ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Feedback and updates relating to the Westmarch kingdom corpora.

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby SirEuric » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:59 am

50 out of Thousands is actually a small percentage , however i know the list is nowhere near up to date or complete as I know Sir Boots, Sir Jeddak, and Sir Moonshadow Everdarius all of the Golden Plains also have their Grand Duchess and Grand Duke titles. All after More than 2 terms as Kingdom Monarch.
Sir Euric Bloodstone
SirEuric
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Thor's Freakin Refuge Baby!!!

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Laoric » Sun Apr 08, 2012 8:56 am

Keluric wrote:The thing to remember is that the corpora is a living document, it is controlled by the Monarch and the will of the people of Westmarch.

This adds a requirement that the WM-CoK be consulted for potential knew knights, and those knights must also be active members of our Kingdom.

If this creates a situation where it is as Sir Randall fears could happen, then the Monarch and the people can ammend the corpora to have to function another way. As a young kingdom, I see no harm in restricting our immediate use of Kingdom level authorities. They should be hard to apply on a whim. We will have one chance to show our true colors as a Kingdom initially, and I think that requiring more, not less, input and approval is a good thing.


This makes some logic sense, but there are flaws. The first is that, while the preliminary CoM discussion did not disapprove of this concept, I find it hard to believe they would hav any objections to the more traditional method of CoK input rather than veto power.

The second, as an extension to what Randall already intimated, is that inorder to change the corpora you need a significant amount of people to vote for it. I can foresee people feeling intimidated to push for a change like this for the same reasons a monarch would rubber stamp the CoK's choices: people want to get knighted and want to maintain good relationship with the CoK. If they push hard for this change but it fails (because the needed votes is large), that person would fear being put in disfavor.

It just seems to me that the quantity of abuses that a system where the CoK has actual control over who get knighted is subject to more abuses than one where the monarch has the sole discretion with strong input from the CoK. As Randall has pointed out, both systems have produced bad knights, but only the monarchial system keeps the decision maker beholden to the populace. The CoK is not beholden to the populace at all and thus a much less responsible form of government.
“I wanna live 'til I die, no more, no less.”
Laoric
Robbie Suxxorz
 
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Keluric » Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:00 am

If the monarch is the only person with the decision making authority, it can be abused far easier. Convincing a single person of the concept to do something abusive, is far easier than convincing a group. Especially, a group ideally made up of experienced Amtgarders. There is no way you can say a single entity with all the authority is less likely to abuse. This system offers a counter-balance to supreme authority, they still have the ability to propose and deny all candidates. All this does is disallow any one single person the ability to make a permanent change wihtout consultation.

If we make a knight that is a 'bad' knight, and release them to the Amtworld, then we have a shining example of our inadequacy as a kingdom to make important decisions. It is a condition, that once applied, is forever a black mark on our kingdom. Conversely, if we make few but no 'bad' knights, then we show that we are responsible enough to make proper decisions.

In Dragonspine, they are a static crown kingdom. They can know and become of aware of all the potential candidates. The see them week in and week out. The monarch has up-to-date first hand knowledge, and also has access to the DS-CoK at any time, in person. Now, in Westmarch, we are one of the largest states, and we encompass the majority of it. Even with concerted effort of the monarch, potential monarchs, and the knights, it is very logisitcally difficult to obtain the same level of awareness, communication, and peerage social pressure that makes this work for Dragonspine. I am not saying their system does not work for Dragonspine, it does. We will not be Dragonspine, we will be Westmarch. We must find what works for us. It may be that we need a system of what is done in DS, but then it also may not be for us.

When this system was discussed with the DS-CoK their were some on both sides of the discussion. So there is even room in DS for this option, but they may not need it, yet or ever. Point being, the way Amtgard works is culturally different in all areas of the country, there are variances to each kingdom, they all need to make it work the way they need it to work. If we do things the way most kingdoms do it, then we are guarenteed 'bad' knights, this is what history tells us. If we try something new, we just might find a way to stem that possibility. At the end of the day, Westmarch is its own unique thing, we can take from others to build a framework, but in the end we need to build our own house...errr, castle. :)
Baron Sir Keluric Tryst
Prince of Westmarch

Bellator Adamas
Rutgers Jugging Team
Grand Vizier of the Briny Deep
User avatar
Keluric
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Duchy of Wavehaven

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Keluric » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:03 pm

Please understand, I am debating the side I am largely for the ability to boiler-plate either concept. This type of discussion needs to happen in order to make the transition to this new copora sound.

That being said, I have an idea brewing that might give some authority to each side of the debate, and possibly even clean up the disparity between the permanent-ish knights, and the transitory nature of the Monarch.

Update to come, need some time to figure out the wording.
Baron Sir Keluric Tryst
Prince of Westmarch

Bellator Adamas
Rutgers Jugging Team
Grand Vizier of the Briny Deep
User avatar
Keluric
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Duchy of Wavehaven

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Laoric » Sun Apr 08, 2012 2:41 pm

Keluric wrote:Please understand, I am debating the side I am largely for the ability to boiler-plate either concept. This type of discussion needs to happen in order to make the transition to this new copora sound.



I am, as well. My entire goal is just to talk about the various ideas so a good consensus is built. :)
“I wanna live 'til I die, no more, no less.”
Laoric
Robbie Suxxorz
 
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Keluric » Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:25 am

Before we go too much further, it was reminded to me that this is what was settled in on by the committee. Is there anyone else who also has thoughts on this? In reality, if there is already consensus that this is the way to do it, then there probably isn't much need to pursue an alternative. Due to the large number of invested hours in getting the corpora to this point, I am somewhat reluctant to start re-building the wheel at this late stage. Unless there is a significant amount of support to do so.\

I am starting to think that it may be in our best interest to work with what the committee came to consensus on, and pursue the myriad of other tasks needed to complete this corpora, and by extension the Kingdom Bid itself. Our time frame is short, and we have complete ability to modifiy our copora in the future should it need, we have many many examples of doing so successfully.
Baron Sir Keluric Tryst
Prince of Westmarch

Bellator Adamas
Rutgers Jugging Team
Grand Vizier of the Briny Deep
User avatar
Keluric
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Duchy of Wavehaven

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Etah » Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:58 am

I think it would be a mistake to have the CoK be the sole responsible party for who gets Knighted and who doesn't. I also dislike the idea of a monarch with sole authority to Knight. But having the two bodies check each other, I think would work out nicely.

To me it doesn't logically follow that one person with sole authority would have less of a potential for corruption than a group of people. To expound on a point I made earlier in this thread, there is too many separate agendas in even our current Circe of Knights for any single narrative to take over.
~Baronet Squire Etah Landshark
Corsair
Shire of Aegir's Hall

"Hate is a strong word, but I found out if you say it backwards what appears is a bald nerd." - MC Nameloc
User avatar
Etah
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:25 pm
Location: In the Halls of Aegir

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Laoric » Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:28 am

Etah wrote:To me it doesn't logically follow that one person with sole authority would have less of a potential for corruption than a group of people. To expound on a point I made earlier in this thread, there is too many separate agendas in even our current Circe of Knights for any single narrative to take over.


Removing a monarch is way easier than removing a knighthood. Monarch terms are 6 months, knighthood is for life. Monarchs will want to get knighted and will rubber stamp the CoK's choices in the interest of getting their support.

These are all reasons why giving the power to knight to the circle are bad.
“I wanna live 'til I die, no more, no less.”
Laoric
Robbie Suxxorz
 
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Guyvas » Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:28 pm

or he can not like a candidate the CoK suggests and not knight him/her because of personal conflicts or whatever...it works both ways
Guyvas
Crimson Marauders
Bloodfog
Wu Tang Clan ain't nothin' to fuck with
Guyvas
Mr. Tittyface
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:19 pm
Location: Thor's Refuge because were awesome

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby deimos » Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:34 pm

Laoric wrote:
Etah wrote:To me it doesn't logically follow that one person with sole authority would have less of a potential for corruption than a group of people. To expound on a point I made earlier in this thread, there is too many separate agendas in even our current Circe of Knights for any single narrative to take over.


Removing a monarch is way easier than removing a knighthood. Monarch terms are 6 months, knighthood is for life. Monarchs will want to get knighted and will rubber stamp the CoK's choices in the interest of getting their support.

These are all reasons why giving the power to knight to the circle are bad.


By the same rationale, a monarch (who is temporary) will make a permanent decision. And the idea of "removing" a monarch after they have made a "bad knighting" is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. If the goal is to attempt to minimize the "bad knightings", then the decision can't rest on one person with zero culpability after the fact. You said it yourself, removing a knighthood is hard. It should be just as difficult to attain.

A CoK approval and a monarch approval is a good check and balance. If time goes by and the populace of Westmarch thinks the CoK is stonewalling or vetoing every candidate, then an Althing can be brought forth to change the corpora. At the onset, we should at least *try* something different to show that Westmarch doesn't want to be a kingdom just so we can churn out knights. If we try and the method is no more successful than others, then at least we held ourselves to a higher standard and tried to do the right thing.
Deimos
GMR of SSD
User avatar
deimos
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: SSD, Cullyfornia

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Laoric » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:05 pm

deimos wrote:By the same rationale, a monarch (who is temporary) will make a permanent decision. And the idea of "removing" a monarch after they have made a "bad knighting" is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. If the goal is to attempt to minimize the "bad knightings", then the decision can't rest on one person with zero culpability after the fact. You said it yourself, removing a knighthood is hard. It should be just as difficult to attain.


The disadvantages for a monarch to go rogue are a strong check. As Randall has said, both systems have produced bad knights. The idea is to create a good culture of choosing knights.

deimos wrote:A CoK approval and a monarch approval is a good check and balance. If time goes by and the populace of Westmarch thinks the CoK is stonewalling or vetoing every candidate, then an Althing can be brought forth to change the corpora. At the onset, we should at least *try* something different to show that Westmarch doesn't want to be a kingdom just so we can churn out knights. If we try and the method is no more successful than others, then at least we held ourselves to a higher standard and tried to do the right thing.


Appealing to a sense of difference is cool, but not really a good reason to do something. Most people's teenage years are examples of this. ;P Personally, I don't think either system creates a sense that Westmarch will begin churning out knights. Remember that when the Desert Winds got kingdom status they specifically didn't knight anyone until a year had gone by out of respect for the office of knighthood.

This is good discussion. Regardless of what method gets chosen, I think it'll be cool to see it in action someday. :)
“I wanna live 'til I die, no more, no less.”
Laoric
Robbie Suxxorz
 
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby deimos » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:46 pm

Laoric wrote:
deimos wrote:By the same rationale, a monarch (who is temporary) will make a permanent decision. And the idea of "removing" a monarch after they have made a "bad knighting" is closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. If the goal is to attempt to minimize the "bad knightings", then the decision can't rest on one person with zero culpability after the fact. You said it yourself, removing a knighthood is hard. It should be just as difficult to attain.


The disadvantages for a monarch to go rogue are a strong check. As Randall has said, both systems have produced bad knights. The idea is to create a good culture of choosing knights.

Yet, and those disadvantages dont take effect until after they have acted. This system does promote a good culture of choosing knights - by making it the responsibility of more than one person. If one side has a difference of opinion, then it is up to those two parties to come together and discuss it.

deimos wrote:A CoK approval and a monarch approval is a good check and balance. If time goes by and the populace of Westmarch thinks the CoK is stonewalling or vetoing every candidate, then an Althing can be brought forth to change the corpora. At the onset, we should at least *try* something different to show that Westmarch doesn't want to be a kingdom just so we can churn out knights. If we try and the method is no more successful than others, then at least we held ourselves to a higher standard and tried to do the right thing.


