Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Just to be absolutely clear, David, neither I, nor any members of this Club's Cabinet have any 'false intentions'. You speak as if we created this problem, which we most certainly did not. We are simply courageous enough to address the problem without sticking our head in a hole and pretending that no problem exists. Your preference seems to be one of blissful ignorance rather than proactive action. Now, I certainly respect your right to have that opinion, but I equally expect you to respect anyone else's right to disagree with your opinion.

There are no 'false intentions' here, David, and your allegations against this Club's Cabinet members are very much out of line. Unlike you, we personally believe that our members have very much of a "problem with false intents". I would be extremely disappointed to discover otherwise.

Mark,
If you read David's post I do not think he meant it as strongly as you took it---you have confirmed that there was a specific intent behind that section that was not clear to many of us and I agree with David that it should be reworded.

Years ago, as a Division commander in the Civil War club, we had a gut who kept switching armies, sides, names, etc (if you want some of his names email me), starting games, dropping games etc. I trained him once in this club and in the ACWGC he was identified there. But I think he is still around and, as far as I know, "reformed."

What I am getting at is that the Whalen episode drew public attention to a problem that always lingers---if it bleeds it leads---if you watch TV news in America you may be surprised that the murder rate has dropped a lot over the last 30 years---by the same token, we have always had this problem of multiple personalities and steps to reduce it have drawn attention to it and made people worry about it.

To my French friends and opponents, I would rather play a good opponent instead of a bad one---so I would worry less about tactics being stolen, although I guess scenario specific ideas are another animal, as are a specific game against a specific opponent....

_________________

Mark: Maybe you need to chill-out and read again what I say... And then read again your reaction and maybe apologize (I am not asking for it) if you feel like it. I am not accusing the Cabinet of false intention, I am just saying that since you are acknowledging that the intent is not what is written it would be better to re-word it.



Thanks Jim I think you are wording a little better what I was trying to say.

_________________
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

Except that I never said that I advocate for blissful ignorance, I am just saying that we can build all the walls we want to protect ourselves it won't stop that kind of cheater to exist and thrive. Like everybody around here I don't like cheaters (by any mean they do it).
Maybe you forgot about it but I was part a few times of a task-force run by you that looks at a few alleged cheating (the game this time).

_________________
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 don't like it either David.

what's the point of having a super secret password Tavern if anyone can come and go and discussion of tactics and strategy is not talked about.

I asked a simple question regarding how to approach a particular scenario in that secret tavern and was told by a higher up......"can't do that"........"they might be listening".........laugh out loud funny.

_________________
C.N.Matthews

Capitaine Mathews,

Your password is not so secret..."Plunder Europe" was easy to guess!

_________________

that's two TT's pal.............funny stuff....lol

_________________
C.N.Matthews

I have scanned through all the discussion on this point and as a cabinet member was involved in the proposed rule changes. And I would like to point out the intent of the rule changes as a whole was to give members more control, protection of their rights as member. No one in the present cabinet is going to go through and examine what every member is doing. The members who got caught were more or less by accident than design. The changes make it a little easier to corner them and insure we do not falsely accuse someone of cheating.

I was going to post an example why I believe in this rule change but do not want to stir the pot so to speak.

I believe in this change and believe it will not hinder anyone or actually be requested more than once or twice, if that in a year.

There has also been some discussion here about active members, to me an active member is playing games or has played some games and is visible in the forums. That being said we recently had LGA Quarterly Muster in which officers mustered who have never completed a game, some never ever registered a game (Well the current records do not going back to the clubs inception) or post in the forums! The only time they show being online is when they muster in the LGA quarterly muster. My question is why are they in the club in the first place, before we went to mustering in Pierre's they mustered by email occasionally. They are not active by any means, so why do we track them, give them points for mustering (less now since we went to 4 times a year), chase them down through multiply emails, etc.. I know this is happening in the Coalition Armies but they do not muster as often so I suppose it is less evident. We recently deactivated 6 LGA members for missing two quarterly musters and not responding to any request from their corps commandants. This was done only after I checked to see if they had any current games in progress or for that matter had played a game in the last 6 months.

These inactive members can come back to the active rolls at anytime and the ones who do not make less to do for those keeping track & updating records.

I for one try to focus on the active participating members and look to recognize their successes and efforts. The NWC has a new group of upcoming members who I see as the leaders in the future and with elections they can step up and say I want to help! I was told after awhile you get tired of being in the cabinet, web pages, etc and that maybe so, but I have not as yet I am still having fun posting successes, building and maintaining the LGA web pages and having fun playing my games. But I see a time for letting some of our new members stepping up to lead.

Some members have been in the NWC since it started, they just want to play games, taking a less active roll and I appreciate that, but everything changes and as I have gotten older I have learned to accept change, sometimes it is good and sometimes it is not. The rule changes as whole are good and I hope all the members see that and look at the big picture, encourage others to be part of the club not just on the members list in the DoR.

The current active cabinet by proposing these rule changes is giving every member a say in who manages the organization and who leads their armies, If a leader is not doing want is expected or required they can be replaced by some other member willing to step up and participate in the clubs operation.

I am not sure if all my comment belong here, but I feel we are club of members first and officers in play armies second. And hopefully participate together (I did not use work together because this not work but fun, well most of the time) We are not a club without both halves of the battlefield.

Battle On...
,

I am not advocating against the changes, but I would prefer if it was re-worded and put in a different section, a section about Cheating and not under the section about active membership.



Sure rule changes are good when it's made simpler. But we are changing from 3219 to 7669 words (thanks MS Words for counting for me). I guess we could trim a bit here and there.



That's possible but what I have been saying since the beginning of my involvement to the conversation about Rule changes, it's that it could have been even better to have the input of the members during the writing of this document and then vote instead of having us all vote when the product is "final" and the only way to change anything will be by having majority voting against it.

I would have much preferred that instead of dividing members by that vote we could have united most of them by consensus.


Any member comment belong here of course.

_________________
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

All this discussion about what makes an "Active" member & former members simply just signing up again and there currently has been one former Prussian member, who was active, who has been waiting since Saturday afternoon to get back into the Club.....

If this was a new recruit, someone would of been scolded already....

Oh and if I may add, someone who is more than willing to lead the Prussian Armee & to work with others in it who have the skills to stand it up on its own again and make it viable. He has already been talking to current members to figure out such.

Bravo Monsieur David should have been let in long ago !

Again, absolutely agree. But, if there is a problem with multiple personalities, let's fix it. And if it really turns out to be one or two people, let's not get worked up over it, so we can get back to the ultimate destruction of perfidious Albion and her minions.

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

Oh and if I may add, someone who is more than willing to lead the Prussian Armee & to work with others in it who have the skills to stand it up on its own again and make it viable. He has already been talking to current members to figure out such.

Bravo Monsieur David should have been let in long ago !

1. This is really not the appropriate thread for these remarks.

2. They are discourteous and insulting. It would have been more polite to contact Marco or myself if you have issues. Stotsenburgh left of his own volition last year. It is extremely rude of him and his sponsors to be emailing each other as regards the leadership of the Prussian army, moreso as one correspondent isn't even in the Prussian Army and is a firm advocate of non-interference in other armies.

I will email you privately Andy, it wasn't meant to be an insult towards you. It was more or less spur a specific person to reply to him. Will explain more in the email.