| SPSF's Ideology |
(10-15-2014, 09:13 AM)QuietDad Wrote: The SPSF DOES NOT SERVE the will of the region. No one from "the region" dictates where/what the SPSF does. Except for the Delegate and the Minister of the Army, who are in turn elected by all citizens. So the region does dictate the overall direction of the SPSF. 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
I'm done with this debate. Never has the region/delegate/cabinet EVER gone the SPSF saying raid/defend/don't affiliate with anyone. If you don't want it to have an ideology, so be it. Just don't word it coming off as "We don't care" because we do. Whatever you word it, knock yourselves out. It REALLY doesn't change anything.
(10-16-2014, 07:39 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:(10-15-2014, 02:12 PM)Llamas Wrote: Seeing as how this will change nothing, I give a grand total of 0 fucks about this debate. Except we're being forced to have this bloody debate. Again. 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)
This is getting us nowhere. Some people are willing to have the debate and some just don't want to have it. Let's take it to a vote and be done with it.
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
Nobody is being forced to have any debate, Belschaft. If you don't want to have it, stop participating each time it comes up.
(10-15-2014, 02:12 PM)Llamas Wrote: Seeing as how this will change nothing, I give a grand total of 0 fucks about this debate. I think it would change quite a bit, actually. The MoA would actually be able to run on a platform that hasn't been predetermined by regional law, for one. We would actually be able to elect people who have the opportunity to run as a raider or defender or imperialist, instead of people either pretend to be none of that (and effectively lie), or fail in trying to be none of that (and be a lackluster leader). (10-16-2014, 11:29 AM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I think it would change quite a bit, actually. The MoA would actually be able to run on a platform that hasn't been predetermined by regional law, for one. We would actually be able to elect people who have the opportunity to run as a raider or defender or imperialist, instead of people either pretend to be none of that (and effectively lie), or fail in trying to be none of that (and be a lackluster leader). The current MoA (me) ran on just such a platform. The current Charter/Laws make us "Indepentant" and the debate is do we want to be "Independent" or "No Ideology" which I personally feel are the same damn thing. There is "Independentism" politics in game play, but to call the SPSF an army with NO methodology creates more problems than it solves. The current SPSF DOES NOT suffer from lackluster "leadership", it suffers from lackluster participation. The SPSF is busy EVERY WEEKEND and during the week also. The SPSF has made contacts/joint operations with most of the active armies in the gameplay arena. The ones that count anyway. During Kris's "Coup" phase, I actually had the numbers to tart the Vice Delegate into the Delegacy for a day to overthrow the "Evil Dictator" and there would have been cooperation from BOTH SIDES of the gameplay arena. Being "Independant" allowed me to go to the Raiders because overthrowing a GCR and flying a flag on the WFE is the ULTIMATE prize in the raider world and the "defenders" where anxious to "liberate" any region from a dictator. If we were known for "we don't care/no methodology" there would have been HALF the participation. I personally think it's just fine the way it is.
As do I, but if it will end this endless argument I'm happy to drop the Independent label and replace it with a definition instead.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I am not understanding the reason for the changing the wording to begin with. This seems a worthless debate about what the meaning of "is" is. Lets let sleeping dogs lie. Moving on.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
I think we're kind of an impasse here for the debate - so we'll hopefully just move something to vote soon (perhaps by the end of today).
As a discussion point, let me try to advance a new question... If we were to just say labels are more trouble than they are worth, do we want to set conditions on what the army must do? One person here has brought up the idea that the less conditions on the army, the more competitive and open our MoA elections will be. We could simply disavow labels, like the cabinet's original proposal. Or we could disavow labels and establish a set of criteria for which the SPSF must satisfy - which Glen-Rhodes and Belschaft's proposal attempt to do. Some of the criteria for the SPSF being proposed includes: Observes our laws and our democratic institutions. ----- Ensures civilian control of the SPSF. Protects us from harm. ----- Harm can be taken in a soft or hard view. The hard view is more security-focused, soft view might include RMB spam or moral offense as "harm". The means of protecting TSP from harm can also be defensive, but also offensive - depending on how much value the leadership of the SPSF sees in different kinds of missions and offensive strikes. Strives to produce activity. ----- The SPSF aims to generate activity - although it's unstated whether the activity is domestic or interregional. One of the common justifications for invading, for example, is the production of activity abroad. Considers the good of the region. ----- This pursues some kind of objective good for the region. I would consider this similar to the "pursue our interests" maxim from independentism. Some may not find it a constructive clause because it's unclear what is the "good" of the region - we all appear to disagree over what is the "good" of the region. Supports our allies. ---- "Support" could be mean defense support, but this could also mean obligatory support for offensive missions."Allies", could mean those regions in good-standing with us, or those who are treatied with us -- I've seen us switch between those definitions at times. Rejects the premises of "R/D". ---- It's unclear what principles are being rejected, because in practice the SPSF appears to be somewhat hedonistic (like invaders) and in other times, acts based on altruism or limits itself from mass griefing (like defenders). Furthermore, the premises of invaderism or defenderism are not universally-agreed upon and this clause may run into issues with essentialism. █: Only included in Glen-Rhodes's conditions. Either because Belschaft's proposal finds it implicit, or because it is too generalised. █: Included in both proposal's conditions. █: Only included in Belschaft's conditions. Either because Glen-Rhodes's proposal finds it implicit, or because it is too generalised. Having run through some of the issues I have with the other proposals, I've tried to bridge together the two. I liked the value-neutral aspect of Glen-Rhodes's proposal, but I also liked how Belschaft's proposal didn't shy away from discussing the grey issues -- ideology and the scope of "acceptable" missions. Here's the conditions on the SPSF that I found integral to the SPSF: - Observes our laws, policies, the constitution and our legal and contractual obligations. - Defends The South Pacific. - Refrains from conduct abroad which contradicts foreign policy. * - Makes an effort to include, welcome and accommodate all citizens as members, regardless of their beliefs. * I ran through several attempts at this clause - my first attempt was "refrains from conduct abroad which may bring with it political fallout". What I'm trying to say in it is that the SPSF isn't usually concerned with the "good" of the region, so much as preventing the "bad". We don't justify everything we do based on our interests, but we justify what we don't do based on our interests, our politics and the image of ourselves we want to convey abroad. I tried to make the final draft more value-neutral too. Here's this alternative proposal as a full working draft... Quote:5. The SPSF must, at all times, observe our laws, policies, the constitution and our legal and contractual obligations, defend The South Pacific, refrain from conduct abroad which contradicts foreign policy and make an effort to include, welcome and accommodate all citizens as members, regardless of their beliefs. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |