Folks — by this time in my long, long, long long NS career, I hope it comes as no surprised that I consider The South Pacific a region par excellence. I'm not saying we're perfect — although we're close! — but, I think much of what we've done has led the way in the game.

That's why we are the oldest democracy in the game (barring some hiccups), and continue to lead the way on democratic principles and participation. We were the first — and only GCR — to undertake a representative project like the Local Council where hundreds have voted for representation — and thousands have the possibly to. And, while Maxx knows it hasn't always been pretty, as a community we have remained committed to democracy, inclusion, diversity and camaraderie, even as we've had significant differences and policy prescriptions.

It's with that in mind that I address the entire region today, in general support of the military and foreign affairs alignment that is currently being discussed in the Assembly. I'll be the first to admit that I was and remain skeptical of labels, but after getting feedback from our current elected leadership, I can't help but think we have a unique opportunity here that we cannot afford to squander.

Setting aside both the rhetorical and the practical concerns for a minute, let me ask the following:

As a community, do we ...
believe that democracy is good and desirable?
value inclusion, diversity and kindness?
think NS would be better if we worked together, respected each other and built a friendly welcoming space for all?

Finally, if we can spread the values of TSP to ensure citizens of other regions enjoy what we hold dear, shouldn't we do that?

Here's the thing: I believe the "defender alignment" discussion has been framed incorrectly for a number of practical concerns — such as alliances and activity levels and what not. But, let's set those concerns aside for the moment. At the root of the matter, there is a need to help vulnerable regions within NS. In the past, this has been chalked up to "defending" as opposed to raiding, but, regardless, there are regions in need out there. By answering that need, we have a unique opportunity to help some regions, but also to spread the values the we hold dear.

Yes, it may come with the prospect of increased activity and the possibility of new alliances, if it doesn't — so be it! We are lucky to have wonderful allies like The North Pacific and The East Pacific who have indicated they will stand by us regardless of what we decide. And, we have a great security apparatus that will ensure the continued safety of our region. There are few practical reasons standing in the way.

As such, this is an opportunity for The South Pacific to lead the way and spread our values throughout the game.

Chances like this don't come about often. There have been a long line of prominent organizations that have worked to protect regions — ADN and FRA, among them — and, while working with any of those organizations would be in line with our values, the opportunity that lies before us now is bigger than being an auxiliary to other organizations.

We have the chance to lead and spread the democratic ideals we've nurtured for 15+ years far and wide. Better yet, we have elected officials willing and ready to do the work it takes to promote and defend the things we hold dear. The decision in front of us is whether want to take the mantle of "defender," but whether we want to help regions and, in the process, promote the values of democracy and TSP far and wide.

This isn't "aligning with existing defenders" as much as creating: "Defender: TSP Edition."

Few times has the possibility presented itself for TSP to truly step beyond our shores and show the game what we're made of. I hope we decide to seize the current opportunity because I want all of NS to know what makes TSP special.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Well-written, great read, overall awesome. And especially important, the key takeaway:

This isn't "aligning with existing defenders" as much as creating: "Defender: TSP Edition."

Reply

Yes yes yes! Thanks for a really thoughtful and well-written piece. This is our time to lead a new age of freedom, democracy, and self-determination across the game.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

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

Reply

The question I’d ask @Tsunamy is what will make “Defender: TSP Edition” genuinely distinct and TSP centric from the same old stale R/D game that has been going on for umpteen years? I’ve yet to be convinced that there is any genuine plan to do this, and the fact that people are actively arguing against putting TSP’s values front and centre of this change doesn’t do much to convince me otherwise. It’s still “We’re going to defend everyone (except Nazi’s)” not “We are going to promote and protect TSP’s values which are X, Y & Z and we do this by defending all regions that share these values”.

_{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

The question I’d ask @Tsunamy is what will make “Defender: TSP Edition” genuinely distinct and TSP centric from the same old stale R/D game that has been going on for umpteen years? I’ve yet to be convinced that there is any genuine plan to do this, and the fact that people are actively arguing against putting TSP’s values front and centre of this change doesn’t do much to convince me otherwise. It’s still “We’re going to defend everyone (except Nazi’s)” not “We are going to promote and protect TSP’s values which are X, Y & Z and we do this by defending all regions that share these values”.

"Regional sovereignty and a region's right to self-determination are two core values that TSP holds, and we defend those regions whose sovereignty or self-determination are being oppressed. We also hate Nazis, so we're going to raid the ever-loving crap out of them."

Reply

The question I’d ask @Tsunamy is what will make “Defender: TSP Edition” genuinely distinct and TSP centric from the same old stale R/D game that has been going on for umpteen years? I’ve yet to be convinced that there is any genuine plan to do this, and the fact that people are actively arguing against putting TSP’s values front and centre of this change doesn’t do much to convince me otherwise. It’s still “We’re going to defend everyone (except Nazi’s)” not “We are going to promote and protect TSP’s values which are X, Y & Z and we do this by defending all regions that share these values”.

I think this is a really great question — and I don't have a complete answer for that. My clear sense is that there's an opportunity to do this, hence the piece, but I imagine it will take some negotiations.

That said, I think there are simple things we can insert in to the alignment declaration that makes it clear we're also in support of democracy and democratic ideals in line with our bill of rights. It would also depend on our helping the region after being liberated (or helped) and trying to keep them a bit in our orbit.

I mean frankly, beyond Nazis, I hope we'd demur helping an opening homophobic or racist region as well. As such, I think this would have to be a bit more implied and explicit, but I think could easily be done.

Finally, as somewhat of an aside, I don't know how we'd expect any region to have self-determination without democracy in some form — even if it's in a limited sense to select an oligarchy or king or whatever.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I’d challenge the assertion that R/D is “stale.” That’s like saying having a forum community is stale or chatting on the RMB is stale. Defending is just the mechanical action of blocking raids and liberating occupations. To the extent staleness exists, it’s more accurately called inactive. If TSP were to help defending come back to life with the SPSF, everybody involved would have fun. There doesn’t need to be anything unique or revolutionary about blocking raids and liberating occupations in order for SPSF soldiers to have fun. In fact, most of them won’t particularly care about the minutiae of our (stale) political disagreements over defending.

Belschaft is basically saying we have to come up with a justification that defending is “in our interests,” which is the same nonsense that’s been holding things back all this time. There’s actually nothing wrong or boring or stale or whatever about TSP going Defender by just... defending. There doesn’t need to be a special flavor, especially when it’s pretty obvious the goal there is to water down how much actual defending we’ll do, like with the “forcibly turn regions democratic” idea in the other threads. Or now, with the idea that we’ll impose a limit on how much we can defend by saying we’ll only defend pre-existing democracies.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019, 02:51 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

To add to what Glen said, consider also that the specifics of "Defender: TSP style" will develop organically, sometimes triggered by big ideas, sometimes just shaped continuously by our culture and who we are.

People said R/D was stale and dead in 2016, then a new defender organization called TGW came around. It brought with it a new idea, a new culture, and many of the specifics emerged from those two items to form a new brand of defending. And in 2017, TGW led the Defender world. We can repeat this, except that I'd argue we, as a feeder, have a stronger message and a longer breath to give.

Reply

We can repeat this, except that I'd argue we, as a feeder, have a stronger message and a longer breath to give.

So what is this "stronger message"? TGW created a major shift in defenderdom with its culture of "we defend for our own fun, not for morals". That translated into things like an increased focus on speedy chases instead of just big liberations. If we want to shift defenderdom in the same way, what is our message going to be? How can we specifically bring our values of democracy and welcomingness to the defending world in a new way?

It's very important, in my opinion, that this be just as codified into our resolutions as the fact that we're going defender in general.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

Reply

Belschaft is basically saying we have to come up with a justification that defending is “in our interests,” which is the same nonsense that’s been holding things back all this time. There’s actually nothing wrong or boring or stale or whatever about TSP going Defender by just... defending. There doesn’t need to be a special flavor, especially when it’s pretty obvious the goal there is to water down how much actual defending we’ll do, like with the “forcibly turn regions democratic” idea in the other threads. Or now, with the idea that we’ll impose a limit on how much we can defend by saying we’ll only defend pre-existing democracies.

I mean, perhaps I'm naive here but I think defending is in our interests because — I would hope, at least — we'll have closer relations with the various regions the future. No?

And, again, my effort, at least, isn't to water anything down. It's simply to delineate why we're doing this and Somy suggested.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply