Revamp of Platform[Draft2]

First one had many errors which I am correcting within the second draft


Original:
Quote:
Social:
-Equality among all Canadian's; Franco, Anglo or Bilingual.
-Helping new players grow and become productive citizens.
-Giving a voice back to the layman.

Economic:
-Lower/Modest Taxes
-Lower VAT

Political:
-Honest Politics
-Hard Working Congressmen
-Supporting a CP candidate who best embodies our Platform, be it one of our own, or someone else.

Military:
-Provide NE battles and war for eCanada whenever logically possible
-Support our allies and be a trusted and respected voice in our Alliances
-Support MU Funding to the best of its abilities
-Avoid compromising territorial integrity if possible


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Revision:

Social:
-Equality among all Canadian's; Franco, Anglo or Bilingual.
-Helping new players grow and become productive citizens.
-Giving a voice back to the layman.

Economic:
-Income tax to be held below 5%
-Vat on all commodities to be held at no lower then 15% and no higher then 18%

Political:
-Honest Politics, allowing everyone a fair voice.
-Hard Working Congressmen who stay informed on all issues within Canada.
-Supporting a CP candidate who best embodies our Platform, be it one of our own, or someone else.

Military:
-Provide NE battles and war for eCanada whenever logically possible.
-Support our allies and be a trusted and respected voice in our Alliances.
-Keeping Canada Sovereign and holding all native territories.
-Provide sustainable MU funding that involves;

• a. Supplying MU's based on their damage/power output and actual size.
  
• b. Supplying MU's only if they agree to and carry out both supplying members as they see fit and using a portion of the funding to help players become self sustaining

Unkem wrote:

Economic:
-Income tax to be held below 5%
-Vat on all commodities to be held at no lower then 15% and no higher then 18%

Military:
-Provide NE battles and war for eCanada whenever logically possible.
-Support our allies and be a trusted and respected voice in our Alliances.
-Keeping Canada Sovereign and holding all native territories.
-Provide sustainable MU funding that involves;

• a. Supplying MU's based on their damage/power output and actual size.
  
• b. Supplying MU's only if they agree to and carry out both supplying members as they see fit and using a portion of the funding to help players become self sustaining

Taking a bullet for an ally, how many times do I have to repeat this?

No qualms about the revision though, you might want to add a poll

^Is the only issue this time around.

Poll up and this is mostly just for the economy and MU changes. If people think our Military stance isn't right they can propose a change. Will run this poll for three days to hopefully have it ready for our congress. God speed, hopefully these changes are better.

I can't vote yes with the sovereignty part still there.

I dont see nothing wrong with it but i'm not so poltical. I dont want to be wiped again

Well there isn't a point of voting up a new charter that has flaws or is there?

What are the flaws?If it passes then the policy changes are no longer flaws for the majority of people

:facepalm:

The one about keeping Canada sovereign, I've mentioned this countless times.

I know you have mentioned it but some do not think that it is a flaw. The point is being voted on right now to see if the majority also thinks it is a flaw

So in the United Party of Canada you believe it is okay for us to be giving away our territories and our sovereignty?

We think it is okay to sacrifice regions in a war to help our Bros.

Allies are important.

Why does helping allied involve giving land away????

Unless its an asylum to launch a counter attack...

We attack someone to help an ally, like how we attacked Spain to help Colombia and Portugal, we should be fully prepared to lose territories in battle to help our allies get some of theirs back.

why help allies to get land back when we lose land and then they lose there land again soon after. Portugal just got a territory back, and that was after we ended our NE on Spain. Columbia only has one territory. So we got wiped for what seems like no substantial gain except for some credibility to two countries that are so preoccupied with Spain that they probably will not be able to every majorly help us for a long long time.

We can help are allies with MPP and fighting in their battles. Why should we get wiped for it though? Just so then we can claim we are in the same boat as the besieged nations we say were helping? Instead of being able to send soldiers to fight in Columbia and Portugal's battles we had to focus more on defending are land and takeing it back.

And when we're facing a wipe do you want to fight it without allies, or would you rather have your loyal allies who help each other through thick and thin help you survive.

I see it as a noble act, all though not much pros it shows great gamemanship and wins you valuable allies, and shows you who has your back. I see it as a VERY important issue.

By just looking for our own interests we look selfish and we make no friends and more enemies.

how do we look selfish if we fight hard for them everyday? We dont have to get wiped to sacrifice. We dont need to prove are alliances to Columbia and Portugal anymore. Sure if we have over seas territory then we can knowingly sacrifice it if it somehow help an ally but do we really want to be wiped every time we feel a need to show are allies that we stand by them, is not fighting for them in their battles enough? We lose resource bonuses, and lose government income and lose the oh so precious MU founding everyone demands and a potential lose of a congress and open are self's up to being ruled by a bad dictator (like Rylde) who would abuse having no congress. I think it is best to not knowingly get our self's wiped.

how I wish the military module was like before where wars were rare and to wipe a nation was difficult. Plato ruined the game with the NE.

Lord when we're wiped, facing wipe, or trying to recapture our territories, would you rather attack them by yourself or would you rather have BROs (stating ones that came from the top of my head that were formerly or still are our allies, not sure if their our allies currently) USA, France, Germany, Russia, Portugal, UK, Ireland, Croatia etc. attack Poland/Spain/whoevers attacking us to split damage and perhaps scare off the enemy and show we're not pushed around easily or face a superpower by yourself.

Here's an example, not the greatest example but it works.

We attacked Spain to help Portugal, Poland attacks us to help Spain from losing territories.

Poland "took a bullet" for their allies Spain, they saw their ally get attacked and attacked the aggressors to stop them from attacking Spain. There's a reason why they're called "SPOLAND" and I keep seeing them calling each other"brothers", they help each other rather unselfishly. Personally I'd love for a country like Poland to value Canada as an ally, BRO to help us when we're in trouble. I still remember the BROlliance, with us, 'merica and Ireland and we helped each other endlessly when ONE invasion of North America happened we were quick to attack Spain, Poland or Indo (can't remember which one) to slow down the american invasion. Many times we attacked the UK for picking on Ireland. America helped us too countless times as well. That's the selflessness I want to see from an ally and from ourselves since if we expect that kind of treatment we should be prepared to do the same

Here is the distinct Difference you guys aren't seeing:

When we fight for an Ally in their battle with an MPP, the enemy still puts all their damage into that fight, which means you are still facing the same problem of a nation like Spain being able to overpower us in a single battle.

When we fight for an Ally by attacking their enemy ourselves, We split the Damage, the enemy can't do the same amount of damage as they would have in the above scenario without doing very little in the other battle and losing ground, so they have to fight both, or prioritize, thus helping our ally and ourselves more than just fighting for them in their battle.

we also split are attack damage cause now instead of fighting for are allies through MPP we are fighting are own battle. Seems the same to me.

Chewy I'm for the kind of bro alliances you are talking about and would help out are allies, I just dont think it is good for are nation to be constantly wiped out.

So instead our Nation will just be too scared to step up. I stay in favor of removing that section from the platform revamp, I will not support it.

we wont be scared, we will still fight for them

We will be scared to lose our Regions, and therefore we will be scared to go to war, it spreads from applying to fighting for a bro to fighting for our country, we can't gain new territories if we are too afraid of losing our own.

Its foolish to think we can always avoid losing some ground, which makes it illogical to include it as a Point on our Platform.

eCanada should act like rlCanada... leave everyone alone and smoke pot...

Lord Beorn wrote:

we also split are attack damage cause now instead of fighting for are allies through MPP we are fighting are own battle. Seems the same to me.

Chewy I'm for the kind of bro alliances you are talking about and would help out are allies, I just dont think it is good for are nation to be constantly wiped out.

well yes to an extent some of ours will attack for us instead of our allies because of NE or tp medal but the MUs will prioritize the allies battle or we'lltake a region from the enemy and for them its more easier to fight one enemy and their allies in one battle rather than fighting in two battles and risking losing both they'll focus on one and probably lose a region as result. few nations can battle against two enemies and in the resistant wars with losing anywhere .

it makes a lot if sense from a strategic positin