Within the army community, the concept of an “army board” has varied in popularity and scope. The Club Penguin Armies board has become a point of contention due to inactivity and ineffectiveness, with some leaders arguing for its abolition. Join me as I outline the necessity of the army board, as well as the reasons in favour of its independence.
A Defence of the Board
The enfranchisement of armies has been a topic of discourse since the dawn of our community. Though army leagues would not come into existence for another decade, many sought the establishment of a body in which armies could raise issues of concern. The Club Penguin United Nations (CPUN), founded in 2008 by Mr Deedledoo, appears to be an early embodiment of these beliefs. Aiming to give smaller armies a voice within an age in which they were ostracised, it is not difficult to identify parallels between CPUN and the army board. Within this lens of analysis, empowerment for armies is not a new phenomenon.
During the discussions that led to the unification of Club Penguin Army Headquarters (CPAHQ) and Club Penguin Army Network (CPAN), a major demand presented by representatives of the latter organisation was the creation of a new army board. One of the many reasons for CPAN’s creation was the absence of an avenue for armies to voice concerns or oppose CPAHQ administrative decisions. After extensive discussion between the two organisations, the framework for the Club Penguin Armies army board was agreed upon.
Theoretically, the board is a means by which armies may engage in decisions regarding tournaments and the army league. In practice, the army board has become seemingly obsolete. Discussions within the board have become infrequent and votes for changes grow scarcer. I would refute such an assertion, as a route by which army leaders can make systematic change should always be present, regardless of the frequency of use. However, even if the presence of a board is a necessity, why should the entity become independent?
The Arguments for Army Board Independence
It is commonly accepted within the field of political science that separation of powers is fundamental to fair governance. Within liberal democracies, the separation of powers principle divides the responsibilities of a government into three branches (legislative, executive and judicial). Though some overlaps may exist, the three branches of government operate with different obligations and powers. Such a model allows for checks and balances to avoid the concentration of power within a single entity. A similar concept could be adopted by the army community
Within the framework of Club Penguin Armies, the board is unable to facilitate activity without permission from the organisation’s administration. Regardless of any beliefs or concerns held by a head representative, the board cannot act individually. An independent board would be self-sufficient, allowing for free discussion and voting on a wider purview of matters. The creation of CPA Judges marked a point in history that reminds us of our ability to make systematic change. Until then, judging was viewed to be indivisible from media organisations and leagues. Though CPA Judges remains dormant in periods without war or tournaments, it is widely accepted that independent judging is beneficial. Similarly, an independent army board may be viewed as a natural community development.
Another major consequence of the army board’s presence in Club Penguin Armies is the reinforcement of a media monopoly. With the main platform for discourse and decision-making becoming inseparable to Club Penguin Armies, individuals seeking to establish a new media organisation face a more difficult task. Though frequent collaboration between an independent board and media should persist (i.e. tournaments, maps, public security), reliance on a singular media organization may have consequences. For example, an independent army board would continue to function even if the Club Penguin Armies administration became unstable. It could also choose to boycott an organisation for particular practices or decisions until the matter is resolved. While such measures are extreme and would be rarely utilised, an avenue for collective action should not be ruled out.
Though activity would vary at different points, an independent army board could be a progression in the empowerment of armies. Viewing such evolution to be a necessity, I agree with the establishment of an independent board. Although details would be ironed out, the board might function in a server owned by an individual agreed upon by the board. Activity such as meetings and votes would be facilitated by the elected head representative. The board could host events independently, such as the recent Battle of the Newspapers, or in collaboration with organisations.
I have hardly covered everything that would need to be discussed in the creation of an independent board. Specific details, such as a founding document, would need to be drafted to enshrine appropriate procedures. While such an entity has not yet existed, the court of public opinion will determine whether democratic expansion is prudent. Do you think that an independent board would be beneficial, or is any potential change unnecessary?