Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 06-09-2019, 09:03 AM

(06-07-2019, 10:42 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: For the record, the response in the GP community actually hasn’t been any kind of shitstorm.

@Tsu: TNP allies and works with defender regions already. If they suddenly have a problem with it... so what? We should place their opinion over our own? It’s very unlikely TNP will have a negative reaction, given that all of Gameplay already considers TSP defender in all but legal name.

As for future allies, XKI is at the top of the list. But thinking of this in terms of “which gets us more allies” is wrong and is how we get ourselves into BS. If we want to maximize immediate allies, we should declare ourselves imperialists, purge all defenders from TSP, and then ally with Osiris, Europeia, LKE, TWP, TBH, etc. That would be “easy” enough. There’s definitely more immediate potential by going Raider. But that’s not who we are.

In my long-term vision, we build up the defender part of the game back to what it was at the height of the Founderless Regions Alliance. The more we advocate for defending, the more players we can attract to become defenders. The more players who are defender, the more regions there will be created for defenders. And over time, *that’s* where the greatest potential is for a strong alliance network.

Fwiw, my concern is less about new allies per se, as long as we're not losing those we currently have. As someone who has been around at the start of this five-year stretch, I remember when we made FA moves that were billed as non-problematic to other alliances and then ended up losing allies.

Second, this goes back to something W&S brought up before, is there a way we can make this a bit more ... targeted toward SPSF activity and, if it needs to be explicit, FA? My issue with all of this debate is that I don't like a label slapped on the *entire* region — because I think hitching our wagon that way isn't desirable as a region — but have less of an issue if we outline the values of our military and foreign affairs to be explicitly defender.

Lastly, and maybe I missed this somewhere, what do you mean by "build up the defender part" of NS? Are they somewhat in disarray that we need to worry about? And/or, are we seeing this where TSP is taking the lead in something?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***sandaoguo*** · 06-09-2019, 11:27 AM

(06-09-2019, 09:03 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Fwiw, my concern is less about new allies per se, as long as we're not losing those we currently have. As someone who has been around at the start of this five-year stretch, I remember when we made FA moves that were billed as non-problematic to other alliances and then ended up losing allies.

It's as simple as straight up asking TNP if they would dissolve our alliance if we go defender, if that's your concern. I don't think they will, but the latter half of this is obviously directed at losing the TNI alliance when we allied with TRR. I've asked McM (TNP MoFA) and I'll share his response as soon as I get it.

(06-09-2019, 09:03 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Second, this goes back to something W&S brought up before, is there a way we can make this a bit more ... targeted toward SPSF activity and, if it needs to be explicit, FA? My issue with all of this debate is that I don't like a label slapped on the *entire* region — because I think hitching our wagon that way isn't desirable as a region — but have less of an issue if we outline the values of our military and foreign affairs to be explicitly defender.

Respectfully, I disagree. We've done it that way for the past 5 years, at the demand of the oldest generation, and it hasn't worked out nearly as well as we've been told it does. There isn't a good logic behind "I'm okay with us being defender, as long as we don't call ourselves defender." And that attitude is exactly what I've outlined as a chronic problem for our region in my address. The position here is that the no-labels preference should be "slapped on the entire region," while it's "not desirable" as a matter of fact for any one else's preference to get the same treatment through our democratic process.

As long as TSP refuses to call itself defender, it doesn't matter that our military and FA are functionally defender-- the reluctance to proudly embrace the identity sends a pretty clear message to the game that we could flip at any moment. And we have before, so they're absolutely right. And as long as our military and FA are functionally defender, our relations with the Independent/imperialist/raider sphere of the game will also be nonexistent. Except when they see an opening to either a) infiltrate and subvert or b) convince a non-defender administration to flip to them. That's why this "let's outline our values but not call ourselves defender" stance -- which is the current status quo -- hasn't worked for the region.

(06-09-2019, 09:03 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: Lastly, and maybe I missed this somewhere, what do you mean by "build up the defender part" of NS? Are they somewhat in disarray that we need to worry about? And/or, are we seeing this where TSP is taking the lead in something?

The defender community has declined because regions like TSP have refused to be proudly defender, opting instead to be non-aligned or independent. We decided to limit ourselves to "leaning defender" and just not talk about it much. The aren't many highly visible defender powers in the game, so new players aren't being exposed to defending at the rate they were back in 2014 when there were a lot of big defender regions and groups. TSP should take the lead on helping to fix that. Like I said earlier, yeah we would get faster results by going raider and purging all defenders from TSP-- recruitment for raiders is easy because they've never dealt with the "our military and FA are raider, but we refuse to associate ourselves too closely" thing that happened to defending in 2016ish and on (and not just in TSP). There's always been multiple powerful and visible raider regions and orgs.

But NS is getting new players all the time, so there is a big pool of recruitment opportunity. I said this on Discord earlier this week: "Join the SPSF, we don't stand for anything really" is not as good of a recruitment message as "Join the SPSF and help us fight oppression across the game." Actually having and embracing a clear alignment has built-in recruiting advantages that being non-aligned will never have. Being non-aligned, we have to work twice as hard to get half as much, and it turns out that working twice as hard is actually really really hard.

I went into my overall theory of the long-term effects on the NSGP Discord (where TSP going to defender is actually not as controversial as people would think!), so instead of rewording I'll just quote:

"I think there's a dearth of defender regions to build a robust alliance network with exactly because regions like TSP (in practice defender but nominally 'non-aligned') aren't embracing the defender identity by declaring ourselves part of the defender community. My working theory here is that if big regions become defender, that will beget smaller regions turning defender and new defender regions being created from scratch. The more visible presence there are of truly dedicated defender regions, the more new players will want to join in on being defender. Recruitment is absolutely a necessity for that. But there's power in just having big defender powers in the game, period. In the long-term, that would benefit defender TSP and we could slowly build up that defender alliance network. Who knows, maybe it would even develop into a new FRA-esque thing, if the big defender regions and orgs work together well enough."

(This post was last modified: 06-09-2019, 11:29 AM by sandaoguo.)

**Belschaft** · 06-09-2019, 11:47 AM

I don’t think anyone here would have issues with a Cabinet, were it so inclined, pursing a firmly Defender foreign policy and military alignment. That would seem to be a natural result of a democracy, should people advocating that view be elected.

Trying to write it into TSP’s Charter that the region is a Defender region is entirely different, and fundamentally undemocratic and discriminatory. It attempts to bind future generations of players to the preferences of todays, and make it harder for those generations to change our foreign policy or military.

It’s like the US making NATO membership a constitutional amendment; it’s intended to be far harder to reverse, so even if a majority wants to change course in the future they can’t. It makes a future coup or civil war far more likely, as it makes democratic changes harder to achieve and may lead to frustrated players abandoning the legitimate process. Imagine if pro-raider players got a majority in the Assembly, the Cabinet and the Delegacy, but couldn’t change the alignment of the region because a minority of players blocked it; what would they likely do?

The reality is that there’s nothing holding back the Cabinet taking the kinds of actions Glen and Roavin are talking about right now. This isn’t about what TSP can or can’t do today; it’s about what TSP can and can’t do in two years time, when Glen and Roavin might not still be in cabinet. It’s about taking options away from future players.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Witchcraft and Sorcery · 06-09-2019, 02:11 PM

The whole point of us writing it into the Charter is so that we can cement it for future generations. I'm glad you recognized that, Belschaft. Because that's exactly what I want to happen. The question is, what exactly do we want the future to look like? What kinds of people and alliances will help preserve the democracy, yes, democracy, of the Coalition for years to come?

I'm pretty sure it ain't the ones whose whole existence is based on infiltrating, securing power, and overthrowing lawful regimes to install their own dictatorships. I'm also kinda tired of the word "undemocratic" being thrown around as a response to a proposal someone doesn't like. If the legal democracy of the Coalition votes to approve an amendment to the Charter that says the South Pacific is defender, then it is indeed a democratic proposal.

But I know where this is coming from on another level, so I'll return to what I said before that. Historically, defenders and defender regions have been champions of democracy and self-determination. They've been stable and true to their word. They reach out and protect regions when they're in trouble instead of aiding plots to overthrow them for a laugh. So in that sense, it's undemocratic for us not to write it into the Charter.

And to your point about a Cabinet in two years, that's actually another reason we should write it into the Charter. If we make it clear and legally binding that we are defenders and that's the policy we pursue, then I think it would lessen the chance that we get a Cabinet that doesn't want to adhere to those values. The kind of people we attract into government and activity is just as important for the stability of the region. Attracting disinterested folk and folk who go around subverting regions for a laugh doesn't seem like something we're interested in doing.

Idk, I guess I'm just of the opinion that TSP should be the good guys here.

Witchcraft and Sorcery

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

***Roavin*** · 06-09-2019, 02:55 PM

(06-09-2019, 11:47 AM)Belschaft Wrote: Trying to write it into TSP’s Charter that the region is a Defender region is entirely different, and fundamentally undemocratic and discriminatory.

Such an amendment, as any other amendment, will be enacted pending a democratic vote amongst legislators with a 3/5 threshold, and can be repealed again by utilizing the same process. This is the same as many other constitutional amendments we have made in the past few years. Therefore, either this is democratic (except you say it isn't), or constitutional amendments are intrinsically undemocratic (which is absurd).

Which is it?

**Amerion** · 06-09-2019, 03:15 PM

I interpreted Bel's comments, and he should feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as:

At the moment, it appears that there is a supermajority in favour of declaring for defenderdom. However, in a hypothetical future when the majority of the region wishes to pursue a raider agenda, they will be unable to overcome the threshold required and hence, even though the majority wills it to be so, they are unable to enact their priorities.

***Roavin*** · 06-09-2019, 03:35 PM

(06-09-2019, 03:15 PM)Amerion Wrote: I interpreted Bel's comments, and he should feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as:

At the moment, it appears that there is a supermajority in favour of declaring for defenderdom. However, in a hypothetical future when the majority of the region wishes to pursue a raider agenda, they will be unable to overcome the threshold required and hence, even though the majority wills it to be so, they are unable to enact their priorities.

It's the same threshold in each case, though. So if in that hypothetical future scenario there is the same supermajority in favor of something else, then they can change it just as well.

**Belschaft** · 06-09-2019, 04:05 PM

Or people should focus on what we can or should do as a region now, rather than trying to bind future generations of players to our own personal preferences.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 06-09-2019, 04:32 PM

(06-09-2019, 11:47 AM)Belschaft Wrote: I don’t think anyone here would have issues with a Cabinet, were it so inclined, pursing a firmly Defender foreign policy and military alignment. That would seem to be a natural result of a democracy, should people advocating that view be elected.

Trying to write it into TSP’s Charter that the region is a Defender region is entirely different, and fundamentally undemocratic and discriminatory. It attempts to bind future generations of players to the preferences of todays, and make it harder for those generations to change our foreign policy or military.

It's as if nobody arguing against this resolution has actually read what I wrote, or they've decided to just ignore the arguments we've put forth. Yes, we understand that you have no problems with the status quo, and you would like to keep the status quo. It's actually kind of weird how the anti-alignment side of this is basically say, "If you want to change things, why can't you just elect a Cabinet that will pursue defender policies?" It's weird because it's almost a form of gaslighting, to try and get the region to go, "Ah yes, that's a sensible compromise proposal, let's try that." But we've been doing that already, and it's not as successful as you're saying it should be. Just like the past 5 years of independent/non-aligned policy hasn't been successful.

And let's be crystal clear here. In late 2013, after Milo's coup if I recall correctly, a tiny group of players, eventually including yourself by 2014*, decided that TSP would be "Independent" and align itself with imperialists. You guys enforced that paradigm by socially and politically ostracizing anybody who argued against it. At one point, you even conspired with foreign powers to purge pro-defenders from the region, because you decided that being anything other than Independent (or the begrudgingly-accepted non-aligned) was being anti-TSP. And I get that you've since said that was a mistake, but it happened nonetheless. So I really don't want to hear about how you think voting to make TSP defender according to our laws is anti-democratic. The defenders in this region have worked hard as hell over the past several years to prevail over laws and an elite that had stacked the rules against us, tried to remove us from the region, and argued that we were acting on behalf of foreign interests. And now that there may be a supermajority of TSPers in favor of adopting defending as our official stance, in alignment with our democratic values, you're breaking out the old trope of pro-defender being anti-TSP. I won't stand for it, and neither will the rest of us. A defender TSP will still be a democracy, will still protect everyone's rights, and will fight to uphold our values and make sure our values at home match how we're interacting with the game at large. That's not anti-democratic and to say so is frankly defamatory.

If you want to speak about democracy, it is plain fact that we have had more votes in favor of electing pro-defender people the Cabinet, ratifying treaties with pro-defender regions, ensuring our military doesn't engage in the worst excesses of raiding, and explicitly against the old ideology of Independence. We never actually had a vote at any time after 2013 that TSP should follow the paradigm of "only what's in our interests (and being defender is not that)." I would say that, so far, the democratic process has shown a clear trend towards a defender TSP.

(06-09-2019, 04:05 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Or people should focus on what we can or should do as a region now, rather than trying to bind future generations of players to our own personal preferences.

We've been trying under the rules you set for the past 5 years, and it hasn't worked. It's time to try something new. You say we're binding future generations to our preferences as if we haven't bound to yours for years. That's been a double-standard forever, but TSP has been following the self-interest based ideology you helped introduce 5 years ago. The only reason we've become as defender as we are is because players like me and Roavin have been able to argue that it's actually in our interests to engage in defender-leaning policies. But the confines of what's been acceptable in TSP are still very much set by that "independent" ideology: TSP will do what is only in our interests, and that necessarily means not being officially defender. We can get this far, but we're not allowed to go any further. And for all the reasons that I outlined in my address, that has hindered our ability to thrive militarily and diplomatically/politically.

* I erroneously originally stated you were an advocate of our pro-Independent and imperialist policies in 2013, but as far as I know, you didn't reach that conclusion until later in 2014. Which is when the rest of what I said occurred.

(This post was last modified: 06-09-2019, 05:10 PM by sandaoguo.)

Imperial Frost Federation · 06-09-2019, 05:15 PM

If this were to hypothetically be brought to a vote which version would it be?
The original with Roavin's amendment or Glen's proposal?