[SCA] Pennsic policy games

[cellio]

The big new bit of stupidity -- this time not from the SCA board of directors -- is a new Pennsic rule that minors, meaning people under 18, cannot attend classes without being accompanied by an adult. I guess it's just too dangerous for a 16-year-old to learn Italian dance or a 17-year-old to learn how to spin wool, or something. This is totally

Comments

[sanpaku]

I've never heard the hill climbing metaphor... can you say more?

[dragonazure]

Apparently, they don't teach heuristics in computer science much these days. I tried explaining this same concept to an IS colleague the other day, and he'd never heard of 'hill climbing' or even the word heuristic. I refrained from using the word 'algorithm' after that point.

People go to a class that teaches them the basics of a programming language and its' syntax, and they think they know programming.... You kids get offa my Token Ring network!

[cellio]

They don't teach this any more? How sad.

Lest anyone draw a wrong conclusion, though, please note that the commenter who asked is a history teacher, not a programmer.

[ex_hrj]

And, as is all too typical in the SCA, they are explicitly refusing to explain the events that led to the policy, thereby not allowing for a larger brainstorming process to address the underlying issues.

[cellio]

They probably don't want input; that just creates work for them.

[paquerette]

I think that is the most infuriating thing of it all. Have they found a new way to boil frogs? First you turn the heat up really really high, and then when they start jumping out, you turn it down a few notches and they all get cozy in their new jacuzzi?

[cellio]

Yeah, exactly. And people, even knowing how this works, are falling for it, which just invites them to get a bigger pot for all the extra frogs.

[shalmestere]

This.

"Can I have a pony?"

"No."

"May I have a pony?"

"No."

"May I pleeeeeeeze have a pony???"

"I said NO!!!"

[...]

"Can I get a gerbil?"

"OK--let's go to the pet store...."

:->

[jillzz]

This is a technique used a lot in customer service in resolving disputes. i.e. the customer asks for something over the top (I don't want to pay my bill at all!) and you make a more reasonable request (Ok, we'll take x charges off your bill if you pay y charges) after listening to them bitch and get it out of their system and make them feel like they are getting a deal.

[cellio]

Yes, exactly. We all (or almost all) know how this works. We know that politicians, solicitors, business people, and policy-makers knowingly exploit this principle. And yet, people continue to fall for it. Is it because "these are our friends and they have our best interests at heart"? Is it because they forget? I don't get it.

[sethg_prime]

As a parent, although not a SCAdian, I look forward to my children reaching ages when they can be trusted to do stuff without adult supervision. That’s what raising children is all about.

I am also not keen on the idea that parents, even if not expected to shepherd perfectly competent teenagers to class, bear the onus of finding someone to do that chore. If the kid misbehaves in class, are both the child and the proctor ejected?

[cellio]

I was going to say that the proctor would be ejected too, but since a teenager doesn't require adult supervision once he steps outside of the class tent, maybe not. If the proctor were ejected for behaving disruptively, though, then the minor would need to leave or acquire a new proctor, I guess.

The idea of sheltering children until they're 18 and then sending them out in the world, completely missing that period of supervised maturation, seems counter-productive to me. Of course I'm not a parent, but in watching the younger generations as they grow up, I don't have the impression that it's working too well.

[sethg_prime]

Who says the sheltering has to end at age 18? Thanks to the Internet, airline deregulation, and cheap long-distance phone rates, it’s never been easier to shelter your 25-year-old child remotely.