Appealing to a sense of difference is cool, but not really a good reason to do something. Most people's teenage years are examples of this. ;P Personally, I don't think either system creates a sense that Westmarch will begin churning out knights. Remember that when the Desert Winds got kingdom status they specifically didn't knight anyone until a year had gone by out of respect for the office of knighthood.

This is good discussion. Regardless of what method gets chosen, I think it'll be cool to see it in action someday. :)


Wow, way to reduce a concept of innovation and genuine effort to comparing it to teenage angst and misguided attempts at non-conformity. You are totally right, we shouldn't attempt anything new or different in hopes it provides excellent results.

I think something else people are missing here is that the knights on the WM COK have to meet the same attendance requirements to vote on COK matters that the rest of the WM voting populace has to maintain. Knights who are retired (or semi-retired) can still voice an opinion, but not a vote. This holds them accountable to the game that knighted them in the first place. Additionally, an active knight will have a better exposure to a potential candidate than someone who hasn't seen the field in months or years.

Additional checks and balances for a new kingdom is hardly a bad thing.
Deimos
GMR of SSD
User avatar
deimos
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: SSD, Cullyfornia

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Laoric » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:59 pm

deimos wrote:
Wow, way to reduce a concept of innovation and genuine effort to comparing it to teenage angst and misguided attempts at non-conformity. You are totally right, we shouldn't attempt anything new or different in hopes it provides excellent results.



If it's simply for the sake of wanting to be different, which was how your original post made it sound, then yeah, it's a bad motivation. If it's because the current system is broken and needs to be changed, then it's a good thing. As I see it, both systems have been shown to be flawed but also shown to be effective. I happen to agree with Dragonspine that their way is preferable (note: not better).

Like I said, it'll be interesting to see how it works out regardless of which system is chosen.
“I wanna live 'til I die, no more, no less.”
Laoric
Robbie Suxxorz
 
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:43 pm

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Randy » Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:57 pm

I pushed for the COK to have the power to veto a knighting. If they are to be considered a peerage, they should have input as to who should be considered a peer. Without checks/balances, we can not prevent what happened in the CK.

My fear in going to this system is that we have situations similar to Neverwinter. Negotiations taking place and deals being struck to forward agendas. I know people who did not become knights simply because the people in power did not want a shift in the dynamic of the COK. In that our COK is more experienced and appear to be a little more even handed in their dealings, I hope that they would look for people who deserve to take the white, and not try to maintain some power base.

I would also love it if the COK would draft a code of chivalry that could be used by perspective knights as a guideline. Otherwise how are we suppose to know what the COK expects of its peers?


Guyvas wrote:I feel Grand Duke is too easy to get; look at the people that are Grand Dukes/ Duchesses there are about 50 (46) in a game of several thousand so maybe instead of 2 terms do 3 or 4 full terms as kingdom monarch.


The standard in Amtgard as well as SCA (where it was created) is that you dedicate an extensive part of your life to the game. I think since we do little to recognize the achievement, we should not increase the requirement. I know, now having been provided a different perspective, I will take pride in my title and do my utmost to show proper respect for those that have earned theirs.
User avatar
Randy
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 6:16 pm
Location: Silver Sun

Re: ARTICLE VII - Awards and Honors

Postby Keluric » Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:04 am

evil Randy wrote:I would also love it if the COK would draft a code of chivalry that could be used by perspective knights as a guideline. Otherwise how are we suppose to know what the COK expects of its peers?


This is a good idea, and I will follow up on this. :)
Baron Sir Keluric Tryst
Prince of Westmarch

Bellator Adamas
Rutgers Jugging Team
Grand Vizier of the Briny Deep
User avatar
Keluric
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:35 pm
Location: Duchy of Wavehaven

Previous

Return to Westmarch Kingdom Corpora

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron