Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 28, 2017 19:41:12 GMT -6
I don't think Clarking it now is a good idea, since the bill is very large and I (and others) will not have time to fully digest the bill and do all of the nitpicking that needs to be done in the few days before the next Clark begins.
Anyway, it looks like a good bill, and I'm sure it'll get passed at some point.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jul 29, 2017 8:17:41 GMT -6
I'm assuming you only mean to replace I.1.1 not the whole title?
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Jul 29, 2017 11:42:15 GMT -6
I'm assuming you only mean to replace I.1.1 not the whole title? Yes, with the only exception being if we find a place in the Lex that is in conflict with the I 1.1 revisions
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Sept 19, 2017 23:02:02 GMT -6
I'd love to see the NOCA back on the schedule for the next Cosa... what would be needed to move forward?
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 8, 2017 22:51:32 GMT -6
So, is this something we're ready to move ahead?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 8, 2017 22:58:24 GMT -6
Personally, I find the structure created by this bill to be much too top-heavy. I prefer the existing structure that I assisted Lord Castiglha and Sir Trotxa with in the 35th Cosa. Talossa has a modest military establishment, and we've never had a need for more than one flag officer: the Admiral. I don't see the need for this change.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 9, 2017 14:59:52 GMT -6
Personally, I find the structure created by this bill to be much too top-heavy. I prefer the existing structure that I assisted Lord Castiglha and Sir Trotxa with in the 35th Cosa. Talossa has a modest military establishment, and we've never had a need for more than one flag officer: the Admiral. I don't see the need for this change. NOCA only establishes the structure, formally, but does not require the filling of any position beyond that of the Fleet Admiral. We might have a modest military, but who says we can't have a detailed plan just as the rest of the government of the country? We don't have hundreds of living individuals making up the Cosa, but we have detailed structure to support the possibility of growth into that size. I'd like to see the military have the same.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 9, 2017 20:41:32 GMT -6
NOCA only establishes the structure, formally, but does not require the filling of any position beyond that of the Fleet Admiral. I don't see that in the bill. Provincial commanders, base commanders, and tactical commanders are contingent positions ("when assigned"), but the bill creates seven specific flag/general officer billets, and appears to assume that those seven will be filled (or at least, there's no clear distinction between the Admiral of the Fleet and any of the other six in that respect). There's one O-11, three O-10s, and three O-9s. The US military doesn't even have any O-11s at present. Neither does any other NATO military as far as I know, except as a title given to the monarch or crown prince or something like that. Some of the rest of the bill seems to read more like a doctrine or policy document than a statute. I like much of it (other than the surfeit of stars), but I don't think el Lexhatx is the place for a lot of those details.
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 9, 2017 23:28:21 GMT -6
OK... where would those details go, provided the wording clarification for only the FADM and the down grade of FADM to NATO O-10 (4 star)?
|
|
|
Post by Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu on Oct 17, 2017 23:03:28 GMT -6
Some of the rest of the bill seems to read more like a doctrine or policy document than a statute. I like much of it (other than the surfeit of stars), but I don't think el Lexhatx is the place for a lot of those details. [/quote]
Fair enough. I simply was working within the established structure. That said, why can't the structural Command & Control/Ranks & Ratings be addressed by simply a line that reads:
"The ranking structure of the Service is detailed in RMN-1001-A through (insert number) of the Military Code"
That way those details are moved completely from the National Law... like everywhere else in the world.
I'd be happy to address both the Military Code and a rewrite of NOCA to establish said Code.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Oct 18, 2017 20:36:26 GMT -6
That sounds like a sensible approach. If you have the time and resources to do so, please effect these changes, and let’s then review them together. Do also keep in mind that we have little activity; therefore, make positions such that they need NOT be filled for the Military to function properly.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Oct 19, 2017 6:01:44 GMT -6
I simply was working within the established structure. That said, why can't the structural Command & Control/Ranks & Ratings be addressed by simply a line that reads: I like this idea! You'd just need a section establishing authority and responsibility for the Military Code (e.g. something like "the Minister of Defence, in consultation with the Admiral, shall promulgate a code of military regulations ('Military Code') for the organisation and discipline of the Talossan armed forces"), and then much of the remaining statutory provisions relating to the military can be replaced with a simple pointer to the Military Code.
|
|
|
Post by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on Oct 19, 2017 17:36:29 GMT -6
The HAT Party Heartly encourages this Act as it opens up so many new and intresting avenues outside of both the Witt the purely poltical, day to day talossan activites. also sounds like a lot of fun! Rule talossa, Talossa shall rule the waves!
|
|
|
Post by Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on Oct 19, 2017 17:50:42 GMT -6
The HAT Party Heartly encourages this Act as it opens up so many new and intresting avenues outside of both the Witt the purely poltical, day to day talossan activites. also sounds like a lot of fun! Rule talossa, Talossa shall rule the waves! We also love the potential for hats to be worn. Both litraly and metaphorical, giving a role, a title and perpose for everyone within our navy may even help boost activity Would it be possible to add Perticuler hats as uniform for Perticuler roles?
|
|