Rules Of Engagement

[Mike Nickerson]

"This forum is for sharing cavalry information, communication, and organizing. Whenever we wander from those goals I will most certainly close this or any other thread. Thank you!"

Ken, how about expanding on your definition of the "goals" for us small minded types? I ask this as I mistakenly thought the last closed post including the sharing of information and we seemed to be communicating.

Mike Nickerson

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

I chose to remain silent on the other thread and I should probably do the same here. However, I have been a member of this board (though I have admittedly taken sabbaticals) since it's inception by Paul Calloway many moons ago. The A-C forum has always had very rigid standards of authenticity and once served as a sounding board for the PHC community. If memory serves, Paul created the forum as an avenue of discussion for those who were already of the PHC mindset because so much bandwidth was being wasted over personal insults and unit bashing on the other, more popular, forums of the time. That simply didn't happen here because those with questionable approaches to authenticity simply didn't have a voice here.

On the other hand, this board has always welcomed those who may not have been where they needed to be progressively, but who had the campaigners mindset and were coming here to seek knowledge in order to improve their impressions and those of their pards. I hope we have not deviated from that purpose.

I feel that Mike and anyone else was well within the traditional purpose of this forum to question the published practices of another unit. It's been done since this board was created and it helps keep us on our toes about what should and should not be acceptable. I also feel that Ken and others are correct to come to the defense of some members of a certain unit. We all know that larger units often have different factions of people within that group who are at various levels of progression. It's almost certainly the case with the unit we've been discussing here. In my own experience, having a progressive faction within a mainstream unit rarely works out with the mainstreamers conforming to the wishes of the progressives.

But that doesn't mean that we should preclude individuals here because of what we read about their unit. What we should do, though, is continue to question the mainstream mentality and ask for documentation on questionable practices. Simply questioning something that's published shouldn't be grounds for closing a thread or censoring an individual. Wasting valuable time and bandwidth to concentrate on the negative should certainly be grounds.

We should welcome those with a similar mindset regardless of what unit they are currently affiliated as long as the INDIVIDUAL doesn't abide by those standards that are deemed questionable at best and anachoristic at worst.

JMO,

[Outrider]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Yeah. What He said.

[Ken Knopp]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Mike,

Thank you for bringing this up. I am sorry the thread had to be closed I just felt it was heading in a wrong direction. Mike, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the decision to close it was not directed towards you. I am sorry if it appeared that way.
I have been trying hard to re-energize this forum. To take it to a new level but above all to be more "inclusive". That fact is, we need more authentic cavalry. But how? That was one purpose of this and other posts but having thought about it now however, perhaps I closed it too soon before a lot of people were able to make their thoughts known. Perhaps it was doing just what it was “supposed” to do or, perhaps I should not have even brought up the subject. Anyway, I am sorry if I offended anyone but it is what it is. Its done. Which brings us to your very valid question.
While I am perfectly willing to see this forum’s discussions go anywhere the members wish it to go I believe there should be and there will be some “relative” guidelines. First, keeping the subject matter focused on our mutual interest of cavalry & mounted artillery of the mid-19th century period. Second, as stated before, this forum is for sharing information, communication and organizing. Beyond that, Larry Morgan’s comments encapsulate what I believe is another purpose of this forum relative to an open dialog about authentic & mainstream mentality, documentation requirements and questionable practices but, with a very certain caveat. In general, that is keeping it non-personal and civil.
I strongly believe that we can accomplish much more when we reach out to those that, lets say, “need help”. Some just need leadership, others just need an example, some gentle persuasion and many are just plain ignorant of the authentic way to do this. Therefore, we should educate, lead by example and accent the positive from our point of view rather than a negative, elitist, condescending “us vs. them” position. But, above all, we should be humble.
I have read a fair amount on the subject of CW cavalry over my 53 years. Having been to nearly every CW battlefield, experienced/photographed hundreds of private and public museum collections, collected (bought and sold) thousands of artifacts, read hundreds of books, done thousands of hours of archival research, published two books, dozens of articles and made many presentations on this subject but, the main thing I have learned is that I really don’t know “anything”. I am woefully ignorant. The more I read and learn the more I am sincerely humbled by what I “don’t know”. Too often we in this hobby have the tendency to read something and think, no, we tend to believe, that it is the “end all”. Then we want to tell everyone what it really is all about and then how “they” should do it. I have been guilty of this and honestly, it embarrasses me.
Having said all of this, I suppose in short, most anything is fair game discussion so long as we keep it non-personal and civil. I only ask this.....before you post, ask yourself....., Am I being fair? Am I sure that I am correct in my beliefs? Have I been respectful of other person’s points of view.

Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like I am giving a “nursery room” behavior lesson here but you know, it is the best way and, it works. Besides, I’ll bet a lot more people would post here if they thought they would not get hammered. So, I’ll go anywhere you gents want to (see above) except when someone gets personal or rude.

But, help me out here.... this is your forum so I must ask you gentlemen.....what are “your “ opinions on this?




Ken R Knopp
Forum Moderator

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[AZReenactor]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Couple of thoughts...

Being more inclusive is not a goal here, being more authentic and improving what we do is. The mainstream is inclusive as hell, but it ain't what we are about here.

This forum is not for the beginner and us vs. them discussions have absolutely no place here. In fact "them" points of view have no place here. Simple as that.

I'm not suggesting anyone should be rude or inconsiderate but exposing farbisms, choosing a higher path, and not compromising authenticity is what this community has always been about. The same rules apply across the boards regardless if we are talking about infantry, civilian, artillery, or cavalry.

[Ken Knopp]

Troy,

I believe your reading past the main points. No one is inviting mainstreamers to argue their point of view here. I am starting from the natural premise and assumption that everyone here is “already” on the A/C bandwagon. The point about being inclusive was to find ways to bring more of “us” into the forum discussion.
Nevertheless, the fact remains we need more of “us” so the other part of the premise was how do we have more authentic cavalry. Since none of us are “born” authentics we must be “made”. That, must be done by us through leadership and example and yes, reaching out. Not here. There are plenty of other places for mainstreamers to air their view. That's not what this forum is for. Yet having said that, there are a lot of readers of this forum (with good kits) that really just want to be more authentic and improve, but don’t know how or who to reach out to. They read here to learn but are fearful to engage else they be hammered.

Yes, your right we here should do so as you suggest, “exposing farbisms, choosing a higher path, and not compromising authenticity” but “perfection” has a pretty small membership so I want to “involve” people. The challenge is how do we attract, educate and influence others to our point of view without being elitist, rude or condescending. That in a nutshell is what I wish to avoid.

Ken R Knopp

https://www.confederatesaddles.com

[Tom Craig]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Troy,

Nevertheless, the fact remains we need more of “us” so the other part of the premise was how do we have more authentic cavalry. Since none of us are “born” authentics we must be “made”. That, must be done by us through leadership and example and yes, reaching out.

The challenge is how do we attract, educate and influence others to our point of view without being elitist, rude or condescending.

Ken R Knopp
www.confederatesaddles.com

Ken,

Good questions, and good points. I think we have all wondered how to increase the number of good cavalry. I don't think any of us have the answer, otherwise it would have already been done. I do agree though that gentle encouragement, politeness and leading by example are probably some of the best tactics.

There are a lot of guys who do cavalry in the streamer world, and unfortunately cavalry units tend to be very clannish and the guys in the units don't often stray beyond what their home unit does or thinks. As a result it is very difficult to attract anyone on that side of the fence over to our side of things. That leaves us with two options as I see them. Either we can strictly focus on those guys who do come on here (very hard to quantify) who haven't gotten out to better events...or we look to get events together that can attract the curious etc. The catch with #2 is that it really doesn't bring us in the direction of improving our impressions/events because you'd likely have to water things down in order to get them to come.

I think the discussion of particular units and whether they pass muster is a decent one to have. I agree that we have to avoid being personal, and being rude. It is very tricky to openly discuss a unit on an open forum without apprearing to "bash" that unit. To avoid such an appearance, we must focus on our remarks on what they need to do to improve, or what they are already doing right. Not to say that we need or should ignore the negative, but if that is what we dwell on then it will be bashing.

Take care,
Tom Craig
1st Maine Cavalry

[Jerry Ross]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Hello All,
I think is is always better to try to stay on the positive side . It is easy to point out faults and hard to build up. Positive role models are always needed in all aspects of life from hobbies to living life. Lets try to keep sharing information and keeping each other informed of events , gear ,vendors and other important topics.

[ButtermilkRanger]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Nevertheless, the fact remains we need more of “us” so the other part of the premise was how do we have more authentic cavalry. Since none of us are “born” authentics we must be “made”.

Speak for yourself, Ken. I, for one, am a born hardcore cavalryman. I only looked, dressed and acted like a farb my first 10 years in the hobby so the rest of you wouldn't feel so bad. My therapist says it was an act of rebellion against my own true inner nature, but I say it was an act of compassion, pure and simple. It gets hard being perfect all the time. :)

[boreguard]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Speak for yourself, Ken. I, for one, am a born hardcore cavalryman. I only looked, dressed and acted like a farb my first 10 years in the hobby so the rest of you wouldn't feel so bad. My therapist says it was an act of rebellion against my own true inner nature, but I say it was an act of compassion, pure and simple. It gets hard being perfect all the time. :)

It'd kill most normal people to be like Larry::D

[csabugler]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Speak for yourself, Ken. I, for one, am a born hardcore cavalryman. I only looked, dressed and acted like a farb my first 10 years in the hobby so the rest of you wouldn't feel so bad. My therapist says it was an act of rebellion against my own true inner nature, but I say it was an act of compassion, pure and simple. It gets hard being perfect all the time.


Some people seek greatness, others have it thrust upon them!

[Ronnie Tucker]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

I feel the 7th Tn must be a pretty fair outfit, everyone participating at the outpost of 2007 was with the 7th TN except for Larry Morgan. We seemed to do alright, there were no compaints. So we WERE the confederate cavalry. Admittedly, we could be better and we are trying. And we are looking forward to going to Bummer's '09.

Ronnie Tucker
7th TN Cavalry

[Mike Nickerson]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

Ronnie, I was across the field from y'all at Outpost III. I didn't realize that was the "7th. Tenn." when I posted my question on the locked post.

I asked the question about y'all fitting the "authentic" title, due to not knowing that you guys have rode at a couple "dyed-in-the-wool" campaigner events, not seeing any authentic events on the posted 2009 schedule and some old "mainstream" info posted on your web site. All of those issues have been cleared-up and I'm looking forward to riding with y'all at Bumbers!

Mike Nickerson
Critter Company (FL Mascot)

[Ronnie Tucker]

Re: Rules Of Engagement

maybe we need to blow our own horn once in a while like i said we are trying to toe the mark ronnie tucker 7th tn