And that's the crux of the problem, Belschaft.

Only a vocal minority of TSP is truly independentist. Independentism is an ideology, just as much as defenderism. Yet it's been pushed by our region's elites in former administrations to integrate the whole region to follow independentism as a religion.

The end result was a political explosion when Escade (a non-independentist) took the delegacy, challenging these ideas.

The independentists felt threatened and are growing angrier in the debates, the non-independentists are clawing back, smelling blood.

Pigeonholing a whole region into independentism was never going to work - that's the main reason for the major fracturization of TSP into two blocs. There's those who buy it and there's those that don't - and they're fighting against each other on every issue, with the hope of causing fatigue and discrediting each other.

There's a few "grand vision" options here for TSP:

A. Fully integrate TSP into Independentism.

Push out all non-independentists. A purge, a la Lazarus.

B. Accept that pushing one ideology isn't working and rollback independentism in TSP.

Comforts non-independentists, threatens independentists. The compromise position puts TSP into untested, contested waters where both sides will go at it even harder with the hope of defining "new TSP". More likely to make things worse before they can get better.

C. Drop Independentism altogether and accept a new paradigm.

Comforts non-independentists, discourages and alienates independentists - the trick here is whether the new paradigm would be made up of turn-coat independentists or former non-independentists. If the former, nothing changes, if the latter, this is the same situation as Case A, except in reverse.

TEP has recently tried to do this with it's "non-alignment" movement. In all actuality, it was more or less a silent, legal purge of non-independentists, with a rebranding of its old independentism . This didn't accomplish anything as far as TSP would be concerned - and I think this option, although, appealing, would in all likelihood, get us nowhere, since most "third ways" and "new paradigms" are just independentism rebranded.

D. Maintain two separate halves of the same region, maintaining separate governing paradigms.

Comforts both sides, although independentists lose their monopoly on the region. Relatively unstable and confusing as a governing structure.

E. Splitting the military alignment from the political alignment.

Osiris does this by having imperialism as a political alignment and invaderism as a military alignment. Presumably, TSP could have defenderism as a military alignment and independentism as a political alignment, or vice versa.

The former would create an uneasy political situation and a more active military force, restrained politically by a government that doesn't support it directly. Best example of this would be TRR Post-Kandarin, before Jan 2014.

The latter would just be bizarre, perhaps in a good way, since a more humanitarian government would have its idealism constrained by a more pragmatic military. I don't think this would ever be accepted because power would lie with a non-independentist ideology, which wouldn't comfort independentists, who would want to snap back to a favorable status quo at any turn. Best example of this rare phenomenon would be TNP under Eluvatar, 2012.

I believe the latter (defender parliament, independent military) is a recipe for a quick trend towards invaderism. Here me out: defenderists try to close down parliament to non-defenderists, independentists try to monopolize the military and only promote fellow independentists. The end outcome is a fatigued government, which is "trojan horsed" by a military executive that has gained considerable legitimacy. See TNP under Eluvatar (2012), it was eventually military figures, McMasterdonia and Blue Wolf, which replaced the fatiguing government.

F. Maintain two different armies.

Independentists lose their monopoly on defining the region's military portfolio. Non-independentists would have to remain competitive recruiting against a more established army, which has spent a lot of resources in promoting the independentism ideology to citizens. This uneasy political situation would see some politicians support one army and other politicians supporting the other.

G. Do nothing. Status Quo option.

Some may see this as an unacceptable response, since doing nothing to resolve the internal tension is going to lead to further escalation and a deterioration of the political relations between independentists and non-independentists. However, the Status Quo is likely less confrontational than Plan A, Plan B and Plan C, while more stable than Plan D, E or G.

And yes, this plans leads to the same sort of bickering, with independentists calling out non-independentists as "zealous ideological partisans" and non-independentists calling out independentists as "zealous ideological partisans" too.

Some of you may think there is a final option,

H. Drop all ideologies. Become "ideological-less".

This is always a popular, if not populist suggestion but it's impossible in practice. First, independentists often believe their ideology is not an ideology at all - they believe it's the root of good governance. Therefore, this plan is likely to deteriorate quickly into the exact same situation as Plan G or Plan C.1. Second, once you start deciding what to do, eventually you have to make judgements based on what is the right thing to do, whether this judgement is based on interests, popularity, ethics etc. Starting principles are involved with any sort of judgement.

______________

Bottom line is: regardless of how we resolve this situation, there is going to be a lot of arguing, because the independentists have established a difficult zero-sum situation and aren't prepared to back down, nor are the non-independentists. They both see themselves as having a superior portfolio. Usually one of them controls the executive and the other controls the legislature - meaning they create tension in intergovernmental relations.

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 06:49 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

Uni, can you point to where Escade was anything other than an "Independentist"? Because, I'm pretty sure you're rewritting history.

Further, as I've pointed out, the issues aren't over ideology. It's about how we handle those debates.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 06:18 PM by Admin.)

Reply

Uni, can you point to where Escade was anything other than an "Independentist"? Because, I'm pretty sure you're rewritting history.

Further, as I've pointed out, the issues aren't over ideology. It's about how we handle those debates.

She wasn't seen as independentist-friendly by independentists. That's the important part.

She may have been a partisan, card-waving independentist, but she didn't always act that way and it caused concern among the independentist fraction.

This isn't to say her term began the problems we have now - these problems were going to bubble over eventually.

In Early 2013, for example, the Hileville administration held a Great Council and admitted independentism was not working - when the public resoundingly said they wanted to try to make it work, Hileville's administration (including Belschaft) changed their tune accordingly. The reality is this was another case of a government putting off an issue till it escalated more and more...

In the Halls of The South Pacific, an emergency Great Council for constitutional and regional reform began with a hot topic: regional military stance.

"If we want an army that is active, we need to pick a side," said Milograd, former South Pacifican Delegate to a throng of legislators on Tuesday in The South Pacific, "this is an unavoidable reality, and we shouldn't lie to ourselves about it". The argument quickly drew support from another South Pacific Heavyweight and former Delegate, Hileville, who argued "[The South Pacific has] to choose a side to lean towards to keep up activity".

Former Delegate, Belschaft called for change as well, citing that "neutrality is an attractive, but ultimately false position; It's popular - in that it angers no one - but has nothing else going for it". He echoed others by suggesting that if The South Pacific were to choose a side, "he believe[ed] the best decision would be [defenderism], as well as being the one most in keeping with our established traditions and regional character".

[....]

And no, Tsu, the issues are about ideology. The reason why we have so many frequent debates is because we're at an ideological standstill - the region is divided into ideological lines and will at this point TRY to find ways to debate each other on every issue. It's a Republican v. Democrat dynamic.

I've suggested formal political parties as a counter-intuitive patch-fix - formalizing the internal divide with something that could be formulated into a constructive, unique political culture. Really, no solution, especially not a miracle "just be nicer to each other" solution is going to reduce how foaming-at-the-mouths hostile we are at each -- that's a consequence of being incredibly divided in a zero-sum political situation. Short of a purge, there aren't any easy solutions here and I'm afraid for once, TSPers have to seriously consider ideology as the problem, instead of just assuming the problems lie elsewhere with surface issues (e.g., debate decorum, limited punishments).

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 07:08 PM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply

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.

I've suggested this earlier too.

Reply

But ... our feelings toward raider/defender did not influence the latest round of bickering. Amiwrong?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 07:37 PM by Admin.)

Reply

I'm doubtful there's a direct, 1-to-1 correlation with it Tsu, but I think TSP does have cleavages, like all other communities. While it's not, "You support/oppose Independence/Defending/Imperialism, so I'm fighting you on this unrelated issue," cleavages do have a tendency to create disagreements and fighting outside of their direct subjects.

P.s. "Independentists" "defenderists" ... these hurt my eyes and make my ears bleed. Can we please stick with Independents and defenders?

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 07:58 PM by Tsunamy.)

Reply

I dislike "independent" because it's part of a re-branding technique - "independents" like to pretend as though they have no 'ideology', so they call their ideology, 'independence', instead of an -ism. When "independents" began calling "independence", "independentism" - I've used it instead of "independence".

Likewise, defenders and defenderists is two distinct notions. The former is a military combatant, the latter is someone who shares their ideas.

Reply

I dislike "independent" because it's part of a re-branding technique - "independents" like to pretend as though they have no 'ideology', so they call their ideology, 'independence', instead of an -ism. When "independents" began calling "independence", "independentism" - I've used it instead of "independence".

Likewise, defenders and defenderists is two distinct notions. The former is a military combatant, the latter is someone who shares their ideas.

Well, I'll go on a record saying I'm a regionalist. TSP above all others.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Unibot, you are in effect a faction of one in regards to this matter. This region has overwhelmingly and repeatedly made it clear that it wants no part in R/D. Independence is the practical application of that position, by defining military activity in terms of regional interest rather than a game of digital cops and robbers. This is a debate most of us would rather not keep having, and yet you insist on dragging it back time and time again. Please, drop it and let the region get on with other things. No good can come of this, as was seen in TEP, Osiris and Lazarus. When either raiders or defenders insist on pushing GCR'S towards their own ideology the region inevitably splinters, and a coup and purge becomes inevitable. Luckily they had the good sense in TEP to shut your fanaticism down before it did serious harm.

If you must live in a defender region then go to Lazarus or TRR. This region has never been a defender region, though it has often leaned that way, and it doesn't want to be. I beg of you, put TSP ahead of yourself and stop trying to introduce factionalism where it need not exist lest your "predictions" become a self fullfilling prophecy.

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

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014, 08:53 PM by Gordon Freeman.)

Reply

Yeah, let's not tell people to GTFO just because they have a different idea for what they want TSP to be...

Reply