To that last edit on the Military Code at (3): Fuck that. Just, fuck that. I don't even need to explain myself there. Briefly, I value my independence as an individual, and I will resign on the spot if that is passed (granted, I don't do much, but you get the idea).

Oi! Let’s keep things civil. I vehemently oppose Witchcraft and Sorcery’s proposal, but there’s no need to overreact and start cursing when stating your opposition.

(This post was last modified: 06-10-2019, 11:19 PM by Imperial Frost Federation.)

Reply

(I'm not going to quotes Glen's message I'm responding to because it's too long and not relevant enough.)

That said: Glen, unless there's something I'm missing, if this goes through as is, all this is going to do is validate every accusation against you, Unibot and (while I'm less familiar with the latest discussions) Roavin that this was a 5-year-long plot to turn the region defender. Half of the region non-defender regions didn't trust us as "independent" is because you were leading our FA. None of that is against this proposal (or in support of those criticisms) per se, but the idea that we're going to name ourselves defender, the skies will open up and all will be good seems ... I'll say ... naive.

Just to restate my general opposition (which goes to my last question of where the defender realm stands), my problem is subsuming TSP to an outside ideology and would sooner we develop values and lead rather than follow. That said, I could possibly get behind something of Glen's proposal, although, I would still prefer we get behind specific goals like "spreading democracy" rather than "defender principles."

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Bunch of stuff to reply to.

The reality is that there’s nothing holding back the Cabinet taking the kinds of actions Glen and Roavin are talking about right now. This isn’t about what TSP can or can’t do today; it’s about what TSP can and can’t do in two years time, when Glen and Roavin might not still be in cabinet. It’s about taking options away from future players.

If you want a defender region, go find or build one. Leave TSP alone.I couldnt care less about your NSGP arguments, all your friends wont respect us if we dont go defender, or that the whole world will implode... This is our little slice of the NS world... Leave it be.

I joined NS in April 2016, and was almost immediately drawn to defending, leading to me starting to do so in June 2016. Rather than join an outright defender region, I did so under the mantle of SPSF, my home military, with then-MoMA Imki. I quickly made a name for myself, and successfully ran to be MoMA in October 2016 on a mostly-defender platform. I was then offered to run the Grey Wardens, the most high-profile Defender region of the time. I finished my term as MoMA, handing off to Viet (who I had recruited and trained), and began to run TGW. I was the face of Defenderdom across all of NationStates, and was at least in part responsible for Defenderdom's greatest victories in 2017.

On February 22, 2018, I stepped down as First Warden of TGW, and in fact left it entirely. I wanted to concentrate my (lessening) time on my beloved home region, TSP.

I had always made it a point that TSP was not a defender region, but rather an unaligned region (even if defender-leaning in spirit for as long as I had known it). I myself stopped identifying as a defender and just as defender-leaning, and did some operations with SPSF that I would have never considered during my TGW tenure. This wasn't because I felt any less "defender", but just because the region had (and is) more important to me than any personal preference.

Saying that I'm pro-Defender now in order enshrine my personal preference is, frankly, insulting, because I have always put the region above my preference (or I would have argued for outright defender TSP for the past 3 years). Saying I should just join some defender UCR instead is insulting as well, because I've been there, I've done that, I have the awards and accolades to prove it, and I literally threw it all away and chose TSP because it's my home.

Going defender a year ago would have been a bad idea, as I argued then and I argue now. Going defender now is a great idea, for all of the reasons mentioned in this thread. And no matter what you otherwise think of my record, you'd have to be deliberately gaslighting to argue any malice in what I advocate for TSP.

To that last edit on the Military Code at (3): Fuck that. Just, fuck that. I don't even need to explain myself there. Briefly, I value my independence as an individual, and I will resign on the spot if that is passed (granted, I don't do much, but you get the idea).

What's wrong with the change? Quite a few militaries (our allies in NPA, for example) have an outright ban on participating in other militaries. The current policy is that it's allowed if permission was granted by the General Corps, and if you were in TBH, the General Corps at this time wouldn't assent anyway because we are at odds so much with TBH. All W&S' proposal changes is to codify this a bit more.

That being said, I don't think the change to that part in the Military Code is necessary for the same reason, plus I'd prefer to keep the conflict language in there.

Im going to say its a hard no from me. TSP has always been a welcoming community. Even if someone has wronged us, any ban has rarely been permanent. We've welcomed the likes of Cormac - even after we knew his MO from multiple other regions - into our community, and we welcomed Unibot back on multiple occasions. Even people like Milograd have been welcome to return in some capacity. We're an open community, and to put a hard R or D into law would go against the very foundation of The South Pacific. We've always prided ourselves as welcoming everyone, and I won't stand to see TSP lose that particular value.

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.

Just to restate my general opposition (which goes to my last question of where the defender realm stands), my problem is subsuming TSP to an outside ideology and would sooner we develop values and lead rather than follow. That said, I could possibly get behind something of Glen's proposal, although, I would still prefer we get behind specific goals like "spreading democracy" rather than "defender principles."

"Defender" isn't some outside ideology, decided upon by some defender cabal. Such a cabal doesn't exist (and I'd be the one to know). Furthermore, there isn't even one singular defender ideology that could come from outside, but rather it's an idea, one which naturally fits TSP in part because of our long-standing commitment to democracy. Not just that, it's an idea that has a real power vacuum right now. If we embrace this, we are the ones to set the course of it for years to come. Except this time it's not some dinky UCR running strong for 2 years before dropping off, like TGW, but there's the full political and military force of a great democratic feeder behind it.

Reply

I'll be honest, I was lukewarm on the MC amendment too even when I was writing it. The General Corps being able to approve/deny other military memberships seems to cover that. Felt cute when I wrote it, might delete later.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019, 07:13 AM by Witchcraft and Sorcery.)

Reply

I motion Witchcraft and Sorcery's first proposal for a vote. The second one is unfinished, and I would like to give it some more time.

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

Which first proposal? I don't think it has met the time limit. There's gotta be five days of debate from a proposal for it to be voted on, since it's a charter amendment.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply

That said: Glen, unless there's something I'm missing, if this goes through as is, all this is going to do is validate every accusation against you, Unibot and (while I'm less familiar with the latest discussions) Roavin that this was a 5-year-long plot to turn the region defender. Half of the region non-defender regions didn't trust us as "independent" is because you were leading our FA. None of that is against this proposal (or in support of those criticisms) per se, but the idea that we're going to name ourselves defender, the skies will open up and all will be good seems ... I'll say ... naive.

Two points here. The first is that, well... you're wrong about the response in GP. This debate is public and it's happening before the Gameplay community. They've been reading this thread and responding to it. The responses haven't been "Glen, Unibot, and Roavin are pulling the trigger on a 5-year plot to subvert TSP." The responses have actually been excitement that we're trying to do something instead of remaining stagnant and contributing to the decline of R/D gameplay.

The second point is that is actually kind of shameful to even bring that up. Why would you? Why are you reviving these kinds of scare tactics that this region has fought against for the last 5 years? You say it's nothing against or in support of this proposal, but that is also a bit naive on your part. I don't particularly care what Wolf says about me, and so far he's been the only one to get negative at all in Gameplay. Contrary to what you're assuming, if we were to hold a vote in GP right now, TSP going defender would probably win by a healthy margin. So this scenario you're thinking is likely to happen -- GP declaring TSP has been subverted -- isn't formulating already, and is unlikely to do so in the event we do vote in favor of going defender.

And in the unlikely event that it does... so what? The rest of us have long gotten over that, recognizing it for the bad faith propaganda that it was. The regions and Gameplayers who created that propaganda years ago are already our opponents because being defender-leaning is already too much in their books. Why are we defining what TSP is allowed to do based on what regions who already don't like us may or may not say in response? That debate ended years ago.

Just to restate my general opposition (which goes to my last question of where the defender realm stands), my problem is subsuming TSP to an outside ideology and would sooner we develop values and lead rather than follow. That said, I could possibly get behind something of Glen's proposal, although, I would still prefer we get behind specific goals like "spreading democracy" rather than "defender principles."

Due respect Tsu, and I hesitate to say this because I would ultimately like your support here. But there's an issue with your premise that keeps getting repeated. The preference/position you advocate for was an outside ideology when it was adopted and enforced in the first place. Independence wasn't thought up by TSPers. (The first military we had was actually defender!) It was imported and argued for by players who belonged to other regions that adopted it. In the history of TSP, those who wanted to enforce enforce TSP being independent (and thus being non- or anti-defender) did it with the help of foreign interests... especially when plans were thought up to purge pro-defenders from the region.

Quite a few of our loudest pro-Independent Cabinet members and candidates have been foreigners (Raven, Wolf) or ended up importing foreigners to enforce their ideological preferences via coup (Hileville, Imki), or both (Sopo). In the grand history of this debate, all the way back to 2013, it's not the pro-defenders who have held office in TSP who tried subsuming us to an "outside ideology." It's been the anti-defenders, and they actually did promote and get TSP to adopt an outside ideology.

Saying that TSP going defender would be "being subsumed by an outside ideology" means you're saying that those of us arguing for it are doing so on behalf of that "outside ideology" aka foreign interests, even if you don't realize that's the point you're making or aren't intending to make it. That's just not acceptable to say. I don't believe that you're arguing on behalf of Europeia when you say you want us to be independent. I think you're being ahistorical in your views, but I don't doubt that your views are coming from you and not from some outside region/group. So I don't understand why, in 2019, we're still saying things like going defender is "subsuming TSP to an outside ideology."

(Edit: ) To that end, it doesn't even make sense to call defending an "outside ideology," because there isn't a singular "defenderist ideology" in the game. The very first defenders in NS behaved a lot like imperialists. Back when the FRA did defending, it followed different beliefs and policies than, say, 10000 Islands. The United Defenders League was created because of disagreements with the FRA's approach to defending. And The Grey Wardens explicitly rejected the views the UDL had about defending. There's never been a "Defenderist Manifesto" like there was a literal "Independent Manifesto" that regions signed on to. Defending is defined simply as blocking raids and liberating occupations. Defender groups have always had different reasons for doing that. TSP's reasons are rooted in our democratic values, and that's not an outside ideology.

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019, 10:05 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

Note: "Independence" in this context isn't the dictionary definition of "Independence", it's an emergent domain-specific term applying to the ideology of Europeia, Balder, etc.; kinda like how "democrat" in the US is an energent domain-specific for members of the Democratic Party rather than the literal dictionary definition of "somebody that likes/advocates for democracy".

Reply

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:

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.

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019, 09:40 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

As for motioning things to vote, I don't think we're at that point yet. We should probably hold off until after elections on actually holding a vote on a set of amendments/resolutions. We're still obviously in the middle of a debate here.

Reply