Join the new world

[removed]

so... much... substance....

I always enjoy reading about your perspective on things, Sweet. Good stuff.

Although, based on my experience in other small countries, I do have to point out that a constitution can actually work well IF you do it right and keep things simple. Believe it or not it can even allow government work more efficiently. But of course that requires an active congress and forum so I'm not saying that it will necessarily work in Ireland -- especially in the very near future. But at the same time I don't think we should be dismissing ideas like this out of hand just because they weren't done right the first time around.

We had an active Congress on a forum with more action than what was going on ingame back then.
That's all anyone ever did around here. Go to the forum and argue.

People would forget to actually log in for work/train having spent the whole day arguing an interpretation of laws that could only exist on the forum.
Talk about punishing criminals: forum ban
Talk about abusive language: forum ban
Talk about information leaks: forum ban

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but my comment on forum activity was about present prospects, not past failures. It is a necessary but nowhere near sufficient ingredient for a successful constitution, and has nothing to do with why it failed in the past.

The reason it did fail in the past was because it was poorly executed and misused/abused because of it. A good constitution should be a straight-forward minimalist framework for government process that has very little room for interpretation and is only referenced when absolutely necessary.

That being said, I think I should make it clear that I am not actually arguing for a constitution in Ireland, especially in the very near future. All I am saying is that there is no good reason to keep ideas like this off the table completely. Just because we didn't do something right in the past doesn't mean it can NEVER be done right. That is all.

Well said , i read BB's article last night , i got as far as "investment in centralised WRM companies " and promptly logged out .
I don't want to think about "the constitution" et al

"The fact is Constitutions in this game are means for RolePlayers to force their favoured playstyle upon the unsuspecting public."
Roleplayers, will we ever be safe from them : (

On the other hand "investment in centralised WRM companies" now anybody who can turn out a phrase like that, the way it rolls off the tongue - it just has to mean something awesome.

Yeah!
I hate roleplayers!

No good from them...only screaming and whining and caling humans to repent....

"Since the government doesn't supply enemies, he could only be referring to supplying ALLIED battles.
Using supplies to fight for allies is the heart of international friendships/alliances/reciprocation/pride.
If we cannot showup to an ally's campaign ready to fight, we cannot expect it from them either."

We have limited resources as a state. It makes perfect sense to concentrate those resources into a professional force, as the IA was meant to be, and encourage the development of MUs beyond the state military. What is more effective, a disjointed and badly resourced effort to support our allies or a coordinated strike that leaves us in a position to strike again and again? Sustainability is an argument in play here, and MUFC proved essentially that our military model is unsustainable without foreign aid, has not guaranteed our alliances or our own country's survival.

The State holds companies through willing patriotic citizens, who often go unrecognised despite their massive contribution. And the point of holding the companies is to invest in production capability for the long term, so the length of time it would take to "repay" the investment is somewhat irrelevent. It's a trade off of capital for capability. We can discuss whether that is necessary or not, sure, but the repayment issue is a strawman.

Helping our allies at this moment is VERY pertinent to our own national defence Sweet. There is a large difference between using a professional force to aid our allies on a sustainable basis generally, and being occupied where we must expend all possible resources to free ourselves.

The "limited resources of the state" is the issue that needs to be addressed.
The rest of that becomes a moot point if we corrected the underlying problem instead of using the problem as a foundation stone for our model.

It's not simply an issue of repayment of outlay cost with building state infrastructure. When compared to alternative investment potential returns it's a devastating loss of production potential.

Aiding our allies when we are liberated is all well and good. But it's the willingness to aid our allies/alliance when we are suffering ourselves that shows true character

The problem remains uncorrected, and we can talk about better models when we can actually see the larger resources coming down the line. I have every confidence that they are there, considering we had them in the past, but it is hypothetical in the extreme until we see what exactly we can achieve.

Essentially, we should have a military of a size that we can afford. If we can afford more, then we should have more, but the opposite is also the case.

I'm actually advocating that we help our allies to the maximum extent possible while occupied. Repeated RW failures have shown that it isn't going to fly if we rely only on our own strength. Expending extraordinary resources to regain territories is perfectly justifiable, particularly given the feeling in some quarters in Britain of a long term occupation being preferable.

Just because we have more borders with the American continent does not make us Americans. Geographically, you could argue that, maybe. We have more political and cultural contact with European countries than we do with American ones, first of all. Canada may be the exception. Furthermore, the RL Irish population are generally not American, and we do represent the largest group of players in the country. Other European countries are also represented.

I ruled out attempting to join TWO/ACT precisely because it would mean a lack of sovereign control. That would be unacceptable.

As for CoT, we can't know whether they'll survive this war. Joining them would be a mistake.

An independent foreign policy is NOT neutrality. It is simply a lack of formal membership of alliances. We can help the Americans or the Croatians or our other allies without being labelled, and they can help us in turn.

"Geographically you could argue that"
Yes, that's what I did!

there's 2 countries in North America, formulating an opinion based on 1/2 of them being "the exception" is weak. Especially if that exception happens to be the nation who has cooperated more with us in joint military endeavours than any other, perhaps more than all others combined.
Can you even put a numbre on how many times Canada has put themselves out there for us? Cuz I've lost count at this point.

We can't know if any alliance will survive, with the fall of EDEN we now have a 100% fatality rate on alliances. I wouldn't choose based solely on who will survive (thats british), I'd choose alliance based on who I WANT to survive, and them try help them do so (THATS Irish)

We cannot become an alliance priority battle if we are not in an alliance. Our occupier can however. If your advocating Independent foreign policy you might aswell be a British agent, because that is EXACTLY what they want us to do.

Canada's population isn't the largest, and they've never been the country we turn to first. That honour goes to Croatia. They're very dear friends, but to classify ourselves as Americans as a result?

CoT are somewhat reluctant participants in this war, the Swiss got attacked yes, but did Bulgaria and the Macedonians want the war? Did Chile? No, they didn't. Add to that the fact the US just went off on its own and declared war on Serbia, and CoT looks like a madman's choice of alliance.

The British want us to join CoT so then the hardliners can point to us and say "Look, they'll just invade us again, we must occupy them forever." CoT, having far larger priorities, will take a long time getting around to help us and we'll remain occupied. Not to mention the fact that our two best friends, Canada and Croatia, aren't in CoT. Who can we rely on to advocate for our interests within the alliance? Bulgaria's friendship was tossed by MUFC by joining CUA. The US has shown clearly that they don't give a fuck either. You would also have to explain how CoT is going to rescue us when we're bordered by Poland and Spain, and soon perhaps, Serbia. The Brits could just order their allies in to dismember the country.

Croatia can send soldiers, but Canada can send borders. Who can engage in a multipronged attack with us? Canada can.
Who can engage in NE blocking with us? Canada can. Who is online to monitor our battles while our citizens are all sleeping? Canada.

Canada can and has done all of these things for us. that is why everybody's friendslist is filled with Crimson Canucks.

Our two best friends Canada and Croatia, as you say, are not members of CoT.

But Canada is long occupied by a TWO nation, and Asgard is unquestionably moving towards CoT's sphere. Just read recent Canadian media.

As for Croatia, w/e alliance they are in, it'sa safe bet it'll 'whatever Serbia isn't in'

The Constitution would not set up a legalistic state. It would do certain things things: Tell citizens what they can expect from the State as a whole, what is expected of them, what the objectives of the country are generally, and most importantly, what the duties are of Ministers and the President, as duly appointed/elected via the game mechanics.

This is a new idea because it isn't like the old one, there will be no massive legal debates, there will be no formal lawmaking processes, there will be no attempt to muddle the process of making law. It will be clarification for both public servants and citizens, that is all. A useful thing to have in a country where the quality of Presidents and Ministers varies wildly.

What we expect from the government evolves due to the situations presented to us.
CP duties are hardcoded into the game, if ppl would like to learn what those are they can wiki it.
Ministers serve the CP in w/e capacity the CP deems required of them. The CP can/has created/dissolved/merged Ministries as deemed best to serve the nation.
What your advocating is rigid inflexibility for our government in a dynamic and everchanging world

CP duties are hardcoded into the game? Really? I haven't seen too many articles from our current President, although the man is constantly available on IRC. I regard regular communication as a duty and it's clear most eIrish do as well. Things like that, a reference point on what is expected, is desirable.

Furthermore, the idea doesn't create inflexibility, it creates a foundation on which competent government can form. What you build on top of that isn't to be defined and should not be defined.

A good constitution must have a formal lawmaking process, otherwise there is no point. That formal lawmaking process, however, does NOT have to be complicated. In fact a constitution can even work to streamline that process and reduce confusion... if it is done right. But of course now I sound like a broken record.

The formal lawmaking process is already hardcoded into the game, as far as I'm concerned. Processes beyond that already exist via the Congress threads. We could codify the necessity of a Congress thread, perhaps.

if u agree formal lawmaking is hardcoded, and processes beyond that alrdy exist. whats the point of this?
Your talking about codifying something we alrdy have (and have had for months). This is just legislation for legislation's sake.
the definition of bureaucracy...

Wait... you guys both think that the way our congress does things now is how a good congress actually ought to be run??

What I think is that a majority of our Congress cba to even go on a forum mate.
We work with what we have.

The congressional mass mail setup each month has done wonders to improve congressional communication using an INGAME mechanic. It's so much easier than a forum, and gets much better response. People can simply check in when they log in for the day, without having to go to a 3rd party site.

The point of this is to frame duties that aren't hardcoded, but that are the baseline for any sort of competent government official. Communication and some basic level of action towards the objective of the office are the big two with regard to Ministers and the Presidency. The Constitution is framed in moral intent, not legalism, to provide a reference point for us as a nation.

It's a values statement in other words.

In RL we are Europeans, but in eRepublik we are North Americans.


I wonder if that's why the beer sucks lately?

Good points, Sweet. Gotta say the breakdown on companies makes me keep asking myself why I'm trying to build an industrial empire, lol.

So is Brian running for CP or Sweet?

You see?
For once i can be good and not acusing and scraming at Sweet....

http://www.erepublik.com/en/presidential-candidates/country-54

Can I haz your partE support?
You can just TO one again if yes

If you accept The Word you can have support of State Prior.

Since "Leap of Faith" agreement i don't mindle with parties.

And Ibhoy gets panic attacks when i join any of parties so for his peace of corrupted mind i only visit parties for a shot time to save them from eternal damnation...

Do I have to wear a silly hat?

Don't you already wear one?
http://ezwebrus.com/wallpapers/cartoons/uncle_scrooge.jpg

Sweet.

Despite what people think of me, I'm not so arrogant as to deny genius when I see it.

I am not a genius...just a messenger of The Word of Heavens!
But i can see why you said that since The Word is the ultimate wisdom...

Hail fellow GOM !
I am GOM, and proud !

Realistically you've been publicly active for about half of those years...alas, you are still a GOM.

The economy in this game is so freking broken. Citizens can't even make investments in themselves because the return on investment takes a year or more. You know it's bad when investing in your STR buildings earn you more profit than building companies ffs.

If I had to guess I'd say that CoT is the future for you guys. I had hoped that in this alliance shakeup we'd end up as allies, but I haven't seen any evidence of that coming to fruition. CoT is ideal because it puts you with America, Bulgaria, and potentially Croatia in the future. All good allies and old friends.

America don't care, Bulgaria are still seething about the whole CUA thing, and Croatia has yet to join. Then there's this clusterfuck of a war that the US has started.

CoT will have to get its shit together before a sane person could consider joining.

Yeah Emergy,
I think the real problem between our 2 nations hanging out is that we really don't like some of each others friends

Finally a cp election that could actually mean something \o/

More articles & debates like this plz

Votado!