Mistress Caitlin Davies and Master Justin du Coeur

In practice, the B/B's most important role here is the gentle give and take of personal relations -- getting to know the other groups (especially the neighboring ones) on a personal level, going to their events, and generally being friends with them. There are occasionally treaties to negotiate and such, but they're relatively few and far between. Most of the work is in being comfortable enough with the other Baronies to smooth matters when something of import *does* happen.

This is more Caitlin's area of experience than mine, I'll admit. She plays quite heavily at the Kingdom level, and already knows many of these folks pretty well. (The consequence of having been a Kingdom officer for many years. As Regional Seneschal, she's been trying to periodically visit the groups in the region anyway.) It would be a bit more learning for me, but I figure that an excuse to get out to more events is not a bad thing...

• It has nothing in particular to do with period;
• It has a nasty tendency to get people focused on the awards and rewards, in place of simply doing what they enjoy;
• It tends to discourage people as much as encouraging them.

That last point deserves some clarification. The system is reasonably effective when it works well: if someone gets an award at just the right time, it feels quite good. But if you get it early, it feels kind of hollow, and if you get it late, it's easy to wind up a tad bitter about it.

I've been through both sides of this. My AoA was so late (after almost six years of heavy involvement) that I went all the way through the bitter phase and came out the other side with a bit of perspective. And my Laurel was so early (only about three years after the AoA) that I've always been slightly disappointed that I didn't really feel I deserved it when it came. (Had it been a year or so later, I probably would have been a lot happier about it.)

The result is that I do what I can do remove the focus from awards. When someone new is starting out, if they seem to be somewhat "merit-badge" focused, I try to encourage them to instead concentrate on doing what they like, and let the awards come when they may. I tend to point out the fact that the system is highly subjective, and there's a fair amount of just-plain-luck in when they come. Basically, I try to impart some of that perspective, to help fend off the bitter edge if an award comes late.

Now, all that said, much though I sometimes wish the SCA's award model didn't exist, it's a fact of life, and one that isn't going to go away. I therefore do what I can to hit awards "on the mark", when they seem to really be due. I don't actually have a simple answer to erring early or late; over time, I've gradually moved towards trying to understand the person involved, and erring accordingly. If they're likely to get bitter if the award is late, I'll tend to err early; if they're relatively self-directed and self-critical, I'll tend to err a little late, so that they appreciate it when it comes.

Now Carolingia is a somewhat special case, since we traditionally take the idea of accepting people in by consensus of the Order much more strongly than the Kingdom does. If I wound up Baron, I'd probably tend towards the traditional model of how the awards work. We don't require a unanimous vote of the order any more, but I think I'd shoot for it when possible. (Actually, as I recall the original Charter, it didn't require unanimity so much as disclosure -- if the vote wasn't unanimous, the candidate had to be told quietly in advance, so they had the opportunity to decline if they felt it would be an issue.)

When we rewrote the Charter to remove the requirement for unanimity, one of the views expounded was that it's the B/B's responsibility, in the face of a "no" vote, to talk to the person so voting and understand their objection. If it's clearly a matter of simple personal bias, or not understanding the candidate's works, or simply unreasonably high standards, then it's appropriate to override the vote. But it's a serious matter, and I think the B/B has a particular responsibility to think carefully about it.

In general, the Order's opinion has a much stronger influence here than in the Kingdom at large. The implication there is that the B/B has a responsibility to *lead* the Orders, rather than just ruling them. The King can simply listen to opinions and make up his own mind; the B/B needs to encourage the Orders to give the awards at a level s/he feels appropriate, since it's principally up to them.

Personally, I was and am one of the stronger opponents of pay-to-play; while I wasn't quite at the center of the whirlwind the way Tibor was, I spent most of that year in heated arguments with a whole lot of people all over the Society about it. (Indeed, the Grand Council of the Society was formed partly in response to a letter I wrote to the Board on the subject.)

I object to pay-to-play both on practical and philosophical grounds. I could go on at *great* length on this subject, but I'll try to summarize.

First, and most importantly, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the true economics of the Society. Our most valuable coin isn't the money that gets paid to the central SCA, Inc; rather, it's the volunteer time that is required to run the Society. P2P endangers that volunteer base, by reducing the number of people who can perform a task, as well as the general base of the population. It takes the attitude that serving the Society is a privilege that you have to pay for, which is just silly -- we desperately *need* people doing this stuff. Charging people money in order to help is, frankly, daft.

