I like your amendments, Somy, but have some concern over the inclusion of 'Totalitarian' - is there a way to write this to rule out consensual RP in this area? I think we would only be opposed to totalitarian regimes which are actually oppressing their natives against their will in some way, right?

Good point. Maybe we could say "those regions which espouse hateful ideologies, have totalitarian regional governments, and..."? Or we could just replace the use of "totalitarian" altogether-- "those regions which espouse hateful ideologies, oppress their residents against their will, and...". I'm sure there's a more eloquent way to write it. 

So I generally like your edits, but this is something that really sticks out to me like a sore thumb. I don’t think we should be authorizing offensive ops (aka first strikes) against regions just because they’re not democracies. That will be very unacceptable to a big cross section of GP, including other defenders, and will just alienate us on both sides. It’s also not something that’s actually feasible without having a full time raider force— there are a lot of “totalitarian” or “oppressive” regions out there, including Osiris, NPO, etc. TSP should stick to defending and doing anti-hate campaigns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 

 

I like your amendments, Somy, but have some concern over the inclusion of 'Totalitarian' - is there a way to write this to rule out consensual RP in this area? I think we would only be opposed to totalitarian regimes which are actually oppressing their natives against their will in some way, right?

Good point. Maybe we could say "those regions which espouse hateful ideologies, have totalitarian regional governments, and..."? Or we could just replace the use of "totalitarian" altogether-- "those regions which espouse hateful ideologies, oppress their residents against their will, and...". I'm sure there's a more eloquent way to write it. 

So I generally like your edits, but this is something that really sticks out to me like a sore thumb. I don’t think we should be authorizing offensive ops (aka first strikes) against regions just because they’re not democracies. That will be very unacceptable to a big cross section of GP, including other defenders, and will just alienate us on both sides. It’s also not something that’s actually feasible without having a full time raider force— there are a lot of “totalitarian” or “oppressive” regions out there, including Osiris, NPO, etc. TSP should stick to defending and doing anti-hate campaigns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 

This. Or to rephrase it in a different way: Wouldn't it conflict with the same values we profess to if we then engage in spreading our values by force? 

So, I don't think we should set out raiding places that aren't democracies, but if at all possible, I think it would be useful to provide some wiggle room for us to help natives in the event we're asked.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

If those natives are under an occupation (from a coup or an invasion) and in need of liberation, then yeah of course. We don’t really need any new language in the law for that. But TSP going around and fomenting civil wars, even if we’re asked to, is a quick way to lose everyone’s trust and become a pariah in GP. The same way it happens IRL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

If those natives are under an occupation (from a coup or an invasion) and in need of liberation, then yeah of course. We don’t really need any new language in the law for that. But TSP going around and fomenting civil wars, even if we’re asked to, is a quick way to lose everyone’s trust and become a pariah in GP. The same way it happens IRL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course. Again, I realize I'm harping on this a bit, but given our ancient history, I just want to make sure we can help couped regions if needed. As long as that' acceptable under the current language, carry on.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

It's generally accepted that a defender organization is allowed to support the restoration of legitimate governments in a coup. That shouldn't be a problem with the current language.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

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

Reply

May I ask, if in a raider/dictatorial region there is a movement for democracy that is currently unsuccessful, would the TSP be allowed to aid that movement in a coup in the region, or would it be the same as backing a coup regardless of ideology?

The Sakhalinsk Empire, Legislator of the South Pacific
Currently a citizen and legislator of TSP. I am active as Sverigesriket in Europe.

Complete Conflict of Interest

Reply

I don’t think we should be fomenting coups anywhere. We can vocally support players trying to have more say, but actually moving in to remove the existing government is a bad idea. It’s more difficult than you’d think, and in the history of NS it’s rarely been good for a region’s standing in the game. It’s also rare that there’s a clean-cut picture of “oppressed vs oppressor” once a civil war breaks out, or that the pro-democracy side wis guaranteed to be acting in good faith or have competent leadership. The biggest issue, though, is that TSP just wouldn’t be seen as trustworthy, and we’d lose our democratic bonafides by artificially toppling governments.

There will be plenty of other things to do, and the above scenario also just doesn’t happen often in NS. Now, if there’s a civil war *and* the oppressors start purging, depending on the circumstances that could be grounds for classifying it as a coup. In which case, TSP might elect to get involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

I don’t think we should be fomenting coups anywhere. We can vocally support players trying to have more say, but actually moving in to remove the existing government is a bad idea. It’s more difficult than you’d think, and in the history of NS it’s rarely been good for a region’s standing in the game. It’s also rare that there’s a clean-cut picture of “oppressed vs oppressor” once a civil war breaks out, or that the pro-democracy side wis guaranteed to be acting in good faith or have competent leadership. The biggest issue, though, is that TSP just wouldn’t be seen as trustworthy, and we’d lose our democratic bonafides by artificially toppling governments.

There will be plenty of other things to do, and the above scenario also just doesn’t happen often in NS. Now, if there’s a civil war *and* the oppressors start purging, depending on the circumstances that could be grounds for classifying it as a coup. In which case, TSP might elect to get involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So let's say the Laz coup (2017) happens again. Would we get involved there? Would we be able to under law?

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

We would be able to under the law, because fighting against a coup is in line with the principles espoused here. I’m not sure why anybody would think otherwise. Defenders have always fought against coups. This isn’t complex!

As for your first question, it would depend on the actual context of the situation. It’s not possible to give you an exhaustive flow chart of what TSP should do. We already use our democratic values as guidelines in how to react to these situations, and will continue to do so. Being defender doesn’t offer any more guidance, because “defending” isn’t itself an ideological framework. It’s an activity. The ideological reasons we defend are our democratic values.

The short hand here is:
- Defending is an action our military takes
- Democracy is the ideology behind it

TSP proclaiming ourselves a defender region just means we aren’t going raid innocent regions. Everything else about why or how we react to specific situations isn’t a question of “how does a defender TSP react?” but rather “how does a pro-democratic TSP react?” A lot of these scenario-based questions have already been debated and answered through past actions, as TSP has been pro-democracy for years. In Lazarus, for example, we aided the people who got purged by a raider occupation, because we believed LWU’s actions were anti-democratic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 06-20-2019, 10:46 AM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

We would be able to under the law, because fighting against a coup is in line with the principles espoused here. I’m not sure why anybody would think otherwise. Defenders have always fought against coups. This isn’t complex!

As for your first question, it would depend on the actual context of the situation. It’s not possible to give you an exhaustive flow chart of what TSP should do. We already use our democratic values as guidelines in how to react to these situations, and will continue to do so. Being defender doesn’t offer any more guidance, because “defending” isn’t itself an ideological framework. It’s an activity. The ideological reasons we defend are our democratic values.

The short hand here is:
- Defending is an action our military takes
- Democracy is the ideology behind it

TSP proclaiming ourselves a defender region just means we aren’t going raid innocent regions. Everything else about why or how we react to specific situations isn’t a question of “how does a defender TSP react?” but rather “how does a pro-democratic TSP react?” A lot of these scenario-based questions have already been debated and answered through past actions, as TSP has been pro-democracy for years. In Lazarus, for example, we aided the people who got purged by a raider occupation, because we believed LWU’s actions were anti-democratic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, others may not exactly feel this way, but I know part of my concern (that's actually much too strong for my sentiment) is that depending on the reading of a "defender" agenda, it could easily be read in a game-mechanism sense (a la TWP) where whoever is the delegate is the rightful leader and anything that isn't explicitly done by "raiders" isn't something we could/should/would get involved in.

That said, I think you've been pretty clear that TSP can still act within its interests — we're just not going raiding for LOLz — but, it's my sense that this was the impetus for these questions.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

So, others may not exactly feel this way, but I know part of my concern (that's actually much too strong for my sentiment) is that depending on the reading of a "defender" agenda, it could easily be read in a game-mechanism sense (a la TWP) where whoever is the delegate is the rightful leader and anything that isn't explicitly done by "raiders" isn't something we could/should/would get involved in.

I don't think I really understand where this view comes from. Defenders are the ones in NS who explicitly don't subscribe to that view, otherwise we wouldn't think that raids or coups should be fought against. In the grand scheme of things, defenders oppose coups for the same reason we oppose raids: it's an abuse of power that takes choice away from native members of the region. That's how defenders have viewed things since I started playing NS, so that's why I'm confused about where this view is coming from

That said, I think you've been pretty clear that TSP can still act within its interests — we're just not going raiding for LOLz — but, it's my sense that this was the impetus for these questions. 

I want to make clear, though, that this is largely about repudiating the "act within our interests" mindset that dominated the Independent(-imperialist) era of TSP. We're not approaching every situation from a neutral stand point and determining whether to raid or defend, do X or Y, based on a cold calculation of "interests." (Leaving alone the fact that we've never been able to articulate what those "interests" have been this whole time...) