Thoughts about the EK List . . .

     
Yes, this is a thumb-sucker. I have been thinking about a lot of this lately.

I am unsure if I will post it there, but I know there are a lot of folks here who struggle with -- or have left -- the list. I also think some of these ideas are germane to blig posts and in-person discussions.

I will put the cut in when I get home.

    Call me crazy, but I have read every post on SCA-East since I got back from Pennsic.

 

         I have learned a lot, I have nodded in agreement, I have gotten angry, I have responded fairly regularly. I have also starting writing maybe another dozen responses and trashed those for various reasons, including “No good can come of this.”

 

         For what it’s worth, I have been around the Internet since the mid-90s and I have followed thousands of threads – here, on the Rialto, on teacher sites, on sports sites, etc., etc., etc.

 

         Spending that long reading threads can lead to seeing parallels among various topics and drawing some conclusions, based not on individual discussions, but rather – to use a cliché – the meta-discussions.

 

         I will add a caveat, since I am one of those folks who jumps on people for generalizing and stereotyping. These are strictly my observations.

 

         1. The most important thing I have seen over the years – and especially lately on EK List – has been a serious lack of common courtesy. Even in what should be normal response notes, people are slipping insults in and tossing around nasty comments. While I am known to vehemently disagree with some folks, I do think it’s important we respect other people’s opinions, even if we are sure they are wrong. Finally, it’s too common to see people just toss in jibes are stick a knife in someone in single-line responses.

        

         I am not going to pull out the “this is a chivalrous society” card because, well, we all oughta know that, although some folks just refuse to see it that. I do think, though, there’s a case for society as a whole being far more courteous than it is. If we treated people the way we want to be treated, the world – and the Society – would be better places.

 

         This is also apparent through reading some of the posts, especially those on classes at Pennsic. People cutting in line? People arguing with the instructor? The assumption that is we institute a new system, people will find ways to exploit it? This is all nuts to me.

 

         2. No one knows when to quit. Everyone wants to get the last word in. I don’t see any problem with simply taking commentary private. I have fallen in the bait of thinking: “Does this need to be public?” every time I post to a list. Sometimes, I decide it does. Sometimes I decide it doesn’t, and sometimes I don’t make the comment at all. I really think many discussions can be finished up a lot quicker than they are.

 

         A corollary to this, and I am guilty of violating it on occasion, is the simple matter of reading the whole thread before you respond. This, I will admit, is a lot easier for those of us on gmail. Very often, you’ll find duplicated responses or people who are accidentally extending the thread by not reading through.

 

         3. We’re constantly putting the individual over the group. In many of the recent discussions, such as “classes at Pennsic,” and “food allergies,” we are putting the needs of individual over needs of the group. Individuals are not getting into classes (that 15 others are getting in), cooks need to always be considered about potential food allergies (rather than the individual needing to contact the cook), we might offend individuals if we allow certain charges on heraldry (that’s an old one). Small groups on individuals feel excluded from peerage orders. But what would a change do to the Society as a whole?

 

         4. That leads directly to this thought: It’s become “My Society,” rather “Our Society.” Many people seemed to be intensely concerned about their little corner of the Society – whether it is their art or science, their local group, their SCA niche or their view of what the SCA should be. We’re not thinking on a global level, but on an individual one. (Am I guilty of this? Yes. I am trying to think more widely.)

 

         5. For a Society that looks at documentation as important, we are pretty quick to state our own opinions as fact and to repeat rumors we have heard from others. How often do we see a statement backed up by a name or a reference? If I cannot say, I got this from “Lord Tarkesh” or even “from a dispatcher at Security,” I am not going to pass it on. I mean, seriously. Is there a difference between: “The helicopter pilots were stunt-flying,” and “The helicopter pilots were training with their infra-red equipment,” if there is no attribution? People state things as fact, when they are not. In some ways, this is the Soviet “Big Lie.” If you repeat it over and over (“The helicopters were doing full loops.”), eventually people start to believe it.

 

         6. The word “period” has run amok. “They wouldn’t do this in period” has become a rallying cry. Well, maybe they wouldn’t have, but that doesn’t mean it’s not “SCA-Appropriate,” which is what I think that phrase really oughta mean. Would they have used cameras in period? No. They might have had artists, but not cameras. Cameras are not period. Are they SCA-appropriate? Some would disagree, but I think they are. I see them as a tool to look at our garb, our fighting technique, A&S entries, etc.

 

         7. I think, in summary, the main point is that there are always real people on the other end of newsgroup threads and blog posts. I am not saying don’t challenge people or don’t disagree with them. Rather think about how you’d like people to act when they disagree with you and act on that.