The Alunya Memorial proposal of 2014

With this bill looking now set to fail, I assume the RA does not care about standardisation of titles for our minister in charge of the army. By inference, we can call the aforementioned minister anything we wish.

I used a random word generator to decide what I will call the minister. I suggest you do the same.

The first word that came out specifies that I will from now on be calling him the "Minister for Demisability"

pick your minster title HERE (CLICKY)
 
flemingovia:
With this bill looking now set to fail, I assume the RA does not care about standardisation of titles for our minister in charge of the army. By inference, we can call the aforementioned minister anything we wish.

I used a random word generator to decide what I will call the minister. I suggest you do the same.

The first word that came out specifies that I will from now on be calling him the "Minister for Demisability"

pick your minster title HERE (CLICKY)
Click to expand...
Everything's fine, fine like wine. :D

Possible next step:

When Gladio does something that his oath does not allow him to do, I will ask the Court how it feels about our Minister acting illegally. :yes:

After all, why be reasonable?
 
I can understand why we'd want to change the spelling of certain words, because of the word's multiple definitions, et cetera. But 'defense' and 'defence' have exactly the same definition. There is absolutely no room for error. I would propose that if we really want to make laws and stuff (terrible word, but I can't think of a better one) we should pass fun legislation like the Ministry of Cheese bill that is currently at vote. At least that's slightly interesting. I mean, our nations are in a virtual world where we can do whatever the heck we want. Why not have some fun with it?
 
Hi Temeberin, I agree with you about this being a virtual world in which we should have fun. However, this bill is not a quibble over a particular spelling, it is the fact that the Legal Code has inconsistent language which refers to the person tasked with overseeing our Army as: Minister of Defence, Minister of Defense, and Minister for Defence. This bill seeks to standardize the title, because right now the Legal Code essentially states there are three separate positions for "Defense", each with its own responsibilities.

That is why I will ask for criminal charges to be filed against the current Minister if he acts in the capacity of the other two positions (Minister of Defence, Minister for Defence) currently outlined in the Legal Code, because he only took the oath as the Minister of Defense. :)
 
DD, this bill isn't failing because we don't want standardization. It's failing because the RA doesn't like the standard you picked. Multiple people indicated such during the debate, and you refused to change it. I even told you straight up that the RA isn't going to pass *any* spelling of defense. It's too diverse. The correct thing to do here is go with r3n's idea of a title that doesn't include the word defense. It's a change that still accomplishes your goal of standardization without the spelling controversy. A good legislator would have taken that advice and the bill would have passed.
 
I would agree that "defence" or "defense" is a bit of an anachronism, since it has overtones of an activity our army does not really engage in nowadays.

Perhaps we should just allow the delegate to decide what he wants the Minister of Demisability to be called during his tenure, as has been suggested?
 
I don't understand having named departments in constitutions/codes of government for NS. Seems to just add on stuff that should, in my opinion, be up to the delegate. *shrugs*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top