SCA Philosopy Time

[lumineaux]

I've been watching a fascinating discussion elsewhere regarding people's perceptions of the SCA peerages, and the Pelican in particular.  What spurred the discussion is the classic problem of someone else (usually not another Pelican) telling a Pelican that he/she is a bad Peer because the Pelican is not doing things the way the complainer would do them.  This is not a phenomenon limited to Pelicans or even to Peers, of course.  I've been accused of being a bad OGR at least as often as I've been accused of being a bad Pelican. 

So . . . what makes a "good" Pelican/Peer/OGR/role model?  What makes a "bad" one?  Where do you out there in LJ land draw the line between work and play in the Society?

Edited to add: I've had a couple people now wonder they have the "qualifications" to answer this question because they are not Peers in the SCA.    To this I reply - the only qualification you need to discuss this issue is to be a participant in the Society.  Peers, etc. have rank in the Society only because the players in the SCA, by common consent, grant that they do.  It's a conceit of the game. 

I am, in fact, far more interested to hear what people who are not Peers or OGRs (or who are newer Peers or OGRs) think. 

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I make a bad Peer.

Because I never did or do one damned thing I don't want to. I just tend to want to do a lot. It's more fun that way.

The Freakonomics Blog had a good long discussion, not long ago, on the difference between work and play.

I have grown tired of the whole "bad Peer" discussion, not you or yours, but in general. It's a life tenure - deal with it. If you think I suck, show me with YOUR body of work how to get one, keep it, and shine. My fellow Peers have a right to discuss my conduct with me, especially also true the Crown and my dear ones.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

My only goal here is to make people think about their assumptions and expectations. An awful lot of the people on my LJ list are not old farts like you and me :-) and they haven't yet lived through the "you're a bad Peer/OGR/role model" conversation as many times as we have.

In my experience, 90% of the people who accuse someone else of being a bad Peer are simply people with personal axes to grind and too much time on their hands. As for the other 10% - 5% of the time it's a misunderstanding and the other 5% of the time, yeah, I have done something incredibly stupid and probably needed a smack on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper.

[rtropeano.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Esp. for the reason given.

[spinpsychology.livejournal.com]

I think what makes someone a good Peer is the same thing that makes them a good person and a good friend. Honesty, integrity, loyalty, patients, a desire to teach/contribute, a desire to learn new things not only in their choosen displine but in new areas as well, being open minded, the ability to admit when your wrong, a little humility doesn't hurt either, and the ability to remember what it was like to be a begginer. I also think that what it take to be a good Peer is an exceptance that as Peer you (this is the royal you, not directed to anyone in particular) are a roll model whether you want to be or not and should behave accordingly.

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

Bearing in mind that I'm not a Peer: my feeling is that the Peers are the people to whom we're supposed to be able to, in the society sense, look up. Forgive the awkward sentence construction - I'm trying to think and type, while simultaneously drinking coffee.

A good Peer? Someone who inspires us to try harder, behave better, and do more. A bad one? Someone whose actions have the reverse effect, often someone to whose head their limited power and status have gone.

Drawing the line? Ah, like everything else, for me it's all about fun. If your activities fill you with joy, it's play, whether you're hitting people, dancing, or cleaning toilets. If it feels like an obligation, it's work.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

Bearing in mind that I'm not a Peer

Which makes you the intended target for this conversation.

Also, while you're not a Peer, you are an OGR, which means that in one particular corner of the SCA universe, you *are* the top of the game and subject to all of the same expectations and pressures.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

OK, then, what makes someone a person worth admiring or "looking up to?"

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

I was afraid you'd ask me that.

Afraid because I'm not sure I can easily express what I mean here, but I'll do what I can. The answer actually applies generally, but I'll answer within our context.

If I say that I admire someone, I generally mean that this is a person who exhibits an uncommonly high degree of the virtues which I value. Quick word: I _think_ that my sense of values runs mostly parallel to the general consensus of sca values. Of course I could be wrong, but I'm stuck with my own values.

Essential caveat: when I list the things I value (which follows this caveat), I'm not not not asserting that I personify or even exhibit these values. I'm saying that I _value_ these things, and think that most people in the society feel that most of them are important also. A probably non-exhaustive list includes:

Honesty, honor, kindness, grace, elegance, diligence, courtesy, humility, skill (which in imitation of our knightly friends I've taken to calling prowess), charity, humor, dignity, patience, tolerance, righteousness, and loyalty.

I'm pretty sure that others might skip some of these, and add others, and I'm absolutely sure that others will define each of these differently - in particular in respect to our context.

How's that?

[tracytris.livejournal.com]

i liked ferriludant's definitions quite a bit.

I also think peers should strive to be a role model for a higher standard of courtesy, and "playing" our game.

Oh - and a good peer should never forget this is indeed A GAME and not take themselves or their position all to highly.

We should talk about this over drinks sometime

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

You're right of course - it is a game, but it also has definite elements of reality, the most significant of which is that we have real social interactions, involving real human feelings.

[katnboots.livejournal.com]

what makes a "good" Pelican/Peer/OGR/role model?

