[sca-comments] Fwd: New Social Media Policy

Marie Schorn ladyarrienne at gmail.com
Sun May 23 17:56:35 CDT 2021


To Whom It May Concern,

Usually the BOD acts cautiously, working to protect the SCA long term.  For
example, I can see where you told SCA groups to follow state guidelines
when opening up in person activities.  I also saw the intense reactions to
that ruling - from those who thought it was way too controlling because
they felt like people should be able to do as they like and take their
chances regarding Covid.  I also saw similar intense, negative reactions
from those who felt each group should have the right to insist on checking
vaccination cards or mandating masks.  However these reactions are typical
of SCA members and the BOD is able to make decisions that are designed
primarily to protect the SCA long term.  I understand that and have seen it
over and over again.

So I am forwarding my email to the social media officer to you because all
I can conclude is that you haven't seen this yet.  If you don't want to
allow SCA groups to mandate masks at events during a pandemic, you sure
don't want the SCA to have anything to do with even claiming to monitor
people's personal social media posts.  That is just a disaster waiting to
happen.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marie Schorn <ladyarrienne at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, May 23, 2021 at 5:30 PM
Subject: New Social Media Policy
To: <socialmedia at sca.org>


To Whom It May Concern,

I think this new policy is a terrible idea that will live in infamy if
allowed to continue to exist in its current form.

*Specifically this part in the FAQ:*
"The only aspect of the policy which applies to people’s personal pages or
online conduct outside official channels is the consideration of whether or
not it is bullying, abusive, harassment, or hate speech, or a threat to the
well-being of others if a profile could be seen to create a direct
connection with the SCA. (Definitions can be found in the Society
Seneschal’s Handbook, p. 40, Section XIX and Corpora p. 37, X.A.4 )"

First of all, you shouldn't try to monitor or correct anything on people's
personal pages ever.  That is beyond the scope of a hobby group (which we
are).  Second, I've seen so many perspectives in the SCA on what
constitutes 'bullying, hate speech, abuse, harassment' that in some cases
mere polite disagreement has been characterized that way by people in the
SCA.  Unless the SCA specifies a clear, detailed, legal definition of each
of those terms, it has no business monitoring anything on any social
media.  Leave that to the group moderators.  At least then the SCA itself
would be protected from any problems that would arise in those groups
because the moderators would be responsible.   But the way this policy is
defined, the SCA is assuming responsibility for the task of policing
people's personal pages as well as the myriad of groups because the person
or group has chosen to claim even the most tenuous link to the SCA by using
a pesona name or made up heraldry.

I don't even know what else to say, so many scenarios are playing through
my head right now of how this could go wrong.  I honestly don't understand
how even one person could have possibly allowed this idea to live past one
second in their head, much less more than one.

Well at least I will have this email to show that I was one of those who
realized how badly this is going to go when it does.

Arrienne Ashford/Marie Schorn
Horrified in advance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sca.org/pipermail/sca-comments/attachments/20210523/7bc2e285/attachment.html>


More information about the Sca-comments mailing list