Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 05:04 PM

I would contest that. Resources are by no means finite, and the fact that we might have a handful of people involved regularly in update or support operations does not in any "waste" time or resources that could be invested in a militia willing to deploy to defend allies or in certain exceptional circumstances. Vice-versa, the existence of a militia does not prevent the more active people from being involved in regular military GP. The two are entirely complimentary.

Our armed forces need root and branch reform, but that is achieved by electing a MoA with the time, experience and right ideas. Abolition solves nothing.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-23-2015, 05:09 PM

I'll be honest. I sincerely believe that this region is better off not getting involved in military gameplay. If abolishing the Special Forces is not an option, then the Civil Guard alternative is my preferred option. If it were up to me, I would focus all those resources to regional culture and integration, which are much more important than whatever petty operation we might engage in, without any actual benefit for the region.

I am tired of all the arguments about how we can have an active military, and how someone has the solution to all our problems. We have been there, we have done that, and our military is as much of a failure as it always is. I won't be convinced that doing antifa missions or having two people helping others' raids or liberations is having a successful army. I have no interest in how we help others' missions, I am interested in having an active and engaging military for our residents. That has not worked, and it is time to deal with it.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015, 05:09 PM by sandaoguo.)

Hobbes · 01-23-2015, 05:14 PM

(01-23-2015, 05:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I would contest that. Resources are by no means finite, and the fact that we might have a handful of people involved regularly in update or support operations does not in any "waste" time or resources that could be invested in a militia willing to deploy to defend allies or in certain exceptional circumstances. Vice-versa, the existence of a militia does not prevent the more active people from being involved in regular military GP. The two are entirely complimentary.

Our armed forces need root and branch reform, but that is achieved by electing a MoA with the time, experience and right ideas. Abolition solves nothing.

I can't believe I am agreeing with Bels, but it's happening right here :surprised:

[Image: i-have-no-idea-what-im-doing-dog-gif.gif]

southern bellz · 01-23-2015, 05:18 PM

Our military has not always been a failure. I know my term as MoA was awhile ago, but I felt it was successful.

Even when it was successful, the loudest critics were not happy.

And it was hardly valueless. Arbiter, QD, and crimsion tide fan all wound up getting more involved in the region after joining the army.

Its good NS gameplay experience, and has resulted in quality contributions to the region. If an institution can do that while building closer relations with allies, and having TSP setting gameplay records, I consider that a success.

It's obvious something is wrong currently, but to say it's only been a burden on the region is revisionist history that's not true.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 05:24 PM

Are you actually arguing that we should abolish a form of activity to increase regional activity Kris? People interested in military GP are not going to suddenly become dedicated to culture if we scrap the army; they'll simply go elsewhere, and we'll lose activity and maybe citizens.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Unibot~~ · 01-23-2015, 05:25 PM

(01-23-2015, 05:04 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I would contest that. Resources are by no means finite, and the fact that we might have a handful of people involved regularly in update or support operations does not in any "waste" time or resources that could be invested in a militia willing to deploy to defend allies or in certain exceptional circumstances. Vice-versa, the existence of a militia does not prevent the more active people from being involved in regular military GP. The two are entirely complimentary.

Our armed forces need root and branch reform, but that is achieved by electing a MoA with the time, experience and right ideas. Abolition solves nothing.

You mean, you? Save the campaigning for election period.

Resources are finite and continuing an SPSF would develop into mission-creep -- the SPSF trying to strangle the Civil Guard for more resources. The existence of a militia does not prevent the more active people from being involved in a regular military GP, but a regular military GP does prevent the less active people from being involved in a militia and the same factors will still exist which have deterred our more active people from joining a regular GP military...

1. The army is still extremely controversial.
2. The army will still alienate members.
3. The army will continue to ignore requests for reform - especially if its leader is Belschaft.
4. The army will not be able to provide as much of an immersive military experience as the armies on either side of the R/D spectrum. Besides patriotism alone, there's no good reason why you should join the SPSF over TBH or the FRA, UDL or something.

I think Kringalia has got the right idea and I agree with him.

And I think Belschaft is being completely disingenuous. Nobody has stayed in TSP solely because of our army - our own damn Generals have a history of disappearing from TSP unannounced!

(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015, 05:32 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-23-2015, 05:30 PM

(01-23-2015, 05:24 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Are you actually arguing that we should abolish a form of activity to increase regional activity Kris? People interested in military GP are not going to suddenly become dedicated to culture if we scrap the army; they'll simply go elsewhere, and we'll lose activity and maybe citizens.

Of course not. I am arguing that we should abolish or drastically reform an institution that does not provide activity, to refocus our resources and policies to more effective and proven forms of activity. For your argument to actually make sense, Bel, there would have to be a military with people participating in it. There isn't.

Let's do something. Go check the Fellowship Programme thread. See how many people have signed up for the SPSF, and tell if all those people are actually participating, or if they are active at all. Unlike the SPSF, focusing on regional culture and integration does increase activity, and I'm not ashamed of saying that.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 05:36 PM

Your interest here is clear Unibot; to extinguish an independent (small I) military that supports operations by TSP allies that you are opposed to. The blatant opportunism and conflict of interest - trying to take troops who oppose UDL and FRA off the field of battle - is shameful.

I have made clear repeatedly that serious reform is needed. That you can even suggest that I would try to prevent it, having nailed myself to the idea, is simply ridiculous.

A civil guard involves putting together TG lists and keeping in regular contact. There is no overlap between the SPSF and a regional militia. Neither hurts the other.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 01-23-2015, 05:38 PM

(01-23-2015, 05:30 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:
(01-23-2015, 05:24 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Are you actually arguing that we should abolish a form of activity to increase regional activity Kris? People interested in military GP are not going to suddenly become dedicated to culture if we scrap the army; they'll simply go elsewhere, and we'll lose activity and maybe citizens.

Of course not. I am arguing that we should abolish or drastically reform an institution that does not provide activity, to refocus our resources and policies to more effective and proven forms of activity. For your argument to actually make sense, Bel, there would have to be a military with people participating in it. There isn't.

Let's do something. Go check the Fellowship Programme thread. See how many people have signed up for the SPSF, and tell if all those people are actually participating, or if they are active at all. Unlike the SPSF, focusing on regional culture and integration does increase activity, and I'm not ashamed of saying that.

And since when was this a zero-sum issue? Why does the army have to die for you to be able to do more in MoRA?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Kris Kringle*** · 01-23-2015, 05:38 PM

Bel, that's ridiculous.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System