Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Myroria on September 27, 2014, 06:53:13 PM
-
There's been some talk in IRC recently about reestablishing Taijitu's military. Here's a rough draft of a bill defining the Taijitu Citizens' Militia:
I. The Ecclesia shall establish the Taijitu Citizens' Militia.
II. The Militia shall be led by a Citizen-Sergeant.
1. The Citizen-Sergeant shall be elected by the Ecclesia to a four month term.
2. The Citizen-Sergeant may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Ecclesia.
3. The Citizen-Sergeant shall lead the Militia strategically, and shall act as military advisor to the Ecclesia.
III. The Militia shall be organized.
1. The Citizen-Sergeant shall delineate rank and responsibility within the Militia.
IV. The Militia shall be supervised by the Ecclesia.
1. Except where required by treaty obligation, all military action must be approved by the Ecclesia by a majority vote.
2. The Citizen-Sergeant may not hold any other public office.
Thoughts?
-
Perhaps military actions could require a 2/3 vote. I think a damn lot of people should agree before we get entangled in conflict.
Otherwise I have no objections. This looks great, as always Myro!
-
I was saying it in irc, but posting here too - I would go the other direction with the voting. Having to vote on every deployment would paralyze the military and it would end up not doing anything (unless a treatied GCR ally like TNP was couped, in which case we could help).
Perhaps some voting procedure could be written for lengthy deployments - support missions, refoundings, etc. However, the citizen-sergeant needs to have command authority that lasts at least a few updates.
-
After Dyr explained this to me I'll have to take the opposite position from my first post as well and back this change.
-
I was saying it in irc, but posting here too - I would go the other direction with the voting. Having to vote on every deployment would paralyze the military and it would end up not doing anything (unless a treatied GCR ally like TNP was couped, in which case we could help).
Perhaps some voting procedure could be written for lengthy deployments - support missions, refoundings, etc. However, the citizen-sergeant needs to have command authority that lasts at least a few updates.
That makes perfect sense.
-
There's been some talk in IRC recently about reestablishing Taijitu's military. Here's a rough draft of a bill defining the Taijitu Citizens' Militia:
I. The Ecclesia shall establish the Taijitu Citizens' Militia.
II. The Militia shall be led by a Citizen-Sergeant.
1. The Citizen-Sergeant shall be elected by the Ecclesia to a four month term.
2. The Citizen-Sergeant may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Ecclesia.
3. The Citizen-Sergeant shall lead the Militia strategically, and shall act as military advisor to the Ecclesia.
III. The Militia shall be organized.
1. The Citizen-Sergeant shall delineate rank and responsibility within the Militia.
IV. The Militia shall be supervised by the Ecclesia.
1. Except where required by treaty obligation, all military action must be approved by the Ecclesia by a majority vote.
2. The Citizen-Sergeant may not hold any other public office.
Thoughts?
I dislike that, despite the faux symbolism of our officials, this Citizen-Sergeant would "lead" the militia. Maybe we should try a syndicalist militia, establish a militia commission that would vote/decide on the actions to follow just like Ecclesia.
-
I think a militia that has to vote on everything among itself would get even less done than the Ecclesia oversight idea. Simply for practical reasons it needs a leader.
-
Perhaps triune leadership to distribute the burden of leadership and introduce the potential of a veto?
-
Do we have 3 trusted members who are interested in/good at military gameplay and are also available online often? Potential candidates for these offices would influence my opinion on 1 leader versus a trio.
-
Do we have 3 trusted members who are interested in/good at military gameplay and are also available online often? Potential candidates for these offices would influence my opinion on 1 leader versus a trio.
Fair point.
-
Do we have 3 trusted members who are interested in/good at military gameplay and are also available online often? Potential candidates for these offices would influence my opinion on 1 leader versus a trio.
ipsisverbis.
-
My only concern with this (I assume I can post on it already) is that we are still working on a heap of other matters for the community. I'm concerned that this will be too much too soon, may alienate some players, and the rest who want this to happen aren't that interested in GP at this point.
-
My only concern with this (I assume I can post on it already) is that we are still working on a heap of other matters for the community. I'm concerned that this will be too much too soon, may alienate some players, and the rest who want this to happen aren't that interested in GP at this point.
I just wanted to clarify - as the mobile GPer here - I don't want to push the region anywhere it doesn't want to go.
-
I. The Ecclesia shall establish the Taijitu Citizens' Militia.
II. The Militia shall be led by a Citizen-Sergeant.
1. The Citizen-Sergeant shall be elected by the Ecclesia to a four month term.
2. The Citizen-Sergeant may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Ecclesia.
3. The Citizen-Sergeant shall lead the Militia strategically, and shall act as military advisor to the Ecclesia.
III. The Militia shall be organized.
1. The Citizen-Sergeant shall delineate rank and responsibility within the Militia.
IV. The Militia shall be supervised by the Ecclesia.
1. The citizen-sergeant shall be able to order military actions, and the Militia shall respond to treaty obligations.
2. All military occupations lasting longer than three major in-game updates must be approved by the Ecclesia by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. The Citizen-Sergeant may not hold any other public office.
Incorporated some input into this draft.
-
There's no "can't dos" in the bill except from a hard-to-control point 2. I propose to include IV 3. (move the current 3 to 4):
All military actions that are not part of previous treaty or legislation obligations must be approved by the Ecclesia.
-
I think requiring a vote on every single military action will cripple the militia from doing any real work. If we don't like the Sergeant's decisions they can always be recalled.
-
I personally oppose this legislation. Let us continue without a military until after the convention. If we really need a militia it will gather itself from such necessity.
-
I personally oppose this legislation. Let us continue without a military until after the convention. If we really need a militia it will gather itself from such necessity.
I agree. This legislation tries to create professional military and is against what I originally defended here:
1 - I'm not sure that's the type of gaming taijis do, who would be exactly participating? Relevant? We can be dead and we're relevant.
2 - (...) we're not very militaristic, an organized militia would be more accurate.
(...)
4 - You can sail the 7 seas (linky) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw)
-
Either way, I would like to motion that we put this to a vote.
-
Seconded.
I think that some people are being a bit shortsighted. I think having the establishment (at least) of a militia for Taijitu will be able to help us grow. Just because you RP doesn't mena everyone else does. Isolating ourself to one side of nationstates will limit our growth. Jumping to gameplay at the same time will open us to everything, as well as increase our interregional notoriety.
-
Seconded.
I think that some people are being a bit shortsighted. I think having the establishment (at least) of a militia for Taijitu will be able to help us grow. Just because you RP doesn't mena everyone else does. Isolating ourself to one side of nationstates will limit our growth. Jumping to gameplay at the same time will open us to everything, as well as increase our interregional notoriety.
I again don't care about growth beyond what it does for RP and Community, faster growth isn't worthwhile if it merely grows in a GP direction.
You call it short sighted, I call it seeing but not giving a shit.
-
Not giving a shit... about the growth of the region.
The region will *not* grow without more nations joining. A lot of people like playing the GP bit. participating in the GP bit will allow us to tap into a wider market of nations. Hence the region will grow. It is selfish to want it to only be successful for your own purposes, which is for more RP. I want it to grow just for the sake of Taijitu's own continuation.
-
Retracted statement.
-
This discussion is no longer fruitful. I believe the Militia should form itself organically whenever it is necessary by participation, whoever wants to participate is free to do so and it may have a SIMPLE ad hoc organization, without the need or attempt to establish military governance. Calling it a Citizens' Militia doesn't make it so.
This happened in the past:
(...)We shall organize ourselves into a militia until our current Delegate Oz officially recognizes this military operation under the Taijituan Army. We shall declare this intention in Taijitu's RMB, a list of those who join the militia will be updated here and transmitted to officials in Osiris.
(http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/6296/loc8.png)
I sign this declaration of intentions, I join the militia Taijituans for Freedom and Democracy with [INSERT NATION NAME], I will change my flag to the militia flag, move my WA nation to the region Osiris (http://www.nationstates.net/region=osiris) and there endorse Cormac (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=cormac_a_stark).
-
I don't see why it has to be ad hoc or democratic. No one else does it like that. There is no reason to have it be unlike everyone else except for the sake of being objectionist. There is no reasonable complaint with having an established militia compared to an ad hoc or "democratic" group.
-
There is no reasonable complaint with having an established militia compared to an ad hoc or "democratic" group.
Just because you fail to see the reasoning does not mean that the anti-militia stance is invalid. Believe it or not some of us would like to to do without having the region involved militarily anywhere. I know you are passionate about this issue but if you continue pushing your views as the only right ones, you will alienate people right here for the sake of a few out there.
-
I would just like to point out in case it has been unclear that if this bill passes it will be an all volunteer force and we will not be requiring WA nations as a requirement of citizenship.
-
I think Al-Khem wants growth Funkadelia, just a different type to you.
We can legislate about anything we'd like. We could create a Committee for State Security designed to allow immoveable WA's to protect the region. We don't need that and likely wouldn't have the personnel even if we did. My question is how necessary this is at THIS point in time. It may be necessary at another point in time, howeve,r if we move resources away from community building and the general activity into military activity, then I don't think that would be wise at this point.
Lastly, how many of us are likely to move with the military? I have a tied down WA, as does Funkadelia, and a number of others just aren't interested in having a military. It is possible to have a GP presence without having a military, we just take an active role in diplomacy, or wa affairs.. or something else.
When we have new people and there is a greater desire for a military, I think that would be the best time to legislate to create one. At this point, who is going to lead the military? Who is going to recruit for it? Who is going to train it? Who is going to plan operations? Who is going to participate in it? All important questions, with few answers.
-
We don't *need* all of this off the bat. It sounds crazy but remember, in the days of the TWA, we only had 1-3 active updaters, but we still did things. We were still helping out our friends, the UDL being the biggest example I can think of. These are all things that can be decided later. All I ask for is a foundation so that we can move forward more easily at our choosing, and can attract nations with the prospect of a military. As I said already, we can dive into both "markets" of nations to recruit.