American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:44 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm
Posts: 576
[b]ACWGC - SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL[/b
]

Gentlemen of the ACWGC <Salute>

In accordance with Club Rule 9.0, changes to the Club Rules are proposed as below. These changes establish a new ACWGC-wide award for Special Service to the Club (Special Service Medal, SSM), revise OBD award points for the ACWGC Legion of Merit Award (LOM) and clarify aspects and procedures for both awards.

BACKGROUND

The LOM was established in 2006. Since that time, it has been awarded 20 times, twice to 3 Officers. Eight of the officers who have received the LOM are still serving in administrative positions for the ACWGC. Without exception, the award of the LOM was made to officers with a long record of service to the ACWGC. Currently, thirty OBD points are awarded for the LOM.
The SSM is a new award proposed to recognize short term service or acts which provide a significant Club-wide benefit performed by members who may not have long tenure.

Your comments on this proposal are hereby requested. Your comments should be posted in a reply to this thread in the MDT by January 23, 2022.

PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

4.2.3.2 Limits - No single officer may receive more than 20 Conduct Points in any given month.

Change to Read as:

4.2.3.2 Limits - No single officer may receive more than 20 Conduct Points in any given month. Any Conduct Points awarded commensurate with the receipt of an ACWGC-wide award are not included in this 20 Conduct Point monthly limitation. An officer may receive 20 Conduct Points from his/her military group, plus the number of points associated with any ACWGC-wide awards received.

6.1 Medals and other special awards may be conferred by the two military groups, individually. ACWGC-wide medals may be conferred by the Cabinet.

Change to Read as:

6.1 Medals and other special awards may be conferred by the two military groups separately. In exceptional circumstances, and with the concurrence of both CoAs, awards from one group may be given to members of the other group. Any ACWGC-wide medals and special awards may be conferred only by the Cabinet.

6.1.1 ACWGC-wide Medals.

6.1.1 Legion of Merit (LOM)

6.1.1.1 Intent. The intent of the LOM is to recognize exceptional long-term service to the ACWGC as a whole in one or more positions of importance to the ACWGC.

6.1.1.2 OBD Points. 200 OBD points are awarded to the LOM recipient by the cabinet. The recipient’s CoA will annotate the officer’s record in the DoR.

6.1.1.3 Procedure. Any member may recommend another officer for award of the LOM. Recommending officers will forward their recommendations and supporting information through the chain of command to the CoA. The CoA will judge the merits of the recommendation and may forward to the Cabinet for approval or take other action he/she deems appropriate. The CoA will inform the recommending officer and his/her chain of command and the Cabinet of his/her decision. The Cabinet will approve/disapprove the award through simple majority vote. Information supporting the nomination will clearly describe the type and duration of the service performed and the exceptional nature of the recommended officer’s performance of that service.

6.1.1.4 Limitations. Only active officers may forward recommendations for award of the LOM. Only active officers may receive the LOM. There is no limit to the number of LOMs an officer may receive for additional long-term service that merit the award. The LOM will not be awarded retroactively.

6.1.2 Special Service Medal (SSM)

6.1.2.1 Intent. The intent of the SSM is to recognize exceptional execution of a particular task performed over a short period of time that is of significant benefit to the ACWGC as a whole.

6.1.2.2 OBD Points. 100 OBD points are awarded to the SSM recipient by the Cabinet. The recipient’s CoA will annotate the officer’s record in the DoR.

6.1.2.3 Procedure. Any member may recommend another officer for award of the SSM. Recommending officers will forward their recommendations and supporting information through the chain of command to the CoA. The CoA will judge the merits of the recommendation and may forward to the Cabinet for approval or take other action he/she deems appropriate. The CoA will inform the recommending officer and his/her chain of command and the Cabinet of his/her decision. The Cabinet will approve/disapprove the award through simple majority vote. Information supporting the nomination will clearly indicate why the officer is recommended for the award.

6.1.2.4 Limitations. Only active officers may forward recommendations for award of the SSM. Only active officers may receive the SSM. There is no limit to the number of SSMs an officer may receive for separate acts that merit the award. The SSM will not be awarded retroactively.

_______________________________________________
The Cabinet will consider comments received on the proposed rule changes and move forward to put the Final Rules before the membership for their vote to approve or not approve the rule changes.

