American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Colonel!

We haven't had the pleasure of meeting, but I have noted with interest your posts, especially those recent posts relating to the CSA CoA election. I wanted to provide some historical background on a subject you bring forward - Chief of the Army elections.

When I first became Chief of the Armies for the Union 5 years ago, we did not have elections for those positions in the Rules. I was an Army Commander, and when General Nelms decided to step down, I stepped up.

When the Rules were written during my time on Cabinet, it was decided to allow the Command structure of Army Commanders, Theater Commanders, sitting CoA and Training Academy Commanders (both War College and VMI/UMA) to vote in a CoA election - a total of 9 folks. The first CoA elections subject to these Rules occured on the CSA side, when General Mallory went from CSA CoA to Club President.

As we the (then) Cabinet went through other elections, I chaired a committee to take lessons learned from our earliest elections and make changes to the Club Rules based on our experiences. One of the topics that I felt strongly about was the CoA elections as they were written at the time. Here's why:

Since the CoA has the authority to appoint anyone he wants to commands, or remove anyone he wants from commands, he could cherry pick commanders to guarantee his victory in any subsequent election - the incumbent would always win, theoretically. So I wrote the current election Rules, and got them passed by Cabinet and membership. My intentions were as follows:

1 - To prevent the incumbent from controlling his voting base

2 - To recognize that, as a Lt General or Full General, those individuals have accomplished 2 things - served in a Corps level command or higher at some point in their career, AND had the longevity to earn enough points to get those ranks. To me, that represented a significant investment in our Club, and warranted a vote in deciding who runs their Army. As you pointed out, it expanded the voting base by 4 fold, from 9 to 38ish at present on the CoA side.

3 - Provide a balance for service at the Cabinet level. 5 of the 7 Cabinet positions can be held at the rank of Colonel, while only the 2 CoA's are necessarily guaranteed to be from the senior most ranks, thereby allowing for the potential of new and old alike to lead the Club.

Those are the historical records of the CoA voting Rules up to the present. Going forward, I would note the Cabinet recently made it easier to achieve the ranks needed to vote by officially recognizing the Chief of Staff position and allowing officers who serve in that capacity to a CoA to be considered for promotion to Lt General.

Happy to answer any questions or give other historical perspective as needed.

Regards,


General Jeff Laub
Eastern Theater, Commanding

Thank you, sir, for your interest in my posts! Also, thank you for filling me in on the history of the current voting rules for the CoA's. I completely see the advantage of spreading the vote to more than the 9 members previously responsible for the selection and I commend you, and the Cabinet, for it.

My opinion would be that General Tisdale had some good points in his reply to me in the forum. Perhaps officers serving in high command positions for 6 months, but not a Lt. General or General, should be allowed to vote as they have demonstrated a capacity and willingness to serve. Also he mentioned the rank required to vote perhaps being lowered to Major General. I feel that both of these ideas would help to bring more representation to the CoA positions and would benefit the Club. It would also keep the CoA election as being uniquely different from the Cabinet/President elections.

But that is only my opinion and not any type of proposal or complaint. I believe the current system works well but, as with all things, there is room for improvement.

Thank you for your time to fill me in on this issue [:)]

Respectfully,
Col. Blake Strickler
Commandant of VMI



Army of the Mississippi
Chief of Staff

General <salute>

Thanks for providing the background - it makes sense[:)]

Major General Cam McOmish
Commander Western Theater
Confederate States of America

Colonel Strickler,

A question - even with the 6 months service rule, how would you negate the fact that the sitting CoA could stack his own deck? He would have 2 years to get the stars aligned, so I'm not sure what the value would be there?

Another - why would Major General make more sense than Lt General?

For me, the Lt General requirement was because that is the first level in the Chain of Command that is most similar to a CoA responsibility. As a Corps CO (or higher), you are a leader of leaders, and begin to have a span. Showing you could be successful there is a decent insight to how you would do running the whole of the Army. As a Division CO, the requirement for Major General, you don't have insight to someones capability there.

Also, what about the (hypothetical) Brigadier General who had been the VMI Commandant for the 12 months prior to the current guy, a Colonel Strickler, who get's a vote midway through his term, but the Brigadier General with a full term, who has shown the same willingness to serve, gets no vote?

Ok, so just give 'em both the vote, some might say. At some point, you need to recognize the logisitical limits - who has ever served at what positions within the Club, etc so the Cabinet and candidates can know the voter rolls?

Any "room for improvement" has to be able to balance those types of issues as well.

Regards,


General Jeff Laub
Eastern Theater, Commanding

Good points all, sir.

Let us then discuss the points you raise.

1. That a CoA may stack the high command in order to gain loyal voters.

If this is a real concern than the expansion of the vote to more people will only make this a complete impossibility. If a CoA may use his position to “stack the deckâ€

Blake,

Easy solution to all that lawyer talk (lol), either let ALL of the rank and file of each side vote for their CoAs (give everybody a voice), or at the minimum, everyone Brigadier or above......Oooops, I'm a radical, but I don't buy all that about only the higher ups being committed to the club enough to vote. That is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me feel I and others have no voice and leads to apathy.

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

I actually can see both points of view Hank. I generally agree more with you. The idea that a Davy Crockett-like candidate could sway all the newbies to vote for him through trickeration isn't that great of a threat I feel. But, as always, I will go along with all current rules and seek to change only those that the majority feels should be addressed.

Respectfully,
Col. Blake Strickler
Commandant of VMI



Army of the Mississippi
Chief of Staff

The idea wasn't that we didn't think everyone below the requisite rank wasn't committed, but to achieve Lt. General or above they would have had to run a Corps or one of the Academies and therefore would have a deeper understanding of what it would take to run the entire CSA or USA Armies. It is real easy to get in over your head if you don't have a good idea of what the job requires.

General Mark Nelms

5/2/XIV/AoC "Blackhawk Brigade"
Union Military Academy Instructor

Ah, but remember I am talking only about voting for the position.....Running for the position is an entirely different thing.

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Corp Commanding

Okay people lets back up a bit and get some perspective on this. Normally the CoA is the guy who gets the short straw. Everyone is acting like this is some choice position with all kinds of power. To quote the club rules the position is:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Chief of the Armies (“CoAâ€

I think that a sitting CoA being able to guarantee himself the sitting commanders votes is more than enough to sway a 50/50 election, right?! Also, very few people tend to vote. Like less than 20 in some cases, and I think the record is only in the 30's, and that was for a general election where everyone could vote, not a CoA election. So 9 guaranteed votes is a big deal. Even the perception of being able to stack the deck is reason enough to prevent it, and tie the vote to rank over position. If you think I'm too sensitive on this, I'm not - it comes from a real experience in this Club during a past CSA CoA election.

More people voting is always a positive? Should we allow the Union to vote for CSA positions, and vice versa? I am a firm believer that the membership of the Club IS the Club, so I have a pretty good record of supporting that and doing real implementation of that philosophy. But I think that some distinctions are good ones. CSA voting for their representation, Union voting for their representation, and senior leaders voting for their representation on the "military" side. Being a Lt General or General is not a surefire screen of people, and it doesn't mean that others aren't just as qualified/capable of voting. But it is a good compromise of how to achieve a desired result. Not perfect, but it fits the capability and logistics of running the election.

So I don't know that I could support having the command positions eligible to vote regardless of rank - too much of a risk (real or perceived, makes no difference) of tampering with the voters, and again, I don't like the fairness factor of someone who has served in the role in the past not getting the same credit/capability as the current commander. How do you argue that as fair? How does that improve things over the current system?

As for where the line should be drawn for rank, I obviously think that the Lt Gen or General ranks is a good spot, and have given my reasons. I know you (Col Strickler, although this is really a public discussion, in the spirit of transparency that General Smith alludes to often [;)]) aren't advocating the rank, but it's a good topic. I'm curious to hear from you or others why a different line should be used, and the logic behind it. It's easy to just pick a different line, but why would it make more sense than the current one? You can't just say "more voters is inherently better", unless of course you are advocating everyone from both sides gets a vote for any position, to maximize that statement. If you're not willing to go that far, then you're being a bit hypocritical with that "more voters is better" stance, right?!

I also want to say, not to take all of this too seriously - it's fun to get the debate into the daylight, and garner opinions. I recognize that posting/emails can be poor communication tools, because it's hard to understand tone when someone is typing. I am enjoying the debate, and don't want to come across as anything less than that. After all, I have as much of a vote in the upcoming CSA CoA election as you do, Colonel Strickler![:D] And I've served with both General Carroll and General Tisdale on Cabinet, and as a CoA myself for 4 years.

As for General Whitehead's post - the most important officer in the Club, in my opinion, and I've publicly stated this numerous times, is the CO of the Union Military Academy and VMI. Of course, the UMA Commandant is THE most important, but I'm biased. They are the first impression of our newest members, and have the greatest ability to impact the Club on a regular basis. So my hats off once again to those who serve there, either in leadership, or as a trainer.


General Jeff Laub
Eastern Theater, Commanding

Sir, the duel of words goes on most eloquently. Let us again cross pens.

I understand your point of view and definitely see its merits. Having the highest ranked officers voting does have its advantages and disadvantages, as you pointed out. Theoretically, these officers have no ties to the CoA nominees and owe them no favors. They are established enough to be independent and thus capable of choosing a nominee based on merit alone and not for fear of losing their position. Much like the Patriot Kings of old these men are to act as the strongest line of defense against any usurp of power by the CoA.

Sounds Great! But you just admitted that voter turnout is low and I have read elsewhere (not from you, sir) that most elections go uncontested. These Patriot Kings apparently need a kick in the butt as they are letting their guard down.

Let me bring up a case for examination. There are four officers in this instance. Two officers are highly ranked in the Club but have participated in few forums and played in extremely few games over the last two years while now serving at the Brigade level. The other two officers are extremely involved in the forums and play a great number of games over the past two years but are not able to vote despite being at high command positions in the Club. Does this seem fair? Some officers, I would say, are being “grandfatherâ€

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by laubster22</i>
1 - To prevent the incumbent from controlling his voting base
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Though perfectly correct in theory, I find this idea slightly hypothetical when applied to our club. For one thing it's not as though I had much of a choice as to who to appoint to command positions. People are not exactly queuing to be army commanders. For another, who would really want to be G-in-C / CoA so badly that he'd go out of his way to ensure his re-election for another <i>two years</i>? Most importantly, I have really enough confidence in the common sense and judgement of those who do command armies, theaters, and the academy to doubt that they'd would really vote for a sitting G-in-C / CoA just because he appointed them. If there ever is a real choice that is. Because people aren't lining up to be G-in-C's either.

<center>Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
[url="http://www.acwgc-usa.org/"][/url]
<i>"... and keep moving on."</i>

</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Most importantly, I have really enough confidence in the common sense and judgement of those who do command armies, theaters, and the academy to doubt that they'd would really vote for a sitting G-in-C / CoA just because he appointed them. If there ever is a real choice that is. Because people aren't lining up to be G-in-C's either.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Actually I might consider that a reason to vote against them after a few years in one of these spots.[:D][:D][:D]

I have been member of a number of different clubs, guilds, etc. related to online gaming over the years. This is actually the only one I have been a member of that allowed voting. Most are dictatorships. The person, or persons, who goes to the trouble to put the Website, Forums and people together usually runs it with an iron hand. And most justify this because allowing elections leads to the kind of squabbling we have seen across the Forums about who votes, who is eligible, who is manipulating things, etc.. These things can quickly tear a club or organization apart.

No system is perfect. Voting in South Carolina just picked a candidate based on where his name fell in the alphabet. The military doesn't elect any one and manages to work just as well.

But the point of all this rambling is, the Club itself is the most important thing we do. If we tear it appart over trivial matters and persnonalities, there probably will be no new one rising to replace it. And, unlike most clubs, quilds, etc, this one is probably the backbone of HPS Civil War gaming. It will probably die with us.

General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
2/3/IV AoM (CSA)

My last post on the subject, as much more and we're just turning into windbags. I believe both positions are well established.

As for your case of 2 senior folks eased into their retirement, and not being aware of an election - I do not doubt it in the least. It's not a perfect system, as I've admitted. But for every 2 Lt General or General officers as you describe, we can count DOZENS of folks who have flashed in the pan after a few months. Voter apathy is not unique to senior leaders, I'm afraid. I also think this system of "vesting" is a small reward/incentive for folks to stick around and serve in those higher leadership positions. They have earned something that is relatively rare. The Club has existed for 13 years now, and we have what, 38-ish folks at that level on the CSA side? As you make a commodity more common, you diminish it's value.

"So, if the system that only allows the senior-most officials to vote is working only partially then it seems that it may need to be studied for ways to improve it. "

I'll admit it's not perfect - no system is, but I do believe it has been working just fine. I'm unaware of a way it is NOT working? It ain't broke, as the saying goes.

Generals Walter and Whitehead are largely right - the challenge is finding good people to step forward, and it's rare that we have a choice. Frankly, I like the thought of elections being available, but am grateful when good people step forward and are willing to serve.




General Jeff Laub
Eastern Theater, Commanding