The NASAMW executive recently decided to move the NCT "out west". Exactly where and when is yet to be determined, but I suspect it will be somewhere between St. Louis and Honolulu, sometime during 1992.

There are numerous factors which suggest that moving the NCT from Historicon is a enonnous mistake. Moving to a westem location will bring the NCT closer to some NASAMW members, but it will be further from the majority of the potential participants. It will also be extremely difficult to find a alternative date which is satisfactory for as many members. Regardless which convention the NCT is moved to, and there are many good histoiical miniature gaming conventions out there, it certainly will not attain the standards of gaming like those of Historicon. There is little doubt that participation in the NCT will decline as a result of this move, and it seems reasonable to expect a corresponding decrease in participation in NASAMW sponsored tournaments in which people qualify for the NCT. The prestige gained from winning the 1992 NCT will likely be diminished since some of the top players will not travel to the new site. Essentially, NASAMW is asking more members to travel greater distances to attend a smaller, less prestigious, tournament held at a less attractive convention on a worse date.

All of this to satisfy some notion of regional equity? This decision becomes even harder to accept when one considers the fact that they have not even selected a specific alternative. I didn't think that Historicon was so inadequate that it is absolutely necessary to remove the NCT out without having clearly established another option.

Not only is the decision disturbing, but so to is the manner in which it was made. I understand that an executive body has the right to make decisions on behalf of the membership. However, that right is accompanied by an obligation to act in a manner with the preferences of the majority of the members. Does the NASAMW executive really believe that the majority of the membership supports moving the NCT out west? The lack of an open and democratic process is especially disturbing when it was this very same problem which contributed to the fractionalization of the organization over the dreaded rules interpretations. I guess some people never learn.

In the future, I would recommend that NASAMW employ the following methodology In selecting a location for the NCT: (1) Invite proposals from any gaining conventions interested in hosting the NCT. (2) Establish a set of criteria by which to evaluate the proposals. (3) Have the NASAMW executive select a short-list of alternatives through application of the criteria. (4) Present the short-list of alternative venues to the membership for a vote. This approach is certainly more systematic, mom open, more democratic and more equitable than the way things am being done right now.

Over the past two years I have been an ardent supporter of NASAMW and its new executive. I have lobbied with dissatisfied members, imploring them to give the new executive a chance to work out its problems. Certainly mistakes were made (sounds like ol' Ron Reagan doesn't it!) in formulating and imposing the rules interpretations, but shouldn't we also take into account the substantial progress made in several other areas? As Jim Kasper correctly pointed out in Spearpoint, "the only people that do not make mistakes am the ones that don't do anything at all." However, in light of these recent developments, I feel that my faith was misplaced, and the most appropriate proverb that comes to mind is that old Scottish saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."