Join the new world

Bring the pain.

As the primary author of the most recent amendment, I feel informed enough to argue the principle of the recent split:

- First off, Brad said the JCS doesn't need/want funding anymore. They aren't being punished. They wanted to be free of Congressional restrictions.

- The amendment just made that freedom and separation official.

Neither side plays real well with each other. Trying to meld the JCS with a POTUS/Congress system has been like a bad marriage for years. I think this new direction is a healthy split for everyone. 🙂

- People who want the official POTUS as Commander in Chief can have it.

- People who prefer their traditional Bradlee's Brunch branches can still hang out with their friends there.

There is no punishment, only separation.

I'd also point out that there were a half-dozen "military" in Congress. Not a single vote against the amendment was cast.

Bradley wanted to be a militia and got his wish.

It's really all about efficiency and accountability. If we want to maximize the damage potential of the US, then we need to ensure that the money is being spent effectively, which requires requires regular reporting and oversight.

Very good article. I think a lot of it could be employed in the upcoming congress.

Cerb: Separation destroys this country. Plain and simple.

Plus it gives free reign to congress, and I'm not down with that.

I stopped reading when you got called accountability for thousands of gold a month punitive.

Cerb, fair enough, however the POTUS as Commander-in-Chief isn't a point of view it's a fact from the game mechanics. He is the Commander-in-Chief for every member of the eUS Military. Performance-based funding takes the personal bias out of the budget equation.

With regards to the CinC issue, and the military's opponents declaring we do not serve the nation...I'm reminded somewhat of the movie 'The Last Samurai' - Katsumoto in that film never stopped fighting for his country or his Emperor.

"It's really all about efficiency and accountability. If we want to maximize the damage potential of the US, then we need to ensure that the money is being spent effectively, which requires requires regular reporting and oversight."

I'm pretty sure that's what he's making the case for Jasper.

@Jasper - Bradley wanted to win battles and prepare for invasion, not continuously answer to the politicos who didn't care for us.

@Maxx - the accountability should be in outcomes and performance. Efficiency reporting is subjective...e.g. it's more efficient to give resources to a tank than to a young player who wants to be a part of the organized defense of the nation; but supporting that young player is very worthwhile for a strong community. If you want to punish someone, it's simple to continuously level charges and force that person to prove otherwise - Guilty until proven innocent. The key-metric should be asses-kicked, not asses-kissed.

all I have to say is..LOL

@Ian - I don't think he's making that case at all. Bradley wanted to just be handed all the funding and do what had always been done, which is waste vast amounts of money. Congress has a duty to ask how effectively that money is being spent.

How do you have accountability to outcomes when any type of reporting is "punitive"? Giving damage potential numbers to the CP and SCI members ensures that money is being well spent. Every other nations CP requires that of their military, yet our JCS has repeatedly refused to do so.

If you want 75% of the budget allocated to you, and want to weigh our economy down with 23% taxes, the burden of proof is on you to show you deserve it.

Also, I think you're confusing subjective and objective. Asses-kicked is subjective. Damage potential, activity percentage, retention rates, etc. are objective.

Well reasoned, well argued article. Voted.

I'd weigh in on this issue, but it seems the mud-slinging politicos have already started doing what they do best... and I've heard a saying before that says something about what happens when you play with those who live in mud...

Not any type - performance-based funding couldn't be punitive. You're a member of ST6. ST6 accomplishes missions and should be funded to reward that performance and increase your firepower. You show your worthiness by performing, not accounting. If you have a Congressman that had a bad experience with ST6 - he or she can create a conspiracy theory that it's Josh's little fiefdom and pile on the reports until you guys say 'Uncle.'

non-American CP's don't have to deal as much with the American tendency to turn everything into a dick-measuring contest. Creating a new military with a battle-tested organization sitting right there is hubris.

Using all my big words today 🙂.

"Creating a new military with a battle-tested organization sitting right there is hubris."

Hypocrisy.

Look at it from the other side, remove your JCS. Or at least have them submit to congress, unless you value them at larger that 120k per week. Ask them why they don't just give into congress, so the rest of us could just keep on fighting. If you're worried about control, you need only look for the names in yellow. They've put their personal desires ahead of yours, yet you sit here and defend them.

"Or at least have them submit to congress"

Any, I like you, I really do...but submission is not the answer.

V + S

Good thing your not president, lololol.

"@Ian - I don't think he's making that case at all. Bradley wanted to just be handed all the funding and do what had always been done, which is waste vast amounts of money. Congress has a duty to ask how effectively that money is being spent."

Jasper, he's making the case that battle outcomes should be more important. I also think he's advocating for no official military at all, which happens to be the case in most of our allies' countries.

From the article: "Allocating budget dollars to who can kick ONE in the teeth, and how hard, is performance-based budgeting at its best." He's not saying "Give the eUS Military back it's funding from before." Instead he's saying "Let all the fighting groups remain independent and whoever does the most damage (and can prove it) gets more money."

Also, unless I misread, Bradley's not writing this article and he didn't say anywhere that the JCSfgts, of which I am one, should be the "official" military.

Any, it's the most elegant solution. I'm not a political guy, but strike the long "Bow Before Me" Amendment and replace with "Military Units may submit to the DoD a roll call of its members ready for battle." Use the API to fill out your own dang reports. The guv'ment can have an office of Battle Damage Assessment or whatever. Establish a funding metric based on $ per unit of battle damage. No different than an individual soldier responding to Roll Call and filling out the supplies request form from our branch.

The sole purpose of creating a new official military's was to establish who was in charge of the government; when the game mechanics pretty obviously already establish that. So in reality it's just all about getting back at Bradley Reala.

The fact that the bulk of the eUS military didn't follow the money and "submit" as you did is a testament to the effectiveness and structure of the group as a whole, and the character of its members. you wanted to keep on fighting...we want to keep on fighting together.

What Ian said! (will you edit my next article for clarity?) 🙂.

The fact that you said the following: "I'm not a political guy" shows the failure of this article. Since you lack experiences on both sides of the story, your article in a sense is biased.

Also in one of your articles you said that the politicians that control the "official" military have no experience in the battle module. How can you be certain of this? Some of the higher ranked people in the new military have old eUS military experience (I mean high rank experience). Also what do you think most politicians did before they became political elites?

Having independent groups means that they still get money, as long as they do not fight against american interests. This is because they are not actually at the beck and call of the Potus, they are only subject to what the Potus deems an interest. For the sake of efficiency and damage potential, it was agreed that we still needed a national military force that can fight where the Potus wants, when the Potus wants.

Since the JCS wanted to be separate, they were out of the question for that category.

Deershark, depends on their age. I for one was born in Beta when there was no military module. So my first months in this game were spent entirely in the political module. I kept with it even after the military module was released and only left for it after a burnout in politics. I'm returning now because I'd been saying for months that there wasn't enough military representation in Congress given how large a percentage of the active population it actually is.

So yeah, more recent higher ups may have had the ability to pursue military before politics. Also could have been the opposite. And some TC/NG people pursue both (and have done so).

deershark, here or in real life each of us are influenced by their experiences...that's human nature, not failure. From your post: "Also in one of your articles you said that the politicians that control the "official" military have no experience in the battle module." please read again, I said no such thing. They are part of an organization that was created to make a political statement as to who is in charge of the government. There are new military politicos that have lots of experience - because they gained that in the eUS military; proving once again the value of the organization. The satisfaction enjoyed by anti-military types by that action is all over the media. Its purpose is political when you have an incredible death-dealing eUS Military right in front of you, and some truly badass militias ready to turn Spain into a parking lot.

Dissolving the new, politically-motivated military would signal to eAmerica and the eWorld that we are a united nation, above petty politics and standing together.

You could end in a single stroke the personality conflicts inherent in this crisis by establishing funding performance based on battle-damage and outcomes.

If you find it impossible to not make it a personal thing, its understandable given all that's been said and written - but you can be a bigger person than that and take the negative emotion out of it with a stroke of a pen.

Whatever you political types decide, know that the eUS Military from the JCS down to me peeling potatoes in the Guard mess hall stands behind our Commanding Officers and the Commander-in-Chief, fully in support of the eUSA.

First, I hope you aren't calling me a political type, because I'm not. Also why is everything seem to be trying to force the congress to step up their stance instead of coming to a compromise between both stances?

[sigh] I propose a compromise by ending the issue through performance-based budgeting, and dissolving the Congressional Military.

Fiitsin, a very good article.

Your system actually gives Congress absolute control and accountability. Whoever performs -- whether militia, paramilitary or national military -- gets the funding. If Seal Team 6 performs best, it gets the most funding. If the eUS Military performs best, it gets the most funding. And if Congress chooses to lower taxes, that's fine; it just needs to recognize that performance (ie. damage) will decline. Pretty simple.

And within the military organization, your system actually demands absolute control and accountability once Congress's funds are received. The leaders will recognize that they must deliver results to Congress if they want their money. The leaders will have to carefully balance maximizing damage with advancing new recruits to create future firepower.

Actually, your system is a very free-market solution. Congress only pays for the results it wants.

After rereading the comments here, I'm actually seeing a lot of common ground.

If people would set aside their personal differences for a moment and consider the goals that everyone is aiming for here, I think they would agree.

Why don't we set up a working group with fresh faces to represent all sides. They would gather their thoughts, set out their objectives and then have a chat together. No personal grudges, no personality conflicts. I wouldn't be surprised if, when all the acrimony is set aside, there is a lot more common ground that people think.

Fitsin, you say performance based budgeting...how is one to know a unit's performance without the information?

Well written but, most of your facts are incredibly inaccurate.

There is no Congressional Military. I stopped reading after the title.

I can understand Marxus' reasoning for keeping the National Military that does exactly what the CP wants. That makes sense to me. But at the same time, Unum explained it far better than I did. If CP/Congress wants damage, they can pay for it. With the national military, that isn't guaranteed to be the damage machine that a militia (any militia) can be. At the same time, you'll always have conflicts between the people who run the groups (the National Military) and the CP or Congress (or both). Maybe there won't be conflicts every day. I doubt Deificus and Emerick argue about much as it is now (if anything).

I could understand, if the government wanted to take on the cost of training the new citizens and allowing them, after reaching some level of strength, experience or whatever you choose, to join a militia which could become their potential life-long home.

There's no reason not to try this either. It would prevent militia commanders from bawwing that they have to train new players and that hurts their average and it would put everyone on a level playing field.

Stanley, the eRepublik API. There's some smart people up in this game.

The eRep API just died a few days ago bro

vote good luck

/me laughs at CRoy arguing semantics when he knows damn well that it's just trolling.

Go do something you are used to doing CRoy, like your usual, nothing.

Solid article and good suggestions for a middle ground. My two cents: on a damage/cost basis, its almost always better to spend money on tank players who can dish massive damage. I guess we could just give 100% of the budget to Colin Lantrip and let him click the fight button for us all day... But no matter how dedicated of players our strongest tanks are, they will all eDie sooner or later. On a long enough time frame the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Programs like the TC and boot camp (or w.e the 'new' mil training system is called) are not very efficient in terms of damage potential. What they do create, however, is retention. If we put 100 noobs through the TC, and maybe five or ten go on to be big time tanks later on down the road, then that money was better spent than funneling it to our most efficient (aka strongest) tanks imo. Assuring that programs like these are well funded and staffed is our ticket to dominance in the eWorld. More is more, and the more players we have the better. Agree with Fitisin that results>efficiency.

p.s. Colin if happen to see this, i hope you never ever eDie. Youre great. We really need to invest in more psychopathic death-dealers like you.

v+s

"Well reasoned, well argued article. Voted.

