(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?
