Rapier Peerage

[lumineaux]

Ok folks. SCA Peerage for Rapier. I know you have opinions. Let's chat.

This is an opinion safe zone. No flaming, no personal attacks, you all know the drill. I do not care if you fence or not, how long you've been in the Society or what positions you might hold: I want to hear what you have to say.

Comments

[argent-tyger.livejournal.com]

Personally I think we already HAVE a peerage for martial prowess and we should just expand it. Knowing this will NEVER happen I support the new fencing peerage. Simply put we elevate people who excel at their contribution to the SCA and I do not see how anyone can justify saying that fencing does not require the same levels of skill and dedication as heavy. I have heard for years the argument that fencers have a path to peerage already and I do not understand how anyone can honestly believe that. Most have pointed to the fact that many fencers end up with Pelicans as if they received that award fro their ability to fence. They received that award for the same reason everyone ELSE who received it did. SERVICE. That is not a path to peerage for fencing. That is a path to peerage for service. As it stands, in the East kingdom the highest level of achievement you can get for excellence on the fencing list is an AOA level award. To me that shows a great disrespect to our community as a whole. In many kingdoms the top fencing award is at least a Grant level award. I am probably a bit jaded because I lived though the "bad times" of fencing int he East. (Not that I can tell you anything about that Alys seeing for a lot of the bad you were the main focus of the derision we received from other areas of the kingdom.) But while the fencing community is treated far better than it once was it is still treated as a second class citizenry IMO. My concern at this time is that there are people who were trying to get themselves on the committee specifically to try and kill the idea of this peerage from the inside. I am hoping That none of these people actually got themselves chosen but there are too many names that I do not know on the list to be sure.

As for the peerage itself,(assuming it comes to fruition) I have some pretty specific idea on what i would like to see come from it but nothing so set in stone that I will argue against other ideas.
I am very interested in what ideas are floating around for the order name and the title they would be granted. Personally I think the title should be Master of Defense. I am also rather interested in what is being considered for regalia.

[mariedeblois.livejournal.com]

I'll probably post more longer here later, but for now it might be useful to link to the SCA Census results regarding this topic: http://www.sca.org/scacensus2010/PeerageOptions.pdf

It's quite long and has all sorts of demographic breakdown of the responses and a LOT of charts/graphs.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

There were some significant mathematical flaws in the analysis, which allowed it to overstate the case for a Rapier Peerage.

I can elucidate if desired.

[mariedeblois.livejournal.com]

I'd be somewhat interested. I found it interesting that having answers for Knights and Royal Peerages (which have significant overlap) would seem to overstate the opposition to a Rapier Peerage at that level.

However, it may be offtopic for this thread, and it is probably worth noting that it is unlikely to change my personal opinion on whether there should be one.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Numbers rarely have the power to move minds, unless those minds are weird like mine. :-)

However, for the sake of "Science!"...

And the tl;dr version is this: only 39% of those interviewed about a New Peerage for Rapier wanted one of ANY sort, and those divided into wanting a shared omnibus new Peerage for non-rattan-martial, and those who wanted an exclusive one for Rapier alone. (14.2% shared, 25.5 exclusive) It may be a good idea, it may be a bad idea: but it's not as popular as the headline number from the report indicated.

If you look at the Peerage Options report (http://sca.org/scacensus2010/PeerageOptions.pdf), you can see that the main question is Q45. It's the screening question: "Should SCA participants be able to receive a peerage for excellence in non-armored combat or other martial activities (for example fencing, archery and the like)". 71%, in general, said "Yes". 29% said No, or had No Opinion.

The way the survey was crafted, only those which answered YES, were permitted to answered detailed questions: like "Fencing, Y/N" or "Equestrian Y/N". But those numbers are still totaled to 100%... So, if you look at ANY of the detail questions on a New Peerage, you have to multiply the numbers by 0.71 in order to map that back to the percentage of the overall population that desires a Peerage for, say, Fencing.

And the question was at least somewhat tilted in favor of Peerages for other-martial activities by wording. But nearly 3 out of 10 said "no way, not for anything".

Let's talk, just for a moment, about Rapier. Q46 asked whether individual activities should get Peerages, and more importantly: HOW. Rapier was the most popular of all the other activities. Of those that said YES to Q45, 55% said they should get a new Peerage: either to share with others or for themselves. Shrink that by 71% - that comes down to 39% of those that were interviewed by the Census.

Much less than half of those interviewed at all, want a new Peerage for Rapier. The numbers shrink from there. And, of course, the 39% is divided into a group that wants an exclusively Rapier Peerage, or an omnibus non-Rattan martial Peerage.

There's more to say, but I can see your eyes glaze over. :-)

[mariedeblois.livejournal.com]

Not glazed over, but this is enough for me to do my own analysis from here. I note that you first say "29% said No, or had No Opinion" and then make this "nearly 3 out of 10 said 'no way, not for anything'", which are not equivalent statements.

This might affect my opinion on how popular it is, but as I said, doesn't change whether or not I personally favor it.

Thanks for sharing, and I'd rather let this stop here than let this thread dominate the conversation.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I concede your point about what I said. I'd urge you to look at the actual language of Question 45, including its introductory text. If, after reading that description, a person said "No Opinion", I opine that it is very hard to differentiate that from a No.

Of course, it's possible that the person being asked had no clue what was going on...

[lumineaux.livejournal.com]

I would rather put you in touch with the statisticians who worked on the survey, and you can then talk apples to apples.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

When this was discussed on the Grand Council list, we not only talked to some of the people who did the work, but one of the commenters does nothing but this sort of statistical work for a living, as well as teaching it academically.

As you might expect, the creators of the survey felt compelled to defend the work (with decreasing success) rather than admit to any sort of error. Nor would they annotate their reports, nor issue clarifications or corrections.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Creating a new Peerage is a very very very bad idea.

There are legions of reasons why, all of which have nothing to do with the worth of the people that practice Rapier. I'm not particularly moved by the historical arguments - they aren't bad, but they aren't sexy. :-)

I think that the Census, when correctly analyzed, tells a LOT about what should or should not happen. Bluntly - while a majority of people (71%) said that in the abstract people should be able to get a Peerage of some kind, there was no agreement amongst them as to HOW to reward them with a Peerage. Options range from "A new Peerage just for Rapier", through "An omnibus new Peerage for Martial-Other" to inclusion within the existing Peerages.

This is a recipe for failure - none of the paths have a sufficiency of support, as measured. (It would have been very very nice if the Census had asked people to rank and weight their options. It may be that all the "Rapier Only" votes would settle for "Omnibus" - but we don't know that.

But the devil, the real problem is in the cross-tabulations of the data.

It's kind of heretical to say, but there is a certain truth that those who have Peerages, run events, or have ruled Kingdoms are somehow "more defining" of the SCA than people who have not yet had the opportunity to do so.

And, those groups are FAR more against the notion (says the Census) than others.

So, creating a new Peerage for Rapier runs up against the wrong sorts of people to run up against. And, at the same time, doing so might or might not satisfy a minority of the Society.

It's just not the time.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

But: what could be done?

There are two styles of change: incremental and self-paced, or revolutionary. I tend to prefer avoidance of the revolutionary, absent compelling reasons and support.

I think the thing to do is this: remove the barriers in Corpora that prevent Rapier from becoming members of the Chivalry.

And wait.

Also, emphasize to the Kingdoms that service in anything is service, and worthy of a Pelican, and art and knowledge in anything is laudable, and worthy of a Laurel.

Find ways to emphasize the importance of rewarding all activities within the existing structure.

And wait.

I think it'll work.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I was rethinking this point a little (because I was looking at the SCA Census again for other reasons), and I don't think I was clear.

For some, the committee you are on is the best and most likely hope for the new Peerage they most desire, and they don't want to let the opportunity pass by. Sure: at this time it might rub some few the wrong way, but (in their minds) that's not going to destroy the SCA: those opposed will get over it.

That's not unreasoning or unreasonable, but I think that it is a bit short-sighted.

I think that there are a few very long-game opportunities here. It's pretty clear that there is room for improvement in the general CLIMATE for a new Peerage (or other Peerage recognition for rapier).

And that this is a as much a great opportunity to start a long-term process for appropriate recognition, as it is to have a short-term win for recognition.

I hope your working group will be considering not JUST whether there is room for a new Peerage right now, but also look at whether there are better options, and how to get the SCA there in the medium-to-long term.

I think the Census headline number is really important: 71% of people think that non-rattan-martial-arts deserve more Peerages than they are getting. (I agree.)

I think the Census fine-dicing numbers suggest that there is zero of a clear path forward at this time, with too many people believing in too many options.

If we can't reward people appropriately NOW (because we can't agree on how), then the appropriate thing to do is figure out how to improve the consensus. That's worth doing, and worth doing well.

My previous comment was my interpretation of how to play that long-game. But it is surely not the only one, and there may be better. But I do strongly recommend the long game, not the short-but-divisive win.

[moonandtree.livejournal.com]

It makes sense to me. I think it is an idea whose time has come. I don't see any reason other than "because we have not done it that way till now." I don't believe that anything that we have done to this point has been that rational, but based on fun and politics. And i assume that this is how the issue will be decided.

[ursula]

Personally, I think the appropriate peerage for skill in rapier is the Laurel, because this is the appropriate peerage for skill of any sort. You have to demonstrate knowledge of the historical context and ability to teach to become a Laurel, in addition to demonstrating skill, but I'm not really impressed by the argument that you should be able to get a peerage in the SCA without learning some history. I realize my opinion is a minority one, though.

Do you have a copy of Boulton's Knights of the Crown? It's an excellent resource for information about medieval orders, including their statutes, ceremony, names, and regalia.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I think any existing Peerage would do, on the same terms as any other new Peer is included.

I think it would be splendid if the existing language forbidding Rapier from the Chivalry were removed... and then we wait.

Boulton is excellent. I wish I could remember who borrowed my copy, and get it back. Sigh.