Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

As the voting will be done by segment, I see nothing wrong with a member voting "no" on a particular segment that needs to be tweeked. As already stated, if the majority see a given segment needs more attention, then that will be done after voting is completed. If the majority vote yes, then that settles the question.

As with any club, the leadership of the club usually falls to the hands to those that wish to volunteer to invest the time and effort to those tasks. In some cases, you may have more than one individual that desires to take on a specific leadership roll in the club. In the past, other than select cabinet positions, many of the positions are appointed by the given Army Commanders. Those Army Commanders received their positions by virtue of raising a hand and volunteering to do the job. If someone else desired to do a specific job as an Army Commander, from what I have seen, unless the current one decides to step down, the individual with asperations has no option other than to wait. As the Army Commanders also sit on the Cabinet I think it only right that the members of their respective Armies sould have the opportunity to vote. I expect there might be the occasional contested election, but, by and large I also expect often there will only be one person running.

I see noting wrong with using a muster to determine an "active" club member. It saves a lot of other record keeping that will be needed to be checked to insure any given member meets at least one of the given criteria in the rules proposed. Otherwise, everyone can just create and "active member game" that will just sit on idle for as long as they desire to just check the box to be considered active. A muster is so much simplier, do it twice a year to be administered and enforced by their respective Armies and be done with it.

Currently, both Armies have many vacancies so the opportunities for the lower level leadership positions are there for those that are willing. However, I can see how, if positions to a given unit are full (say like for the Brunswick Brigade), you wouldn't want to deny a member to join an unit when many of the slots are filled with "inactive" players. Again, this falls to the Army Commanders where maybe more detail than just a muster is needed to determine an involved member from an attentive member.

_________________

Well I have finally finished read though the proposed changes themselves and this loooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnng thread. I will just voice a few observations since I have been in the club over a decade and have observed many interesting facts in regards to the administration of it.

1. The majority of club members will not even read the changes.
2. The majority will not vote.
3. The majority of the club members do care much one way or the other about the administrative rules as they are here to find others to play the games with.
4. The discussion is\was dominated by those few members who have the energy, desire and skill to participate in the administration of the club. I applaud them and value them and I am NOT one of them therefore:

I ask only that whatever is passed\changed be fair to as many a possible (i belive they are), and that the acrimony be kept to minimum (which it has).

I find nothing objectionable or unfair about them, so I do support the changes primarily because some of you have put a lot of thought and effort into them and I believe if they are proven to be flawed or need additonal tweaking we can make additonal changes later.

That is my 2 cents, now back to the games.

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

I couldn't agree more. Back to the games.

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.

Yes, I suspect few will and it is right to point out that the primary focus of the club must be on games, camaraderie and a shared appreciation for the period.

First and foremost, it is a social club for people to gather and play games. All rules and administrative functions are secondary to that purpose.

So, in my opinion, what does that mean to me?

• I want a simple method of registering games, keeping track of them, and being kept informed of what is going on in the club and in the wider wargaming community.
• I want a flexible system where members with different levels of activity feel welcome.
• I want an appeals process where disagreements can be resolved if they can't be worked out in private.
• I want as little bureaucracy as possible and as little in the way of rules as we can
• I want members to have a say and enough time to think about it before any club wide decision is made

Looking at the rules as written versus what they may be as practiced. There is a lot to like, more ways to be considered active, a say in the process, straightforward rules around games and scoring.

However, there are some things that I view as overly burdensome and need further refinement. The next election is some time away, so there should be no rush to put these rules into effect. I appreciate the time and energy that has been put into them , but there is some more work to be done. We should take the time to do it.

As the mechanism for asking for further review and revision is to vote "no", I will be voting "no", in particular on sections 2 and 3.

Now, as far as specifics, most are single lines or definitions, which I hope can be resolved.

• Section 2.2: "Army, or Club, Command may request a copy of the email and game file exchanges between opponents at any time a question arises as to whether or not a game is actually in play." I think this is heavy-handed, easily faked by those who really want to cheat, and should not be included in the rules
• Section 2.6: "Any member failing to meet the requirements of an ‘Active’ member, will be considered to be an ‘Inactive’ member. ‘Inactive’ members will have their Forum and DoR Accounts deactivated, and will be removed from the command of a specific unit and placed in the appropriate army’s reserves. The Forum and DoR Accounts of ‘Inactive’ members will be deactivated on the same day that the members are determined to be ‘Inactive’. " I advocate a grace period to allow members to revert to active status. I do not favor cutting off forum access for retired members, as I like having some of the "old-timers" stop in occasionally
• Section 3.2.2: CiC- How do you account for minority formations? Specifically in the coalition, how does this get structured so that each army still feels represented versus the largest army dominating the position?
• Sections 3.2.5 through 3.2.8- Don't see the need for them. Command requirements and needs vary by group, so the duties of command positions below army command should be at the discretion of the army commander. A few pointers around typical duties may be helpful, but in general, I think this is not necessary.
• Section 3.4.5- Elections: I don't think the time period listed is long enough. I'd like to provide at least 2 weeks for each section, but even that may be too little. So, I think more discussion is needed

All in all, not many items. The cabinet has done an excellent job in working on the rules, discussing them and getting them to the point where the larger group can discuss them. If you like them as written, vote "yes". If you see a few things that need work, vote "No" so the work can be done. If you don't like any of them, vote "No". The most important thing, especially if you say "No"is to provide feedback on why, so that the next iteration of rules can address those concerns.

Regards,
Jeff

_________________
Marechal Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione et Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Garde Imperiale

There should be a need posted and see who wants to apply to that Army need .As the Prussian Army is now commanded by an English officer I see no changes at all.

I am one of those that are here to play the games. I am aware that the club needs leaders/administrators and am grateful that there are many who actually want to take on those arduous tasks. Thank You.

These rule changes do not seem to affect my position ?

There seems to be a lot of discussion around the issue of advancement within the various armies. Now whilst in real life a soldier will join, say, 1st Regiment of Foot and Mouth and subsequently retire from same. It would not be that unusual for those officers of higher rank ( clubs leaders/administrators ) to move to that level of command in a different area. Okay in this era it would be unusual for a Hanoverian to take command of the Spanish army. However if we leave reality behind for a while, Which we do all the time as most of the members seem to be Americans

This opens up promotion to more people, no?

If one corps/army/nationality/whatever is getting a bit oversubscribed and there is a leader with nowhere to go available could not volunteers be asked for to move to a under subscribed part with a new leader to invigorate that part ?

Given that those wanting to progress within the club as opposed to just wanting to fight will be keen, eager people who will take on the challenge of reinvigorating their new section of the club.

I do see a certain irony (if I am using the wrong word let me know) in the fact that I have more contact and discussions with my French opponents than I do with my allied brethren.

_________________

Aloysius Kling, Sr - I thought we were discussing them ?

_________________

Section 2 Membership: Although I agree and like the club being run along "military" lines and the banter in the Tavern is one of my favourite aspects of the club, I am beginning to feel like I have joined the army. People enjoy their gaming in this club and others at their own speed and sometimes you are really active and there are times when things are slow, as in real life. You are proposing that members can only remain active if they are doing one of the activities that you decided makes him a valid member. I for one do not like the idea that my value or credibility as a member of the club (since 2001) is being decided by people that at this time can maybe devote more time than me or are just more into it right now. There have been times that I haven't played any games because of other interests or maybe just a little bored of it for awhile. But then I get excited all over again and start playing. You want opinions, well that is mine. The very thought of requesting a member prove he is playing a game by sending game files and emails is at the very least, insulting. I joined this club to have fun and live a bit in the Napoleonic world, not to be held up to some standard that people I don't even know have decided for me. A regular muster is sufficient to see who is active. People play/work at different speeds and there is nothing wrong with that. I know a lot of effort went into this but you are wrong on this point.

_________________
Maréchal d'Empire Paul Johnson
1er Escadron de Régiment de Grenadiers à Cheval de la Garde Impériale
1ère Brigade
Cavalerie de la Garde Impériale
Réserve
La Grande Armée

Ok weekend is over.

I will say I concur with Jeff & Paul's mentioning of what makes an active officer. The impacts of this could have a ripple effect across the Club. Maybe not, it is hard to tell until it is actually used. If it is used in an aggressive manner it could lead to a reputation problem when advertising for the Club across various forums and places. I have seen it before with others clubs and also with us here. I have seen it in multiple languages too, so it spreads no doubt. We should be careful of how this is exactly employed, as it could hurt our image across the small community we are a part. I will say it again there is not an unending tap of recruits out there.....

Hope everyone had a nice weekend!

As the active/inactive point is now discussed I like to post my opinion about it:
Personally I don't see a problem to run the club a little bit like an army, the quarterly musters are a good thing and also to remove those that don't respond to these musters from their positions to make room for others to rise thru the ranks of an army.
But just like a MMO I would recommend not to lock these inactive players out(neither from DOR nor forum), let the doors open so they can when ever they want join the ranks of the active players again.


Yes the thread is currently not so active as one could assume but I guess many may not have found the time(like me) to work thru them and post their concern if any arise from these new rules.

_________________

On the subject of member's rights, if section 2 passes as written, I will repeat my concern:

"Army, or Club, Command may request a copy of the email and game file exchanges between opponents at any time a question arises as to whether or not a game is actually in play."

I urge everyone to vote "No", so that the rule is sent back for further revision and this objectionable portion can be stricken.

_________________
Marechal Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione et Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Garde Imperiale

After some serious re-thinking on my apart, i will vote no on this section also. I urge all officers to carefully consider this section before voting.

_________________