I guess I just don't see the point, and I'm concerned that the "pluralism" language will be used for decidedly non-pluralistic aims, like making defenders and raiders feel they are disloyal to the South Pacific for preferring defending or raiding and advocating for their preference, or trying to force the SPSF into a more "bi-gameplay" focus in the name of pluralism even if that isn't what its actual soldiers want. All of these potential issues that concern me happened before when the South Pacific was independent.

Personally, I have no interest in advocating for the South Pacific to adopt a defender alignment either for the overall region or for the SPSF. I'm happy with the status quo. I don't want to speak for others, but it seems that most people are basically content with the status quo, even if they might personally prefer adoption of a specific alignment as their ideal, "wish list" preference. I don't see anyone advocating for an alignment. It seems like this legislation is seeking to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and in the process may upend the current consensus and generate problems rather than solving any.

My concern with this legislation is that it will open up a Pandora's Box of alignment bickering again, in which defenders or raiders or both are demonized as disloyal to the South Pacific as was once pretty common. Independence and its "post-ideological" dogmatism never seemed to further a sense of pluralism here; if you weren't happy with independence, you were held in suspicion or outright accused of disloyalty. This was usually aimed at defenders, because raiders were content with independence as it usually led to a region leaning raider. I don't want to see the South Pacific go back to that.