I'd weigh in on this issue, but it seems the mud-slinging politicos have already started doing what they do best... and I've heard a saying before that says something about what happens when you play with those who live in mud..."

x2

avoiding everything else, I'd like to point out that (even when the API was up) you couldn't tell where someone fought, nor how much. You could track rank points, but that's about it. All that tells you is that they clicked fight. Not where, not when.

Funding based on efficiency (thus increasing the damage an already efficient force can do) is the best solution. If you're looking for ass kicking potential, Publius has an in game unit called Top Gun. He could easily stack that with massive tanks, and then based on their ability to do more damage due to their massive strength and rank, could demand a larger % of the budget than a unit that accepts lower ranked people, but uses their damage more efficiently, and timely.

What you're suggesting is turning all of our militias into mercenary forces. Not sure if that's the best move.

Hoo boy....

Nice article fitisin.

Thanks, General.

Wow. What a massive pile of uninformed sensationalist bullcrap. How about you come find out what we're about before you go around casting dispersions. Last I checked, our commanders are long time military men. Avruch as SoD, Deificus as General, deerslayer77, need I go on? We answer to the PotUS first and foremost.

Liquid Oxygen, so does the eUS Military. The SecDef, NSC and the JCS put the strategy together that resulted in coordination and a great national efforts. We need more of that. A new national military may have been possible if it had not been for players like you who have poisoned the well beyond reclamation. Unless you're a mil-hater like yourself (most players are for the most part ambivalent) it's simply a power play and symbol of the division in our eCountry.

The concept of accountability in the military is inherently flawed.

Let's put this in terms we can all understand.
You take the keys from your friend who is leaving the bar cause you don't want them to drive drunk. And you gave them to your other friend who just walked into the bar.

You must assume the second friend is going into the bar for a glass of water.

Pfeiffer is right

USMC

""Creating a new military with a battle-tested organization sitting right there is hubris."

Hypocrisy.

Look at it from the other side, remove your JCS. Or at least have them submit to congress, unless you value them at larger that 120k per week. Ask them why they don't just give into congress, so the rest of us could just keep on fighting. If you're worried about control, you need only look for the names in yellow. They've put their personal desires ahead of yours, yet you sit here and defend them."

Anyonymous - That is total BS and you know it. NO ONE on the JCS put their personal desires ahead of our soldiers. They did what they did in order to protect the military community. So please stop spreading lies about the situation.

And just to set the record straight a little bit. Just because we said that we would no longer be accepting funding from Congress, does NOT mean that we stepped down from protecting our country and her allies. To this day we are still working with the POTUS/Exec Branch and fulling our duties to this nation.

USMC O7

Wow. Way to pigeonhole me, Fit. Just goes to show you'd rather shoot from the hip and make broad generalizations about things you obviously know nothing about.

1. I went through both the TC and the MI.
2. I ran military programs for eMalaysia and then Sol on a global scale.

I'm not a "military" hater, I'm a hater of people who blindly cling to outdated measures and place their importance ahead of the will of the elected populace...the selfsame congress who also contains military members and veterans. Congress paid your bills. You walked away. That was your guys' decision and now it's important for you to realize that we're not going anywhere. We ARE the legitimate eUS military, you're a militia, which is what you wanted to begin with, correct? So go with that and stop trying to divide us even further.

If the pigeon fits in the hole...

Your organization was created in an attempt to gut the eUS military, to put the JCS "in its place" and there are dozens of trololol comments from you and others crowing (or pigeon-ing if you will) precisely that. Your masters in Congress knew a number of players would follow the money. Most of us stayed together because we want to fight for the nation, at the Presidents command, together without having to change reporting structures and filling more and more and more and more paperwork at the whim of whoever was in Congress.

Most Members of Congress receive a handful of votes to secure their posts. Suggesting that they are the voice of the people is like saying my paper is the voice of the media with like 20 subscribers...it isn't and the holders of your leash aren't the voice of the people.

What is certain is that it's clear the new military was created to satisfy Congress, people do get that, and uniting the nation can be done with visionary leadership by dissolving it. It is the symbol of our dis-union.