"HMGS, Information, background checks, what good would it do?" Topic

I see there is a proposed amendment in the next annual voting for background checks, but I would suggest that background checks would be of no value to HMGS as a whole. HMGS, as an organization, appears to no longer able to rationally process information to arrive at logical conclusions based on such information.

If such a system was put into place to collect information on people, I expect that the information collected would be selectively released, in the form of ad hominem attacks, on anyone that the current group of people that controlled the levers of power within HMGS, against anyone they perceived to be a rival or threat to that control. An additional benefit for any group that controlled the levels of power within HMGS, is that they would be able to use HMGS money, time and resources to conduct these ad hominem attacks; and maintain their control over information and the organization.

The reason I say this is that past events have shown that no matter what information is presented, people seem to refuse to believe information is true when it does not align to what they want to believe is true or how they 'feel' things should be.

I see parallels in how defector Yuri Bezmenov talked about the process of how a nation (or organization like HMGS?) becomes demoralized and then it citizens (members) are unable to come to rational conclusions, no matter what information is presented to them.

This is a excerp from an email I sent to one of my friends a few weeks ago talking about this process, quoting from an interview that Yuri gave in the 1980s talking about this process. While he was talking about destabilizing a nation, I see the same thing happening with organizations, like companies and nonprofits, also:

"The inability to see things as they are, even when presented with all kinds of information and evidence, reminds me of what Yuri Bezmenov talked about and describe in detail, about countries where the population became (become) so unable to think or process information, that they were unable to do anything about their decline. HMGS, I think, is in this phase and the United States also.

YouTube link

In the first minute he describes the inability of people to process information properly or take action, no matter how much information is presented to them.

". . . . Change the perception of reality of every American, to such an extent, that despite their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions . . . . "

While he was talking about the KGB destabailizing other countries, I see organizations doing this to themselves today with no outside influences or rational reason for what they are doing, except maybe for short term profit or the interests of people within an organization that control its 'levers of power'. It as though they have chosen ‘economic suicide'. (Example, one of the companies I know of lays off people with no warning and no transition period so no one knows what is going on with their projects.)"

Louis J. Desy Jr.

Too soon Louis. We remember

The problem isn't the background checks. The problem is the change which allows the office of treasurer to be held by the President, Vice President, or Convention Operations which AT BEST removes supervision and auditing of the funds, and AT WORST gives them a license to steal.

Otto- I read the same referendum and it doesn't say any such thing. Here's the text of the referendum:

"SECTION 1. The Board of Directors will elect a President, Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Director of Convention Operations, and such other officers as they may determine. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person except the office of President, Director of Convention Operations and Secretary."

Seems pretty simple. The President, Director of Convention Operations and Secretary CAN'T wear two hats….

Louis- I'm at a loss as to what exactly your post has to do with Referendum 11 (and, please, DON'T try to 'enlighten' me…).

Ah, too late for Louis to toss his hat into the ring…

Maybe next time ? Or not…

Could it be because volunteers at organizations in PA are now being required to get both criminal background checks and child abuse clearances?

I don't know how it would work with HMGS. They have two conventions in PA with staff that could interact with minors. At the museum here we are required to have all staff get background checks and clearances. We will find out next week if the reenactors that come to the battle will also need them.

This was a decree by Governor Wolf, as far as I know and is not really up to the individual volunteer based organizations. Even churches are doing it for their volunteers whether they lead youth groups or are Eucharistic ministers.

Who are the background checks for (members, board members, convention staff?) and what is their stated purpose?

For us they would be for volunteers. Right now we are required to have all volunteers that come to the site, even for a day, to have their clearances.

As I understand it they are to keep the children safe.

I don't see any issue here.

Requiring a background check for someone partly or wholly responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in addition to members personal information seems pretty non-controversial or problematic. In many states it's a requirement in fact. Do we really want a felon or someone with a seedy background sitting on the BoD?

And as for the tinfoil hat crowd suggesting that someone is going to take over all the critical spots on the board and run their own small country…

"SECTION 1. The Board of Directors will elect a President, Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Director of Convention Operations, and such other officers as they may determine. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person except the office of President, Director of Convention Operations and Secretary."

Seems pretty simple. The President, Director of Convention Operations and Secretary ***CAN'T*** wear two hats….

The problem here is what?

It can also be read that the President, Director of Convention Operations and Secretary can't be held by the same person that is President and Secretary is illegal, a President and Con Ops is illegal, but not President and treasurer or Secretary and Treasurer.

I read it the above. However if it had been phrased that

The Predient, Secretary, and Con Ops Director, can hold NO other office, that would be fine.

No matter HOW you word it the fact that the Treasurer can be held by ANYONE short circuits the fiscal supervision. The Treasurer should be independent. Actually he should not be appointed by the BOD but elected generally.

We recall that the BOD once had a "fiscal oversight" committee once headed by the late, great, poison pen Pat Condray-- which-- the moment it began to make inquiries was disabanded.

Sorry, the trust is gone. Asking us to "trust you" is impossible until a decade or so of spotless leadership is accomplished, and that means timely and complete financial reports, verifiable audits, and scrupulous accounting, which, has not been the case. None of this at the membership meeting of Historicon 2008 saying you haven't finalized the report of Historicon 2006.

Also, why does the BOD have the ability to create "other officers it may desire. Are THEY able to hold multiple offices?

>It can also be read

You can read it anyway you want but that doesn't make it correct. What it states, semantically, is pretty clear. If you hold one of the three listed positions you can't hold another position. End of story.

So the Vice President COULD also be Treasurer, right ?

And if the President were unavailable to discharge the
duties of that office, there would be no conflict
potential, if the VP assumed the duties of the
HMGS President, albeit temporarily ????

Hoo-hah, methinks…

dear Jpipes

And you are the authority? oh my,

If the VP/Tresurer assumed the duties of President, then to (according to the above) then he/she would have to drop the Treasurer job. At least that's the way I read it.

Given the level of abuse that some of the "loyal membership" dumps on the BOD (and others associated with HMGS), I surprised anybody would bother to volunteer.

"And you are the authority? oh my,"

And you are, Otto? Not likely…

"Requiring a background check for someone partly or wholly responsible for tens of thousands of dollars…"

So the goal of the background check is to protect the assets? Please explain how exactly this would work, as it sure hasn't been explained to the rest of us? It says for people nominated – so they release background checks with the bios when running? Who decides that? How much info? How do we know it is correct? What if it isn't? Couldn't they by sued? How long does it stay out there? Where is it posted, and who has access? I look forward to your answers. Just because you have info doesn't mean you can use it.

"… in addition to members personal information seems pretty non-controversial or problematic."

So now it's the personal private information – which must be out there a zillion times already given the turnover of the BOD and convention staff that gathers it. I'm confused. Which is it?

"In many states it's a requirement in fact. Do we really want a felon or someone with a seedy background sitting on the BoD?"

It is not in MD, where the org is incorporated. Makes sense if you are running a museum with school tours and lots of kids. Not so much a hobby org populated by older adults.

Please define a seedy background. Have you seen some of the attendees? What about them?

If the assets, then perhaps just the treasurer and a financial check.

If the PPI, then… the secretary and staff?

If protecting children, then every GM running a game should undergo one, as the risk is far greater there than some random BOD member.

This is a solution in search of a problem.

"If the assets, then perhaps just the treasurer and a financial check."

It should apply to anyone with access. In California, its a standard for any non-profit. This came about as result some non-profits being drained by convicted con artists. Seems reasonable and prudent for anybody with fiduciary responsibility to have some minimal checks.

And most (if not all) such information is in the public record. So privacy would not be an issue. For anything beyond the public record, then yes, that would be an issue

So explain to me how this would work exactly. People who are in favor of this keep leaving that crucial information out.

The way HMGS is planning on doing it, I haven't a clue (the referendum is a bit light on the details). If you have any questions, I suggest asking them on the HMGS Yahoo site.

This thread highlights just a couple of the reasons why I refuse to give HMGS any of my money anymore.

'Keeping the children safe'

Is that really the goal and need for background checks, or is that just some talking point that is being 'rolled out' to justify having background checks?

Since when was any child ever in danger of anything at an HMGS event or 'in danger' from a HMGS members or convention attendee?

I would put it to you that the answer is never. It seems to me that the 'militant feminist' viewpoint that all men are a danger to society and predators has started to Permeated the thinking within HMGS.

Most of the people within HMGS and at its conventions have known each other for years, if not decades; and now HMGS is going to start conducting 'witch hunts' on its own people with these background checks?

If 'keeping the children safe' is really a legitimate objective of background checks, then it seems to me that the only proper way to implement such a policy, and achieve its goals is that everyone on site for a HMGS event, including convention site workers or employees of the hotels, would need to have a background check done.

Is that really what people want to see happen? Anyone who signs up or even goes in on a day pass would need a background check done before they could be allowed into the facility?

Louis J. Desy Jr.

"It seems to me that the 'militant feminist' viewpoint that all men are a danger to society and predators has started to Permeated the thinking within HMGS."

I don't know what the origins of the background checks are for HMGS specifically. All I am saying is that all volunteers in PA must now get background and child abuse clearances per the state government.

That may be why HMGS is considering this step, one of the states where they have two of their three big conventions is requiring volunteers, which HMGS has and uses to run its shows, to have clearances.

"If 'keeping the children safe' is really a legitimate objective of background checks, then it seems to me that the only proper way to implement such a policy, and achieve its goals is that everyone on site for a HMGS event, including convention site workers or employees of the hotels, would need to have a background check done."

The new rules only require volunteers to have them done. If you think that is not inclusive enough the state of Pennsylvania would be the entity to which you should address your concerns about this.

It is possible that this change only stems from HMGS in that they want to be compliant with the new laws in Pennsylvania. As far as I know the rules do not discriminate against certain types of volunteers.

People working for Meals-On-Wheels need to get clearances just as much as tour guides at our museum do. Even if someone was only volunteering for a day, like some do with the reenactment, they will still need to get a clearance.

The problem is that the HMGS BOD hasn't been able to us why this is a good idea, that's why I am voting no. It is an ill thought out, ill defined program with little or no controls or clear objectives in place.

If they present BOD really believes this is a good idea then I suggest they run background checks on each other and release all the information to the members as a show of goodwill.

Bushy Run – you are speculating because of a lack of a clear explanation from the BOD.

Bushy Run, I was a meal-on-wheels volunteer for a few
years and never had a background check for that.

I did have one for other reasons (concealed carry) and
I guess that sufficed, since there were no other checks
of which I was aware.

Is it really that necessary that one's panties get so twisted in a bunch on a public forum? If this amendment bothers one so much, simply exercise your democratic right and vote NO on the ballot. Simple.

Background checks? Pardon my laughter!!!!!

Especially in light of what some past BOD Members have done to the treasury. Seems a little late to close the barn door now!

"Bushy Run, I was a meal-on-wheels volunteer for a few
years and never had a background check for that."

Were you a meals-on-wheels volunteer in PA since January 20, 2015? Because sometime after that is when the new rules were announced.

Pictors, no, it was in NC in the early 90's.

So what I infer from your post is that the requirement
was not from MoW as an organization, but rather from a
change in PA state law ?

I don't recall the application and vetting process too
clearly (it was about 20 years ago) but I do remember
concern over MoW volunteers because many of the
MoW recipients were elderly and/or infirm and/or
lived alone.

From the Bushy Run Post above:

"I don't know what the origins of the background checks are for HMGS specifically. All I am saying is that all volunteers in PA must now get background and child abuse clearances per the state government."

and:

"The new rules only require volunteers to have them done."

and:

"It is possible that this change only stems from HMGS in that they want to be compliant with the new laws in Pennsylvania. As far as I know the rules do not discriminate against certain types of volunteers."

I am not, myself, privy to the decision of the board of HMGS. That being said, given the new rules in PA and that two of their conventions are in PA and they use volunteers, it may not be the HMGS BOD that is to blame if this is a new rule.

Is this what is being referenced? PDF link

I suppose it depends on how the HMGS is organized and incorporated with regard to how the law applies. Something I am certainly not an expert on. However, conventions have significant legal risks and responsibilities, and depending on the special event insurance could be a driven proactive step in light of the Dragon Con drama and fall out.

That is the very thing.

We haven't had the final judgment about who will be included in our back ground checks. There is a conference call on Wednesday about it to find out if our reenactors will need background checks or not.

Speculating still, one and all.

For the time being, it looks like members will have to vote (pro or con) on the referendum's perceived merits. If we find that background checks are required for any/all of our volunteers by PA, VA, MD, or anywhere else our cons may be located in the future, then we'll have to do whatever the law requires to conform. The same would likely apply to requirements set forth by our insurer. Just my very non-expert two cents.

Which is more speculating why this is needed. So if it is required by law (which it isn't) then why is a vote needed? Because it sure isn't required and it sure hasn't been explained.

But how about this – as a gesture of good will, how about the BOD members supporting this motion releasing their information?

"Which is more speculating why this is needed. So if it is required by law (which it isn't) then why is a vote needed? Because it sure isn't required and it sure hasn't been explained."

OR….. If you're so interested, then how 'bout asking the BOD on their yahoo site? (BTW, according to the forum the BOD was advised to enact this referendum by their attorney).

Or is it just more fun to play the passive/aggressive card and take snipes at them.

Hey coastal2. I want to make sure I am giving your opinions their proper due. What games have you ran at recent cons, or have you volunteered to work at the cons instead? Have you previously volunteered to work for HMGS in any way?

And, yes, I would say that everyone here is indeed speculating in absence of any public explanation of this motion from the BOD.

I teach at a school in Pennsylvania, and I can attest that new state laws regarding background checks went into effect last year. The entire faculty and staff had to submit to fingerprinting, a fresh background check, and attend a three hour Child Abuse seminar (to be clear, it was about "prevention" and not "how to").

I am not surprised that events like the HMGS cons are subject to the same regulations.

IMO, these new laws are to allow state legislators a chance to show that they are "doing something" in the wake of high-profile child abuse cases in this state. Compliance can be a royal pain, so I sincerely hope they do some good in addressing the problem they set out to address.

Care or Welfare of Children

My reading of the PDF document link above of the law, is that the check is required in places where there is the 'care or welfare of children' is taking place. I do NOT believe HMGS falls under that, unless part of HMGS started to do something like offer babysitting services.

I can see that schools would fall under this law since in that situation children would be under the care of a teacher or volunteer while they were in school.

If for some reason the law does apply to HMGS, a possible solution would be to make attendance to be 18+ only. No children, no need for background checks. (But I do not think the law applies to HMGS or its events. If it did it would seem that convention center and hotel employees would also then fall under the law and need background checks.)

What was the Dragoncon drama?

Louis J. Desy Jr.

"I am not surprised that events like the HMGS cons are subject to the same regulations. "

Well, perhaps you should be because they are not. Yet, in absence of any factual position or statement, you and loads of others sure are putting plenty of words in the mouth of the BOD.

The HMGS BOD has never said this motion was for the protection children.

HMGS, distribution of information to the membership, and reserve level

One of the problems that HMGS seems to have always had is the control and distribution of information to the membership. The reason the distribution of information is important is that it would make it unlikely that someone would misspend (or misappropriate?) HMGS funds since everyone would know what happened and who did it. Lowering the amount of these funds would also make misappropriation less likely. In the past there were some ideas put out there that would have easily allowed more information, especially financial information, to be shared with the membership, but I do not know if these were ever done.

