"SCA time" is a phrase commonly used to describe the fact that many SCA functions (events, branch meetings, arts nights, etc.) don’t run to schedule very well. If Court starts an hour late, people laugh it off with, "Oh, well, it’s SCA time". The prevailing attitude seems to be that it would be nerdy to worry too much about the schedule; viewed in this light, SCA time is a form of courtesy, of tolerance to the people who are running late.
However, another way to look at it is that SCA time is discourteous to the people who are counting on the schedule. When something is scheduled for "after Court", and Court starts an hour late, the later function suffers; it may even have to be cancelled (say, if it requires daylight). This is a particular problem at large events where different functions may be scheduled by different people, and one group may not even know that another group is waiting for them to finish. Still, I have seen this happen even at a small local event: there were several activities scheduled, including several forms of fighting and one small arts competition. The fighting got started late because the Baroness (who was to oversee it) finished her lunch late, and the cascade effect wound up cancelling the arts competition.
So what’s to be done? It seems that we have two conflicting courtesies, and it’s going to be hard to ask people to choose between them. But wait: these two courtesies are courtesies by different people! If you have committed to a schedule, it is courteous to make sure you meet your commitment, because other people are depending on you. On the other hand, if you are inconvenienced by a missed schedule, it is courteous not to complain (though it may be courteous to offer help if possible). These two courtesies are not in conflict.
I’m not sure how to encourage the "stay on schedule" courtesy without weakening the "be tolerant" courtesy. Perhaps the answer is not to emphasize it during the event. The autocrat could point out to group A beforehand that group B’s function is dependent on A’s meeting their schedule, so that A is at least aware of the problem. Similarly, if A slips and disrupts B, then the autocrat can note the problem and tell A about it after the event. This way, over time, people may come to appreciate the importance of keeping to schedule, without ever being nagged about it on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mastodon |