+- 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 - Aga - 06-11-2019
(06-11-2019, 03:24 PM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: I agree, I'd like to at least see a vote on the Charter amendment, and probably also Glen's resolution, sooner rather than later. I genuinely hope the arguments we've made in this thread will show that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing this. Especially now that our two closest allies have reaffirmed their commitments.
I think all of the members of the SPSF and ambassadors should receive rights to vote (if they aren't legislators). This is their line of work, after all, and these people collectively have got more experience than the rest of us.
This is just an idea, though, and probably will not materialise.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Witchcraft and Sorcery - 06-11-2019
That would take even more legislation to allow. And most SPSF members are legislators anyway. But this is about more than the SPSF. This is about the direction we want to take in terms of military and FA policy on the whole. What kinds of regions and principles do we want to align ourselves with? What should we stand for? Do we want to stand for something? That is a question better aimed at the Cabinet and most importantly the Assembly.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - SG21 - 06-11-2019
I do think it looks better in the charter tbh
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Aga - 06-11-2019
(06-11-2019, 03:54 PM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: That would take even more legislation to allow. And most SPSF members are legislators anyway. But this is about more than the SPSF. This is about the direction we want to take in terms of military and FA policy on the whole. What kinds of regions and principles do we want to align ourselves with? What should we stand for? Do we want to stand for something? That is a question better aimed at the Cabinet and most importantly the Assembly.
I agree. This isn't just about the SPSF. However, it is also about the direction that we wish to take militaristically. This could affect many alliances, however. TNP probably won't respond kindly, (we've received confirmation that it won;t harm our alliance with TEP, but has anyone received confirmation with TNP) and to be frank, I think that it would cause more harm than good. Instead of stopping regions that are offensive (for example, a Nazi region), we would be giving them more opportunities to flourish.
I shall also pursue giving all ambassadors and SPSF members automatic legislatorship through legislation.
My motion to put this to a vote still stands.
[DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - sandaoguo - 06-11-2019
(06-11-2019, 11:51 AM)Amerion Wrote: If it is the intention of the bill's author to progress regardless of the opposition stated by members then I would much rather this go to a vote sooner than later or we may very well descend to petty arguing. It appears no one is changing their mind anytime soon.
If that’s the thought here, I’d like the opportunity to write up a package based on my resolution and the amendments others have written. It’s just not clear what everyone is considering as “the” amendment. Because the one W&S offered that included not being allowed to raid elsewhere isn’t something anyone else is proposing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Amerion - 06-11-2019
I agree, this thread has become somewhat confusing. I think people would be grateful if the various proposals were split off.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Kris Kringle - 06-11-2019
(06-11-2019, 05:03 PM)Ski Slopes of Agalaesia Wrote: TNP probably won't respond kindly, (we've received confirmation that it won;t harm our alliance with TEP, but has anyone received confirmation with TNP) and to be frank, I think that it would cause more harm than good.
(06-11-2019, 09:40 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Also, I asked McMasterdonia (TNP MoFA) about his thoughts regarding TSP going defender, because it's been brought up that we don't know how allies will respond. This is his official response:
Quote:We recognise that The South Pacific has been functionally speaking a “defender leaning” region for sometime. If TSP formally changes its alignment to defender, we will not change our approach with our oldest ally. Our commitment to our relationship will still be as strong as it was before and our cooperation will remain functionally constant.
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Witchcraft and Sorcery - 06-11-2019
I'm also not married to the membership stuff. The Charter amendment is something I consider far more important. I think splitting stuff off is a good idea. If you want to do a package something in a separate thread that would make this much cleaner.
RE: Alignment Act - SG21 - 06-11-2019
(06-06-2019, 07:39 AM)USoVietnam Wrote: Another issue I would like to point out that there is still no clear definition to defenderism. Raiding a Nazi region will be blocked under this problematic act. If you really like the SPSF to strictly conform to an ideology, just explicitly lays out what it can’t or can do instead of throwing the word “defender” into it.
Another issue is that a raider-friendly administration which is elected by a raider-friendly base will remove the act and slamp in their alternative which makes the thing meaningless.
An ideology is too complex to be codified. A set of laws which clearly specify the actions we should do (who SPSF should raid/defend, what regions we should cooperate with,...) show the ideology better than explicitly codify an ideology which is more or less a kind of buzzwords to vaguely generalize actions. A comparison would be making a country a democracy by throwing in the word democracy instead of laying out the rights and institutions required for it.
If we were blocked from raiding nazi regions then we would conform to be called nazi's
RE: [DEBATING] A1906.01: Alignment Act - Somyrion - 06-11-2019
(06-11-2019, 06:44 AM)Roavin Wrote: What does aligning ourselves as a defender region have to do with how welcoming we are? Consider that our ally TRR is a Defender region currently being run by a former raider Delegate who had served amicably as TRR Officer for quite some time.
But isn't an important part of TRR's setup that its Defender military is distinct and independent from the government?
I'm all for going fully Defender -- as long as it doesn't infringe on Rebel's "welcomingness", which I think is, if anything, more of a longstanding South Pacifican value than anything save democracy. If we can create an atmosphere like TRR's, where there can be a completely defender military and foreign policy all while raiders/former raiders are welcome in the region and in government (as long as they accept that the region probably isn't going raider), that's great. But I don't think it's a given. On the other end of the spectrum, you have somewhere like Balder or XKI -- just as firmly singular in their ideology, but highly unwelcoming to those with differing views. TRR's atmosphere manages to work partly because the RRA's alignment has been defender for so long that it's absolutely entrenched in regional culture, so no matter who's a citizen or officer, the idea that the RRA is defender and TRR is aligned with defenders remains constant. But we don't have that, so we need to be a little more wary.
I'm okay with the idea that, as a Defender region, we'll attract more defenders than we do now. Of course a Defender region will get more already-defender players involved than already-raider/independent players. But I think it goes against our values to create a system that discourages anyone from getting involved. In other words, I don't want to see us go defender in such a way that someone who's interested in joining TSP but happens to like raiding is turned away because we're intolerant of non-defenders. I don't think that would happen in TRR, but it certainly could in Balder or XKI.
Of course, that may not be something that legislation can determine, but rather a cultural piece that we'll have to figure out and monitor after the laws are passed. But it is something I think we need to keep in mind as we go through the various stages of this debate.