| Warzone Annexation and Joining the Coalition |
So, a few days ago, the SPSF partook in several raids of Warzone Sandbox with TBR and the EPSA, and yesterday, we have come out on top as the victors.
Simply put, we have colonized the Warzone in the name of the South Pacific, and we hope that it will stay that way. 4 other Warzones agree on our legitimacy. I'd like to know the Assembly's take on this, as well as entertaining the idea of a new legislation change that includes the ability for other regions to join the Coalition, as Warzone Sandbox has. ProfessorHenn on Tapatalk.
We already tried this with One Big Island.
I am not comfortable with the South Pacific becoming a colonising power. Our strength is our culture, not the ability of our military to annex other regions. We should continue focusing on the former, not the latter. 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
If we formally annex Warzone Sandbox, any attempt by any other group or region to take it would be a violation of our sovereignty and an act of war. I congratulate the SPSF on successfully taking the Warzone.
But isn't the point of the Warzones to be the Wild West of NS? I certainly don't care if another region tries to take Warzone Sandbox away from the SPSF, since that's the entire point of those regions. Again, though, congratulations! Hope you guys can keep hold of it.
I agree with Kris and GR.
Such a move is not the way of TSP. It's more like an NPO thing and this would make us hypocrites.
(04-28-2015, 12:10 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: We already tried this with One Big Island. With all due respect Kris, you've frequently suggested the SPSF is too inactive and now you're arguing against it being active. That said, I don't think the idea is for any warzone to be "colonized" per se, but rather give us a strategic point to control and/or play with. And, someone correct me if I've wrong, that's also the point of warzones, no?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Yeah, that's the point of Warzones. I just don't want to legally bind one to us, because part of getting involved in Warzones is fighting to keep them and sometimes losing them.
Exactly, integrating a WZ into the government brings more trouble than it's worth.
I have no problem with the SPSF setting up a little government or managing the affairs of the region. Probably isn't best to formalize it in the assembly.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
(04-28-2015, 12:45 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: With all due respect Kris, you've frequently suggested the SPSF is too inactive and now you're arguing against it being active. Which is not the point of my post. I have no problem with the SPSF raiding Warzones, but I do feel it is contrary to our values as a region to formally annex other regions, even Warzones. 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
I always liked the idea of TSP colonizing. Yet that is not appropiate.
However, if we are colonizing the "Wild West" of NS, then... Charge, SPSF!
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |