“Thank you, ambassador. Now, if you do not mind, what is your opinion on this?”
Advertisement
by Fauxia » Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:56 pm
“Thank you, ambassador. Now, if you do not mind, what is your opinion on this?”
by Araraukar » Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:33 pm
Fauxia wrote:“Thank you, ambassador. Now, if you do not mind, what is your opinion on this?”
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wallenburg » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:57 pm
by The First German Order » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:35 pm
by Fauxia » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:27 pm
“This is not even close to a blanket ban on conscription. Had this been at vote, you would have been in breach of Read the Resolution Act.”Wallenburg wrote:"This is not acceptable. The limitations of the Military Freedom Act are strong as it is. We do not need a de facto blanket ban on conscription for those nations who treat conscripts better than mere cannon fodder."
by Wallenburg » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:10 pm
Fauxia wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"This is not acceptable. The limitations of the Military Freedom Act are strong as it is. We do not need a de facto blanket ban on conscription for those nations who treat conscripts better than mere cannon fodder."
“This is not even close to a blanket ban on conscription. Had this been at vote, you would have been in breach of Read the Resolution Act.”
by Fauxia » Tue Jan 23, 2018 4:46 am
“I saw that, and it’s still ridiculous.”
by Silverlight » Tue Jan 23, 2018 2:54 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:37 pm
by Fauxia » Tue Jan 23, 2018 6:43 pm
“Elaborate or don’t elaborate, you’re still wrong. This does not come close to banning conscription. It doesn’t de facto outlaw conscription. It places a few reasonable restrictions on it.”
by Wallenburg » Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:38 pm
Fauxia wrote:“Elaborate or don’t elaborate, you’re still wrong. This does not come close to banning conscription. It doesn’t de facto outlaw conscription. It places a few reasonable restrictions on it.”Wallenburg wrote:"You...saw my speech? Oh right, the transcript. If you still consider my statement ridiculous, I don't really know how to elaborate in simpler words."
by Araraukar » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:46 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Liagolas » Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:51 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Heh, just realized that your definitions create a huge loophole that allows any nation that wants to use conscription to use conscription freely and ignore everything in this...
1. Defines combat role and all variants thereof, for the purposes of this resolution, as the active participation in open warfare against an enemy,
2. Defines conscription and all variants thereof, for the purposes of this resolution, as the mandatory enlistment of a person into the armed forces,
3. Mandates that no nation, during times of peace, may conscript any person for combat roles for periods of time that exceed one year,
4. Prohibits member nations from conscripting any person under the age of majority for combat roles,
1. Defines combat role and all variants thereof, for the purposes of this resolution, asthea role which would involve active participation in open warfare against an enemy during a time of war or other martial conflict,
by Araraukar » Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:15 am
Liagolas wrote:OOC: Care to share with the class?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Fauxia » Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:31 pm
“You shouldn’t be using conscripts for specialist roles. What next, are you going to force people to become rocket scientists?”Wallenburg wrote:Fauxia wrote: “Elaborate or don’t elaborate, you’re still wrong. This does not come close to banning conscription. It doesn’t de facto outlaw conscription. It places a few reasonable restrictions on it.”
"It restricts conscription to the extent that member states cannot give conscripts suitable training for combat and also put them to effective use. It most certainly makes impossible the use of conscripts to fulfill specialist roles that require extensive training. It basically legislates the use of conscripts purely as meat shields for the soldiers with real training."
by The First German Order » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:05 am
Fauxia wrote:“You shouldn’t be using conscripts for specialist roles. What next, are you going to force people to become rocket scientists?”Wallenburg wrote:"It restricts conscription to the extent that member states cannot give conscripts suitable training for combat and also put them to effective use. It most certainly makes impossible the use of conscripts to fulfill specialist roles that require extensive training. It basically legislates the use of conscripts purely as meat shields for the soldiers with real training."
by Araraukar » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:10 am
Fauxia wrote:“You shouldn’t be using conscripts for specialist roles.”
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wallenburg » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:41 am
Fauxia wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"It restricts conscription to the extent that member states cannot give conscripts suitable training for combat and also put them to effective use. It most certainly makes impossible the use of conscripts to fulfill specialist roles that require extensive training. It basically legislates the use of conscripts purely as meat shields for the soldiers with real training."
“You shouldn’t be using conscripts for specialist roles. What next, are you going to force people to become rocket scientists?”
by Fauxia » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:37 pm
OOC: They aren't really all that close if you have to keep training them for more than a year. If you can finish the training within the year, that's great, but if you can't, you're taking too much from the person.
"The idea is that you shouldn't be forcing people to train for things that will take longer than a reasonable timeframe."
OOC: Nothing stops those people from joining voluntarily, or from you giving incentives to have them join.The First German Order wrote:Fauxia wrote: “You shouldn’t be using conscripts for specialist roles. What next, are you going to force people to become rocket scientists?”
OOC: I mean, why wouldn't we force people to become rocket scientists?
All it does make sense to use conscripts for specialist roles. Militaries need some specialists, not just grunts.
by The First German Order » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:12 pm
Fauxia wrote:OOC: They aren't really all that close if you have to keep training them for more than a year. If you can finish the training within the year, that's great, but if you can't, you're taking too much from the person.Araraukar wrote:OOC: Even if the conscript is halfway there due to their civilian training and education?
Also, rocket scientists at least in RL tend to not be military peeps originally, anymore."The idea is that you shouldn't be forcing people to train for things that will take longer than a reasonable timeframe."Wallenburg wrote:"Military specialists and rocket scientists are not even remotely comparable."OOC: Nothing stops those people from joining voluntarily, or from you giving incentives to have them join.The First German Order wrote:OOC: I mean, why wouldn't we force people to become rocket scientists?
All it does make sense to use conscripts for specialist roles. Militaries need some specialists, not just grunts.
by Wallenburg » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:30 pm
by Fauxia » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:47 pm
OOC: Positive incentive. I didn’t want to have to clarify that but of course I did.The First German Order wrote:Fauxia wrote:OOC: They aren't really all that close if you have to keep training them for more than a year. If you can finish the training within the year, that's great, but if you can't, you're taking too much from the person.
"The idea is that you shouldn't be forcing people to train for things that will take longer than a reasonable timeframe."
OOC: Nothing stops those people from joining voluntarily, or from you giving incentives to have them join.
OOC: So we can threaten to execute them if they don't join? That's an incentive, right?
"It is abhorrent that you do not believe that people have the right to vhoose their own jobs.”
by Wallenburg » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:19 pm
by Fauxia » Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:16 pm
"There's a reason these limitations go away during wartime."
by Wallenburg » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:19 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement