Users browsing this thread:

QuietDad · 06-11-2014, 03:20 PM

Ending the "debate" is the issue here. This region does not debate. It brow beats ideologies until surrender. The whole raider/defender thing is blow way out of proportion. The last multigroup operation that included both raider and defender organizations had 35 nations in it across 5 organizations. There is no reason to not have both organizations or even several organizations for the same ideology. The only reason ever given is "because it's never been done before so it won't work.

Real-life Girls

**Belschaft** · 06-11-2014, 03:48 PM

Multiple military groups simply splits regional manpower and creates room for internal conflict. What we want is one group which can conduct multiple types of miltary of operation according to the regional interest, which is exactly what we have.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

~~Unibot~~ · 06-11-2014, 04:38 PM

Haha, Belschaft - you mean instead of having armies that could represent parts of TSP, you want one army that will represent your ideology, independentism. *rolls his eyes*

The problem with split armies is their recruitment collides against each other - defender armies at their most effectiveness should be stealing potential invaders by convincing them that invading has consequences and defending is fun without potentially hurting and disrupting communities; invader armies at their most effectiveness at recruiting should be stealing potential defenders by downplaying the negative effects of invading, playing up the "hypocrisy" of defenders and promoting the fun of invading.

The end result is two armies neck and neck at each in the region, starving each other for recruits.

The independent army solution is no better really - it turns a lot of people off, so it struggles to define itself and pull in recruits, there are only so many Belschafts interested in raiding and defending.

Furthermore, and here's the important part: there's only one TSP, you can split the army, but you cannot split the region. One of the main consequences of independentism is that players seek out other ways to define their region - foreign treaties, dialogue, cooperation, citizenship policies.

Our region would actually be more likely to make more informed, balanced decisions on foreign affairs and citizenship policies, if members were assured that it would not change TSP's alignment - that is to say, TSP has a secured alignment. Because we've keep with the independentist model, the alignment game is never over - the fight internally will always remain.

One possibility is a RRA-like model. For a long time, TRR was a neutral region with a private defender army. If there were two armies, one defender and one independent, they would be less likely to cross-over membership - since the messages are less directly oppositional. Meanwhile, an invader and an independent army would be pointless, since they're too similar that they would just be sharing members and alienate defenders in TSP.

A defender TSP army would refrain from committing offensive missions of any kind, including nazi raids, which would be amendable to players who don't want to commit to offensive action - whereas with an independent army, you're often left out half of what the army gets up to if you don't want to commit offensive actions.

~~Unibot~~ · 06-11-2014, 04:45 PM

Might be batty, but it would technically be possible to split the region into two. *chuckles* No in-game embassies or tags used.

A shared jurisdiction over the delegacy would commit to the security of the region and maintenance of the WFE - while two different forums could accommodate two whole different governments concerned with their own law-making, democratic processes, foreign affairs, military affairs and internal culture.

It's a ridiculous idea though. It would be interesting to see if it could work though, because it's never been done before. Hah. Both sides, the independentist and the anti-independentist sides are so different, it would actually be possible. But again, it's frigging batty. Tounge

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 04:48 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

***sandaoguo*** · 06-11-2014, 04:59 PM

Until one of those governments decides that it's the only legitimate one...

It's an interesting idea, though. I'll give you that.

~~Unibot~~ · 06-11-2014, 05:41 PM

The saving grace of the idea is that there is so much separation between what forum communities and regions do that a shared jurisdiction could be possible - with a neutral voted between the two governments perhaps.

If one of those governments decided it was the "only legitimate one", the other would presumably have foreign contacts to help defend them. Likewise, the CSS would have to be bipartisan.

**Belschaft** · 06-11-2014, 05:42 PM

The last time I checked Unibot TSP did have a "secured alignment". The SPSF is designated as an independent military by law.

Most of the "problems" you identify would go away if you'd simply recognize that and stop pushing a defender ideology in an independent region. The very idea that an independent region should allow you to establish a private defender militia is absurd; it would utterly undermine the regions foreign policy and the SPSF. It would also be illegal under current law.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Gustave Berr · 06-11-2014, 05:46 PM

(06-11-2014, 04:45 PM)Unibot Wrote: Might be batty, but it would technically be possible to split the region into two. *chuckles* No in-game embassies or tags used.

A shared jurisdiction over the delegacy would commit to the security of the region and maintenance of the WFE - while two different forums could accommodate two whole different governments concerned with their own law-making, democratic processes, foreign affairs, military affairs and internal culture.

It's a ridiculous idea though. It would be interesting to see if it could work though, because it's never been done before. Hah. Both sides, the independentist and the anti-independentist sides are so different, it would actually be possible. But again, it's frigging batty.

Couldn't creating party systems also have a similar effect? Two entire separate forums, I think, is unnecessary... but having separate threads for members of different parties could have a similar effect. The Assembly might gain more direction and actual decision making if people were working together for common goals, as well as voicing their individual opinions within their party, as opposed to just slinging mud. Might not be the best model for TSP, but I think it is something worth considering.

United States of Kalukmangala

Former High Court Justice

***Tsunamy*** · 06-11-2014, 05:48 PM

I'd like to thank everyone for your thoughts -- especially Sir Pitt for getting this discussion started.

While the goal wasn't really to get anything actionable per se -- but Awe, maybe we should discuss your proposal in another thread? -- it was to get people to talk about things.

I think the most important part here is QD's point that we often don't listen to each other but rather attempt to beat each other into submission. I don't think this has anything to do with armies or ideologies, regardless of how much we like to blame these things.

Please keep the discussion going, but I think this tone and temperament is exactly what we need for the region to survive another decade-plus.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 06-11-2014, 05:50 PM

The logic of that being that as there is a small amount of division at present, let's formalize it and make sure it doesn't go away and probably gets worse? Political parties will make the Assembly more dysfunctional and lead to increased divisiveness. They have never worked in NS and never will.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES