[Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship

Sat May 14 15:09:48 UTC 2011

I like that this discussion is happening and I am very thankful to Margarete
for her insights. It is helpful to have a sense of the background.

As for the inherent qualities of email communication, I fall back on a
fairly-well-accepted principle in advertising and marketing: The
responsibility for clarity is ENTIRELY on the person sending the message,
from the shape of the envelope on down to the puctuation.

This stems from the incontrovertible FACT that a person sending ANYTHING is
responsible for all of it.

I agree that subtlety does not often come across well in email, no matter
how crafted, because most people reading email are usually not in the
reflective sort of mood that subtlety (including sarcasm, satire, metaphor,
etc.) requires.

I am sorry that there are two or more sets of victims in the case. The
child, the parents and all their close friends. The bigger victim is the SCA
and ultimately US and the larger Society.

The unanswered question here is: who thought the SCA was equipped to play
the victim here, or that money could fix anything? I am not trying to place
values on the persons and entities and comparing them. I am trying to ask
what the best solution could have been other than bringing suit, and adding
to the list of damaged parties?

Daibhid

> From: Mary Higgins <rufquad at comcast.net>
> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:56:43 -0400
> To: 'Barony of Cynnabar' <barony at cynnabar.org>
> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship
> 
> All -
> 
> There are two separate issues here.  First, the manner in which this
> discussion was started.  Second, the discussion itself.  I wish to speak to
> both issues.
> 
> The first issue:
> 1) Sarcasm rarely comes across well in e-mail.
> 
> 2) If it is your (generic "your" here) intent to get people
> thinking/talking/acting, there are perhaps better ways to do it than to vent
> frustration in a sarcastic manner and hope that people will see your real
> intent.  Why not simply state your concerns in a rational tone and ask for
> discussion?  Otherwise it can and will likely be interpreted as simply
> ranting with no constructive purpose - something for which I, for one, have
> little patience.  I fully support constructive discussion and completely
> support everyone's right to express their opinions.  What I do not respond
> well to or have much tolerance for is unconstructive, or worse, destructive
> tirades with no apparent purpose other than stirring the pot to see what
> happens.
> 
> 3) Virtually every system out there, mundane and SCA, has channels for
> making change.  Using those channels, while it may be frustrating at times,
> is often the best approach.
> 
> The second issue:
> 1) As the parents of a school age boy my hubby and I sign a lot of waivers.
> Waivers for photos, waivers for participation, etc. from the school,
> daycare, boy scouts, and virtually any other activity in which we wish our
> son to participate.  Do the waivers inherently provide protection for our
> son?  Of course not.  What they do is provide me with information and the
> opportunity to request that my child's image, name, work, whatever not be
> published.  We know that many waivers are intended to protect the entity
> providing the product or service.  I wish it were different and that more
> waivers actually did more than provide butt coverage.
> 
> 2) As a parent and as someone who knows many of the key people (including
> Ben and many of the families) and the circumstances involved in the events
> that occurred in the EK which have lead to many of the new requirements
> associated with children's activities in the SCA, I have strong opinions
> about many of these policies.  I have also been directly associated with
> other families of minor children that have been molested in the SCA - long
> before these relatively recent events.  Would the policies in place today
> have prevented those particular situations?  Probably not.  In one case in
> another kingdom a girl under the age of 6 was molested by one of her
> supposed champions - a gentle who actually fought for the right to serve in
> this capacity who was well known and liked by her parents then took
> advantage of the access and trust that his position afforded him.  The first
> tier of protection for our kids is being involved parents.  Knowing what
> they are doing, who they are doing it with, etc.  Unfortunately in today's
> world that is often not enough.  What many of the policies do is to provide
> an additional safety net for our kids that is modeled after what is
> considered standard in our modern society today.  I don't like that we have
> to do this - I would rather feel confident that I can trust the people that
> I chose to include in my son's life.  However, I don't have that option
> today because there are bad/sick people out there, both in the SCA and in
> the modern world.
> 
> 3) So, what to do about a situation that I don't particularly like?  I can
> figure out exactly what it is that I find unreasonable or unacceptable and
> work through appropriate channels to try to effect change.  In this
> particular case there is little that I find particularly unreasonable, given
> the world that we live in and my experience with how other institutions
> handle youth activities.  If I could change the world, I would, but life is
> short and I have better things to do.  Like spending time being the best
> parent I can be, enjoying spending time with my son and his friends, and
> enjoying the SCA, warts and all.
> 
> Margarete
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Barony mailing list
> Barony at cynnabar.org
> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony