Users browsing this thread:

***Roavin*** · 10-06-2016, 02:42 PM

(10-06-2016, 01:50 PM)Belschaft Wrote: How would you describe yourself in terms of defender, raider, independent, etc?

Defender.

***Tsunamy*** · 10-06-2016, 06:30 PM

Do you plan to run the army as a defender or will it continue to be non-aligned?

In conjunction, do you really think the SPSF can run as defender army or do you think it will grow stagnant and die, as in the past?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Roavin*** · 10-06-2016, 06:45 PM

(10-06-2016, 06:30 PM)Tsunamy Wrote: Do you plan to run the army as a defender or will it continue to be non-aligned?

In conjunction, do you really think the SPSF can run as defender army or do you think it will grow stagnant and die, as in the past?

More defender-aligned for sure, though there will be some raiding (see campaign post + my second answer to Frost).

Regarding your second question: Whilst I certainly understand the concern from a historical perspective, I think it's worth showing some numbers from this past term (these are about a month old now):

221 Detags (defender)
189 Defenses (defender)
27 Liberations (defender)
15 Tags (raider)

Not only does this show how incredibly active SPSF actually is, it shows that the trend has already shifted - I'm just embracing it.

Ryccia · 10-06-2016, 06:56 PM

Naw yuo don't, pardner

Racist Texan stereotypes aside, does this mean that you plan to officially make the military adopt an ideology? Or will it still be unofficially official?

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)

Quotes

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

***Roavin*** · 10-06-2016, 07:25 PM

(10-06-2016, 06:56 PM)Ryccia Wrote: Naw yuo don't, pardner

Racist Texan stereotypes aside, does this mean that you plan to officially make the military adopt an ideology? Or will it still be unofficially official?

Depends on what you consider official - Announcing it in NSGP? Having it in the laws? Just having the MoMA say it when asked?

None of our laws or the code prescribe any alignment and (as seen above) the tide's going that way anyway. I'm just going to do it as I stated in the campaign, without a big fuss, and answer honestly if somebody asks. If that makes it official, then I suppose yes Smile

Ryccia · 10-06-2016, 08:08 PM

When I mean official, I mean it as the military officially adopting (X) or (Y) ideology as it's own. Like a military adopting 'fendaism, and becoming a 'fenda military.

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)

Quotes

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

**Belschaft** · 10-08-2016, 02:43 PM

Hypothetical scenario; our allies TNP and Euro are planning a major raid against a region with a Delegate and sizeable number of endorsements. They plan to hold the region for about a week as a show of strength, before withdrawing. They ask if the SPSF is interested in taking part. What do you do?

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 10-08-2016, 05:34 PM

(10-08-2016, 02:43 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Hypothetical scenario; our allies TNP and Euro are planning a major raid against a region with a Delegate and sizeable number of endorsements. They plan to hold the region for about a week as a show of strength, before withdrawing. They ask if the SPSF is interested in taking part. What do you do?

Well, same answer as for Raven's question - depends on the region. For example, an active RP region uninvolved in gameplay would be out of the question, but a Nazi region would be absolutely valid.

***Roavin*** · 10-09-2016, 05:00 AM

I had a long conversation on Discord yesterday, primarily with Belschaft but also with Eluvatar, that could be considered a sort of Q&A session for this campaign. I'm posting it here (slightly cleaned up) for posterity and for others to see it.

Code:
[9:04 PM] Belschaft: @Roavin Have you seen the row Glen is having with Onder in GP?

[9:06 PM] Roavin: More Cormac than Onder, but yes.

[9:06 PM] Roavin: Unless you're not talking about the monarchist conference thread...

[9:06 PM] Belschaft: That's the one

[9:06 PM] Belschaft: Partly Cormac, partly Onder

[9:23 PM] Roavin: So - if you look at this based off of TGW's statement as interpreted by Cormac (who's very loudly yelling his interpretation), then it would seem horrible.

[9:23 PM] Roavin: but

[9:24 PM] Roavin: If you actually interpret it based off what BT himself has said, that's totally different.

[9:24 PM] Roavin: I'll refer you to that post. Elu had asked him about it in NSGP: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=29871547#p29871547

[9:31 PM] Roavin: Other than that, I'd be happy to answer any specific question :smiley:

[9:33 PM] Belschaft: I'm more interested in your opinion/definition on topics like Raider, Imperialist, Independent, etc

[9:34 PM] Belschaft: You know I have zero issues with a defender being MoMA - hell, I used to run TSP's armed forces back when I was a defender - but the type of defender matters

[9:35 PM] Roavin: Ah. It's not Unibotian moralistic defender, if that's what you're afraid of :stuck_out_tongue:

[9:35 PM] Belschaft: Obviously

[9:36 PM] Belschaft: But it's a delicate situation, and one that needs careful handling

[9:37 PM] Belschaft: Not only is TSP not a defender region - call us independent, neutral, non-aligned, whatever - but some of our oldest and most important allies are also not defender regions

[9:37 PM] Belschaft: It's vital that ministers are able to subsume their own personal views on R/D, and put TSP's interests first

[9:37 PM] Belschaft: I'd point to, for example, the way that Elu has handled himself in TNP as an example

[9:39 PM] Roavin: Yeah.

[9:39 PM] Roavin: Neither our neutral alignment nor our treaties with defender and non-defender alignments alike are in any way incompatible with a defender-leaning military.

[9:41 PM] Roavin: Of course any sort of R/D conviction obviously has to come after (1) our laws (2) agreements with other regions. I'd consider that to be an obvious given, really.

[9:42 PM] Roavin: Liberations are rarely "offensive" in that sense anyway. So I'll be checking our treaty laws if there's any region where we might have to actually consider something (I doubt it from what I remember), and of course checking with the MoFA, but for the most part we'll be "good citizens".

[9:43 PM] Belschaft: Good - my main dispute with Glen on foreign policy is, after all, the fact that he has a tendency to place his own views on R/D ahead of TSP's own interests and the foreign policy established by the Assembly

[9:44 PM] Belschaft: I'm not looking for any kind of "parity" in raids or defences - that defeats the entire point of independence - nor am I going to object if you focus on what you personally enjoy and have experience in

[9:45 PM] Belschaft: But I am looking for some kind of public commitment that military policy will be run on a rational, rather than ideological basis - that you're not going to refuse to send the SPSF on raids with our allies, or discourage SPSF members who want to pursue raiding so long as it's not destructive

[9:47 PM] Belschaft: Our alliance with Euro, for example, has been rather shaky at several points in time over the last couple of years - Imki has done a great job as MoMA in healing some of the damage done there

[9:48 PM] Roavin: I wouldn't quite make that commitment as stated.

[9:49 PM] Roavin: Though my argument would actually be a rational one

[9:51 PM] Belschaft: I'm familiar with the "Good Neighbour" argument for defending - I think the same argument can be made for independence as well, and certainly don't see that kind of defender as being incompatible with an independent region/military

[9:51 PM] Roavin: Oh, it's actually more than that :stuck_out_tongue:

[9:51 PM] Belschaft: Juggling working in security/foreign policy in a GCR and being a defender is something I have experience with :stuck_out_tongue:

[9:51 PM] Roavin: But yes, that's certainly a sizable chunk of the argument.

[9:52 PM] Roavin: In a feeder even!

[9:54 PM] Roavin: One of the arguments that's likely to be given in favor of an independent military is the increased range of opportunity. That's not actually the case, though, even if it would seem intuitively to be so.

[9:55 PM] Roavin: This is not just coming from having read Paradise Found or The False Independence - this is based on experience in the past few months.

[9:55 PM] Belschaft: Considering that both those "Essays" are considered to be BS by pretty much everyone but Unibot and Glen....

[9:56 PM] Roavin: Defenders and raiders alike will be usually willing but very cautious of any cooperation for the simple reason that they don't know which side the independent military will be on the next day.

[9:57 PM] Roavin: So there's actually more to do when picking a side, as there will be more opportunity.

[9:57 PM] Roavin: (The False Independence is obviously written very propaganda-y but if it's read with that in mind, it's really quite great IMHO)

[9:59 PM] Roavin: Now, given that, plus the "Good Neighbor" argument, having a defender-aligned SPSF follows quite naturally, and it's in no way incompatible with the non-alignment of TSP itself (and OOCly I sincerely believe a feeder should be unaligned).

[10:09 PM] Belschaft: And I have no problem with an SPSF which is, under a defender MoMA, de-facto defender aligned and focuses on defending and liberations

[10:10 PM] Belschaft: Just as I have no problem with and SPSF under a raider MoMA that focuses on raiding

[10:10 PM] Belschaft: Arguments can be made for either approach

[10:11 PM] Belschaft: The key point about independence isn't increasing range of opportunity, but flexibility

[10:11 PM] Belschaft: It's about military action being subordinate to foreign policy, rather than foreign policy being subordinate to military ideology

[10:12 PM] Belschaft: TSP has long standing alliances with regions that both raid and defend, as well as alliances with regions that only defend - in the past we've had alliances with regions that only raid

[10:13 PM] Belschaft: A flexible military is vital to maintaining and strengthening those alliances

[10:13 PM] Belschaft: Further, as a feeder we introduce new players to the game - we have a duty to not limit their options

[10:14 PM] Belschaft: And as a pluralistic region, with players of all sorts of views and opinions, regional policy needs to remain welcoming and wide ranged

[10:15 PM] Belschaft: What I'm looking for, in effect, is some statement of intent that will assure me that you won't neglect our alliances with non-defender regions by restricting the military to an excessive degree

[10:39 PM] Roavin: Those being, basically, TNP and Europeia.

[10:39 PM] Roavin: We worked with TNP raiding a warzone or two as well as several defensive missions. I'm certain that won't change in the new term.

[10:42 PM] Roavin: (as in, we'll continue doing joint defense work and raid a warzone or two for fun and training)

[10:43 PM] Belschaft: Yes, the fact that Euro and TNP also do a mix of raiding and defending helps

[10:44 PM] Belschaft: Euro does more raiding, TNP has a similar mix as we do

[10:44 PM] Belschaft: What about none warzones, however?

[10:45 PM] Roavin: With regard to Europeia, we had a tag run on two non-warzone-regions with then, and that was it (unless I missed something - Imki will surely correct me :stuck_out_tongue: ). That's obviously not something I'd be keen on, however with CAIN etc. happening right now, I foresee more cooperation with Europeia on anti-nazi raids.

[10:45 PM] Roavin: (it's also something that I would explicitly seek ERN out for)

[10:46 PM] Roavin: So - there will be restrictions on SPSF as a whole, but none that get in the way of good cooperation with our allies. Besides, I'd like to invite all of our allies (independent and defender alike) on my cowboys-and-indians game.

[10:47 PM] Belschaft: I have no objection to restrictions - we already have ones relating to the conduct of any military operations we are involved in, requiring what could be called "CB style" raidind

[10:47 PM] Roavin: "CB"?

[10:48 PM] Belschaft: Cat Burglars - they pioneered "bi-gamplay" and none-destructive raiding

[10:48 PM] Belschaft: Things like putting the WFE back as it was when you're done, restoring the flag and tags, etc

[10:49 PM] Belschaft: Essentially, take a region, hold a region for X updates, tidy up once you're done

[10:49 PM] SeRAph: It just seems courteous to me.

[10:49 PM] Belschaft: nods

[10:49 PM] Belschaft: It is - it also helps maintain good relations with defenders and natives

[10:49 PM] Imki: It makes tagging totally pointless

[10:50 PM] Belschaft: Back in the days we had occasions where the natives would want to stick around, or would be interesting in joining CB because we were nice people

[10:50 PM] Belschaft: We also had defenders coming to us, asking us for the old flag/wfe because @Eluvatar didn't have them :stuck_out_tongue:

[10:50 PM] Belschaft: Eh, tagging wasn't really a big thing for CB

[10:51 PM] Belschaft: When we did it it was a question of how many regions we could beat defenders on, not how obnoxious we could be

[10:51 PM] Belschaft: We'd change the WFE and flag for victory screenshots/bragging, but fix them when we were done

[10:52 PM] Belschaft: My general point however is that raiding isn't always harmful or obnoxious, just as defending isn't always good and nice

[10:53 PM] Belschaft: Both sides of R/D have their fair share of arseholes

[10:53 PM] Imki: Having spent the last four months just trying to get everyone to have fun together I can say both sides are as bad as each other.

[10:53 PM] Imki: R/D is just a dick waving contest

[10:53 PM] Roavin: [10:53 PM] Belschaft: Both sides of R/D have their fair share of arseholes

^ That's true for any disjunct grouping of humans. :>

[10:58 PM] Roavin: Anyway - I guess that was less a precise statement of intent and more of a description of what's in my mind :stuck_out_tongue: but I hope that's satisfactory.

[11:06 PM] Belschaft: It's a description of your mindset, and a mindset I find to be logical, thought out and entirely unobjectionable

[11:06 PM] Belschaft: Simple question; Under what circumstances would you, as MoMA, authorise raiding by the SPSF?

[11:07 PM] Eluvatar: Follow-up: would you be willing/interested in having a deputy for raiding, the way defender MoD Elu had (or intended to have) in TNP in early 2015?

[11:08 PM] Roavin: @Belschaft warzones are fair game, as well as hateful ideologies.

[11:08 PM] Roavin: @Eluvatar nope.

[11:09 PM] Belschaft: Considering that warzones don't count, your answer is in effect "The SPSF would only raid Nazi's"?

[11:11 PM] Roavin: Nazis aren't the only ones that fall under that banner.

[11:11 PM] Eluvatar: I imagine that 'enemy regions' go without saying?

[11:12 PM] Roavin: Oh, if TSP were to be at war, of course.

[11:14 PM] Eluvatar: Would you envision any hostility short of a formal declaration of war for which you would consider a region a valid target?(edited)

[11:28 PM] Roavin: Questions that stump the candidate being questioned are usually great questions. This is certainly one of them.

[11:29 PM] Roavin: Now - I see the MoMA as only being able to unilaterally decide viable targets on basis of regular "for-fun" R/D gameplay alone so long as it does not interfere with regional foreign policy.

[11:30 PM] Roavin: The sort of hostility you mean presumably extends beyond regular R/D gameplay and gets into the area of regional security.

[11:30 PM] Roavin: That means, any such determination would have to be made in cooperation with the greater cabinet (especially the MoFA) as well as the Delegate and the CRS.

[11:31 PM] Roavin: If there is hostility in the sense that the region is under threat from another region, then that would certainly make regions belonging to the opposing faction valid targets (as determined together with the persons mentioned above).(edited)

[11:33 PM] Roavin: Though, that's essentially a war declaration waiting to happen anyway, I'd assume.

[11:35 PM] Belschaft: Don't you think you're being somewhat evasive Roa? You seem to be finding very long winded ways to avoid saying "I would not authorise the SPSF to raid"

[11:35 PM] Roavin: How is that evasive?

[11:36 PM] Roavin: I mean, long-winded sure, but not evasive.

[11:36 PM] Belschaft: Because over this entire time period you've avoided saying those specific words, whilst saying such in many many more

[11:36 PM] Roavin: I would not authorize the SPSF to raid, except for warzones, regions promoting hateful ideologies, or regions we are at de jure or de facto war with.

[11:37 PM] Roavin: Better? :stuck_out_tongue:

[11:37 PM] Roavin: (and, off-topic, I just realized "authorize" is one of the few words where the british spelling actually makes more sense to me than the american spelling)

[11:40 PM] Belschaft: More explicit :stuck_out_tongue:

[11:41 PM] Belschaft: Hmm...

[11:41 PM] Belschaft: On the one hand, I have no doubt you'd be a thoroughly competent MoMA

[11:42 PM] Belschaft: On the other hand, I think you're putting your own ideology ahead of the interests of a region that isn't defender and has none-defender allies

[11:43 PM] Roavin: I thought we were establishing for the past hour that this is not the case >_>

[11:45 PM] Belschaft: Except you've just stated that you wouldn't cooperate with some our closest and oldest allies militarily, if they were to plan a raid except in extremely restricted circumstances

[11:45 PM] Roavin: Ah!

[11:46 PM] Roavin: So i suppose those restrictions are, as you see it, beyond "reasonable".

[11:46 PM] Belschaft: Correct, yes

[11:46 PM] Belschaft: They extend well beyond those limits established by the assembly

[11:47 PM] Belschaft: I can respect your desire, as a defender, not to engage in raiding

[11:48 PM] Belschaft: Further, I can recognise that your argument that a focus on defending is good for TSP to be based on reason and logic - nor is it one I consider to be invalid, up to a point

[11:48 PM] Belschaft: But you are asking us to vote for you to run the military of a region that isn't defender

[11:48 PM] Belschaft: And has none-defender allies

[11:49 PM] Roavin: Yes, that's true.

[11:52 PM] Roavin: On the first point - if TSP were raider or imperialist, then that would certainly be troubling. TSP, however, is unaligned (as it should be, since it's a feeder). As such, I don't see a conflict if the military, within its purview of free reign beyond its direct duties to the region, aligns itself to be raider or defender.

[11:53 PM] Belschaft: Broadly speaking, yes - I think align is the wrong word, but replace it with "leans" and I would agree entirely

[11:53 PM] Roavin: So yeah - if EW were to come back and run for MoMA, then I would be opposed to that based on my defender ideology, but it would not be correct for me to say that was illegal or in conflict with regional interests.

[11:56 PM] Roavin: Now, on the second point - We don't have raider allies, despite ERN leaning much more heavily R than D. Despite that, I still see many opportunities for working together and would even actively seek them out.

[11:56 PM] Belschaft: Do you not think that were EW to run for MoMA and say "We're not going to anything but raiding, I'm a raider and I prefer raiding and think it's better, TSP may be allied with defender regions but were not going to work with them any more or do any defending, except in insert very specific circumstances here" that it would conflict with regional interests?

[11:57 PM] Roavin: Ah, but I'm not saying that.

[11:57 PM] Belschaft: Surely a MoMA who refused to let the SPSF defend would harm relations with our defender allies, and lead to less cooperation

[11:58 PM] Roavin: We'll be doing defense work with NPA regardless, so let's leave that out.

[11:58 PM] Belschaft: My wording was less politic than the way you've worded your position, but reflects it - only reverses it

October 9, 2016

[12:01 AM] Roavin: Now, TGW are obviously defenders.

[12:01 AM] Roavin: Yet they have worked with ERN before - anti-fascist missions, for example.(edited)

[12:02 AM] Belschaft: Anti-fascist missions, whilst an admirable thing, are not especially common

[12:02 AM] Roavin: So here we have an example of a region that is surely a defender region, working together with ERN. The same opportunites will arise for a defender-leaning SPSF as well, especially with CAIN currently running. I'm going to guess Euro will be quite eager to send ERN to do some anti-nazi missions, and I'm all for doing those.

[12:03 AM] Belschaft: Even when you have a coalition engaged in an active "War on Nazi's"

[12:04 AM] Roavin: And when I come across an anti-fascist or anti-nazi mission to do, Europeia will be one of the first doors I'll knock on for cooperation.(edited)

[12:04 AM] Belschaft: Nor do I think only raiding Nazi's can be described as "defender-leaning"(edited)

[12:04 AM] Roavin: Sure, but it's not like we're doing something with NPA every week.

[12:05 AM] Belschaft: Obviously, but by restricting the SPSF to only raids on Nazi's we'll have even less opportunities to work with them

[12:05 AM] Roavin: Maybe in theory, but I argue in the specific case of NPA, it'll be negligibly less in practice.

[12:06 AM] Roavin: Because, again, what we've done with NPA this past term: Raid warzones, liberations.

[12:06 AM] Roavin: Both of those still apply.

[12:06 AM] Belschaft: Now, I think having the SPSF organising nothing but defences and liberations would be viable as a model of a defender-leaning military in a non-defender GCR; assuming that we remained open to aiding our allies when they are organising raids

[12:07 AM] Belschaft: I'm not suggesting that you should go to TNP and Euro and say "Please let me know whenever you plan to raid, so we can help out"

[12:08 AM] Belschaft: However, saying to them "As a defender I'm not personally going to be doing any raiding, but the SPSF is independent so if if you want us to help you out on an invasion I will send those members who don't have personal objections along to help out"

[12:08 AM] Belschaft: Do you see the distinction?

[12:09 AM] Roavin: I absolutely see the distinction, yeah.

[12:09 AM] Roavin: I'll argue, though, that not doing so isn't purely an ideological issue though. It's the same thing I mentioned above.

[12:10 AM] Belschaft: And I think a valid argument can be made for good-neighbour military policy, but it's one that applies to independent regions as well as defender regions

[12:11 AM] Belschaft: Never mind getting into the questions of flexibility and maintaining strong institutional relationships with our allies

[12:11 AM] Roavin: Oh, I didn't mean good-neighbor policy, but rather how in practice, it's actually more restrictive for the typical independent military to gain closer cooperation with either raiders or defenders, and picking either side will lead (counter-intuitively) to more opportunities for cooperation rather than less.

[12:12 AM] Roavin: (NPA being the notable exception, but TNP is ... special. :stuck_out_tongue: )

[12:12 AM] Belschaft: I don't agree with that, but I know plenty of people who do consider that to be true

[12:13 AM] Roavin: I mean, I'm not just going off the propaganda - I experienced it with SPSF these past months (and I'm just an officer, not the MoMA or even a general)

[12:13 AM] Belschaft: I think that would equally apply to a SPSF that, whilst focusing entirely on defences and liberations, still sends troops to help out it's allies on their raids when asked

[12:14 AM] Belschaft: Most people would understand that distinction - "We're not doing any raiding on our own, but we have treaty commitments with a couple of regions which do and as such we support them when asked"

[12:14 AM] Eluvatar: ("and we don't have any particular reason we want to not raid that particular region")

[12:15 AM] Roavin: Not sure that'd be the case (that it would apply to an SPSF that helps out allied non-hate non-warzone raids, that is).

[12:16 AM] Belschaft: When the grand-old-man of defending - aka; Eluvatar - is taking the side of the argument that involves raiding sometimes, it's a hint that there's a very strong case there

[12:16 AM] Eluvatar: If NPA were to (impossibly) raid Lazarus, I imagine SPSF would not agree to join in :stuck_out_tongue:

[12:16 AM] Belschaft: We have a treaty with Laz :stuck_out_tongue:

[12:16 AM] Eluvatar: hence, particular reason for particular region

[12:17 AM] Eluvatar: It was my approach in TNP to get somebody else to run the raiding side of things for me, aye.

[12:18 AM] Eluvatar: Because it was my view that it had to happen, but I didn't want to be doing it myself for obvious reasons.

[12:18 AM] Eluvatar: Not going to suggest it's the only way to do things, though.

[12:22 AM] Roavin: Anyway, ERN might be interested in the cowboy-and-indians game too that I've proposed (I haven't asked them); finally, I hope that anybody that goes through the ranks in SPSF for a bit would be just as equipped to work with TGW as with TBH.

[12:28 AM] Belschaft: nods

[12:28 AM] Belschaft: I think you have the makings of an excellent MoMA, I just think you need to be more flexible in this area(edited)

[12:29 AM] Belschaft: I'm speaking from experience, and there's plenty of other people who have been in the same position you're going to be who can tell you the same thing

[12:38 AM] hierocles: Um, absolutely none of our treaties obligate our military to support raider ops when asked.

[12:39 AM] Belschaft: An argument could be made that whilst not obligating us to do so, the Euro treaty creates a strong duty for us to do so

[12:39 AM] Belschaft: Article 1 clause e, I think

[12:40 AM] Belschaft: Besides, I don't think anyone here has suggested that we're obligated to support raider ops - merely that putting out a blanket policy that we won't isn't a good idea if we want strong relations

[12:47 AM] Belschaft: Ok, nother question :stuck_out_tongue:

[12:48 AM] Belschaft: What would you do if the MoFA informed you that they considered supporting our allies in their raids to be necessary for TSP's foreign relations?

[12:54 AM] Roavin: Try to talk them out of it. :stuck_out_tongue:

[12:55 AM] Roavin: If there was an obligation, I'd do it the way Elu described.

[12:56 AM] Belschaft: And if you are unable to "talk them out of it"?

[12:57 AM] Roavin: See the next sentence.

[1:00 AM] Belschaft: So you would consider direction from the MoFA, in relation to our foreign policy, to constitute an obligation?

[1:03 AM] Roavin: Yes*

[1:08 AM] Roavin: Though I do reserve the right to stink about it in the cabinet room :stuck_out_tongue:

[1:21 AM] Roavin: I should also note that this shouldn't be an invitation to the incoming MoFA to just start ordering SPSF around >_>

[1:26 AM] Eluvatar: I think that an MoFA trying to use SPSF as their private army would not last long.

[1:27 AM] Roavin: The MoMA isn't obligated to it by law anyway, so yeah.

**Griffindor** · 10-09-2016, 12:42 PM

It is with pleasure that I, as chair of the APC and on behalf of the APC, formally endorse Roavin for MoMA!

-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions
-Legislator 2/24/20-
-High Court Justice 6/7/20-
-South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20-
-Minister of Engagement 6/17/22-

-Past Roles/Positions
-Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18
-Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21
-Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17
-Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18
-Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17
-Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016