Word came through late Tuesday that AOL is planning to shut down its Hometown/FTP service. This means that the old Chateau site will be coming down.
Nothing will be lost; I have everything backed up safely. However, most of it may be offline for a while, while I consider other hosting options, and probably rewrite code a bit. I will probably reorganise a little. Updated colours and graphics might be nice.
I do want to put at least some of it back up -- the favours and tokens article I think remains popular, for example, as do some of the cooking ones -- and I do want to find my nets, snares, and ferrets notes so I can actually extend the Roughshooter's Companion the way I've been planning to for the last four years or so. I have some good material on that, I really do, I just need to get my lazy arse into gear.
I have two requests, dear readers:
(1) If you have suggestions about good web hosting services, I'd like to hear about them. Free is nice but not essential. I would prefer NOT to hear about Geocities since they tend to shut you down if you aren't updating regularly and I don't want/need to be tweaking code or content every couple of months to keep things running. I am teh dumb about these things, so any good advice will be gratefully accepted.
(2) If you have a favourite room in the old Chateau that you would like to see preserved, let me know about it, and I will try to adjust my priorities accordingly.
Thanks.
Showing posts with label SCA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCA. Show all posts
02 October 2008
13 April 2007
A Bureaucrat's Lament
The longer I work for a federal regulatory agency, the more I sympathise with the SCA Board of Directors.
I don't agree with them all the time of course. But I sympathise.
Human beings, in general, like rules. They like rules that will protect them, ensure they're treated fairly, reward the virtuous and punish the wicked.
The problem is that no two human beings agree with each other on every point of those things. What is fair? What is virtuous? How much protection do we want? What punishments are suitable for which degrees of wickedness? This means that making rules is hard, and the people who are tasked with trying to make rules are usually abused and insulted for it. I recently reviewed comments on a rule proposed by my agency which included remarks to the effect that if the agency employees weren't all traitors to the country, we were at least all idiots.
A great deal of the recent foo-fa-rah on the kingdom list about the BoD proposal to require background checks for members who work with children in official capacity within the organisation reminded me of the stuff that comes in over FDMS.
Healthy debate is good. Questions, critiques, and suggestions are all useful. The people proposing rules are just people, and it's likely they haven't thought of everything. But it's frustrating as all hell to put forward a solution to a difficult situation and then have the abuse pour in from people who, one suspects, have neither read the proposal in its entirety nor taken time to consider the big picture beyond 'you're trying to ruin our fun' (or 'destroy us economically' or 'pander to [special interest group]' or whatever).
Will a requirement that people who interact with children in an official capacity in the organisation undergo criminal background checks be a pain in the neck? Sure. I had to undergo such a check when I started teaching and it was a nuisance to fill out the forms, go to the state police barracks on the one day a week they process such forms, get fingerprinted, and all the rest of it. And yes, I had to pay for it, and no, I did not get reimbursed.
(FWIW, though, it was no bigger a hassle than my background check when I started working for the government -- maybe even less of one. While I can't remember the cost, it wasn't so much that it made my tight finances any the worse).
On the other paw, I am pretty sure it would be an even greater pain in the neck to have (gods forbid) a child abused or molested by a minister of children or adult officer in the pages' academy and have the parents sue the SCA because the organisation was negligent in allowing someone with a criminal record serve in one of those offices.
I don't agree with them all the time of course. But I sympathise.
Human beings, in general, like rules. They like rules that will protect them, ensure they're treated fairly, reward the virtuous and punish the wicked.
The problem is that no two human beings agree with each other on every point of those things. What is fair? What is virtuous? How much protection do we want? What punishments are suitable for which degrees of wickedness? This means that making rules is hard, and the people who are tasked with trying to make rules are usually abused and insulted for it. I recently reviewed comments on a rule proposed by my agency which included remarks to the effect that if the agency employees weren't all traitors to the country, we were at least all idiots.
A great deal of the recent foo-fa-rah on the kingdom list about the BoD proposal to require background checks for members who work with children in official capacity within the organisation reminded me of the stuff that comes in over FDMS.
Healthy debate is good. Questions, critiques, and suggestions are all useful. The people proposing rules are just people, and it's likely they haven't thought of everything. But it's frustrating as all hell to put forward a solution to a difficult situation and then have the abuse pour in from people who, one suspects, have neither read the proposal in its entirety nor taken time to consider the big picture beyond 'you're trying to ruin our fun' (or 'destroy us economically' or 'pander to [special interest group]' or whatever).
Will a requirement that people who interact with children in an official capacity in the organisation undergo criminal background checks be a pain in the neck? Sure. I had to undergo such a check when I started teaching and it was a nuisance to fill out the forms, go to the state police barracks on the one day a week they process such forms, get fingerprinted, and all the rest of it. And yes, I had to pay for it, and no, I did not get reimbursed.
(FWIW, though, it was no bigger a hassle than my background check when I started working for the government -- maybe even less of one. While I can't remember the cost, it wasn't so much that it made my tight finances any the worse).
On the other paw, I am pretty sure it would be an even greater pain in the neck to have (gods forbid) a child abused or molested by a minister of children or adult officer in the pages' academy and have the parents sue the SCA because the organisation was negligent in allowing someone with a criminal record serve in one of those offices.
02 March 2007
Harrumph
According to the astrology websites, Mercury is indeed retrograde at the moment, and will be until about 8 March. It will be retrograde again 15 June - 9 July and 11 October - 1 November. That should give us SCA drama in the pre-Pennsic and pre-Crusades windows -- plan your popcorn purchases accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
