ACWGC
* ACWGC     * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI    * Join CSA    
   * Union HQ    * UMA    * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial
CSA Armies:    ANV    AotW
Union Armies:    AotT     AotC      AotP      AotS     Union Army Forums
     Link Express
American Civil War Books, Magazines and Games for sale (See other items)
Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:15 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Latest Proposal on Hold
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:14 am 
The Cabinet is discussing, privately, the current status of the latest ACWGC Proposal. We thank everyone for their comments on this issue and appreciate the patience that is being shown on all fronts. The Cabinet, as always, seeks to serve the Members as best we can. We hope you bear with us while we discuss things.

Cameron - a round of drinks for the Club! Put them on the AotM tab, sir!

Everyone remember to avoid photographers! We dont want any repeat of last month's scandal after I was respectfully photographed with a couple of innocent ladies at a local salon! And, I was not out of uniform as I still had my General's hat firm upon my head.
Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Latest Proposal on Hold
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:45 am
Posts: 414
Location: Ireland
Gentlemen.
This is going to be long – settle down and relax please, while I meander to the point . . . enjoy the Ride . . . I think the point will be worth the journey . . .

I was planning to launch into a sarcastic diatribe and a depiction of Yuppity Yankatees, a subject that I will be addressing shortly, but I had a ‘Damascus Moment’ whilst considering the subject of the Union’s Gimp . . . errrrrm . . . sorry . . . Ahem! . . . . GinC. And during this moment I realised that perhaps the Vote scheduled for August 8th onwards, should be “Placed in Abeyance, until a suitable period of time has passed, permitting a Cabinet Review of ACWGC terminology, appendices and adherences.”

Huh? Youwhatnow? Beggin’ your Puddin’ Suh?

My thinking needs to be approached in stages . . . . so here comes the Loooong part . . . .

A majority of Middle-aged (and older) Men. An increasingly obscure series of historical events. Dusty old History Books. An outmoded and increasingly obsolete method of warfare. Wargaming tactics as opposed to Historical tactics. Historical accuracy up to the point of pedantry. European perspective versus American perspective. Politics. Personal stubbornness and personality clashes. And on – more detail than required here.

These are some of the many facets of the ACWGC that elevates it - Unique - from the morass of internet based Game Ladders, yet coincidently pigeonhole Our Club as a Conservative Institution. It is this Conservatism that has been the mainstay and strength of the ACWGC throughout the first decade of its existence; it is this Conservatism that will maintain the Club and it is also this very same Conservatism that could prove its downfall. In order to survive, to grow, to recruit new Members and to retain those already present that Conservatism needs to be controlled . . . exercised when there is too much, too hurriedly attempted;- restrained when creativity and enthusiasm are being constricted. It is this Conservatism that provides the ‘comfortable and stable atmosphere’ we enjoy within the Club and it is this Conservatism that ‘freezes out’ newer Members when they wish to inject a spurt of ‘new’ from time to time.

So – it sounds like I’m in favour of installing the honorific of ‘GonK’ . . . ahem . . . ‘GinC’ in the Club Constitution and recognising it as an official Title of the ACWGC . . . . doesn’t it? Well . . . . I’m NOT. (at least, NOT as this current proposal stands . . . )

The case has been made, in that there is an historical precedent for the Title, so there should be no impediment to its immediate adoption and incorporation into the Club Rules.

True enough . . . but not enough imho.

IF this vote goes ahead according to schedule and IF the GinC is accepted by the Members as a fully recognised Club Title, Historical Precedent is served, but more importantly a potent Club Precedent is emplaced which could carry serious ramifications into the future of the Club.

Whatchootalkin’boutwillis?

“General Walters was the Union CoA who decided to call himself "General-in-Chief".”

I don’t want to appear critical of Gen. Walters, nor do I imply any wrongdoing or egotism or stupidity or any other negative connotation in opining that Gen. Walters made a small, tiny, almost insignificant error in calling himself GunK . . . . errrm . . . GinC.

It was one of those errors, disguised as a tiny detail incorporated into everyday usage, which gradually gathers currency – like an urban legend – until the truth is lost because “everyone knows that it’s been like that for ages.” The error was – imho – that once decided upon the title he wished as CoA USA and in conjunction with Historical precedence – the GinC title should have been placed before the Cabinet and Club for ratification – before – it was used.

Personally, I wouldn’t care if the CoA USA decided to call himself the “Highlard of the Chinfat Wobbleplatoon”, IF he presented his new ?wonderful? Job title to Cabinet and Membership for ratification beforehand – listing his reasons for inaugurating the Role and recommending the title for inclusion in the Rules. The argument that the title has been used before by others and has existed within certain parts of the Club for 3 weeks, 5 days and 14.732 hours or for 97 years . . does NOT cut mustard for Me.

Club precedent does NOT exclude Club procedure.

Secondary to all this is the fact that by rightly and correctly adhering to Club Procedure, General Meyer has inadvertently exposed a weakness within that same Procedure.

Joe suggests amending the Club Rules to include 3 words – General – in – Chief. This amendment will only add an alternative nomenclature for a position already extant in the Club. However, as an amendment to the Rules, these three words and a minimal alteration to the perception of a Club Function, requires a Cabinet Vote, a period of Public Debate, a Plebiscite, a collation of that vote and blah, blah, blah.

In my view - There are three ways to address this conundrum – scrap the idea, load it onto the ‘tail’ of a more vital plebiscite or exam the ENTIRE area under discussion and collect any/all perceived anomalies in the Rules and amend them in one vote.

Scrapping this GinC topic ~in toto~ is unfair – the idea does have some merit and is an – albeit small – historical and creative input in to the Club atmosphere.

To add this GinC topic as an appendix to a more important amendment is – imho – a disastrous option to consider. Doing so would lead to a situation where ridiculous/undesireable ideas could be passed, by being tacked onto the end of an important Topic and the bad being voted in by virtue of the good being a great/desirable idea.

(As 2 examples –

Because some ACWGC armies have sub-divided the web- display of their Divisions into Inf., Cav. and Arty brigades. . . . . a ‘Legion’ is historically founded - and therefore, a legitimate Administrative designation for an ACWGC Division.

By waiting to ‘tack' the ‘Legion as an official ACWGC Admin alternative designation for a Division, onto the end of a Vote for saaaay . . extending the President’s Term of Office to 5 years . . the Legion designation is duly passed – without proper and due thought or consideration of any possible pitfalls.

However, there was only ever one CSA ‘Legion’ and I think there may have been only one (if any) Union ‘Legion’ – so IF a CSA Corps or a Union Army decides to rechristen ALL their Divisions as ‘Legions’, Uproar at the gross historical inaccuracy involved and another dispute arises further down the road.

As the second example – sticking with Legions . . . Say the potential ‘discrepancy’ arising from overuse of the Legion designation surfaces during the pre-vote discussion and bogs down . . . this could negatively impact on the more important Presidential Term vote or lead to its cancellation . . . problems, problems.)

And so – the third option and the request that I make to Cabinet here:

I respectfully request that :

I) The Vote scheduled for 8th August, 2011 - be postponed.

II) The Rules be examined by Cabinet (or their Designates) with a view to identifying areas and titles within the Rules, where alternative designations can and will be permitted, identifying those alternatives most preferable and suitable to the Club Ethos.

III) These ‘additional Terms’ to be collated together and presented as a whole, to the Membership for approval/rejection as an alternative date to the original postponed vote scheduled for 8th August, 2011.


I believe that my proposal will remove the current difficulties, bring us all to a calm, clear discussion and will bring the Topic back to the Membership in a more concrete and edifying format

God Bless Your Patience Gentlemen,

And Thank You All . . .

Pat. {Phew!}

_________________
Carroll

AoG


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Latest Proposal on Hold
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:17 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:46 pm
Posts: 564
Location: Canada
Thank you for that post.

Your suggestion is good however you are missing the very practical issue that trying to determine what those 'designations' are debating and agreeing to them is a major undertaking. The Cabinet originally voted (after a debate) on and passed the sole use of GiC. However realizing that the sole use of the term would require major changes to web pages DoR etc it was rewritten (after a debate) to allow for both and that passed with a smaller margin.

I found that pretty much the only way to get things done is make the proposals as simple as possible. Otherwise there are too many divergent opinions and the whole issue starts to get muddled. Your idea which is well and good to add more meat to the vote would be pretty much impossible to work out IMHO. Does not mean it should not be tried no but due to the difficulty it would require a lot of enthusiasm and conviction to move it forward. I don't think anyone has it at this time.

This one reason why the simple yes/no for the the single term of GiC use went ahead. Even this small change is having huge problems.

I ask that everyone keep this in mind that even though an idea has a small footprint that it not be trivialized and ridiculed as it has been. A lot of work went into this by individuals as well as the Cabinet.

Perhaps a major question is whether the membership should vote on issues or have the Cabinet decide which issue would be deemed important enough to vote on.

If you or anyone else want s to put a proposal together for the Cabinet to review that would be ideal. I wish members would submit more ideas for Cabinet review and not only leave it to the Cabinet to bring forth ideas. I am sure there many out there that would be excellent and even if they are not accepted they would probably generate other ides.




I think that the entrenched conservatism is a problem. There appears to be no room for movement. As you mentioned Pat this is not a good thing. I am a strong support of keeping the club flavor since I am so involved with it however I do believe that some changes are important to keep the club relevant.

_________________
Best Regards,

General Pierre D.

5th Bde, IV Cavalry Corps
Army of Northern Virginia
ACWGC President 1997 - 2006, 2012
ACWGC Forum Administrator


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Latest Proposal on Hold
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:18 pm 
Well spoken Pierre and Pat. Your comments are always appreciated.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Latest Proposal on Hold
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:45 am
Posts: 414
Location: Ireland
Hi Pierre.

Someone quipped rececntly that there was something strange in the ACWGC water lately as quite a number of outspoken Club Members were agreeing with each other in relation to matters, when 'normally' they could be expected to be on at least 3 different sides of an argument. :lol:

Well . . p'raps there is - because, generally speaking You and I have ended up in the same shade of opinion more times than not - I cannot specifically remember a topic where we disagreed before now.

AND I stress that I believe we are aiming at the same thing - the maintenance and care of the Club and Membership of the ACWGC. However, on this topic, we appear to have a divergence of opinion as to how to proceed/continue.

I believe that the path taken by this subject thusfar, could not have been foreseen or predicted. My post was not offered as a route to get this current situation resolved, rather it was offered as a method to consider what was actually being attempted.

The Cabinet could have spent the past 8 months debating and refining the nuances of ACW Command positions and still arriving at a 4/3 Vote to place the matter before the Members. To the Membership - this vote 'fell from a blue sky' and (going by some of the now missing comments), as such appeared to be a trivial, petty and insignificant matter for the consideration of the entire membership regarding minutely altering the Club Rules.

Now - we have a situation where an area for the artistic, historically minded, enthusiastic, interested and opinioned section of the Membership could contribute, debate, discuss and 'diss' various aspects of ACW Command and perhaps partially remodel the structure/admin of the Club.

We have had 'Best Westerns', 'Worst Generals', Most Over-rated Commanders' and the like . . . debates recently. Launching a similar Debeate on the M-D shouldn't be a difficulty and if opened for say a month (allowing for the summer vacation season), members could throw Aide de Camps, Executive Officers, 'Grand Wings', 'Super Corps', 'Demi-Divisions', Brigade-Divisions, etc and their potential value/worthlessness to the ACWGC as roles/models for gentle restructuring and individualisation of individual Armys, Corps, Divisions . . . . whatever.

These could be gathered and collated, included in a proposal and Cabinet could then appraise the contributions and nominate the seemingly popular offerings for inclusion in the Club's Terminology for a substantial Membership vote. If the GinC is important to a section of the Club - perhaps there are other ideas out there waiting for their turn.

Round 'em all up I say!!

You indicate that a 'sole GinC' vote achieved a comfortable majority vote at Cabinet, yet when the practicalities emerged and the GinC plus CoA option was decided upon, support fell for the proposal. Balancing the 'triviality' of the Vote, placed by many who spoke on the matter and the effort put in to the presentation of the GinC to Cabinet, I think that it is more important to address the concerns of the Members with a little added weight, unfortunately at the expense of the effort already spent. I also feel that if opened up to the Membership, there would be a degree of interest that would be more representative of the entire Membership's opinion.

There is a danger here of 'The Ball has been set in motion and MUST be allowed to reach it's destination', mentality rolling over all objections. The Ball was set in motion by Cabinet. Some of the Members have cried 'Halt!' I suggest exercising the Membership's right to set the Ball and any others that grab their fancy, in motion themselves and THEN see where it/they end up.

There also appears to be a degree of 'Rush, Rush' involved. The GinC has been in unofficial use for 18 months. If it has to wait until Christmas to receive it's 'Official Ticket', Happy Christmas to the Union and all the sweeter for the Wait. What's the Rush?

Entrenched Conservatism is Bad. So also is Headlong change at the whim/bequest of a minority in the name of progress. The Middle-Road is surely where we should be heading?

Pat.

_________________
Carroll

AoG


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Latest Proposal on Hold
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:46 pm
Posts: 564
Location: Canada
Hi Pat,

That's very funny Pat because I proposed tot he Cabinet that more people be brought in to debate things to get a broader perspective and then the Cabinet could vote. I even suggested that a post, with what we are discussing, be posted for membership consumption and response. I proposed that a few Key people be allowed to sit at the Cabinet table just for debate and not for voting. And GOD forbid I even proposed that the Cabinet use a seperate and controlled forum to have debates with certain post being posted to archives for membership view only.

All these ideas were nixed.

Now as a curiosity a started a poll to see where members might be on a topic and I was tongue thrashed for it. I did fail to mention that it was a personal poll not an official Cabinet one. I fixed that once it was mentioned.

It is a difficult scenario to work in. It seems anyway you go you are damned.

General Pierre D.


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Latest Proposal on Hold
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:45 am
Posts: 414
Location: Ireland
Well Pierre . . . I am dismayed that the scenario(s) you describe have passed.

To reiterate Pierre - I am NOT dead set against nor am I arguing down the GinC idea.

I feel that the GinC is a small item, within a potentially large list of 'how we do bizniz' and that an exploration of these areas can only benefit the Club - even if it is to show Us where the Members have absolutely NO interest.

I have spoken with and know all the Cabinet - to some degree - over the past 8 years . . . . I find it hard to fathom or to compare what I know of those Gents, with a group of disinterested or Uberconservative individuals such as you describe.

But . . . . I am sure and certain that everyone's main focus is the Club and the maintenance of it's Unique 'Aura' will be to the forefront of evryone's mind as this debate continues. :mrgreen:

Pat.

_________________
Carroll

AoG


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tom Bridges and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: