[sca-comments] Fwd: New Social Media Policy

Dale Fong-Frederick dfongfrederick at director.sca.org
Sun May 23 18:15:55 CDT 2021

Thank you for taking the time to send us your comments.  Your thoughts are valued.

Dale Fong-Frederick
Director, Seat D

On May 23, 2021, at 6:56 PM, Marie Schorn <ladyarrienne at gmail.com> wrote:

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<mailto:ladyarrienne at gmail.com>>
Date: Sun, May 23, 2021 at 5:30 PM
Subject: New Social Media Policy
To: <socialmedia at sca.org<mailto: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
Sca-comments mailing list
Sca-comments at lists.sca.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sca.org/pipermail/sca-comments/attachments/20210523/5eb4880b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Sca-comments mailing list