Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Salute!

Jeff Bardon wrote:
I disagree with having the cabinet above the CiC or vice versa. Neither can replace the other, so they should be the highest authorities within their respective areas.

Reading the current rules (under Maxims/Principles front page NWC) describing the role of the Cabinet in this club under general duties (which implies more not listed) it clearly states resolving officer grievances.

It is no stretch to imagine that a particular officer's grievance could well result in the dismissal of a CiC or any other officer of an army.

To think otherwise is to believe that a CiC of a club army is above all others, and can do as he will - and that is not the case.

It takes the Cabinet to overrule a CiC.

And for someone who believes that there is no check on a President they may think is abusing their authority in some way, they have the same recourse - an appeal to the Cabinet as a whole to challenge the situation.

But, and here is the difference, the member who wishes to appeal a decision by the President cannot appeal to a CiC in that person's role as CiC of an army.

They may appeal only to that person who besides being a CiC also sits (by rules as presently constructed) upon the Cabinet.

Regards,

Well that would be an issue and is a question I must ask directly to the cabinet for clarification:

Under the rules as written, can the cabinet dismiss a CiC?

I don't see that listed as something they can do and certainly do not feel that is appropriate.

The rule should be: "each side of the club has one overall Commander in Chief who is responsible XX XXX XXXXXX for all of the administrative duties associated with the command of all armies on his side of the club."

The CiC is accountable to the officers in their respective armies, not to the cabinet.

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

Salute!

The current rule states: Permits forum for officer grievances.

It is this rule which applies when one member brings before the Cabinet matters such as cheating, rude posts in the forums, unfair treatment, etc.

There has to be a higher authority than the individual army commanders otherwise such a person could do whatever they wanted without check - and that is absolutely not the case.

The Cabinet has final authority over every member of the club, otherwise you have anarchy.
And though one might think that the forums are anarchic from time to time - they are not, really.

The only members who should have an issue with this fact are those who like to cheat, to have multiple memberships, compose rude posts, and otherwise mistreat other members, or abuse their perceived power and authority.

Think about it - it was the Cabinet who kicked out the aforementioned cheaters and those with faked memberships.

It wasn't the CiC of an army in that role.

And this authority does not mean the Cabinet is going to be telling the armies what medals they can award (though I suppose they could step in if an army was handing out medals from a different historical era and country even...), what officers are assigned to which regiments, etc, etc.

This invested authority is why it is important that the Cabinet positions all be elected, not just the President - as this way we all have a say in what is happening in our club.

Regards,

Different branches of government as it were, so the appropriate scope of authority should be defined. The cabinet is the appropriate forum to resolve serious grievances and if the issue is expulsion, then yes that is serious, and it should be resolved by the cabinet.

The CiC should have authority to manage the operations of the army without interference from the cabinet. They are not accountable to the cabinet for the number of corps in an army, which OOB is utilized, what methods are used for training recruits, how many command positions there are at general rank or above, the specific duties of officers at varying levels of command, the method and frequency of muster or reporting. There is no need for the cabinet to involve itself in such things.

That's not anarchy, that's defining roles. If I complain about the way a muster is conducted, I expect the cabinet to refer me back to the CiC, with the admonition that they are free to manage it in the way that they choose.

The cabinet should not be trying to overly legislate club activities and instead promote a flexible framework so we can focus on playing games as a social club.

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

Salute!

Jeff Bardon wrote:
The CiC should have authority to manage the operations of the army without interference from the cabinet. They are not accountable to the cabinet for the number of corps in an army, which OOB is utilized, what methods are used for training recruits, how many command positions there are at general rank or above, the specific duties of officers at varying levels of command, the method and frequency of muster or reporting. There is no need for the cabinet to involve itself in such things.

Ah good sir, and whenever has the cabinet declared the number of corps in an army?
Which OOB is utilized, what methods are used for training recruits, how many command positions there are at general rank or above?

Even the method and frequency of muster or reporting?

None of these things are set forth by the Cabinet.

And should an officer complain about the style or frequency of a muster to the Cabinet, unless some form of gross misconduct therein is proven - I think it is obvious that the Cabinet would refer the matter back to the appropriate channels of command.

Again, whenever has the Cabinet tried to impress any of these things upon an army?

Regards,

_________________
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 may have misunderstood something somewhere but from what I can see the desires of our beloved Guard commander is in the proposed rules underlined here:

3.1.1 - General Cabinet Duties
The duties of the Cabinet are broad, and include the various administrative aspects of running the club that lie outside the daily administration of the individual armies. Cabinet duties are generally focused on the matters arising in our club that have a larger impact on the membership as a whole.

I don't see any reference to dictating how the armies are run as such. If you go on and read the army commander and chief of staff stuff its all there as Marechal Bardon and indeed I prefer!

I agree the armies are separate from cabinet and from what I can see the proposed rules say this. Perhaps I have misunderstood though.
Happy to be corrected.

I feel this rules debate is not serving our club well. Sadly.

Salute to all.

_________________
Marechal Knox

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

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

_________________
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

_________________
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 guess you may well be right on both counts. I don't really see it this way but I can understand why others might.

I don't really feel that worried by these new rules as many seem too and will probably vote in favour of them still. It will be interesting to see how many will vote and which way it goes.

But as I am really here for the battles like Muddy and Mr Nemesis earlier I am going to step out now.

Respects to all my friends and kind regards

_________________
Marechal Knox

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

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Salute!

Marechal Knox quoted from the proposed rules:

The duties of the Cabinet are broad, and include the various administrative aspects of running the club that lie outside the daily administration of the individual armies. Cabinet duties are generally focused on the matters arising in our club that have a larger impact on the membership as a whole.

Yes indeed!

And then he wrote:

I feel this rules debate is not serving our club well. Sadly.

I feel this debate is serving our club very well, as it is the future we are discussing, and communication of ideas are important between the membership.

David Guegan asked if the Cabinet has a regulatory or sanctioning function?
Yes it does.

And then he asks how there can be two branches of the club, but one over the other:

The armies run themselves within the general parameters established by the rules of the club - there are rules at this present time listed on the front web page of the club, that very clearly dictate aspects of the army functions - indeed the awarding of points for rank, how game points are awarded, responsibilities of the army commanders, etc.

There is nothing new here.

Separate branches based on function, not on total autonomy from oversight of the one by the other.

We are talking about serious issues that effect the membership on the whole - and if an individual army commander were to be riding roughshod over the rights of the membership, that would be the time and place for the cabinet to intervene - not over how the daily functions occur - no one is saying that.

Regards,

[quote]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.[/quote]

I agree with all the points that Jeff brought up. If two players have games listed in the records, why should the validity be questioned. Because there is wording "MAY REQUEST" does actually mean that AT SOME TIME someone WILL request. It is no idle threat, but a threat to the integrity of ANY member.

What is the real reason to BAR past members from the forums? Has someone been posting messages that they should not post? As soon as a member is found to be INACTIVE, he is effectively BANNED from the club. Quite heavy handed moves by the cabinet.

_________________
Ernie Sands
1ère Brigade of 2ème Division de Grosse Cavalerie, Réserve de Cavalerie
de la Grande Armée
President, Colonial Campaigns Club

3 hours ................
It took me 3 hours to read the rules of the club, the current and the new proposal.
I have also read all this thread, messages Scott, Colin, Todd, etc ... and the truth is that it was very interesting, it is thanks to these "discussions" where things are taken more clear.
Keep in mind that not mastered the English and use the "wonderful" google translator (for that reason I was late to read all).

Firstly thank cabinet effort to set new rules of the club, have been considerably extended without being too extensive.
He had pointed many things to say but some seemed to me that did not have much meaning for example someone has written that because the rules did not change before vote on them, I think you first have to vote what is proposed and if the majority does not match is when you can change.

There are some "hot" issues that have been addressed, I start them.

Section 2.2: "The army, or Club, Command may request a copy of the email and file exchange between opponents game at any time whether a game is actually in the game arises."

This point may seem rather confrontational, aggressive, but I do not think so, if I play usually have nothing to fear, do not think I go to I ask any mail and if they do is mine work ask why reason and would have to give me explanations, I think it's just a tool to avoid "fakes" in no time I think I use lightly.

The theme of the activity at the club, put "inactive" partners, I think there are different ways of being "active" and if not you can always send an email to the commander of the French army or commander or the coalition or President saying for example "for work .......", "for personal reasons I will be gone a few days, months, etc ..."

What I do not understand theme musters, to serve, if the partners are already active through participation in the forum or playing a game to serve musters with them to answer their commander and worth to considered "active"?

Finally the moment comment as others have cast that just expand a little more voting period would not be bad, for such an important topic because alarge a little more would not pass anything.

Regards.

_________________

General de Brigada Jose Angel "Trane" Barredo.
Comandante de la Brigada Española.

Salute!

Ernie Sands wrote: 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

I must say that it is amazing to me that so many members are deeply concerned about allowing the Army or Club (Cabinet) to request copy of game file from players suspected of cheating.

Heavy handed? And what pray tell is cheating?

Easily faked? Well, right now such a person doesn't have to fake it - they just report the imaginary game as complete, should they now be required to prove it with providing a game file, the easy part I guess as inferred is that said person would have to actually be playing the game out between himself for example, making the moves, etc, etc, and I dare say that is not easy compared to just reporting the faked game.

Ernie then asked about: 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

The implication of deactivating Forum and DoR Accounts of Inactive members on the same day that the members are determined to be Inactive, very much implies that every effort was made to determine the status of the said member - i.e., they have had their grace period.

And, as Mark Jones pointed out in a post on this very subject, should a member who was deactivated (my words now: because he took an around the world trip by canoe without bothering to let anyone know, and was gone from any club activity for the years this trip took) upon desire to return simply goes to the club web page and clicks on Contact Us.

Deactivation does not mean banned, it simply means you are not currently active - as one's own actions have provided the evidence of.

Any person may reapply for admittance to the club - only cheaters and fakers need not re-apply.

And suddenly, you are active again.

Membership in this club is nowhere stated as for life, no matter what you do - if we never see you logged into the forum for 10 plus years, and you haven't registered a game in as long, and you have ignored every email sent to inquire as to your health and well being, which you did not deign to respond to, don't worry, your account is still active - your old regiment awaits your return...

A member's status is at all times in their hands - it is called communication.
Communication with the club to which you volunteered to join.
Anyone who cannot be bothered to make contact with their club for the period of time required to confirm one's active membership - when they are the one's making themselves inactive really have only themselves to blame.

And to follow up on some of the above, Ernie then asks:

If two players have games listed in the records, why should the validity be questioned. Because there is wording "MAY REQUEST" does actually mean that AT SOME TIME someone WILL request. It is no idle threat, but a threat to the integrity of ANY member.

Let's look at the case of the player caught cheating in the last tournament: simply because his cannon were firing correctly within the parameters of the game engine, should no one have questioned the results of said cannon firing (and never missing!)?

Of course not. And a cheater was caught.
Simply because a game is listed in the records does not by itself mean that it is valid.

"May request" does not mean someone Will request (automatically), but it does very much mean that the ability to do so is legal within the framework of club rules.
And again, "request" is not "demand".

What is the real reason to BAR past members from the forums? Has someone been posting messages that they should not post? As soon as a member is found to be INACTIVE, he is effectively BANNED from the club. Quite heavy handed moves by the cabinet.

The only people banned from the club are those caught cheating or faking memberships, etc.
A deactivated account based on lack of activity for set amount of time does not equal banned.

Simply decide to show back up and hit the Contact Us button.

Regards,

I'd like to note that someone in this last day's discussion said that the Cabinet does not & would not impose its will on the daily running's of the Army. I actually wrote down today for myself 5 examples of when it did in the last 4-5 years, from this current Cabinet to ones previous. They are not all bad things either, but the myth that the Cabinet doesn't impact the armies daily running's of itself is not true.

Also I'd like to dispel another myth, though it is only for the current time. That there are currently no members of the Club who are on the rolls with no contact at all with the Club, not since last August. The mandatory muster required everyone on the rolls to make contact with the Club. So as of last August the Club is current on contact with all members. I also feel hat the armies know best what their members are doing. In Prussia, I would never run my organization like the French or the AAA, because the situation to Prussia is unique in certain ways and I know what my members need & want, because I talked with them routinely. The Cabinet was some foreign place that they heard from every now and then. Let the front line operations determine what is best for their men. If the other armies don't like it, oh well. But I have a feeling the individual Coalition Armies will be a thing of the past anyway.

I posted this response as opposed to a three page one I was typing earlier today, mainly because, well my morale is getting low and work threw me a small monkey wrench today, so I don't feel like a wholesale debate on it right now. It wasn't a bad post, just lengthy & involved.

All I say is, vote how you feel. If it passes and people want change, then vote new people into office who will make those changes. Who knows, maybe I'll even pull out the old campaign banners.....hmmm how does one change "Prussian" into "Carabinier"??