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary

UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:24 pm
Posts: 1145
Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
Don't want to stray from topic right away but I always thought that OBD points associated with awards are not any of the listed "3 types"(Engagement, Administration, Conduct) of OBD points.
That is because the rules state a contingent of conduction points, and while it is large I find it still pretty strange if any side would have a contingent that limits them to award awards that officers have earned.
Sometimes many pieces fall into place and that awarding would be needed to be dragged out to respect this contingent would be a concept that makes even less sense.

So, wouldn't it be better to expand the "3 types" with a 4th type that encompasses OBD points by awards, and by that save lengthy extensions to the rules as proposed now?

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image
"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:25 am
Posts: 1022
Location: USA
Walt Dortch wrote:
[b]ACWGC - SPECIAL SERVICE MEDAL[/b
]

Gentlemen of the ACWGC <Salute>

In accordance with Club Rule 9.0, changes to the Club Rules are proposed as below. These changes establish a new ACWGC-wide award for Special Service to the Club (Special Service Medal, SSM), revise OBD award points for the ACWGC Legion of Merit Award (LOM) and clarify aspects and procedures for both awards.

BACKGROUND

The LOM was established in 2006. Since that time, it has been awarded 20 times, twice to 3 Officers. Eight of the officers who have received the LOM are still serving in administrative positions for the ACWGC. Without exception, the award of the LOM was made to officers with a long record of service to the ACWGC. Currently, thirty OBD points are awarded for the LOM.
The SSM is a new award proposed to recognize short term service or acts which provide a significant Club-wide benefit performed by members who may not have long tenure.

Your comments on this proposal are hereby requested. Your comments should be posted in a reply to this thread in the MDT by January 23, 2022.

PROPOSED RULE CHANGES

4.2.3.2 Limits - No single officer may receive more than 20 Conduct Points in any given month.

Change to Read as:

4.2.3.2 Limits - No single officer may receive more than 20 Conduct Points in any given month. Any Conduct Points awarded commensurate with the receipt of an ACWGC-wide award are not included in this 20 Conduct Point monthly limitation. An officer may receive 20 Conduct Points from his/her military group, plus the number of points associated with any ACWGC-wide awards received.

6.1 Medals and other special awards may be conferred by the two military groups, individually. ACWGC-wide medals may be conferred by the Cabinet.

Change to Read as:

6.1 Medals and other special awards may be conferred by the two military groups separately. In exceptional circumstances, and with the concurrence of both CoAs, awards from one group may be given to members of the other group. Any ACWGC-wide medals and special awards may be conferred only by the Cabinet.

6.1.1 ACWGC-wide Medals.

6.1.1 Legion of Merit (LOM)

6.1.1.1 Intent. The intent of the LOM is to recognize exceptional long-term service to the ACWGC as a whole in one or more positions of importance to the ACWGC.

6.1.1.2 OBD Points. 200 OBD points are awarded to the LOM recipient by the cabinet. The recipient’s CoA will annotate the officer’s record in the DoR.

6.1.1.3 Procedure. Any member may recommend another officer for award of the LOM. Recommending officers will forward their recommendations and supporting information through the chain of command to the CoA. The CoA will judge the merits of the recommendation and may forward to the Cabinet for approval or take other action he/she deems appropriate. The CoA will inform the recommending officer and his/her chain of command and the Cabinet of his/her decision. The Cabinet will approve/disapprove the award through simple majority vote. Information supporting the nomination will clearly describe the type and duration of the service performed and the exceptional nature of the recommended officer’s performance of that service.

6.1.1.4 Limitations. Only active officers may forward recommendations for award of the LOM. Only active officers may receive the LOM. There is no limit to the number of LOMs an officer may receive for additional long-term service that merit the award. The LOM will not be awarded retroactively.

6.1.2 Special Service Medal (SSM)

6.1.2.1 Intent. The intent of the SSM is to recognize exceptional execution of a particular task performed over a short period of time that is of significant benefit to the ACWGC as a whole.

6.1.2.2 OBD Points. 100 OBD points are awarded to the SSM recipient by the Cabinet. The recipient’s CoA will annotate the officer’s record in the DoR.

6.1.2.3 Procedure. Any member may recommend another officer for award of the SSM. Recommending officers will forward their recommendations and supporting information through the chain of command to the CoA. The CoA will judge the merits of the recommendation and may forward to the Cabinet for approval or take other action he/she deems appropriate. The CoA will inform the recommending officer and his/her chain of command and the Cabinet of his/her decision. The Cabinet will approve/disapprove the award through simple majority vote. Information supporting the nomination will clearly indicate why the officer is recommended for the award.

6.1.2.4 Limitations. Only active officers may forward recommendations for award of the SSM. Only active officers may receive the SSM. There is no limit to the number of SSMs an officer may receive for separate acts that merit the award. The SSM will not be awarded retroactively.

_______________________________________________
The Cabinet will consider comments received on the proposed rule changes and move forward to put the Final Rules before the membership for their vote to approve or not approve the rule changes.


I should have noticed this during Cabinet review, but there are two rules in the proposed changes numbered 6.1.1. The Legion of Merit should be numbered 6.1.2, and the sub-items under that item should be numbered 6.1.2.1, 6.1.2.2, etc. The Special Service Medal, currently proposed as rule number 6.1.2, should be renumbered 6.1.3, and the sub-items under that should be renumbered 6.1.3.1, 6.1.3.2, etc. That, or simply remove the first 6.1.1 (which simply says "ACWGC-wide Medals").

_________________
General 'Dee Dubya' Mallory
Chief of the Armies, CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
This looks like an extraordinary amount of work but I do not see the point of it.

I note that Rule 6.1 currently says:
"Medals and other special awards may be conferred by the two military groups, individually. Club-wide medals may be conferred by the Cabinet."
Changing 'Club-wide' to read 'ACWGC-wide' in that rule does nothing as Rule 1.1 already allows ACWGC to be referred to as the Club (and when it's capitalised we all know what 'Club' means anyway).
Why the need for such lengthy changes to the rules? The existing Rule 6.1 already gives the Cabinet to issue Club-wide medals at their discretion. If you want to issue new Club-wide medals or awards you simply do it, there's no need for more rules. Equally, the same existing rule gives each army the power to issue medals and awards for their own groups and, presumably, to withdraw them as occurred recently with most CSA awards and medals [even though the rule doesn't specify that such a thing is possible it is implied].

I also fail to see why Cabinet is spending such effort on a matter like this. My failure to see the point is probably related to the fact that I simply don't understand the desire for amassing OBD points. Once you've reached the minimum necessary number for the maximum promotion (800 - which isn't hard) then anything more is superfluous. My concern is that the Cabinet has spent much time and effort on making major changes to the rules to implement something that is of no real benefit to the Club at all (simply introducing one new award and writing out procedures for one that already existed [existed without the need for any rule changes!]). The focus should be on recruitment and retention. To that we need to attract more people to the Club (some efforts are being made in that regard) and importantly to keep those that are currently members content so they remain with us.

I understand from my brief stint as ANV Commander that there are concerns about retaining members, especially newer ones.

Newer members are leaving us after a short period of time [why? the answer must be that the Club is not fulfilling what they hoped when they joined].

Surely there's a lot that can be done for them and all members as I suspect the newer ones are leaving because they are losing too often. To that end, Cabinet should be working on actions that address that problem rather than writing new rules. Some actions that may help encourage participation and assist those less experienced are:
Encourage and increase participation through tournaments and the like (already well addressed thanks to Blake Strickler);
Perhaps add a new competition solely for those ranked Captain to Colonel (similar to Lieutenant's Cup but for those with some limited experience as their ranking suggests);
Provide access to advanced training for newer members (I originally thought this should be done by Divisional and Corps Commanders but some may not be able or willing so other experienced and skilled wargamers may also assist); and
Look at devising some 'seeding' methodology for members [with 10 or more completed battles] so it is known at a glance how good your possible opponents are likely to be which should help stop less experienced or less able opponents from being severely beaten by others. If they still want to play a game against them they are free to do so but they know from the start what they are likely to face.

Please, no more rules and procedures, If you want to implement a new award, just do it. Please spend more time and effort on more important things for the benefit of the Club as a whole.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:45 pm
Posts: 114
Morning,

I know I haven’t been here long, which may actually be good on this topic. I agree with much of what Paul is saying. There should be more opportunity to play opponents that are at my skill level. This would, as he mentioned in his post, probably help in retention rates as new members would have a greater chance of at least a competitive match. How to determine likely matches? I know the Blitz club uses a ELO system like chess. Maybe something similar could be implemented? I dont have a perfect solution but Mr. Swanson is on the right track with his post.

The Lt Cup was great and the training matches are an awesome start. The ACW is doing so much right for new members right now (as compares to any other club), but extending that and then making short and long term members more interested should be the next step. Medals appear to be the thinking now, but honestly, not sure if thats as important to some as maybe others.

Tournaments should definitely continue! I just wish I had more WDS/JT games on my cpu to participate!

Respectfully,
JJ

_________________
Lt. Colonel JJ Jansen
3rd Calvary Brigade, 4th Calvary Division
Army of Tennessee

CSA


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
I agree with both Paul and Josh. Adding new medals when there are more important things (and fun things) to be doing and considering seems like taking a step backwards. With both sides dramatically reducing their overall awards the Cabinet seems out of step here. The recent club survey found awards were only important to 6% of our membership. Also, that OBD point accumulation was only important to 6% as well. Yet, this proposal is seeking to expand awards and greatly increase their OBD point distribution. It doesn't make sense.

Since 2006 the Legion of Merit has served as the only club-wide medal offered by the Cabinet. In its history the Legion of Merit has been awarded twenty times to seventeen different individuals. The list of awardees includes some of the very finest Members this Club has ever known. Men who donated their own time, energy, and skill, to make this the best Civil War gaming Club on the internet.

The Legion of Merit has no formal criteria. Did you know that? When announced in 2006 it was, as DW Mallory said at the time, for “distinguished club-wide service.” That was it. Since then, it has served its purpose very well. It is still the most respected medal this Club offers. It is unique. It is our Holy Grail of Awards.

The Legion of Merit has always been available to all members regardless of the time it took them to achieve it or the time they have been in the Club. If this proposal passes, that will no longer be the case. They would need to display “long-term service” first to earn it. I don’t think that’s fair.

If it is not broken, do not fix it.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm
Posts: 576
Generals Strickler and Swanson

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the SSM Proposal. I have clarifying questions for the both of you.

General Swanson:

Given that work has been completed to develop the proposal (not extraordinary by any means) and the Rule change proposed is in fact a minor one, and assuming that most if not all the other work you suggest be done has been completed or underway do you believe establishing the second Club-wide for the purposes described is bad business?

General Strickler:

No one has suggested the LOM is “broken.” During our discussion of this proposal within the Cabinet you asked for examples of the kinds of acts that would warrant award of the SSM by the Cabinet. I responded with the following:

-An officer who has been in the club for one year designs a new website that can be used by both sides to track awards.

-An officer who has been in the Club for 10 years as a Brigade Commander does the same thing.

-An officer with no other Club administrative service goes to work for Ernie Sands and makes modifications to the DOR that will automate awards, and other things I have heard folks say it could and should do.

-By ingenious means our Recruiting Officer recruits 100 members in one year.

-Do you believe that taken individually any of these acts warrants award of the LOM? Do you believe that recognition of this work by the Cabinet is bad business?


Respectfully,

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary

UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
Walt Dortch wrote:
General Strickler:

No one has suggested the LOM is “broken.” During our discussion of this proposal within the Cabinet you asked for examples of the kinds of acts that would warrant award of the SSM by the Cabinet. I responded with the following:

-An officer who has been in the club for one year designs a new website that can be used by both sides to track awards.

-An officer who has been in the Club for 10 years as a Brigade Commander does the same thing.

-An officer with no other Club administrative service goes to work for Ernie Sands and makes modifications to the DOR that will automate awards, and other things I have heard folks say it could and should do.

-By ingenious means our Recruiting Officer recruits 100 members in one year.

-Do you believe that taken individually any of these acts warrants award of the LOM? Do you believe that recognition of this work by the Cabinet is bad business?


Hello Walt,

I must, respectfully, continue to oppose this proposal.

The better question is "why do these actions NOT deserve the Legion of Merit?" From now on, for each and every person nominated for a Club award, such as described above, you and the Cabinet will have to answer why they DON'T deserve our highest honor.

Are the above accomplishments you listed just not that important? Does increasing our membership by 30% warrant a half-valued award? Does doing substantial work on the DoR to make it run better mean you only get a secondary award?

According to the proposed rule change the answer is - yes. They do NOT get the highest honor of our Club for their substantial and club-altering work. They have not performed their service over a "long" period and, therefore, are ineligible for the LoM.

If any of the above actions are accomplished by any member, they deserve the LoM regardless of the time it took them to perform the task. The LoM is not a medal exclusively for the long-time service - it is meant for everyone who does something substantial - regardless of any time considerations. That's the way it has always been and should be.

According to the criteria you just proposed all of the actions listed are ineligible for the LoM because they do not meet the criteria of "long-term service." Despite the fact that one took "one year" and makes me wonder what "long-term" really means. But your one and only differential between the LoM and the SSM is... time. One award for those who have impacted the Club quickly, and one award for those who have impacted the club over a longer period.

Not differentiating the medals with criteria other than time was the problem here. A second award could be in order but only if it is substantially different, in every way, than the Legion of Merit. The SSM is simply the Legion of Merit Jr. Nobody wants that.

If there is nothing wrong with the Legion of Merit... then why are you trying to change it?

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Walt Dortch wrote:
Generals Strickler and Swanson

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback on the SSM Proposal. I have clarifying questions for the both of you.

General Swanson:

Given that work has been completed to develop the proposal (not extraordinary by any means) and the Rule change proposed is in fact a minor one, and assuming that most if not all the other work you suggest be done has been completed or underway do you believe establishing the second Club-wide for the purposes described is bad business?


Merely wasted effort. The existing rule already exists to provide for such things as I explained. As I said "If you want to issue new Club-wide medals or awards you simply do it, there's no need for more rules." As for the OBD points that go with it I see them as largely superfluous as "I simply don't understand the desire for amassing OBD points".

I'm sure that there are important things that could be worked on to benefit the Club as a whole (some ideas were listed in my last post).

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm
Posts: 576
Gentlemen.

To Blakes most recent:

Blake: "According to the criteria you just proposed all of the actions listed are ineligible for the LoM because they do not meet the criteria of "long-term service." Despite the fact that one took "one year" and makes me wonder what "long-term" really means. But your one and only differential between the LoM and the SSM is... time. One award for those who have impacted the Club quickly, and one award for those who have impacted the club over a longer period."

You are correct. What I think it means is service over several years at least. This is not an “only” kind of difference but a very significant one. I take this view based on a careful review of the citations that have come with the award since 2006. If others wish to review these it is easy to do here: https://www.acwgc.net/acwgcmedals

I quote here the citation for the award to General Matt Perrenod in 2011:

General Matt Perrenod, 159th member of the American Civil War Game Club, leaves the Club today with an active duty record that stretches back to June of 2001, fully ten and a quarter years! During that time he has accumulated what can only be described as one of the most successful game records ever posted by an ACWGC Union officer; 65 – 20 – 29 – 5 – 7. His OBD Point total stands at 2,636, making him the 10th ranking “Top Gun” within the Union Army officer corps.

General Perrenod was assigned to the Union Field Army of the Shenandoah. Within a very short time he had volunteered his time to become the Assistant Commandant of the Union War College (now Union Army Library), maintaining that post from April, 2002 through June, 2003. During that time he was, himself, a frequent contributor of articles to both the Schools of Tactical Doctrine and Operational Planning. His article on BGC, Scenario #10h, “Chickamauga,” in the later school, is a classical account of the Union defensive capabilities, expectations and personal stamina. That article led to his excellent Strategy Guide to BGC, Scenario # 10a, “Chickamauga,” which earned him the War College Prize III in 2003. So also of particular note is his general article in the former school, Battlefield Intelligence Methods for Battleground ACW Games.

The record shows that General Perrenod took effective and enduring command of the VIII Corps sometime between June of 2004 and July of 2005, a position he kept until March of 2007. That next month he became the Superintendent of the Union Military Academy, the position he has so expertly held up until this time.

As one would expect, General Perrenod is a very highly decorated officer, holding the Union Army’s Medal of Honor, the Outstanding Service Medal (twice awarded), the Distinguished Service Medal, and is a two-time winner of the Sheridan Combat Medal. He holds nine campaign ribbons, twenty-eight battlefield ribbons, five FMV’s, and six different tournament ribbons.

A high bar is set here, and it think it should be maintained not "diluted" by dropping the long-term service component as a primary basis for its award.

Anticipating a response from you, I also believe that the accumulation of several SSM's would qualify a member for consideration of the LOM award.

Respectfully,

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary

UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm
Posts: 576
General Swanson:

I asked you this question:

"Given that work has been completed to develop the proposal (not extraordinary by any means) and the Rule change proposed is in fact a minor one, and assuming that most if not all the other work you suggest be done has been completed or underway do you believe establishing the second Club-wide for the purposes described is bad business?"

My replies to you answer are shown in bold text.

Merely wasted effort. The existing rule already exists to provide for such things as I explained. The procedural matters are not at issue here. Some have a different view than you as to whether a rule change is needed or not. The matter at hand is whether a SSM should be established. As I said, "If you want to issue new Club-wide medals or awards you simply do it, there's no need for more rules." Ditto previous. As for the OBD points that go with it I see them as largely superfluous as "I simply don't understand the desire for amassing OBD points". Yet again. This is not issue here. The CSA recently made awards to CSA Officers who have earned more than 1000 OBD points. We have completed two surveys of Club Members and know this is important to some members.

I'm sure that there are important things that could be worked on to benefit the Club as a whole (some ideas were listed in my last post). All but one of your suggestions (a 'seeding' methodology) are presently being undertaken.

I think creating the award fits squarely with the address retention priority. Both sides are now undertaking an effort to contact recent club members (2019-2021) who have quit responding to muster requests. I expect, like you do, that some have quit because they get whipped all the time (and as noted that is being addressed). Other because of real life issues. Another reason may be that they felt the awards system is biased towards older members. I believe that recognizing a new member who may be wavering but who has a special talent and steps to use it and is recognized promptly for doing so might just stay on. And for that reason alone, I think we should move forward with this proposal. Now, if you disagree with this, that is where we can leave it and at least we have identified what the real disagreement with the proposal is.

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary

UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Walt Dortch wrote:
General Swanson:

I asked you this question:

"Given that work has been completed to develop the proposal (not extraordinary by any means) and the Rule change proposed is in fact a minor one, and assuming that most if not all the other work you suggest be done has been completed or underway do you believe establishing the second Club-wide for the purposes described is bad business?"

My replies to you answer are shown in bold text.

Merely wasted effort. The existing rule already exists to provide for such things as I explained. The procedural matters are not at issue here. Some have a different view than you as to whether a rule change is needed or not. The matter at hand is whether a SSM should be established. As I said, "If you want to issue new Club-wide medals or awards you simply do it, there's no need for more rules." Ditto previous. As for the OBD points that go with it I see them as largely superfluous as "I simply don't understand the desire for amassing OBD points". Yet again. This is not issue here. The CSA recently made awards to CSA Officers who have earned more than 1000 OBD points. We have completed two surveys of Club Members and know this is important to some members.

I'm sure that there are important things that could be worked on to benefit the Club as a whole (some ideas were listed in my last post). All but one of your suggestions (a 'seeding' methodology) are presently being undertaken.

I think creating the award fits squarely with the address retention priority. Both sides are now undertaking an effort to contact recent club members (2019-2021) who have quit responding to muster requests. I expect, like you do, that some have quit because they get whipped all the time (and as noted that is being addressed). Other because of real life issues. Another reason may be that they felt the awards system is biased towards older members. I believe that recognizing a new member who may be wavering but who has a special talent and steps to use it and is recognized promptly for doing so might just stay on. And for that reason alone, I think we should move forward with this proposal. Now, if you disagree with this, that is where we can leave it and at least we have identified what the real disagreement with the proposal is.


1. "Some have a different view than you as to whether a rule change is needed or not."
Apparently so, however I would contend that as the LoM already exists then it and any other Club-wide medal the Cabinet decides to issue are already covered by the existing rule. Thus no need for any new additional rules on this matter.

2. "All but one of your suggestions (a 'seeding' methodology) are presently being undertaken."
Fine. Then this is the sort of thing [of benefit to the Club as a whole] that should be put forward to members for discussion instead of more rules and procedures. There may well be other members who have some ideas that can be considered. I would see such things as a priority over and above new awards with OBD points that are only "important to some members".

3. "I think we should move forward with this proposal."
For what it's worth my vote is 'no'. Reason - as argued in #1 above, the existing Rule 6.1 already provides for such awards and if Cabinet is of one mind that it a new award should be implemented then the power already exists to do so and therefore there's no need for lengthier rules on this matter.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:55 pm
Posts: 576
Latest from General Swanson my responses in bold text.

1. "Some have a different view than you as to whether a rule change is needed or not."
Apparently so, however I would contend that as the LoM already exists then it and any other Club-wide medal the Cabinet decides to issue are already covered by the existing rule. Thus no need for any new additional rules on this matter. I already addressed this.

2. "All but one of your suggestions (a 'seeding' methodology) are presently being undertaken."
Fine. Then this is the sort of thing [of benefit to the Club as a whole] that should be put forward to members for discussion instead of more rules and procedures. There may well be other members who have some ideas that can be considered. I would see such things as a priority over and above new awards with OBD points that are only "important to some members". You are free put forward any such suggestions to your AC or on the Cabinet Proposal Thread in the MDT and I encourage you to do so. I assure you we will take on priorities that are identified by most members.


3. "I think we should move forward with this proposal."
For what it's worth my vote is 'no'. Reason - as argued in #1 above, the existing Rule 6.1 already provides for such awards and if Cabinet is of one mind that it a new award should be implemented then the power already exists to do so and therefore there's no need for lengthier rules on this matter. You did not answer my basic question as to whether it is worth it to adopt this proposal if it helps to retain new members in our Club. I look forward to receiving you answer to this question.

_________________
Walter A. Dortch
Commanding -/4/V AotP
UA Cabinet Secretary

UA Operations Officer
UA Wolverine Team Leader


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Walt Dortch wrote:
Latest from General Swanson my responses in bold text.

1. "Some have a different view than you as to whether a rule change is needed or not."
Apparently so, however I would contend that as the LoM already exists then it and any other Club-wide medal the Cabinet decides to issue are already covered by the existing rule. Thus no need for any new additional rules on this matter. I already addressed this.

2. "All but one of your suggestions (a 'seeding' methodology) are presently being undertaken."
Fine. Then this is the sort of thing [of benefit to the Club as a whole] that should be put forward to members for discussion instead of more rules and procedures. There may well be other members who have some ideas that can be considered. I would see such things as a priority over and above new awards with OBD points that are only "important to some members". You are free put forward any such suggestions to your AC or on the Cabinet Proposal Thread in the MDT and I encourage you to do so. I assure you we will take on priorities that are identified by most members.


3. "I think we should move forward with this proposal."
For what it's worth my vote is 'no'. Reason - as argued in #1 above, the existing Rule 6.1 already provides for such awards and if Cabinet is of one mind that it a new award should be implemented then the power already exists to do so and therefore there's no need for lengthier rules on this matter. You did not answer my basic question as to whether it is worth it to adopt this proposal if it helps to retain new members in our Club. I look forward to receiving you answer to this question.


1. Ditto

2. LOL. You (and others in Cabinet) got those suggestions from me back in mid-November last year in an email titled 'Retention Analysis' (including a hint at the seeding when I said "The 'Opponent Finder Forum' does provide a good opportunity for those of similar interests to find an opponent but is 'hit or miss' in terms of matching those with similar abilities."]).
I am unsure how you can identify the priorities of "most members" if you do not put such things before them. After all, it is only now, after I have raised them in this public forum that you even admitted that "All but one of your suggestions (a 'seeding' methodology) are presently being undertaken." How were members previously to know this? When was it anticipated that they would given the opportunity to voice their opinions?

3. I repeat: "For what it's worth my vote is 'no'." Additionally, I do not know if such a thing would help "to retain new members in our Club". I suspect not as where is the evidence that shows that a member would choose to stay because they have an outside chance of a gong and a handful of OBD points.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tom Moore and 117 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group