These were never the same for me... the first three can be resources that I appreciate, and a role model is a person of behaviors and actions that I admire. They can overlap but aren't guaranteed to do so.

Where do you out there in LJ land draw the line between work and play in the Society?

Damned if I know. ;-)

[fencerm2.livejournal.com]

I am going to jump on the bandwagon applauding ferriludant's answers. A good *insert title here* is someone who sets a good example, makes people want to emulate them. Toxic attitude and negativity and abuse of the limited power granted with whatever title is the bad example, just as Jost says.

Every one of us is going to 'draw the line' at a very different place. I agree that some of what is considered 'work' can be part of one's play. I enjoy the things I do, whether that's fencing, archery, marshalling either sport, dancing, dance mastering, service, singing, heralding, whatever. This is a GAME - and I love playing this game.

And that is probable where the line should be drawn. If it becomes all obligation, and the fun and joy are no more...it may be time to consider taking a new course, or moving on.

[zaduzbina.livejournal.com]

A bad peer: is whenever you don't do what the definer of "bad peer" wants.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

True dat. :-) Hence my 90/5/5 theory (see my response to goldsquare).

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's an apt observation. But we should be cautious before endorsing this view as a definition. If we take it like that, we're saying that there's never a need to point out that someone has actually fallen non-trivially short of our measure of Peerosity.

Perhaps that's good - perhaps being forced to say instead "failing in this particular, specific, measurable way". But to me, it feels as though it's dismissive.

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

Most of the time, though, someone who has something worth heeding to say does not fall back on the blunt instrument of "you're a bad X" to make his/her point.

[rtropeano.livejournal.com]

I always felt that should be handled the same way as "You are a _itch!" With a "Thank you, I must be doing something right." with a smile and a thought that
if that is all you can think of to say, it is meaningless.

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

Yes, though that "worth heeding" makes me a bit uneasy. Consider: if the only person in a position to observe less-than-admirable behavior has poor communication skills, this may be all you ever get. Do you really want to make it an internal rule that such people aren't worth heeding?

As to the "bitch" observation below - I'd say the same thing, except that it's much more complicated, since women exercising appropriate amounts of authority in an appropriate way can often be called a bitch.

[rtropeano.livejournal.com]

Okay so I am late in joining in, but on my coronation trip back to the sca after 8 or so years of being absent, I had someone say to me that As they had not heard a single person complain about my actions, I must be growing into my peerage. What a horrible thought. I presume that if you are doing something, there will be those who complain. Usually by those who are not doing something. Also horrible is the thought that in all that time, I could be considered to be doing a good job, if I had not done anything to be noticed in a good light.

I think Ferriludant hit it on the head with:
"Someone who inspires us to try harder, behave better, and do more.A bad one? Someone whose actions have the reverse effect..."
Add to that Tibor's comment, and I think you have described a good set of standards for a Pelican. "I never did or do one damned thing I don't want to. I just tend to want to do a lot. It's more fun that way."

[wingblaze.livejournal.com]

Not much to add but perhaps one spin....

A bad peer: A bad peer is someone who makes someone feel they have to do *everything* - that they have to over-reach and burn themselves out. They are probably doing it to themselves, and/or encouraging others to do the same either explicitly or by example. A bad peer is one who makes you feel like you *have* to do it, rather than *want* to do it. It's one who takes the fun out of the game for themselves or others.

A bad peer is also probably someone who tells someone else they're a bad peer.

Personally I have a little trouble with the whole concept of a "bad peer" or "good peer". If I can be a good *person*, being a good peer takes care of itself. Being a peer or not really shouldn't change things.

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

Is "peer" really interchangeable with "person" in this context? I tend to think that we tend to hold peers to a higher standard than the population in general, don't you?

And if that's true, then it seems to me that someone could fall below the standard for "good peer" without falling below the standard for "good person". Not so?

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

Does it really make sense to hold Peers to a higher standard than the rest of the population, though? We may care more and try harder - or have greater innate skills than others - but we are still very fallible human beings.

[wingblaze.livejournal.com]

Do we hold them to a higher standard? Yes. Should we? I question whether we should. I guess that's my point - I'm not sure we should expect more from someone because they're a peer. We should hope for good things from everyone, and recognize the ones we get them from as peers.

But if someone acts like a jerk, I think we should look down on that equally regardless of whether they have a medallion or not. Likewise if someone's behavior makes us happy, we should be thankful regardless of whether they have arms by letters patent.

Sorry to double-comment, but

[ferriludant.livejournal.com]

I wanted to stress how much I love the part of your comment where you said that a bad peer "...takes the fun out of the game for themselves or others. ".

This resonates very strongly for me, since I think of the peers as the magic makers, the ones who put on the easter bunny suit and give out the candy (or make the candy, or make the easter bunny suit...). They're the ones who consistently increase or enable everyone else's fun.

Re: Sorry to double-comment, but

[wingblaze.livejournal.com]

You know, when you said "put on the bunny suit" my mind went an entirely different place.

Guess that makes me a bad peer ;)