ACWGC Forums
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Club Rules Change, VOTING ENDED
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12746
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Robert [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Club Rules Change, VOTING ENDED

Fellow ACWGC Members,

<font size="5"><font color="red">Voting has now ended, the result will be posted as soon as all ballots have been verified and counted</font id="red"></font id="size5">


<font color="beige"><b> *A clarification (<font color="red">in red</font id="red">) has been added to the above rules change to include a two week period for membership discussion before the cabinet vote.</b></font id="beige">


The Cabinet has approved a rule change to streamline the future addition of ACW themed games to the list of club sanctioned games.

1.1."American Civil War Game Club (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACWGC' or simply 'the Club') has been formed to play American Civil War computer games. These games are currently the Talonsoft/Matrix Games and HPS Simulations American Civil War games designed by John Tiller as well as the game Forge of Freedom (FoF)by Matrix Games and American Civil War: The Blue & the Gray (AACW)by AGEod."


<font color="orange"><b>Revision</b></font id="orange"> 1.1"American Civil War Game Club (hereinafter referred to as 'the ACWGC' or simply 'the Club') has been formed to play American Civil War computer games. These games are currently the Talonsoft/Matrix Games and HPS Simulations American Civil War games designed by John Tiller as well as the game Forge of Freedom (FoF)by Matrix Games and American Civil War: The Blue & the Gray (AACW)by AGEod. <font color="orange"><b>Other games may be added to the supported games list as deemed prudent and in the best interest of the ACWGC, by the Cabinet. New games (other then new HPS/John Tiller games) recommended for support will have a <font color="red">two week </font id="red">discussion period in the MD Tavern and then the cabinet will vote on whether to include the new game. A simple majority of the cabinet is sufficient to add the new game."</b></font id="orange">

9.1 "Revisions to these rules must first be approved by a simple majority of the Cabinet, then by a simple majority of club members voting. Club-wide votes are to be organized by the Cabinet, but must allow at least two weeks for votes to be received."

<font color="orange">Revision</font id="orange"> 9.1 "Revisions to these rules must first be approved by a simple majority of the Cabinet, then by a simple majority of club members voting. Club-wide votes are to be organized by the Cabinet, but must allow at least two weeks for votes to be received. <font color="orange"><b>The exceptions to this rule will be the inclusion of new games, as per 1.1, above, as amended on August 13, 2008 and changes for spelling or grammatical errors"</b></font id="orange">

Before calling for a club-wide vote there will be a two week (till Sept. 12th) opportunity for public comments on this change.

<font color="beige">It is time now to vote on the proposed rule change.

You have from now to September 26th to cast you ballot.

To vote, send an e-mail from your official club email address (as listed in the Department of Records) to all three of the following Election Committee Members:

<font size="4">Ernie Sands – waryor(AT)gmail(DOT)com
Jeff Laub - jdlaub(AT)msn(DOT)com
Bob Weir – ra_weir(AT)comcast(DOT)net</font id="size4">

(If you can't interpret the above, just get our addresses from the Department of Records, under Reports. Ernie and Jeff can be found in the USA Roster, Bob is in the CSA Roster.)

If you are in favor of the motion as it now reads, vote 'Yes'. If you are against the motion, vote 'No'.

To be sure we can find your ballot among all the junk mail we receive, please put the following in your subject line:

<font color="red"><font size="4">"ACWGC - Proposed Rule Change, Games - Ballot"</font id="size4"></font id="red">
Also, to make it easier on us to verify you have sent your ballot to all three of us, include all three of us in the same ballot -- please don't send it to the three of us individually</font id="beige">


<center> <font color="beige"><b>General R.A.Weir </b></font id="beige">
<font color="green"><b><font size="4">CSA Eastern Theater Commander</b></font id="size4"></font id="green">
Image
<b>ACWGC Cabinet Member</b> </center>

Author:  nsimms [ Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

The vote count has not been posted in the past. How many club members have been voting on these resolutions - 10 or 100? With 122 Yanks included on the DoR rolls and 109 Rebs, 10 would be a shameful amount and the Cabinet would be better suited for making the decision after a discussion period. But if a 100 club members normally vote, then I would be impressed and would vote against this resolution.

Didn't I see a Cabinet position won by a vote of 4 to 2 or something almost as ridiculus? And to think that our forefathers shed their blood for ... sorry, I was getting carried away.

Lt Gen Ned Simms
1/1/VIII/AoS/USA
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Author:  nelmsm [ Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:27 am ]
Post subject: 

The vote for the addition of Grigsby's War Between the States was 12 for and 1 against for a total of 13 votes. There were two votes received after the deadline that weren't counted.

General Mark Nelms
6/3/IX/AoO
"Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor
Union Cabinet Secretary

Author:  csaokie [ Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:05 am ]
Post subject: 

Even with the history of poor voter turn out, I think the voting process is worth the hassle.

Lt.Col. Al Baker
1st Bde, 4th(Cav)Div III Corps
Army of Georgia

Author:  Ernie Sands [ Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:06 am ]
Post subject: 

Plus, there is the opportunity for discussion before the vote and that is an important function of the process.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio
Image
ACWGC Cabinet Member
ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

Author:  Mark Oakford [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:49 am ]
Post subject: 

Gentlemen,

I think that we discussing two really very different issues.

One is the low voter turn out. 10%, more or less. This is not such a big thing. As long as the changes are publically displayed and a democratic process is followed, then all will be well.

The other is how we are to include new games. A period of discussion (particularly to help resolve the question: "How will points be awarded?") is to be commended before our elected Cabinet do what they have been elected to do and make a decision. I do suggest, however, that the discussion period be no less than the voting period allowed.

A fortnight seems to be a fair period of time.

Regards



General Mark Oakford
Commander
Army of the Potomac

Author:  laubster22 [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:26 am ]
Post subject: 

I like General Oakford's recommendation of including a reference to discussion period length being equal to the voting requirements outlined in the rules...

Image
General Jeff Laub
Union Chief of the Army
ACWGC Cabinet Member
http://www.geocities.com/laubster22/UnionHQ/

Author:  Ernie Sands [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:45 am ]
Post subject: 

That is a good idea.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio
Image
ACWGC Cabinet Member
ACWGC Records Site Administrator
</b></font id="gold">

Author:  Antony Barlow [ Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:24 am ]
Post subject: 

All sounds good to me.

Image
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/acw.htm"]General Antony Barlow[/url]
[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/acwgc/western_theater.htm"]Commander, Western Theater, Union Army[/url]

Author:  David Danner [ Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

Good ideas gentlemen.

Gen Dave Danner
Army Commander
Army of the Cumberland

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/