Another issue I would like to point out that there is still no clear definition to defenderism. Raiding a Nazi region will be blocked under this problematic act. If you really like the SPSF to strictly conform to an ideology, just explicitly lays out what it can’t or can do instead of throwing the word “defender” into it.

Another issue is that a raider-friendly administration which is elected by a raider-friendly base will remove the act and slamp in their alternative which makes the thing meaningless.

An ideology is too complex to be codified. A set of laws which clearly specify the actions we should do (who SPSF should raid/defend, what regions we should cooperate with,...) show the ideology better than explicitly codify an ideology which is more or less a kind of buzzwords to vaguely generalize actions. A comparison would be making a country a democracy by throwing in the word democracy instead of laying out the rights and institutions required for it.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 06-06-2019, 09:17 AM by USoVietnam.)

Reply

I have to clarify my stance on this bill. I am not opposing the intentions or objectives, I am opposing the way it is executed.

Chief Supervising Armchair

(This post was last modified: 06-06-2019, 08:25 AM by USoVietnam.)

Reply

I'm fully opposed to this. I agree with Viet that we can't encode an ideology and, if this is something we want to do you have to prohibit specific actions from being taken rather that using what can become a meaningless term.

Also, and while I don't want to have this argument *again*, TSP needs to serve TSP's interests and not be subsumed into some wider NS interest and obssession.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

That’s a bit of a weird argument. What exactly are regional interests if not whatever we deem them to be?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

That’s a bit of a weird argument. What exactly are regional interests if not whatever we deem them to be?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Is this in response to me?

Our regional interests are what we want then to be. But, once we start defining and "ideological alignment" then they are whatever defender-dom declares them to be. Or whatever gets projected onto defender-dom.

Define actions. Define values. Don't toss our hat on some nebulous ideaology in this way.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

First of all, I must state to the defenders of TSP that I do not hate them nor their ideology (I honestly could not care less about raiderism nor defenderism anyway). I do not wish to antagonize them or whatever. They just have a different view of what TSP should be, and I respect that, for we all call this place home.

With that being said, I am opposed to this resolution. TSP should remain unaligned, not carve any ideology whatsoever into stone. This shall only seal us to defenderism for years to come, and whilst that is a paradise to some, it is clear to me that TSP should only act in its own regional interests, not that of an interregional ideology.

The only "ideology" that we should ever "adopt", if you want to call it that, should be our own self-reliance. The idea that we should act in our interests and only our interests, independent and sovereign from any frivolous ideology that forces us to act in a certain way. If TSP is defender-leaning, and if the SPSF only wants to engage in defending operations, that is fine, as it is TSP acting independently of any doctrine. It is acting in its own interests. If TSP became raider-leaning in the future (which is something ridiculous today. Come on, that is a joke, so we won't flip-flop that quickly) and the SPSF only wants to raid, that is also completely fine, as it is TSP exercising its sovereign will. We should not be forced by law to act in a certain way. It is not what we are. It is not the TSP I know: a TSP constrained by ideology.

I do not mind TSP being defender in all but name. I do not care if we are basically part of "defender-dom", for that is what the region has tilted to in this era. Heck, if you want, I suggest the Cabinet to use defenderism as official foreign policy if they want to go that far. But to codify it into the DNA of the Coalition, its laws, would be intolerable. By passing this resolution, it is not the government, but the Assembly that shall adopt the values of defenderism. The Assembly confirms that it officially believes in an ideology. And who comprises the Assembly? You, me, us. All of us present, here. And there is no unanimous defender mindset here.

TSP has no need to insert any ideology other than its democratic will into its core. I see our Independent past as a dark stain to our region, for TSP led itself to the delusion that it could adopt an ideology as part of its defining attributes. It is not what TSP was founded as. Regions like XKI and TGW were, not us. Shall we fall for that once more, I wonder?

Alignment is unnecessary. It is an unwanted quality in my mind. TSP must remain the flexible it is now, with all possible tools at its disposal to exercise its sovereign power and advance its interests. If raiding helps further our own agenda as a free region, so be it. If defending is the tool we must utilize to advance the Coalition's interest, let it be written into fate. But let it never be written into the law of the land, for it would be like adopting a certain political ideology or a religion as state canon: I shall fight that to the very end.

I simply am unable to endorse a resolution which goes against all the values that I hold dear. My vision of TSP, my perspective is different from the defenders here. I must express it as a result. As a consequence, even if I know that there is a good probability of this passing, I must oppose on principle. Otherwise, I shall betray my very way of thinking. The region I have lived in for so long shall have different values than those which I have. It is natural to be against this change.

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

"The 1% is like a 1% battery charge. It will die out if it is not charged(the charge is the 99%). But if you don't charge it, it will die for sure, sooner or later"
- Me (2001- Present)

"Change is the world's blood"
- Me (2001-Present)

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

(This post was last modified: 06-06-2019, 01:47 PM by Ryccia.)

Reply

I'm fully opposed to this. I agree with Viet that we can't encode an ideology and, if this is something we want to do you have to prohibit specific actions from being taken rather that using what can become a meaningless term.

Also, and while I don't want to have this argument *again*, TSP needs to serve TSP's interests and not be subsumed into some wider NS interest and obssession.

“TSP needs to serve TSP’s interests” is wholly meaningless. It is an ideology in its self, by the way, where TSP leaders decide what can and can’t count as in our interests (and that’s usually... “don’t be defender”). This is very reminiscent of US media treating centrism as non-ideological, which may put my point in a light you’re intimately familiar with.

I’ve explained a lot of the issues with our region over the past 5 years in my address yesterday: https://tspforums.xyz/thread-7188-post-1...#pid187078


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Regarding our interests: There isn't a central authority for "Defender Interests" (and I'd know, I was the defender for basically all of 2017 and still have access to the collective backchannels); rather there exists a common understanding of defender values. If we formally identify as Defender, then our interpretation of these values will henceforth comprise part of our interests, because we have made it so. That does not mean we subjugate any of our autonomy to anybody else, and the Assembly can still decide to revert that at a later time.

Draft proposal, as an Amendment to the Charter:
-snip-

Instead of that, I'd propose (in addition to a resolution similar to OP) this change:

(3) The military shall utilize Defender principles and values as guideline to their deployment. They may engage in:
a. defense, liberation, and support operations in allied, partnered, or arbitrary non-antagonistic regions at any time,
b. non-destructive offensive operations against antagonistic regions at any time, and
c. colonization or destruction of non-antagonistic regions only with the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly,
d. colonization or destruction of antagonistic regions at any time.
For this section, a region with which the Coalition is at war, which espouses hateful ideologies, which systemically embraces on-site or off-site conduct violations, or has considerably attacked the Coalition or one of its allies or partners, shall be considered antagonistic.

Maybe "antagonistic" isn't the right word here but I think the gist is clear.

The above clearly says "Defender", but also fills in a few of the details on what that means for us. Specifically, we defend arbitrary regions, but we may go on the offensive against rule breakers, fascists, DoS sycophants, opponents in war, or direct antagonists of allies.

Reply

First, I do want to say that some thing I helped write this, but that's not actually true. In my opinion, we maybe should hold off until the debate percolates through the election. But we've already started this, so we as well continue.

I do agree that the working is a bit off, as is the format. But I disagree that it's unnecessary to have a resolution that clearly and explicitly states we are defender. It's not just an important symbol and rallying cry, it's an historic marker. We have short memories in this game, and I don't want us to forget that we all voted on a simple resolution declaring ourselves defender. (And that it either passed or failed.) Hiding this away in the depths of laws and military manuals isn't good enough. While it's necessary to make those legal changes, it's very important to have a simple and clear resolution stating what our values are.

I would offer something along the lines of this:

Whereas the Coalition of the South Pacific is founded upon dedication to democratic principles, including the right of a community to exist peacefully and free from unprovoked attack;

Whereas our values have a natural affinity with the principles and work of the broad defender community within the game;

Whereas we believe no innocent region should be subjugated against its will, have its residents purged, or be completely destroyed or kept as a trophy of its destruction;

Whereas we believe the general principles of defending do not contradict offensive military operations against hateful regions, or against forces of subjugation and destruction,

Resolved that the Coalition of the South Pacific:

1. Commits itself to upholding and advocating the defender principles of protecting innocent regions and fighting against forces of destruction.

2. Declares that these principles are a fundamental aspect of our community and culture, and will strive to reflect these principles in our Charter, constitutional laws, and military guidelines.

3. Considers this resolution, as such, to be foundational to our community and fundamental to our system of governance, and thus a constitutional law.

Reply

I fully support Roavin’s amendment and Glen’s resolution as they are. I would like to see perhaps one line in the resolution on culture but that is negotiable on my part.

Edit: I would like to make it clear on my end the resolution ought to be non-binding and more of a guideline to the cabinet on the alignment this Assembly believes ought to be used for the region.

Above all else, I hope to be a decent person.
Has Been
What's Next?

 

CoA: August 2016-January 2017
Minister of Foreign Affairs: October 2019-June 2020, October 2020- February 2021

(This post was last modified: 06-06-2019, 09:53 PM by Omega.)

Reply