[CPF] The 7 Tenet Series: First Tenet
•
by Derphoof
The First Tenet of the CPF reads “Uphold the equality of all active military units”
So what exactly does this mean? How do you determine what defines ‘active’? Let’s start at the beginning... (Insert Time Machine Sound Here)
Long ago in a Canada fairly resembling ours, there was a fight for MU funding. The CAF had long held on to the idea that they were the sole National Army. They claimed they were the only only who followed the president’s explicit orders. However the TCO were challenging the numbers of the CAF and were fighting to gain government funding. If you fast forward to today, you would have seen them gain funding immediately. It isn’t right to have a large military force fighting for your nation to be underfunded. However, back then, they had to fight for funding. Politics and rivalries got in the way.
A couple months ago, something similar happened. Although Tyrael’s Night Watch was meeting all qualifications, congressmen who disliked Tyrael chose not to fund him. The goal of this tenet is to work to the best of our ability to make sure that something like this does not happen.
At the CPF, we work to uphold the equality of all active military units. No MU will be given preferential treatment of denied funding due to any affiliation. They will all be given proportionately equal funds as per the law. This goes for all MU’s big or small, regardless of political affiliation. To gain funding, all they have to do is meet the requirements of the MU Funding Act. This act is in place in order to not be inappropriately giving funds to “dead” MU’s.
Currently the requirements are:
i) The MU must follow and provide orders as directed by the eCanadian executive.
ii) The MU must contain a minimum of 10 active members. For a member to be considered active, they must fight for 3 of 7 days each week.
There are other requirements that are part of the logistics of record and stat keeping.
As long as the MU’s that apply for funding meet these requirements, the CPF and its members will wholeheartedly support any motion put forth to give that MU the proper funding they deserve.
Next Time: CPF Tenet #2 “Make the accounting of government funding more open and important”
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
[removed]
The Act also requires that no funding be used for infrastructure. This is no longer wise. And it is probably being ignored by many. There is a requirement that MUs submit to audit, but there are no auditors. There is a requirement that rosters be updated. I suspect that has fallen behind.
The was ample debate about whether to fund based on activity or "production" (i.e. number of hits/ damage done etc). The debate preceeded the introduction of divisions.
So>>>> you have explained the tenet well. Is it now time to reconsider it? Equality does appeal to many. It is a nice thing. But, is it sustainable or useful in the present circumstances and using the existing criterion.
I'm not sure how much we should reconsider. I think we should at least add the ability to use funding for infrastructure. The way the tenet is structured is useful when people don't want to fund others because of affiliation.
I think the MU act needs updating as well. We could easily to it by hits/influence. Egov4you already tracks most of the info we needs making audits and stuff practically obsolete.
:} Oh you can do it by hits, but why, and why by influence? You see the problem with a concept like equality is it is so elastic. It sounds great of course but policy makers still need to make hard decisions about its content. Treating people the "same" when they are differently situated is not my idea of equality. An MU like mine can produce a ton of damage but, frankly we don't need (nor get) any help from the US government. We are lucky to have wealthy members.
Agreed, however, that the existing tenet does protect against bald faced political revenge. If that is its purpose, great but unambitious.
(btw: don't let me give you a hard time - bit of a policy geek)
Oh its okay! I would say that MU funding is technically optional. If an MU, such as your own, doesn't need funding, then they need not apply. If a group is wealthier and doesn't need money than more money can be given to those who need it or more money set aside for something like a Merc fund.
I would say hits and influence because it is a greater indicator of how useful the MU is. You can have 150 members but if only half are active and 25% of those barely fight, then how useful are they?
http://prntscr.com/el12a
Bought votes were bought.
Glass half-full solution to the debate in a Glass nearly-empty scenario:
crisfire i guess everyone gets nothing equally now 😉
48 minutes ago
I like the basic intent of this Tenet to support the notion that the people in eCanada have the basic right to be funded equally. Not funded extra/less according to who their buds are, or what avatar frame they have, or what IRC/Forum access they use. Active Citizen=Active Citizen.
Let Congress deal with "equality" issues in the law. Tenet #1 is meant to express a value rather than an explicit manner of upholding the slippery notion of equality and what constitutes as "funding" and how that funding is meant to be used in the MU.
Not poo-pooing on the debate above, because it is one worth having and it is good that this article inspired some to think on it. However, the purpose of the 7 Tenet series is not to create actual leg. policy, just to be clear.
😁😁
sensible.
Quite.
Well I think it's still worth discussing how we aim for equality among MUs and if that can be a heavy weight to carry when the coffers get tight. Jacobi mentioned we could only fund 1 Q5 tank(equivalent in CAD) per soldier per day based on recent revenues (might have changed since then I hope)
Is it still worth making sure each eligible solder gets that 1 tank per day or at that point is it better to cut losses and pool taxes for more effective expenditures.Crisfire may be on to smthg?
So how does Jacobi's proposal to fund the MUs of Canada based on % of active fighters rather than # of active fighters really show equality to all Canadian MUs?
At the very best side, this is a foolhardy proposal that took little consideration.
At the very worst side, this is an obvious attempt to shunt more funding to the CoI and the Praetors at the expense of the CAF.
This was the proposal the CPF had supported.
Well it was all in proportion to the MU's. If an MU has more members than others than they will get much more funding than a smaller MU to their benefit. That does not mean they are more active though as a whole.
Disclaimer: I am just using names as examples, I do not know the actual numbers
If CAF has 200 members but only 110 are fighting then they have an activity rating of 55%
If HOPE has 50 fighters but 40 are actively fighting, then HOPE has an activity rating of 80%
So which MU is technically more active? Perhaps his proposal was a way to make things more equal. Give the funding to MU’s that have better activity rather than MU’s that have sheer numbers.
I would be hard pressed to say it was a “foolhardy proposal that took little consideration”
I'm not sure how CPF supported that...because Jacobi is in CPF? I never remember seeing any party discussion to agree funding MUs by % of active members rather than the basic totals.
I don't even see how that idea could even work. Let's say MUs with 100% activity get xCAD at a flat rate regardless of actual size of entire MU. A smart MU commander would open up the smallest MU possible and keep it 100% active with 10 good members. *kaching*
You telling me Jacobi would fall for that?lol
True, I don't remember anything like that while I was in Congress. The idea likely wouldn't work. As Plugson pointed out, it could be easily exploited.
what does jacobi have to do with it. The MU funding act is the present law, he had nothing at all to do with its provisions and his present position (in his article) is that we should look hard at changing it. Certainly, in the middle of the war he wanted money which was already in the controller's hands to be distributed and he wasn't about to make the mistake of trying to get the law changed by EO. The funding act was vociferously debated when passe😛 lots of ideas, one won out.
ty says: "So how does Jacobi's proposal to fund the MUs of Canada based on % of active fighters rather than # of active fighters .....a foolhardy proposal that took little consideration."
_________________
Is there a difference between them?
% = # / total # of all actives in canada
% x total funding = total funding ( # / total # of all actives in canada )
i.e. you get the same percentage OF FUNDING as you have percentage OF ACTIVES
As to what Jacobi actually said in his article it was:
1. let's talk
2. just a thought but what about holding money in treasury for specific battles and infrastructure
3 just a thought but "for regular daily funding, MUs are on their own".
have I misse something after that???
Go back to the 1 MU funded model, Have every fighter who wants funding join that MU to get funded. The distribution can then be based exactly on who is completing DO and who is just trying to collect free stuff for nothing.
If you want to start your own MU then be prepared to fund it. If you can get the #'s of people and damage up to comparable with the government funded MU than maybe you could even try to become the new government funded MU.
But I'm probably wrong,
P. Magee
As is said in Animal Farm, some MU's are more equal than others and deserve more funding 🙂
'nuff said.
Well then Addy, you're really going to like our revised Tenet #6:
"Four legs good, two legs better"
Not sure what it means, right now. Maybe we're trading in that gangly moose for a leggy lady dressed in camo. Pretty sure that would gain us a couple members from MDP. ; )
The lady better be riding the blue moose Pluggy...Or the Mose better be riding her.
P. Magee
"Well it was all in proportion to the MU's. If an MU has more members than others than they will get much more funding than a smaller MU to their benefit. That does not mean they are more active though as a whole."
You're still giving more funding to a smaller group of citizens simply because they are in a smaller group. This is called disproportionate. Why should an activ CAF member be refunded less of their taxes for being in a larger or less active unit? Why should that member be punished?
I'm not saying they should. That was just my best effort to understand Jacobi's rationale.
Also, I've been scouring the forums and I can't quite find where Jacobi proposed this. Could you please give me a link?
Thanks!
https://ecanada.cc/forums/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=17065
Thanks!
Yeah, I'm not quite sure why he would want to do it this way. I'm not too sure how things work when it comes to that format. Again my earlier post is the only reason I can think of at the moment.