[Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship

[Charlotte Mayhew]

Dear Daibhid--

No offense taken.  I suspect those of us with children have paid more
attention to this case.

--Charlotte




On 5/15/11 6:05 PM, "David Hoornstra" <dhoorn123 at comcast.net> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>