Unofficial US Regiments are shaping up quickly

[Art Andrews]

We are down to the last two regiments for the US and I am guessing this map will be pretty close to the final divisions. Need someone to step up for the Southwest. TX? You are huge? Where are you?

 

[Chernobyl]

I have a friend in Wisconsin trying to get me out there for a while, possibly a more permanent move if things work out..

Ooh, the tales I could tell you about Wisconsin. Which area will you be moving to?

On a slightly happier note: that's understood, Art. I'll probably just stick with the Regiment I'll be placed under at the end, rather than make a faff with trying to get a transfer put in. Less paperwork, and all that.

 

[transmut1]

Art,

Here is a more accurate, current layout of how businesses view the regional layouts for the usa. I see you added the pacific regiment though, which does make sense for us. But I think WV is part of the north east region.



Just trying to help.

 

[WandererTJ]

Being able to open up the map full screen would have made this easier and I would have done the image on an increased zoom level, but this is going to have to work for now.

This was taken today (8/22/2014), and therefore as more members move their dots or add their dots, this will be outdated, but for now, this is something I wanted to share:


I have I added a Dot with a 500px Brush onto each of the major "hot zones"
The Hot Zones are: San Diego, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, and New York City

These Hot Zones are where I would consider most major conventions to take place, and they seem to do a pretty adequate job at covering most of the 405th Members in the U.S.. It would seem as though only the 405th members in Denver got left out of any of the bubbles.


I figured it might be nice to see an infographic like this while we are in the middle of discussing how we want to break up regiments.
Feel free to add your thoughts.


Also... Saskatchewan, wassup wit chew? Why you no have any awesome conventions for the Canadians?

 

[Art Andrews]

It is endlessly fascinating to see how different groups breakdown different regions.

Art,

Here is a more accurate, current layout of how businesses view the regional layouts for the usa. I see you added the pacific regiment though, which does make sense for us. But I think WV is part of the north east region.

View attachment 2574

Just trying to help.

 

[Walter Spase]

Moving the discussion from Staff Forum to here for sake of general membership being able to see it. Put of the Southwest, I'll get it moving.

I would like to say that Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New mexico grouped would make more sense than Arizona being with Texas.Geographically speaking, the population centers of Texas are Very far from the population centers of Arizona.

 

[transmut1]

It is endlessly fascinating to see how different groups breakdown different regions.

I know, I just happened to see this in one of my work magazines that came in today, and I thought of all this on here and wanted to share.
I often deal with vendors that have certain people for certain regions and such, and most major business's seem to follow that layout. Which yours was very accurate.
Plus this one game simple, logical names, that it seemed most others were following.

 

[transmut1]

Moving the discussion from Staff Forum to here for sake of general membership being able to see it. Put of the Southwest, I'll get it moving.

I would like to say that Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New mexico grouped would make more sense than Arizona being with Texas.Geographically speaking, the population centers of Texas are Very far from the population centers of Arizona.

Currently doing some work with some of our subsidiary companies in TX and I would have to agree with you there Walter. There really isn't much going on in the western 1/3-ish of TX.

 

[WandererTJ]

I agree with Walter, the population center of Arizona isn't even within the proximity of the other Southwestern states.
The Pacific and Southwest could fight over New Mexico, or split it in half even, but I feel like the Southwest Regiment would be glad to include New Mexico. I think the only question there is who would they rather involve themselves with?

I also feel it important to raise the question, do we need to have a Mountain regiment?

Our members in those states are very sparse and thin if we have any members in those states at all.
For our few members in Montana (for instance), I feel like they would be better grouped with the Pacific regiment until a time where we have members on the eastern side of Montana.

Utah (Salt Lake City I believe is where that group is densely cluttered) and Colorado/Denver are interesting subjects though.
If there was a central point for the Mountain regiment, I would guess it would be in Salt Lake City, but I don't know of any Conventions that go on there off the top of my head.
Additionally, the population in Utah is centered quite far from any of its neighboring regiments.

I would almost say we could group together Utah/Colorado/Arizona/New Mexico, but the point in the middle of all four is empty and really only has just 1 member near the center.

From the North, I would group Montana and Idaho into the Pacific
From the South, I would group Arizona and Nevada into the Pacific,
From the Center, I would group Colorado in with the Southwest, and as for Utah... idk. Pacific seems like the likely choice.

I'm not going to even try to get into the overlaps in the Northeast, Midwest, and Southeast....

I know it has been stated that we will essentially end up breaking into regiments naturally on our own, but I just wanted to comment on what I'm seeing.

Looking at Nevada, I'm honestly not sure why the Pacific regiment hasn't already adopted it...

 

[Art Andrews]

@Walter "Spase" and WandererTJ,

Couple of things we need to consider before pushing up a "Southwest" group:

1) You need to chat with @SniperWolf about LA and AR. While these aren't "official" regiments right now, those two are currently in the Southern Regiment. As long as they don't have a problem letting them go, I don't.
2) If you do take LA and AR, is that really "Southwest" at that point?
3) If you don't take AZ, where do you think it will logically fall as the Pacific Regiment is likely to take on HI and AK and will already be huge (and AZ is not a Pacific state.)

 

[WandererTJ]

Art Andrews,
I'm looking at my map that I added the bubbles to, and for our members in phoenix, they have a slightly shorter distance to travel to get to San Diego than they have to get to Albuquerque, New Mexico.


You wanna call it the "Pacific Regiment"?
That's fine by me, but a rose by any other name...
They are all Western states to me, plain and simple. Just because they aren't all on the ocean doesn't mean that they aren't all there right next to eachother.

The name of the regiments isn't at all important to me, nor should it be to anyone.
I thought the point of having the regiments was to make it so that you could connect to others near you more easily, not to become blind to how the state lines are drawn and nit pick over how states were divided up. For that matter, why don't we just split Montana in half here and now?

If you want to get technical, lets get technical.
I'm a lot more likely to drive somewhere than I am to fly. Now of course I would fly from Oklahoma to New York, Vegas, Disney World, or Seattle, but that is because they are not geographically near to me. If I was going to Dragoncon in Georgia though, I might consider driving, and it would depend on whether or not I could get a carpool going.... which is one beneficial point of being in a regiment with others near you. For Akon in Dallas, I'll definitely be driving there, carpool or no carpool, but I now know 2 other members VERY close to me that I would be glad to invite to go with me.

From Phoenix to Dallas you have 2 options. Option 1 is to take I-10 and I-20 which is 16 hours and 1,064 miles and Option 2 is taking AZ-277 to I-40 to US-287 which is almost exactly the same in terms of time and distance.
Compare that to Phoenix to San Diego, which is 5 hours and 355 miles away.

Albuquerque to Dallas is 10 hours and 643 miles versus Albuquerque to San Diego which is 12 hours and 813 miles.
Still far, but at least it is somewhat closer to Dallas.

So it makes sense, by means of where their population centers are compared to the shortest distance they have to travel to meet up with other 405th-ers that New Mexico should be grouped with the Southwest and Arizona should be grouped with the "Pacific".
I mean... or we can simply cut Arizona off and let them fight for themselves. They have 4 people, right? That should be good enough (sarcasm).


I don't think we should divide regions by the number of people in them, sure some people will get to see others in their regiment more than others get to see fellow members. If the Pacific regiment can't handle more members, then I think we have a problem and based on the map that I brought up, I think the regiment needs to be broken up into North and South.
But that conversation is not for today's discussion.

I want everyone to feel included, and that's the point of this that we should keep in mind.
Trying to break down regiments in similar ways that the GPD or companies or the founding fathers had thought up is pointless.
Trying to force people into a group they will never visit with because they have to drive 1000 miles to meet up with everyone rather than 350 miles to meet up with another Regiment just doesn't make sense to me.

Like I said in my last post, Utah and Colorado definitely pose an issue on what do to with them. Utah appears to have a decent drive to San Francisco, but Denver doesn't look like it has the easiest drive to anywhere. (In reference only to Interstate Highways)

 

[Art Andrews]

@Art Andrews,

You wanna call it the "Pacific Regiment"?
That's fine by me, but a rose by any other name...
They are all Western states to me, plain and simple. Just because they aren't all on the ocean doesn't mean that they aren't all there right next to eachother.

The name of the regiments isn't at all important to me, nor should it be to anyone.

It isn't a matter of what I want to call it. It is what it is and what it has been for a very long time. Try telling Coca-Cola or Microsoft how unimportant a name is... or even the 501st or Mando Mercs...

For regiments that are brand new, the name isn't very important and is open to change (there is a discussion going on right now within the Northeastern Regiment about a name change) but in an established group, people identify with the group name and rally around it. It becomes source of pride for them, so you might want to ease off a bit on telling people what should or shouldn't be important to them as I'd bet you wouldn't be quite as outspoken in names not being important if I had come here and said we weren't going to be the 405th anymore but were going to be the 117th.

I thought the point of having the regiments was to make it so that you could connect to others near you more easily, not to become blind to how the state lines are drawn and nit pick over how states were divided up. For that matter, why don't we just split Montana in half here and now?

You are contradicting yourself a bit here, but overlooking that, the point of Regiments is to create very large containers and a framework that Battalions (the more locally concentrated groups that WILL be more focused on members geographically close to one another) can be created within. Not only that, but one has to remember that this club isn't even a club yet and that we are very small right now. Our expectation is that these Regiments will have local Battalions under them and when the Regiments reach a certain size, they will naturally subdivide. So... lets not get too worked up over these issues just yet.

 

[WandererTJ]

You're right Art, and that's fair.
Sometimes I like to get worked up and say some things that might not all piece together perfectly when I'm just trying to make a point about something.

I'm not suggesting that we should change the names as they stand, I'm saying that "okay, you've named it blank, and blank is great and all, but while you've named blank as blank, lets at least consider that blank doesn't ONLY have to be blank"

To reword that...
"okay, you've named the regiment as the Pacific Regiment, and Pacific Regiment is great and all, but while you've named the Western states of the U.S. as the Pacific Regiment, lets at least consider that the Pacific Regiment doesn't ONLY have to include ONLY the states that touch the pacific Ocean."

Thinking people from Las Vegas are going to meet up with people from Montana in the Mountain Regiment just seems stupid to me. I've tried to dance around saying it, and I'm sorry, but look at Nevada. Where are all the people in Nevada? Do you see how close all those people in Nevada are to a large population density of 405th-ers in San Diego?
Just because Nevada doesn't touch the ocean doesn't mean that it can't be part of the Pacific Regiment.

You want to throw Battalions into the midst, that's fine.
The Phoenix area would have 4 people in their Battalion, New Mexico/Albuquerque would have 1, Las Vegas would have 3, San Diego would have 20, San Francsico would have 20, Salt Lake City would have 6, Denver would have 3, OKC would have 3, Tulsa would have 3 (including 1 person from Arkansas), West Texas would have 1, and Central Texas if you include Dallas would have like 10-15.

Now where exactly do you think the Phoenix Battalion is more likely going to carpool to? San Diego or Dallas?


I'm going to hold my tongue now. I will postpone any further responses of mine in this thread untill Monday.
I can hold it for longer if you'd like, just let me know.
I'm sorry if I've been harsh, but I prefer sharing my blunt and honest opinions at times.

 

[Art Andrews]

You're right Art, and that's fair.
Sometimes I like to get worked up and say some things that might not all piece together perfectly when I'm just trying to make a point about something.

I'm not suggesting that we should change the names as they stand, I'm saying that "okay, you've named it blank, and blank is great and all, but while you've named blank as blank, lets at least consider that blank doesn't ONLY have to be blank"

To reword that...
"okay, you've named the regiment as the Pacific Regiment, and Pacific Regiment is great and all, but while you've named the Western states of the U.S. as the Pacific Regiment, lets at least consider that the Pacific Regiment doesn't ONLY have to include ONLY the states that touch the pacific Ocean."

Point taken.

Thinking people from Las Vegas are going to meet up with people from Montana in the Mountain Regiment just seems stupid to me. I've tried to dance around saying it, and I'm sorry, but look at Nevada. Where are all the people in Nevada? Do you see how close all those people in Nevada are to a large population density of 405th-ers in San Diego?
Just because Nevada doesn't touch the ocean doesn't mean that it can't be part of the Pacific Regiment.

Again, you have to look beyond right now and again realize that Regiments are ONLY being formed first (which is backwards) because they already exist within this group and I wasn't willing to come in and say "Pacific regiment, you are no longer valid." Remember, Regiments are NOT local. We do not expect people from Vegas and MT to be getting together on a weekend basis, or perhaps ever. Regiments are (or will be) more of an organizational units than a geographic local unit. I feel like what you are arguing for is overlooking that there will be smaller, local organizational units that will serve the purposes you are describing AND you are overlooking the likelihood of which areas are the most likely to grow and divide.

You want to throw Battalions into the midst, that's fine.
The Phoenix area would have 4 people in their Battalion, New Mexico/Albuquerque would have 1, Las Vegas would have 3, San Diego would have 20, San Francsico would have 20, Salt Lake City would have 6, Denver would have 3, OKC would have 3, Tulsa would have 3 (including 1 person from Arkansas), West Texas would have 1, and Central Texas if you include Dallas would have like 10-15.

Now where exactly do you think the Phoenix Battalion is more likely going to carpool to? San Diego or Dallas?

Do you REALLY think people will go to a large convention based on their Battalion or Regiment or that members of the 405th would snub one another because they weren't in the same smaller organizational unit. Again, I am not at all following your logic here.

I'm going to hold my tongue now. I will postpone any further responses of mine in this thread untill Monday.
I can hold it for longer if you'd like, just let me know.
I'm sorry if I've been harsh, but I prefer sharing my blunt and honest opinions at times.

You aren't bothering me and you don't need to apologize. I prefer people who are straight-forward to those who beat around the bush and you are obviously passionate about this. I just feel like you are looking at this myopically, but I am always willing to be convinced.

 

[Walter Spase]

@Art

Its subjective at this point, lets get the Southwest up and moving and see how the chips fall. If the folks from AR and LA find they would feel better suited to be part of the Southwestern Division they can decide that for themselves later.
Consider Southwestern Championed, lets get it moving.

 

[Art Andrews]

@Art

Its subjective at this point, lets get the Southwest up and moving and see how the chips fall. If the folks from AR and LA find they would feel better suited to be part of the Southwestern Division they can decide that for themselves later.
Consider Southwestern Championed, lets get it moving.

Are you taking or leaving AZ?

 

[Walter Spase]

Sure, lets leave AZ within the Southwestern Regiment, everyone is welcome, the more the better.

 

[Art Andrews]

Sure, lets leave AZ within the Southwestern Regiment, everyone is welcome, the more the better.

Done. PM me a list of people at add to that group.

 

[WandererTJ]

I get that Battalions are what make up a Regiment and that Regiments are supposed to encompass a much larger space than any 1 particular battalion does.

But what is confusing me, is breaking things up in a way that will cause a particular Battalion to be grouped within a Regiment that they wouldn't really consider themselves a part of because they are so much closer to another Battalion or Regiment.


I attached that other picture showing basically where the centers are for major conventions I think most of us would want to visit, and to show the fallout distance that each one could covers.
Here is the source of the image without the bubbles:

I know you have better things to do, but when you get the chance, I would like you to show me a similar map to what I've showed you.
Based on the density of the pins/dots that represent each of us currently on the map, how would you imagine us breaking into Battalions? The bubbles on the map will be much smaller than the ones on mine.

I feel like there is some loss of message between the two of us, I feel like you are probably looking at your screen wondering how I don't understand what you are saying and I'm doing the same thing over here. I'm definitely needing a crutch and I would love it if you could show me a visualization of how you are imaging the battalions will turn out.

---

Done. PM me a list of people at add to that group.

Have you seen this thread?
http://www.405th.com/showthread.php...all-Please-Post-if-you-are-in-Southwest-U-S-A

I know that at least the Oklahomans I have listed at the top are active and I've had communication with in this past week.

I'd also like to ask for that thread linked above to bemoved to its new home when you get the chance.

 

[Art Andrews]

I get that Battalions are what make up a Regiment and that Regiments are supposed to encompass a much larger space than any 1 particular battalion does.

But what is confusing me, is breaking things up in a way that will cause a particular Battalion to be grouped within a Regiment that they wouldn't really consider themselves a part of because they are so much closer to another Battalion or Regiment.


I attached that other picture showing basically where the centers are for major conventions I think most of us would want to visit, and to show the fallout distance that each one could covers.
Here is the source of the image without the bubbles:
View attachment 2583
I know you have better things to do, but when you get the chance, I would like you to show me a similar map to what I've showed you.
Based on the density of the pins/dots that represent each of us currently on the map, how would you imagine us breaking into Battalions? The bubbles on the map will be much smaller than the ones on mine.

I think the difference here is that you are placing far more importance on that map than it should be given. Yes, I see where it shows people falling. Yes, I understand what you are saying regarding conventions. The thing with geographic boundaries are that you have to draw the line somewhere and that does mean that someone will ultimately end up at the edge of a boundary. I know this all too well. When I was a kid, we lived at the very edge of our county. Literally, our property line was also the country line. What did that mean back in the days before cell phones? Our next door neighbors, who lived only a couple hundred yards away were considered long distance to call, While I could make calls more than 30 miles away to friends on the other side of the county. Now, I could complain about that... but the truth is, we were on the line and the line has to be drawn somewhere. For our purposes here, natural state boundaries make great preexisting lines because people already tend to define themselves by the state they are in. In regard to cons... TX may be closer to NM than CA, but I'll bet more people from NM go to SDCC than to RTX. I just don't think that our entire structure should be determined by a map that has been in place for barely over 24 hours and based on conventions that have very very little semblance to one another. I understand what you are trying to say and applaud you for the effort, but I do not think it is a good basis for dividing the groups, especially considering that we expect them to eventually sub-divide.

I feel like there is some loss of message between the two of us, I feel like you are probably looking at your screen wondering how I don't understand what you are saying and I'm doing the same thing over here. I'm definitely needing a crutch and I would love it if you could show me a visualization of how you are imaging the battalions will turn out.

Yes... it very much feels that way.

In regard to the Battalions, I can't possibly tell you how they will turn out because we haven't defined what constitutes a Battalion yet. Surely most will center around large cities, but it will all depend on the community where Battalions form. I could easily see Battalions forming around strong leaders, even if there isn't a big city. It will just depend on the passion of the person, which is why we aren't trying to preconceive them.

Have you seen this thread?
http://www.405th.com/showthread.php...all-Please-Post-if-you-are-in-Southwest-U-S-A

I know that at least the Oklahomans I have listed at the top are active and I've had communication with in this past week.

I'd also like to ask for that thread linked above to bemoved to its new home when you get the chance.

Thread moved.

 

[WandererTJ]

Before I leave the office today, I just want to say that what you just said has settled my argument.

You didn't "put your foot down" per se, but the way you presented your point was clear this time around.

I've definitely had that thought where I wanted to make sure no one got cut off, and I was definitely trying to prevent it, but I do realize that its gotta happen to someone.

I guess looking forward, we might just need to add the ability for certain battalions to also receive notifications for other Regiments, not just the ones they are in.
Doing something like that should make everything work.


Anyways, you the man Art Andrews!!!!!
:thumbsup

I can't wait till I see my badge get changed from Midwest and fixed so it says Southwest