| Demilitarization |
We need to not worry about the SPSF until we have more members. I've already recruited a new person and am awaiting a response from another.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
I have not read most of this due to time constraints, but I do not support demilitarization.
I have been reading this thread and I dont find the arguments for keeping the SPSF compelling or convincing. As such I am in favor or disbanding the SPSF. I dont see the use of it, the lack of activity makes it an irrelevant force, and the resistance by the generals and minister to oversight by the Assembly seals the deal for me.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
Getting rid of the SPSF isn't the answer. I believe the structure of the SPSF is the problem and has been since it was reintroduced in 2011 as the SPA. We have toyed around with the structure a couple of times but one constant remains and that is having an elected Minister directly responsible for the body to the Cabinet.
At one point in time I remember having a discussion with a few people about splitting the army out from the Cabinet and making it a separate entity. This entity would report to the Assembly and allow for more continuity in leadership. I would strongly recommend coming up with an alternate structure before abolishing the SPSF.
Speaking of your last point Hile, I did propose a possible restructure, which I believe works a lot better than the current system - it has had 2 people reply in nearly a day. From that, I take it nobody really cares about reform and improvement - they seem to want to either get rid of the SPSF or want it kept as is. Neither option seems the right choice to me.
I'd support reform of the SPSF. I like the option a lot better than the others.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
(01-22-2015, 01:33 AM)Hileville Wrote: At one point in time I remember having a discussion with a few people about splitting the army out from the Cabinet and making it a separate entity. This entity would report to the Assembly and allow for more continuity in leadership. I would strongly recommend coming up with an alternate structure before abolishing the SPSF. I find this really interesting, although having to report directly to the Assembly could be a significant problem. EDIT: I would like to propose everyone check out Aram's post on this topic. Also, while I anticipate this will go over like a lead balloon, I'd think for the moment, we should keep the current structure (ie MoA in the Cabinet), with the expectation that the next MoA will be responsible to answering this discussion. Unless we just say "eff it all," we're going to need someone to be in charge of whatever organization comes out of this. We also haven't had an active MoA and have managed to alienate both generals from this discussion ... so I feel like we'll be making half-assed decisions here.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I still believe that if the SPSF is to be kept, my suggestion in Aram's thread is better. It's simple and makes recruitment and training more accessible.
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 (01-22-2015, 01:33 AM)Hileville Wrote: Getting rid of the SPSF isn't the answer. I believe the structure of the SPSF is the problem and has been since it was reintroduced in 2011 as the SPA. We have toyed around with the structure a couple of times but one constant remains and that is having an elected Minister directly responsible for the body to the Cabinet. I think the last thing we need is more continuity in leadership and more autonomy - the SPSF never accepted any of our suggestions and actively pushed away reform ideas under the guise of "if you aren't SPSF, you have no right to comment on SPSF". If anything we should break down the old blue guard and maintain stricter Assembly oversight of the army - where the MoA doesn't become god over SPSF because he won a (normally uncompetitive) election. I'd suggest the delegate appoint the top general with Assembly approval and the SPSF should have an Assembly-written code on procedure and recruitment objectives and monthly memorandums from the cabinet. Also, with my experience in TRR, I would really strictly warn the Assembly about giving an army too much autonomy - the split between the RRA and TRR is mostly maintained out of a mutual desire to protect RRA from a (historically) independentist Assembly - plus it's a difficult acquisition to justify because RRA has been a private institution for a decade. The TRR-RRA split is not maintained because this split is convenient. In fact the split can cause issues - if the RRA and TRR aren't on the same page for FA or reform, the RRA can push TRR away. Since the point of a split wouldn't be ideological preservation (as it is in TRR), splitting the army from the region would likely have the opposite effect (at least from my experience) than desired, because it'd increase the resistance of the SPSF to advice, reform and legislative input. And then, not only would you make our problem worse, it'd be even more difficult to revert the split once we've made it - because we'd be a public government "intruding" on the army's remit. Effectively, worsening our problems and making recoveries nigh impossible without colossal (and I mean, colossal - like Margret Thatcher iron-fisted rah-rah) political will.
(01-22-2015, 10:48 AM)Unibot Wrote:(01-22-2015, 01:33 AM)Hileville Wrote: Getting rid of the SPSF isn't the answer. I believe the structure of the SPSF is the problem and has been since it was reintroduced in 2011 as the SPA. We have toyed around with the structure a couple of times but one constant remains and that is having an elected Minister directly responsible for the body to the Cabinet. Ugh. No to the delegate-appointed head of the army. The delegate doesn't need that on top of everything else. That said, I can see Hileville's point to splitting the Army. It would actually give the Assembly more oversight -- since it would be direct as opposed to the MoA/Cabinet -- and allow someone to keep up with the Army over longer spans of time, rather than four months. In short, though, I don't think it's "splitting" it from the region (as I'm reading it), but rather splitting it from the Cabinet.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP Info
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 9 Guest(s) |