Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Larry Essick]

Eric,

I appreciate your effort to explain the IWF vote.

You make several errors, however.

First, the issue with large representation is not about whether NA
would host the IWF. At some point in time that will happen based
entirely on how beneficial the IWF perceives the decision for the
international community.

It is a bit like NASAMW making decisions about the location of the
NICT. If it would produce a boost in membership with little negative
results then the NICT might move around. But, if moving produced
little benefit or had large negative results then it would likely stay
put.

The real benefit from being a larger member -- and you are right that
we would not be larger than England and South Africa -- is that we
could more effectively lobby for inclusion of other rules than DBM at
the IWF.

Second, you seem to forget that ec_nasamw is a list for information
exchange and not a virtual EC meeting place. It is inaccurate to say
that you asked the EC for input because you did not ask me. It isn't
that I'm hard to find, you just did not ask. It is also not accurate
to say that the vote was 7-0-0. Unless there are only 7 voting
members of the EC, there were a number of people who did not vote.
Whether like me they were not asked to vote, or whether they simply
did not cast a vote, the fact is that this proposal did not carry the
majority of the EC. I can identify somewhere on the order of 17 or 18
people entitled to vote on the EC. And, the EC list itself includes
28 members, including the list owner.

Third, as has been commonplace for those defending EC actions, you
fail to address the point of contention. None of those who found
fault with the EC complained about the decision to join the IWF or the
decision to act only as a middleman for the transfer of money. I did
observe that the decision to join was right and that the decision to
act as a middleman was less than the best decision. However, I also
observed that while it was less than the best decision that there was
time to get accostumed to the IWF and to adjust to the better choice
latter. What people objected to was the perk which the EC voted to
itself in saying that it would pay for EC members to join the IWF.

I don't mind your open letters or your effort to explain the EC's
decisions. But I would like it if you would focus on where the
criticism lies and respond to those critiques. What you have done is
further confuse matters by writing about things which nobody objects
to.

Larry