[Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship

Sun May 15 22:05:51 UTC 2011

Dear Charlotte, 

Thank you for the clarification.

When I jumped into the discussion, I did not know the magnitude, nor the
issue of an officer left in position in such a manner. I foolishly depended
on the context of the other posts.

The damage to the SCA and to the larger society (American society) was my
pricipal thesis. I now see that I chose an example less suited to that
thesis. 

I am sorry for any feelings hurt by my approach.

Daibhid

> From: Charlotte Mayhew <crmayhew at comcast.net>
> Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 16:31:11 -0400
> To: David Hoornstra <dhoorn123 at comcast.net>, Mary Higgins
> <rufquad at comcast.net>, Cynnabar elist <barony at cynnabar.org>
> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship
> 
> Dear Baron Daibhid--
> 
> I must respectfully disagree with this paragraph:
> 
>> 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 biggest victims are the children who were molested.
> 
> If you read the particulars of the lawsuits that have been brought, you will
> find that there were a number of incidents involving multiple children over
> a long period of time.
> 
> The Society's failure to remove the perpetrator from his position as the
> Dean of Pages of the East Kingdom, a position of trust, is why the Society
> is being sued.
> 
> The new rules the SCA is handing down to us are inconveniences that do not
> compare to what the children and their families are dealing with.
> 
> --Sunnifa Gunnarsdottir
> (Charlotte Mayhew)
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/14/11 11:09 AM, "David Hoornstra" <dhoorn123 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Barony mailing list
>> Barony at cynnabar.org
>> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> 
> 