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 Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:20 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Rank/Point voting results
PostPosted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:46 pm
Posts: 564
Location: Canada
Fellow Members,

I have determined the following numbers for the vote, 68 (50%) for, 60 (44%)against, 5 abstains (4%) and 3(2%) I could not determine, for a total of 136 votes.

Based on the results the 'Yes' win. However, due to the strong opposition, something not anticipated, I have recommended that the Cabinet put on hold its implementation. We will move forward with elections. The newly elected Cabinet can use the results and determine its agenda regarding this topic.

Thanks to all that have contributed.


Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1/3/I/AOG
President, ACWGC


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:51 pm
Posts: 2795
Location: Massachusetts, USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dradams2</i>
<br />Bill (or anyone),


So within 3 to 6 months we are within 10 of having the same number of Generals we have now.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That, succinctly put, is the WHOLE point.

Restructure the ranks, increase the time and points to arrive at promotions for all ranks, but adjust only for those CAPTAIN and below and then, over time, attrition will balance it out.

I have to add that I have previously stated that the Rank Committee took on a tough task and arrived at a resolution. They did so with the best interest of the club in mind; that many disagree should not be a reflection on the effort!

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO
Image
President, Colonial Campaigns Club
</b></font id="gold">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:53 am 
Gents

Don's point is well taken, but to be fair we should recall that the adjustment of everyone's rank was not proposed as the way to limit the number of most senior grades, but rather as a way to be equitable and fair to everyone under the new standards for rank.

If the whole report were adopted as tabled then the issue of the number of most senior grades is dealt with, but by rank limiting, not rank adjustment.

WRT rank adjustment I am not particularly committed either way as I see problems on either side. On the one hand there is the problem of those who do not wish to have their rank reduced and would resent it if it were to happen.

OTOH I can see that if current rank holders are not adjusted then it will not be long before a certain % of the Club is considered "not a real Maj Gen (or Col, or...)" because their rank is out of synch with their OBD.

For dealing with the number of the highest grades the committee suggested limiting the number of most senior ranks.

Don has stated that this would give those who have reached Brig Gen nothing more to strive for if they do not wish to assume command of a higher unit organization.

Let's be clear that this applies regardless. For those who's motivation is rank attainment there is nowhere to go after Gen in the present system. Indeed, unless we propose a system of unlimited stars there will always be a point where there is no higher to go.

So the question is not whether or not there is a limit, but when the limit is reached and why. Both the current and proposed system put an absolute limit at 4 stars for historical reasons (would anyone feel comfortable as an 18 Star Gen??).

The proposed system would limit the number of 2, 3, and 4 star Gens serving at one time, but not necessarily limit anyone who wished to acheive these ranks and was willing to serve in the appropriate roles.

Granted not everyone who wished and was willing would actually make it, but for many the fun is in the trying; and oh how much sweeter the acheivement when it comes for having been difficult.

Regardless, I think we need to keep clear that it is the increased OBD requirements that is meant to make all ranks more meaningful by being more difficult to acheive.

The rank adjustment is what was proposed to make the new requirements fair, equitable, and standardized across the Club.

The rank limiting proposal was the part of the report that was proposed to deal with the number of the most senior grades.

Thank you





Lt Col Mike Kaulbars Image
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS
Image

Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2001 6:24 pm
Posts: 140
Location: USA
Gen. Adams says that in six months the distribution of ranks would closely resemble the current distribution, because of advancement. I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that this will only be the case if there are no new members in the Club, and no existing members leave the Club. This, of course, will not be the case.

The impetus for the formation of the ranks committee was the belief on the part of many in the Club that rank advancement occurs too quickly, particularly at the lower ranks. Working on that basis, the committee came up with a new scale which is internally consistent. I have to agree with Col. Kaulbars that to establish a revised scale for new members only would be inequitable. Who'd want to join a Club that made it tougher on you than for the existing members, or worse still, as Gen. Sands suggests, only a portion of the existing members?

Why should I care if I get busted a rank or two? If I'm measured against the same scale as everyone else, where's the harm? It's not like I'm going to feel it in the paycheck.

Lt. Gen. Matt Perrenod
<i>The Blue Ghost</i>
VIII Corps, Army of the Shenandoah


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 3:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
Not my original idea but we could have Honorariums for outstanding member contributions, These would be Civilian positions such as Governors. These positions would be awarded by the COA`s and Cabinet members for things such as War College leadership, Gamemastering, scenerio design, record keeping and a myriad of other contributions.Thus one could be a Colonel for his gaming but Governor of Tennessee for an outstanding club contribution. Just a seed of an idea.

Major General Tony Best
AOJ


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:06 pm
Posts: 232
Location: USA
Gentlemen,

My thanks to all of you for your comments. I hope I have stated somewhere in all of this that I too stongly commend the committee for coming up with a recommendation to deal with this area of concern. I have no real problem with the OBD point increase as I or anyone can earn at any pace we so choose. (1200 points in 6 months anyone?[:)])However, as pointed out by many, the current situation for getting earned points awarded due to the lack of the auto system is a major problem. Hopefully we will see it up and running again soon.

Tony, were there actually state governors during the CW? [:)] It is interesting how little that topic is discussed or mentioned. Maybe I just never have thought of pursuing that area of reading.

Matt, your point is well taken and the numbers will definitely skew as a result of the new entries. However, I was focusing on the General ranks from the current OOB and Top Gun list. I had no way of telling who is and is not active. (With the report from Rob's autosystem you could.) But the main point is that the General ranks will again fill up over time and we will have to do all of this again every time it happens. Even as Ernie says it will take a longer time, but time will still pass and then what?

Mike, you make several good points but you still have not told me what is wrong with having a lot people hold the top rank of General? It is a club, not an Army. I don't see any problem with every member of the club having the opportunity to reach General. I don't think it should be limited by only one route. If the rank of General could be attained from the Army level up and the number of Armies was the same on each side, I could drop all of my concerns. But to limit access to the top General rank to holding one particular office on your side, to me, IS extremely unfair and un-equitable to the overall membership. I am not just talking about me, but anyone else that would like to attain the rank of General.

I just don't understand what your thinking is here. Why are you and others so interested in limiting the number of high ranking officers in the club? Are we to become a "historical" club and conform to those standards? I have heard a lot of members say they are willing to give up rank, and I will be too by whatever is decided, but I don't hear a lot of people saying we have too many high ranking officers and that it is a problem for the club. A search of all of the posts related to this would be interesting to see just how many members are actually concerned about the "number" of high ranking officers in the club.

Again, all of this is just my view, and is certainly not being held up as the view of anyone else. I just present this as another line of thought to be considered in shaping the club for the future.

My best regards to all.

Lieutenant General Don Adams
5th Texas "Lone Star" Cavalry Brigade
I/III ANV
http://www.rootsandsaddles.com/index.htm

Image

"Verily I say unto you, as things which cannot be shaken shall stand, so shall things that are of the
spirit - the soul of the Confederate soldier and the Rebel yell - fail to be captured or killed but shall live forever in the hearts of men and never die."
... from Rudolph Mellard's "Across the Crevasse"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:30 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dradams2</i>
<br />Mike, ... you still have not told me what is wrong with having a lot people hold the top rank of General? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Don

I think the notion of limiting high rank boils down to the historical feel of the Club. It is not so much a question of it being "wrong" as there is a tension between how much value there is in the ranks hence how historical the general feel of the Club is vs the proportion and number of the most senior grades.

Yes, you are absolutely right in saying that "It is a club, not an Army". But the Club has patterned itself on the army organization because that is what people derive some pleasure from. Why associate anyone with a command at all? So that it looks like an army. The less we look like an actual army the less that alleged pattern, and the ranks themselves mean.

So is not a question of limiting rank, but seeing that rank and command are in synch with one another. We can have as many Lt Gen as we have Corps and still retain the historicity.

I cited several examples of situations that I doubt anyone would like. One where everyone is just made a Four Star Gen and the other where we just make the number of potential stars unlimited.

In the former example the rank means nothing because it is too easy to achieve. In the latter we would all feel wierd about 8, 12, and 15 star Gens wandering about. Heck, if we are truly not an Army, let's dump the ranks entirely and just be Don and Mike.

So, basically we get the optimum historical feel if the ranks are more or less historical with Bde commanded by Col to Brig Gen, Div by Maj Gen, and so on. The more historical the feel of the Club, the more the rank means.

But equally the Club does not go with strict historicity in many instances. It is a Club after all. Promotion is NOT dependant on victories, and no one has been cashiered for a string of losses. This is a good thing. We do not want to be entirely historical.

But that is the tension - historicity or not? The more historical the structure the more meaningful the rank to the individual, but equally the higher the rank the more meaningful. The two are not wholly compatible for everyone so we will have to weigh more heavily one way or another.

My personal preference is for the historical organization. I feel just as odd about Lt Gens being commanded by Brigs as I would about Jacksons III Panzer Army or a USA with 27 Armies and 81 Corps (another way to accomodate many senior ranks). But it's just that, a personal preference for a historical structure.

Mike

Lt Col Mike Kaulbars Image
3rd "Freiheit" Division
VIII/AoS
Image

Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:06 pm
Posts: 232
Location: USA
Mike,

I guess it really does boil down to how we view the club as a historical unit or not. I do not. Your examples are extremes that would never happen simply because turnover in the club and new members coming in would prevent it and noone is really interested in blanket assignemnts of high ranks. Also, no one "commands" anyone in this club. It is a club. The structure, as I said earlier, is just a means of convenience to record keeping and organizing sides. As I believe Ernie said, the reason we use brigades is due to the number of members we have in the club and going down to the brigade level creates enough slots for everyone. If we had over a thousand people in the club then we probably would need to go to regiments, ONLY to have enough slots to put everybody on each side. The point being that it really makes no difference what rank any person in the structure "above" me has. My army commander is a Lt. Col. and is doing a fantastic job. What do I care if he is a Lt. Col. or not? He will get his rank soon enough if we just let him.

So you can see that you and I have incompatible ideas about how the club should be structured and there is no winner in this situation. I joined what I thought, and still think, is a really neat club. I for one am not for the change process that is going on. If you want to see something really radical, look at the posting by Bill Peters at the Provisional Tavern related to how he would structure a club. I would hope that it would never be this club, though.

At least we can all agree to disagree and be done with it. If it comes to a vote, the club as a whole will decide and that will be that.[:D]

Lieutenant General Don Adams
5th Texas "Lone Star" Cavalry Brigade
I/III ANV
http://www.rootsandsaddles.com/index.htm

Image

"Verily I say unto you, as things which cannot be shaken shall stand, so shall things that are of the
spirit - the soul of the Confederate soldier and the Rebel yell - fail to be captured or killed but shall live forever in the hearts of men and never die."
... from Rudolph Mellard's "Across the Crevasse"


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

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

Good discussion. From my perspective the decision to go with brigades was my preference of looking at the structure from an operational point of view of Corps and Armies and less a tactical view of Battalions and Regiments. My personal preference of being an Officer rather then start as a private etc. I imagined the club structured with Armies believing there were enough of them to accommodate a good number of people. The Club could field Armies to go along with the BG structure and the battles. Also it fitted in with the concept of minimizing the number of people under your command. An Army commander would have 3 Corps to worry about, a Corps, 3 divisions, and a Division a few brigades. In my mind it came together well.

With the above in mind the initial quick rise to Col was to provide some historical accuracy for brigade command. Making it interesting for the new player to get to Col.. Brevet ranks were introduced for those of lower rank willing to command higher positions to help maintain historical accuracy. However this was changed from pressure to get rid of them. Probably because they were confusing. So we end up with less historical accuracy.

There is a choice to be made, pure historical accuracy or practicality. Some are historical fanatics, others just want to have a good atmosphere, most lay in between.

Through the years there has been a lot of pressure to make changes, and if they were followed all that we would have now is a ladder club, who wins the most, who is number 1. Certainly would be easier to administer! Did not interest me so it did not go that way.

The future well, you can see all of the ideas that are around. The next administration will determine were this club will go. I think that it must be chosen wisely. The chance that this club dissolves is high. The pressure to rewrite the rules, change everything, cross all the T’s dot all of the I’s and rendering the club uninteresting is on the horizon. All in all there is no wrong way or right way just a different way. It all depends whether you want to be a part of it or not. Be careful what you wish for.




Best Regards,

General Pierre D.
1/3/I/AOG/CSA
President, ACWGC


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 4:51 pm
Posts: 2795
Location: Massachusetts, USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pierre D</i>
<br />Gentlemen,
There is a choice to be made, pure historical accuracy or practicality. Some are historical fanatics, others just want to have a good atmosphere, most lay in between.

Through the years there has been a lot of pressure to make changes, and if they were followed all that we would have now is a ladder club, who wins the most, who is number 1. Certainly would be easier to administer! Did not interest me so it did not go that way.

The future well, you can see all of the ideas that are around. The next administration will determine were this club will go. I think that it must be chosen wisely. The chance that this club dissolves is high. The pressure to rewrite the rules, change everything, cross all the T’s dot all of the I’s and rendering the club uninteresting is on the horizon. All in all there is no wrong way or right way just a different way. It all depends whether you want to be a part of it or not. Be careful what you wish for.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks, Pierre. It is always helpful to hear the rationale and I think the club structure is fine and will stand the test of time. It is flexible and that flexibility is needed to continue the growth of the club.

I think there should be a reasonable balance between the need to be flexible and the historical aspect of the club.

The present structure has a chain of command that does work when needed and is an excellent way to manage the membership. In this way, all commanders above the brigade level have only a few people reporting directly to them. Without this structure, communication would bog down and the numbers under one commander would become unwieldly. (I think that is spelled right[:D])

I do not think the club is in danger of disolving. I think that compromises can be reached and differences resolved. The entire atmosphere of the club has lightened up, even though we are having these in-depth discussions, the club is still strong and the emphasis is still on playing games, as can be seen by the numbers of opponent requests that are put up every day.

Yes, there are some frustrations and sometimes people have let these enter into the discussions, when tempers should have been reined in and discussions kept to the point and not digress into personalities and unconstructive criticism.

Hopefully, this will post.[8D]

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
LtGen, CO XXIII Corps, AoO
Image
President, Colonial Campaigns Club
</b></font id="gold">


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 1:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 12:37 pm
Posts: 356
Location: USA
Ernie
I agree!![:D] Allow me to applaud the efforts of yourself and others to maintain the direction and focus of the club. Of course, kudos to Pierre and others who have established the tone and direction in the beginning, It is their foresight that has enabled this to be such a quality club.

Major General Tony Best
AOJ


Top
 Profile Send private message E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 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: