I think every single one of us needs to strongly and vocally oppose Belschaft's brazen attempt to use the Charter to ban political ideas he doesn't like. The Cabinet has been pretty silent all term. So I hope we can all come together to prevent this folly.

I'm going to respectfully disagree here.

I for one think it's one of the most common sense things Bels has suggested in a while and -- moreover -- not a bad thing for the region.

Being "independent" isn't outlawing other ideologies. It's akin to saying that the region should act in its own best interests. And, I'm perfectly fine codifying that.

It's a terrible thing for the region, Tsu. It's a big "Fuck you, get out of my region" to anybody who doesn't share his views.

I do not support the Independent ideology. I would be forced to leave this region, because I wouldn't be allowed to run in any elections, and I would obviously be unwelcome by the Assembly. Is that what we want?

Also, Independence is not just acting in the region's best interests. Everybody does that. If I run as a defender, that's because I believe defending is in TSP's interests. Nobody wants to take away TSP's sovereignty and hand the region over to defender overlords.

Independence is an anti-defender ideology. That's all it is. It's a friendly facade to people who will sign the region over to imperialists and raiders, while demonizing defenders. That's all TSP's "independents" have ever done. It was created by a ragtag group of raiders, imperialists, and people who just didn't like defenders, as a way to isolate GCRs from defender groups, while keeping the avenues open for alliances with non-defenders. Why do you think we have treaties with TNI and Europeia, and had a treaty with Lone Wolves United, while we have to spend forever coming up with a strategy for the Lazarus and TRR treaties?

This is just sickening. It's yet more bully behavior from TSP's biggest bully. He can't ban Unibot anymore, so he wants to use the Charter to ban Unibot's political views.

I don't fully want to go down this path since over the course of months I feel like I've made my points clear we regard to the R/D debate. However, I want to point out, first, I don't think codifying something this would stop people from being welcome into the Assembly or office, it would just prevent any official "ideology" from being codified/declared.

Second, GR, while I realize you and Uni share a lot of R/D positions, from my perspective, at least, there are gulfs between the two of you. You act in the region's interest best interest. You prefer to play defender, but doesn't mean you are crusading against raiders 24/7. You're working with raiders through the alliances.

That isn't the case for Unibot. You accuse Bels of bringing this out of my discussion of unity, but who brought up this issue? It wasn't Bels. It was Unibot who suggested forming political parties and then splitting the region in two.

I think you know I'm not currently Bels biggest fan, but he wasn't the instigator of this one.

I think the difference we have on this issue, Tsu, is that we have different ideas of what "Independence" is. From what I'm getting, you see Independence as a position advocating that people place TSP's interests above all else.

But my experience with Independence has been that's it's uniquely anti-defender. Arguments based on Independence have never been used to shoot down a treaty with raiders and imperialists, but Independence is the first thing trotted out when it comes to defenders. I've been accused of working against TSP's interests, merely because I think the treaty with TNI is bad for the region. When it comes to Independence, no other positions are valid. Anybody who doesn't call themselves an Independent is a foreign agent working to bring TSP under the subservience of a foreign gameplay group.

The reality is that everybody thinks they're acting in TSP's interests. Even Unibot! I've known Unibot for years, so I know exactly what he thinks and what he wants. He doesn't want TSP to give up its sovereignty to defenders. He just believes that defending is in TSP's best interests. That's a legitimate belief of his. Interestingly enough, Independents like Belschaft, Rebeltopia, Southern Bellz, etc, don't create a huge fight when Onder from TNI tells us that going raider or imperialist is in our interests, and defending definitely isn't.

I would much rather our region let people be open about this stuff, than have all these secret agendas and subterfuge. When it comes to all the fighting between a handful of people in this region, secret agendas and subterfuge is at the core of it. I want people to run on platforms of being a defender or an imperialist or a raider. Because the reality of these past few years is that people run on platforms of being Independent, but have a clear tendency towards one of those three anyways. Escade was the closest thing we've ever had to a truly non-aligned Delegate, and that's only because she was never involved in NS military gameplay. TSP would be better served by having clear, honest, and upfront campaigns for what an elected official wants TSP to be. But that will never happen if we keep enshrining into our constitution specific ideologies, just because some people don't like it when others advocate radical change.

I agree GR. I don't advocate for the independent ideology as Unibot likes to set out.

I'm an advocate for TSP-centric positions -- which includes aligning with both defenders and raiders and generally aiming to keep a status quo.

I think -- as with my alteration to Bels amendment -- my issue/agreement is having TSP the central focus. Not being subscribed to an ideology.

(06-12-2014, 03:54 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: But my experience with Independence has been that's it's uniquely anti-defender. Arguments based on Independence have never been used to shoot down a treaty with raiders and imperialists, but Independence is the first thing trotted out when it comes to defenders. I've been accused of working against TSP's interests, merely because I think the treaty with TNI is bad for the region. When it comes to Independence, no other positions are valid. Anybody who doesn't call themselves an Independent is a foreign agent working to bring TSP under the subservience of a foreign gameplay group.

That is unfortunately true. This also brings us to the fact that the TNI alliance is usually held as unquestionable, as if TNI always knew our interests better than ourselves.

(06-12-2014, 03:54 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: The reality is that everybody thinks they're acting in TSP's interests. Even Unibot! I've known Unibot for years, so I know exactly what he thinks and what he wants. He doesn't want TSP to give up its sovereignty to defenders. He just believes that defending is in TSP's best interests. That's a legitimate belief of his. Interestingly enough, Independents like Belschaft, Rebeltopia, Southern Bellz, etc, don't create a huge fight when Onder from TNI tells us that going raider or imperialist is in our interests, and defending definitely isn't.

Yes, Unibot does believe that defending would be immensely better for TSP. More than once has he talked to me about being consistent, and giving a positive image abroad. What does frustrate me is that, as Glen said, we can't even consider treaties with defenders because the first thing they post is "we are allied with TNI". We've all read the threads from the old forum, when a UDL treaty was considered. The others didn't engage in an honest discussion about the merits of our alliances, they just dismissed everything because of TNI, even if TNI only approaches us when they need to keep us in place. That's not independence (or maybe it is).

(06-12-2014, 03:54 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I would much rather our region let people be open about this stuff, than have all these secret agendas and subterfuge. When it comes to all the fighting between a handful of people in this region, secret agendas and subterfuge is at the core of it. I want people to run on platforms of being a defender or an imperialist or a raider. Because the reality of these past few years is that people run on platforms of being Independent, but have a clear tendency towards one of those three anyways. Escade was the closest thing we've ever had to a truly non-aligned Delegate, and that's only because she was never involved in NS military gameplay. TSP would be better served by having clear, honest, and upfront campaigns for what an elected official wants TSP to be. But that will never happen if we keep enshrining into our constitution specific ideologies, just because some people don't like it when others advocate radical change.

1. That's true, and in fact it does happen that people have been accused of not putting TSP first, when what "TSP first" means in the first place depends on what each person thinks is best for the region. Personally, I prefer us to have more freedom, not less.
2. Escade was a bit defender-leaning, but wasn't very interested in military gameplay anyways. Thought I should point that out.