[Cynnabar] Changing the 100 Mile event rule- From KSen, February AS L

[Monique Rio via Barony]

Some disorganized thoughts on the topic:

-----------

There are two important parts for SCA groups: Regular local practices,
meetings, etc. and Events. Of the two, the first is more vital. I could
reasonably imagine being part of a small canton that had a weekly fighter
practice or dance practice, and couple local revels throughout the year,
never having something on the kingdom calendar.

But events are an important part of this organization. The only way to
attract Royalty to your event is to have it on the Kingdom calendar. For
groups with only one or two peers, being able to see and host bigwigs once
in a while is important.

So, I agree with Ranthulfr that every group should be allowed one slot on
the kingdom calendar.  Or at least, I'm open to that right being granted.

------

As an SCA member, I'd love to see more of our events go from annual to
semiannual. It'd free up calendar space. I might actually look forward to
going to a Super Event.

But I see the value from an organizational standpoint of annual events.
It's easier to build relationships with sites if you interract with them
regularly. It's easier to build momentum for your event if people
associated it with a specific time of year. If your event does well you get
a guaranteed income stream.

And also, to be perfectly honest, it's only non-Cynnabar events that I want
to go to a semi-annual schedule. Which is a problem when pitching the idea.
(I'd like to think I'd feel differently if there were other Period Music
events or if there was another Middle Kingdom dance event besides Crystal
Ball.)

-------

I agree with Kasha that while the idea of collaborating with other groups
sounds nice, in practice it can be really challenging. Planning events
locally, where we more or less know each other, is hard enough. Planning
something with people you don't know very well over long distances in a
volunteer organization (i.e. there are few consequences for flaking out) is
at least one order of magnitude more difficult.

I certainly would not want to share any of Cynnabar's signature events with
another group. But I might let another group run the lunch tavern.

------------

I like that Cynnabar, Roaring Wastes, and Northwoods share Pentamere 12th
night. Are there other events that could be shared similarly? All those
mini-wars during the summer come to mind...

------------

What is the goal for the Kingdom Calendar? Do we want higher quality
events? (whatever that means.) Do we want events from a more diverse number
of groups? Do we want fewer events on the calendar? Do we want more niche
events?

Maybe the 150 mile rule makes sense since there's an exception for
"specialty" events. At least 2 of Cynnabar's 3 Signature events are
covered. And there's a case to be made for GDoT being a specialty event too.

I have no conclusions-
-Jadzia


On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Randy Asplund via Barony <
barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:

> Thanks Birka,
>
> Actually, while I think that it is on the SCA to make it available for
> groups to host an event each year, that would hinge on whether the group
> was actually ready, able and willing to do so. Pushing a group that isn't
> set to hold an event would be a mistake. While most full status groups get
> to be full status after having run events, there will always be groups on
> the fringe who are hanging on thinly, or are in hard times, or just don't
> currently have the interested and capable people to handle it, or may be
> otherwise short on resources for a year or more.
>
> Funding sources for a group can certainly happen in other ways. It is not
> uncommon for an incipient group to get their first seed money by doing
> demos for pay. Just one example.
>
> RanthulfR
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Kell Carnahan via Barony" <barony at cynnabar.org>
> *To: *"Randy Asplund" <randyasplund at comcast.net>
> *Cc: *"Barony Cynnabar" <barony at cynnabar.org>, seneschal at midrealm.org
> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 27, 2016 1:26:13 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [Cynnabar] Changing the 100 Mile event rule- From KSen,
> February AS L
>
> Some well-reasoned thoughts.
>
> Do you feel that it is necessary for a small group to host an event every
> year?  What if the group is particularly tiny, and doesn't have the
> manpower or experience to really do so?
>
> On the other thread, I made some thoughts about how if the issue is one of
> funding for small groups, perhaps we should focus on creative ways to
> dampen that issue.
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Randy Asplund via Barony <
> barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>>
>> First, if I cover some thoughts othesr already expressed, it is because I
>> am a slow typist and not because I'm claiming your ideas. Took me a while
>> to write this up.
>>
>>
>> The question is about whether the radius that events are allowed to hold
>> competing events within ought to be increased. I think that is the wrong
>> question. The radius rule is a band-aide, not a solution. It should not be
>> about radius alone because:
>>
>>
>> Right to hold at least one event per year: I strongly feel that every
>> group needs to be allowed to hold a successful event each year because it
>> is the point of the SCA and because holding events is an essential tool for
>> a group has to raise working capital. As the number of groups increases,
>> there is more competition during the year for specific dates, and there are
>> dates which are far more feasible than others inside a radius. Young groups
>> need to be able to hold events in order to learn and to grow. Screwing them
>> because they couldn't get a date within a certain radius is counter
>> productive.
>>
>>
>> I feel that the large "Super Events" such as Crown, Coronation, Val Day,
>> TOC, Baron Wars, etc. draw from such a wide distance that they impact
>> concurrent events well beyond the radius, and in fact across the whole
>> kingdom. Super Events can be enormous, expensive events which require a lot
>> of capitol and attendance fees in order to host them, such as Val Day. If
>> they do not get enough attendance due to competing events, they may not be
>> able to pay for the large site, and may even have serious financial
>> distress. On the other hand, if there is a competing event the same day
>> almost ANYWHERE in the kingdom, the radius rule is ineffectual and doesn't
>> protect *any* events. Anybody holding an event on that day will likely
>> be impacted to some degree. The more super events we have that take up the
>> calendar, the worse this problem will get, and smaller events will suffer.
>>
>>
>> Combining small events to make Super Events doesn't seem to be the
>> answer. I once thought it logical, but I see drawbacks. Yes, there are many
>> good aspects, such as everyone can come and find something to do. Combining
>> all fighting types, maybe archery, maybe studio arts, music, A&S displays,
>> classes, far more merchants than at a small event, etc. is very convenient.
>> But you usually have to choose which activities to do. Its hard to fight a
>> tourney and break away to take a class when the local A&S event gets rolled
>> into a Super Event. You would have been able to take that class if it had
>> been on its own weekend. Also, combining events means extra long travel for
>> organizers and volunteers, less face to face communication for them,
>> co-sponsoring groups may be limited by members of "less efficient" or less
>> experienced groups, and the financial and other resources have to be
>> distributed in agreement. Those resources are at risk, but the
>> responsibility is divided.
>>
>>
>> A radius rule cannot help but be biased. Some groups are far away from
>> other groups while others are in dense SCA population areas. One might
>> expect that a remote group's survival would be linked to whether their
>> event drew enough people for success, while a group in a densely populated
>> area would be quite able to draw enough people for a theme focus event the
>> same weekend as another group held an event nearby. Groups close to
>> geographic boundaries like the great lakes, international and SCA Kingdom
>> borders, or groups within the radius but where actual driving routes mean
>> longer travel skew the usefulness of the radius rule.
>>
>>
>> The usefulness of the radius rule also fluctuates with the price of gas,
>> which affects the travel plans of many potential attendees.
>>
>>
>> The available days on the calendar are limited. Super Events of the
>> kingdom such as Crown, Coronation 12th Nights and TOC, or Pennsic, or Val
>> Day, Baron Wars, etc. all chew up dates. Holidays take more, and even home
>> sporting events have an impact where many groups are centered in university
>> towns. Use of Fairground sites and other larger venues for fighting events
>> is in competition with mundane groups. Churches also have weddings
>> competing with us. Squeezing in events around all of this is a nightmare of
>> scheduling which gets worse when it becomes a matter of "first come, first
>> served" getting the calendar slot. In an area with a lot of groups close to
>> each other these things make competition for weekends very hard.
>>
>>
>> Is "first come, first served" a fair way to decide?
>>
>> Obviously, it was intended that way, but I think it creates a different
>> unfairness. Not getting your event on the calendar can be a financial
>> setback or even disaster for some groups. And while it is a whole group
>> trying to survive and hold an event, usually the task of getting onto the
>> calendar is up to one person. If because of lack of experience, or some
>> other reason like unavailability of a site to book causes the group to lose
>> a calendar date to another group who had more convenient logistics, that's
>> unfair.
>>
>>
>> Having an event close by on the same day will impact some events
>> financially by reducing attendance, but that is NOT ALWAYS TRUE. There are
>> events of different natures which can use nearby sites without impacting
>> each other very significantly. There may be a way to allow close events of
>> different natures. For example, if two groups wished to host an event on
>> the same day and somewhat near each other, they could work out between them
>> whether they felt they would have the attendance numbers to work with their
>> site.
>>
>>
>> Also, is it fair if a group in that position can't hold their only event
>> of the year when some other group schedules their third event? I say it is
>> not. When groups are fighting to get one event on the calendar, it is not
>> cool for other groups to get a selfish share of the calendar at another
>> group's expense, regardless of who was first.
>>
>>
>> But what if the group holding several events during the year throws
>> REALLY good events? Isn't it important that those events be allowed to
>> happen? Is it MORE important that such "worthy" events are held than the
>> needs of the competing group who's event is likely a lesser draw anyway?
>>
>>
>> No, it isn't MORE important. But it IS important that both groups are
>> able to pull off their events. All effort should be made to ensure that a
>> group gets to hold at least one event during the year if they wish. That
>> ought to be a given. There are ways to work it out. As for how it is worked
>> out, that depends on what the SCA gets out of the other collection of
>> events held by the other group. For example, if one group holds three
>> similar fighting events, it would be selfish and wrong to prevent another
>> group from holding their one event. But if the first group holds several
>> smaller theme specific events which have a vital SCA value and are bringing
>> in people from across the kingdom, there needs to be a way to hold those
>> events too, and without impacting the single-event holding group.
>>
>>
>> The solution to that seems to be allowing the events to happen within the
>> radius, regardless of the earliest scheduler's claim. In other words, just
>> ditch the radius method.
>>
>>
>> How to work it out? The problem is that we plan our events with little
>> advanced regard for who else needs a weekend, and we plan that according to
>> our anticipated attendance draw. As it is, if someone comes along later and
>> needs to share the weekend within some radius, you can let them if you feel
>> it won't impact your event, but if you feel it might impact your numbers,
>> you deny the waiver. That screws the other group. To me, the better
>> solution is to replace the radius rule. We should allow events to happen on
>> the same weekend regardless of distance, knowing ahead of time how it will
>> impact both events, AND knowing that the impact is an incentive to try hard
>> not to schedule against each other.
>>
>>
>> The way to do that is to have groups post a notice of intent to hold an
>> event as soon as they know they want to do it. They provide possible
>> weekends they can hold it, target attendance numbers, and list the other
>> events they wish to hold. In the digital age this is very feasible. Then
>> you let groups who feel the need contact each other and work out how to
>> manage it. Every group would be able to see that listing, and if they felt
>> they needed that weekend they could then negotiate on equal terms. That
>> isn't possible in the "first come, first served" method. Will groups always
>> get the same numbers as if they had no local competition? Of course not,
>> but it would be fair. And attendance will rise or fall by natural
>> selection. It does that now anyway. I feel that knowing the success of an
>> event will be impacted by numbers will naturally cause groups to try very
>> hard NOT to hold events on the same weekend, so it will be like a
>> self-regulating valve. If you throw a good event, people will want to come.
>> If you don't get the numbers you want, you plan a smaller site. Yes, people
>> will have to choose which event to attend. Yes, some groups will argue
>> about it, but they'll have to work together or suffer together, and the
>> later is a motivation to cooperate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ranthulf AsparlundR
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From: *"Kay Jarrell via Barony" <barony at cynnabar.org>
>> *To: *"Melanie Schuessler Bond" <mschuess at bond-family.com>
>> *Cc: *"Barony of Cynnabar" <barony at cynnabar.org>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 27, 2016 7:50:19 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [Cynnabar] Changing the 100 Mile event rule- From KSen,
>> February AS L
>>
>> Dear Barony,
>> I look forward to more comment on this issue.  Why should you write about
>> it?  And why to the Baronial list?
>>
>>    - First, I hope discussion will produce greater light as many minds
>>    consider this issue.  Sharing here can spark a blending of ideas.
>>    - Second, Cynnabar produces 3 well regarded events, each with a
>>    strong core interest group.  Terpsichore and St Cecila's would both be
>>    considered special interest events by many people.  Grand Day of
>>    Tournaments is more of a "typical" SCA event, but has a few unique
>>    attractors that make it special.  Therefore, the Barony has a vested
>>    interest in how the decision about the distance change turns out, and in
>>    the process by which that decision is made.
>>    - Third, Cynnabar does great Kingdom level events.  We are respected
>>    for it. Others may want to hear from us.
>>    - Overall we have an excellent history of producing successful local,
>>    regional and Kingdom events. I think that you, the people who create those
>>    events, should be heard in this discussion.
>>
>> I believe a message from the Barony with arguments presented by members
>> of a group such as I described will be valued and listened to by the Curia.
>> If we have a consensus of opinion (and a minority report, too) it is our
>> duty to pass it on.
>>
>> In a week I will see what we have collected here, write a synopsis, get
>> your last comments, and send it as our collected advice to Crown and Curia.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kay
>>
>>
>> *Kay Jarrell*
>>
>> 4363 Lyndon Lane  Ann Arbor, MI 48105
>>
>>
>> kjarrell at gmail.com
>>
>> HOME: 734-913-4053
>>
>> CELL: 734-645-3175
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Melanie Schuessler Bond via Barony <
>> barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that this change would not be for the better.
>>>
>>> Melisant
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2016, at 8:24 AM, Anne Stevenson via Barony wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Gregoire that this may cause even more trouble with people
>>> booking up the calendar ahead of time.
>>>
>>> What I would like to see more is finding ways to help groups work
>>> together to put on events.  Then there would be more attendance, more staff
>>> and hopefully more opportunities for fun and engagement!
>>>
>>> Giovanna
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Greg Less via Barony <
>>> barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mistress Kay -
>>>>
>>>>    There are pros and cons to this issue. The calendar is certainly
>>>> over-booked the way it is already, but reducing the number of events per
>>>> weekend by increasing the "do not compete" radius is simply going to
>>>> encourage the monolithic legacy events to get on the calendar further and
>>>> further in advance. Even if the kingdom starts restricting how far in
>>>> advance a group can book a weekend, I think that they will see a sudden
>>>> influx of reservations on the first available day.
>>>>
>>>>    A solution is needed, I'm just not sure that this is it.
>>>>
>>>> -Gregoire.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Kay Jarrell via Barony <
>>>> barony at cynnabar.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Does Cynnabar have an opinion on this issue? If you want to add your
>>>>> thoughts to the advice I send Mistress Catriona please write.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here in Pentamere this change would have a powerful affect. We have
>>>>> struggled with date conflicts just this year.
>>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate any input from those who do not feel strongly enough to
>>>>> write directly to The Seneschal, but have thoughts to express.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> Kay
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: "The Midrealm Gazette" <donotreply at wordpress.com>
>>>>> Date: Jan 25, 2016 8:32 PM
>>>>> Subject: [New post] From the Kingdom Seneschal, February AS L
>>>>> To: <kjarrell at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>>
>>>>> admin posted: "Let’s talk about event scheduling. The Middle Kingdom
>>>>> is fortunate to have more than eighty local groups and thousands of
>>>>> members. Our longstanding law is groups are not typically allowed to hold
>>>>> events within 100 miles of one another. The kingdom Calend"
>>>>> New post on *The Midrealm Gazette*
>>>>> <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/?author=1>
>>>>> From the Kingdom Seneschal, February AS L
>>>>> <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/2016/01/25/from-the-kingdom-seneschal-february-as-l/>
>>>>> by admin <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/?author=1>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let’s talk about event scheduling.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Middle Kingdom is fortunate to have more than eighty local groups
>>>>> and thousands of members. Our longstanding law is groups are not typically
>>>>> allowed to hold events within 100 miles of one another. The kingdom
>>>>> Calendar Secretary is instructed to inform groups if an event is within 200
>>>>> miles and/or in the same region of an event that is already scheduled. The
>>>>> purpose is to help bring potential conflicts to mind. The intent is to help
>>>>> Shires and Baronies be aware they may be impacted in terms of attendance.
>>>>> Currently, groups are not prohibited if the events are scheduled at least
>>>>> 101 miles away from each other. However, a law change is under
>>>>> consideration to change the “100-mile rule” to 150 miles. Commentary,
>>>>> concerns, and discussion can be sent to me at seneschal at midrealm.org. Read
>>>>> more of this post
>>>>> <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/2016/01/25/from-the-kingdom-seneschal-february-as-l/#more-929>
>>>>>
>>>>> *admin <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/?author=1>* | January 25, 2016
>>>>> at 8:30 pm | Categories: Calendar
>>>>> <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/?taxonomy=category&term=calendar>,
>>>>> Events <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/?taxonomy=category&term=events>,
>>>>> Official Missives
>>>>> <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/?taxonomy=category&term=official-missives>,
>>>>> Seneschal
>>>>> <http://www.midrealmgazette.org/?taxonomy=category&term=seneschal> |
>>>>> URL: http://wp.me/p5OLYn-eZ
>>>>>
>>>>> Unsubscribe
>>>>> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=1d714310cce9fd674ffa689e1c654cc6&email=kjarrell%40gmail.com&b=LQq7ph%26UfW8Wh%26f%7CSYYqzEBac53q%25RvT-EHxkuzT9F403Quiifw>
>>>>> to no longer receive posts from The Midrealm Gazette.
>>>>> Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions
>>>>> <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=1d714310cce9fd674ffa689e1c654cc6&email=kjarrell%40gmail.com>
>>>>> .
>>>>> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.midrealmgazette.org/2016/01/25/from-the-kingdom-seneschal-february-as-l/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cynnabar.org/pipermail/barony/attachments/20160127/5fb036ef/attachment-0001.html>