+- 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)
+------ Forum: Private Halls of the Assembly (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-95.html)
+------ Thread: SPSF Review - May (/thread-2341.html)
SPSF Review - May - Kris Kringle - 05-07-2015
Keeping in mind the fact that the "troop opinions are more important" position is one of the reasons why we are having these reviews, I think it is time for our military leadership to understand that public opinion at this time is just as valuable as the opinion of members.
I have no intention of ever joining the Special Forces. I like having endorsements and I prefer to serve this region through culture and integration, which also give me a better experience and satisfaction. However, I also am a citizen of this region and care about what image our military projects. If it is an image of inactivity, prowess, clumsiness, or skill, then I want to know and I want the leadership to fully hear what I have to say. Instead of starting the already failed argument of whose opinion is more valuable, I suggest we focus on who can bring what to the table.
Citizens who are not members have the advantage of outside perspective. They see how the military is perceived, and you can use that to your advantage. I can tell you right now that your average South Pacifican will not know anything about the recent surge in activity. So take note of that, try to reach out and slowly let people know that the military is there and it goes get things done.
Yes, I well know that you meant a different thing when you posted that troop opinions are more important, but that was way too similar to positions that the military leadership has already held, and which led to it being intransigent about reform and public accountability. Everyone always says to give the military one more chance. Great, I am all for giving in one more chance, but only if they actually get the job done this time, rather than telling people they can't question the military. I am not saying you have explicitly done that, since you obviously are answering questions. My point is that that has been the attitude in the past, so having this review is not about the Assembly intruding into military affairs, it's about making sure our military leaders have to answer for how they do their job. If they do a good one then all the better, but it can only work if both the Generals and the Assembly approach this in good faith.
SPSF Review - May - sandaoguo - 05-07-2015
"Consulting the Assembly on controversial missions like an annexation" is not the functional equivalent of "consulting the Assembly on every mission."
I am concerned with the attitude that the SPSF is a special part of the region that non-members shouldn't talk about. The Assembly created the SPSF and it can limit it, free it, or destroy it entirely. We have a civilian controlled military, but Wolf's attitude is more appropriate for an independent military that isn't accountable to anyone. This isn't Lone Wolves United. The military is subordinate to the region, not the other way around.
That's one point we need to include in this review, because it is an issue that keeps coming up over and over again.
SPSF Review - May - ProfessorHenn - 05-07-2015
One question I'd like to ask the Assembly as a whole,
Can we keep all the tips and ideas for the SPSF in an easily accessible, single post?
I'll have your missions by the end of today.
Jasper Henn
RE: SPSF Review - May - sandaoguo - 05-07-2015
(05-07-2015, 08:10 AM)Wolf Wrote: While I will always respect and obey the Law of The South Pacific, I will always put the opinion of my troops first, as they are the ones who are most effected by any changes to policy.
The Delegate has to answer for any screw ups, in the eyes of the rest of the game. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has to repair relations that a botched military operation might damage. And, of course, the Assembly bears ultimate responsibility, as it elects and can recall any public official.
Something that's missing from this kind of thinking is that the SPSF affects those who aren't members, too. That's why I care about what it does-- it impacts my job. Kris has been Delegate, which is why he cares. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I do not get to create a firewall around the ministry and do whatever I want, with only my deputies' opinions mattering. The same thing applies to the Minister of the Army, his or her Generals, and the Ministry's troops.
A lot of the antagonism stems from this fairly recent desire for the military to be off limits and the Minister of the Army's own personal fiefdom. This isn't how it used to operate. Ideally, the MoA and the MoFA should be in regular talks about how military missions affect foreign affairs, and vice-versa. That can't happen if we're operating under this idea that the SPSF isn't subordinate to any other arm of the region, as if it's an independent force just loosely associated with the Coalition.
So there's one concrete thing that the Ministry can do-- be in regular contact with the MoFA, especially on missions that implicate our allies (either by working with or against them, or working with or against their enemies).
Having a mission log is also a good idea. It could be as simple as a stickied post in the MoA forum with a table of missions, who participated, what region was targeted, what kind of mission it was, if it succeeded, etc.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Wolf - 05-07-2015
(05-07-2015, 01:06 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: The Delegate has to answer for any screw ups, in the eyes of the rest of the game. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has to repair relations that a botched military operation might damage. And, of course, the Assembly bears ultimate responsibility, as it elects and can recall any public official.
Something that's missing from this kind of thinking is that the SPSF affects those who aren't members, too. That's why I care about what it does-- it impacts my job. Kris has been Delegate, which is why he cares. As Minister of Foreign Affairs, I do not get to create a firewall around the ministry and do whatever I want, with only my deputies' opinions mattering. The same thing applies to the Minister of the Army, his or her Generals, and the Ministry's troops.
A lot of the antagonism stems from this fairly recent desire for the military to be off limits and the Minister of the Army's own personal fiefdom. This isn't how it used to operate. Ideally, the MoA and the MoFA should be in regular talks about how military missions affect foreign affairs, and vice-versa. That can't happen if we're operating under this idea that the SPSF isn't subordinate to any other arm of the region, as if it's an independent force just loosely associated with the Coalition.
I'm not entirely sure what Glen's specific complaint is. He seems to be suggesting that the MoA, in general, is antagonistic to TSP's Foreign Affairs while not listing any specific example.
If I'm reading this right, Glen's complaint seems to center around ideology rather than a specific gripe. I'm not certain of how he would like that addressed. His suggestions on the SPSF simply seems to be that the MoA and the MoFA need to communicate better and is then very vague in regards to how that might be best accomplished or to what ends would be achieved.
(05-07-2015, 01:06 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Having a mission log is also a good idea. It could be as simple as a stickied post in the MoA forum with a table of missions, who participated, what region was targeted, what kind of mission it was, if it succeeded, etc.
The Ministry of the Army is already communicating to the region our activities, but perhaps a bit more detail is needed. All the same, however, from a Foreign Affairs perspective, I don't see how such a detailed breakdown is beneficial to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Of what use is a troop participation roster to the MoFA?
SPSF Review - May - sandaoguo - 05-07-2015
I'm saying there's no communication at all. The attitude that the SPSF is a special thing deserving of complete deference and immune to criticism makes communication that more unlikely. In an ideal world, foreign affairs and military affairs would be coordinated. How can that happen if the opinions of non-troops are degraded?
Communicating with the MoFA is incredibly easy. Have a mission that implicates an ally? Message me before you do it, so I can give my opinion on how it might impact us. Been working with a group a lot, and it's been mutually beneficial? Message me and I'll see how they can fit in our broad long term strategy. You ran for MoFA on an agenda centered around military gameplay, so you can just think of things you would have liked to be told as MoFA.
I'm always connected to IRC, and I get email notifications of PMs.
The mission log is a general idea to make things better.
RE: SPSF Review - May - Wolf - 05-07-2015
(05-07-2015, 03:40 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I'm saying there's no communication at all. The attitude that the SPSF is a special thing deserving of complete deference and immune to criticism makes communication that more unlikely. In an ideal world, foreign affairs and military affairs would be coordinated. How can that happen if the opinions of non-troops are degraded?
No communication at all?
Since taking office, Henn has posted about SPSF's involvement in Lazarus, the Warzone Sandbox Annexation, the addition, removal, or resignation of every SPSF troopers, his nomination of two candidates for General Corps, and let's not forget this very review. Our troops have started open topics concerning increasing military numbers and the organization of missions. We've done our fair share of communicating. Room for improvement? Of course, there is always room for improvement, nothing is perfect, after all. However, "no communication at all"? Flat out lie.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, since Glen has taken office, has publicly communicated nothing. Not a single post has been made in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs forums since Glen has been elected. For a person who is obsessed with the idea that the Ministry of the Army needs to post detailed accounts of everything we do and is critical about activity levels within the SPSF, I find it ironic that Glen runs perhaps the most inactive and mute Ministry out of the three we have.
Perhaps we should do a MoFA review next?
SPSF Review - May - sandaoguo - 05-07-2015
No communication between MoFA and SPSF. Don't twist my words Wolf.
There hasn't been communication for the past several terms. Granted, there's been little need due to low activity. The point of these reviews is to find ways to make things better, though, and increased coordination between MoFA and the SPSF is one way to do that. The most obvious starting point is a line of regular communication. That doesn't mean me reading about missions after the fact. It means talking about what kinds of missions can help or harm, utilizing our alliances fully through coordinated missions, etc.
What I'm saying should not be that controversial. I'm doing my part in asking for increased communication-- something that hasn't been done all that much, either. Why make a rather straightforward suggestion into a damn pissing match?
No really. The first question I asked, you responded by threatening the Admins with making a huge fuss over nothing. Now you're attacking MoFA because I'm suggesting we talk and coordinate more? Come on,
RE: SPSF Review - May - Wolf - 05-07-2015
(05-07-2015, 04:20 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: It means talking about what kinds of missions can help or harm, utilizing our alliances fully through coordinated missions, etc.
Well hell, we can do that right now.
So what does the Minister suggest? What sort of missions does he feel the SPSF should be conducting? What sort of allies does he feel we should be focusing on working with?
RE: SPSF Review - May - Kris Kringle - 05-07-2015
*sighs*
Seriously? Is this how our General is going to respond to every review?
Yes, before someone says it, he has been met with hostility by some. But now he is speaking on behalf of the Special Forces, not of himself, and that carries certain responsibility. If the Minister of Foreign Affairs tells him that it would be in the interests of foreign policy to have mutual communication, then it is in the interests of foreign policy to have it, instead of being snarky and turning this whole review into a bad faith argument.
If that's the case, I'd rather hear only from Henn from now on, since he has been more open and reasonable throughout the course of this review. His posts have shown a certain willingness to engage in constructive discussion. I suggest we all do the same, and focus on concrete suggestions on how to improve the Special Forces, so he can do his job.