Pay to play: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(category) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Apparently, they thought that for some reason (perhaps [[insurance]]) possibly as the result of bad advice from either their [[lawyer]]s or from the outside person they had hired to help "professionalize" the SCA, they should ''require'' [[membership]] to attend SCA [[event]]s. |
Apparently, they thought that for some reason (perhaps [[insurance]]) possibly as the result of bad advice from either their [[lawyer]]s or from the outside person they had hired to help "professionalize" the SCA, they should ''require'' [[membership]] to attend SCA [[event]]s. |
||
This did not go over well with the [[hippy]] mentality that had been part |
This did not go over well with the [[hippy]] mentality that had been part of SCA culture since the beginning. |
||
The fact that the BoD behaved in a heavy handed and overly paternalistic fashioned only served to exacerbate the situation. |
The fact that the BoD behaved in a heavy handed and overly paternalistic fashioned only served to exacerbate the situation. There was talk of splitting the SCA into smaller groups, a lawsuit was instituted by some members against the corporation to gain access to the books, impeachment petitions against Board members were circulated. |
||
It was quite a kerfuffle. |
It was quite a kerfuffle. |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The name, "Pay-to-Play", is a misnomer, since everyone who attends an event "pays" to "[[play]]" in the form of [[site fee]]s and [[feast fee]]s. The loyal opposition characterized it as a "members-only" policy, but the name "pay-to-play" is the one that stuck. |
The name, "Pay-to-Play", is a misnomer, since everyone who attends an event "pays" to "[[play]]" in the form of [[site fee]]s and [[feast fee]]s. The loyal opposition characterized it as a "members-only" policy, but the name "pay-to-play" is the one that stuck. |
||
[[category:SCA politics]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 09:37, 9 November 2006
In the early 90's the SCA BoD tried to initiate a pay-to-play policy.
Apparently, they thought that for some reason (perhaps insurance) possibly as the result of bad advice from either their lawyers or from the outside person they had hired to help "professionalize" the SCA, they should require membership to attend SCA events.
This did not go over well with the hippy mentality that had been part of SCA culture since the beginning.
The fact that the BoD behaved in a heavy handed and overly paternalistic fashioned only served to exacerbate the situation. There was talk of splitting the SCA into smaller groups, a lawsuit was instituted by some members against the corporation to gain access to the books, impeachment petitions against Board members were circulated.
It was quite a kerfuffle.
Eventually, the BoD backed off. (I believe they lost the lawsuit as well.) They did manage shortly thereafter to institute the Non Member Surcharge, though.
The name, "Pay-to-Play", is a misnomer, since everyone who attends an event "pays" to "play" in the form of site fees and feast fees. The loyal opposition characterized it as a "members-only" policy, but the name "pay-to-play" is the one that stuck.
