| Demilitarization |
The only real political strife that I think we'd be avoiding by disbanding the military is to stop subjecting the people who actually try to run a military according to our regional ideals (independent in the sense we both raid and defend) to Unibots rants. He has accused me of being a witch hunter for taking actions that were very similar to the Anne Frank operation, only because it involved raiding. And he did it to CTF in his first ever operation as MoA, regardless of him being a JR cabinet member.
Let's not over state the internal problems here. I am not buying the fact that this causes more damage to the region than good. We argue over almost everything, even when people agree on the issue, we argue on the best way to get it done. Putting our heads in the sand is dangerous, and advocate that if people don't like it, then leave for another region is even more dangerous. He can play the victim card all he wants in this thread about being ignored, but I am tired of this and I am not the only one. We have already debated the idea of 'going defender' and we heard out the arguments, and now it is painfully obvious that now that TSP will not go defender, he wants the army gone. He will never be happy unless we explicitly agree to his world view, and at that point we might as well kick me out of the region and join the FRA. Because those are the actions he praised Lazarus for. If anything, this isn't removing ourselves from R/D, its playing into the hands of people who do not want us to successfully operate as a region who can do anything it wants.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Yeah, of course we can stop the political fights surrounding the SPSF's non-alignment if we forcibly gag anybody who doesn't like SPSF's non-alignment. That doesn't erase the existence of the problems that non-alignment causes in our domestic and foreign affairs, regardless of how active or inactive the military actually is any particular month.
SB and Raven, you are both literally saying that these problems will go away if we just stop talking about it. But you're saying that I'm putting my head in the sand by advocating demilitarization?
I opposed your nazi raids, SB, not because I particularly care what happens to nazi regions, but because the War on Nazis was -not working-. Something I continued to emphasize to you, SB and something you continued to ignore flippantly - out of sheer stubbornness. If this was my "defenderism" talking, I am proud to say it was very much talking the truth.
(01-26-2015, 05:49 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Also, I'm not misconstruing the intentions of anybody. Henn and Darkstrait both said, in their own words, that they will do all these things once they're elected. I don't blame them. This is a game and people want to move up and ahead in it. So don't take having 3 candidates for MoA as evidence that TSP is actually really invested in military gameplay. We aren't. Most of the political leaders here actively show their distaste for it and complain every time the region starts debating anything to do with military gameplay. We haven't chosen a side because 90% of the people here want the least "controversial" thing just so we'll all shut up about military gameplay, not because they've bought into Independence or duality or whatever you want to call it. This might be the most jaded view of service I've read with regard to people serving the region. Second, it's not that people want the "least controversial" thing, it's that we've had the debate. And had the debate. And had the debate. And some side seems to keep pushing it. Quote:Every single diplomatic crisis that has occurred in the past year has been due to the perception that either myself or Unibot, or both of us, were conducting a hostile defender takeover of TSP, and corrupting political leaders like Kris along the way. Our fights with imperialists and Independents like the UAIF and Europeia are rooted in all of that. We cannot be defender, nor raider, nor imperialist, nor any other military gameplay alignments without a military. In reality, we have an incredibly small military that is inactive more than it is active, but that doesn't matter when "The Game" is being played at a higher level. If we didn't have any military at all, if we actively demilitarized, there would be no question as to what our military alignment would be. We wouldn't have one, period. There would be no reason to think we're going defender, or that we're on the cusp of an imperialist takeover. So ... the solution to others having the perception that you and Unibot are taking the region "defender" is to neuter the region's military and make impossible to raid? (01-26-2015, 06:26 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Yeah, of course we can stop the political fights surrounding the SPSF's non-alignment if we forcibly gag anybody who doesn't like SPSF's non-alignment. That doesn't erase the existence of the problems that non-alignment causes in our domestic and foreign affairs, regardless of how active or inactive the military actually is any particular month. There's a limited number of people who don't like the "non-alignment" and no one is "gagging" them. Moreover, demilitarization doesn't solve the problem of non-alignment. It would still be there.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
(01-26-2015, 06:44 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Second, it's not that people want the "least controversial" thing, it's that we've had the debate. And had the debate. And had the debate. And some side seems to keep pushing it. No, we've never really had that debate, Tsu. We've had people advocate defenderism, and then we've had people (including you!) groan and moan about how you can't believe we're having this debate. You are one of those people who has shown that they would really rather not deal with military gameplay at all! (01-26-2015, 06:44 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: So ... the solution to others having the perception that you and Unibot are taking the region "defender" is to neuter the region's military and make impossible to raid? That perception specifically isn't "the problem." All issues like that are part a tug-o-war that we voluntarily place ourselves in the center of when we don't choose to be raider, defender, imperialist, etc. Demilitarization, taking ourselves out of the R/D game completely, is one solution, yes. The other is to finally choose a side, but that is a solution that TSP refuses to see as an option. (01-26-2015, 06:44 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: There's a limited number of people who don't like the "non-alignment" and no one is "gagging" them. Moreover, demilitarization doesn't solve the problem of non-alignment. It would still be there. Actively demilitarizing the region would certainly solve the problem of non-alignment. We would have no military that could be aligned.
(01-26-2015, 06:26 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: Yeah, of course we can stop the political fights surrounding the SPSF's non-alignment if we forcibly gag anybody who doesn't like SPSF's non-alignment. That doesn't erase the existence of the problems that non-alignment causes in our domestic and foreign affairs, regardless of how active or inactive the military actually is any particular month. The problems I think that exists with the SPSF are not address through demilitarization. My experience as MoA, along with Ravens account as MoFA seem to be that people mostly understand our position and are happy to work with us. That hardly sounds like a crisis. If anything I think your plan would actually cause an FA crisis.I think it would be an embarrassment to the region to have to go to allies and redraft treaties because of the reasons you presented. I think it would be incredibly sad if The North Pacific got couped and all we had was a civil guard who was legally bound to not leave the region, and our best help was to wish them luck. It would be heartbreaking to lose someone who could have really contributed to TSP to another region/organization just because we have no place for them. As far as a domestic issue, I think we have an army with a stance that represent's The South Pacific well. Everything will have critics, and I think as far as the action our military takes has very few critics. They just happen to be extremists.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I'm so sick and tired of these ridiculous character assassinations during these "debates" and the endless he said she said arguments.
Why dont we just put up or shut up and have a non binding vote to determine where the assembly stands on this issue? Lets see if the assembly wants to keep things as is, demilitarize, or just a civil guard.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
Were you here at all this past year, SB? I find it very hard to understand how somebody who was here can say that our region's position was mostly understood by everybody. We had people trying to pull us in either direction all the time, privately and publicly. Our "position" isn't understood, partly because it's in contention here, and mostly because people don't want to respect straddling the middle-ground. Military gameplay regions only tolerate it as long as they think TSP is leaning towards their side. We've seen what happens when they stop believing that.
(01-26-2015, 07:28 PM)Apad Wrote: Why dont we just put up or shut up and have a non binding vote to determine where the assembly stands on this issue? Lets see if the assembly wants to keep things as is, demilitarize, or just a civil guard. Here's two polls... http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1663.html http://thesouthpacific.x10.mx/thread-1664.html Sorry, "Coast Guard" should be "Civil Guard".
Says Civil Guard now.
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 |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |