Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 06-12-2019, 01:08 AM

My fellow Legislators,

as you consider the merits of all of this, consider the two sides that have been arguing here, and the rhetorical devices being deployed by each.

Specifically, there are quite a few claims made by the anti-defender side that the pro-defender side has argued against, while the anti-defender side has not provided any substantive reasoning for their claims.

The claim that declaring as Defender will hurt our alliances was thoroughly debunked, including by statements from our allies.
The claim that putting this into our laws would be undemocratic was debunked, because it would not affect our democratic processes, and the vote thresholds required to enact this are the same required to do the opposite.
The claim that it restricts our operational freedoms is much overblown; the only things it restricts are arbitrary raids which SPSF almost never does anyway (the last tag run was in early April, the last occupation was during Somy's last MoMA-term nearly a year ago!)
The claim that it makes us subservient to some outside interest was debunked. There is no outside defender interest group defining it; rather it would be TSP being the primary drivers of it interregionally for years to come.
The claim that this is counter to our interests makes no sense. We have been heavily defender-leaning for a long time, and the ideology fits naturally with our long-held traditions of liberal democracy and regional sovereignty.
The claim that this doesn't let us continue bashing Nazis is thoroughly false.
The claim that this will somehow hurt TSP interregionally is false. Quite the contrary, the global GP community is very, very supportive of this move, as any member of the NSGP server can confirm.
The claim that this will alienate people is overblown. Some people may be put off by it, but some others will be attracted, and if you want the perfect counter-argument, consider that a nominal raider currently runs our great Defender-aligned ally, The Rejected Realms.
The claim that this will restrict how many allies we have is false. Consider how The Rejected Realms, our Defender ally, actually has an alliance with Osiris, and the reason they were able to do it was because each region was firmly declared in its stance and therefore such an alliance was possible without either side shifting or being perceived to shift in their stance in the world.

And after all that, consider that Belschaft (and to a lesser extent Rebeltopia) thought it fitting to insult the motivations of other long-time dedicated South Pacificans, and Belschaft even literally engaged in gaslighting tactics to argue against this move. The Pro-Defender side of the argument did none of these things.

One side is trying to argue in good faith, the other is trying to argue using rhetorical tactics. Which side do you want to be on?

(EDIT: Fixed some of my derpy early-morning grammar)

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2019, 05:20 AM by Roavin.)

**USoVietnam** · 06-12-2019, 03:33 AM

I propose that the original poster (@Omega) should rename this thread to "Should we become a defender region" or similar and start a new thread which directly debates the related amendments and laws.

Chief Supervising Armchair

**Beepee** · 06-12-2019, 03:43 AM

Can I ask a question (sorry if it's already been discussed elsewhere I've read the thread twice and im getting my head round it, but I can't see this question/answer) why is this law necessary?

Check my links.....

SWAN 4 Life
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1086117

Kurnugia · 06-12-2019, 04:27 AM

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.

***Roavin*** · 06-12-2019, 05:21 AM

(06-12-2019, 03:43 AM)Beepee Wrote: Can I ask a question (sorry if it's already been discussed elsewhere I've read the thread twice and im getting my head round it, but I can't see this question/answer) why is this law necessary?

See here.

**Amerion** · 06-12-2019, 05:23 AM

To my understanding, Glen is preparing an omnibus package — is this separate from what W&S is presenting?

**Belschaft** · 06-12-2019, 05:43 AM

I think you've crossed a line by accusing me of "gaslighting" people Roavin, but if that's how you want to play this then fine.

I don't care enough to put up with that shit. I'm out.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

ProfessorHenn · 06-12-2019, 08:21 AM

(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

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

***Roavin*** · 06-12-2019, 09:11 AM

(06-12-2019, 08:21 AM)ProfessorHenn Wrote: 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.

Not really. Usually, if somebody's double dipping, we'll notice anyway.

**Rebeltopia** · 06-12-2019, 10:01 AM

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.

(06-10-2019, 07:30 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: 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.

If you want a defender region, go find or build one. Leave TSP alone.I couldn't care less about your NSGP arguments, all your friends wont respect us if we don't go defender, or that the whole world will implode... This is our little slice of the NS world... Leave it be.

I'm not arguing against TSP picking an ideology, as I know centrism is and of itself an ideology. I'd argue just as hard if you were looking to turn The South Pacific into a raider region.
And as for the TRR argument, It seems like I was wrong. TSP doesn't seem to be the most friendly place any more...

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

(This post was last modified: 06-12-2019, 10:02 AM by Rebeltopia.)