| Poll: Please identify your preferred Regional and Military alignment/identification You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| Regional: Defender | 2 | 4.08% | |
| Regional: Raider | 0 | 0% | |
| Regional: Independent | 8 | 16.33% | |
| Regional: Imperialist | 0 | 0% | |
| Regional: Non-Aligned (independent) | 14 | 28.57% | |
| Military: Defender | 2 | 4.08% | |
| Military: Raider | 0 | 0% | |
| Military: Independent | 7 | 14.29% | |
| Military: Imperialist | 1 | 2.04% | |
| Military: Non-Aligned (independent) | 15 | 30.61% | |
| Total | 49 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
| Poll: Military and Regional Alignment |
I would drop the (independent) and keep it as non-aligned.
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 think small i independent is a better definition, but in a poll the difference between the two is hard to show.
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)
I think I can claim that I invented the phrase small-i independent, but I do think non-aligned is a better term to use for the "laypeople." Using small-i/big-I is really only useful when you're arguing with people who are knowledgeable about that whole debate.
Chose non aligned for the military, so they have more freedom to do what they want. Don't think that it is entirely right for a region though, so chose the more "political" Independent one there (neutral may be a better term). Still don't fully understand why they aren't the same thing to be honest - to me it is all much the same, so take that as you will when analysing the results.
Seems I was the first to vote differently for both parts, probably due to the confusion.
Honestly, based on the debates and discussions we had "Independent" was really construed to be "what the imperialists want" or "aligned to a side but pretending not to be aligned" which is why I still find it to be horrible.
I suppose "non-aligned" meaning that the military would engage in any missions they felt were important, regardless of alignment or allies, is something I could see if it were clearly spelled out what was meant by the term. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest
@Escade:
I assume Non-Aligned would be the following, which is included in our Code of Laws: Code of Laws Wrote:5. The SPSF must, at all times, observe our laws, policies, the charter 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. 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 (01-27-2015, 05:56 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: @Escade: That plus the standard "raid or defender according to foreign policy interests". Essentially a definition of Independence without using the word itself. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Eh, I think a non-aligned military is one that simply exists for fun, is not a tool of foreign affairs, and doesn't really have any chance at existing in a region like this. The whole "according to foreign policy interests" is what we've all argued about, because "foreign policy interests" tend to = raiding.
Bel, let's be honest here. You keep repeating the textbook definition of Independence, which we all know, but you leave out the fact that Independent militaries, in practice, mostly raid, and only defend under a very limited set of circumstances. So saying that to be Independent is the answer is to ignore the realities of what being Independent entails, and it also ignores how we were mistreated by one of our Independent allies because supposedly we were not sufficiently Independent.
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 disagree with both the assertion that to be Independent means to principally raid, and your belief that we were mistreated by Europeia. I believe there was a petulant argument that was badly handled by both regions foreign affairs teams.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |