Constructivism

Whe we say we want to do things differently at ULA, we don't speak hollow words. Another endless debate has started, this time on government funds in MUs. From experience and judging how the debates goes already, it will yield no solutions. That's why I will no longer participate in these debates.

Yet, every time a similar endless debate starts, we will sit down and think on the matter. We will voice alternatives and other ways of looking at the matter. The debate can rage on, those who actually want to run policy, can join us here.

Our alternatives might work, will need some brainstorming and could even be totally worthless. That doesn't matter...we at least tried to do something with the trust of our voters.

In this matter, why not think this through:
Privatize MUs...we have enough citizens with the military know-how and the ambition to command a unit.
The advantage is that our government no longer needs to do the accounting on such matters.

But...you want your citizens to benefit from MUs. The government could draw up a lust of goals they want to achieve. To do so, they reserve a certain amount of funds. MUs that can prove they indeed on working said goals, will receive financial support. The responsibility to report (on a monthly basis for example) lies with the MU. That way, new governments and presidents simply need to receive the report and Congress could decide on which MUs receive how much.

This way of working (covenants) is often used in real life as well by the government in many fields.

The debate I wanted to raise is about the government following laws or not. We have a law now that states that 8000 BEF had to be spent on a 'food for new citizens' program the day before yesterday. I think it's constructive enough to remind the government to effect payments (even when it announced on the 19th already that, according to their interpretation, also the BAF law is suspended, so they will not pay the BAF allowance either...) and continue the programs we agreed on long ago.

Now feel free to debate here modifications of the laws.

Ward De Bever wrote:The debate The trollfest I wanted to raise is about the government (over which I'm still feeling a grudge that my fav candidate didn't won) following fantasy laws that should only be followed in letter or in spirit, but only when I say soor not. We have a law that is put on hold due to a constitutional crisis now that states that 8000 BEF had to be spent on a 'food for new citizens' program the day before yesterday. I think it's constructive enough it's a great way to bash to the government to remind the government them to effect payments (even when it announced on the 19th already that, according to their interpretation, also the BAF law is suspended, so they will not pay the BAF allowance either...) and continue the programs we agreed on long ago.

Now feel free to debate here modifications of the laws.

I made a fix for you thar

Gentlemen,

I believe you will find there is a thread already for this kind of debate.
This thread, however, offers an alternative (and do mind, I never said 'solution')

It is open for all who wish to discuss alternatives...and free for the government to use what they think will be useful.

Endless debates of verbal attacks are just around the corner. Thank you.

we can't talk with persons who don't want the same thing. To be constructive we must believe in the same project. If a group of person are against about it, you can't do nothing (they can make all they want).

I hope see the solidarity for this MU. You are in inside the mu, you can see the help of the BTA.

Elynea wrote:we can't talk with persons who don't want the same thing. To be constructive we must believe in the same project. If a group of person are against about it, you can't do nothing (they can make all they want).

I hope see the solidarity for this MU. You are in inside the mu, you can see the help of the BTA.

Elynea talking like that wont help we need to be constructive

from comments on my article:

Jamster wrote:elynea clearly doesnt listen or understand anything i say i said BTA should recive the same funding of 8000 BEF and we should also add a donation system but she didnt understand it and i am sick of her not getting it and insulting what i sya

Ward De Bever wrote:@Jamster: Maybe blame it on a language problem. I appreciate your compromising tone and also the pledge you make to respect the law and fund the 8000 BEF. If new players and a strong Belgium are indeed our common priorities, then comprehension is possible.

@Jamster (pour Elynea): Peut-être est-ce dû à un problème linguistique. J'apprécie ton ton du compromis et aussi la promesse que tu fais de respecter la loi et de verser les 8000 BEF. Si les nouveaux joueurs et une Belgique forte sont en effet nos priorités communes, alors la compréhension est possible.

je n'en veux pas a Jamster dans cette histoire, ce n'est pas normal qu'une action en court suprême paralyse l'action d'un congrès.

Il y a des mesures d'une urgence dans les fonds pour certaines choses, justement pour les nouveaux qui n'ont pas à faire les frais de tout ça, ils le méritent aussi.

Si une personne n'a pas de fonds, elle ne peut pas faire son travail, c'est pareil qu'une organisation.

We should abolish the Constitution.

shadowukcs wrote:We should abolish the Constitution.

+1

And base law only on jurisprudencia and SC? I'm in favor of it, but I don't think that everyone will agree.

Elynea wrote:je n'en veux pas a Jamster dans cette histoire, ce n'est pas normal qu'une action en court suprême paralyse l'action d'un congrès.

Il y a des mesures d'une urgence dans les fonds pour certaines choses, justement pour les nouveaux qui n'ont pas à faire les frais de tout ça, ils le méritent aussi.

Si une personne n'a pas de fonds, elle ne peut pas faire son travail, c'est pareil qu'une organisation.

i want it to have funds elynea and i also want it to have a donation system if i am not mistaken that would be better as the BTA would receive even more supplies.

and i agree the constitution creates all the problems

Elynea (from French) wrote:I do not feel resentful at Jamster in this story, but it's not normal that a Supreme Court action paralyses congress' actions.

There are urgent, basic measures to be taken, exactly for the new citizens who don't have to suffer from this. They deserve it too.

If a person has no funds, he cannot do its work - same thing with an organisation

Jamster737 wrote:i want it to have funds

Jamster: you are doing exactly the opposite of what you're saying. Do you know the concept of 'policy'? Does 'executive responsibility' ring a bell? Please fund the BTA right away and start constructively deconstructing the constitution immediately after. Or at least amend your vote in http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4375-proposed-amendment-to-constitution-default-change-provisions-2nd-vote-thread to Yes. That would be a proof of policy. If you don't agree to the standing policy, try to change it. But think about the basics first. Only yesterday we seemed to agree on two things: "If new players and a strong Belgium are indeed our common priorities, then comprehension is possible."

Ward De Bever wrote:

Elynea (from French) wrote:I do not feel resentful at Jamster in this story, but it's not normal that a Supreme Court action paralyses congress' actions.

There are urgent, basic measures to be taken, exactly for the new citizens who don't have to suffer from this. They deserve it too.

If a person has no funds, he cannot do its work - same thing with an organisation

Jamster737 wrote:i want it to have funds

Jamster: you are doing exactly the opposite of what you're saying. Do you know the concept of 'policy'? Does 'executive responsibility' ring a bell? Please fund the BTA right away and start constructively deconstructing the constitution immediately after. Or at least amend your vote in http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4375-proposed-amendment-to-constitution-default-change-provisions-2nd-vote-thread to Yes. That would be a proof of policy. If you don't agree to the standing policy, try to change it. But think about the basics first. Only yesterday we seemed to agree on two things: "If new players and a strong Belgium are indeed our common priorities, then comprehension is possible."

i will not ammend my vote as i didnt like the idea that was written there. However BTA should recive the funding i am with you on that but what power do i have to give it to you ? i am only the VP our CP has the say in the funding not me.

jamster737 wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:

Elynea (from French) wrote:I do not feel resentful at Jamster in this story, but it's not normal that a Supreme Court action paralyses congress' actions.

There are urgent, basic measures to be taken, exactly for the new citizens who don't have to suffer from this. They deserve it too.

If a person has no funds, he cannot do its work - same thing with an organisation

Jamster737 wrote:i want it to have funds

Jamster: you are doing exactly the opposite of what you're saying. Do you know the concept of 'policy'? Does 'executive responsibility' ring a bell? Please fund the BTA right away and start constructively deconstructing the constitution immediately after. Or at least amend your vote in http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4375-proposed-amendment-to-constitution-default-change-provisions-2nd-vote-thread to Yes. That would be a proof of policy. If you don't agree to the standing policy, try to change it. But think about the basics first. Only yesterday we seemed to agree on two things: "If new players and a strong Belgium are indeed our common priorities, then comprehension is possible."

i will not ammend my vote as i didnt like the idea that was written there. However BTA should recive the funding i am with you on that but what power do i have to give it to you ? i am only the VP our CP has the say in the funding not me.

According to http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cp-temporarily-stepping-down-1862137/1/20 you are the CP now. Please take urgent action.

Ward De Bever wrote:

jamster737 wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:

Elynea (from French) wrote:I do not feel resentful at Jamster in this story, but it's not normal that a Supreme Court action paralyses congress' actions.

There are urgent, basic measures to be taken, exactly for the new citizens who don't have to suffer from this. They deserve it too.

If a person has no funds, he cannot do its work - same thing with an organisation

Jamster737 wrote:i want it to have funds

Jamster: you are doing exactly the opposite of what you're saying. Do you know the concept of 'policy'? Does 'executive responsibility' ring a bell? Please fund the BTA right away and start constructively deconstructing the constitution immediately after. Or at least amend your vote in http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4375-proposed-amendment-to-constitution-default-change-provisions-2nd-vote-thread to Yes. That would be a proof of policy. If you don't agree to the standing policy, try to change it. But think about the basics first. Only yesterday we seemed to agree on two things: "If new players and a strong Belgium are indeed our common priorities, then comprehension is possible."

i will not ammend my vote as i didnt like the idea that was written there. However BTA should recive the funding i am with you on that but what power do i have to give it to you ? i am only the VP our CP has the say in the funding not me.

According to http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cp-temporarily-stepping-down-1862137/1/20 you are the CP now.

as far as i am aware he stepped back into his role as CP

jamster737 wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:

jamster737 wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:

Elynea (from French) wrote:I do not feel resentful at Jamster in this story, but it's not normal that a Supreme Court action paralyses congress' actions.

There are urgent, basic measures to be taken, exactly for the new citizens who don't have to suffer from this. They deserve it too.

If a person has no funds, he cannot do its work - same thing with an organisation

Jamster737 wrote:i want it to have funds

Jamster: you are doing exactly the opposite of what you're saying. Do you know the concept of 'policy'? Does 'executive responsibility' ring a bell? Please fund the BTA right away and start constructively deconstructing the constitution immediately after. Or at least amend your vote in http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4375-proposed-amendment-to-constitution-default-change-provisions-2nd-vote-thread to Yes. That would be a proof of policy. If you don't agree to the standing policy, try to change it. But think about the basics first. Only yesterday we seemed to agree on two things: "If new players and a strong Belgium are indeed our common priorities, then comprehension is possible."

i will not ammend my vote as i didnt like the idea that was written there. However BTA should recive the funding i am with you on that but what power do i have to give it to you ? i am only the VP our CP has the say in the funding not me.

According to http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cp-temporarily-stepping-down-1862137/1/20 you are the CP now.

as far as i am aware he stepped back into his role as CP

Where? How? When?

Ward De Bever wrote:

jamster737 wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:

jamster737 wrote:

Ward De Bever wrote:

Elynea (from French) wrote:I do not feel resentful at Jamster in this story, but it's not normal that a Supreme Court action paralyses congress' actions.

There are urgent, basic measures to be taken, exactly for the new citizens who don't have to suffer from this. They deserve it too.

If a person has no funds, he cannot do its work - same thing with an organisation

Jamster737 wrote:i want it to have funds

Jamster: you are doing exactly the opposite of what you're saying. Do you know the concept of 'policy'? Does 'executive responsibility' ring a bell? Please fund the BTA right away and start constructively deconstructing the constitution immediately after. Or at least amend your vote in http://www.erepbelgium.com/t4375-proposed-amendment-to-constitution-default-change-provisions-2nd-vote-thread to Yes. That would be a proof of policy. If you don't agree to the standing policy, try to change it. But think about the basics first. Only yesterday we seemed to agree on two things: "If new players and a strong Belgium are indeed our common priorities, then comprehension is possible."

i will not ammend my vote as i didnt like the idea that was written there. However BTA should recive the funding i am with you on that but what power do i have to give it to you ? i am only the VP our CP has the say in the funding not me.

According to http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cp-temporarily-stepping-down-1862137/1/20 you are the CP now.

as far as i am aware he stepped back into his role as CP

Where? How? When?

i was informed by MG on irc that he was taking his job back allmost a week ago therefore i am no longer CP and i dont have the powers. You need to message him to rectify the situation

He actually stated it in a news or a forum post.

But didn't get any news since.