IFC Planning Thread(OOC Thread/IFC Only)

[Mizrad]

The International Freedom Coalition Planning Thread

Current Set Topic: The Unstupiding of the IFC

IFC members and Set Topics ONLY



IFC OOC | IFC News Thread | IFC Council & Summit Thread | IIWiki Page

A quick introduction - by Mizrad (with edits from Ausitoria)

Hello fellow International Freedom Coalition members! This thread is going to be the place where, hopefully, we can focus on making the IFC a better place. I'm not naive enough to believe this is going to be done politely but I'm going to ask that we all try to keep things civil. We're not going to get anywhere if this devolves into a contest of who can put the most clever twist on saying "go fuck yourself". I will also be keeping this out of character because most people dread having to type up a long post for an IC debate. With this being strictly OOC, worry not! You can one line to your heart's desire so long as it is contributes to the conversation. However with that being said, try to put reason behind anything you decide to post here. If somebody states something they have a problem with you can't just say it isn't a problem and expect it to change minds.

TL;DR: Be nice and be productive

Rules:
- Please refrain from posting if you are not an IFC member
- Make sure your post pertains to this thread
- If you would like to suggest another topic to debate you can post it here but please TG me so I can toss it in the OP so it doesn't get lost
- Be nice! Be productive!
- Support your argument with either evidence or a logical statement

(And stick on topic, or this will just turn into yet another OOC thread).

[Valaran]

If I had to suggest one thing: slim the bureaucracy.

I understand why its in place as it is (the idea of having more people with roles, so that someone actually does the role; and giving people 'a stake' in the IFC as it were, so they are incentivised to be productive). But I don't think that works. Its debatable where bureaucracy simply promulgates yet more bureaucracy, but its certainly not increasing efficiency, and probably not adding to activity (or at least not useful activity) anyhow. I did more work for the IFC the week I rejoined than I did as trade minister for the month after. Sure, RL got in the way, but that's sort of the point - RL gets in the way, and having more ministers won't make up for that.

I think the bureaucracy point also extends onto governmental reform, RRF streamlining, legislative reform (I can barely remeber half the edicts we have), and perhaps this whole issue stems from something of a fuzzy blurring of what the IFC should be about (ye olde NATO vs EU debate). Nevertheless, regardless of whether the bureaucracy is a symptom or a cause, its not really helping.

I'd normally suggest doing something RPs wise, but that might actually be ok for now.

Atmosphere... eh. baby steps.

E: thanks to Mizrad and Lib for making this.

[The Unified Isles]

Tag

[Mizrad]

If I had to suggest one thing: slim the bureaucracy.

I understand why its in place as it is (the idea of having more people with roles, so that someone actually does the role; and giving people 'a stake' in the IFC as it were, so they are incentivised to be productive). But I don't think that works. Its debatable where bureaucracy simply promulgates yet more bureaucracy, but its certainly not increasing efficiency, and probably not adding to activity (or at least not useful activity) anyhow. I did more work for the IFC the week I rejoined than I did as trade minister for the month after. Sure, RL got in the way, but that's sort of the point - RL gets in the way, and having more ministers won't make up for that.

I think the bureaucracy point also extends onto governmental reform, RRF streamlining, legislative reform (I can barely remeber half the edicts we have), and perhaps this whole issue stems from something of a fuzzy blurring of what the IFC should be about (ye olde NATO vs EU debate). Nevertheless, regardless of whether the bureaucracy is a symptom or a cause, its not really helping.

I'd normally suggest doing something RPs wise, but that might actually be ok for now.

Atmosphere... eh. baby steps.

E: thanks to Mizrad and Lib for making this.

You're certainly welcome!

Anyway on to my point. I absolutely agree with what you are saying. Furthermore what I would suggest specifically to cut down on the "big government" issue within the IFC is to start removing certain ways in which we do things. There's a few positions that could certainly be merged together or removed entirely and groups like the RRF are in utter disarray when it comes to organization at least OOC wise. For example recently a few members including myself were all talking about what different military threads we should jump into or start. Some people wanted to have a military excersize, some wanted to go to war with Choson and some wanted to get even more involved with Bluewell. Of course people can participate in whatever RP they want but when it comes to pariticipating as the IFC's RRF we should at least figure out who is doing what and where before doing anything.

[The Unified Isles]

If I had to suggest one thing: slim the bureaucracy.

I understand why its in place as it is (the idea of having more people with roles, so that someone actually does the role; and giving people 'a stake' in the IFC as it were, so they are incentivised to be productive). But I don't think that works. Its debatable where bureaucracy simply promulgates yet more bureaucracy, but its certainly not increasing efficiency, and probably not adding to activity (or at least not useful activity) anyhow. I did more work for the IFC the week I rejoined than I did as trade minister for the month after. Sure, RL got in the way, but that's sort of the point - RL gets in the way, and having more ministers won't make up for that.

I think the bureaucracy point also extends onto governmental reform, RRF streamlining, legislative reform (I can barely remeber half the edicts we have), and perhaps this whole issue stems from something of a fuzzy blurring of what the IFC should be about (ye olde NATO vs EU debate). Nevertheless, regardless of whether the bureaucracy is a symptom or a cause, its not really helping.

I'd normally suggest doing something RPs wise, but that might actually be ok for now.

Atmosphere... eh. baby steps.

E: thanks to Mizrad and Lib for making this.

You're certainly welcome!

Anyway on to my point. I absolutely agree with what you are saying. Furthermore what I would suggest specifically to cut down on the "big government" issue within the IFC is to start removing certain ways in which we do things. There's a few positions that could certainly be merged together or removed entirely and groups like the RRF are in utter disarray when it comes to organization at least OOC wise. For example recently a few members including myself were all talking about what different military threads we should jump into or start. Some people wanted to have a military excersize, some wanted to go to war with Choson and some wanted to get even more involved with Bluewell. Of course people can participate in whatever RP they want but when it comes to pariticipating as the IFC's RRF we should at least figure out who is doing what and where before doing anything.

I would generally suggest that we have one Commander of the RRF (For which another reform is currently being planned btw). This Commander of the RRF would RP for it in any situation if needed. He also holds votes on where the RRF is to deploy.

Or more formally put, the RRF Commandant has three roles:
I.) Make sure the RRF is properly organized
II.) RP the RRF in any deployment or delegate this task to somebody trustworthy
III.) Hold votes on where the RRF is to deploy

[Guadalupador]

Tag

[Shazbotdom]

What needs to be done is the following:

1. Look at ALL the laws on the books of the IFC, repeal them, and then draft up a sort of Constitution using a combination of all those laws.
2. Create a government structure that would work best for an Alliance. The number of Ministers is staggering and some just seem redundant to me.
3. Create the Executive Council, and have positions for it voted upon by the membership. Having every single member have someone on a council is excessive.
4. The two sections of the IFC (Executive and Military) should be rejoined, with the Executive Council setting forth policy for the Military. And them having to authorize any military actions of the RRF.

At least, that is my idea's.

[Mizrad]

What needs to be done is the following:

1. Look at ALL the laws on the books of the IFC, repeal them, and then draft up a sort of Constitution using a combination of all those laws.
2. Create a government structure that would work best for an Alliance. The number of Ministers is staggering and some just seem redundant to me.
3. Create the Executive Council, and have positions for it voted upon by the membership. Having every single member have someone on a council is excessive.
4. The two sections of the IFC (Executive and Military) should be rejoined, with the Executive Council setting forth policy for the Military. And them having to authorize any military actions of the RRF.

At least, that is my idea's.

I do agree on points 1 and 2 but point 3 seems to take away some a lot of the democratic voting the IFC was built on. Regarding point 4, I think we agree on it, but just to affirm my stance I'm going to comment on it. The RRF is simply the combined military of IFC members that operates under the IFC's flag, is it not? Why not just have the RRF governed by a specific commander and the votes of those in the IFC?

[Shazbotdom]

I do agree on points 1 and 2 but point 3 seems to take away some a lot of the democratic voting the IFC was built on. Regarding point 4, I think we agree on it, but just to affirm my stance I'm going to comment on it. The RRF is simply the combined military of IFC members that operates under the IFC's flag, is it not? Why not just have the RRF governed by a specific commander and the votes of those in the IFC?

I believe what we were trying to accomplish was to standardize the weaponry of the IFC RRF and create actual forces, not have one nation send this many here, another send this many here, and have them all a clusterfuck of ammunition types.

I'm not the best at organizing an Army, which is why someone else is in charge of that, but I do feel that if everyone send a certain number of troops and they are trained in whatever the IFC chooses for it's weapon and ammo type, it would be best if the RRF has to be dispatched into conflict. And it would be, that's why we would need a C-in-C Navy and a C-in-C Army.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

There is frequently this insane idea that rules are unnecessary. I warn you, for every rule you repeal there is less limitation upon executive power. If you wish to reduce legislation, you should go through each law and look at what you are repealing first. I know there are a few rules I would love the Council to repeal - e,g. the rule stopping the Prime Minister from expelling members. (I'm joking, that's obviously a rule that should be kept).

As for reducing officials, it is my experience that usually nothing happens unless a simgle person is allowed to take charge of it, and take ownership of a project. Nothing may still happen, but it is a damn sight more unlikely than when one person has to do multiple things. However, similarly, if you wish to reduce the number of government officials, I would suggest you go through each and decide which ones you want to get rid of. Although since I've done that myself, you may not find any...

In short, if the Council wishes to simplify things, I'd welcome it - as long as you look at every individual thing that you're getting rid of.

On point 3, I think that's a much better method of streamlining the government. I'd be in favour, as long as the Prime Minister, Speaker, and Supreme Justiciar (as heads of the three branches of government) have automatic seats. I'd suggest IRV (like the Capital Selection) could be used to select people to fill one seat per six people in the alliance.

To keep some elements of direct democracy, I'd suggest that the wider member-assembled should still be able to veto the Council's legislation, and to create their own legislation?

By the way, regarding point 4, it's exernal and internal. However if you wish to resign, I agree we can do without a replacement Supreme Allied Commander, and then you can focus on being Lord High Admiral?

We also don't actially have anyone in charge of the Army yet, which is why nothing has been done about the RRF proposals, except for the two scraped-together/improvised Corps, which aren't standardized, but at least they're something... but I definitely agree we need someone to take charge and standardize them. Over to you?

Mizrad can we please discuss only one or two of these topics at a time?

[New Chilokver]

Quite frankly, I don't understand how, or why the IFC should have it's own military forces. If anything, the RRF should consist of dedicated and on-alert units belonging to various IFC members, capable of forming a coalition and deploying when necessary. I agree that we need to have standardized ammunition and equipment- the solution for this is to draft a resolution outlining guidelines for IFC member militaries, not diverting funding from the Blue Cross for a bureaucratically handicapped force.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Quite frankly, I don't understand how, or why the IFC should have it's own military forces. If anything, the RRF should consist of dedicated and on-alert units belonging to various IFC members, capable of forming a coalition and deploying when necessary. I agree that we need to have standardized ammunition and equipment- the solution for this is to draft a resolution outlining guidelines for IFC member militaries, not diverting funding from the Blue Cross for a bureaucratically handicapped force.

How: money. Why: 1. Because we already have them, 2. The ground forces to serve as a core force for when IFC members don't loan their forces, to serve as guards and police for IFC bases and headquarters and persons, to protect our medics, to be peacekeepers and military police and protect associated civilian engineers, fire services, and police; the navy to defend IFC trade and convoys, and 3. Lastly but not insignificantly, to be fun to order - going shopping for the IFC navy was quite enjoyable for those of us who took part in it.

I agree we should be (and are) focused on creating standardized task forces along the lines of the RRF proposals. However, it is as well to keep the IFC's private forces, just in case - they don't cost very much to maintain (about a tenth of the IFC budget) and are a useful reserve.

[Vylaris]

As for reducing officials, it is my experience that usually nothing happens unless a simgle person is allowed to take charge of it, and take ownership of a project. Nothing may still happen, but it is a damn sight more unlikely than when one person has to do multiple things. However, similarly, if you wish to reduce the number of government officials, I would suggest you go through each and decide which ones you want to get rid of. Although since I've done that myself, you may not find any...

I have had a similar experience.

Here is a start on that. I've done slightly too many cuts, so we can work back from this in certain areas (on the proviso that those areas then be streamlined/positioned more effectively). Far too many separate research bodies for one.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Let's go through them one by one.

1. Special Forces Command. We had a company of West Aurelian Special Forces. I suppose since they left we can get rid of that office - the people staffing it can be moved directly to Special Research. Abolished.
2. Military Intelligence. Not absolutely necessary, I agree, but what's wrong with having it? However since this seems to be axe-wielding maniac season and I can't find anyone to run it I suppose they can be merged directly into the Ministry of Intelligence. Abolished.
3. Office of Exercises. If someone isn't put in charge of exercises, they're bloomin' unlikely to happen. However if a majority of people don't want exercises we can get rid of that department. Vote on it.
4. C-in-C Air. I do think someone ought to be in charge of air things. Retained.
5. Ditto land. Retained.
6. Ditto sea. Retained.
7. Special Advisor (Foreign Office). This is Flardania and I do think his experience will be valuable in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - I was particularly impressed by their cool logic re Ardoki. Retained.
8. Special Envoy to the Right. This is Devonta and I think it would be good to have formal relations with SACTO and CAPINTERN. However... you can Vote on it.
9. Special Envoy to the Left. Our relations with left-wing alliances should be similarly important. Vote on it.
10, 11, and 12. Ambassadors. Why not? Vote on it.
13. SACTO-IFC Committee. It was a ploy in my manifesto to demonstrate I didn't want to go to war with SACTO. However you can Vote on it.
14. Projects. That's the one held by Pillowlandia. For political reasons, you can Vote on it.
15. Membership Requests Office. This simply lets you members make requests, although why anybody should listen to you I have no idea. I suppose it can be merged into Liason. Abolished.
16. Projects Office. For working on new projects. Technocrats necessary. Retained.
17. Conservation etc. Set up by legislation. Vote on it.
18. Deputy Minister of Trade. Haven't found one yet, but trade is important, dammit. Very important. After all, this is the Ausitorian Ministry. It's about the only thing left to believe in. If you're going around like axe-wielding maniacs, I'm going to go around like a obsessed narcisist on this one. Retained.
19. Industry. Haven't found anyone for it, but wouldn't it be nice if we had someone to facilitate linking up our nation's industries? Vote on it.
20. Secretary of Health. Health things. Anyway we've just legislated on it. Retained.
21. Medical Expeditionary Force. We have doctors in the bloody fields of Bluewell. Be more appreciated. And we've just legislated anyway. Retained.
22. Military Police. Hard working police maintaining law and order in the Refugee Zones in Bluewell. Be more appreciated. And we've just legislated anyway. Retained.
23. Civil Functions Command. Utilities, fire services, administators, everything else necessarily to salvage a failed or failing state like Bluewell. Be more appreciated. And we've just legislated anyway. Retained.
24. Liason office. Well, someone has to liaise, and I don't like the Senate and Judiciary to feel cut off. Otherwise we might forget about them, and then I'd be even more of a dictator. Retained.
25. Senate Liaison Office. See above. Retained.
26. Summit Office. Paying for and organizing Summits. But if you don't like Summits, Vote on it.
27. Judicial Committee Liaison. Someone's gotta support the Judges. Retained.
28. Ministry of Science/CASTI. Do you have any idea of the cool stuff we're doing? You're not antiscientific, are you? And besides, a hefty chunk of funding is earmarked for sciences only, so we might as well spend the money. Retained.
29. Blue Cross Research Group. Do you want to suffer pandemics and spiraling health costs? Vote on it.
30. Membership Standards Office. I'm actually planning to merge this into Membership and Projects. Move on.
31. Membership Embassies Office. Did you know the IFC maintains embassies in every single member nation? That's how we can liaise with member governments. Definitely necessary. Retained.
32. Rights and Standards Office. Did you know members have to abide by our laws and ensure their citizens have adequate rights? This ensures we know when they're not, and know what to do about it. Absolutely necessary for the rule of law and human rights. Retained.
33. Post Office. Legislated into existence. If you don't want post to be passed between member nations, Vote on it.
34. ISRA (Search and Rescue). Someone's gotta do it. If you don't want to be rescued, Vote on it.
35. Premier. This is Lendol. I need someone good to help me run all this. If you don't like it, get rid of me. Over my dead body.
36. Policy Office. This is where the IFC government and the International Commonwealth Agency work out what the hell to do. ICly necessary for the IFC government to do anything new/different. Over my dead body.
37. Special Research Office. Useful for cool, dramatic unveiling of dramatic discoveries/inventions. Can't the Prime Minister have a single perk? Retained.
38. Legal Policy Office. How else is anyone going to navigate all the laws? How's anything meant to work without the rule of law? Retained.

[The Unified Isles]

The Unstupiding of the RRF

Okay, so here is my general proposal for the unstupiding of the RRF:

I.) Obviously, remove the Bureaucracy. Okay, so as stated before, the RRF Commanders have three effective functions:

A.) Make sure the RRF is properly organized (Can be done by one Person)
B.) Hold votes on where the RRF is to deploy (Can be done by the same Person as in A.))
C.) RP for the RRF, or delegate this task to somebody who is trustworthy (This requires some explanation)

So, for tasks A.) & B.), we only require on officer, the "Commandant of the RRF". What we really require multiple Members for is task C.). Obviously, the "Commandant" doesn't has necessarily have the time to RP in every single deployment. So I would generally propose the following:

- Have ONE permanent "Commandant of the RRF" who does tasks A.) & B.)
- Give this "Commandant of the RRF" the power to create a "Theatre Commander" who plays the RRF Forces deployed in a given RP.
- Remove all other offices related to the RRF

II.) Organize the RRF along a new system. I propose my so-called "Slot System", which works as follows:

1.) The RRF Forces has X Slots for certain units to fill
2.) The "Commandant of the RRF" makes an ad for the Slots
3.) Member States can donate forces to this Slot

As Shaz noted, such a force would need to have certain standards, but I think we can define these via vote at a later point. What I would like to get out of the way relatively quickly though is the actual amount/type of slots that we want, I can do an ORBAT if this is wanted.

III.) Create an IFC Peace Corps. This Unit would deploy in a not-so-active warzone to keep the peace, but would also fill some specialized roles. The "Commandant of the Peace Corps" could be the same person as the "Commandant of the RRF". The following units would be part of the Peace Corps:

- IFC Peacekeeping Units: Standard Peacekeepers, police in destabilized countries etc.
- IFC Military Observation Units: These would ICly monitor conflicts as well as the activity of IFC Member nation and the RRF.
- IFC POW Management Units: These would take over POWs captured by IFC Members and administer them. This process would be voluntary unless the Council gives a different order
- IFC HQ & VIP Protection Unit: This unit would be the "Anti-Coup Unit" of the IFC, protecting the HQ Location and the Council.
- IFC Humanitarian Aid Units/IFC Construction Units: Standard Units specialized in providing humanitarian aid and constructing refugee camps etc.
- IFC Transport Units: The Logistical Branch of the Peace Corps

The Peace Corps would ICly have a recruitment system independent from national militaries and peacekeeping forces to ensure its neutrality.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

I: This is actually the same bureaucracy than I have in place for the RRF. (I am assuming the RRF Commander is equivalent to the Ground Forces Commander). I.e. no problem.
II: This is in line with Valaran's earlier proposal and ensuing suggestions. What we need to do is decide what we want to standardize on.
III: This would duplicate the functions of the present Blue Cross forces, and I can't justify two organizations to do the same thing in axe-wielding season.

[The Lendol Archipelago]

Tag, for if and when I actually have something to say.

[Vylaris]

I'm spoilering my response to you on this, Lib.

3 - We don't need a whole separate office for exercises. The RRF and national militaries should be able to hash this out themselves; if they can't, then its a more serious issue that needs addressing. We don't conduct enough exercises to require an office for it. Utterly needless.

4,5,& 6 - On an OOC point, we don't need 4 positions here. I don't think anyone can guarantee 4 people would be around enough for even a single RP. The RRF can have a joint chiefs of staff for ICly practical purpose. However, I'm holding off on this slightly since it really relates to RRF reform.

7 - Flardania can offer his advice regardless. If the only thing a special advisor needs to do is to maintain a level head, that's a clear case the office isn't needed.

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 - All of them utterly needless. As FM I did my negotiating with all major alliances, IFC foreign policy, negotiating and so on by myself. As I recall, so did my successor (Flardania).. For all intents and purposes, and IFC foreign policy with these either goes direct you, gets kicked about by a football by the members, or is non-existent. We have no directives or agendas with any of these, and if do they're not working. Having 6 or so sub-ranks trying to counter this is worse than useless - its actively detrimental. Classic case of Bureaucratic splurge, as far as I'm concerned.

14 - Let's put it this way. Pillow is a great contributor to the IFC. But most projects the IFC needs have been done by other departments, or ad hoc (I don't remember TUI formalising his proposal for the RRF via projects, and nor I mine). Pillow is as good at contributing outside the Ministry - I'm a big fan of discord, even if you're not. Theoretically,a formalised process for out-of-the-box projects its great, but that isn't happening, and its not the minister's fault. If its not happening, its not needed.

17 - Conservation falls into my (is this what the IFC should be about thing). Communis opinio would be enough for me.

18 - Its my department. Don't need it. Would be needless if it was there. Certainly wouldn't make me draft anything remotely quicker or better.

19 - "but wouldn't it be nice if we had someone to facilitate linking up our nation's industries?" That's the thing. Most of these things 'would be nice' Are they nice in practice? Sometimes yes, but in a lot of cases, no. Besides, if we were to RP this realistically, we'd simply be going up against a whole array of national champions and projectionist mindsets, which no RL body has ever broken down.

