+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Fudgetopia Hall of Government (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-12.html)
+----- Forum: Assembly of the South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-91.html)
+----- Thread: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act (/thread-7189.html)
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Kris Kringle - 06-12-2019
I think we can all benefit from toning down the rhetoric in this debate. This proposal is, at its core, about our military and foreign policy outlook. That means we are discussing which missions to conduct and how to approach our interactions with other regions in the future. This is not about how we treat our members or who is welcome to become one in the future.
The way I see it, our current nonalignment is the result of our welcoming culture, rather than the other way around. We like to be nice and welcome everyone, to the extent possible, so we hesitate to commit to any specific alignment. If we did vote to become defenders, or even raiders, I want to think that our culture would remain the same. Why should your alignment impact whether you can represent gamesiders? Or serve as an ambassador? Or write for our newspaper? Or draft and debate bills? There is so much more to the South Pacific than its military, and each aspect is an endless source of involvement for every one of us.
If anything, I think our culture and community would be all the more vibrant for it. If we go defender and you're nonaligned, why shouldn't you have a regular column in our newspaper where you hold the Cabinet accountable, so that it doesn't swing all the way to intolerance? If you're a raider and enjoy drafting laws, why shouldn't you have a place in our Assembly? Your personal alignment has nothing to do with how you fare in this region. If you come here in good faith and want to find a place to call home, nobody in this region should have anything negative to say about it.
The way I see it, our current nonalignment is the result of our welcoming culture, rather than the other way around. We like to be nice and welcome everyone, to the extent possible, so we hesitate to commit to any specific alignment. If we did vote to become defenders, or even raiders, I want to think that our culture would remain the same. Why should your alignment impact whether you can represent gamesiders? Or serve as an ambassador? Or write for our newspaper? Or draft and debate bills? There is so much more to the South Pacific than its military, and each aspect is an endless source of involvement for every one of us.
If anything, I think our culture and community would be all the more vibrant for it. If we go defender and you're nonaligned, why shouldn't you have a regular column in our newspaper where you hold the Cabinet accountable, so that it doesn't swing all the way to intolerance? If you're a raider and enjoy drafting laws, why shouldn't you have a place in our Assembly? Your personal alignment has nothing to do with how you fare in this region. If you come here in good faith and want to find a place to call home, nobody in this region should have anything negative to say about it.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Tsunamy - 06-12-2019
Ugh. Again, too long to quote, but in response to Glen:
Glen — the first point wasn't intended to be a scare tactic and apologies if it came off as anything like that. It was colored by the cynicism of NSGP and the ongoing slander you and others have endured.
Second — I want to stress my questions have been in good faith trying to understand the lay of the land and the process here since I've really been tuned out here. Which brings me to this point ...
If we're helping to re-establish a defender-type ideology, great! I'm more than happy to support TSP leading the way on something like that. But, then, let's toss our weight behind it! Let's write up a list of what values we support. What are we "defending"? What are we supporting? Etc. etc. etc.
To me, the framing that there's this nebulous "defender ideology" out there that we're "aligning" ourselves with is what I'm not fond of. It feels like we're positioning ourself as the "also ran" (even though as you've been explaining there's little else out there). And, it makes it that framing more problematic that there *isn't* a defender manifesto that we can point to, so saying we're "defender" is this overly broad, non-descriptive term.
To this end, this is why I like the draft Glen wrote. I'd probably suggest some cosmetic changes to lean more on specific ideals/qualities we want to support, but I think that's a good direction to go in.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Kurnugia - 06-12-2019
(06-12-2019, 08:21 AM)ProfessorHenn Wrote:(06-12-2019, 04:27 AM)Kurnugia Wrote: I have changed my mind and I support this act.
However, I would also like to add that we should run a one membership only for SPSFian. It is only logical to do so. People, in my two years worth of GP exp. are far less committed to the org if they have another one to worry about. What SPSF needs more than anything are committed officers to keep it running. We don't need people that are only halfheartedly with us.
People should want to commit if they want to join SPSF not just be there to have a pretty tag in Libcord.
I understand what you’re coming from with regards to this, but it’s not the best idea to ensure loyalty to the SPSF, which is what you’re trying to accomplish, no? Soldiers and officers both may join other organisations to fulfil their desire for R/D gameplay because the SPSF isn’t doing the best possible job at that.
Plus, enforcing this sort of regulation would be a nightmare on the part of the SPSF leadership and would take away valuable time and energy better spent on preparing operations, training new recruits, and conducting campaigns to increase the overall number of soldiers we have. It may not even be successful, as individuals can change their names used amongst regions rather easily, and so we have spent a lot of time doing little.
It would be better to work on promoting and training the SPSF right now, so that it may eventually begin to take a larger role within R/D gameplay. We are a feeder, it is not the best when our regulars number in the single digits.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Point has been refuted by Roavin to the first point:
GP isnt like any other section of NS. You have one crucial asset: Your WA Membeship. If you cannot use it doing GP stuff that is inline with our outlined policy you arent an asset and you could possibly find yourself in a conflict of interest.
Furthermore, I've lead EPSA, A military with a one membership only policy, to a rather sizeable number (from 2-3 Updaters to 15). Such policy does not influence your competitiveness.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Roavin - 06-12-2019
(06-12-2019, 10:01 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: Excuse me, Mr Prime Minister. I think you're the one being a bit out of line. Nowhere in my post have I "... insult[ed] the motivations of other long-time dedicated South Pacificans". I didn't call anyone out. I didn't smear names. All I said was that if you - who are pushing this resolution - wanted a defender region, to join one, or make your own. I didn't say leave, I said leave TSP alone; two completely different things.
