I'm not opposed to this in principle if there is sufficient assembly oversight, though would there be a senior General in the three?. I would also prefer to see a specific time rather than a life term - for a year as an example.

(02-02-2015, 06:37 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-02-2015, 04:04 PM)Hileville Wrote: Article 3: South Pacific Special Forces

1. The South Pacific Special Forces, herein referred to as the SPSF, is established as the sole Armed Force within the Coalition of the South Pacific.
2. The SPSF will be led by the Minister of the Army and a panel of three Generals, herein referred to as the General Corps, selected by the Assembly and serving a life term.
3. The Minister of the Army Cabinet will recommend Citizens to serve in the General Corps upon the passage of this document and in the event of a vacancy. The nominee must be approved by the Assembly, which will recommend replacements if they reject a nomination.
4. The General Corps is responsible for the planning of and overseeing of all missions of the SPSF.
5. The SPSF must, at all times, observe our laws, policies, the charter and our legal and contractual obligations, defend The South Pacific, refrain from conduct abroad which contradicts foreign policy and make an effort to include, welcome and accommodate all citizens as members, regardless of their beliefs.
6. The SPSF will be permitted to carry out offensive, defensive, support, and various types of operations as seen fit by the Minister of the Army General Corps.
7. The Minister of the Army and General Corps will be responsible for creating further regulations for the SPSF and presenting them to the Assembly for passage in accordance with normal Assembly policy.
7. The SPSF will be responsible for carrying out all operations relating to a Declaration of War passed by the Assembly. A declaration of war is not inherently necessary for the SPSF to act against a foreign entity and/or organization.
8. The Assembly will maintain a working Code of Conduct for the SPSF, which details its organisational policy and procedure. 
9. During the month of May, September and January, the Assembly will prepare a resolution to serve as a mid-term review of the SPSF's development, activity and leadership, with comments, feedback and suggestions for future reform. 

Perfectly fine with your additions.

(02-02-2015, 06:53 PM)Hopolis Wrote: I'm not opposed to this in principle if there is sufficient assembly oversight, though would there be a senior General in the three?. I would also prefer to see a specific time rather than a life term - for a year as an example.

I think having a review of the SPSF every few months will also keep in check the leadership and their activity.

Excellent Hileville. I think the proposal as it stands is a solid balance of meritocracy and democracy - we see better oversight of the army and its reform, with a governing hierarchy that isn't based on electoral support, per se.

Sounds good to me.

What if the SPSF fails ones of these checks?


Ah, the wonders of technology. I'm on Tapatalk!

(02-02-2015, 06:28 PM)Unibot Wrote: I'm in support of this, but only alongside change which also improves Assembly oversight of the SPSF - this is to say, a Code of Conduct and, perhaps, a mid-term review of the army, where the Assembly must review the SPSF's development and conduct, and make suggestions and comments through a resolution.

This way we give the SPSF some more meritocracy, but we're also removing the barrier of isolation between SPSF and TSP.

Uni, I want to know what the hell you mean by a barrier between TSP and the SPSF! Even before I went AWOL (due to RL situations that came rather suddenly) A member of the General Corps or I myself made damned sure that the cabinet fully knew every op that the SPSF was conducting, you guys were not kept out of the loop, and as far as I'm concerned I see no barrier. Were a few of the cabinet members, who were bleeding hearts for the regions we've raided, upset? Yeah. But you know what, SPSF, who by the way ALL but 2 of you supported our desire not to join one of the pro-(insert defender, raider, independent, who cares here) factions, remained a force that remained loyal to our allies and did not in any manner disregard the delegate or MoFA's wishes. Everyone else, not to say you're not important, but the Delegate is over the whole region, and militaristic gameplay and foreign affairs go hand in hand just a teensy bit. I am appalled that such a course of action as disbanding the SPSF or the position of MoA was even thought of. And as far as the Assembly electing someone to be in the General Corps? It's about the most moronic thing I've ever heard. Reason being is that you've had no problems with the MoA selecting generals before, so why bother with it now? One really big concern that I think must be addressed about having the assembly elect the generals is people who have an agenda that pertains to military gameplay. Say that a CoA was let's say a (idc, pick one) and there was one person who was the most qualified person for the job, but you know what? His views don't fit so nicely with those of several members of the assembly, including the CoA. So what happens next is that they all rant and rave to the point that a lot of people disregard the thread entirely because they really don't want to read through 35 pages of complaints, so in the end that one qualified person doesn't get the job, and the people with an agenda get to control just who gets to lead the SPSF. Another issue that I'd like to address, the activity checks, if you are so desperately concerned about how much activity we're involved in, and who it's with then I'd suggest you help out by enlisting and helping us out on missions. Cause let me tell you, in my very brief, yet awesome position of MoA, we had about 4 members who could participate regularly, but were spread out across the world. It's a little hard sometimes to make it to a lot of those missions. For my final note on this thread I'd just like to say please enlist, help us out. If you're busy and don't enlist the SPSF because you don't think you'd be more of an ass than an asset then fine, stay where you're at; but don't be criticizing about our activity when you haven't done a damned thing, hell I had high school, college classes, and a job to keep up with and I made it to most of the mission, and you want to know why? Because I believe that what we do is important for keeping close ties with our allies, and it actually gets a few people more involved in something more than answering issues and endorsing people. 

Crimson, at least get your facts straight:

(02-05-2015, 12:46 AM)CrimsonTideFan Wrote: Uni, I want to know what the hell you mean by a barrier between TSP and the SPSF! Even before I went AWOL (due to RL situations that came rather suddenly) A member of the General Corps or I myself made damned sure that the cabinet fully knew every op that the SPSF was conducting, you guys were not kept out of the loop, and as far as I'm concerned I see no barrier.

Unibot did not talk about that. Unibot was referencing the tendency of SPSF leaders to brush off any criticism, or calls for reform, as has been evidenced throughout the Great Council.

(02-05-2015, 12:46 AM)CrimsonTideFan Wrote: And as far as the Assembly electing someone to be in the General Corps? It's about the most moronic thing I've ever heard. Reason being is that you've had no problems with the MoA selecting generals before, so why bother with it now? One really big concern that I think must be addressed about having the assembly elect the generals is people who have an agenda that pertains to military gameplay. Say that a CoA was let's say a (idc, pick one) and there was one person who was the most qualified person for the job, but you know what? His views don't fit so nicely with those of several members of the assembly, including the CoA. So what happens next is that they all rant and rave to the point that a lot of people disregard the thread entirely because they really don't want to read through 35 pages of complaints, so in the end that one qualified person doesn't get the job, and the people with an agenda get to control just who gets to lead the SPSF.

Having served as Minister of the Army, you of all people should know that Generals have always required Assembly confirmation. The only thing that Hileville's draft changes is that the Cabinet would make the nomination, instead of the Minister. I am quite surprised at this lack of knowledge on how the structure of our military is selected.

(02-05-2015, 12:46 AM)CrimsonTideFan Wrote: Another issue that I'd like to address, the activity checks, if you are so desperately concerned about how much activity we're involved in, and who it's with then I'd suggest you help out by enlisting and helping us out on missions.

Unibot is Delegate of the Rejected Realms, and even then he recently offered to help with recruitment.

(02-05-2015, 12:46 AM)CrimsonTideFan Wrote: If you're busy and don't enlist the SPSF because you don't think you'd be more of an ass than an asset then fine, stay where you're at; but don't be criticizing about our activity when you haven't done a damned thing

This is exactly what Unibot meant when he talked about the divide between TSP and the SPSF. Just because I or Unibot or anyone else have not participated in the SPSF, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a voice in this discussion. I have served as Delegate, Unibot knows A LOT about military gameplay and recruitment, etc. Everyone has something to contribute, and rather than blow people off, what the SPSF should do is sit down, talk to them and try to work out a solution to the issues that do exist, and which won't go away just by dismissing their presence.

Pardon me Kris, I've forgot a few things about how NS works and TSP's gov't, seeing as how as I've been gone for quite a bit. You wanna talk about issues with the SPSF, fine. Let's talk.

"Just because I or Unibot or anyone else have not participated in the SPSF, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a voice in this discussion. I have served as Delegate, Unibot knows A LOT about military gameplay and recruitment, etc. Everyone has something to contribute, and rather than blow people off, what the SPSF should do is sit down, talk to them and try to work out a solution to the issues that do exist, and which won't go away just by dismissing their presence."

So I take it that you fully support moves to introduce an open bicameral system then Kris?

" Just because I or anyone else have not joined the Forum, doesn't mean we shouldn't have a voice in this Region. Everyone has something to contribute, and rather than blow people off, what the Coalition should do is sit down, talk to them and try to work out a solution to the issues that do exist, and which won't go away just by dismissing their presence."