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. 

This is a solid amendment, though I'd make a few changes:

- "Arbitrary" in Clause A seems off; the word "other" feels more natural, though I understand if the former would be preferred.
- I can't really tell the difference between a non-destructive offensive operation and a destructive one. Could you please clarify this to me?
- "Espouses hateful ideologies", while good, could possibly be manipulated to mean any region.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

This is a solid amendment, though I'd make a few changes:

- "Arbitrary" in Clause A seems off; the word "other" feels more natural, though I understand if the former would be preferred.

I used "arbitrary" because it's the phrase usually used in GP circles (particularly amongst defenders) to refer to military actions in region that are not motivated by a political casus belli, but just by the military action itself.

- I can't really tell the difference between a non-destructive offensive operation and a destructive one. Could you please clarify this to me?

A non-destructive operation is one where invaders take the Delegacy of the region by force, change the World Factbook Entry, and such. It becomes destructive when they purge native nations, set a password, and/or refound the region entirely in order to hold the founder nation.

- "Espouses hateful ideologies", while good, could possibly be manipulated to mean any region.

We've had that language for quite some time.

Reply

"Espouses hateful Ideologies"
is indeed wishy washy. I rather see a fix list of ideologies. fe. there more than enough ppl that consoder communism a hateful ideology.

Reply

A list of hateful ideologies seems like something that would belong in military policy, rather than the charter. We do want to try to keep the Charter a kind of “first principles” document, rather than put every detail in it.

Reply

"Espouses hateful Ideologies"
is indeed wishy washy. I rather see a fix list of ideologies. fe. there more than enough ppl that consoder communism a hateful ideology.

 

A list of hateful ideologies seems like something that would belong in military policy, rather than the charter. We do want to try to keep the Charter a kind of “first principles” document, rather than put every detail in it.

We do have the Military Code, which may be of interest for another amendment.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

This is a solid amendment, though I'd make a few changes:

- "Arbitrary" in Clause A seems off; the word "other" feels more natural, though I understand if the former would be preferred.

I used "arbitrary" because it's the phrase usually used in GP circles (particularly amongst defenders) to refer to military actions in region that are not motivated by a political casus belli, but just by the military action itself.

- I can't really tell the difference between a non-destructive offensive operation and a destructive one. Could you please clarify this to me?

A non-destructive operation is one where invaders take the Delegacy of the region by force, change the World Factbook Entry, and such. It becomes destructive when they purge native nations, set a password, and/or refound the region entirely in order to hold the founder nation.

- "Espouses hateful ideologies", while good, could possibly be manipulated to mean any region.

We've had that language for quite some time. 

I understand them all. Thanks for the response

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

"Espouses hateful Ideologies"
is indeed wishy washy. I rather see a fix list of ideologies. fe. there more than enough ppl that consoder communism a hateful ideology.

It's rather meant to be all-encompassing. If you have a region of radical leftists advocating for the RL decapitation of all capitalists (for example), yeah I think we should hit back at those just as hard as we've been hitting the fash.

For historical context, the "hateful ideologies" stuff originated in my first MoMA campaign, and was enshrined in law through an amendment proposed by Glen.

Reply

Oh dear gods not this shit again....

Do people really want to bring back the old R/D cultural wars and all the horrible horrible things that came with them? Why on earth would anyone want to do that.....

If you want a Defender military policy, run for MoMA on that platform; stop trying to legislate for it, it’s just going it cause a giant shitstorm and hurt TSP.

_{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

Do people really want to bring back the old R/D cultural wars

Yes.

and all the horrible horrible things that came with them?

Assholes will be assholes either way.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that.....

Activity. Excitement. A goal. A stand for our values. etc.etc.etc.

If you want a Defender military policy, run for MoMA on that platform; stop trying to legislate for it, it’s just going it cause a giant shitstorm and hurt TSP.

Hurt it how? Have you read Glen's address?

Reply

Wherever I’ve been over my six-plus years in this game, one of the things that has continually struck me as troublesome is the “this is how it should be because this is how it’s always been” argument. And I see the "TSP's interests" argument as a part of that. I hate these arguments because they are used by veterans and armchair activists to shut down any new idea, any suggestion that a change in perspective may be appropriate. The question we should be asking ourselves when we’re confronted with a proposal that suggests that we change our perspective is, why are things the way they are? Why is our stance the way it is? Do the reasons that caused us to take this stance still make sense today? If we can’t answer these questions or the answers don’t make sense given the current state of gameplay at large, then maybe it’s time for a change. TSP is not a vacuum. Especially because we’re a GCR, we need to keep up with the times and we need to be sure we have allies who we can trust to support us in the event that an illegitimate regime attempts to seize power.

So we should interrogate the current stance. The way I see it, TSP has backed itself into a bit of a corner. As Glen has rightly pointed out more than once, our officially-neutral stance makes it difficult to know who our real friends are. We’re too defender for raiders to want to work with us, and the chance that we could start raiding makes it difficult for defenders to entirely trust us. Trust is a theme we’re going to see time and again throughout this debate. When it comes to friendships, it’s about more than signing a piece of paper. It’s about knowing that all signatories are actually going to follow through.

The current state of things in the wider gameplay community is a lot of faffing about and not a lot of actual commitment. When I go into the NSGP discord server, or when I read the forums, or when I talk to people across gameplay, it feels like they’re waiting. They want something to happen but they don’t want to make a move. As a defender, some would call me a moralist defender, there are a couple ways I can take this. One, that’s good! Keep the game in permanent inactivity so that nothing ever happens and we have a sort of peace. But that’s not real inactivity. That’s not real peace. It’s peace like it was before Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, triggering World War I. Something is going to happen. We can’t predict what it will be or when, but we can’t keep this uneasy, pins-and-needles peace going forever. And when the time comes, we need to clear and honest about our positions and need to know that we have friends we can trust.

And that’s where the R vs D debate comes in. While there isn’t necessarily a set of concrete values or clear principles that guide either side, the Coalition’s commitment to democracy, freedom, opportunity, and self-determination make the decision pretty clear. If we want those values to truly be reflected in our gameplay and FA politics, even the occasional tag run seems a little off-color. Likewise, raiding by nature is an activity based on deception and aggression. If we’re committed to peace and democracy, it really doesn’t make sense. Raiders’ focus on taking regions over, griefing them, assimilating them into their own networks looks like a pretty big security risk when we think about our commitment to the preservation of the Coalition. More often than not throughout history, it’s been the raiders and imperialists who have sought to infiltrate, coup, and colonize the GCRs to serve their own purposes. 

So yes, it’s true. Going defender will probably alienate some people or regions. But I don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing. By stating our intentions clearly and going defender, we can figure out who our real friends are. We can build meaningful, lasting relationships with like-minded communities. We can fight for freedom and legitimate governments. And just terms of pure activity, it’s much easier to get people into the military when you tell them you’re fighting for a cause.

In terms of enactment, here’s how I see this working best:

• Amendment to the Charter clearly indicating that the military will be a defender military;
  
• Amendment to the Military Code with the necessary changes that follow from the Charter amendment
  
• Assembly Resolution indicating our commitment to defending and its values.
  

Vietnam made the point that references to “defender culture” can and probably should be dropped - this should affect gameside as little as possible. It should only affect military and FA policy as far as I’m concerned and references to culture make it needlessly complicated and probably impossible to implement. Also “defender culture” means absolutely nothing. Each defender region/military has its own unique culture and there isn’t really one thing that defines it.

In the long term, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose from this. There’s no point in being vaguely-defender-leaning anymore. It’s time to stop milling around and take a stand.

 
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: 06-07-2019, 09:16 AM by Witchcraft and Sorcery. Edit Reason: my google doc title got pasted on the top? idk )

Reply