| SPSF's Ideology |
I am eager to hear the opinion from the Assembly. This will be a good way to know where we stand as a region. Regardless of what decisions we make in this thread, I think it is always positive to have honest discussions about our regional values and how they apply to us.
I would argue that Europeia in a way did exclude us from their conference. True, we made a decision knowing that it would certainly mean not hosting, and potentially not attending. However, this leads us to consider that (1) Europeia tried to dictate what our independence meant (by telling us if was unacceptable to lean defender, even if we actually aren't) and (2) they didn't even attempt to invite us, a treatied ally, to attend. It was one thing not to host, but not attending? @Bel: I'm really disappointed at the fact that we still have people "disgusted" with these debates. What matters here is to have an open discussion, because that is important to our democracy. If someone disagrees with our independence, then I want to hear about it, and debate with that person, and make the best decision for the region. If it means abandoning our independence (or not), then great. But we can't make that decision if we keep saying that having the debate at all is disgusting. Yes, I know you called this specific proposal disgusting, not all similar proposals, but you we both know exactly what I'm talking about. I want this Assembly to be able to have mature debates with civility, and avoiding the kind of infighting that we saw earlier this year. I believe that is possible, but I need everyone else to do their part. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
(10-14-2014, 06:26 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I am eager to hear the opinion from the Assembly. This will be a good way to know where we stand as a region. Regardless of what decisions we make in this thread, I think it is always positive to have honest discussions about our regional values and how they apply to us. Alright -- here's my take on this: I cannot believe we are still having this damn debate. Frankly, I'm with Bels in that just because someone accuses an Independent region of "Independenism" (Is that even the term? Has anyone here heard this used IRL?) doesn't make it so. I also agree with QD that saying we're Independent is more of a statement and/or show of strength than saying "we don't pick sides." If that's the case, let's just say that we're neutral. Most importantly, I really don't care about this. We've shown time and again that TSP is a region where the person who can yell the longest wins the debate. Well -- as our regional activity seems to be bottoming out -- please, let's have the same debate we've been having for ... two? three? years. I'm sure this will be more productive.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Neutral has a different meaning - it means we actually do not get involved in defenses or invasions; we either don't have an army or we only conduct warzone missions.
Independent is a different beast altogether; it tends to be very critical of defenders, who are "crazed" altruists in their mind, and independentism also rejects the hedonism of invaders, defenders and even bi-gameplayers. "Independent" regions in theory pursue their "interests" solely, but "independence" goes as far as to tell these regions what their interests are. One of the main issues with independence is it is not particularly inclusive; either you agree with what independentists say are in our interests, or you are not independent. Independentism creates a non-constructive us v.s them dialogue in TSP which we've been struggling with since 2012 when we first became independent. A truly free region which doesn't want to be entangled in what other regions expect of them wouldn't use an adjective shared by other regions. It's easiest to just reject all ideological stripes and figure it out as we go along, like we already do. Independence was just a foreign imposition to TSP - it never really fit with our region and it's caused a lot of problems with reconciling it with our regional culture. In the wake of these problems, we've tried to kid ourselves that independence means something that it doesn't.
Instead of rehashing all the same arguments that have already been made about the merits of the Independent label, you guys just need to accept that it means something other than what you want it to mean. It does not mean what Belschaft, QuietDad, Tsunamy, etc. says it means, because the rest of NS Gameplay has evolved. A corollary to what Tsunamy is saying is simply that we don't get to decide that a loaded term means something special for us. Independent means something in NationStates, and we can't escape that meaning.
Frankly, I don't think the Independent sphere even considers us Independent anyone. If they did, then why are we being excluded from their club? We have no invitation to determine the fate of the label our Code of Laws has placed upon our military. No matter what any of you think, what comes from Euro, TNI, and whoever else is debating the meaning of Independence, is what the label is going to mean. And I can assure you it's not going to be "a region that does whatever it wants." I think our laws should reflect the purposes of the SPSF: "5. The SPSF serves at the will of the region, protecting it from harm and striving to produce activity." Best way to avoid getting bogged down in a debate over ideology is to simply stop legislating what ideology the SPSF must or must not have. Let those debates play out in MoA elections, where they belong.
I also like Sandaoguo's proposal.
I do as well. It is essentially saying "SPSF does what it wants", and I believe that is the perfect way to describe SPSF without aligning it, in any way, in the R/D debate.
United States of Kalukmangala
Former High Court Justice
Whatever. It settles the ideology debate, but opens another one. The SPSF DOES NOT SERVE the will of the region. No one from "the region" dictates where/what the SPSF does.
"5. The SPSF serves for the good of the region, protecting it from harm and striving to produce activity."
I'd be willing to vote for the following;
"5. The SPSF serves for the good of the region, protecting it from harm, supporting our allies and striving to produce activity. The SPSF and The Coalition rejects the premises of R/D, and aligns neither with or against either Raiders or Defenders." Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
What are the "premises of R/D" - we seem to not be rejecting many of them in the first sentence. Likewise why should we align us ourselves as neither for or against raiders and defenders, but not independents, mercenaries or bi-gameplayers?
Likewise, what is "the good of the region" - it just seems to be whatever you think is good for the region. That phrase invites a lot of ambiguity. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |