| SPSF's Ideology |
|
I present this proposal for your consideration on behalf of the cabinet. A consensus was found in favor of this measure among the cabinet and we look forward to hearing the Assembly's thoughts a deliberations in the matter.
The original Article 4.5 of the Code of Laws suffers from a number of issues, 1. In tying TSP to "independentism", we have set expectations of ourselves interregionally from our foreign partners (in regards to what 'independent' regions should do) which may conflict with our region's interests. 2. While everyone agrees that the SPSF should consider The Coalition's interests, few agree on what The Coalition's interests actually "are". Thus it practice, the phrase has been more troublesome than it is informative. 3. Not all of SPSF missions, both raids and defences, are strictly interests-based -- often we do what we like because we want to do it. Preferences =/= Interests. 4. Many non-independents (and independents even) see independentism as an "ideology". It's not fair to them to say SPSF will not identify under an ideological banner and also recognize itself as "independent". This may have had the effect of alienating "non-independents" from joining the SPSF 5. The South Pacific has been excluded from an important interregional dialogue in regards to the definition of independentism. Our adherence to its doctrine has time and time again been criticized by both allies and critics. We propose an alternative Article 4.5, Quote:... Which would replace the current Article 4.5, Quote:... TO CLARIFY: Nothing in this proposal requires that the SPSF identify with a new ideological position, nor does it reject the idea that our military should act in the interests of the Coalition.
I prefer the "independent" moniker over "no ideology". Independent gives the message the SPSF does what IT wants to do(which it does), while "no ideology" sends the message we have no thought process as to what we are and what we do.
Militaries don't need ideologies, period.
I disagree with QuietDad that Independent sends a message that the SPSF does what it wants to do. There is an expectation in this game for what an Independent military should do. While I get that the term itself is attractive, you can't ignore what that term has come to mean in the context of military gameplay. It simply doesn't mean that we do what we want.
I worded things wrong. I sort of agree with you. Independent comes off as being in control of it's destiny, raiding or defending as needs require, but a unit that will do what it does because it has no strings pigeon holing it to a certain discipline. "No ideology" comes off as not having a clue. Word it "4. The SPSF does not identify itself under any ideological banner." and I can live with that.
I think a good way to think of it is that the SPSF serves at the will of the region, to protect it and to generate activity.
Word it however you please. As MoA, I do understand the SPSF, by definition serves the region. I am confident that I have that under control. Understand, that you can try and define it however you want, but the dismal in region participation makes it just writing on a document. The almost nightly participation of those that ARE active have made the contacts and necessary relationships with most of the active GCR armies AND most of the User created active groups. The nightly game play in the R/D battlefield seldom mentions regional politics, but DOES have issues with the definitions of the military units.
I ran a campaign of taken the SPSF independent and we'e been somewhat successful, both raiding and defending WITHOUT causing major feed back to the region, or at least none of which has been passed on to me.
QuietDad, so you know: the existing proposal is very similar to what you proposed.
What you proposed: 4. "The SPSF does not identify itself under any ideological banner." What is being proposed: "4. The SPSF shall not identify itself under any ideological banner."
I don't think this is even necessary. As far as the SPSF's ideology, GR is right, the military doesn't need an ideolgy. Furthermore, the SPSF serves the interests of TSP regardless of the criticism it brings. Being independent is much like being neutral. It's the grey area that many believe can't/shouldn't work. Being a GCR doesn't make it any easier either as TSP is one of "The Big Five" in NS(yes, I made a yu-gi-oh reference, deal with it). Your proposal doesn't really change anything, just rephrases article 4.5. I really don't see how "the interests of the Coalition" as vague as that phrase is, poses a problem.
The way you explained it assumes that the interests of the Coalition is something set in stone. But, it more or less varies from time to time as the situation calls for it. Quote:1. In tying TSP to "independentism", we have set expectations of ourselves interregionally from our foreign partners (in regards to what 'independent' regions should do) which may conflict with our region's interests. How, exactly, is this the case? Independence - and please, don't use the term "independentism", as you won't find a single actual Independent who does; the term is used exclusively as a straw man by Moralist Defenders - is a relatively simple concept with no single definition, but a general approximation is the following; "The meaning of Independence is for a region to be aligned neither with or against either Defenders or Raiders, and to conduct military activity according to the regions own interests and foreign policy" Independence is quite simply - and as the name applies - the idea that military activity can exist independent from R/D. Some regions should be invaded, some regions should be defended, according to the regions broader interests and foreign policy. To put it even more simply, Independent regions are those that engage in military gameplay on a basis other than R/D. Who exactly have we given misleading "expectations" to by applying that label to ourselves? Quote:2. While everyone agrees that the SPSF should consider The Coalition's interests, few agree on what The Coalition's interests actually "are". Thus it practice, the phrase has been more troublesome than it is informative. This doesn't make any logical sense at all. It appears to be an argument that as people disagree about what our interests are, we should abandon interest based policy making. This is inane; the Assembly exists to define this regions interests, which it does regularly via a democratic basis. Quote:3. Not all of SPSF missions, both raids and defences, are strictly interests-based -- often we do what we like because we want to do it. Preferences =/= Interests. This seems to be directly challenging both the authority and the integrity of the MoA and Generals Corps, by suggesting that they are unable to clearly identify TSP's established interests and implement policy accordingly. It is a military reality that not all operations will be strictly speaking "interest" based in of themselves, due to the necessity of consistent training and practice operations. However it is clearly in our interests for the SPSF to be active and competent, and this requires such operations. The suggested requirement that every single operation has to independently meet an interest test is completely fatuous and unsuported by the actual wording of the text. Quote:4. Many non-independents (and independents even) see independentism as an "ideology". It's not fair to them to say SPSF will not identify under an ideological banner and also recognize itself as "independent". This may have had the effect of alienating "non-independents" from joining the SPSF This is simply nonsense. The fact that "Many non-independents" - which would be more honestly worded as a "Moralist Defenders" - believe that Independence is an "ideology" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it actually is. Me believing that the moon is made of cheese does not make it so. I have provided what I believe is an objective and concise definition of Independence above, and this is a topic I can speak with considerable authority on, having been one of the principal figures/theorists involved in the development of the 2012-onwards idea of Independence. To put it bluntly, you might as well say that being non-ideological is itself an ideology. Further, "fairness" has nothing to do with it. Being "fair" is a nice idea, but is not in of itself sound basis for any form of policy. Quote:5. The South Pacific has been excluded from an important interregional dialogue in regards to the definition of independentism. Our adherence to its doctrine has time and time again been criticized by both allies and critics. The South Pacific has never been excluded from such dialogue. To the contrary, we choose not to attend the conference held by Europeia reference here. That was our choice. Further, Independence like all subjects in NationStates, is defined by a continuing an public dialogue occurring in dozens of places, including the main site, forums, IRC, skype, Facebook and even real life. Finally, and most importantly, despite the point about "allies and critics", the majority of our allies are Independent. This is a simple fact. Of our current five allies, the oldest three of them are Independent. It is only our newest allies that are not, and they are the only ones in question who have ever criticized our position. But they allied with us in the full knowledge that TSP is an Indpendent region, with an Independent military. TSP's modern armies, since being reformed as the South Pacific Army in 2011, have always been Independent. TSP itself has never been either a raider or defender region. It has always matched the modern concept of Independence, long before it existed. These are simple facts, known to TRR and Lazarus. Similarly, we knew that they were Defender regions when we allied with them. There has never been any suggestion that they should change their stance on military gameplay to more closely match our own - abandoning their own histories. The suggestion that we should do so is appalling and insulting to the history of TSP. To put it simply, I am disgusted at this entire proposal. It is misleading, factually inaccurate in places and quite obviously written by two of those very "critics" referenced in the last point. 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)
If TSP doesn't need an ideology, why is it tying itself with independentism? By declaring ourselves, "independent", we've problematically set expectations of ourselves abroad. As we speak, a bunch of independentist regions are holding a conference to decide a universal definition of independentism and have excluded us from that dialogue.
Quote:To the contrary, we choose not to attend the conference held by Europeia reference here. No, Europeia definitely excluded us from the conference. Same with The West Pacific and Osiris. I think the very fact that any criticism towards independentism is seen, by default, as an attack from "moralistic defenders" confirms that independentism is not a helpful or constructive ideological banner for TSP. It forces us to think in terms of independents and non-independent, "moralistic defenders". When instead we should be thinking in terms of TSPers - that kind of banner includes all of us, regardless of our beliefs, and allows us to pursue collectively what's best for The South Pacific without silly terms and adjectives. Furthermore, I dislike how you've painted "independent" as the true historical face of TSP. We've only ever used that term and that ideological background since 2012 (and it's been hotly disputed ever since - even by yourself at times). We used to be neutral prior to 2012. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |