unjust? Yes. Was this injustice “fixed”? Not that anyone’s mentioned. > [@DrDeth](#): > > By and large, the same coteries and cliques are dead or gone. In the sense that membership has continued to grow, diluting the Old Guard’s votes? Yes, but the Old Guard _selected_ the new members, so cliques simply recruit to bolster their votes. Had the actual _members_ of the cliques died or retired, you’d have a point, but leading MK clique members are still active. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/150 "2016-01-13T22:38:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > However, again- the things you indicated that were critical for a Peerage are not and have never been. Such as…? > [@\_Raven](#): > > We’d been discussing the Laurels in specific, for whom one duty is [_ **“To set an example of courtesy and chivalrous conduct.”** _](http://www.sca.org/docs/pdf/govdocs.pdf#32) (Corpora p.32, VIII.B.4.b.ii.a) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/151 "2016-01-13T22:41:10Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > Oh my goodness, Feilimidh and Gwynfreya were given Laurels? Let me look in the OP! … and… Nope. > > Why did you say that? > > In Gwynfreya’s case, you mean? Screwed out of a (sole) winner’s announcement? And watching the (bogus) tie-winner get a Laurel, while she, a 2nd-time (true) winner, got none? Fitting to call a Peerage a “consolation prize” in that case, since it was the actual 2nd-placer who received it!. No, they werent. But why do you think they deserve Laurels just because someone either put their name on their work, or was erroneously announced as a winner of a competition? Again- writing a handbook is not grounds for a Laurel. Nor for a dozen handbooks. _Maybe_ a Pelican. Winning competitions is also not grounds for a Laurel. So even if the handbook had been totally properly accredited- no Laurel. So even if the competition had been totally properly accredited- no Laurel. You posted: _On the strength of this massive plagiarism, the lady in question had been about to receive a Laurel;_ But like we have explained over and over- that’s not how Laurels are awarded. Perhaps,\* maybe\* it’d be one thing in a list of dozens and dozens over years or decades of art & service. Nor do they announce who is\* about\* to get a Laurel, except perhaps after it’s been offered and accepted and they need to set a Court date. You posted:\* On the strength of his “winning”, that gentleman thereafter received a Laurel.\* But like we have explained over and over- that’s not how Laurels are awarded. Perhaps,\* maybe\* it’d be one thing in a list of dozens and dozens over years or decades of art & service. I have never sat a Peerage meeting where anyone has even _asked for a Peerage to be awarded on the strength of one thing. The closest thing is when some completes two whole years_ of being a Kingdom Great Officer. Even so- that’s not enough. Do you have a link to the songs"The S.C.A. Game" and “The Midrealm Laurels” ? ---
**Author:** ![Jane\_Elliot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jane_elliot/32/6166_2.png) [@Jane\_Elliot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jane_Elliot)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/152 "2016-01-13T23:12:47Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > A verrry interesting point of view. “Grudge” generally means “resentment for a wrong against _ **oneself** _”. But here you seem to use the word to mean “recognition that a wrong was committed against someone _ **else** _”; and _that_ trait, you say, is “part of the _bad_ side of the SCA”? Gosh, I would have thought it a capacity required in order to claim a conscience. > > And as to amnesia, no, neither has suffered a traumatic brain injury at last notice. You have twisted my words (amnesia? where did I say that?) enough. I now no longer trust that anything you have said about these two people is in any way the truth. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2016, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/153 "2016-01-13T23:59:02Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, they werent. But why do you think they deserve Laurels just because someone either put their name on their work, or was erroneously announced as a winner of a competition? You leave out the punchline “… and then got [or were about to get] a Laurel citing that accomplishment as justification and thus showing its worth.” > [@](#): > > Again- writing a handbook is not grounds for a Laurel. Nor for a dozen handbooks. _Maybe_ a Pelican. Winning competitions is also not grounds for a Laurel. Tell that to the War Court which gave the Laurel to the bogus “Pentathlon Winner”, and cited that competition. Tell it to the Laurels who had the plagiarist up for elevation before that scandal broke. > [@](#): > > Nor do they announce who is\* about\* to get a Laurel, except perhaps after it’s been offered and accepted and they need to set a Court date. Apparently the exposure was very close indeed to the actual presentation. > [@](#): > > You posted:\* On the strength of his “winning”, that gentleman thereafter received a Laurel.