We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Definitive Defence Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Beluz Democratic Karavist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 3336
Description[?]:
| Beluzia needs to define its military divisions among the terrains the soldiers fight in/on. The 3 terrains, being mentioned, are: - Land (Infantry) - Sea (Navy) - Air (Air Force) In addition to the 3 main divisions, the military has been given control of the police force, which currently uses non-lethal weapons. The military is being asked to create a 4th division, which will specialize in law enforcement and dealing with civilians. If this bill is passed, from now on, the Defence Minister sets the ratio of focus among the military's 4 divisions: - Local Law Enforcement (Police) - Infantry (Land Troops & Machinery) - Navy (Marine Troops & Sea Technology) - Air Force (Pilots & Aircraft) |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 23:40:04, July 14, 2012 CET | From |  Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | The Karav Dynasty supports obtion B, because it gives more responsibility to the Defence Minister, and it shows respect for his position and authority. |
| Date | 23:45:33, July 14, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: The current division is pretty much the most standard division of a modern military force. However, PT being PT, I think we would need to ask if this is what we want, or something that sounds more "innovative", even though the division might not be better than the usual one. I believe it is something that the entire council to discuss for, seeing that we will make it pretty much a permanent decision and will be recorded into the wikia article. However, the method I, as the holder of the defense ministry, prefer is having a small discussion about what exactly do we want, and then let me (and others, if needed be) work out the draft for the council to approve it. Currently I am thinking of whether our paramilitaries should be part of it, as well as how exactly does the Parish military work. |
| Date | 23:55:04, July 14, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: 1) There is no "current division" because no effort was made to define one. 2) It isn't a permanent decision. It's something I want to be able to change, since the military size is updated after each election. 3) The wiki can be changed all the time. This isn't really for the wiki; it's for the "Administrative Structure of Beluzia" record on the nation page: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=353621 4) Paramilitaries are under the full control of their parties/houses. That will not change. Parish militaries are really just loyalist militaries to the individual parish rulers. They are not a part of Beluzia's federal military. Beluzia's federal military is obligated to neutrality, and can only be summoned if the federal council votes to do so. Houses are allowed to conduct their own foreign affairs and pledge paramilitary support in foreign wars. Beluzia can't participate in foreign wars unless there is a legitimate recognised threat. |
| Date | 23:59:36, July 14, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: For #1, I mean the "land, sea, air" division. You just defined it. For #2 & #3, I mean that once we worked out the details of the military, it will be canon. I care not much about the annual change, but I will think twice about changing the overall organisation and roles of the military every election. |
| Date | 00:07:04, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: You're misunderstanding the entire bill description. When I say we need to "define" the military divisions, I mean we need to set a percentage for each. I wasn't talking about their names, or whatever else; I mean we need to decide what percentage each division takes up in the military. |
| Date | 00:12:55, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: Well, that makes sense. I suppose we can work that out relatively easily once we decided which aspects we should focus more on? |
| Date | 00:17:44, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: What I'm asking, here, is whether deciding the percentages should be left up to the entire council to vote on, or just the Defence Minister to decide. I think the Defence Minister should decide, but maybe the federal council can set a minimum for specific divisions, or even vote to create new divisions like a special task force or a secondary infantry division that specializes in certain mixes of non-combat skills (not like medics or mechanics that would be in normal infantry, but more like other aids for special purposes that don't necessarily benefit combat). |
| Date | 08:23:08, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: I agree. |
| Date | 11:12:28, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: Personnel Percentage of RL Powers (Land/Sea/Air, excluding special forces): Russia: 55%/20.5%/24.5% UK: 58.5%/19.5%/22% USA: 46.3%/26.5%/27.2% France: 58.4%/17.8%/23.8% PRC: 75.6%/11.1%/13.3% Judging from the lack of global power projection of Beluzia (no colonies or notable overseas bases), as well as not being an island nation (although have notable length of coastline), I would recommend (roughly) the following percentage: Land: 60% Sea: 20% Air: 20% Concerning the structure, personally I also prefer splitting the Air Force into Army Air Force and Naval Air Force, and consider its main goal as to assist their respective forces. Please tell me if I am doing it right. |
| Date | 14:26:53, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | The Air Force can remain as "the Air Force" and during a war we say how much we dispatch to each. Okay; it's nice that you have a recommended ratio, but what I'm trying to get done here is determine who should actually decide the ratio, whether it's the Defence Minister or the entire council. This bill will be about purely that - the description will be changed to "The Defence Minister is given the authority to adjust the terrain focus of the military" or something of the sort. |
| Date | 14:59:31, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: Well, as the holder of the defense ministry, I think in any case I should at least have a recommended ratio around, no matter who is to decide it. In any case, I believe every one should be able to recommend a ratio to either the defense minister or the council, and to see which one is to adopt. For the Air Force thing, it is a bit more complicated than that, but I think this can be a topic for another day, as no matter what design, the ratio will probably be similar, as far as the situation of Beluzia is more or less the same. |
| Date | 16:05:57, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | I'm not talking about who holds the Defence Ministry now. I'm not talking about what the ratio should be right now. I'm talking about who should have the responsibility to determine the ratio in the future. This bill is not what will be used to determine the ratio. This bill is about who will determine it in the future. -- a) Should it be something the entire council discusses? b) Should it just be a duty left up to the Defence Minister? c) Should it be something where the Defence Minister can propose it, but the federal council has to approve it? ^ The bill/debate is about that. |
| Date | 16:28:32, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: Okay, I prefer option C then. Communications just get a lot harder for me it seems. |
| Date | 16:36:00, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | I added a 4th option: "D" |
| Date | 18:18:56, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: I stand by my choice, although I would like to hear other people apart from us to give some input. |
| Date | 18:24:16, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | B or C...maybe the Defence Minister can decide without the approval of the federal council but the council can override his decision if necessary? |
| Date | 18:24:16, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | B or C...maybe the Defence Minister can decide without the approval of the federal council but the council can override his decision if necessary? |
| Date | 18:35:24, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | A Defence Minister's appointment already needs >50% of the federal council's approval. If he screws up, we can always replace him. Overriding his decision already makes his position irrelevant. -- OOC: If we centralize everything in the federal council, things take too long and they get annoying. It's the same with the cabinets when anyone could propose them. We centralized the duty with the head of state so everyone would either accept it or get left out. The Defence Minister needs some more in-character significance, which is why I propose option B. If a Defence Minister screws up, we just pass a new cabinet to change him like we did with the Tory Finance minister when he proposed a screwed up budget. When a Defence Minister is proposing something, I mean simply a comment on this bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=354211#messages Making a new bill takes too much time - 30 RL hours to vote and debate. |
| Date | 18:38:57, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Williams Family | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | Okay...B it is. |
| Date | 18:42:16, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: Then I agree with plan B as well, although personally I do not see changing the ratio as something that we will do often, but it probably won't hurt much anyway. |
| Date | 18:42:23, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: Reno? |
| Date | 18:43:12, July 15, 2012 CET | From | Beluz Democratic Karavist Party | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | OOC: Oh, I see you commented. Dude, it's not something "we" will do often - it's whoever the Defence Minister is. |
| Date | 20:58:19, July 18, 2012 CET | From | Takanashi Clan | To | Debating the Definitive Defence Act |
| Message | Proposed Military Ratio, 3336: Army (Land): 40% Gendarmerie (Military Police): 30% Navy (Sea): 15% Airforce (Air): 15% |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 74 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 25 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "If God made man they say Sam Colt made them equal." - Unknown |