Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

This whole thing reminds me of a previous job I had. I worked for a marketing company as a district manager running one of their offices in the state of Maryland. Our division was made up of all the offices in Maryland. That division was one of the poorest performing divisions throughout the whole company.

Needless to say, our division manager was "promoted", and a new division manager was brought in. The new division manager came from one of the top divisions in the country. The first thing he did was start implementing a set of standards. Standards of what we should expect of him as our manager, what was expected of us as district managers, and standards that we were to expect of our salespeople. It went all the way down to standards for our receptionists. Everyone from the top to the bottom was held accountable.

The result was that our division quickly turned around and started growing quickly.

Although there were standards throughout our division, our offices still maintained some autonomy. For example, nobody told me WHAT to cover at my sales meetings, but there were standards for HOW those meetings were planned and conducted.

I in no way want to compare the seriousness of running a business versus maintaining a club around a hobby (even if it happens to be a lot of fun). I think a lot of these rule changes are to do the same thing. It is to lay down a set of standards for what is expected of the membership and what is expected of those who serve the membership. Maybe the new rules seem a little lengthy and a little over complicated, but I think they do a good job of explaining to members what they should expect of their commanders, their CinC, their cabinet, and their president.

As for the requesting a copy of game files thing... I could care less. Give me an email address and I'll zip them all up right now and send them off right now. No big deal to me. I'm not hiding bank account numbers or anything else of importance in my game files. Hell, if the club wants, setup a server through which everyone passes their files back and forth. Makes zero difference to me.

The rules also seem to provide for an easy way for the membership to exercise their freedom of choice and remove army commanders who are impeding the growth of their army. Something that I think is sorely needed.

And speaking of the armies, I think there should be more standard practices throughout them. I do not think the cabinet should dictate how each army should be run, but there are certain things that should be the same throughout the entire club. For example, how a muster is performed. That should not be left up to the individual army commanders, in my opinion. There should be one set, acceptable way that musters are performed whether you are a member of the godless French hoards or a member of the more civilized Austrian army.

At any rate, I think any organization, whether it be a business or a club where we play computer games, at some point needs to adopt a set of standards (like those outlined here) in order to successfully grow. Growth is something I think most members would agree the club definitely could use.

Very well put Mike thanks for articulating what I have been struggling to!

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

There is something that hasn't been talked about, it doesn't show on the actual rules or the new rules:

I am talking about the shadow committees or informal committees that were run from time to time to deal with cheating. Do they still exist? How should they enter in the rules of the club? Who should have control of them? Etc...

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

No those things are generally handled by the Cabinet.

Since much has been made of semantics, I feel that the cabinet should only focus on administrative aspects outside the daily function of the armies. Cabinet duties focus on matters that have impact to the club as a whole. The inclusion of terms like"broad" or "generally" are not sufficiently specific. If the cabinet is giving itself the authority to intervene in the running of the armies, then that is not something I can support, regardless of what the duties "generally" consist of. I don't care what their focus is. I am more interested on where the limits of cabinet authority lie.

Since much effort has been spent on the duties of commanders, and very specific rules around activity, why be vague in this regard? Instead, keep it simple, delete the words broad and generally from this section.



So, your concern is over an army commander's behavior? OK, so why would that make me want to vote for a set of rules that need more work before they are complete? I've already stated that matters like expulsion and grievances should be presented to the cabinet. No disagreement on that.

But, what if the cabinet decided to replace the French or Allied commander? Under what conditions can this be done? What are the safeguards to prevent abuse? Much has been made of the fear of an overbearing army commander; shouldn't the same consideration be given to a cabinet that assigns itself too much control over the membership? I don't anticipate that is something that is intended, and I trust the current cabinet would not. But when codifying a set of rules, one must be wary of future unintended consequences. The proper mechanism is that the officers in that army elect a new commander through the principles of democracy. Everyone in that army has a say, just as they should so there is no reason for the cabinet to interfere.

The debate about the role of the cabinet has been going on for a long time. I doubt it will end soon.

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

So, why create a set of rules that grants such authority?

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

I read with great interest all of the comments. Many have important points. I think that we should look at the club rules and changes as a process. Something that is evolving. There is nothing to say that there will be no future proposed changes by new Cabinet members.

Are the proposed rules perfect? Of course not. Can they be improved? Yes. What is the process to do so?

Having been there and done that, I know how much time and effort is required by individuals to propose changes such as this. It does require perseverance, diplomacy and a lot of sleepless nights. I also have to say that there are few if any accolades or rewards for doing so. The club is very lucky to have someone to take the lead in such an arduous tasks as making changes to the club rules. The proposed rules should be determined on their merit not just because of effort of course.

In regards to who governs/runs the club. I believe that the Cabinet, with all of it's members elected which includes the two very important positions of CiC's, should have the overall say in all matters. The CiC's would ensure their Armies perspectives are brought up in any Cabinet discussions and decisions. I think this is a valid check and balance to the system. No individual has overall authority in the Club with the potential of abuse. This has been an issue in other clubs and that experience is very valid in the development of this club. Using the experience of how the rules have evolved in the ACWGC, for the good or the bad, provides valuable insight and can help with how this club moves forward. After all as wargamers we learn from reading about how Military leaders performed and try to avoid their mistakes and if we are lucky follow their brilliance when we play our games. We should do the same when reviewing the history of other clubs and apply the best and forgo the worst.

I think it is also important to remember that the initial core club rules, as created in the 90's, are still the standards. Points awarded for playing games rather than just winning or losing. A military organization for the club with Armies, Corps etc.. A cabinet to help run the Club with the intent of not being partisan to the sides. The CiC of Armies included in the Cabinet. Role playing as a fun thing. Encouraging individual members in the creation of webpages. These basic principles are still there and are the basis for the first club, the ACWGC and the foundations of the NWC and CCC. This core is what brought people to the club in the first place. The rest of the rules are important but they are there to help set standards and expectations.

Just some thoughts I had when reading through the responses.

_________________
General en Chef Pierre D.
La Grande Armee
25ème Régiment de Dragons,
Détachement de la 3ème Corps d'Armée,
3ème Corps d'Armée

Excellent insight Pierre, thank you.

_________________
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

Salute!

I would like to briefly (I/You hope) comment on what I see as a prevailing attitude expressed about the Cabinet.

I would remind everyone that the cabinet is not some outside group meddling in club/army affairs.
The cabinet is comprised of club members, from both main army groups in the club.

While presently only the position of President is an elected one, the others are still club members, and two of them so happen to be the CiC's of the two main army groups.

The debates within the cabinet and their decisions all are made within this framework.

And the current President, who is often accused of meddling and coming up with plans that are deemed by some to be detrimental to the club and individual armies has been elected twice to this position (the second time without opposition) - and therefore should be considered as reflecting the general will of the club membership.

This does not mean we all have to agree with everything that the President or the cabinet decide to do with every given issue, but we should acknowledge the empowerment by consensus of the membership granted to them (by which I mean they are not aliens descending with alien ideas).

Regards,

You and pretty much all the other members don't know actually. Someone was going to run against him last year but backed out at the last minute because, honestly, who wants to wage that campaign.......I was pretty disappointed when said person backed out, as I think we needed this exchange of ideas a while ago. That is what it is too, an exchange of a difference of ideas.

My hope is with open elections we will get a lot of interest in the runnings & debates. We'll see though.....

I have carefully read through the proposed rules and of this discussion thread. I would like to congratulate the Cabinet on a very thorough overhaul of the proposed club rules. Having sat on many constitutional committees both professional and social, I appreciate the time, effort and dedication put forward in the crafting of the proposed club rules. I am in general agreement with the proposed rules and support the voting process which is based on expedience.

Nevertheless, I do have some concerns.

First, as Marecal Jeff Bardon alluded to in his Jan. 17th post, there are some sections or clauses which need revision. While I support the need to push forward the voting process on the entire package in the interests of time and expediency, I feel that there needs to be a mechanism to review such concerns, especially in sections which are passed in the forthcoming vote. To this end, I strongly recommend that concerns expressed in sections which are passed, are drafted by the cabinet as amendments and posted for a period of two weeks for discussion followed a second voting process.

Second, I disagree with Marecal Colin Knox's Jan. 17th posting which suggested that the new voting process will revitalize the club's leadership. I have been involved with both leadership development and active membership participation throughout my 35 year career as a public school teacher, administrator, basketball coach and member of a number of social and hobby clubs. My collective experience has left me with the overpowering conclusion that the critical component in both leadership development and active membership participation is MENTORSHIP. I therefore urge the Cabinet to consider as many ways as possible to foster a spirit of mentorship throughout the NWC's administrative levels. Specifically, I would suggest that the following additions be made to:
3.2.4 Army CoS Appoint and mentor at least 2 ADCs.
3.2.5 Corps Co. Mentor Division and Brigade commanders.
3.2.6 Division Co. Ensure that training games adequately Mentor new recruits in tactics and game mechanics. Develop an esprit de corps by involving new recruits in 2-3 multi-player games.

_________________

Salute!

Scott Ludwig wrote: You and pretty much all the other members don't know actually. Someone was going to run against him last year but backed out at the last minute because, honestly, who wants to wage that campaign.......I was pretty disappointed when said person backed out, as I think we needed this exchange of ideas a while ago.

Sir, I really find some of the above comments to be inflammatory.
Specifically, someone was going to run against him last year but backed out at the last minute because, honestly, who wants to wage that campaign.

The implications of these words are not... very nice to say the least.
These words imply that an election campaign vs Mark Jones (sitting/elected president) would be an ugly one. By ugly one I mean full of dirty tricks, mud-slinging, and character assassination.

Perhaps you refer to the first election won by Mark during which one of his vocal supporters had his User Account disabled for a considerable period of time - the excuse given of which was the member must have failed to remember his password - which I would point out the forums/administrator's provide a quick and speedy resolution thereof - so that excuse holds absolutely no water whatsoever.

Anyways, I personally find the tone/implication of what I've quoted above to be going to an extreme that we don't need in this conversation.

By all means let us carry the debate forward - as the marketplace of ideas is the cornerstone of democracy and of informed decision making, but I am opposed to such insinuations as I read into the above quotes.

Regards,

This debate is pointless, anytime someone says something not a part of the thought process, little pieces of what you say are picked out and you are treated like a child & scolded. This is why this Club will fail eventually.

I've got other things to do with my life than deal with this money junk......

Have fun with the sandbox....just share the toys.

I have to say that I agree with that statement. Maybe the problem is in the way the "discussion" is conducted. I don't know but anytime someone is wondering or objecting to a part of the new rules; he only receives comments about how he doesn't understand something or how he is wrong to think that way. And I never hear how the text could be improved so there would be no misunderstanding.
I haven't seen that once and we have been talking for 8 pages now.

Maybe it would have been better (and I repeat myself) to consult within each army to see what people want before writing those rules, I hear everybody wanting more democratic process but at the same time we have been denied that democratic process. It's not by voting on something that has been decided by others that we will really fulfill that desire of democratic process.

As I see it now it looks like we have 2 camps: the ones who support the change without discussing it and the others who would like to see a few changes here and there. We shouldn't be divided in those camps. It should be a concerted effort by all the willing members to improve those rules and then vote on them.

I know that not everybody is interested in talking about the whereabout of the club. But I am, I am because I have been in this club for over 14 years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, others bad but I stayed around because I like the era and the people I interact with and the games also. I have seen good people leave, others come.

Also commenting on the new rules is not about being against the actual Cabinet. We like you all. But as it goes the cabinet might change one day.

And lastly I have to say that I don't really care if the Brits, Prussians, Russians, Swede or Austrians have different governing rules than the French in the club. The only thing that really matters is that at the end we are treated fairly. Having different ways (of mustering or considering what an active officer is, different ways to promote officers etc...) between armies is what will make someone choose and stay in an army or change if they decide that they don't like it.

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

I agree with David, the debate is productive and continues to focus on ideas. As long as we continue focusing on that, it is good. The fact that much of the discussion centers on a few word choices and the scope of authority is in my opinion a good thing. It shows that there is a consensus in the overall direction, just maybe not so much on the exact shape of the end product.

Looking at the calendar, the next election cycle is a little over 6 months away, so we have time.

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