[SCA-AE] Peer Density/Dispersal was Peerage

[Marie Stewart]

Arianna, thank you!  You have made a good point.

I had been considering the population density of the western areas,
especially the tight packing that appears along the Buffalo-Pittsburgh
corridor.  But, I did not consider the time factor.

> In conjunction with that theory, it might be interesting to do a survey of the peers
>of the Kingdom to see how long they've been in the SCA.  I suspect
longevity and
>peerage have a reasonable correlation.  I can certainly count a
goodly number of
>the ones in the Debatable Lands who are at or approaching the 30 year mark,
>myself included.
>
>Contrast the numbers I cited for those [smaller] groups with the
Debatable Lands,
>which has 24 Laurels (and one on the way) alone, never mind Knights, Pelicans
>and Royal Peers.  Yes, you read that right - 24, and that's after
having 4 move out
>of the Barony over the last 2 years.  You can see where the numbers game
>becomes more difficult in the smaller groups.

Good point.  And, this ties in with another speculation that came out
of that initial conversation.  If there is a critical mass of
population in one area,  and if that results in a critical mass of
polling order members in that area,  then, does that sway membership
composition in that order?

I know the first reaction is to say, "No, it never would" but bear with me...

To be recommended to the crown, it requires a majority within that
order to approve. So does a candidate have an advantage
a) if they live in an area where there are many large events  or
b) their work can be seen by many members of the order who live in the
same area or
c) they can form close working relationships with many local members or
d) they have a greater density of events to choose from within a 1- or
2- hour driving radius?

And then, given that the Crown makes the choice of who to bestow the
award upon,
does a candidate have an advantage if they live in an area where
a) there are many large events or
b) there are many Monarchs from the area or
c) they have a greater density of events to choose from within a 1- or
2- hour driving radius?

All of these factors simply add up to being 'known' by a majority, and
the person who makes the ultimate decision.  The question is "If you
live and play where most of the people making the decisions live and
play, do you have a better chance of being 'known'?   Gut level, many
might say "well sure you do."  But, we have to test the hypothesis.

A possible way to gather information would be to look at the dispersal
of new members of each order over the entire area for a set of time
intervals.  Another way to gather information is the time question
that Arianna has mentioned.  A third option (which has a lot of
pitfalls in it) would be to look at the amount of time people spent on
polling lists.  (That might just have too many variables to really be
useful.)

Anyway...  these were all questions that grew out of an initial
conversation about how far each of us was willing to drive to events.
 It's so interesting to look at how populations are dispersed and
interact.   There's never enough time to look at the interesting
questions. :>

Bridgette