Much to my dismay, I've recently learned, through my correspondence with Rick, that he is seriously considering not running for re-election as Newszine Editor. For me, this is bad news since I personally look forward to every issue of ChainMail, and think Rick is doing an excellent job. But I'm only one person, and my opinion is important only to me, if I happen to be a minority of one.

In a recent letter, Rick informed me that he's received very little direct response from the membership as to how they think he is handling his duty as Editor of Chain-Mail. My response was that, perhaps in this case, no news is good news, and that the silence of the members can be construed as silent approval. I sincerely hope that this is the case. Rick also said that he would like to see tangible proof in the form of letters to the "Club Forum," written by both active and inactive members, so that he knows the membership at large are behind him, appreciate the long hours he puts into the newszine - with loving dedication to Chain- Mail that his job as Editor is not a thankless task but is serving the best interests of the club.

My dictionary defines a club as a "group of persons associated for a common purpose." So the question arises, other than PBMing, what is the common purpose? If the members remain silent, how can the officers know how to serve the club (translated: members) in the duties as their respective offices?

Rick also said that he has many new ideas about improving Chain-Mail (how much better can it get?), but that he can't possibly put them into action before his term expires. So, obviously, he would like to continue as Newszine Editor if the members show that they appreciate his efforts. I am behind him 100% and would hate to see him not run for re-election. But now the ball is in your court, folks, and to borrow another old adage, "speak now of forever hold your peace."

I agree with Rick Emerich's arguments ("From the Editor's Desk," CM #18) regarding XP for GMs. However, I find his argument against XP for players to be rather weak. I agree that the work required by the GM is far greater than that required of the players. Does this mean that the players do not put any work into their participation? He claims that the players are in it for the fun of participating in a PBM game. Does this mean that GMs are not? He states that players "aren't really supporting the club but only their own interests." But they are supporting the GM in gaining XP for supporting the club. Should I be suspicious of new GMs who have started PBMs under the new EPS for their possible self-interests, i.e. gaining Xp?

The GM has the advantage of gaining XP for having member players participate. Without member players there would be no XP for the GMs and likely fewer PBM games to help support the club membership. What advantage is there for member players to participate in a member (instead of non-member) GM'd game? Beyond contact among participating club members, not much. The advantage in participating in a non-member PBM is the ability to recruit (propose) new members from the participating non-members (500 XP per new member). It is to the advantage of member players wishing only to gain XP to participate in a nonmember PBM and attempt to recruit others from those games.

The argument that the club does not officially regulate or sponsor any PBM games is true. The only reason that the club would want to regulate a game would be to ensure its quality. The argument that there are no PBM games that could allow players to gain XP is not totally correct. If the club is granting Xp to member GMs for running PBMs, they m"st be accepting the GM's game as acceptable for member players. There is nothing in the EPS that specifically governs the quality of the GM's abilities. How much harder would it be to gather data regarding player participation in a PBM? Not hard at all, the GMs must already collect the data to qualify for their own XP. The qualifications for a player would be the same as the GM: a minimum of six turns a year. When the GM applies for XP, I assume that they must supply a list of participating members that qualify them for the XP. The names of participating member players are thus available to the club, and the club would just have to calculate the new XP for the players.

I believe that XP should be given to the players for each game they participate in with a member GM. The amount should be no more than 100 XP per member (not position) per year (six turn minimum) for each game. The player should be limited in XP to one position per game. Taking multiple positions in the same game would limit the number of participants, thus limiting member interactions. There should be no bonus XP for quality of play - GMs are not given any such bonus but the quality of play should be rewarded by the individual GM. The quality of the GM's abilities should be rewarded by the player in continuing to participate.

The secret of gaining levels through the EPS is not the controversial XP for cash or the possibility of XP for playing PBM games. The true XP secret lies with the recruiting,of new members.

At 500 XP per person this can count up fast. A member participating in a PBM game could attempt to recruit non-members, and possibly even the postage costs involved in this recruitment could earn some XP through the monetary contribution section of the EPS. (This assumes that the costs are for recruitmentrelated letters, and not for game-related or personal letters). Of course the member players have little to offer new recruits in direct benefits (except that of new friendships).

If instead the member began a PBM game (with turn charges) the XP could really mount up. If the member GM were to offer an open (member and nonmember) game, with members receiving discounts (free or discounted turns and/or positions) where it would be cheaper for non-members to join the club and take advantage of these incentives, the GM could receive 500 XP for the new member and 200 XP per position per year. Thus a GM could receive 700 XP or more the first year from gaining a new recruit. All the GM would have to do is make it clear that the player would save more than the cost of membership if they joined the club. The non-member would have an incentive to join because of the GM's discount - something that PBM players would be unable to offer non-members.

For those unwilling to go through the work of running a PBK but are willing to contribute cash, consider buying friends "gift memberships." The cost is $12.00 and you get 500 XP - the equivalent of a $50.00 contribution. You could buy four memberships for less than the cost of buying the 500 XP outright. The drawback is that is its only good once for each new member (gift renews wouldn't count for XP). Would it be very expensive? If you can afford $3.00 a week, then you could give one subscription a month. That would be 6,000 XP a year, with no other work than to give a gift. Think about it the next time you want to send that extra cash contribution. If you have the money, give some gift memberships. It would give a better XP return than a "monetary contribution" for you.

The idea of sub-regional groups is just an extension of the individual promoting the club. The club could have a small group of dedicated members who would organize local meetings, could act as information gatherers and representatives at local conventions. The club's national organization could leave regional conventions to the local members, thus concentrating on the national conventions. The chance of success would be in finding enough of those dedicated individuals within each region.

The problem with sub-regional groups is the need for those dedicated members willing to do the work involved. I do not think the club has enough of them in all the possible sub-regions to adequately handle the local members' needs. You may get one or two regions with the needed members working hard to help their local members, but others would probably have no regional support at all.

At this time I don't think that the club should officially organize sub-regional groups. But if some local members wish to meet, even set up a club, or help pass information about local conventions to the local membership, then the club should not deter them. These activities certainly would not hurt the club. They could lead to more exposure at the smaller regional conventions that the national organization couldn't possibly attend. I think that any members who wish to meet and organize a regional/local group should write to others in their area and try to get something organized. Maybe they could meet at a local convention to see what kind of active participation would be generated by the membership.

I have noticed that the name of a member's rank has appeared before their name whenever their name has been printed. I, for one, don't like the idea of having ranks thrust into one's face as though this were the military. It takes the point of the EPS away from participation toward one of competition. If someone is interested in their standings in relation to other club members, they need only turn to the back. Now every time a member reads an article, letter, or editorial, they get smacked in the face with a title to the author. This may give members who are just starting to submit works a feeling of inferiority, or experienced contributors the false feeling of superiority that is so rampant in the RPGA. The most important factor, however, is that the ranks will inevitably distance the club's members from each other since the center point of communication is disrupted by an unnecessary formality. Does anyone else agree?... or disagree?

What is the big deal about monetary contributions equaling XPs? Everyone keeps griping about this, but I have yet to see anyone buy rank. just to go from zero XP to 2nd-level would cost over $150! 1 think the relationship between XPs and money is just fine. If someone wants to donate money to the club's pot, I think we should have the decency to say thank you with a few XPs.

I would also like to suggest that XPs be awarded for renewing subscriptions. I think that the club should say thank you each time that a member renews by awarding him 100 XP. Sure, there are some members who have never contributed articles or anything except their subscription money. However, I for one appreciate those non-participatory members (and their money), and I believe we should say thank you to them in some fashion.

If the leadership is opposed to giving XPs for renewal, then I am in favor of adding "Member since" to the column that shows officer held. If you agree with me, write to our President.

While I agree with Rick about the monetary contributions, I disagree regarding the Judgment Committee. If Rick picked the United States Congress as a model for our elective process, then I believe that our system suffers many of the same flaws as the government on a much smaller scale. Rick doesn't understand that by setting up select committees and having decisions made by independent leadership, he necessarily excludes everyone else. Exclusion breeds jealousy, suspicion, and in our case apathy.

I thought, since he's a New Englander, Rick could look to some local governments for a better model than the US Government. As a native of the Washington, DC area, I can only find one redeeming quality about our system: it is not the Soviet system. I think that in a small club such as our own it is not unreasonable to consult the membership on every single, non- emergency decision. I agree with Rick: I don't want to spend club money and time on mailing, printing, and organizing petitions. But, why not just print two lines in Chain-Mail asking a simple yes/no question?

I don't know why Rick wants a petition of an astronomical 20% of the members just to submit a proposal to referendum. If three members want to put a vote to the membership, why not let them vote? We don't need a separate mailing or postcard, just two measly lines in Chain-Mail. That will not affect the club's financial status. (Let the Vice-president count the votes so he can earn his XPs). I also don't agree that we need a 50% response from the membership in order to pass a motion! If only 10% of the membership is concerned enough to vote then why not let the vote stand? Why should we let a handful of leaders make a decision rather than a handful of leaders PLUS a handful of concerned members. I think that, as a club, we should pursue every policy that encourages membership participation, and avoid any practices that discourage members from taking an interest in their club.

[Will, with your recently acquired XP for your PBMs, you're no longer a Novice, but now are an Initiate! Congratulations! - Editor]

I just receive issue #20 of Chain-Mail, and really enjoyed it. I always find the letters in the "Club Forum" to be informative, and readers raise interesting points. (Hmm, no Kobold letters this issue?) I like the new column, "GMs Report," and loved hearing about the two games Gennie runs. (I'm in her JAMMER TOO game, by the way). "Club Profiles" is also another excellent section. It does make other members be more than just names.

In the "Marvelous Monsters" section of this ish, I'm wondering if Novice Will Nesbitt got his idea for the Boogie Man from the Real Ghostbusters cartoon? They had a monster called the Boogie Man, who acted in much the same way. I hope none of my characters ever run into the Spider Tree from Novice Frank Young!

On a closing note, I have a suggestion to make. On the inside front cover where it says that back issues of Chain-Mail can be obtained for $2.50, it might be a good idea to list how much a year's membership is. That really should be listed. I'll be looking forward to issue #21.

My interpretation of DU's Constitution and By-laws is that the primary goal of the club was to enable people living too far away from each other to meet [out of] the flesh. Therefore, it's my opinion that DU must avoid any political debate/influence or personal attacks on members in Chain-Mail, or any other club related material, at any cost. Not everyone has the same political outlook and background. The easiest way to avoid these problems is to stop scratching down small ink notes on the letters to the members. It didn't take much brains to figure out what the President meant in his letter. Many times the decay of a club or 'zine has begun in such a way.

Changing the subject, I think that Mr. Onufryk's letter in issue #20 said some quite sensible things. But reading it through, I found one thing quite strange. Suppose a member submits a petition and gets a go from the JC, and if all JC members were positive, six of the almost 70 members, or about 8.7% has seen the petition. It might be as low as 5.8% if only three JC members were positive. If the JC said no, according to Mr. Onufryk, 20% or almost 14 members have to say yes. The 50% suggested seems quite strange since if you have 50% of the members on your side before the voting, only one more member has to vote for the petition to make it pass.

I do have a complaint about the EPS; it is not being applied correctly. I am probably not the only person who has not gained as much experience as they should. I have had two articles published and run several games for club members.

While I have no real idea how many points I should have, I am certain it is considerably more than what is listed. I have run roughly 70 turns for an average of five DU players each (in several different games) over the last three years, and have even been mentioned in a few player profiles from this.

I am not upset, merely disappointed. If we are going to have an EPS, I would hope it would be fair and accurate.

[Alan, your XP for you PBM was tallied with all other members running PBMs and applied this month. You've jumped to Savant status as a result. Congratulations! - Editor.]