We won't raid, we won't defend, ergo our WA's won't act outside of TSP

If the terms of any treaty require that we send WA's "overseas" on demand then it needs to be re-negotiated

War Is Over

:hehe!:

If we had a Civil Guard (or a Coalition of the Willing, if you will), our recruits would support the Delegate, but could also help defend our allies, and help in their delegate transitions. There would be a more defined and less controversial cause for them.

The crux of the matter here is that Unibot realises he can't currently ban the SPSF from raiding, but he fundamentally wants to stop raiding at all costs because that is the one of the key remaining roadblocks to his defender vision for TSP. You can see that in the examples he gives, his objection to raiding is basically that it will upset defenders, which is namely himself.

Military gameplay is a major source of activity, not always positive, but without it TSP will be weakened on the global stage. If you admit as a region and executive you are so divided that you can't even engage in military actions for fear of creating internal conflict, then that surely reduces the regions significance in gameplay, a major potential source of activity. Choosing to avoid taking actions on military issues for fear of creating controversy is a good way to incapacitate a region, not to improve it - as indeed Unibot's essay "Paradise Found" shows, excessive neutrality can result in a "dead-on-arrival regional military".

The philosophy here seems to be, if you can't control it, kill it. This is a long standing defender approach to military matters that predates Unibot even. Once SPSF is dead as an institution, we can always create a "National Guard" or something that is only permitted to engage in defender activities. After all, that wouldn't be as controversial as aiding those damn independent allies of ours, and their immoral raiding activities.

If you accept the fundamental point that working with our independent allies is too risky and bad for our image - as Unibot posits - then thats where you end up. I'd argue that it's good for our image to be seen to actively engage militarily, and that we should be looking to follow the highly successful model TNP has created militarily.

Why can't we do that? What or who is standing in the way of creating a successful dynamic military because every time we do something, they criticise it for not fitting in with their interests? Something to think about.

(01-23-2015, 08:56 PM)Apad Wrote: What about getting rid of the MoA and placing the military under the jurisdiction of the MoFA? The military generals can answer to the MoFA and conduct missions that actually advance our FA objectives.

I think this is a bad idea because the MoFA would have a bloated mandate and it'd become a very powerful, contested position for R/Ders to want to pursue. 

But I just wanted to encourage people to think outside of the box like you did, Apad. Better to suggest something than not. 

Quote:Military gameplay is a major source of activity, not always positive, but without it TSP will be weakened on the global stage.

Your whole post is obvious partisan rubbish, but there are some points that are especially false.

1. Military gameplay has not been a particularly sizable source of activity for TSP.

2. Military gameplay does not strengthen our presence on the global stage, we're normally weakened on the global stage because our presence looks small and our support for missions is politically fragile at home. Nobody considers us  major players on the global stage because of SPSF. We're considered a major player because of our size and our cultural and community strength - our internal disputes over independentism (which went as far as attempted electoral fraud and an abuse of the judiciary on the part of the 'Brave Little Toaster' lot) and our two-man army have done very little good for our interregional reputation.

3. "Paradise Found" was saying independentist armies structurally have a difficult time appealing to people, partly because (1) their rhetoric is passe, and (2) the values of an army under independentism are realist, whereas invaderism is hedonistic and defenderism is altruistic -- this means invaderism and defenderism appeal to the individual and their desires, goals and conscience, whereas independentism has to rely on patriotism and the 'love of one's region' to pitch an army to individuals because the self-sacrifice, in this case, is to help advance one's region and its material "interests" (and even then what these interests are, is debatable). 

So there's a big tug-of-war between independentism and individualism. You've got to first convince people that this military activity is actually in a region's interests, and then you've got to convince them their region is worth that sacrifice without any other extraneous reasons. Proper independentist recruiters usually fail on both accounts. 

Apad's idea is good in theory, and I'm glad they suggested it. Unfortunately, I think it wouldn't work that well in practice.

Still, I agree with Uni that it's good to have such creative thinking.

NES, this is my idea.

NES, I think TSP is well-known for having very individual voices who may or may not get along. It's what makes us unique and is one of our strengths. If we all parroted each other it might make life easier but boy would it be boring. If, on the political side, certain regions find that to be inconceivable...well we know what happened to that guy. I do wish you'd crack and joke now and then. Even use a emoticon

I think that abolishing the military is a bad idea. While I like the idea of having a Guard that works to support delegacy transfers (and Kris can you detail what that means, please), I wonder how much that overlaps with the CSS.

Then, with the military itself we could do a number of things:

1. Remove the Ministry of the Army position and instead have what the position entails be tied to another position or directive such as:
a. The Delegate as Chief of Army who hires generals who operate on his or her commands\mission\campaign platform. This would be an added responsibility of the delegate but may work well if the delegate has a particular interest or mission.
b. The Assembly or Ministry of Foreign Affairs - I see both of these being a hot mess so not going into further detail. If the General has to get approval from the Assembly for any military operations well we're never going to accomplish anything.

2. Clearly delineate the two (or more) functions of the military:
a. Military remains as it is but is now tasked with assisting in delegacy transfers and assisting allies in their missions. That is the scope and breadth of the military. The members of the military are responsible for meeting with allies and offering support.
b. If the Minister of Gameside Affairs legislation goes through then have that position (or ?) also create an "Intro to R\D" group that is unaffiliated with the government (and as long as they are not aiding\abetting enemies) are free to go on any missions they wish.


Other suggestions or options?

(01-24-2015, 07:08 PM)Escade Wrote: While I like the idea of having a Guard that works to support delegacy transfers (and Kris can you detail what that means, please), I wonder how much that overlaps with the CSS.

Uh...supporting delegacy transfers is exactly what it says: supporting the transfer of the delegacy from the outgoing to the incoming delegate. I don't see how that would overlap with the CSS at all, since the CSS deals with security, not the practical aspects of military gameplay, or delegacy transfers.

And for the record, NES' post is pure rubbish, of the kind we don't need in the South Pacific. If you don't plan to be constructive, NES, then kindly close the door on your way out.

Kris, in my head NES is a miner. From the Hunger Game. He is Katniss' father. He should be treated with respect but also with wonder. How did he survive and why doesn't Katniss know that he's alive?

(01-24-2015, 07:15 PM)Escade Wrote: Kris, in my head NES is a miner. From the Hunger Game. He is Katniss' father. He should be treated with respect but also with wonder. How did he survive and why doesn't Katniss know that he's alive?

I have like ... zero knowledge of this reference ... but I think I love every bit of it.