SCA: Kinda like an RPG - the Newcomer Experience

 Greetings,

The SCA is sort of like a role-playing game (RPG) in many respects, especially for those who are newcomers... 

Consider that the newcomer arrives, they have some idea about what they are getting into if they have turned up to their first event, after coming to a practice or some other thing. Or maybe after having seen one of our websites. In the same way as the new player has some idea about a new gaming system.

Consider that first time you played "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" it opens with you in a cart, bound as a prisoner, for a reason you don't know, travelling along with a group of people you don't know. [Spoiler alert] Even after the dragon has passed, and you have made a choice between following either the soldier or the prisoner, you know there are two factions fighting for Skyrim, but you really don't know what either of them are about. More, they expect you to pick your name and your species based on some pretty flimsy evidence, and then you have to stick with both (mostly) for the rest of the game.

If we expect our newcomers to come up with a name and device within the first weeks of them joining we are pretty much expecting the same thing of them that occurs in the first moments of Skyrim. We are expecting them to name themselves for the rest of "the Game" without having any background, unless they have already done some research beforehand. Also most certainly do not know the details about the different Kingdoms of the Knowne World, or even the different local groups within the Kingdom, let alone local households, so it is much the same in that respect as well...

Getting to know a social system takes time. Getting to know which part of history you're comfortable with takes time. I went through at least three different centuries before I found what I was comfortable with and they spanned the period between late Roman to the 16th-century. My device changed about seven times in this period. How can we expect a newcomer to go through these changes in a couple of weeks? Give them some time to explore, let them experiment with names, with personas, see what fits them best. I believe this is the best way to let them enculturate themselves properly within the Society.

In some ways, we need to treat our newcomers like children, let them explore and find themselves, not be rushed or even sheep-dogged into a particular area of interest or century. I believe this is the best way to build new members who will stay with us for the long-term.

Cheers,

Henry.

Let's Talk About "Discovery"

 Greetings,

Yesterday 10 October was "Columbus Day" a day which we do not celebrate in Australia because it does not have anything to do with us. The thing about this day is it brings up all discussions about the European arrival on the shores of the Americas. In old textbooks, it will state that "Columbus discovered the Americas." This has been disproven as there were those who arrived before him such as the so-called "Vikings". The following is not going to be a discussion of American history, it is going to be a discussion of the word "discover" and "discovery".

The word "discover" is defined in the Cambridge English dictionary as "to find information, a place, or an object, especially for the first time:", or in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "to make known or visible :" and "to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time :" or in Collins English dictionary as "If you discover something that you did not know about before, you become aware of it or learn of it." or "If a person or thing is discovered, someone finds them, either by accident or because they have been looking for them." or "When someone discovers a new place, substance, scientific fact, or scientific technique, they are the first person to find it or become aware of it." Definitions from three different dictionaries, two of which present extended definitions of the word getting into its particulars. All in essence talk about the act of finding.

The problem is that with some individuals and their particular focus on history, their particular bends on history, they like to use definitions which exclude others, they focus on those definitions which focus on discovery as the finding of something for the first time. The focus on this definition then results in explorers not discovering other places, because they were already known, therefore they couldn't have been the first to find them. This is a rather specific interpretation of the concept of discovery, and using such an interpretation, and extending it to its extreme end little could be discovered because it was always already there first.

Scientists could not be credited with the discovery of electricity, it has always existed in the form of lightning, it was always there. No inhabited continent on the planet could be considered discovered, nor any part of them, because people were already there, and the places were already there. The only things that could be counted as discovered would be new things that were made, fire does not count as it is a natural part of the world, only man-made objects. Further, all the discoveries of ancient civilisations are not discoveries, because they were evidently already there.

There is a necessity to take a wider view of the world and not be so particular about words. A discovery is made when an individual finds something, this is very much the case when it is new to them. If Columbus knew about the Americas he wouldn't have accidentally run into it looking for an alternate way to get to India. He may not have been the first European there, but it was a first for him. The same can be said for all the same sorts of voyages, they went out looking for new lands and new places. It was their first time there so it was a discovery for them.

According to the dictionary definition of discovery, the Europeans "discovered" the various locations around the world because it was their first time seeing the places. This is regardless whether or not these places were inhabited or not, and regardless whether or not they had actually been "discovered" by others previously. Australia is a perfect example of this one, the British take pride in claiming its discovery, but there are many individuals who landed on Australia's shores before Captain Cook.

When the definition of a word is limited from its original, and the actions of those previous to us in history are also limited as a result, we lose perspective of our current world. Regardless of whether we support the European explorations and colonisations of the world, there is something to be learned from it, and this needs to be done from an objective point of view. There are at least two sides of the story to be told, and all stories need to be told and heard. Playing with the words, merely muddies the water, and causes issues for clear and concise discourse.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation monthly to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.