From Cunnan
Revision as of 12:51, 18 August 2005 by Morgant (talk | contribs) (neutral rewrite?)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Even if the steward would in many senses be a better term than the autocrat, the latter has remedial characteristics, that would encourage using it further more.

The word autocrat communicates rather nicely the fact, that this person is ultimately in charge of the event bearing the responsibility and thus having a rather final say on how things will run in the event. With the meaning of sole ruler, this particular term is the very best in communicating the mandate and responsibility.

The question is, if this communication is really necessary, sadly I have seen that it sometimes really is.

-- Dim foreigner

  • True, but it is part of the old argument in the SCA - what is better? Doing something as they did in period (for at least one part of the world) or doing it as we have traditionally done it in-house for years? There is no right or wrong sometimes, but SCA terms and SCA definitions of existing terms (e.g. reeve) are sometimes easier to work with when interacting with modern expectations and the modern world. Being a pedantic linguist, I like to use old terms with their original definitions, rather than inventing new ones. I find it more "quaint" and adds to the atmosphere that we call the Dream. - Cian Gillebhrath

Both valid points - it may not be up to Cunnan to decide. Would anyone like to rewrite SCAism with an emphasis on neutrality?

- Morgant 20:51, 17 Aug 2005 (CDT)