How has it moved beyond a simple label? The way I see it, the argument goes as follows:

• We agreed that we have a set of principles, namely democracy and a respect for self-determination.
  
• We believe that raiding innocent regions violates those principles.
  
• We agree that defending is a natural consequence of our foreign policy interest in upholding those principles.
  
• We agree that raiding regions with heinous ideologies and bigoted beliefs is an acceptable violation of other region’s’ sovereignty, since they aren’t at all innocent.
  

Unless we’re questioning those basic principles, what’s the point in line item votes on each of them? Shouldn’t the resolution suffice and make our work simpler?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk 

Thanks for the response. It is a good summary (as was Sandaoguo's). My take is this: initially, the whole proposal began as a sort of PR thing "let's change our stance and it will help our foreign relations;" now, nearly all of the conversation is about what does and doesn't count as part of the defender ideology (admittedly, many of the people driving this conversation are not the original proponents). Maybe it is just me though; perhaps the conversation has always been deeper than PR. Either way, the whole thing is gaining more significance each day in my mind. And the more I see it as significant, the more I feel a single proposal, a "take it or leave it" sort of thing, is not the correct way of going about this issue. However, I am pleased at Sandaoguo's more recent statement about giving things consideration. If dialogue is constructive, then a single "take it or leave it" proposal won't be as problematic as it present sits in my mind.

That reminds me, below are the two things which I think are worth doing (with a disclaimer, while these are genuinely my only sticking points at the moment, I can't guarantee that further debate won't make others arise). Feel free to agree, disagree, compromise, or ignore them.

1. Having the resolution specifically affirm the right of people to disagree - I am happy to leave this as an amendment to the resolution once it passes

2. Having the resolution be non-constitutional. I don't see how it is necessary for the resolution to be a constitutional law. It can just as easily be a non-constitutional one. If all of this is about setting up a military alignment which reflects TSP, then the alignment should be able to be repealed if a majority thinks so. I completely agree that it is within the pro-defenders rights to make it a constitutional law, I just really don't see the point. All the other constitutional laws in the region seem to either be about the mechanics of making policy or they need to be a constitutional law because of some requirement in the Charter. In saying all of this, I am open to changing my mind, but I need reasons why it should be constitutional rather than just an argument that it is allowed to be so.

Former Associate Justice of the High Court of the South Pacific (4 December 2019 to 5 February 2021)

Reply

It might be a good idea to declare oneself as an ideology that promotes our values and creates deeper bonds with regions which share these ideologies, but utmost care is to be used when making such a major move. We do not want NS to experience a Cold War where two major blocs of power arise, where they are "having a friendly debate" over which ideology is good and which is an evil virus of Satan.^[1]

To align ourselves with "defenderism" (definitely needs a better name) and not become pawns of the big defender regions, we should standardise a definition for what "defenderism" actually is. Otherwise, making this declaration is pointless and defeats the whole point in the first place. Also, we should use the ideology as a means to an end, not for it to become some sort of central ideology that we fanatically adhere to like capitalism or communism. It should be a descriptor of peace-making and peace-keeping, and not deviating from that for own personal gain.

In summary, it can be a force of good, but only if implemented carefully and wisely.

The Lord of Space and Protector of the TARDIS Keys of
The Solar System Scope

Logo

[Image: T5F5a5I.png]

Reply

There are no "big defender regions" to be pawns of...

And I really don't think it's necessary or even a good idea to create a "defender manifesto," as that is actually what will make it into a "good vs evil" debate. Defending is just defending against raids and liberating occupations. That's it. TSP defends because it flows from our democratic values, and we already have a very good idea of what our democratic values are. Those aren't separate from what we would do as a defender region-- they're what would make us a defender region in the first place.

Reply

There are no "big defender regions" to be pawns of...

And I really don't think it's necessary or even a good idea to create a "defender manifesto," as that is actually what will make it into a "good vs evil" debate. Defending is just defending against raids and liberating occupations. That's it. TSP defends because it flows from our democratic values, and we already have a very good idea of what our democratic values are. Those aren't separate from what we would do as a defender region-- they're what would make us a defender region in the first place.

It's as if you're refraining from using the quote button...

Anyway, ideas and values alone are not enough. Sometimes, there are grey areas, such as a dictatorial, fascist region becoming raided by pro-democracy militia. Should we defend these regions? Where does the line end? Therefore, clear and unambiguous guidelines as to what should be defended and what should not is crucial for us not to lose our goal.

The Lord of Space and Protector of the TARDIS Keys of
The Solar System Scope

Logo

[Image: T5F5a5I.png]

Reply

It’s pretty clear we won’t defend fash regions since we currently participate in and will continue to participate in Antifa operations. And it’s commonly accepted that defenders do that. I think that’s made clear in the wording of the extant law as well as that which Glen has written here. And from my standpoint as a veteran defender, I would never intervene in a raid against fascists even if I were not an active participant in Antifa operations. TITO doesn’t and never has, same with the RRA.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

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

Reply

There are no "big defender regions"

Uh....XKI and TGW?

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

The second part of that sentence is also important. Yes there are big defender regions, but I and the SPSF have no intentions of being pawns of any of them. We don't need to be. We have some of the best defender talent in the game and we can run our military without undue influence from the outside. That doesn't mean we can have good relations with them, it's obviously desirable that defenders work together, and indeed that is the norm, but no defender region is truly a "pawn" of any other.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

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

(This post was last modified: 06-21-2019, 10:58 AM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply

We have some of the best defender talent in the game

Literally award-winning!

Reply

There are no "big defender regions" to be pawns of...

And I really don't think it's necessary or even a good idea to create a "defender manifesto," as that is actually what will make it into a "good vs evil" debate. Defending is just defending against raids and liberating occupations. That's it. TSP defends because it flows from our democratic values, and we already have a very good idea of what our democratic values are. Those aren't separate from what we would do as a defender region-- they're what would make us a defender region in the first place.

It's as if you're refraining from using the quote button...

Anyway, ideas and values alone are not enough. Sometimes, there are grey areas, such as a dictatorial, fascist region becoming raided by pro-democracy militia. Should we defend these regions? Where does the line end? Therefore, clear and unambiguous guidelines as to what should be defended and what should not is crucial for us not to lose our goal. 

Just to pile on with what W&S already said... You're missing the entire point of "TSP is defender because of our pro-democracy values" if you think it's a genuine question whether or not TSP would defend a fascist/Nazi region. Ideas and values are actually pretty much enough. Some of these scenarios being brought up are only being imagined because you're not applying those ideas and values, and you would answer your own question if you would...

Anyways, at the end of the day, nobody is going to type out an exhaustive SOP of every single scenario we will ever face as defenders, and how to respond to each and every one. Nobody does that. It's not a reasonable ask, and we would never ask that about TSP being a democracy either. We know how values, we know what defending is (at least, you ought to know, and it's not really complicated!)... TSP being defender is not really as foreign as some of you guys are making it out to be.

Reply