Crownmakers

[Kinggiyadai Orlok (Kinggiyadai Orlok)]

One major disadvantage of Champions is that there is little to check Crownmakers - experts at the specific contest, applying their skill repeatedly to benefit their friends and patrons, but at little personal cost (and this issue would be exacerbated if there was significant additional personal benefit like if a cash-for-crown arrangement is not forbidden).

Under the current system, the expert is obliged to shoulder the responsibilities of the win (the time, the reputational risk, and the not inconsiderable financial cost), which tends to limit the number of times an individual will do it.

[Sekai (Sekai)]

Even if you had a rule on the books about "cash for crown" it would be difficult to police something like within the scope of the SCA.

You would either have to place limits on how often someone can "fight" for someone else. Something like a champion can only take pair in a Crown Event once every two years. But even something like that doesn't really address the issue of Kingmakers.

I do think having a system where the people taking part in the contest being the ones that take the throne is preferable as it nets society respect for the person that wins and avoids "shady" things from happening

[Heinrich (Heinrich Schreiber)]

Would changing the format and rules of the competiton diversify the field enough to avoid Super-Mercenaries ? e.g.. your expert archer may only end up competing once every 2 years as the tournament format rotates

[Stephen Aldred (Stephen Aldred)]

If we were to have Champions, we would need rules about how often people could successfully champion.

I'd suggest:
Successful Champions may not Champion a different couple for 4 complete reigns after their Crown tournament victory. They may however, contest to place the same couple on the throne during that time, subject to the existing Crown eligibility rules.

Combatants may not contest as Champions in a Crown tournament where they are a reigning sovereign.

Combatants may no longer enter as Champions following two Crown Tournament victories as Champion.

Cheers

Count Stephen

[William_Castille (William Castille)]

One major disadvantage of Champions is that there is little to check Crownmakers - experts at the specific contest, applying their skill repeatedly to benefit their friends and patrons, but at little personal cost (and this issue would be exacerbated if there was significant additional personal benefit like if a cash-for-crown arrangement is not forbidden).

Under the current system, the expert is obliged to shoulder the responsibilities of the win (the time, the reputational risk, and the not inconsiderable financial cost), which tends to limit the number of times an individual will do it.

Champions system would just shift the decision of doing it again to the couple who reign and this combined with Stephens suggestion of restricting who a person can champion within a time period would limit home many times a Champion would compete.

[Stephen Aldred (Stephen Aldred)]

Way, way back during the Lochac Kingdom advancement process when we were discussing the early drafts of laws for the (yet to be minted) Kingdom of Lochac we did discuss the possibility of Champions in Crown Lists and quicky discarded it.  Can't remember all the reasons, but certainly cash for crown and a small number of champions monopolising Crown were two. That and we already had a lot on our plates with simply advancing the Kingdom

[Simon of Cluain (Simon of Cluain)]

Would changing the format and rules of the competiton diversify the field enough to avoid Super-Mercenaries ? e.g.. your expert archer may only end up competing once every 2 years as the tournament format rotates

As a former competition archer who once achieved a silver medal at an international event, old age and old eyes limit how many years an expert archer might affect a competition. Also, if the round-robin takes archery only once per rotation, that further limits an expert. Keep in mind that such an expert would need to be a SCAdian just as much as a heavy needs to be a SCAdian. No non-SCA people are likely to content the competition with the wild hope of being crowned. At least, as  a possible 'expert' archer well past my prime, I am not interested in contending for crown, nor farming out my expertise to crown another. Perhaps I might change my mind but there is not much in the crown that calls to me. Having said all this, and spotting a Brewing Crown mentioned in another thread, I admit contending for crown is a thing I would do, it was a different button that turned my competitiveness on.

[Alain Quartier (Alain Quartier)]

It's definitely a concern, and I like some of the suggestions Stephen posted above. I like the idea of champions as a first step as I think it would probably be the most digestible to the US BoD.

In addition to the above suggestions I'd want to see a letter of intent from the champion outlining why they've chosen to fight for the couple they're aiming to put on the throne, and the couple would need to outline why they've asked this particular champion. And as always, the Crown can deny entry to the list. And at the very least, if you put someone on the throne you aren't able to enter the next tournament. I hadn't considered an extended waiting period or a maximum limit, they'd be great additions.

[Collette de Harcourt (Collette de Harcourt)]

I think that this may be the second-fairest option for inclusivity, coming after a straight lottery. There would need to be rules about the number of times a person could be Champion for a couple, and the number of times a person could fight as a Champion (eg not 2 reigns in a row).

Champions could be in any of a number of disciplines.

For further excitement, run several tournaments (H, R, A, A&S) over a day or weekend and let the Crown be the couple who have the highest score added together of all their Champions in each tournament. One or both of the potential Crown couple can enter in one section only per person. Not easy to organise though.

[Gwen verch David (Gwen verch David)]

I remember hearing about similar concerns that were raised (mainly in the American kingdoms) when same-gender consorts were allowed: the idea that superdukes might manipulate the system using its new allowances and make things less fair.

I think it's important not to let fear of bad faith actors guide our design; rather, we should design for those acting in good faith, and add in precautions as needed.

We already trust the combatants in Crown Tourneys to choose a worthy consort - and we do know that sometimes a person who wishes to reign will seek out a combatant to be their champion, as in the case of katherine and Ratbot. We already trust the Crown to identify those who should not be permitted to enter. We already rely on the fact that those who win Crown Tourney will face serious social consequences if they act poorly (to their reputation and friendships, in a community they are invested in), to prevent

I think we can minimise the risk of 'Crownmakers', as you describe them, by having the champion be closely associated with the reign. They should be required to attend both coronations, just as the Crown couple are, and their name should be recorded. "A and B, championed by C." They may not enter the tournament during 'their' reign. We rely on the honour of our combatants; let's make sure the reputation of the Crown's champion is connected to the reputation of that Crown. And, if we're particularly concerned about 'cash for Crown', let's say that if a champion is discovered to have accepted payment for championing (beyond, say, covering travel expenses), they are not permitted to enter the lists again for a certain number of years.

[Ratbot (Ratbot)]

We already trust the combatants in Crown Tourneys to choose a worthy consort - and we do know that sometimes a person who wishes to reign will seek out a combatant to be their champion, as in the case of katherine and Ratbot.

I feel you're mis-characterising katherine and my relationship somewhat there.
While we formalised things with the 'bond of man rent' contract and enjoyed playing up that contractual aspect of our partnership, she didn't seek me out, it was a far more serendipitous set of circumstance that had us team up due to a throw away comment I made to her after my previous consort had to pull out of a crown attempt due to an attack of life. We both shared the view that we needed a Crown from the Crescent Isles and thought then, and still do now, that she was an excellent choice as the first Kiwi Queen.

Anyway ...

I don't see any real reason to impose any more limitations on potential champions than we would on any other entrant.
We don't expect anyone currently to explain their reasons for fighting for their consort, or to limit how many different consorts they fight for in subsequent Crowns or how often they can enter other than no entering your own crown tourney

However if they win they would be part of a successful entry to Crown so it makes sense that on winning they would/should be subject to the same limitations as other crown winners, so no entering the next crown.

I'm not sure how I feel about requiring the champion to attend all three of the mandatory events the sovereign and consort have to, but it seems reasonable to require them to attend the step-up coronation at least. I guess requiring them to attend all the mandatory events would damper the enthusiasm for entering too many times if they were successful, but seems a little harsh.

I think the crownmaker argument is a little bit of a strawman.