Fair enough, I should have clarified that I didn't think you specifically meant it with any malice (because I didn't think you did), and with your clarification I realized that this wasn't even an inadvertent insult to motivations, I simply misunderstood. Sorry about that :/.
For reference, I was referring mostly to the first two things I had quoted here. And I still disagree that those that want a defender region should start one
(06-12-2019, 10:01 AM)Rebeltopia Wrote: And as for the TRR argument, It seems like I was wrong. TSP doesn't seem to be the most friendly place any more...
How so? Kris made a few really good arguments in his earlier post, and I particularly found this quote from Discord from him very poignant):
Quote:[4:56 PM] Kringle: I mean, I don't think much would or should change, Penguin. Let's say we vote to become defenders. What exactly would change? Would we look at neutrals suspiciously? Would we turn away raiders? What if they just want to draft laws, or help write articles for our newspaper? What if, like Southern Bellz, they are raiders but want a change of air in a more welcoming region?
I think our culture, just on account of being how it is, would stamp out any temptation to be less welcoming.
I hadn't even considered Southern Bellz, but I remembered that we do have a rich history of people of all stripes being part of TSP, including Delegates.
(06-12-2019, 11:33 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: If we're helping to re-establish a defender-type ideology, great! I'm more than happy to support TSP leading the way on something like that. But, then, let's toss our weight behind it! Let's write up a list of what values we support. What are we "defending"? What are we supporting? Etc. etc. etc.
To me, the framing that there's this nebulous "defender ideology" out there that we're "aligning" ourselves with is what I'm not fond of. It feels like we're positioning ourself as the "also ran" (even though as you've been explaining there's little else out there). And, it makes it that framing more problematic that there *isn't* a defender manifesto that we can point to, so saying we're "defender" is this overly broad, non-descriptive term.
Yes!
There is a general subjective feeling of what "defender" is. Active opposition to arbitrary invasion of regions is the defining trait, but there are many frills around the edges that have been defined differently throughout the ages, be it by ADN, FRA, TGW, etc.; there is a real power vacuum there now and TSP could, if we take this step, help re-establish that ideology and be the leading voices for years to come.
(06-12-2019, 11:33 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: To this end, this is why I like the draft Glen wrote. I'd probably suggest some cosmetic changes to lean more on specific ideals/qualities we want to support, but I think that's a good direction to go in.
Agreed.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Witchcraft and Sorcery - 06-12-2019
Yes yes yes yes yes. All of this. It's not about the culture of the region at all; it's about military and FA policy. We're still the same welcoming people we always were. Except now we will have concretely defined values and stances in a world where everything is really nebulous and no one is 100% sure who stands for what. When TSP stands up and says "we stand for democracy, we stand for freedom, we stand for self-determination, we stand for the minorities, the oppressed, the ones who have their rights taken from them unjustly," that's something unique at this moment. We have the chance to fill the void. By our example, we can start a movement.
This changes nothing about who we are as people and who we welcome into the region. Look at TRR. Kyorgia, who by his own admission was two updates away from getting Predator, is delegate there. If we stay the same welcoming people we've always been, not much will change at all culturally. I'm certain of that.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Somyrion - 06-12-2019
Putting this response here rather than in the thread that's supposed to be about the specific text --
(06-12-2019, 08:17 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I don’t think anybody (except I guess Bel?) is advocating George Bush-ing the SPSF and forcibly spreading democracy. That would basically be a weird flavor of imperialism, rather than defending
I agree that just forcibly spreading democracy is tantamount to imperialism, but I do think there are some elements of a specifically pro-democracy military policy that we could use and incorporate into a new "South Pacifican-style defenderism". For example: after carrying out a major liberation, we could have a policy of working with the natives (Solidarity 2.0 anyone?) to make sure the post-raid government is fully functioning and actually democratic, and could extend our raiding allowance not only to fascist/Nazi regions, but also to those marked "Totalitarian" and "Monarchist". Instead of our defending philosophy being "our goal is to protect all native residents against outside invaders", it could be "our goal is to protect and promote legitimate native democratic institutions against anyone seeking to overthrow or counter them".
People keep talking about how TSP can "redefine defenderism" by taking its side. Let's do that, then!
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Imperial Frost Federation - 06-12-2019
(06-12-2019, 09:43 PM)Somyrion Wrote: Putting this response here rather than in the thread that's supposed to be about the specific text --
(06-12-2019, 08:17 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: I don’t think anybody (except I guess Bel?) is advocating George Bush-ing the SPSF and forcibly spreading democracy. That would basically be a weird flavor of imperialism, rather than defending
I agree that just forcibly spreading democracy is tantamount to imperialism, but I do think there are some elements of a specifically pro-democracy military policy that we could use and incorporate into a new "South Pacifican-style defenderism". For example: after carrying out a major liberation, we could have a policy of working with the natives (Solidarity 2.0 anyone?) to make sure the post-raid government is fully functioning and actually democratic, and could extend our raiding allowance not only to fascist/Nazi regions, but also to those marked "Totalitarian" and "Monarchist". Instead of our defending philosophy being "our goal is to protect all native residents against outside invaders", it could be "our goal is to protect and promote legitimate native democratic institutions against anyone seeking to overthrow or counter them".
People keep talking about how TSP can "redefine defenderism" by taking its side. Let's do that, then!
I can get behind this.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Amerion - 06-13-2019
Is it possible to create our own terminology? While I am all for promoting our values wherever possible, I dislike the attachment to the term defenderdom.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Roavin - 06-13-2019
What's wrong with it?
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Amerion - 06-13-2019
(06-13-2019, 06:16 AM)Roavin Wrote: What's wrong with it?
It makes the imperialist in me churn
Edit: Roavinism would be a fine alternate label