1: Allowing a person to hold more than one position within HMGS. If the objective is to have oversight of what officers and convention directors are doing, then it would seem to me to be a very poor idea of having a person holding more than one position within HMGS. The whole idea to having different positions being held by different people is so that someone can not start to spend money without the knowledge and approval of others, and to act as a check and balance on what is going on within the organization. Allowing a person to hold more than one position would remove such a ‘check and balance'.

From what I have seen, the most important positions within HMGS are the convention directors, since each one (of three) is needed to make a convention run. Without a convention director to organize and manage things, that convention would be in trouble. If something happened to HMGS on the eve of a convention, as long as the convention director was able to still issue orders and the convention staff was able to carry them out, the convention would still be able to go on, and the organization function, at least in the short term.

The officers and the BOD are needed to manage resources between the demands of the three conventions, and to provide oversight on what HMGS money is being spent on, plus allocate resources for items that are for the whole organization.

I seem to remember there use to be a budget committee, that I think Pat Condray mentioned from years ago (formed with members of HMGS that were not officers, not BOD, not convention directors), but I think that committee was disbanded and never reformed. When that committee was around (or still is?), their job was to review, in detail, what money was being spent on, make sure HMGS stayed on budget and that money was being properly spent.

2: Distribute detailed financial reports/information to the members. From what I remember, the accounting firm uses QuickBooks to generate HMGS financial reports for HMGS. HMGS usually only distributed an income statement and a balance sheet to members. The problem with only this information is that it is not possible to see who/what money was being paid to, or what money was being paid for. The accounting program has the ability to allow the membership to see in detail everything that is collected for revenue and everything that is paid out of HMGS funds as PDF files that could be posted online (or emailed) for the membership. Part of that accounting program would allow detailed financial reports that would show, a full detailed trial balance and detailed check book register. These, and other reports, would allow any member to see how much money was collected by HMGS and where the money was paid out. With a little extra effort, scanned copies of invoices could be made available online to the membership.

3: Amount of reserves held by HMGS. It seems to me that $300,000 USD ($300K) is far in excess of the amount that is needed for a nonprofit, like HMGS, to be holding for its objective of running three conventions per year. Holding too much money makes it likely that HMGS will end up spending money on things that it should not be spending money on, or wasting money on things it does not need; plus there is always the potential that someone could gain control over the accounts, ‘just take it all' and disappear. (Write a check out to themselves, and then board a plane to a country with no extradition treaty with the United States. There was an incident in Boston with a condo association where one of the people, who owned a several units in the building, took off with over $250 USDK and could not be found. It was only discovered when the building needed roof repairs that people found out the guy, along with the condo association reserve that had been built up over the years, where gone. The guy didn't care about losing the units since they were maxed out with mortgages and had no equity.)

The amount of money HMGS is holding now is almost more than its total expenses for some of the past entire year. In 2010 total HMGS expenses were $376 USDK for the entire year. The largest convention had expenses of $148 USDK, Coldwars had expenses of $55 USDK and Fall In had expenses of $42 USDK. All three conventions were profitable.

It seems that, using 2010 as an example year, HMGS would have more than enough money to run the conventions if the reserve was allowed to reduce down to the $150 USDK level of 100% expenses of the largest convention, Historicon. Using this as the ‘reserve level' would also allow HMGs to automatically know when the reserve should be lowered or raised and to what amount. I would call this reserve level a level of ‘One Historicon'. HMGS could lower exhibitor fees and attendance fees over the course of several years until reserves are at the $150 USDK level or whatever lower level seems to be appropriate. At $150 USDK or whatever one Historicon expenses are today, there would be enough money to fully pay for the largest convention 100% in advance. The other two conventions, Cold Wars and Fall In, seem to typically only need 1/3 of the money that Historicon needs. I would suggest that the reserves should be maintained at ‘One Historicon', where this is defined as having unencumbered cash equal to 100% of the expenses for the most recent Historicon convention. So as long as reserves are maintained to reserve at ‘One Historicon', then even with a shortfall of 50% in revenue there would be enough for the smaller conventions to run also and months to correct the HMGS budget.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

Children and background checks

People started to bring up 'protection of children' as one of the reasons for having background checks; otherwise I would not have mentioned it. I did not cite to anyone in particular but I have seen it being brought up in discussion threads.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

"Hey coastal2. I want to make sure I am giving your opinions their proper due. What games have you ran at recent cons, or have you volunteered to work at the cons instead? Have you previously volunteered to work for HMGS in any way?"

Well, let's see… 2 games, 2 demos at the last Cold Wars, 3 games at the last VF H'con, and 3 games at the last Gettysburg Fall In, and 4 others before that (having a continent between me and the cons means I don't get to them as much as I'd like. But when I do, I run games. Several. And volunteering is out for the same geographic reason.)

Now, that we have that out of the way…

Seriously (and with no sarcasm), if you have a question about the referendum, post the question on the HMGS yahoo site.

Don't worry, he will. Ad nauseum. Once Jim gets a bone in his mouth he keeps going… and going… and going…

Well Nazrat, at least I don't stalk people offline trying to debate them.

Fair enough coastal2, now I have a better understanding of why you have a dog in this fight from the left coast, though I am not sure why you think this is important to the organization – though you are entitlted to your own opinion.

And yes, I have asked on the yahoo group and gotten little of substance in reply – but you probably already saw that.

Hopefully, this election will help refocus a new BOD on what is important.

Posting questions on the HMGS yahoo site

The problem with posting questions on the HMGS yahoo site, is that you run of risk of the postings being removed and/or you being banned and not allowed to talk to anyone about anything, if the people in charge ‘disagree' with you too much.

That is one of the reasons why a lot of HMGS discussions end up here, instead of the HMGS yahoo site.

In short, if you post questions on the HMGS yahoo site that the people who control that site do not want posted, then you can 'get in trouble'; so instead of getting the information you have asked for, you are now not allowed to talk with anyone about anything.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

Two things –

1. From the above, I can see why Wally Simon washed his hands of HMGS a loooong time ago.

2. If we need to place a checks and balances type of financial control on what HMGS does, why not have a Treasurer and a Comptroler to control HMGS funds. One can be elected and one can be appointed or both elected. If both have to sign a check to permit monies to be spent, would that be satisfactory?

"The problem with posting questions on the HMGS yahoo site, is that you run of risk of the postings being removed and/or you being banned and not allowed to talk to anyone about anything, if the people in charge ‘disagree' with you too much."

That is utterly untrue! At one time when the Perpetrator of The Great Baltimore Fiasco was in charge it was, but they have allowed free and open discussion on that forum for quite a long while now. Historygamer does practically NOTHING but criticize HMGS and all his posts go through.

Nazrat, as far as I know, the ban on my posting to the HMGS yahoo group, from years ago, is still in effect. While some people are allowed to ask questions, others are not.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

"Fair enough coastal2, now I have a better understanding of why you have a dog in this fight from the left coast, though I am not sure why you think this is important to the organization – though you are entitlted to your own opinion.

And yes, I have asked on the yahoo group and gotten little of substance in reply – but you probably already saw that."

HG- I owe you an apology. Just checked the relevant discussion on the HMGS yahoo site and nobody seems to know exactly why Referendum 11 was put out to a vote. My assumption was fiduciary issues (that's what it is out here). But the only statement is that HMGS was advised to enact such a policy by their attorney for some vague indemnity issue regarding their insurance.

Given the above, I find I'm with you; the BOD needs to come out and explain exactly what this referendum addresses and have their policies in place BEFORE sending it out for a vote. Without that, I'm changing my vote to NO.

Dear 49 Mountain

And many of us have followed "Unka Wally" in his spirit and actions.