\* But like we have explained over and over- that’s not how Laurels are awarded. Perhaps,\* maybe\* it’d be one thing in a list of dozens and dozens over years or decades of art & service. Strictly speaking, winning Pentathlon entries are usually not “one thing”; there are multiple categories to be entered in order to compile a high enough score. Cf. A&S Competitions, where you can if you wish enter just one item. > [@](#): > > Do you have a link to the songs"The S.C.A. Game" and “The Midrealm Laurels” ? The first was posted in this thread; neither turns up online elsewhere at this time. (Both were originally pre-DejaNews, thus not archived.) As my original computer and files are long gone, I retyped the first from hardcopy [updating only how long since I’d started] and can do the same with the second if you like. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/154 "2016-01-14T00:08:19Z")
> [@Jane\_Elliot](#): > > You have twisted my words (amnesia? where did I say that?) enough. People tend not to forget traumatic events, absent amnesia: > [@Jane\_Elliot](#): > > … things that, most likely, the people it happened to have probably forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![Jane\_Elliot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jane_elliot/32/6166_2.png) [@Jane\_Elliot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jane_Elliot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/155 "2016-01-14T00:12:07Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > People tend not to forget traumatic events, absent amnesia: Or maybe it wasn’t that traumatic and they got on with their lives. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/156 "2016-01-14T00:42:27Z")
> [@Jane\_Elliot](#): > > Or maybe it wasn’t that traumatic and they got on with their lives. How optimistic of you. So you’re saying the Pages’ School went on, and on, and on? And Gwynfreya did not in fact wind up inactive, essentially forgotten by the SCA, with multiple medical disabilities? What a cheery piece of news to learn. Thank you so much. Should someone look up both ladies and tell them you said “Or maybe it wasn’t that traumatic and they got on with their lives”? Would it brighten up their spirits immensely? … Uh, on consideration, no, it would be thoughtless and callous. ---
**Author:** ![Jane\_Elliot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jane_elliot/32/6166_2.png) [@Jane\_Elliot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jane_Elliot)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/157 "2016-01-14T01:12:48Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > How optimistic of you. So you’re saying the Pages’ School went on, and on, and on? > > And Gwynfreya did not in fact wind up inactive, essentially forgotten by the SCA, with multiple medical disabilities? > > What a cheery piece of news to learn. Thank you so much. > > Should someone look up both ladies and tell them you said “Or maybe it wasn’t that traumatic and they got on with their lives”? Would it brighten up their spirits immensely? … Uh, on consideration, no, it would be thoughtless and callous. Or maybe you could just look them up and give them a link to this thread to show them how you splashed their names all over. I’m sure they’d like to see how you’re still fighting the good fight 30 years later. ---
**Author:** ![\_Raven](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/_raven/32/20435_2.png) [@\_Raven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Raven)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/158 "2016-01-14T02:08:10Z")
> [@Jane\_Elliot](#): > > Or maybe you could just look them up and give them a link to this thread… I’ve sent a link to Feilimidh. Alas, Gwynfreya seems to have gone offline since February 2015, and was discussing troubles before that… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/159 "2016-01-14T03:18:37Z")
> [@\_Raven](#): > > You leave out the punchline “… and then got [or were about to get] a Laurel citing that accomplishment as justification and thus showing its worth.” > > Tell that to the War Court which gave the Laurel to the bogus “Pentathlon Winner”, and cited that competition. Tell it to the Laurels who had the plagiarist up for elevation before that scandal broke. > The first was posted in this thread; neither turns up online elsewhere at this time. (Both were originally pre-DejaNews, thus not archived.) As my original computer and files are long gone, I retyped the first from hardcopy [updating only how long since I’d started] and can do the same with the second if you like. Ok, no one is “\*about to get \*a Laurel and citing that accomplishment as justification and thus showing its worth.” They dont announce those things. In any case, so what if they cite one thing among dozens? No one gets a Laurel for one handbook or one competition. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945/160 "2016-01-14T03:24:08Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Many years ago I was a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism (Shire of Stromgard, Kingdom of An Tir), but I dropped out due to life getting in the way. Is it worth getting back into it, or has interest died down? Is it still fun, or has politics gotten in the way? So, what do you think? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-opinion-of-the-s-c-a-as-it-stands-today/663945.md?page=9)