I'm probably one of the most strident critics of the Society's award
system. It wasn't ever thought through; it just sort of grew. The result
is a system that has a few really serious flaws:
<p>
<ul>
  <li> It has nothing in particular to do with period;
  <li> It has a nasty tendency to get people focused on the awards and
rewards, in place of simply doing what they enjoy;
  <li> It tends to discourage people as much as encouraging them.
</ul>
<p>
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. 
<p>
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.)
<p>
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.
<p>
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.
<p>
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.)
<p>
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. 
<p>
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.
