I'll be completely honest. I suppose I'll burn a few bridges and lose plenty of credibility along the way, but it's not like I have much as it is.

I don't trust your intentions with any of this, or any of the ideas I've heard you propose lately for that matter, each looking more extreme than the last, and I think you are painfully misguided in trying to do whatever it is you want to do wit the South Pacific. I don't believe you have a sensible understanding of what the Coalition means, because it refers to the bond between the nations that conform the region, rather than a hypothetical union of sovereign regions.

All your idea would accomplish would be to dilute the already limited activity this forum sees and turn the South Pacific into a region whose primary goal is foreign expansion, rather than internal development. And for what? Is there an important goal to be accomplished by having protectorates? Will that improve our cultural development? You keep arguing that it will be good, but the one time his was tried, we formed an alliance with a mercenary region whose grand accomplishment was their recruitment in our RMB. Obviously that failed spectacularly.

Your gameside idea is so nebulous as to be useless to argue, but the little I've read looks like a good way to bog down the gameside community with regulations and politics that they don't need. They have a simple structure right now in the Local Council. They can make what they want of it. Why are we discussing alternative structures and increasing politics in its role, when we can just offer guidance and assistance to its members? Why do we keep dictating what they should do and how they should do it? If, after all the guidance and assistance, the gameside community still prefers a mostly unstructured government, than great! I see absolutely no problem with that, given that the goal of the Local Council should be to serve the interests of gamesiders, whatever they may be, not to brag that we have an empowered local government. If the community doesn't want that kind of glorified government, then we simply should not impose it on them.

As for your notion that the Committee is unfit to guarantee the security of the region, I remain steadfast in my belief that the Committee is an institution uniquely qualified to provide security to the region, with the only downside that this region has an annoying tendency to ignore security advice and standards when they become inconvenient. That has been seen repeatedly when people advocated for adding members with no security experience whatsoever, who disputed security decisions because the people affected were liked by influential citizens and who insist on keeping disqualified members, to name just a few of the annoying security approach we have.

You keep assuming the Committee is incompetent, but its work is ultimately one based on collaboration, greatly tempered by the political nature many abscfibe to security. If you receive information, you share it with the Committee, even provide your own views, so that they may be carefully considered and acted upon. There will be no intelligence or security agency that has eyes everywhere, and quite frankly there should not be one, not in this region at least. Even if there was such an agency though, it would suffer from many of the issues that currently plague the Committee, namely the fact that we either have little legal recourse to act upon threats or when we do have legal options and take them, we are faced with a legislature that, however legitimate, approaches issues until the perspective of friendships and how nice the affected party is, rather than what needs doing to ensure the safety of the region. We have seen that when Dalimbar was invited to join the region, when Wolf almost certainly imported votes to influence an election and when we chose to let known coupers remain in key posts in the regional government, despite showing no remorse for their actions. Because we like them. Because they are nice to us. Because it would cause drama, and Max forbid we have that. Because, despite experts telling us the ugly truth, we don't want to listen to them.

I remain opposed to the division of endorsement and security duties, except for specific cases, because I believe their union is vital to our security. We want people in our security establishment who are committed to the region, and making them support it with their endorsements is a part of that. We want endorsement leaders who will know how to act and have access to all the relevant information, should there be a crisis. If there is a need for the Committee to fight a coup or an invasion, we want the people who know how to fight one to also have the tools to do that. That becomes more difficult if you add one more layer to the bureaucracy, and remove much of the safeguards that we currently have. One of the main ones is that having access to both endorsements and intelligence make it all the more real to members. If we see concerning information, we have the power to act, and a responsibility to do so carefully and within the confines of the law. If we can act, we also know at all times what the stakes are and where the threats lie. If we luck one or the other, it becomes theoretical, and we can get sloppy.

Things might work better if, instead of trying to create an entirely useless agency, you tried to reform the Committee in good faith. That comes with things like suggesting new members with good security credentials, sharing intelligence and advice without later using it to score political points, approaching the Committee to work on simple but useful changes to its structure and security method. These things can work, are simple to implement, since they require little legislative intervention, and are even more positive than your desired intelligence agency because they promote a culture of constant change and improvement within the Committee itself, which will be good for it and the region in the long term, as it will be better equipped to adapt to changing circumstances. That cannot happen if we scrap the Committee, negating all its good work in the process, for an intelligence agency that will be mostly inactive and eventually turn into "Roavin has friends".

In short, I think you are so caught up in your desire to radically change things that you are proposing too many changes that sound cool and radical, without considering whether they are even needed, or that more subtle reforms might accomplish the desired goal even better. I have no idea in what context you have dealt with the Committee, but I believe you should give it more credit than you currently do, and stop trying to hold it to the standard of an all-seeing agency that constantly has all the information. It's not a failure when it doesn't get information the instant it comes out, because that's not its job; it relies on others to help in getting all the relevant information. Its more important job starts once it has the information, discussing its implications, deciding what the appropriate course of action should be. That kind of nuance is lost when you have an agency oblivious to how intelligence is collected and another oblivious to how it should be processed. We need our security establishment to know both.

In any case, I don't have it in me to keep arguing this. I've said my piece, explained why all the ideas you propose here, and all the radical ones you have been proposing as of late, are ill suited to address the challenges the region faces, and in some cases address issues that are not problems at all. I'll now take my leave, and let more eager legislators say their piece too.