[CBC] Official Statment Regarding Funding
Day 1,518, 13:01
•
Published in Canada 
•
by
•
by Mafanikio
Welcome,
We at the CBC feel that we needed to release this statement in order to clear up a few points about the whole funding dilemma. This may resemble a post I had made previously on the eCan forums, which can be found here.
For those of you who have been under a rock, or missed the recent events concerning the Canadian Boot Camp and our request for funding via congress, I wish to alert you to a few things.
Under the Military Unit Funding Act, any Canadian Military unit can apply for funding providing they meet a criteria;
i) The MU must follow and provide orders as directed by the executive.
- We do this, as Minister of Information, I am heavily involved in the deployment of the actual battle orders and myself a member of said executive, so that's sorted.
ii) It must contain a minimum of 5 active members, or the ability to average more than 1,000,000 an influence a week per member.
- I'm pretty sure this is obvious, I wouldn't be applying for funding if this wasn't the case. We regularly exclude any members that fall short of our 10 day activity limit, and still have more than the minimum requirements.
iii) It must maintain an accurate roster on a government specified Google Document.
- We have a roster, it is updated regularly. It was not made available as it was not requested by any auditors prior to the congress vote.
iv) Funding must be approved by a simple majority vote from congress.
- Define majority. The majority of congress is 44/2+1=23. Only 15 members voted in any manner, this is not a majority. Also many of the abstainers have since pointed out that they indeed had at least some conflict of interest, and did not vote in an appropriate and unbiased manner.
v) It must comply with all reasonable requests of a government auditor.
- Irrelevant.
Therefore ladies and gentleman, I have submitted another request for funding, and would appreciate if the congressmen and women that can be bothered to turn up and vote would do so without putting their own interests before the interest of eCanada as a whole.
We do want "a slice of the pie" so to speak, but regardless of weather the CBC, the CAF or even the TCO receives it, it should be going towards the betterment of eCanada and her soldiers.
I thank you for your time, and we do appreciate the support many people have been showing us.
All courage, no fear.
Mafanikio
Commander - CBC
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
CBC Funding Statement: http://goo.gl/rnZwR
Good luck!
CBC! CBC!! CBC!!!
Very well then as the auditor I am requesting access to all of your Google documents and all relevant information concerning the operations of your military unit such as the the amount of supplies being distributed, how often these supplies are being distributed, who is receiving supplies, what qualifies them for supplies you're current financial status and, but is not limited to, your plans for the use of government funds in the event you should you receive them.
"- Define majority. The majority of congress is 44/2+1=23. Only 15 members voted in any manner, this is not a majority. Also many of the abstainers have since pointed out that they indeed had at least some conflict of interest, and did not vote in an appropriate and unbiased manner." It's a majority of whoever shows up to vote, with at least 40% of Congress participating.
I was supporting CBC for their share of the funding until I read this.
The fact that an auditor did not ask for the documents is neither here nor there; you want funding, show congress that you should get the funding; you can't expect them to blindly hand out money to anyone that asks for it.
Majority of congress as above
Can I suggest that if you want to get congress on your side, you don't try and push them away with articles like this which I think could almost be considered hostile.
I think following this article, congress were justified in rejecting your funding; even if the true reasons appeared after the fact.
"It's a majority of whoever shows up to vote, with at least 40% of Congress participating."
I'm pretty sure 'majority' is not the most votes from the people who can be bothered to turn up for a vote, it should be defined before a vote takes place. This is what I have asked for prior to the new vote taking place.
"articles like this"
fyi, this isn't an attack on congress. If anything it is a development of the reasons which I think my MU is entitled to receive its funding on, nothing more.
Mafanikio, if you want to try and play games using the laws I suggest you learn them first. Directly from the Congressional Rules of Order:
"Article III: Voting
III.1) The length and ratification requirements for a vote taking place on the forums but not in-game shall be set by the Speaker and must be:
a) no less than 24 hours for a motion or proposed amendment to a measure;
b) no less than 48 hours and meeting a 40% quorum of Congress members as determined by the appropriate forum user-group for a formal vote. The voting may be extended twice for a period of 24 hours if the quorum is not met. If the quorum is still not met the vote fails to pass."
It pretty clearly explains that a 40% quorum is what governs a 'majority' of Congress. Nice try though.
This article is gonna do nothing but piss people off that previously supported you, and make the congressmen that didn't bother to vote the first time to vote No this time just out of spite.
Way to fail.
^
Sounds about right.
Also, abstentions are a completely legitimate form of voting.
Also, focusing on the majority of Congressmen isn't going to do you any good. You really think you're going to get 22 votes in favour? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting CBC requires to get funding.
Also, all that would have happened if that vote was deemed "void" would have been, oh wait, no difference. All you're doing is wasting the time of people's whose time is already wasted and therefore there is no time left to be wasted because it is already being wasted. So please, re-assess your application, and stop trying to sound so high and mighty.
tc;dr (too confusing; didn't read): shut up; just because you think you deserve funding, doesn't mean congress which controls eCanada's tax money does... accept it, move on.
lol...love how everyone gets all butthurt over this. Just give 'em the money they've proved they've earned and STFU.
I'll vote no again. Just sayin'
"lol...love how everyone gets all butthurt over this. Just give 'em the money they've proved they've earned and STFU."
x2
Its a game
1: 21 votes were cast. not 15.
2: just so you know for context, in our real government out of 308 members of the house of commons do you know how many are required to form their quorum, just 20. because people in government have lives and duties that take them out of the house sometimes.
i was ready to vote yes after i saw the posts in congress, i believe from donna, about reforms you had undertaken in your MU in preparation no doubt for requesting funding again, people voted no, it is what it is, we dont always get what we want, instead of throwing a temper tantrum and calling people out, why not just make reforms and apply again?
"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear."
"The secret of life is to have no fear; it's the only way to function."
Ignorance of fear will oftenly lead to overconfidence, recklessness and ultimately defeat.
One must know fear if he hopes to master death.