The Rules

[kerick]

I would have to include USCG in the military side. So which airliner could I convert to search and rescue/MPA type? Hmmmm....  Big fat chin radar, might look like it has a goiter.....

[sandiego89]

USCG is one of the 5 US Armed Services, so still military.  Other Coast Guards are more civil.  

I have softened a bit and think civilian government agencies such as research, volunteer forces, firefighting, police, park services, rescue, Bay watch (for the plot line only  etc should be allowed.  Like the Los Angeles county Sheriff's S-58, S-3's, etc.

[Ed S]

I have a question for the moderators and the group as a whole. I don't think this has ever been asked before. I would like to build a H-21 civilianized for this GB and also for the VTOL GB that is going during the same time frame on BTS. Any comments?

Ed

[jcf]

To be honest i would stick Government Organisations as Civil.

Basically because they tend to be easier to find decals for and dont carry military schemes. Plus it gets harder to judge if your parameters are too spcific, after all the idea is to make mil hardware look good in civilian use and vice versa, we don't want to start having to work out if a company using kit under govt contract is classed as mil or civil.

Agreed, and while a security firm like Blackwater may be classified as an NGO if one
squints very hard, their role is anything but humanitarian, they are private military.

[philp]

Well, didn't think I had any ideas for this GB but now thinking maybe this one would qualify?





Thanks to the guys here who did the original profiles.

[Mossie]

Certainly, I've got something similar planned.

[Modelling_Mushi]

I have a question for the moderators and the group as a whole. I don't think this has ever been asked before. I would like to build a H-21 civilianized for this GB and also for the VTOL GB that is going during the same time frame on BTS. Any comments?
Ed

Ed, I don't have any probs with this at all, I'll just check with the other mods. This is my first GB as a mod so trying to keep my nose clean 

And Philip, Mossie's spot on there. Count it in.

[Librarian]

I have to be honest and say that although I voted I was somewhat nervy about commiting to another GB. Then 'Firebomber' was mentioned and that has caught my imagination. Always liked the look of those white/red F7Fs, and I think I may have the ideal candidate.... . Time to start carving a 1/48 Richard Dreyfuss.

[NARSES2]

The Government Agencies question isn't simple as Chris suggest, for instance the Coast Guards (USCG having a military role, HMCG having none) that San Diego mentions.  I'll knock heads with the other mods and see if we can up with something.

Yup I must admit this is an area I'm not happy with in my own mind either.

I know your moderators are thinking about it as we speak however.

I think we have had people build models that fitted into a GB here and one elsewhere before and I for one just think it's sensible if they are both going on at the same time

[kitbasher]

Maybe think in terms of military, paramilitary and civilian powers and entities. Military to paramilitary does not qualify, but civil to paramilitary/military does.

For example, military to police could, but not always so, as with the Coastguard example.

If in doubt ask Google. And if there's any doubt the moderators can also check on Google.

[Weaver]

Instead of trying to define which organisations are civil or military according to what they're called or who gives them orders, perhaps we should think in terms of what they do. For instance:

If the organisation's primary purpose is to appy lethal force to others, then they're "military" (for the purposes of this GB), whether they call themselves an "army", a "civil guard", a "private military contractor" or anything else. In short: if they act like soldiers, they're soldiers.

If the organisation's peacetime role is non-violent, but their wartime role is to apply lethal force, then they're "military" (for the purposes of this GB). This covers organisations like the USCG. In short: if they become soldiers sometimes, then they're soldiers.

If the organisation's primary purpose is non-violent, then they are "civilian" (for the purposes of this GB), even if they carry weapons for their own defence or for extreme circumstances. This covers most police forces and the like, because even though they can use lethal force, they actively try to avoid it and do so under different rules from true militaries. In short: even though they act like soldiers occasionally, they're still not soldiers.

I'm sure there's some organisation somewhere who's status is still ambiguous under these definitions, but that's what mods are for, right?  

[kitbasher]

All I was trying to do was suggest a simple way of distinguishing various 'State' activities. The natural assumption regarding, for example, 'state aircraft' is that they are military. Not so. In the UK the police and Maritime & Coastguard Agency are 'civil powers' but they fulfil State functions.  So GB participants really do need (as previously suggested) their homework!

[PR19_Kit]

I have a question for the moderators and the group as a whole. I don't think this has ever been asked before. I would like to build a H-21 civilianized for this GB and also for the VTOL GB that is going during the same time frame on BTS. Any comments?

Ed

Why not? New York Airways operated an H-21 for a while on their routes from La Guardia.

[sandiego89]

Instead of trying to define which organisations are civil or military according to what they're called or who gives them orders, perhaps we should think in terms of what they do. For instance:

If the organisation's primary purpose is to appy lethal force to others, then they're "military" (for the purposes of this GB), whether they call themselves an "army", a "civil guard", a "private military contractor" or anything else. In short: if they act like soldiers, they're soldiers.

If the organisation's peacetime role is non-violent, but their wartime role is to apply lethal force, then they're "military" (for the purposes of this GB). This covers organisations like the USCG. In short: if they become soldiers sometimes, then they're soldiers.

If the organisation's primary purpose is non-violent, then they are "civilian" (for the purposes of this GB), even if they carry weapons for their own defence or for extreme circumstances. This covers most police forces and the like, because even though they can use lethal force, they actively try to avoid it and do so under different rules from true militaries. In short: even though they act like soldiers occasionally, they're still not soldiers.

I'm sure there's some organisation somewhere who's status is still ambiguous under these definitions, but that's what mods are for, right?  

I agree with Weaver- well stated.  Of course we could have scenarios where a civil force was called into a para-military scenario (riots, civil unrest, etc), but agree if their primary or wartime role is to emply lethal force against another military force they are military.... 

[Gondor]

I have two kits of the same aircraft but by different manufacturers which I intend to combine to make my Whiff for this group build. One of the kits is partially built but parts of it are also broken. I am wondering if combining both kits will be within the rules seeing that one of the aircraft is partially built, I do intend to stretch the fuselage a bit anyway.

Gondor