Just so I'm not reported for hijacking, I'll continue this here for those wanting to discuss it. The rest of this discussion is
here (link).
My previous post on the "Legality of Military Actions conducted without Citizen-Sergeant" thread sums up what I've been talking about, you can
read here (link).
In the following quote I transcribe certain bits for proper context:
(...) Bustos is a toilet scrubber and he has to scrub toilets. (...) traditional military hierarchy. That's fine, but I think as a revolutionary value of equality and all that, maybe we shouldn't make a "toilet scrubber" title and force them to toilet scrub, if you know what I mean.
(...) None of what you described requires ranks, we generally discuss militia matters informally and people justify them regardless of ranks, that is a good approach, very like what I proposed as a "Syndicalized" or "ad hoc" militia. If people can see the merit in those proposals I will certainly support or write an amendment.
(...) I just think sometimes we, the militia, do operations for the slightest of reasons. Maybe the above mentioned discussion should be mandatory even if only within the militia in IRC. Maybe even a simple vote within IRC would totally satisfy me and make me say I'm proud for the "work" we're doing.
(...) organized on the spot and executed by those in favor. Those against may bring the operation in question to, what in our current system would most likely fit, the Ecclesia. In a way, we've been doing that, again there's no need for ranks or "orders", it's just more interpretive of free will if it's organized in a more participative way. Participative Democracy ftw.
Kinda like this: (Link to past discussion)
(...) a citizen doesn't have to be in "our" militia to participate, and as a principle maybe we shouldn't also block anyone that isn't a citizen either, like a foreign dignitary or a random friend from another region wanting to participate on a militia operation with us. Make it more Participatory is what I mean.
I think it should arise on need, as it has been for many of them, organized on the spot and executed by those in favor. Those against may bring the operation in question to, what in our current system would most likely fit, the Ecclesia. In a way, we've been doing that, again there's no need for ranks or "orders", it's just more interpretive of free will if it's organized in a more participative way.
My perspective on this probably isn't worth much (since I'm not at all involved in the militia, and barely in the Ecclesia at all), but I'd like to offer at least a few words to the discussion.
So long as the active members of the militia feel the need for occasional deployment, there will be some kind of standing structure to the organization. Establishing the militia provides transparency, accountability and official representation to what would exist anyway. An 'ad hoc' militia would be somewhat confusing (and if I recall, that's what we had before the Act, more or less, and it was confusing).
The ranks may be pulled from 'traditional military hierarchy' but legally speaking they don't carry that much weight (Citizen-Sergeant aside). It's a way of adding flavor to the organization, aesthetics consistent with the revolutionary theme even if it doesn't follow to the egalitarian aspect. So long as that hierarchy doesn't begin to contradict the actual structure of the government/militia/etc., the titles are fine. Drawing purely from strict egalitarianism is, frankly, rather dry.
Ah but you see, this is exactly what happens, it doesn't matter ranks or where the "order" comes from, there were even decisions last night to end Madrigal that weren't done with the Sergeant so why have pretend titles so people can feel good about them and pin them as medals? Just for fun? If it's just for fun, I don't want to be accused of wanting to stop fun, lol. I think they are useless while there is and always will be people with more contacts and connections, it'll naturally occur without ranks that those will ultimately lead without needing a Citizen-Sergeant to ghost them. hm yes this could as well be against the fact we have a Citizen-Sergeant but it's not something I find achievable to campaign for, I'm just talking about military ranks and supposed hierarchy.
If you'd like to ban titles within the militia or impose some sort of equality on the structure that the Sergeant (or whoever leads the militia) cannot override, it may be worth opening a new thread. If you'd also like to eliminate the Sergeant altogether then that's a more fundamental change that would also warrant its own thread.
Cool, but eliminating the Sergeant isn't something we're prepared for. Ranks are just pin medals and they are detrimental to our revolutionary comradeship: the recent lashing of Bustos for not following "Militia orders" was clearly a class evidence, grunt may not do what he wants, grunt that does isn't a proper militiaman. Without ranks I doubt this would happen.
I've had Cormac run operations even before he was an "officer", a good point against them ranks? (Cormac may not be the best example given recent events lol) Anyway, this as a positive example against ranks and Bustos' walk of shame as a negative example of ranks should suffice to make my point, a more simple and participatory approach is really something our revolutionary values should uphold.
I propose an amendment to the Militia Act
III. Militia shall be organized.
1. The Citizen-Sergeant shall delineate rank and responsibility within the Militia..
1. The command channel is where our Militia will organize it's operations.
2. The Citizen-Sergeant can delegate responsibility within the Militia.
3. All participating in the operations are equal and cannot be discriminated through rank or service.
4. Participating in operations may include foreign agents deemed trustworthy by those in the command channel.
idk if 1 should mention the IRC Channel or if that's a security risk or how to make it more defined. Anyway, I said I was bad at writing laws, you guys told me this already, so feel free to discuss changes.
