Charter X.3 shall be amended from


3. The military may engage in offensive or defensive operations without fear of political reprisal. However, it may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly, nor may it engage in region destruction. Any changes to the World Factbook Entry, Regional Message Board, regional flag, or embassies list must be reversed at the end of all military operations.


to


3. The military may engage in non-destructive offensive or defensive operations without fear of political reprisal. Destroying, colonizing, or annexing a region requires express majority approval from the Cabinet.


Rationale:

• SPSF wishes to engage in offensive, permanent actions against regions promoting hateful ideologies, which they are currently restricted from doing.
  
• It is the opinion of the Cabinet that destructive operations are a foreign affairs issue and therefore in the purview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the senior cabinet. An additional assembly vote would be counter-productive and raises concerns over operational security.
  
• The South Pacific rejects an R/D alignment. SPSF itself is de jure unaligned, and any alignment it may de facto hold are subject to the policy of the Minister of Military Affairs. While it currently holds a defender-leaning alignment, future MoMAs may hold independent alignments (as has classically been the case) or even raider alignments. The Cabinet opines that, while further restrictions do not apply to the SPSF currently, they may to future incarnations of SPSF under a different Minister and they should not be prevented from doing so.
  

(This post was last modified: 11-29-2016, 08:56 PM by Ryccia.)

Reply

Regional destruction is beyond the pale. Absolutely not. It is one thing to authorize antifa ops specifically. It is another to give the Cabinet blanket authority to turn TSP into the absolute worst part of the R/D game. We are a welcoming democracy, where we care about equality, cooperation, friendship, etc. The SPSF engaging in literally destroying regions goes against everything we stand for.

Allowing 4 people to get together behind closed doors and pick and choose which innocent regions are destroyed is not how we do things in TSP. If we want to authorize ops against Nazis, we can do that specifically. A 4 person cabal doesn't get to make the decision by themselves to engage in the most controversial and highly reviled form of Gameplay there is in NS. It's been long accepted tradition in TSP that we do not destroy other regions. Raid yes; destroy, absolutely not.

(This post was last modified: 11-07-2016, 04:10 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Roavin has talked to me about this previously, and it has my full support. The change in language will make it easier for the SPSF to operate and more directly reflects it's nature as an unaligned/independent military that rejects the R/D duopoly.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

Reply

While Roavin may have my complete trust, that is not to say I'll have complete trust in every MoMA we elect. This gives the SPSF and Cabinet far too much power and those power could easily be abused. While Roavin has written this up nicely and made it seem fair and reasonable it leaves so much room for abuse of power and that is why I cannot support this bill and hope that the region joins me in rejecting it.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Reply

Regional destruction is beyond the pale. Absolutely not. It is one thing to authorize antifa ops specifically. It is another to give the Cabinet blanket authority to turn TSP into the absolute worst part of the R/D game. We are a welcoming democracy, where we care about equality, cooperation, friendship, etc. The SPSF engaging in literally destroying regions goes against everything we stand for.

Allowing 4 people to get together behind closed doors and pick and choose which innocent regions are destroyed is not how we do things in TSP. If we want to authorize ops against Nazis, we can do that specifically. A 4 person cabal doesn't get to make the decision by themselves to engage in the most controversial and highly reviled form of Gameplay there is in NS. It's been long accepted tradition in TSP that we do not destroy other regions. Raid yes; destroy, absolutely not.

The fact that the original wording was placed in the new charter underhandedly by you, without consenting anyone else, and it not even being part of the identification of problems step, is the biggest issue here. You say "A 4 person cabal doesn't get to make the decision by themselves", but at the same time you made the change to the charter ALONE. I can't see how you disagree with a group of elected officials deciding something, but are ok with just you deciding the SPSF cannot raid without Cabinet and Assembly consent.

The SPSF is a non-aligned military that should have the freedom to exercise that. Defending, Raiding, Tagging, etc. The current wording, written solely by Glen, does not allow the SPSF to do so. It allows the SPSF to defend without restriction, but places restrictions on all other activities. The SPSF can't even change a WFE without reversing it after they leave. Doesn't seem very fair to me. The new wording allows for checks and balances via Cabinet approval before "Destroying, colonizing, or annexing a region". As far as I recall, we have never destroyed or annexed a region unless it was a Warzone or Nazi, and the cabinet would have to agree to it before it would be allowed to happen.

The fact is, the current wording does not allow the SPSF to function fairly in the R/D game. It is very deliberately written to favor a defender army, which was no doubt the intention when written solely by Glen. We may need to adjust the proposed verbiage a bit for this to work better for everyone, but we cannot restrict the SPSF as we are doing now.

Semi-Unretired

Reply

The fact that the original wording was placed in the new charter underhandedly by you, without consenting anyone else, and it not even being part of the identification of problems step, is the biggest issue here.

http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4023.html

Debated on for an entire month. Approved by a 25-2 margin. Voted for by yourself.

I am tired of being blamed for your own ignorance. This is not the first time you, Belschaft, and others have trotted out a completely indefensible and defamatory claim that I somehow, in broad daylight, through a highly public process, "snuck" anything into our laws.

If you didn't read what you yourself voted for, that's your failing. Maybe give your vote some due diligence next time.

Either way, stop the defamation.

(This post was last modified: 11-07-2016, 05:56 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

I'm not going to lie — I do, have and will continue to love the idea of colonizing the game into SP-friendly regions. That said, I'm not stoked about the destroying part — no matter who decides.

Toward Glen's point, our military has frequently defaulted toward the defender — it's something about respect for others that has long been ingrained into TSP. I don't think anything was snuck into it, but rather just the default mindset or the writers and the region.

I've no interest in extended this, but I imagine we can find something at some point in the past that was relatively defender-based, too.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I'm not going to lie — I do, have and will continue to love the idea of colonizing the game into SP-friendly regions. That said, I'm not stoked about the destroying part — no matter who decides.

At some point, there will be an "annexation" feature, so we can do that. We definitely need a detailed policy on when, why, and how, we would ever colonize/annex any other region. It will be an exciting time when that feature is put into the game, definitely.

It's something the whole region should have a say in, though.

Reply

I'm not going to lie — I do, have and will continue to love the idea of colonizing the game into SP-friendly regions. That said, I'm not stoked about the destroying part — no matter who decides.

At some point, there will be an "annexation" feature, so we can do that. We definitely need a detailed policy on when, why, and how, we would ever colonize/annex any other region. It will be an exciting time when that feature is put into the game, definitely.

It's something the whole region should have a say in, though.

Wait — what? Seriously? When?

I. Want. That. 

And then we'll be like George Bush and spread democracy to e'eryone.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

The fact that the original wording was placed in the new charter underhandedly by you, without consenting anyone else, and it not even being part of the identification of problems step, is the biggest issue here.

http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4023.html

Debated on for an entire month. Approved by a 25-2 margin. Voted for by yourself.

I am tired of being blamed for your own ignorance. This is not the first time you, Belschaft, and others have trotted out a completely indefensible and defamatory claim that I somehow, in broad daylight, through a highly public process, "snuck" anything into our laws.

If you didn't read what you yourself voted for, that's your failing. Maybe give your vote some due diligence next time.

Either way, stop the defamation.

The GC was designed to identify PROBLEMS and fix them. I don't recall this being identified as a problem. So you went against what the region decided, and changed it anyway. You then expected everyone to read the new charter line for line to make sure you didn't change something that wasn't supposed to be changed. Sounds pretty realistic to me, seeing as the entire Coup revolved around accusation of certain people asserting power they didn't have. Odd how that keeps coming up....

Semi-Unretired

Reply