(no subject)

[ornerie]

joint apprentice night with the indominable/indomitable countess_e  was fun and I hope successful.

tall gothy apprentice boy seanoconner and his lovely wife secretsquire hosted with grace as always. it was good to get the folks in one place and they found, as is often the case, that they had reason to intersect unrelated to apprenticeship. that's always fun :). the food was good (mmmm. homemade goat cheesy goodness) and the conversation lively.

the business part of the program allowed us to state categorically:
1. there is a List, for both pelicans and laurels. everyone who has done anything is on it. that means you. so get over it.
2. if you're on the list we talk about you. that means you. so get over it. and when we say "talk about" we mean 'what are they doing? hows it going? how can we help them get better at it?". we do NOT mean talking aobut as in purient gossip, etc.
3. we established who wants to be suprised and who doesnt. if it should come up. which it might not. so get over it. ;)
4. neither liz or i see our role as laurel as "getting you moved up the list". some peers do.  we see our role as enabling you to be the best you can be at whatever you choose. this is totally unrelated to SCA peerage.
5. sometimes someone is recognised as a peer because they've been doing their thang, they're a leader in their field, they've innovated and trained and done stuff for YEARS. The regional council sees this, mentors, nudges and enables as best they can and eventually recommends to the crown.

sometimes someone is recognised because the crown thinks they're supposed to be recognised.
sometimes someone is a rock star at home but unknown elsewhere.
sometimes someone is rockstar far away but is a jerk at home.
sometimes someone is a jerk to peons and a lovely person to peers.
sometimes someone is a jerk to peers and a love3ly person to peons
sometimes someone is a jerk period.

anyone of these someones can be eleveated (or not). its matter of timing, luck, and other random factors in addition to skill and influence. in short, get over it. ;)

6. the regional and kingdom councils work by consensus. no, really. we do multiple discussions in an effort to build that consensus. its not a vote, and if someone hates you and is trying to blacklist you, the entire council will work together to generate consensus one way or the other. 

7. if anyone tells you that you "need to" or "you're being held back because" walk away. they're not helping, and likely not even right. if you feel you're stuck or need a nudge to help you be better at wghatever you're doing, thats what your peer is for.

it was an evening of rambling far flung philosophizing. I hope the apprenti and assorted others heard the messages. most importantly I hope they know that their peers have their best interests at heart and while they'll never put them forward for SCA awards, they're always looking for fun challenges, growth opportunities and ways to help them build their name fame.

Comments

[the-thread-lady.livejournal.com]

Great list! I really need to save that list for future reference.

[moira-ramsay.livejournal.com]

I like this.
Good list.

[noxcat.livejournal.com]

I wish more peers followed your rules...

[gwen-the-potter.livejournal.com]

Excellent. Need to save that one.

[brotherselwynn.livejournal.com]

As a non apprenti, but a more than willing student, thank you. I appreciate the "get over it". If I do what I do to get rewarded than it is a job. If I do what I do because I love what I do then I will keep doing it because it is its own reward. I vote for number two for myself. If I never become an apprentice or a laurel my life will not change. I will continue to explore the things I want to explore, build relationship with the people i want relationship with and have fun with what I do. Thanks for the encouragement to live like it is not all about me.

Selewine Offeriad Gwytherin
student to Maistreas Sadb ingen Thuathail

[ornerie.livejournal.com]

the "get over it" is a quote from Daegmar :). I thought it had the right balance of "yes, it can be scary but you can handle it"

:)

[dame-eleanor.livejournal.com]

Excellent list! I'm filing this one away too.

[fjorlief.livejournal.com]

That is the most succinct description of "how it works" that I have ever read, very clear and very applicable to many kinds of discussion. May I copy to my "what is a peer" file?

[ornerie.livejournal.com]

sure, I'm flattered :)

[otherwind.livejournal.com]

ditto, great list (I've had this conversation myself many times with various folks)

I just wanted to comment on #7. I can remember times when we as a counsel have delegated some member to go and speak to a person who is NOT in fealty to anyone and to whom we would like to give some guidance, feedback, or direction.

I can imagine that from a populace point of view, it would be very hard to tell the difference between an overture that is genuinely initiated by the counsel as opposed to information from an individual who conveys what they perceive the counsel to be concerned about, saying they are "speaking for the counsel"--in a way, they are, in that they are sharing more than just their own opinion (and I can see how a member of the counsel might do that out of good intentions without really thinking it through), but in a much bigger way, they are not "speaking for the counsel" because they have not been specifically asked and authorized by the counsel to be the carrier of a message.

This is an important difference because it is my observation that when the counsel does have a significant concern we wish conveyed, there is a fair amount of energy put into strategizing how best and most effectively to get the message to the person in a way that will support their growth rather than shutting them down with criticism.

When discussion happens in counsel and it is not a case of a specific concern that needs to be conveyed, for example, the counsel is simply going over a persons progress and decides, "well, they're doing great, but they're not quite ready yet," or even something like, "they are doing pretty good, but there's been some pretty big issues in the past and we want to observe for a while and see if they are really resolved," then there is no attention to crafting a message and there is no need--the person is already on the right track and simply needs to continue for a while.

"Speaking for the counsel" in this case is a double disservice:
a) to the person (because it implies that the person is "doing something wrong" when really they are doing something right and just need to do more) and
b) to the counsel because it circumvents the process of crafting a productive and supportive message aimed at helping a person succeed in the best way we know how--a message which truly represents the process of the counsel and not just one person's take.

I'm not saying we always do things wonderfully or in the best possible way, only that the chances are much improved that we can be helpful and supportive when we craft a message on purpose and delegate an authorized messenger rather than when snippets of information get generalized or individually interpreted in the process of passing them on. We can never be truly objective, or pick a truly uninvolved messenger, all I saying is that deliberate authorized messages are likely to be more helpful than haphazard piecemeal ones.

Now we just need to help folks in the populace understand the difference so they can be careful "consumers" of information from counsel.

Does that sound reasonable or am I in lala land?

[ornerie.livejournal.com]

I feel theres an important distinction that I dont see in your words above.

it comes from the motivation/attempted goal.

is the person being coached to help them move up the list and get the biscuit?

or are they being coached because they ahve potential to do alot of good and that potential is being stunted because of X?

in both cases it is my personal opinion that the councils tend to try and "help" more than they should. but then there are peers on the council who feel strongly that the goal is the biscuit and that it is our job to help people get said alimentary treat.

needless to say I'm not one of them :)

as I told the gang last night, my desire to mentor has nothing to do with the council. in fact, if the peerages went away tomorrow, I would still see my role exactly the same. in fact, I would find more time at events to act in that role, which is kinda ironic ;)

anyway, thats how I see it. of course each peer approaches this differently....

[xrian.livejournal.com]

I have limited experience as yet, but I don't think I've *ever* heard anyone say, or even imply, that they are "speaking for" the Laurel Circle. Seems to me it would be a serious breach of the Circle's confidentiality -- or at least of its usually-laudable policy of keeping silence about any and all details of who's being discussed and what's being said.

OTOH, I know well-meaning people do sometimes offer unhelpful comments :(

[gargoyal3.livejournal.com]

oddly enough, a very similar discussion happened last night after fighter practice here :)

Much less complete, but we went a different direction after while, and it was just a random conversation over post-practice pub, nothing official...

Thank you!

[alessandra-dm.livejournal.com]

I greatly appreciate being allowed to lurk as an auxilliary posse member. It was very informative and gave me stuff to think about. So often at events I've started to talk about this stuff with Countess_E, but we've gotten distracted by the event happening around us.

[manyra.livejournal.com]

This is a wonderful list. Thank you.