[Cynnabar] To Seneschal et all

Thu Feb 9 14:56:01 UTC 2012

How is this slanted?  Because more people respond in one direction?  Just
about everyone who regularly attends Cynnabar meetings has voiced their
opinion.  So the people who take the most active role in our finances has
made a statement, just like a we would in a meeting.

I am not against the poll per se, but I think the other options available
also fit in fine.  Besides, lets say the poll does go out right now and
then on Friday at 6:30 pm we receive new information that is important and
could change the way people would have voted.  What then?  Do we throw out
the polling numbers because of new information?  That violates the vote
people sent.  Do we allow our officers to keep the decision even if it now
changes the basis on which we voted?

Personally if new information comes to light, I want know that I have not
tied anyone's hands.

I realize that what we are doing is not under optimal conditions, but I
think anyone and everyone who does have an opinion has options, both public
and private, to state that opinion.  If our Seneschal tells me that we are
going with an option I don't like, but in private conferences with several
members of the barony finds it to be the most liked and best for the group,
so be it.  I remember the three meetings we spent deciding if our current
Seneschal was the man for the job.  I have faith in the ability of Baronial
Leadership (our Baronage, our Seneschal, and our Exchequer) to take the
information given to them by their superiors and our desires and synthesize
the best possible choice.

Ermenrich

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Randy Asplund <randyasplund at comcast.net>wrote:

> And yet, if the poll I wrote were distributed out to our membership along
> the schedule I proposed it would get a higher response (thus a more
> accurate sampling) of the greater number of members. We "poll" (call it a
> vote if you like) at almost every Cynnabar meeting by a show of hands. Why
> is this different?
>
> Do you really want to steam-roll this without adequately sampling the
> opinion of as much of the group as possible? The seneschal making this call
> based on his interpretation of emails in a situation that is slanted in
> favor of one opinion is not fair and not representative. At that point, our
> own rules call us to go back to the consensus model of three meetings.
> Would you rather have that or compromise enough to allow people to voice
> their opinions honestly and fairly?
>
> Regardless of how I would "vote," (and as I said, I still do not know how
> I will vote yet) I will keep pushing for  fair and honest sampling of
> opinion because it is the right thing to do.
>
> RanthulfR
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Greg Less wrote:
>
> Sir Ranthulfr-
>
>    As stated yesterday, the Barony of Cynnabar does not vote. A poll,
> regardless of the outcome, could not be used to make a decision on this
> matter because it would be tantamount to voting.
>
>   In my experience, it has always been the job of Cynnabar's  seneschal to
> listen to the discussion, steer the discussion, contribute to the
> discussion impartially, and at the end of the allotted time, decide whether
> a consensus opinion has been formed on the proposed action and whether or
> not a substantive opposition has been voiced to said proposal.
>
>    Here, the proposed action is to give the Kingdom 18% of our 2011
> coffers rounded up to the nearest dollar. The discussion is ongoing. I am
> sure that Finn is doing his best to hear all of the opinions, both pro and
> con, and decide whether the aforementioned consensus has been reached
> without substantive opposition.
>
>    If a person wishes their voice to be heard on this matter, but does not
> wish to speak up in public, Finn has made his home phone number and
> personal email address available. Their Excellencies are also available for
> private communication,  I am sure. There are plenty of ways to get your
> opinion out there; don't let being shy, my rhetoric, or anything else stop
> you from being heard.
>
>
> -Gregoire.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Randy Asplund <randyasplund at comcast.net>wrote:
>
>> Lord Finn,
>>
>> How will this decision be made before Saturday? A poll has been proposed
>> and seconded, and another person has offered to draft it, but t is now
>> Thursday and we've had no word yet about how the decision will be made.
>>
>> I ask because I am concerned that this group might make the mistake of
>> using the gist of this week's emails to imply a decision rather than
>> actually using a method that is impartial and non-public. We are already in
>> a darker than gay area for stretching the "emergency decision" definition,
>> so we should try our very best to be as fairly representative as possible.
>>
>> The logic for using the poll system rather than looking at past emails is
>> about fairness because:
>>
>> 1) Although many posts on this subject have been made, the majority of
>> the posts have been from the same few people, which is not a fair
>> representation of the far greater numbers of the Barony. In fact, we have
>> not heard from most of our active membership and only (if I counted right)
>> three of our local Peers. It may turn out that the opinion of the ones who
>> posted the most for one side carries the favor of the majority, but we
>> won't know until we have a chance to decide and vote in private.
>>
>> 2) From the first post by Gregoire, language has been used that would
>> dissuade anyone who disagreed from saying so has been used. I am NOT saying
>> that was intentional on anybody's part, but that is certainly the
>> psychological effect. Who wants to publicly state an opposing opinion when
>> it might cause them to appear ungenerous or not in support of Kingdom and
>> Society, even if they thought there was a better way to do both? I know for
>> a fact that there are people who have not posted but do disagree. They
>> deserve to have the opportunity to be counted privately and impartially.
>>
>> 3) There are people on the list who just don't post much, but would like
>> to vote. There are also members of the local group who are physically
>> active but are not on the list-serve.
>>
>> 4) Some people have expressed off-list that they have not posted because
>> they felt others had already made their points.
>>
>> 5) Regardless of what has been said already, we are still waiting for the
>> last information to arrive, and people on either side might change their
>> minds in either direction based on that information. Frankly, I don't even
>> know how "I" would vote yet.
>>
>> 6) And who is eligible to vote ought to be stated. (Please note: This is
>> not a slight to Their Graces, who live in Pittsburgh. I personally feel
>> that anyone who feels they are a member of Cynnabar first and foremost
>> should be allowed to vote. But we have people on this list who are in a
>> grey area and others who were just plain never members of Cynnabar but
>> simply want to keep aware of what we are doing).
>>
>> I doubt strongly that anybody in either camp wants anything but what is
>> best for the SCA, for the Middle Kingdom and for Cynnabar. The question is
>> really about what is the wisest way to deal with the situation. The
>> decision needs to reflect the honest opinion of the group's members without
>> having anybody feel socially pressured into voting against what they
>> believe.
>>
>> RanthulfR
>>
>>    Randy Asplund
>> Facebook: "Randy Asplund, Artist"
>> www.RandyAsplund.com
>> Maker of Medieval books and
>> Illustrator of Science Fiction & Fantasy
>> (734) 663-0954
>> 2101 S. Circle Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48103
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Barony mailing list
>> Barony at cynnabar.org
>> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
>>
>>
>
> Randy Asplund
> Facebook: "Randy Asplund, Artist"
> www.RandyAsplund.com
> Maker of Medieval books and
> Illustrator of Science Fiction & Fantasy
> (734) 663-0954
> 2101 S. Circle Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48103
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Barony mailing list
> Barony at cynnabar.org
> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20120209/61bce32e/attachment-0001.html>