From the very start of the first HMGS conventions after the Wally's Basement movement (NO, I WAS NOT THERE!). I and a lot of other gamers would knock ourselves out for Historicon, and when they came out Cold Wars, and Fall in. We would put on four sometimes five games a convention. We often contributed prizes and money, and we volunteered to do this and that, and if con directors came to us to ask for a special project or build something, we fell all over ourselves to do it.

We didn't care about free rooms or free registration,or any "perks. " We didn't want em nor would most of us take 'em! It was a point of pride to us to
"do for our friends." A lot of us put a lot of time, effort and money in an wanted no compensation. The only think we were happy to get was the applause and thanks of the gamers and when someone from the BOD would come around, (and it always seemed Wally or Jay Hadley, or Dick Sossi, or others) who said "Hey, Hi, thanks for doing it."

Then with the change in leadership the motto became "service with a snarl" Whenever anyone wanted to do ANYTHING it was seen as a political move to get on the Bod and horn in on the feeding trough of free conventions, getting first dibs at the new stuff in the dealer areas, expense accounts, credit cards with no accounting (for Convention Directors and Bod Members) and a host of other abuses. It didn't matter that we didn't want any perks, it became who you were friends with, and if you weren't on the right side of it (especially during the leadership of the "take it to the next level group" and the "move it to Baltmore" crowd) then you were out! I don't mean they threw you out, but that your games weren't registered, and no one gave you the least bit of help. This included, if you had a small convention of your own anywhere near the time of an HMGS con, and you left flyers on the table in the lobby, they would mysteriously disappear-- all of them. Caught one Board Member red-handed doing this.

So we had a snootfull.

Again, it was the "service with a snarl" which continues to this day, and the Bod's blind eye to fiscal improprieties that caused many to "wash their hands of it." Like Wally.

Would that we could go back to those halcyon days when politics and people selling their souls for a free room were not even dreamed of as ever marring the war gaming landscape and we all could devote more time to putting on games and having fun. It isn't that people begrudge the free room for service done, we begrudge it when people think it's a right for just who your friends are. In fact, we really don't even care about that. It's the "service with a snarl," and the idea that unless you sit at the war game version of the "Cool table in the cafeteria" you are not even worth considering.

And YES, I was on the HMGS Yahoo group and it was EVERYTHING the critics say it was and worse. It was a forum for the powers that be to attack and vilify anyone who didn't agree with them.

So yes, when people aren't honest. When records don't make sense, when it's always -- "We'll have that report for you ummm er… sometime… someday… " then you cannot but expect that people will wonder why it's not forthcoming and make up their own stories.

The problem is that once these things are done, the bad taste remains for a lifetime. As I said before the BOD will have to have 10 years of spotless, scrupulous honesty and transparency before you have a hope of getting that trust back.

As I said, most of us would love to have the old days back when people could put on games and just revel in the pure joy of the hobby and not be insulted or be the object of condesencion.

Oh! by the way! You can! Come to "The Weekend" Convention on June 18th to 20th in Lancaster PA this year, the Continental Hotel and step back in time to those halcyon days of yore. Games on top of games, no politics, lots of space, no entry fee (if you stay in the hotel) and a $10 USD donation for walk-ups. Free food and beer and soda too in the munchies pit, all contributed by the GM's attendees and walk-ups. Come, have fun, game, meet new friends and reconnect with old ones. Come, bring a six pack or some goodies and start playing. Our fiscal statement comes out on one page with the After-Action Report/Keepsake booklet (48 pages full color) that we put out after the convention which has articles, stories, and battle reports of each game at the convention.

"Willoughby, Willoughby, next stop Willoughby!"

As I told Panzeri constantly when we were on the GM Help Desk and I would argue with him and the other powers that be on the yahoo group. "You're not everyone's CO. These are all volunteers in it for the fun and the hobby. If you're not going to be nice to them then they'll leave, and the work won't get done. They're not going to do what YOU want them to do to serve you. They want to do what they want to do, and you have to somehow figure how to get that fit in.

Want to regenerate HMGS

Try being nice to people.

You're always our friend at the Weekend.