| SPSF Review - May |
Well, I feel that the future Chair ought to head it, and Assembly members can help draft it. The more involved, the better. I'll largely keep out, since this is a review about me and my blessed SPSF.
*nods*
Makes sense. If the future Chair needs or wants some assistance, I'd be happy to help with the drafting. 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 Quote:If you have a problem with us raiding and would rather have us go full-defender, why not say so? I think 'full defender' would be far more effective at development than our current 'full invader' programme. I repeat: no GCR has ever built up a strong base of soldiers from scratch with a raid-heavy programme. That's the truth of the matter. NPA and ESPA grew to the size and experience that they are during spans of time where they were effectively just doing defensive work - they used those programmes to fuel development. Defensive practices are good for development. The reason is simple: volunteers like to help out; they want to see their time and effort as being a valuable contribution. The SPSF will never take off if continues on its 'full invader' programme. Kringalia and others can put their head in the sand and say 'la la la no R/D debates' - but that is the problem: the army has always slanted towards invading and you cannot build a GCR army to any substantial size on an raid-heavy programme. We're following the same trajectory of growth that Balder has for most of its time as a militarized region - we're facing the exact same issue.
(05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote:Quote:If you have a problem with us raiding and would rather have us go full-defender, why not say so? Please, now is not the time or the place for this discussion. We can return to it later.
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." (05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote: I repeat: no GCR has ever built up a strong base of soldiers from scratch with a raid-heavy programme.There's a first time for everything. (05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote: The SPSF will never take off if continues on its 'full invader' programmeWe aren't exactly "full invaders". We do liberations and detags too.
No we are not full defender and I don't think we should become full defender. I think we should have a 50%/50% of R/D.
The fact speak for themselves our current mainly invader programme doesn't work no one is joining. I think for a short period of time we should do as Unibot says and go full defender ONLY for a wee bit. See if it works and if it does it no harm done. I would say the report should be written up by the MoA and The Assembly, then signed by the Chair, Del and MoA. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice (05-21-2015, 07:18 PM)Unibot Wrote:Quote:If you have a problem with us raiding and would rather have us go full-defender, why not say so? Out of curiosity, are you talking about the old defender NPA or the new Independent one from 2012 ? (05-22-2015, 07:29 PM)Farengeto Wrote: I can't recall on retention, but as Henn mentioned we've had 3 or 4 new recruits in the past month or so. So yes, people are joining. 3 or 4 recruits in 2 months isn't high whereas these mainly defender armies had a huge number of new recruits in a very short period of time. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP Info
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |