We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Minister of the Army Candidate Interview
#1


Minister of the Army Candidate Interview
Recruitment and Training | Internal Structure | Public Image | Missions and Cooperation


Siberian is the incumbent Minister of the Army and is running unopposed for reelection. His campaign has focused on increasing recruitment and continuing to improve the public image of the Special Forces. He agreed to meet with the Southern Journal to answer some questions about his campaign.

Welcome Siberian. Thanks for agreeing to this interview.

I'm glad to be here!

I want to start by giving you a chance to account for your term. What has been done during the past four months?

Well, I started off doing some internal work in which I tried a "Soldier of the Month" program, added new rank insignias, a new flag, and wrote an FAQ and signup thread. Towards the end of my term I introduced a "Field Reporter" rank which writes raid reports with a roleplaying theme to make them much more immersive and fun to read.

Alongside this I continued running operations at an active rate. In my term we had 7 total operations- 4 raids, 2 liberations, and 1 delegacy transfer. In these operations we both worked with other raider/defender organizations and did missions by ourselves.

Is there something that you feel could have been done better this term?

As much as I hate to say this, I do feel like I could've done a fair bit better. Since this was my first time leading a military I got too focused on bells and whistles that made our organization look better but didn't have a large effect on our efficiency. To the start of my term I did all but ignore recruitment, putting very little time into gathering new recruits- which is a crucial part to running the military. While I did start to pick it up later on I do think I could've done much better.

Oh, and visibility. While I did manage to put out some semi-frequent reports and messages I didn't reach out to the game-side community. I definitely hope to improve on both my recruitment numbers and visibility next term.

You have raised the issue of recruitment, which undoubtedly is the basis of running a military. What specific steps would you take to ensure recruitment remains at adequate levels in the future?

Shit. My cookies are burning. Give me a couple minutes

Sure.

Crisis averted. The cookies are safe.

What kind of cookies?

Peanut butter chip with a melted Toblerone chocolate in the middle. They're heavenly.

I can't say about peanut butter, but that Toblerone does sound incredibly yummy.


Cookies aside, I'd like to reach out to the gameside community and perhaps find a way to allow people into the SPSF without having to create a forums account. The details and kinks haven't been fully worked out yet, but it's something I'd like to take a stab at. There's another thing I brought up in my campaign that would go hand-in-hand with recruitment. Increasing our regional popularity. If we can manage to do that by increasing visibility and having some SPSF sponsored activities, I definitely think we'd see an increase in recruits.

Would recruits also have clear ways to get information and practical training on military gameplay?

They would. We've currently got some guides written by Arbiter08/The Sanghelios Legion and there's the "Complete Guide to Military Gameplay" on the NS forums which I tend to send people to. Once they've read those I like taking them over the IRC and showing them how to raid/defend by taking them on a few tags/detags. I'd like to maybe set either our Generals or Deputies on training as well, so if I am not here, the recruit would have other options. This is something we didn't have before and it's increased the caliber of our troops by tenfold.

You recently said that the General Corps needs to be reforms. What should be its ideal role within the Special Forces and what kind of appointment and membership scheme should it have?

Well, right now it's simply just a title. While I can count on General Resentine for some advice at times, it's still quite useless. With this in mind I'd like for the General Corps to be something chosen by the MoA and have their General rank removed once the MoA's term is over. This would allow the MoA to choose a group of people they can work with and trust without having to worry about whether they'll be compatible with the future MoA. My idea will also allow more different opinions to be heard- something we could use right now in the SPSF.

Basically making it a temporary rank, as opposed to a life statutory position?

Correct. Along with removing the need for a General to be approved by the Assembly.

You have also said that the current rank structure needs to be simplified. With that in mind, is the goal to encourage a closer and friendlier relationship between all soldiers? Or is it just a matter of pragmatism?

I never really considered the first point. The SPSF after all is a very open military. We don't have any sense of elitism within our ranks- a Rekrite is treated with just as much respect and a Depite. I wanted to streamline our rank structure to not only make it less daunting to new members, but to make it much more sensible in regards to our size.

What do you think is the current perception that the public has of the Special Forces?

It's much better than it was before, but it's not to the point where I want it to be. When I first joined we had topics about demilitarization and we were thought of as a complete separate branch from TSP. Now that we've been much more visible and active, I'd like to think people are much more accepting of us and are pleased with our achievements.

Is the release of regular mission reports relevant to maintaining that public perception?

Definitely. With the new rank of "Field Reporter" I no longer have to write out each report, format it, then post it. This will give me much more time to reformat the reports so I can upload them to different places.

One topic that has not surfaced in this election is our alignment and the type of missions we undertake. What criteria do you consider when planning missions, and what is the limit to what the Special Forces will do?

The SPSF will only target region if they are founderless, have little to no active native community, or are a Warzone. We do not have limits regarding banning/ejecting nations or refounds, but if a region shows sufficient active community we will not raid them.

Do you have any plans to increase our military cooperation with treaty allies or to host activities such as military games or tournaments?

At the moment I think we work with other militaries quite frequently, and I'm happy with our level or cooperation. Although, I would like to host some Brotherhood of Malice-inspired war games where teams need to complete certain objectives.

Are there any non-allied regions with which you would like to start cooperating or increase the cooperation that already exists?

Not at the moment. The gameplay field has been quite stale regarding new regions.

Thanks again for taking the time. That concludes our interview.

Pleasure being here! Don't forget to check out that "RON" person's campaign. I've heard he's got some pretty good ideas Tounge

Disclaimer: This transcript has been edited for orthography and clarity in the flow of the conversation. While some words may have slightly different spelling and some interventions may have been placed in different order, the core content of the conversation has not been altered. A raw copy of the transcript may be provided upon request.
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
Reply
#2

This was a blast to participate in! Thanks for having me.
SibDis

Reply
#3

Upon closer examination, I'm not sure I can vote for you anymore. You almost burned your cookies! How can I trust a MoA that may burn his peanut butter and chocolate cookies?
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
Reply
#4

(11-21-2015, 10:56 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Upon closer examination, I'm not sure I can vote for you anymore. You almost burned your cookies! How can I trust a MoA that may burn his peanut butter and chocolate cookies?

Because he has Generals who don't burn their cookies. Wink
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi


Reply
#5

(11-22-2015, 01:18 AM)Resentine Wrote:
(11-21-2015, 10:56 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Upon closer examination, I'm not sure I can vote for you anymore. You almost burned your cookies! How can I trust a MoA that may burn his peanut butter and chocolate cookies?

Because he has Generals who don't burn their cookies. Wink

That's what the General Corps is for! I was using you guys completely wrong!
SibDis

Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .