Users browsing this thread:

**Rebeltopia** · 05-08-2019, 04:27 PM

On discord*, there was a general discussion about how the General Corps currently worked, has worked in the past, and how its legally supposed to work. That brought up the dysfunction of how the GC has worked, and how the MoMA has been way more hands on, rather than the GC running the show.

With that said, we mostly agreed that the GC wasnt really needed, and could be done away with, as the Military Code gives the highest attainable rank -- "Commander" -- the ability to plan missions. Turning this information over to the assembly for the purpose of whether the GC could be removed from law, and allow the MoMA to (legally) be more of a leader.

Discuss.

.

* Logs can be generated if required - but it was a decently long discussion

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

***Roavin*** · 05-08-2019, 04:31 PM

I don't feel strongly either way. As General, the things I currently do (advise the MoMA, help with troops, on occasion order missions) could be done just as well even if I just had a regular military rank rather than an assembly-approved role. Removing the General Corps would remove potential governmental sinecures and offer the MoMA flexibility, though it may lead to less MoMA oversight and more frequent radical policy changes if the kind of MoMAs we elect have more volatile alignments.

**Belschaft** · 05-08-2019, 06:47 PM

The logic behind the GC was to maintain "profesional" control of day-to-day operations and establish an institutional memory, during a time when the military was being politicised by R/D squabbling. I realise that may not be something we need right now, but that doesn't mean it won't be useful in the future.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 05-08-2019, 07:23 PM by Belschaft.)

**Amerion** · 05-08-2019, 11:21 PM

Given my lack of knowledge about our operations (even though I am Admiral General Tounge

), I am somewhat indifferent on this matter and will defer to those in the know.

However, despite my grand noobness, I think in general there is a benefit to having a centralised command group rather than a single overall commander.

Witchcraft and Sorcery · 05-10-2019, 09:01 AM

For all of you who might not be as familiar with how militaries are usually structured, it works something like this: one person is nominally in charge of the military. In our case that's the MoMA. Around that person is usually a group of others with the same authority, and that leadership team usually decides on mission planning and other things as a team, though whoever is in charge generally has the ultimate authority. Below that, there's usually others who occasionally or frequently lead missions or are given access to similar information, but might not be in charge of making administrative/military-wide decisions.

However the GC works, I'm in favor of not just having one person making the kind of decisions that the MoMA and GC are tasked with making. The question that I see needing to be answered here is whether or not the rank of "Commander" essentially supplants that, and I'm not sure it does. Given the nature of the military and the MoMA position, I think it wise to have more than one person officially in charge of those kind of positions. Being accountable to the Assembly in some regard is helpful.

Witchcraft and Sorcery

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

QuietDad · 05-10-2019, 11:56 AM

As a former MoMA here who left because of the GC wanting to "get involved", I can just add my thoughts. The MoMA needs to communicate most with the MoFA and Delegate and to some degree the MoRA as it gets embarrising for a military to raid randomly a region that might be in secret communications about treaties, cultural events and anything government partnership related. But a simple "Anyone got problems if we hit (insert region here)?" in a council meeting or message should suffice.
I have extreme issues with the GC, most who have little GP experience, trying to dictate HOW the SPSF is supposed to operate. The Gameplay arena is not a role play or political simulation and things can come up minutes before an update and can't wait 5 days for "discussion". The MoMA needs the freedom to structure the SPSF as they see fit to do the things they want.
Military players tend to like the excitement of the jump and as the job requires, care less about endoes and influence. The SPSF doesnt tell the GC how they should act and as such the GC should stay out of the SPSFs business.
As for "Generals", the title should not be given without significant proof of the abilty to be aware of the politcal climate and lead appropriate operations. But I'd rather have an army of capable Generals, than One or two people that will never be there every update having to lead a flock of noobs in how to jump.

Real-life Girls

***Roavin*** · 05-10-2019, 04:54 PM

(05-10-2019, 11:56 AM)QuietDad Wrote: I have extreme issues with the GC, most who have little GP experience, trying to dictate HOW the SPSF is supposed to operate.

Do you know who the current GC members are?

(This post was last modified: 05-10-2019, 04:56 PM by Roavin.)

QuietDad · 05-11-2019, 05:47 AM

The issue is not with the current GC. My issues where in the past and the same situation can happen in the further. I'm Just expressing my opinion here and it is what it is.

Real-life Girls

(This post was last modified: 05-11-2019, 05:48 AM by QuietDad.)

Nakari · 05-11-2019, 12:27 PM

(05-10-2019, 11:56 AM)QuietDad Wrote: As a former MoMA here who left because of the GC wanting to "get involved", I can just add my thoughts. The MoMA needs to communicate most with the MoFA and Delegate and to some degree the MoRA as it gets embarrising for a military to raid randomly a region that might be in secret communications about treaties, cultural events and anything government partnership related. But a simple "Anyone got problems if we hit (insert region here)?" in a council meeting or message should suffice.
I have extreme issues with the GC, most who have little GP experience, trying to dictate HOW the SPSF is supposed to operate. The Gameplay arena is not a role play or political simulation and things can come up minutes before an update and can't wait 5 days for "discussion". The MoMA needs the freedom to structure the SPSF as they see fit to do the things they want.
Military players tend to like the excitement of the jump and as the job requires, care less about endoes and influence. The SPSF doesnt tell the GC how they should act and as such the GC should stay out of the SPSFs business.
As for "Generals", the title should not be given without significant proof of the abilty to be aware of the politcal climate and lead appropriate operations. But I'd rather have an army of capable Generals, than One or two people that will never be there every update having to lead a flock of noobs in how to jump.

You're talking as if the GC is something completely divorced from the SPSF - they're just a bunch of politicians who know nothing about how the SPSF or military gameplay works. I don't know if that is how it worked some years ago, but now that is an outdated understanding.

The Generals are SPSF members who have to be nominated by a MoMA and approved by the Assembly. All of our recent Generals (Resentine, USoVietnam and Roavin) have been skilled military gameplayers who have been MoMAs themselves. They are (or were) part of the SPSF and worked within it, so they are already part of the SPSF's business. They have been in the SPSF for years and know how it works, so it is not unreasonable that they get a voice in how it operates. A simple "Is it reasonable to hit this region?" or "Is this promotion reasonable?" does suffice, and Generals don't get bogged down with roleplay considerations.

Anyway, I'm ambivalent on this. Generals are useful in cases where we have inexperienced MoMAs or are in a particularly unstable political environment. While they could potentially prove a burden to experienced MoMAs, in my experience they have not been a burden. The institutional memory has been useful, though that could admittedly exist without the framework of Generals.

The discussion arose in the first place from the fact that the MoMA is the principal driver of the SPSF rather than the Generals. I don't think we can or should expect Generals to be as active drivers of the military as the MoMA, though, since MoMAs are the ones who are elected.

**Farengeto** · 05-11-2019, 12:41 PM

(05-11-2019, 12:27 PM)Nakari Wrote: Anyway, I'm ambivalent on this. Generals are useful in cases where we have inexperienced MoMAs or are in a particularly unstable political environment. While they could potentially prove a burden to experienced MoMAs, in my experience they have not been a burden. The institutional memory has been useful, though that could admittedly exist without the framework of Generals.

You underestimate how stabilizing such a body can be. Pre-GC and even with them you have Ministers more than willing to just rebuild the entire ministry according to their whims. The generals bring a degree of constitutionally defined stability to the ministry.

I also say that just because we don't need specific protections at the moment (for inexperienced ministers, Minister pushing an ideological shift, etc.) we shouldn't get rid of them. It always ends up backfiring on the region in the long run.

You can see an example with MoRA and its Advisory Council. The Ministry fluctuated wildly as new Ministers enforced their own whims - usually more for worse than better. The AC brought a degree of institutional memory and stability, which when rejected or neglected by the Minister was usually for the worse.