ACWGC Forums

American Civil War Game Club

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records       * CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union     ACWGC Memorial

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotT    AotC    AotP    AotS     Union Army Forums

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:53 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:25 pm 
Jeff,

Right purty well said fer a durnable Yank!!!!!! I am actually testing to see if the profile signature stuff that Don suggested works, and if so how......Regards, Hank


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:34 pm 
Bill,
I know that Larry has already tried the method you suggested and been recently, very quietly turned away.......hence, the present thread........this being the only way that what was left open, that I know of, as an option, since the quieter methods did not work.....so I will state that under the circumstances this was the proper method.....perhaps not the comfortable one, but still a proper one.......at least now members know that he apologized, asked for reinstatement through proper channels, and was turned away, which to my way of thinking, is running over him roughshod......so to my view, the safeguards did not work very well in this case.....if nothing else good comes out of the thread, at least that fact comes out into the public light.....I do not say this to even attempt to change your mind with regard to the matter, I say it only to let all here know that I am with regards to this matter definatly in the other camp. I feel that openess and transparency are good things, while secresy and "back room dealings" are basically inherently bad. Heck I think the Cabinet members voting records on all matters with regard to the club should be public record. That way people could check to see what they stood for and what they stood against before elections.
Regards, Hank Smith


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:46 pm 
I think I got the profile signature thing right this time.....I admit, I did not use the numerical designations, as that was the Federal method....My signature is done in a more proper Confederate manner.....hope it's good enough.....Regards to all, Hank

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:16 pm 
Bill,
If any member makes a cheating allegation against me (or any other) then I would have no problem with it being public.....Transparency is not an issue that I would want to pick and choose my issues on.....Further, for the record, I do not believe any such accusation have ever been made towards me, and I assume you are speaking hypothetically.....If you are not, then I would truly be offended that I was never notified of such accusations so that I could answer the person slandering me! So to answer your question, YES, put it on public record! Absolutely YES!
As for your statement that we do not need to know the voting records of the cabinet....gosh, even the Federal Government makes Congresses voting records public.....and I admit, I don't think they (congressmen) are all a bunch of honorable folks.....voting records give the constituency something solid to go on when deciding how to vote themselves.....With voting records secret, we have nothing to vote on other than what they say they support......While I am extremely hopeful that none of them would vote in a way that they do not publicly espouse, we presently have no way to be absolutely sure. I can think of no reason, that would hold up to even simple logic that would back your position....I think you have made the fatal errors in judgement, which is why I replied to you in the first place.....In my opinion, you have only expanded on your previous errors....Lets see....hmmmm.....I am for open, honest, transparency....you are for buissiness behind closed doors.....bet you would not want to put that up to a vote of the general club members to see who the majority thought was right....
Next you say I took what YOU interpreted as a potshot at the cabinet, and should apologize for it....again wrong!!!! I simply pointed out that Larry had already applied and been quietly turned down. You are the one who originally used the term roughshod....I only used it in reference to your statement that the protections were in place....well, he had already taken your suggestion, and it did not work....I won't lose any sleep over the fact that you don't like the fact that I pointed out the problem(s) with your post....if anyone should apologize to them, you should do so for attempting to falsely twist what I said to an attack on the them....I respect them, I simply disagree with you, that things like this should be handled in secresy.....
I also informed you that I would never try to convince you that you should change your mind, I understood, when I posted earlier that there was no possibility of that.....We simply disagree....and I will tell you on a truly personal level that I DO disagree with you, and as long as I have an once of self respect and integrity I will continue to disagree with you....So understand that you need not attempt to convince me of my supposed error.....I will always believe in transparency, since it promotes honesty....Lastly I will say you do indeed, have a right to your opinion, no matter how utterly misguided it may be in my way of thinking....Enjoy that right....It is people like me who would always uphold your right to have it.....Hank Smith

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:25 am
Posts: 826
Location: USA
General Smith and everyone:

Colonel Peters was speaking hypothetically. You have not been accused of cheating. (No member has been since I became a member of the Cabinet.) The concern regarding privacy is that, even if found innocent, being accused besmirches one's reputation. That's why these issues are discussed and settled, if possible, behind closed doors.

Some disagree with this and would have everything published openly. That is certainly a valid opinion to hold. In America, how much money one makes is generally considered his or her private concern and not public information. On the other hand, here in Missouri state government workers have their salaries published whether they like it or not. I've heard of companies that publish all employee salaries, as well, although they are the exception and not the rule.

I say this just to point out there are differences of opinion regarding how much information should be shared. There are also many different styles and forms of government. In America and all of the Free World we prize democracy, but even democracy comes in many 'flavors'. The ACWGC uses a 'representative democracy' form. In this form, every little issue is not brought before the entire club for debate and decision. Instead, representatives are elected to handle these often-routine matters. Sometimes the results of those issues are shared with the general public (in this case, the club members). In other cases, especially when the issue is apt to cause harm to someone's reputation, the rest of the club may not even be aware an issue has been taken up.

Most of us, if not in fact all of us, joined this club to play the ACW games of John Tiller, rather than to 'play politics'. There are plenty of other avenues for those who enjoy political debate for its own sake.

The rules of this club are pretty bare bones and, in many cases, ambiguous. Club President Pierre Desruisseaux has appointed a 3-member committee to review the club rules and suggest revisions, clarifying them when necessary. Hopefully this won't take too long, again because those on the committee joined the club for other reasons than to spend their time on rewriting club rules. Still, the Cabinet decided it was time this issue was addressed. This is just one issue the Cabinet has dealt with recently.

My major in college was Mass Media. I tend to lean in the direction of Free Speech and open communication. I applaud President Desruisseaux's recent decision to set up a non-partisan Signal Corps to report on club issues, many of which will either originate with or at least pass through the Cabinet.

Still, there will be those issues the Cabinet members deal with which they decide are in the best interest of the club NOT to discuss openly. What these issues are change as the make-up of the Cabinet changes.

As has been stated, there will be Cabinet positions coming available in the not-to-distant future. These positions are just as important to the club as army command. I hope those with the skills and interest in club management will seriously consider serving in this capacity.


Your humble servant,
LGen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - Lieutenant General, Chief of the Armies, Confederate States of America & Cabinet Member
CCC - Sergeant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:16 am
Posts: 328
Location: Canada
I think the point that Larry should be allowed back has been made.

That being said, what possible use does it gain to dredge up past issues again ?

Drop it !!!!



Major General John Corbin
Commanding officer
2nd Division
XVIII Corps
AoJ


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:11 am 
Bill,
Once again, you repeated your false accusation that I am accusing the cabinet of some impropriety.....what I have actually done is merely brought an action that they have taken (which I happen to disagree with), out into public view, when it was not out there in the public eye before.....I will fully admit that I want to see Larry Quick reinstated, and I believe that this is more likely in the public veiw, than behind closed doors.....that being because Larry's wonderfully cheerful always carefree and considerate attitude has at times offended some of our more stern folks here who seem to think that we should not use the entire English language when communicating with each other (Just in case you don't get it-for the record-that last was utter sarcasm....Larry did commit some crimes and has in my opinion been punished easily adequately). Taking this action, is not an impropriety, neither is voicing my displeasure with it publicly....this is simply using the media to bring an action they took, that was previously not known, to light.....while I admit, this may not be comfortable for them in light of support displayed here for Larry, I never implied any impropriety....you are the one making that slanderous twist on my words.
Now I will make one further statement, I stated in my post that you were speaking hypothetically when you said "the next time a member makes a cheating allegation against you"....however, what you did that was offensive, was worded your hypothetical statement in a manner that implied that such an accusation had indeed been made against me in the past....You could have said, "In the event, a member makes a cheating accusation against you".....that would have been a proper hypothetical statement....you chose to make the improper, more inflammatory, statement which was slanderous to my reputation by it's wording....I am choosing to view this as an accident on your part, or shall we just say a "fatal error in judgement", and not a malicious act on your part, however, I will admit, it did upset me, due to it's erronoeus implication, however unintended (hopefully unintended).
Lastly, on the our basic disagreement, you have enough "faith" in those in power, to allow them to voluntarily take your rights to an open, transparent process away voluntarily. I simply do not have that faith.....I don't think the folks in the cabinet are dishonest....quite the opposite (Personally, I have played Mark Nelms, and found him to be an excellent person and player....I like the guy....My only dealings in the past with Pierre were cordial....I think highly of him....I am not sure I know the rest of them), I think they are motivated folks that do care about the club.......However, the safeguard of transparency, would, in the event those someone ever did get into the cabinet, who did not "measure up", expose them....without transparency, we likely would never know. Well, one good thing has come out of this, should you run for the cabinet, I'll definatly know without hesitation to vote against you (I won't be inviting you to dinner anytime soon either)... Hank Smith


BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:36 am 
General Mallory,
I think you post was well reasoned and pretty well balanced....I also think it showed the absolute value of a thread such as this....I, and others, now have information out in the public eye that was not.....in other words, you have done a good job of stating your case....whether I agree with all of it or not, is not important, the fact that you did so can only help the club......my compliments....
I was unaware Of Missouri's laws regarding public displays of salary....it may surprise you to hear that I would disagree with the pubishing of salaries of goverment employees, other than politicians, who absolutely should be under the greatest and most stringent microscope they can be put under. As for forms of Government, the only one I do not believe actually exists in the real world is Democracy....The United States is a "Representative Repulic", not a democaracy.....True Democracy is virtually impossible in the real world.....
Finally, in clarification of my position on transparency......I was saying that in a "perfect world" things would be transparent....I do not expect ya'll to adopt this policy (I doubt that would be realistic).....however, I will state that should I ever serve on the cabinet, I will try to bring it about (understand, that does not mean I have any such intentions of running for office).....Reading you post, I will say, makes me hope you will stay on in your position...Good luck to you and thank you for helping the club by posting on this thread....Hank Smith

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:41 am 
John,
At this time, I will say, I would be glad to drop this topic.....I will be glad to do so at any point that I am "allowed" to do so, as it has actually gotten a "bit" off topic....Regards, Hank Smith

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 5:01 am
Posts: 564
Location: USA
Personally, I think the club ha become way to regulated. We should just dial back to a more less structed style, but since we are where we are ...

All correspondence and voting records of the cabinet should be archived for public records. That is the best way to run an organization. It holds those in power accountable, and it helps dispell rumours and inuendo.

As members of an organization that have the responsibility to vote for our leadership we need the mechanisms in place to make informed decisions when we vote. Knowing the person's positions through archived emails (ie minutes of the meetings), and voting records is the proper way to do this.

With such systems in place we protect the club from mismanagement, the members from beng abused, and the leadership from false allegations. With the truth out for all to see, if they wish to look at it, much of the rancour within the club would dissipate.

Nothing inspires the imagination more to thinking something foul is afoot than secrecy. With the viel torn down, and all proceedings in the open the club would become a safer, more democratic place.

Then slurs, slanders and cheap-shots at the cabinet would be relegated to political mud-slinging. Which would add to the greater realism of role-plying the military and polictical era this club has grown to embrace. [:D]

MajGen Al 'Ambushed' Amos
3rd "Amos' Ambushers" Bde, Cavalry Division, XX Corps, AoC
The Union Forever! Huzzah!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1917
Location:
Just for refernces in the rules:

In absence of prior agreement should an officer believe that his opponent be violating this code that he discreetly contact his Army Commander who will conduct an inquiry with his opponents Army Commander., Should the officer be found in violation of the code a punishment will be determined that is appropriate that is agreed upon by both Army Commanders and hopefully by the injured officer. <b>At no time will either the charge, the inquiry or the results be made public knowledge.</b>

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Brigadier General Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]

Image

Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:22 am 
Well Sir,
I may have to abide by the rule.....but no force on earth can make me agree that secresy is the best policy.....For instance, if an individual has made repeated charges against multiple opponents, this would be a good this to have as public record.....making such charges should be a thoughroughly considered thing just as being guilty of them would be.....after all what if the individual is just paranoid....secresy, would likely allow individuals to operate in this slanderous manner with much more imunity than in a transparent system........admittedly this is the only somewhat gray area in the transparency topic, but I think the benefits of transparency outweigh the dificulties and risks.....That said, I have done what I could here....Regards, Hank Smith

BG Hank Smith
Army of Georgia
Smith's Division CO
Carroll's Corp


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 8:05 pm
Posts: 884
Location: Panhandle of Texas
So Al, you want to see all the communications that the Cabinet has had. I just checked the one folder where I store strictly cabinet business and it has 715 mail messages in it. This doesn't include the ones I deleted. That is from less then a years worth of service as the Union CoA. Where do you want me to send them? Just what kind of secret deals do you folks think we are pulling in the Cabinet??? Sure we discuss how we are dividing up the money we make for all the extra time we spend on the club business. Last week I asked to have some more power over the club since it looked so good on my resume'. Probably 99.9% of club business that we discuss concerns things that have been brought to our attention and that we deal with and make public. The other .1% is spent dealing with situations where we deal with questions of cheating allegations or expulsions/reinstatements. These things are not for public consumption. I for one will not discuss cheating allegations in public since it is so much easier to paint someone with that brush then it is to remove the stain. I think about the McCarthy hearings from the 50's and how many people were mislabeled and even though proven innocent theyh bore those accusations for a long time. It is the same with expulsions or reinstatements. Some things that are discussed just don't need to be for public discussion. In the future the Cabinet is planning to include a section in the monthly report from the Dept. of Communications on what we have been doing though I'm not sure of the level of detail. Also, if anyone is really concerned about what is going on in the Cabinet or with a single issue then all you have to do is send any of us an e-mail and ask. As long as it isn't something we consider private then we will answer.
There are a lot of posts in this thread about or implying , whether that was their intention or not I took it that way, that we are some kind of secret group trying to ruin this club. However when given the chance to vote on members of the Cabinet we received a grand total of 3 nominations for the 2 open posts. The Union had two nominees and between them there was a grand total of 60 votes out of over 260 officers eligible. From those totals it seems that a great deal of the officers on the Union side really are indifferent to what is going on in the Cabinet and are happy with the way things are being run.
I want everyone to understand that I speak for myself in this post and not for any other members of the Cabinet. I'm sure they would have discouraged me from making this post. However I find myself offended by some of the posts in this thread about the activities in the Cabinet and finally couldn't hold my electronic tongue any more. My apologies to the rest of the Cabinet members if I'm out of line here. However for those of you worried about how we've voted in the past on issues so you can guage your next vote for Cabinet elections probably won't have to worry about it as I'm sure there won't be many running for re-election after the treatment we are getting here from a few members. Thanks to those who are showing some support.

General Mark Nelms
Union Chief of the Army
Cabinet Member


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 9:52 am
Posts: 1917
Location:
Thanks Mark. I know from experience as and AC that cheating allegations are not always true. The best policy is to leave the game and not play the person you suspect of it. If they continue they will eventually loose people to play with.

The public display of such can ruin someone not only in this club but others where they maybe too and may cause them to rejoin the club under a false identity.

The point is some stuff is better left not in public for reasons of reputation killings. Some people make a hobby out of this, you would be surprised.

I don't think the Cabinet is some evil organization. I work with many of them on a regular basis. As Mark said you don't like it, vote next time!! I think some people are still holding on to last July and since this is about the 1 year anniversary that it all happened....let's all chill out and have a beer or soemtine' good. [:D]

<center>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/"]<b>Brigadier General Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]

Image

Commanding Officer
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/ANV"]Army of Northern Virginia
[/url]CSA

[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com/ACWGC/index.html"]Personal Command Tent[/url]

For the Glory of Virginia!!</center>


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:37 am 
Setting the record straight seems to be a popular pasttime lately. To that end, I'd like to dispell the notion that, as has been stated earlier in this thread, Larry Quick's previous reinstatement request to the Cabinet constituted (or was accompanied by) some form of apology or reassurance.

The entire text of the message is copied and pasted here:
--------------

From: "Larry (Notso) Quick" <notso1@erols.com> View Contact Details
To: pierred@wargame.ch, dmallo01@coin.org, ltgenadams@rootsandsaddles.com, swampfox_csa@yahoo.ca, dburke2@ix.netcom.com, mperrenod@comcast.net, marknelms1@cox.net
Subject: A Humble Request
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:48:56 -0400


Gentlemen,



I am humbly requesting re-admission to the club.



Notso


------------

That was it. The Cabinet's response, following deliberation, was to decline the request.

By way of an update and in the interest of the transparency being sought within this thread, while this issue continues to cause a stir, there has been no current request received by the Cabinet from him. The Cabinet has been discussing the issue since this thread began... in fact since prior to this thread, when a couple of Cabinet members were recipients of an e-mail Larry Quick sent to a number of individuals.


Gen. Den McBride
ANV, C.S.A.
ACWGC Cabinet Member


Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group