Gentlemen,
I’m going to float an idea by you all. If it receives the response I expect, I will put in the work to make a formal presentation to the Cabinet, but it will require quite a bit of work that I don’t want to do unless it seems to be a popular idea.
This club was designed for role-playing of officers during the American Civil War. Because of that, the club was set up with two military ‘sides’, one representing the USA and one representing the CSA. This is not and never has been a ladder-style club, where members rise in rank simply by playing (and winning) games.
Basic to a military set-up is a hierarchy. Both sides use the same hierarchical set-up, with new members (after graduation from ‘basic training’) assigned to command a ‘brigade’. Those brigades are grouped in divisions. Divisions are grouped into corps, which are grouped into armies, which are grouped into the two sides (USA and CSA). (I’m ignoring theaters, since these have been done away within the club.)
Intrinsic to the structure is communication up and down the hierarchy. The most basic of these communications is the muster, a ‘roll call’ down the hierarchy. The club collects no dues; the muster is the way the club verifies a member is active. There are various ways members are ‘active’: Many members play games, even multiple games at one time. Some focus their time and attention on running their commands or leading the club on the Cabinet. Some are engaged in building new scenario variants, and/or setting up and running various tournaments. But the muster is a universal way to 1) maintain communication up and down the hierarchy and 2) verify that all members are still alive and want to be considered active.
Even from the early days, some members resisted the idea of the muster. It was ‘too much of a burden’ to reply to an email every month (or however often the muster was called for). Some division commanders were reluctant to call for a muster from their brigade commanders – again, it was ‘too much work’ to send out an email once a month. The use of the muster seems to have degenerated, at least in some commands, from ‘reluctance to use’ to ‘non-existent’. This is the issue I would like to address.
During the actual war, there were (of course) two military ‘sides’, as represented in the club. But there were also independent combatants who, though nominally aligned with one side or the other, operated outside the direct control of the military or even civilian leadership of either side. These ‘independent combatants’ were called various names: irregulars, guerrillas, ruffians, bushwhackers, partisans, renegades, outlaws, thieves, what have you. Although the leaders of some of these groups nominally held rank bestowed by one side or the other, they were seldom subject to orders – the best the organized military personnel could hope for from these groups would be that they might be open to ‘suggestion’ or ‘guidance’. They were never (to my knowledge, at least openly) provided with weapons, equipment, or supplies by their respective sides, or even the pay of soldiers.
I propose a third ‘side’ be established in the club, for those who prefer to operate outside the two formal military organizations.
Members of this group would hold no official military rank in the club. They would still have access to the various taverns and boards, including the “Opponents Wanted” board, and could participate in any sanctioned games.
Members in this group would not be organized hierarchically, would not be subject to musters, and would receive no Administration or Conduct OBD points. Since rank in the club is a matter of point accumulation, and these members would hold no official rank, there would be no need for them to receive Engagement Points for battles, either. A matter still to be decided would be whether or not members of this third group would retain voting privileges.
Current members of either side who prefer to transfer out of their current side could resign their commissions and be transferred into this irregular outfit (still to be named). Remaining members could focus on the role-playing of officers upon which the club was founded.
The end result would be (I hope) that the military sides would be strengthened in their organization, and those members who were not interested in participating in the military would still have access to the club.
I need to state that this idea goes against every fiber of my strict, law-and-order being. But I recognize that there are those who see things differently than I do and who remain in the club only for access to gaming buddies, and to the technical support provided through shared experiences. For that reason, I am bringing up this idea for your consideration and discussion.
Oh, and the Subject title of this post (“Irregulars – Missouri Compromise of 2020”)? I’m from Missouri. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was one of the early efforts to settle the sectional differences that eventually led to the outbreak of open hostilities between the North and the South. That compromise did not settle things, but were one of a series of attempts that at least prevented open conflict for another 40 years. If this adjustment can help our club continue for another 40 years, I think it will be worth it.
Now it’s your turn. What do you think? Let’s hear your thoughts.
ACWGC 
ACWGC Memorial
CSA HQ
VMI
Join CSA
Union HQ
Join Union 
Login
FAQ
Search
Members