Further, none of the arguments in favor of P2P hold much water. It was originally enacted in order to address a financial shortfall at the Corporate level, which proved to be an entirely illusory effect of poor bookkeeping. It is often invoked in the name of "fairness", but essentially argues that we want people who pay money more than people who volunteer their time, which as I said, misunderstands how the Society actually works. It is usually argued that we need tons of members because the Society is so expensive to run, but that's exactly wrong: in fact, history has shown that the Society has very poor economies of scale, and tends to become *more* expensive per person the more members there are. (And the vast majority of that huge budget is simply providing membership services such as TI.) The critical expenses of the Society (mainly the insurance policy) don't cost anywhere near enough to justify a policy as draconian as P2P was.

What should membership be required for? It's probably a good idea for anyone who is strongly bound to the legal side of the SCA, Inc, primarily the Seneschal and Treasurer. And I *recommend* membership for anyone who is heavily active: besides contributing towards the few critical expenses, it's a good way to stay in touch with things. But I think there are very few people who it should be *required* of. I prefer to leave it as a matter of individual conscience, with no particular external pressure...

Of course, it's also the Society's great weakness -- that "broad tent" approach means that the SCA has little hope of ever being truly period as an aggregate. Little isolated bits of the SCA can be very authentic, but the larger the scale you look at, the less likely it is to match period models. That's because the Society is basically a gigantic compromise among many differing interests.

But overall, I think it's what defines the SCA, and makes it different both from a simple LARP club and from an academic forum. It combines many different elements in a way that constantly provides new ideas, in all directions...

No, not all politics are evil; indeed, in a healthy and functioning group (which I think we are), evil politics tend to be fairly uncommon. Evil politics usually arise when a few things happen:

• Sides in a disagreement become overly entrenched in their positions, and unwilling to compromise or agree to disagree;

• They stop communicating with each other;

• They stop listening to each other's priorities, and ascribe incorrect motives to each other;

• They begin to factionalize, drawing a sharp line between "us" and "them".

That's roughly the order that these things tend to take. It's why I consider Great Council an important part of the health of Carolingia -- while it doesn't necessarily let everyone do what they want to do, it *does* provide a common forum for communication, which tends to help. It's also why I regard the heavy overlap between the many dozens of interest groups in the Barony as vital: it makes it much more difficult for things to break down into simple factions. So long as folks know each other, and continue to talk reasonably, it's far less likely that the atmosphere will get truly poisonous.

The issue is partly one of expectations. Aquel and Johanna have been developing a tradition of Baronial Champions, very much cognates to the Royal Champions. And I think everyone sort of expects that parallel to continue -- just as the Royal Champs always attend Their Majesties in court, so everyone sort of expects the Baronial ones to do the same. And to be fair, we don't really provide the Baronial Champions with anything *else* to do as the duties of the post.

I suspect that Caitlin and I would try to move away from this sort of business-as-usual mode of retinue, although rather gradually. We're very interested in finding other ways of doing things -- I generally find the SCA cooler and more interesting when it's being imaginative. I do think it's important that Champions and such have some sort of duties, so it's more than just a hollow award, but there may be other avenues to explore.

That aside, the only *necessary* member of the Baronial retinue is the herald. I suspect having one or two others available is generally useful, but like I said, I'd prefer that it not turn into a mob...

But at a guess, I'd have to suspect that nasty politics will be the worst of it. Carolingia is blessedly less prone to stupid short-sighted politics than most groups; still, where there are people there are politics, and sometimes those will turn heated.

There's not much for that but to take it when it comes, and try to handle it as best we can. IMO, while the B/B aren't solely responsible for dealing with this sort of thing, they can and should try to act as mediators and peacemakers where possible. That's never fun and rarely easy, but it's important.

(Fortunately, Caitlin and I have both already gotten some experience with this sort of thing, from other positions in the Society and other clubs that we've worked with. Things aren't likely to get as bad as some of the nastier politics I've had to work through on the LARP side of the world.)

Of course, that's (hopefully) the rare case. On a more day-to-day level, the main challenge for me personally will simply be the formality of the job. I am not, by instinct, a particularly formal sort of person, but I think the populace is quite reasonably going to expect *some* gravitas from the B/B. (The Baron doesn't get to sit on the floor during court.)

On that front, I think it'll be a matter of feeling out a balance. I have no desire to overcompensate here -- I think being a little light-handed is better than being too stuffy or severe. I'll just have to pay some attention to my own manner and style, and evolve it as seems necessary.

As for changing my participation in other Baronial activities, I expect there to be some mild shifting of priorities, but not terribly dramatic ones. I'm already something of a dilletante, visiting various guilds and such as they strike my fancy; I believe that's a strength in a B/B, who need to know the Barony as broadly as possible. I'd probably step that up a little, but I don't think it needs to get too extreme.

(The one specific change I'd make is getting back into armor, which would require some time and focus. I haven't fought in, oh, more years than I care to contemplate, but I feel that it's symbolically important for the Baron to be able to take the field with the troops.)

Beyond that task of getting out and visiting the various subgroups that make up the great Venn Diagram that is Carolingia, I don't think the job requires all that much *time* specifically; this isn't like being Royalty, with the various timesinks that entails. There are some other tasks involved, such as external relations with the Royals and the other Baronies, but those tend to happen at events on an as-needed basis.

As for my other jobs within the Society, I don't expect things to change dramatically. Being active on the questions@sca.org list is, frankly, recreational for me -- I'm only one of several people there, so I can answer questions as I have time, and I enjoy doing it. Running the Rolls Ethereal takes virtually no day-to-day effort, since it's largely automated. The Low Company would be an interesting question: if someone wanted to take it on actively, I'd probably let them have it, and otherwise continue to play and teach as I have time.

And no, I don't see any reason why we couldn't hold the posts for that long. I plan on watching and pacing myself to avoid quick burnout, and have no intention of taking on any other tasks that would get in the way...

• To be courtly, both in court and out. Above everything else, the B/B are figureheads in the game. They are the high nobles for the area, and need to at least somewhat act the part. This shouldn't be carried to extremes, which can become aloofness and/or high-handedness, but needs to be kept in mind.
• On the flip side of that, the B/B need to be friendly and open. This is particularly important in Carolingia, where we have some expectations that the B/B know the populace, both in the aggregate and individually insofar as possible. This mainly reflects the fact that the B/B also have a leadership role in the *club*, entirely outside of persona, and folks expect the heads of the club to be reasonably approachable.
• They need to be evenhanded. As mentioned earlier, politics and disagreements will arise from time to time, and it is *very* common within SCA branches for the B/B to become involved in factional politics. I think it's vital that they stay above that as far as they can, so that they can act as diplomats and peacemakers when necessary.
• They should strive to be role models. This isn't very different from the expectation of a Peer -- when you have a high title, you're sort of on stage all the time whether you like it or not. It's important to keep that in mind, because the newer members are going to tend to emulate you, *especially* in the ways you least want them to.

It would be a factor -- I think I'd have to install an extra "do I want to post this?" filter in my brain, because if I said something stupid online, it would have the potential to embarass not just myself, but the Barony. And I think the Baron has a particular onus to be diplomatic and reasonable, which means that outright flames (which I don't do often, but when I do, they're searing) are probably a bad idea.

But overall, no, I don't think I'd change my discussion style or quantity much. I don't think much is gained by the Baron/ess being afraid to express their honest opinions, and something is likely to be lost. (As you say, most of the candidates have been pretty expressive, and most have had useful things to say.)

Besides, I don't think I'm physically *capable* of squelching myself too far; I'd probably explode...

I don't expect any of this to impinge too strongly, and don't see any practical reason why any of this needs to change. While the households would hopefully provide a modicum of support, I don't think there's any real danger of strange mixings of influence.

In practice, household/Baron mixings tend to only become problems when the household and Barony are structured such that attaching to the household can give someone additional informal power within the branch, or where the household is so large and powerful that it is in danger of overwhelming the Barony. That doesn't seem to be a danger here -- the nature of Baronial power in Carolingia doesn't lend itself easily to that sort of influence-sharing, and the group is so large and diverse that it would be extremely difficult for any one household to become excessively powerful.