The Visibility of Sanctions in the SCA
Feb. 16th, 2024 10:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqA friend brought up Donnan today. It got me thinking about SCA banishments again, and the weird attitude the powers that be have about them. They're reluctant to do it, and equally reluctant to give any indication that it had ever happened. Seriously, I searched the Avacal website for indications of any sanctions. I know of five people who have been temporarily banned since Avacal became a kingdom - only the most recent is mentioned. If you look at the Avacal FB page, only the most recent two are mentioned. And my google-fu is excellent, so not finding anything suggests that it's just not there.
I'm not sure if those two still being there are a result of their being the most recent bans, or the severity of their alleged/actual crimes (both involved CSAM). Maybe the notifications just didn't survive a site redesign. In which case, I'd suggest that, of the information that makes the cut for survival between site redesigns, banishments should be included. It's important.
Anyway, I get it. No group wants to be judged by its worst members; maybe they think sweeping it under the rug is the best course of action. But they shouldn't, because it isn't. I think the fact that a ban occurred should still be discoverable. If some dude is a horrible piece of shit, I'd like to make my own decision about that person, even if the current monarchs have forgiven them. And I do think that not continuing a banishment is taken by most people as a sort of forgiveness.
Of course, you're welcome to forgive whomever you like, but you don't get to tell me, implicitly or explicitly that I must. If I can find zero evidence that someone like Donnan or Henry got banned, how would I even know that the choice is there? Maybe hanging out with someone is going to hurt my social standing, without me even knowing it's in danger. Maybe I'm in literal danger? Who's going to warn me?
Final thoughts: if someone's awards can be listed on their Avacal wiki entry, can their banishments? Isn't "banished during the reign of X" just as equally earned and worthy of inclusion as "Baronial rapier champion from AS12-AS13"? If I made that edit, are the Avacal wiki gnomes going to revert it?
I'm not sure if those two still being there are a result of their being the most recent bans, or the severity of their alleged/actual crimes (both involved CSAM). Maybe the notifications just didn't survive a site redesign. In which case, I'd suggest that, of the information that makes the cut for survival between site redesigns, banishments should be included. It's important.
Anyway, I get it. No group wants to be judged by its worst members; maybe they think sweeping it under the rug is the best course of action. But they shouldn't, because it isn't. I think the fact that a ban occurred should still be discoverable. If some dude is a horrible piece of shit, I'd like to make my own decision about that person, even if the current monarchs have forgiven them. And I do think that not continuing a banishment is taken by most people as a sort of forgiveness.
Of course, you're welcome to forgive whomever you like, but you don't get to tell me, implicitly or explicitly that I must. If I can find zero evidence that someone like Donnan or Henry got banned, how would I even know that the choice is there? Maybe hanging out with someone is going to hurt my social standing, without me even knowing it's in danger. Maybe I'm in literal danger? Who's going to warn me?
Final thoughts: if someone's awards can be listed on their Avacal wiki entry, can their banishments? Isn't "banished during the reign of X" just as equally earned and worthy of inclusion as "Baronial rapier champion from AS12-AS13"? If I made that edit, are the Avacal wiki gnomes going to revert it?
