Peerage Discussions.

.....After yesterday's post an interesting (at least to me :-)) sideline discussion / musing happened. At what point does the conversation that happens in a peerage circle become 'not-to-be-discussed' information? A couple of people thought that maybe I had crossed the line yesterday in even saying that there was a potential problem amongst the Pelicans in the Western Region. I'll admit that even though I had ensured that no names or actual specific details were mentioned, I had not given much thought to filtering the post down to just peers or anything along those lines. I'll definitely give more thought to that in the future.

.....But at what point can peerage circle business be discussed in the open? Should the fact that the peers are meeting be the only thing that the outside world sees? I can fully understand that you certainly don't want to discuss individuals by name outside the circle, but how far can / should you go in discussing the attribute for which you are looking?

.....I personally am an advocate of more openness and transparency amongst the discussions. If the process were more open people might not be so adamant that they and their friends are being overlooked for some nameless malicious reason. But then again, if more open discussion happens people will be reluctant to speak more openly about the particular attributes of any one person.

.....Also, if during the discussion process the peers start looking more 'human', does that affect the 'magic' of the game? To have fun in the world of the SCA there has to be a certain amount of 'suspension of belief / disbelief' to accept the rule of royalty and those of rank. If the process itself becomes more transparent, does this boundary become harder to maintain?

.....I'm full of questions this morning. Be glad that I have to get to work now and can't think them out completely. :-)

.....Aaron / Arontius.