RE: [Mid] A peer by any other name...

------------------------
If you think, the people you know are peers because of their skill, 1) write
them in for award recommendations (If applicable); 2) treat them as such; 3)
move on.
Change occurs slowly. Change can be painful. Rejoice in the knowledge that
if the majority want change, it usually occurs eventually. Go out and have
fun.

Respectfully submitted,
Deirdru ingen Mhurchada
------------------------

I don't know if "skill" would be the word I'd use - I'd use "excellence."

I've started and discarded quite a number of missives here on the subject,
but looking at corpora, the black and white words don't really give a whole
lot of difference between what qualifies one for peerage, and in my exegesis
of it, leadership and gentility are by far and away the primary
considerations.

A person who is "excellent" doesn't pull up the deck chair and start sipping
margaritas once they have crossed the goal line. Excellence is a process of
continuous improvement, even if it only means broadening the base skills -
and in seeking new challenges.

I don't know of any peers who are one trick ponies. They always seem to
have something else happening in one of the other "peer tracks." (I dislike
the term, but it is accurate). I don't know of a single knight who would
qualify as being a stick jock; they all do something else, whether serve, or
research. I don't know of any pelicans who are in retirement. I don't know
of any laurels who don't do something else, be it fight or serve.

In a lot of respects, there really isn't a lot of difference between the
peer orders except for the main things they are excellent in. K/M-SCA's are
mighty on the field. OL's are mighty in knowing things. OP's are mighty in
service to crown and society. But none of them stop there and are narrow in
their focus. I'm a herald - the past two Dragon Heralds have both been
Pelicans - but both knowledgable in heraldry, and putting that knowledge to
practical use and harnessing it for the sake of the kingdom; and by strict
definition that is the Laurel side of the street. And by the same token, I
haven't seen the laurels complaining to either Elena or Rory to "Work their
own damn street corner."

A peer is a peer, to me, regardless of what they do, but because of their
character. We all know people who are excellent, but who are not peers
because they lack the something else. The selfless service, the chivalry
and courtesy in the face of blatant discourtesy, the sharing of their skills
and knowledge to the point of taking joy when their students works outstrip
them. I've never beaten a knight on the field of honor where they did not
give out a whoop of joy and a cry of "THAT's what I'm talking about!"

In a large sense, I think we have too many peer orders. We really only need
one, with an added definition of "Excellence in a clearly defined field of
focus." Who a peer is is far more important to me than what they DO. I
know many people who are mighty fighters - but not a joy to fight. I know
many people who have broad knowledge - but who are snarks. I know many
people who work like a Roman galley slave - and who suck the joy out of the
air by being bossy and rigid and demanding. All those who are peers who I
interact with fill the age old definition of the Pelican - the society would
be a poorer place for not having them there. Chivalry brings joy to
fighting. Laurels leave you with more insight, and Pelicans inspire one to
give a little more - and make the giving hurt less, they raise the bar on
"give till it hurts."

Don't know that it makes any sense, Deirdru - but it is a thought.

From: "Pete Jensen" <black_malcolm@sbcglobal.net>
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ to unsubscribe, send a message to
`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~` majordomo@midrealm.org with
. | | | | | | | | 'unsubscribe sca-middle' as its body.
Received on Sat Oct 23 13:18:14 2004