20, 21, 22 - Yeah, legislation on it is fine, since it means in practice they've already been cut and reformed.

24, 25 - Liaisons can be conducted as a need to have one basis. We don't need a whole department for this. In any corporate/civil service environment they would simply start to act as middle men and slow the whole process down. And then there's a second whole liaison office. Jesus.

26 - Summits are prestige events, like the Olympics. Host nation can cough up for that prestige, and organise it accordingly.

27 - The Judges where?

28 - A much simpler answer would be to allocate funds to national scientists. Its also more effective, since they already have established networks. At most a committee would be needed for that, and this can formed from the senate. We don't need a ministry for this - it would end up like the WHO.

29 - We now have two research groups, that are entirely separate bodies. Surefire recipe for competing for the same funds to often do similar research and splitting up talent. Also, precisely the same issues for CASTI, since this is actually more like a WHO.

31 - "Did you know the IFC maintains embassies in every single member nation?" Good god, do we?

32 - The last thing IFC nations will want is an intrusive foreign body telling them what to do (that's how Brexit movements form, right there). Besides, this will never have the resources and funding to investigate members fully. And if it does, imagine the backlash.

34 - Search and rescue where? In the IFC compound? Member states have their own S&R bodies, I'm sure.

35 - Right now, I certainly wouldn't suggest you throw about options like that, but if you deem the Premiership necessary, then I'll accept that.

36 - A policy office is liable to just spew out polices until we all drown in reams of paper like Jarndyce & Jarndyce (since that is their job - and they know their existence depends on continually making more policies). I swear half of the issue come from the fact that there is this drive to just create more and more legislation. You know what be useful? An oversight committee, to judge whether each and every programme is both necessary and affordable and working. Replace it with that.

37 - That constitutional body thing can simply make sure everything else the IFC does is legal. Merge it.

My solution is as follows - we come up with something of a mutually agreed on draft of what cuts need to be made, and then we submit that to a council vote.

I don't expect to get all of that, but I espcially want the trade, industry and the diplomatic stuff cut to the bone. At the very least merge the medical & scientific research outfits, and also merge the legal stuff, and the liaison stuff. The Bluecross, Premiership and Conservation can stay. My reckoning is this would still cut something like 20-21 positions, which is still a good result.

[Roskian Federation]

Alright, so the RRF should be reformed in a way in which cooperation between memberstates is emphasized instead of a collective of military forces

(EU battlegroups and UN Military Forces operate in this manner), so that the burden of withstanding a military does not fall on a collective effort. For example, a military of my size is incapable of making a donation to the RRF in its current form because I then lose a sizable portion of my military forces.

One way to do this is potentially to create multi-national military units which can be called up in a crisis (a Rapid Response Division, formed by multiple national Readiness Brigades, would provide an overwhelming amount of intial counter attack), and or forming naval battlegroups in which smaller nations can cooperate without losing major surface combatants (unless they're destroyed in combat). My nation operates 5 frigates and one destroyer, I would be devastated if I had to remove one of those ships from my arsenal. However, creating a multinational naval battlegroup means I can deploy those vessels in a fleet that's been predetermined, making the chances of the survival of the ship and any form of military coherency much higher.

---

Removing nations from the pact should happen two ways, if the nation directly declares war on the IFC, or any nation residing in the IFC, then it is automatically removed from the pact. If the IFC wants to remove a nation, or more importantly, de-recognize any government operating in that nation, it should be done solely by a resolution done in a two day period. The nation in question cannot vote (nor does that vote count as an automatic no). The Prime Minister, President, Prime Minister Elect, President Elect, Chancellor, Chancellor-Elect, Absolute Dictator of the International Freedom Coalition, Absolute Dictator of the International Freedom Coalition Elect should NOT be able to unilaterally remove any nation, for any reason. If at least one person complains about accepting a new member (and is serious), then that matter should be resolved by a four day long resolution. This would remove the anti-government sentiment (well, at least from me), and shouldn't be too hard to implement.

---

We previously had 38 fucking secretary or ministers, we still have 20. These ministries should be removed because I can see where the bullshit is already from the retained ones.

Command and Control Air, Sea, and Land should be merged into a Secretary of the Armed Forces branch. You have one branch for the price of three.. (Drops 20 to 18)
We do not need an Advisor for Foreign (Affairs, those should be commited by the memberstates of the International Freedom Coalition, not the government. (18 to 17)
We do not need a project office. (17 to 16)
Minister of Trade, Deputy Minister of Trade, and all others should be retained into a singular Treasury Ministry. (Which we don't seem to have. 16-15)
Secretary of Health is not needed. (15-14)
Medical Expeditionary Force should be something that is called together in the time of a crisis, and not a long term office. (14-13)
Military police should be provided by the Armed Forces of the individual nations. This is also the same shit that could be used in the Rapid Response Force, but since I think that should be
----abolished anyway, this position should be merged with the Secretary of Defence, which should oversee the production of multinational battlegroups to be used in times of crises. (13-12)
We don't need a civil functions command. (12-11)
We don't need a Liason office. If a serious issue like that comes up, it should be resolved by resolutions. (11-9)
We do need a summit office. (9-10)
Ministry of Science is not needed. This should be instead done by a IFC Science Comittee, which would fall under the Summit Office. (10-9)
Rights and Standards Office should be replaced by a comittee, under the jurisdiction of the Summit Office (9-8)
Special Research Office should be done by comittee, under the jurisdiction of the Summit Office. (8-7)
Legal Policy Office should be replaced by a some form of Cybergroup, dedicated to maintaining webpages about the organization. (7-7)

Additionally, Excercises should be placed under the Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defence
An international organization does not need any envoys.
Ambassadors should be appointed by comittee. Summit Office.
SACTO-IFC Committee should be placed under the jurisdiction of the Summit Office
We don't fucking need a projects office.
Conservation should be done by committee (Summit Office)
Industry, or any form of economic cooperation, should be done by committee (Summit Office)
Blue Cross Research Group should be replaced by a Health Service committee (Summit Office)
Post Offices are inherent in a capitalist society. There is no fucking reason to have an entire ministry dedicated to postal services that will already be present in EVERY MEMBER STATE
ISRA under the RRF and Secretary of Defence.

I got it down to seven ministries.

See the changes I made below:

3. Moved to Secretary of Defence
4. Moved to Secretary of Defence
17. Moved to Summits Office
19. Moved to Summits Office
20. Moved to Summits Office
21. Moved to Summits Office
22. Moved to Secretary of Defence
1. Summit Office. Paying for and organizing Summits. But if you don't like Summits, Vote on it.
2. Judicial Committee Liaison. Someone's gotta support the Judges. Retained.
28. Moved to Summits Office
29. Moved to Summits Office
3. Membership Embassies Office. Did you know the IFC maintains embassies in every single member nation? That's how we can liaise with member governments. Definitely necessary. Retained.
32. Moved to Summits Office
34. Moved to Secretary of Defence
4. Premier. This is Lendol. I need someone good to help me run all this. If you don't like it, get rid of me. Over my dead body.
5. Policy Office. This is where the IFC government and the International Commonwealth Agency work out what the hell to do. ICly necessary for the IFC government to do anything new/different. Over my dead body.
37. Moved to Summits Office
6. Merged into Online Office
7. Secretary of Defence

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

On the RRF, could you stop repeating what other people are saying? That's what we need people to arrange. There's been enough talk. If words were a form of achievement the IFC would be the highest achiever around.

On the question of removing nations, you're asking for what already exists. Can't you read?

Finally on government structure, for heaven's sakes, if you want me to govern; let me govern. If you don't, stop me.

Can't you contribute something useful for a change? It's all repetitious "talk, talk, talk" round here, almost nobody ever does anything new, and when they do, everybody rushes in like vultures to complain about some of it. And then, rather than try to improve it, they try to get the new thing abolished because it's not perfect. I'm pretty fed up.

3 - But they can't arrange exercises. It's a serious issue. I want someone to focus on solving it.

4 to 6 - Let's see what people envisage for the RRF.

7 - I suppose an additional office is unnecessary, but I still want to have Flardania officially involved.

8 to 13 - I agree we have no directives or agendas with any of these. We ought to. And how are we going to get anything going without people to do it? I'm all ears.

14 - No no, let's abolish Pillowlandia's position. Can I borrow your axe?

17 - It's not my decision. I can't just invalidate the Conservation Act because I think it's a waste of space. Legislate on it.

18 to 19 - Well, that is your decision. Of course you can abolish or create any offices in your own ministry. But if you've decided to abolish two thirds of your own ministry, will you do three times as much work yourself?

24 to 27 - I suppose they can be merged into administrative/constitutional duties.

28 to 29 - Of course we don't need science any more than we need to exist. It is, however, good for prosperity to directly fund scientific research. Note that about half of the funding does go into pots for scientists anyway. Note also that 29 is anyway below 28 so they aren't actually in competition.

31 to 32 - What else is the IFC for if not to try to improve the world, a few nations at a time?

34 - This is an international co-ordination office supporting transnational searches, e.g. if ships or aircraft go missing. It's not very expensive. Legislate if you don't like it.

36 - Look, do you want the IFC government to have any control over anything that happens here, or should Ausitorian policy makers take direct control of IFC policy? I can assure you they could.

37 - Done, see 24 to 27.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Roski, just a note - I recognize that's a little harsh, as one of your suggestions might actually be justified.

(However I'm leaving my reply on record as a demonstration of my intense irritation that I seem to be the only person who is prepared to let the IFC government actually do things).

The suggestion I refer to is the idea that some elements of the government be replaced by committees under the control of Summits - not Science, because I don't see how the summits could control science policy, but perhaps standards and member embassies, because in fairness the Council is in charge of enforcing standards, generally governing internal affairs, and expelling members.

If there's any more support for the idea, I shall ask the Speaker whether he would be willing to take direct control of the question.

[Valaran]

3. Its not serious. Its not worthy of an office. That's splurge.

4-6. No worries.

7. (+14.) He can have my position if he wants? Or Pillow can have it.

8-13. Ought is a lovely thing, but the reason we don't is because its not achievable (espcially with regards to SACTO). 1-2 people can coordinate directive and agendas better than 6-7.

18-19. mhm.

24-27 (+37). Mostly fine, but I still want the Summit Office gone.

28. I'm not suggesting the IFC doesn't promote science; I'm suggesting that this is a bad way to do it.

31 to 32. I'm suggesting that these aren't effective methods of improvement, given the likelihood for backlash. We can instead improve the vetting process and so assume that nations in the IFC are actually free from the onset?

34. Nations can coordinate fine on their own - it will be rare for them to need to do so on more than an ad hoc basis. This isn't a high priority, and attempting to affect standardisation-networks for the whole IFC on something that isn't high priority is needlessly expensive.

36. As far as I'm concerned, that's an irrelevant question. A policy office would be de facto under Ausitorian control anyway; its removal probably doesn't increase Ausitorian control over the IFC. Ministers can draft their own policies, using statistics from the stats branch (left that in for a reason).

Taking Aside RRF and Bluecross matters, this takes off something like 18 Roles, or about 30% of the current bureaucracy.

[Roskian Federation]

Roski, just a note - I recognize that's a little harsh, as one of your suggestions might actually be justified.

(However I'm leaving my reply on record as a demonstration of my intense irritation that I seem to be the only person who is prepared to let the IFC government actually do things).

The suggestion I refer to is the idea that some elements of the government be replaced by committees under the control of Summits - not Science, because I don't see how the summits could control science policy, but perhaps standards and member embassies, because in fairness the Council is in charge of enforcing standards, generally governing internal affairs, and expelling members.

If there's any more support for the idea, I shall ask the Speaker whether he would be willing to take direct control of the question.

The point of mass movement towards the Summit Office is so that there could be committees that are formed as needed.

For science, the Summit Office could arrange yearly or even monthly gatherings to have a useful change away from endless masses of offices to a much more streamlined and efficient manner. Think about it - all the nations send their top scientists, instead of some poor saps sitting in a random office in your nation year round doing nothing because there is no reason to have a "science department" in an alliance which still values sovereignty.

Also, there hasn't been one person as detailed in the RRF reform as I had - others have called fkr a similar thing, but it was no where near as detailed and exact as I asked.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Valaran, i've made my arguments and I'm not convinced by yours. I'm not getting rid of anything more unless you get a proper majority for each.

Roski, in Valaran's original proposal the idea of slotting in forces was clearly discussed; and then we moved on to discuss neccesary standards. Unified Islands raised it again just above (point II).

As for the Summit office, Valaran wants it gone. Feel free to argue with each other.

[Mizrad]

Everyone quick update so we can make sure this doesn't devolve into flaming:

If we can't reach an agreement on something let's just hold a vote how does that sound? I mean there's clearly no way some certain folk are gonna budge on their opinions so let's just take those debates to vote. If there's a topic that people can actually reach an agreement on then by all means go ahead that's what this thread is for!