Salute!
SLudwig wrote:
Really?? Who challenged this....I asked for it to be locked because it just wasn't worth it and I was having an exceptionally terrible week so far and was tired of being baited in the forum.
I am one of the club members who requested that this thread be unlocked.
I am not doing this to cause a fight between members, but because the thread contained statements that I do not not feel are accurate, and with the thread locked and the posts remaining for members and non-members to read, I feel that this is unfair.
My issue with some of what was said is this.
SLudwig wrote:
My original mention of the Mandatory Muster, stated in "but there was discussion mentioned before the end of the Mandatory Muster that has me concerned otherwise...." was not a derogatory mention of it.
Here is where I differ with the above quote as taken from this same thread concerning the Club Wide Muster:
SLudwig wrote:
Mandatory Muster was an unprecedented ruling made by the Cabinet and forced upon the members. It was not in the Club rules. Muster was traditionally handled by the armies and their rolls were maintained on their own. No club has ever instituted such a wide sweeping thing. Mark never agreed with how some of the armies managed their rolls, others I am sure did not too. Mark went unopposed, because I assume no one wanted to have to deal with the effort of running against him.
This is not putting words in anyone's mouth.
This is direct quoting.
The Cabinet discussed an idea for the Club to conduct a Club Wide Muster.
The Cabinet, which governs this Club agreed unanimously in the decision to do so.
To call this
forced upon the members is not fair (in my opinion).
If this is the case of
forcing upon the members, then every decision ever made by the Cabinet is
forcing themselves upon the members.
Not every decision made by the Cabinet needs to have precedent.
And simply because something has been done a certain way
taditionally does not mean it will always be done that way.
Traditions can certainly have their place, but they should never be taken as Rules.
Traditions can through time be found to be wrong, or outdated and in need of evolution.
From the report of the Club President on the Club Wide Muster some 200 members mustered.
Far less than that, maybe less than 50 (?) did not do so.
From what I could tell looking at the names in question which were listed in the muster thread at the top of this forum, only one appeared to be a member who did not muster due to personally disagreeing with the very concept that a governing body should/could conduct a muster/roll call of members to determine who is active and who is no longer active.
To believe that a Club should not do this is to my opinion unfathomable.
In fact we have removed from the various Club Army lists many, many players who are no longer active.
And the Club Muster regulations clearly stated that any member who was removed through not mustering can re-apply for membership and possibly regain their rank but not necessarily their command position (Regt assignment, etc).
There is no lifetime ban in effect here.
My issue with
the calling for this thread to be locked is one of fairness.
It is not fair for any single member to make statements, then call for the thread to be locked so that other members cannot respond if they see fit.
I really do respect opinions of any member that may not align with my own.
But, I do not agree one bit with the idea that statements can be made, and then preserved in public view, without recourse to counter.
I have not intended to offend anyone with my comments here, I am striving for reasoned debate, with support of evidence as it exists, and with support of opinion, as each member wishes to bring to the table.
Discussion requires mutual voicing of opinions.
Regards,
NWC
Login
FAQ
