It's not a matter of common practice. Since we're not explicitly raiders, we don't gain anything from raiding other than maintaining the status quo with the international community. If we simply state our intentions to the populace after a raid, we could actually get something out of it. If you want to speak of common practice then think of it like this, during times of unrest, the disclosure of certain information helps to ease the concerns of the public. In our case, it helps maintain a positive image of TSP.

(12-09-2014, 03:53 AM)TAC Wrote: It's not a matter of common practice. Since we're not explicitly raiders, we don't gain anything from raiding other than maintaining the status quo with the international community. If we simply state our intentions to the populace after a raid, we could actually get something out of it. If you want to speak of common practice then think of it like this, during times of unrest, the disclosure of certain information helps to ease the concerns of the public. In our case, it helps maintain a positive image of TSP.

While I agree with the sentiment, but I don't believe we need to communicate our intentions or reasoning while our forces are still participating in any way... if nothing else, for the sake of security. I don't think we need to define our actions for the public, either. And, until people start maintaining a public, negative image of TSP, I think we all just need to step back and relax. We don't explain our intentions when we defend, we don't explain our intentions when we liberate, why should we explain our intentions when we raid? We do everything, and people see that. THAT is our public image.

I can agree with doing some things for recruitment purposes and removed from the op, but I do not think we need to explain ourselves to anyone, nor do I think we should.

Quote:We do everything, and people see that. THAT is our public image.

I don't think the evidence suggests this is the case.

Excuse me, the Special Forces just cooperated with an ally, doing an extraordinary work to further our foreign policy, and they are getting criticised? I am disappointed to see this Assembly criticise the excellent work of our soldiers, when they have done nothing wrong, and in fact have done a great service to the region.

We do get benefits from raiding, which are the same benefits we get from defending: creation of activity for our military and cooperation with allies. It is not in our interests to defend more than we raid because our objective is not to be seen as the white knights who help regions out of our own goodwill, our objective is to be active and work with allies. We are not defenders. We should not be ashamed of playing a legitimate aspect of the game, specially since we have made the conscious decision not to pick sides.

Quote:Excuse me, the Special Forces just cooperated with an ally, doing an extraordinary work to further our foreign policy, and they are getting criticised? I am disappointed to see this Assembly criticise the excellent work of our soldiers, when they have done nothing wrong, and in fact have done a great service to the region.

On the contrary, I do think this behavior was a disservice to the region. While it may not be our role to be the "white knights" of NationStates, it's no more our role to be the "grey knights" or the "black knights" - refraining from the behavior does not make us "white knights" (which by the way is an odd thing to exclude TSP from aspiring to be - in every other area of TSP policy we generally aspire to set interregional standards, not deliberately low-ball them), it just makes us, a decent community that cares enough about other human beings to generally refrain from committing to that behavior needlessly against them?

I also wonder if the SPSF's chronic recruitment problem might be an issue with its self-referential justification. "We exist to be active" isn't exactly "Be all you can be". Since cooperation and activity more generally can be conducted outside of military channels, there's an existential question of "why even have an army" if the point of an army is to just bring us closer to allies and build activity, when inevitably the army will always push us away from some allies as it brings us closer to others, while alienating some TSPers and inspiring others. On the face of it, an army seems like a poor way to build foreign relations and is more divisive as a subject than it is unifying. 

But it's also not a problem of existence, but also of patriotism. You're complaining about us not celebrating SPSF's work as though we have an obligation too. You've just said that the purpose of SPSF is to be active and encourage cooperation with allies, regardless of the consequences to other UCRs caught in the crossfire. I'm not exactly going to wave the blue and black in celebration of Fandom Alliance when they engage in this kind of behavior - it's not something worth celebrating. It's certainly not something worth being proud of. Patriotism is not an obligation; patriotism is pride and pride is respect. You earn respect. You don't just 'get it'. 

(12-09-2014, 02:55 AM)Kris Kringle Wrote: I feel so old (in TSP terms) by saying this, but...

I think that's overlegislation. Unless it becomes a persistent problem that needs a legal remedy, I don't see why we need to overregulate the SPSF like this. It has been operating just fine until now. Why can't we let it be?

Ah, the bemusement of the newly cynical. You're slowly learning that some will never be satisfied with any compromise Kris, which is why the "old guard" was opposed to giving them any compromise at all.

Great, this lovely debate again...

The only thing that will emerge from this debate is hurt feelings, and maybe some legislation that fails a vote. Therefore, I am not going to be participating in this pointless debate. Although I will say one thing before I leave the thread for good.

TSP is an unaligned feeder region with ties to a few defender regions and a few Independent regions. I see absolutely no reason for us to cut all military ties with the majority of our allies to appease a few defenders here who cry foul everytime we cooperate with our non-defender allies.

I also wonder if the SPSF\s chronic recruitment problem might be an issue with its self-referential justification. "We exist to be active" isn't exactly "Be all you can be". Since cooperation and activity more generally can be conducted outside of military channels, there's an existential question of "why even have an army" if the point of an army is to just bring us closer to allies and build activity, when inevitably the army will always push us away from some allies as it brings us closer to others, while alienating some TSPers and inspiring others. On the face of it, an army seems like a poor way to build foreign relations and is more divisive as a subject than it is unifying. Wrote:Since I am currently the longest active member of the SPSF, former MoA, and a current general, I will tell you what the biggest issue is with recruitment.

Threads like this.

I have received DOZENS of TGs/PMs about the SPSF. Most of them will ask how to get involved and when they get sent to the forum and start reading this, they fear getting labeled and hurting personal aspirations for future growth in TSP by getting involved with the SPSF and alienating themselves from "the inner circle".
When I ran for MoA two terms ago, I made it VERY clear I would be open to both sides of the battlefield and have an idea of two (possibly three) separate groups. One raider, One defender and maybe one piler, all reporting to the MoA to make sure we didn't step on each other. We're not big enough yet to make this really work, but By having two deputies, one in charge of each side, the infrastructure is beginning.
You can argue all you want, but as MoA, I WAS approached by the cabinet to get closer to TNP, Euro and a few others because of attempts at closer ties either through the Delegate of FA office. The SPSF is called routinely to aid BOTH sides. We have not crossed the line (well, once..) of "having to choose. A simple "We're all ready committed" without telling where prevents ALL issues.
While the SPSF is not a real threat to ANYONE at this point by itself, we have STRONG militarty ties on both sides of the battlefield. When "Coup Tuesdays" first started, I had a force big enough from BOTH sides to tart Arbiter to the delegacy for an update to show we had things under control. It was a done deal. Communications issues and confusion within TSP made ME call it off.

Since the SPSF is JUST starting to pick up steam. I suggest we stop these discussions to set boundaries until we're big enough where this WILL cause a problem. For those that want to make the SPSF defender, I suggest you get active in the SPSF and run for MoA;. Then you can direct it there. Until then, these discussions HURT the SPSF  because we're starting to get people questioning if we've gone rogue. We haven't. We are acting with in the parameters of our charter.
Get involved or shut up. Sideline quarterbacking is doing more harm to the SPSF AND the region than the SPSF is doing by it's actions.

Do your thing CTF, don't let arm chair citrics dictate how the SPSF is run.

This region has a proud tradition of engaging in offensive and defensive military operations. And I can say that I'm proud of our army's success.

I think it's encouraging to see success from a new cabinet member.

(12-09-2014, 12:17 AM)Sandaoguo Wrote: We receive no benefit, because we aren't a raider region that recruits based on fronting an "evil raider" persona like The Black Riders, The Black Hawks, etc. When we raid a region, the players there don't know the nuances of TSP's foreign policy. They just know that we raided for some reason. TBR and all the other black-hat raiders have an inherent recruitment opportunity there, for any of the players who find their regional themes to be cool or interesting.

It's not enough, for me, to say that we "strengthened our alliance." We could have done it through other means, like a Warzone, or, yes Kris, defending. If we're going to raid, we need to confront the actual costs it has to our region, and discuss ways to mitigate those costs. Instead of just shutting down conversations, accusing people of trying to force TSP to become defender, and saying we don't care one bit about anybody else. We're a feeder region. Our job is to make this game enjoyable for everybody.

Regardless, you ignored Kris' point. We did receive a benefit (not just of working closely with the North Pacific, but also of having our troops that much more well practiced). You don't think the benefit outweighed the cost of invading the region, but the benefit exists none the less.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of this thread with any response. Kris has pretty much summed everything up that I would say. This is nothing new, just another case of Unibot trying to force his personal beliefs about invading upon the region. His beliefs are wrong for the South Pacific, a region that has stood proud with and stood up to invader and defender allies alike. We are strong, label-less, active, and free. Everything is fine with the status quo.