To lead, you must be willing to lose for those you lead.

[Thorsteinn]

Recently in the SCA Kingdom of the West two friends of mine have been banished for shadowy reasons. This marks the 7th & 8th person I have known to be banished for shadowy reasons, done not in the light. There is always a reason they have, and that reason matches the rules of the SCA, and these rules are nebulous at best. Enforced on some, not enforced on others whom clearly also qualify.

The Crown of the Kingdom are told that if they stand up and bring this issue into the light that the BOD will strip them of their Crowns and potentially banish them too. The Crowns always back down.

My question: What is a King & Queen whom will not fight for their people against those whom seek to harm them? What is a King and Queen whom refuse to bring these matters into the light so that the populace might know what is done in their name?

Discuss.

[Thorsteinn]

My personal opinion was spoken by King Baldwin well in Kingdom of Heaven.

"A King may move a man, a father may claim a son, but remember that even when those who move you be Kings, or men of power, your soul is in your keeping alone. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus." Or that, "Virtue was not convenient at the time." This will not suffice. Remember that."

[Jon Blair]

I'm not in the SCA, never have been, but isn't there an appeals process to a higher authority? I mean if one kingdom banishes a person for reasons that are either unclear or unwarranted, is there no "Emperor" or "Council of Kingdoms" that the banished person may turn to for respite and succor? If not, shouldn't there be?

[Thorsteinn]

I'm not in the SCA, never have been, but isn't there an appeals process to a higher authority? I mean if one kingdom banishes a person for reasons that are either unclear or unwarranted, is there no "Emperor" or "Council of Kingdoms" that the banished person may turn to for respite and succor? If not, shouldn't there be?

There is a "Banishment from our presence" which can mean that they are banished from the Kingdom or just events the Royals attend, but in these cases it's the Board of Directors (BOD) of the SCA that is doing the banishing, and in some cases it's one man , the Society Seneshal, doing the banishing and wrangling up the rest of the board to back him up or doing it and then when folks check the rest of the BOD goes "oh yes us too".

Basically there is no higher authority. There was a time about 25 years ago that the Kingdoms were willing to stand up to the BOD, and at that time the Estrella Accords were written up and signed saying "f**k with us and we will leave the SCA, take our members, and form our own group in the style of a federation" but after that $10 million lawsuit a decade back that the SCA settled on the SCA has become very very gun shy about getting sued again. Anyone in any way that might maybe someday perhaps get them sued for some reason, rightly or wrongly, gets tossed. Paid membership be damned.

And it's not like they get R&D'ed wherein they are permanently persona non-grata from the SCA, it's that they get placed on a permanent "review" wherein the BOD promises to "someday" come back and review the case.

It's internecine geek-meets-church politics at it's worst.

(EDIT: "...but in these cases it's the Board of Directors (BOD) of the SCA that is doing the banishing..."- The cases in my OP is what I'm referring to, not the "banished from our presence" ones that are usually for a single reign only.)

[Sir James A]

SCA aside...

If the king and queen aren't willing to vouch, either there's lack of evidence for them to believe that they can win an appeal, or they lack the ethical fortitude to stand up for their own people.

However, as a political entity, the SCA has the right to accept, deny, or remove anyone it so chooses, with or without reason. Membership, even paid, is not a right, so it would certainly be an uphill battle to wage... and if they win, at what cost? Ostracized by other people anyway? Thousands in legal fees? Hundreds of hours to push an appeal?

Politics is a fantastic way to rip any organization apart.

[Jon Blair]

There is a "Banishment from our presence" which can mean that they are banished from the Kingdom or just events the Royals attend, but in these cases it's the Board of Directors (BOD) of the SCA that is doing the banishing, and in some cases it's one man , the Society Seneshal, doing the banishing and wrangling up the rest of the board to back him up or doing it and then when folks check the rest of the BOD goes "oh yes us too".

Basically there is no higher authority. There was a time about 25 years ago that the Kingdoms were willing to stand up to the BOD, and at that time the Estrella Accords were written up and signed saying "f**k with us and we will leave the SCA, take our members, and form our own group in the style of a federation" but after that $10 million lawsuit a decade back that the SCA settled on the SCA has become very very gun shy about getting sued again. Anyone in any way that might maybe someday perhaps get them sued for some reason, rightly or wrongly, gets tossed. Paid membership be damned.

And it's not like they get R&D'ed wherein they are permanently persona non-grata from the SCA, it's that they get placed on a permanent "review" wherein the BOD promises to "someday" come back and review the case.

It's internecine geek-meets-church politics at it's worst.

(EDIT: "...but in these cases it's the Board of Directors (BOD) of the SCA that is doing the banishing..."- The cases in my OP is what I'm referring to, not the "banished from our presence" ones that are usually for a single reign only.)

Ah, so the kingdoms aren't banishing people, the Star Chamber is.

[Sir Rodney]

I personally don't know anyone who has been banished in my 25+ years in the SCA.  The few instances I'm familiar with fall into two categories. 

1) What the hell were you thinking?!  Your actions were illegal / immoral / blatantly flaunting SCA rules.  Not only should you be banished, you should be in jail.

2) What just happened?!  Your actions were in no way, shape or form illegal / immoral / against the SCA rules.  You must have really pissed off someone with a white belt / crown.   

[Sir William]

For something that is supposed to be 'a game', in a way it is much like the most mundane of real life.  Politics to the extent that you have reasoning, thinking people cowering in fear of losing...what?  A paper crown?  The regard of people just like you who look to you for succor since you're the 'King' or 'Queen'?  Who would've thought. 

[Joshua Santana]

My 2 cents on this.

If A King or Queen in the SCA has banished several people for shadowy reasons, it is a red flag indicating something scandalous or criminal which was done or has been going on which is reason enough to keep it low key. 

At that point one's loyalty must be affirmed or inspected if need be to make sure that you yourself are not part of the guilty party. 

There is nothing wrong with maintaining accountability with yourself and with your peers, if one must ask accountability from a King or Queen, it has to be done with utmost sincerity and respect so as to not create division.

[Joshua Santana]

One thing I like to add is that yes to lead one must let go of people that refuse to be led or go against your leadership by defiance or by scandalous backstabbing which itself is a lesson.

[Thorsteinn]

If A King or Queen in the SCA has banished several people for shadowy reasons, it is a red flag indicating something scandalous or criminal which was done or has been going on which is reason enough to keep it low key. 

That would be sensible & good except that not one banishment in the history of ever has been done in the light. Not one has been done with transparent process. And no way can all of them have been because of scandal or crime.

And this is coming from a group whose name & founding was by two people who molested their own daughter and who's first 20+ years saw the tacit or explicit permissive use of drugs (often at felony levels), booze, underage sex, sex with underage people, & technical kidnapping.

Basically if the SCA was clean and always had been & if the SCA was known for standing for its principles when it got hard, then yes I would say they have this foundation to do what you rightfully think should, in a perfect world, be the assumption. But alas it is not.

If only we could give Joshua the keys to the Kingdom & the files, and a stick, and say "Go get em!". Not saying I wouldn't come out bruised, but I'm sure the housecleaning would not go amiss.

[Joshua Santana]

That would be sensible & good except that not one banishment in the history of every has been done in the light. Not one has been done with transparent process. And no way can all of them have been because of scandal or crime.

I see.  Then each case would be different stories by default because of what you have stated.

Basically if the SCA was clean and always had been & if the SCA was known for standing for its principles when it got hard, then yes I would say they have this foundation to do what you rightfully think should, in a perfect world, be the assumption. But alas it is not.

You have stated the reality and it is one thing I would focus on which is intense house cleaning if I was out in a position of leadership.  Basically to me it would be a case of "bad company corrupts good morals," my response would be "remove the wrong company to make room for the right circle of associate or company."  This would be a case of calling for the right, committed leadership (committed to the ideal). 

 

If only we could give Joshua the keys to the Kingdom & the files, and a stick, and say "Go get em!". Not saying I wouldn't come out bruised, but I'm sure the housecleaning would not go amiss.

Lol, I don't think you would be bruised.  Though I would be uptight on house cleaning though, present company included lol.  The way I would see this is, stand by what you believe, be committed to your ideal and watch the people either draw towards or away from you.  Then watch them face the trials of the chivalric lifestyle to see who stays committed or not.