The SCA award system is what it is, an irrevocable part of our culture,
and I do not see it changing in my lifetime. If I could do it over
again, I would strive to recreate more historical models, but given what
we have I believe in making the best of it. That being said, it isn't so
far off. Some historical orders voted in new members, many represented
"awards" in that they were honors that gave people incentive to serve
the king/pope/whoever, and most had few responsiblities besides dressing
up in their ceremonial outfits and having dinner once a year. 
<p>
I know that awards are unevenly distributed. Some people labor long in
relative obscurity, and for some reason the recognition passes them by.
Others have a few enthusiastic friends in high places, and they are
recognized for what some would consider small achievements. The system
can't be made perfect. We can only try to be paying attention and notice
the quiet ones. It won't always happen -- sadly, I don't think they
award omniscience with the coronet. 
<p>
As for which way to err, I can only strive for balance. If we "err
early" too often, it cheapens the award. To "err late" too often
discourages people. I don't have a policy that could be applied in all
situations, each case would have to be considered individually. I do
believe that an individual's comportment and courtesy are important
factors in any award, whether they are part of the official requirements
or not.
