collapse

* Recent Posts

Re: Spell Caster by Jenett
[Today at 09:14:01 pm]


Re: Spell Caster by Noctua
[Today at 08:56:03 am]


Wild Bards Sing the News by entwife
[Today at 05:43:37 am]


Re: Vachellia Tortilis with Violins by entwife
[Today at 05:39:06 am]


Re: Odal Runes and Golden Idols for U.S. Conservatives by Altair
[Today at 01:38:13 am]

Author Topic: General/Non-Specific: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede  (Read 16929 times)

Donal2018

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Dec 2018
  • Location: New York
  • Posts: 513
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 94
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Universalist
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2018, 04:06:08 pm »
That's not the Rede, though.

... hrr, I'm going to see if I can find an old post I made about the Rede, back in a few.

I am open to discussion.

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5034
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 936
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2018, 04:10:37 pm »
... hrr, I'm going to see if I can find an old post I made about the Rede, back in a few.

Here we go.

The Rede is not broad, it's very narrow: it only addresses "if it harms none".  Which as other people have pointed out, is really hard to do if taken really strictly!

It might help if you looked at the Rede as some guidance for people who are coming out of restrictive situations.  Consider someone coming out of a conservative monotheist background, who's used to tons of rules about their food, their clothes, their relationships, based on what someone says.  They are trying to make decisions about whether it's okay to change what they eat, whether it's okay to dye their hair, whether it's okay to wear more revealing clothing, to wear more or less makeup, to fall in love with someone of the same sex, to play Dungeons and Dragons, to drink a beer out with friends....  The Rede is a reassurance that their choices to step out of the box can be okay.

"All this stuff is okay" doesn't say anything about the more complicated stuff that requires nuanced ethical and moral thought.  But it's still an important thing to say, because a lot of people are coming out of situations where they were told that these things aren't okay.

also this:

For people for whom "real ethical principle" is restricting, not liberating, it's more difficult to see the Rede as saying "Dyeing your hair purple does not damage the cosmos, so you can do it if you want to".  For people for whom "real ethical principle" lays out a specific code of conduct, they rummage for a rule to follow, even if the rule makes as much grammatical sense as taking "If it's not raining, we could have a picnic" and turning it into "THE RULES SAY THE WEATHER'S NICE."

Which isn't to say that having a sense of what a Real X is in one's head is bad, but I think it's important to keep in mind that doing that black-and-whites the grey areas by necessity, and be aware that it may have unintended consequences.

and

The Rede is a conditional statement beginning "If there is no harm"; when the conditions do not include the possibility of no harm, then a person has to work through that shit without advice.  (Much like "If it doesn't rain tomorrow, we can have our picnic in the park" does not say what you will do in case of thunderstorm.)

I've said a lot about it on and off. ;P
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Donal2018

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Dec 2018
  • Location: New York
  • Posts: 513
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 94
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Universalist
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2018, 04:22:22 pm »
Here we go.

also this:

and

I've said a lot about it on and off. ;P

I agree with you that the Rede is really hard to hew to. A lot of moral principles are. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a pretty basic precept, but hard to stick to if you are in the military and in a war zone. "Do what you want as long as you harm none" is another basic idea that is maybe difficult to put into effect. How do I know what may or may not harm someone?

So, the idea is simple, but the execution is often complex and difficult. I think that is true of a lot of moral codes and precepts. Just my two cents. As an addenda, I do view a formulation of the Rede as "do what you want as long as you do not harm others". Darkhawk seems to disagree with this formulation, but I am not sure what the distinction is, and would like to hear it clarified. Thanks.

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5034
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 936
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2018, 04:55:23 pm »
I agree with you that the Rede is really hard to hew to.

How can you agree with something I both never said and disagree with utterly?

Quote
"Do what you want as long as you harm none" is another basic idea that is maybe difficult to put into effect.

And it is NOT THE REDE.

(Setting aside that it is also, strictly speaking, not possible, it is definitely not the Rede.)

Quote
As an addenda, I do view a formulation of the Rede as "do what you want as long as you do not harm others". Darkhawk seems to disagree with this formulation, but I am not sure what the distinction is, and would like to hear it clarified. Thanks.

It says something completely and totally different than the Rede, which is, in plain language:

"A word of advice: if it doesn't cause harm, it's okay to do."

There is no "so long as".  There is no "do not harm others".  There is no command morality, no declared standard.  All of those are things that are not in the Rede.

The Rede only contains permission.
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Donal2018

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Dec 2018
  • Location: New York
  • Posts: 513
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 94
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Universalist
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2018, 05:18:33 pm »
How can you agree with something I both never said and disagree with utterly?

You wrote: "[it] is really hard to do if taken really strictly". Which I took as a statement that it is not always easy to put the Rede into effect. Maybe I misunderstood this.

As far as different interpretations of the Rede goes, I don't agree that the Rede "only gives permission". Yes, it gives permission to do any action so long as it does no harm. That is permission limited by a "do no harm" precept.

I think that I disagree with your interpretation and we might have to leave it at that. I am not interested in strictly parsing the language or the Rede, or really any other principle. I am interested in the spirit of the idea more than anything. I do not want to miss the forest for the trees.

We might have to agree to disagree. I am open to discussion, but really do not want to get into an argument. 

[edits for spelling and readability]

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5034
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 936
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2018, 05:25:57 pm »
You wrote: "[it] is really hard to do if taken really strictly". Which I took as a statement that it is not always easy to put the Rede into effect. Maybe I misunderstood this.

Strictly speaking, if you want to "harm none" then you have to both not breathe (breathing harms many microorganisms) and breathe simultaneously.

"Harm none" is not possible.  Some of us want to eat.

Quote
I think that I disagree with your interpretation and we might have to leave it at that. I am not interested in strictly parsing the language or the Rede, or really any other principle. I am interested in the spirit of the idea more than anything. I do not want to miss the forest for the trees.

Interpreting the Rede as anything other than permission to do things that do not do harm is absolutely destroying, demolishing, and ruining the spirit of the Rede and dancing upon its grave.

Expanding it into something that is followable, likewise.  There is absolutely nothing to follow, in the Rede, there is no command, there is no direction.  There is just, "Does that do harm?  No?  Then go do it if you wanna."

If the answer to "Does that do harm?" is "yes" or "maybe" or "depends on your interpretation" the Rede is silent and you gotta solve your own problems.
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Donal2018

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Dec 2018
  • Location: New York
  • Posts: 513
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 94
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Universalist
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2018, 05:30:17 pm »
Strictly speaking, if you want to "harm none" then you have to both not breathe (breathing harms many microorganisms) and breathe simultaneously.

"Harm none" is not possible.  Some of us want to eat.


That simply seems to me to be reductio ad absurdum. Sorry.

Donal2018

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Dec 2018
  • Location: New York
  • Posts: 513
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 94
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Universalist
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2018, 05:38:07 pm »
Interpreting the Rede as anything other than permission to do things that do not do harm is absolutely destroying, demolishing, and ruining the spirit of the Rede and dancing upon its grave.

Expanding it into something that is followable, likewise.  There is absolutely nothing to follow, in the Rede, there is no command, there is no direction.  There is just, "Does that do harm?  No?  Then go do it if you wanna."

If the answer to "Does that do harm?" is "yes" or "maybe" or "depends on your interpretation" the Rede is silent and you gotta solve your own problems.

I would also view this as a distinction without a difference. "Does that do harm? No? Then go do it if you wanna" is fundamentally the same as freedom to do what you want limited by non-harm. What makes it difficult is, yes, we have an incomplete idea of what may or may not be harmful, and therefore a lot is open to interpretation. I am not proposing that the Rede is some comprehensive, universal thing. It is simply a guide, and I think a good guide. Just my two cents.

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5034
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 936
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2018, 05:51:12 pm »
I would also view this as a distinction without a difference. "Does that do harm? No? Then go do it if you wanna" is fundamentally the same as freedom to do what you want limited by non-harm. What makes it difficult is, yes, we have an incomplete idea of what may or may not be harmful, and therefore a lot is open to interpretation. I am not proposing that the Rede is some comprehensive, universal thing. It is simply a guide, and I think a good guide. Just my two cents.

The number of situations in which one can honestly answer "No" to that question - even if one discards the breadth of potential in "harm" when interpreted strictly, which I agree is sensible - is miniscule.  The Rede covers only trivialities.

Any complex situation of interpersonal dynamics requires weighing and balancing harm, and thus is not a situation where "there is no harm" applies.  (Two friends are having a fight: what do you do?  Who do you vote for?)  Any substantial economic decision requires weighing and balancing harm, and thus is not a situation where "there is no harm" applies.  (Do you buy a car?  Which one?  What do you eat? Do you pay attention to the conditions of farm workers? Avoid pesticide use?)

Nothing of substance will ever be settled by "Does it do harm?  No."  Trying to apply the Rede more broadly misses that on the overwhelming majority of reality, it has nothing directly to say.

One can say that the Rede implies that "harm" and "not harm" are relevant sorting categories, and try to figure out a decision based on minimizing one and maximizing the other, sure, that's a plausible extrapolation, but that is not "no harm" and it is actually applying thought rather than saying "Well the Reeeeeeeede says" something the Rede does not, in fact, say.
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Donal2018

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Dec 2018
  • Location: New York
  • Posts: 513
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 94
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Universalist
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2018, 06:08:16 pm »
The number of situations in which one can honestly answer "No" to that question - even if one discards the breadth of potential in "harm" when interpreted strictly, which I agree is sensible - is miniscule.  The Rede covers only trivialities.

I am not sure that the Rede covers only trivialities. I am also not so sure that it was meant to be a sort of universal moral precept, although it could be taken that way. I think it was originally meant to be an idea about magickal ethics. The idea that magick works, and harmful magick can be done, would not be trivial, I think, if you believe that magick "works".

For example. let's say that you own some land and you have a border dispute with your neighbor. There is bad blood over the dispute. You decide to "cast a spell" or do some other magickal ritual with the intent of your neighbor being harmed or dying. This would be a violation of the idea of the Rede. The intent would be to harm.

A proper "magickal solution" might be to cast a spell that intends for the border dispute to be resolved peacefully to the mutual benefit of everyone involved. This would be a "non-trivial" and "non-harm" use of the Rede. So, originally, I think that the Rede was an attempt at a sort of principle of ethics in magick, but it has been used as something more universal by others.

[edits for spelling and readability]

Altair

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: New York, New York
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 3142
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 495
  • Fly high and make the world follow
    • View Profile
    • Songs of the Metamythos
  • Religion: tree-hugging pagan
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2018, 09:40:43 pm »
There is a pretty large difference between "if it does not harm" and "HARM NONE!!!!1!!!!!eleventy!"

Exaggeration added to make the really obvious point even more obvious.

I'm sure I'm being dense, but I'm not getting it.
The first song sets the wheel in motion / The second is a song of love / The third song tells of Her devotion / The fourth cries joy from the sky above
The fifth song binds our fate to silence / and bids us live each moment well / The sixth unleashes rage and violence / The seventh song has truth to tell
The last song echoes through the ages / to ask its question all night long / And close the circle on these pages / These, the metamythos songs

Darkhawk

  • Senior Staff
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 5034
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 936
    • View Profile
    • Suns in her Branches
  • Religion: An American Werewolf in the Akhet; Kemetic; Feri; Imaginary Baltic Heathen; Discordian; CoX; Etc.
  • Preferred Pronouns: any of he, she, they
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2018, 10:42:14 pm »
I'm sure I'm being dense, but I'm not getting it.

I am sure you are familiar with the word "If", used to introduce a conditional statement, such as "If X, then Y".

The Rede is an "If X, then Y" statement, as one can tell from the fact that it is literally composed as an "If <it harm none>, then <do as you will>."

People who interpret "If X, then Y" as "X! IS! MANDATORY!" are not doing English at all good.

X obviously cannot be mandatory, for one, because it is explicitly something that is not always the case.  If it were always the case, then there would be no "if".  Extracting "harm none" from the Rede is basically ignoring that "harms none" is explicitly a test case, one possible consideration, with one possible result: do as you will.

"If it doesn't rain, we can have our picnic." does not mean "SUNLIGHT IS MANDATORY" or "SANDWICHES MUST BE HAD IN THE PARK UNDER PENALTY OF LAW," and it provides no information about lunch plans in the event of showers.

(Ahahaha there's a truth table generator at https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/
I plugged in:
~harm → will   (In logical symbols that's 'if not harm, then will')

and the result is:

harmwill(¬harm → will)
FFF
FTT
TFT
TTT

so the only way you can get a "false" out of the "an it harm none do as you will" is to enter "harm" as "false" and "will" as "false" - basically, if it doesn't do harm, and you don't do as you will, you fucked up the Rede; all other cases return "true".

I am a huge fucking nerd.  But man, truth tables.  Geometry class was so long ago.)

(Edited to fix table formatting because oy, tables.)
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 10:44:59 pm by Darkhawk »
as the water grinds the stone
we rise and fall
as our ashes turn to dust
we shine like stars    - Covenant, "Bullet"

Hariti

  • Sr. Master Member
  • *******
  • Join Date: Mar 2017
  • Location: Kentucky
  • *
  • Posts: 925
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 308
  • ( Formerly known as EDF.)
    • View Profile
  • Religion: Hindu with Christian and Pop-Culture Elements
  • Preferred Pronouns: she/her
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2018, 11:16:31 pm »
People who interpret "If X, then Y" as "X! IS! MANDATORY!" are not doing English at all good.

If Y is "then it is allowed" it's quite reasonable to assume that, in the absence of Y, "it is not allowed." Even if it's not mathematically sound, it's nonetheless logically sound. I am assuming that the Rede is not actually an algebraic expression, but rather a theological axiom.

If the rede says:

If:(it harms none)=true, then (it is allowed)=true,

Then it is reasonable to extrapolate that

If:(it harms none)=false, then (it is allowed)=false,

Now, that doesn't mean that it must be the case; not all relationships can be inverted, but it's not an invalid conclusion to reach, either. 
"The worshippers of the gods go to them; to the manes go the ancestor-worshippers; to the Deities who preside over the elements go their worshippers; My devotees come to Me." ... "Whichever devotee desires to adore whatever such Deity with faith, in all such votaries I make that particular faith unshakable. Endowed with that faith, a votary performs the worship of that particular deity and obtains the fruits thereof, these being granted by Me alone." - Sri Krishna

Altair

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: New York, New York
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 3142
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 495
  • Fly high and make the world follow
    • View Profile
    • Songs of the Metamythos
  • Religion: tree-hugging pagan
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #28 on: December 09, 2018, 11:29:43 pm »
I am sure you are familiar with the word "If", used to introduce a conditional statement, such as "If X, then Y".

The Rede is an "If X, then Y" statement, as one can tell from the fact that it is literally composed as an "If <it harm none>, then <do as you will>."

People who interpret "If X, then Y" as "X! IS! MANDATORY!" are not doing English at all good.

X obviously cannot be mandatory, for one, because it is explicitly something that is not always the case.  If it were always the case, then there would be no "if".  Extracting "harm none" from the Rede is basically ignoring that "harms none" is explicitly a test case, one possible consideration, with one possible result: do as you will.

"If it doesn't rain, we can have our picnic." does not mean "SUNLIGHT IS MANDATORY" or "SANDWICHES MUST BE HAD IN THE PARK UNDER PENALTY OF LAW," and it provides no information about lunch plans in the event of showers.

(Ahahaha there's a truth table generator at https://web.stanford.edu/class/cs103/tools/truth-table-tool/
I plugged in:
~harm → will   (In logical symbols that's 'if not harm, then will')

and the result is:

harmwill(¬harm → will)
FFF
FTT
TFT
TTT

so the only way you can get a "false" out of the "an it harm none do as you will" is to enter "harm" as "false" and "will" as "false" - basically, if it doesn't do harm, and you don't do as you will, you fucked up the Rede; all other cases return "true".

I am a huge fucking nerd.  But man, truth tables.  Geometry class was so long ago.)

(Edited to fix table formatting because oy, tables.)

Ah, OK. We are on the same page. For some reason (not enough sleep? too much alcohol at the party I came from?) I didn't get that you were focusing on the "if".

Yes, the fact that an action will cause some kind of harm does not mean that, according to the Rede, you can't do it. You're absolutely correct that that would be a completely untenable approach to existence. (Like you, I want to eat!) But if an action causes harm, IMHO that does trigger a higher standard of review--depending on the level and extent of harm and the balancing of competing interests: the negotiation I was talking about.

Though I'm not sure Donal2018's formulation, phrased as "Do what you want as long as you harm none," is any different. To my eye, Donal2018 just flipped the "if" clause, with no impact on the meaning of the statement; if harm is expected from the action, that phrasing renders no verdict either way.

"Do what you want as long as you harm none" does *not* inherently encompass "Don't do it if it harms someone or something."
The first song sets the wheel in motion / The second is a song of love / The third song tells of Her devotion / The fourth cries joy from the sky above
The fifth song binds our fate to silence / and bids us live each moment well / The sixth unleashes rage and violence / The seventh song has truth to tell
The last song echoes through the ages / to ask its question all night long / And close the circle on these pages / These, the metamythos songs

Altair

  • Adept Member
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Location: New York, New York
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 3142
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 495
  • Fly high and make the world follow
    • View Profile
    • Songs of the Metamythos
  • Religion: tree-hugging pagan
  • Preferred Pronouns: he/him/his
Re: Conceptions and Misconceptions of the Rede
« Reply #29 on: December 09, 2018, 11:46:09 pm »

If Y is "then it is allowed" it's quite reasonable to assume that, in the absence of Y, "it is not allowed." Even if it's not mathematically sound, it's nonetheless logically sound. I am assuming that the Rede is not actually an algebraic expression, but rather a theological axiom.

If the rede says:

If:(it harms none)=true, then (it is allowed)=true,

Then it is reasonable to extrapolate that

If:(it harms none)=false, then (it is allowed)=false,

Now, that doesn't mean that it must be the case; not all relationships can be inverted, but it's not an invalid conclusion to reach, either.

I get what you're saying, but I'm with Darkhawk on this. Your extrapolation may be common, but it actually isn't logical. The flawed premise is that by saying you can do X under Y conditions, that this somehow means that Y are the *only* conditions under which you can do X.

Y may well be a subset of the conditions under which you can do X; there may be conditions A-W which also permit X (but perhaps aren't as readily described in a pithy statement); or maybe not, and Y is the complete set of conditions under which X is permissible. As Darkhawk notes, the Rede is silent on whether "it harms none" is the only set of conditions under which one can act, or one of many possible conditions under which action is permissible.

But just as one can't assume that because all birds are dinosaurs, that therefore all dinosaurs are birds, one can't assume that the Rede forbids action if that action is determined to cause harm. And like Darkhawk, I think this would be a completely untenable position.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2018, 11:48:42 pm by Altair »
The first song sets the wheel in motion / The second is a song of love / The third song tells of Her devotion / The fourth cries joy from the sky above
The fifth song binds our fate to silence / and bids us live each moment well / The sixth unleashes rage and violence / The seventh song has truth to tell
The last song echoes through the ages / to ask its question all night long / And close the circle on these pages / These, the metamythos songs

Tags:
 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
64 Replies
16824 Views
Last post September 18, 2017, 07:13:51 pm
by Castus
25 Replies
3969 Views
Last post July 03, 2012, 03:20:49 am
by PrincessBurrito
4 Replies
1014 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 03:33:29 am
by Astani
6 Replies
2363 Views
Last post January 16, 2017, 03:14:42 pm
by hraefngar
5 Replies
4158 Views
Last post September 18, 2017, 06:54:19 pm
by Altair

Beginner Area

Warning: You are currently in a Beginner Friendly area of the message board.

* Who's Online

  • Dot Guests: 38
  • Dot Hidden: 0
  • Dot Users: 0

There aren't any users online.

* Please Donate!

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

* Shop & Support TC

The links below are affiliate links. When you click on one of these links you will go to the listed shopping site with The Cauldron's affiliate code. Any purchases you make during your visit will earn TC a tiny percentage of your purchase price at no extra cost to you.

* In Memoriam

Chavi (2006)
Elspeth (2010)
Marilyn (2013)

* Cauldron Staff

Host:
Sunflower

Message Board Staff
Board Coordinator:
Darkhawk

Assistant Board Coordinator:
Aster Breo

Senior Staff:
Aisling, Jenett, Sefiru

Staff:
Allaya, Chatelaine, EclecticWheel, HarpingHawke, Kylara, PerditaPickle, rocquelaire

Discord Chat Staff
Chat Coordinator:
Morag

Cauldron Council:
Bob, Catja, Emma-Eldritch, Fausta, Jubes, Kelly, LyricFox, Phouka, Sperran, Star, Steve, Tana

Site Administrator:
Randall

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal