Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 06-11-2019, 10:12 AM

So, it sounds to me like the Defender sphere has collapsed and the idea is to use TSP to “relaunch” it, using our own resources, prestige and reputation for that purpose?

I get why this is good for Defending but I don’t see any way in which this is good for TSP. It defines our foreign policy according to the Mil-GP alignment of a minority of our players, and drags us into a fight not of our making. It alienates a larger number of platers, including existing TSPers.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 06-11-2019, 10:24 AM

All of Gameplay has collapsed, thanks in large part to big regions like us being non-aligned/independent and thus failing at really getting people interested in GP. I'd encourage you to read up on the NSGP Discord to see the general consensus there about that.

I don't see how TSP becoming a prominent defender region, reaping the benefits of increased recruitment and prestige, and wielding power and influence in GP because of that is a negative.

For the last 5 years, we've followed the independent ideology you demanded we follow. We're not particularly prominent. The promises you made about being non-aligned increasing our activity beyond what being raider or defender could bring... never materialized. Our highest point of power and prominence was when we were working closest with defenders in TGW, and becoming the defender-leaning region we are today. Our FA has suffered with the "independent" regions you aligned us with, because it turns out they still think defending is incompatible with being independent, and you aren't even trying to argue against the points I made about that. And now you're blatantly engaging in the gross tactics of years ago, painting us as acting on behalf of foreign interests. In 2019, you're still arguing that some of our most dedicating players are just using and manipulating TSP to further the "Defending" boogeyman. That's downright shameful.

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019, 10:26 AM by sandaoguo.)

Bzerneleg · 06-11-2019, 10:45 AM

Although the amendment to the Charter proposed by W&S is something I can support, I am concerned about it placing limitations on the options we can take in matters important to regional security. It would be better if we loosen the requirements and allow a temporary suspension of the Defender policy, with the approval of the Cabinet and the Delegate (for example).

Limiting the military's ability to raid is not entirely pro-democracy. In some cases, it is necessary to invade innocent regions. The action itself might not be democratic and peaceful, but it can at times be a necessary first step towards defending our interests.

BZERNELEG

South Pacifican. Public Servant. Creator. In that order.

Positions

Official Thread • Lampshade Broadcasting Company • The Tsunamy Institution of the Law and Public Policy

***Kris Kringle*** · 06-11-2019, 10:46 AM

How is invading innocent regions necessary to safeguard our interests?

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

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

***sandaoguo*** · 06-11-2019, 11:17 AM

I’ve spoke with TEP’s MoFA and confirmed with Delegate Fedele, that our alliance with TEP wouldn’t be on the line if we go defender.

So that should hopefully answer all concerns about what would happen with our existing allies.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kurnugia · 06-11-2019, 11:19 AM

Quote:(3) The military may engage in any offensive or defensive operations permitted under law without fear of political reprisal. However, it may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly with exception of warzone regions. Nor may it destroy innocent regions. When permitted under law, it may engage in the destruction of regions with which the Coalition is at war, and regions espousing hateful ideologies.

I feel like warzones need to be explicitly excluded. Those regions always were and are going to be fair game as it was their purpose when created. The Military should thus be able to use them as target practice regardless of ideology it follows. Feel free to correct my amendment.

Anyhow... I do need to point out that the inactivity SPSF wise is not due to lack of a guiding star but rather the lack of a contiguous and motivated leadership. Atm, it is very prone to suffer from a risk of concentration so to speak. You have at best 2 leaders at the time that are doing stuff. I am not innocent in that regard as I took multiple breaks from it.

Personally, I am against this act. I did not join SPSF to be part of a defender force again. This act will make me reconsider my options.

***sandaoguo*** · 06-11-2019, 11:42 AM

TSP is already functionally Defender in terms of the military ops the SPSF undertakes. So what exactly is going to change for you?

Adopting defending is much more about our FA and improved recruitment possibilities than it is about changing how or what kind of missions the SPSF doing, because it’s already defending and doing antifa 98% of the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019, 11:43 AM by sandaoguo.)

**Amerion** · 06-11-2019, 11:51 AM

If it is the intention of the bill's author to progress regardless of the opposition stated by members then I would much rather this go to a vote sooner than later or we may very well descend to petty arguing. It appears no one is changing their mind anytime soon.

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019, 11:51 AM by Amerion.)

Aga · 06-11-2019, 12:37 PM

(06-09-2019, 08:37 PM)Nat Wrote: May I make a suggestion?

It seems that a big concern of Belschaft's is the supermajority. How about we pass a non-Constitutional law instead? That way, if a majority of TSP decides to change in future then they can do so.

I am not sure what the non-constitutional law would look like. However, I imagine this all would still require the Charter to be amended. Otherwise, the Charter's permissive language towards the military might render any non-constitutional law void. Something like below would suffice to allow a non-constitutional alignment law:

The Charter, Article X Wrote:(3) The military may engage in any offensive or defensive operations permitted under law without fear of political reprisal. However, it may not colonize or annex any region without the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly. Nor may it destroy innocent regions. When permitted under law, it may engage in the destruction of regions with which the Coalition is at war, and regions espousing hateful ideologies.

Anyway, I thought this might be a compromise that people may be interested in considering.

I would vote for such an amendment.

I agree with Amerion, Nothing looks ike it will change now in the debate. I think we should have a vote on this now, and see how it goes down, and possibly make amendments to this after we have fully experienced its consequences (if that is constitutional). Therefore, having read through this thread, I don't think that any more input can change anything.

I motion this to go to a vote, or, if Amerion has just motioned this, I second the motion.

Aga/Eunopiar

Mostly does boring things.

(This post was last modified: 06-11-2019, 01:46 PM by Aga. Edit Reason: Change in grammar and spelling )

Witchcraft and Sorcery · 06-11-2019, 03:24 PM

I agree, I'd like to at least see a vote on the Charter amendment, and probably also Glen's resolution, sooner rather than later. I genuinely hope the arguments we've made in this thread will show that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing this. Especially now that our two closest allies have reaffirmed their commitments.

Witchcraft and Sorcery

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