One of those Big Hot-Button issues. Hopefully we can avoid getting into
arguments over this.
<p>
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.)
<p>
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.
<p>
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.
<p>
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originally enacted in order to address a financial shortfall at the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.
<p>
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...
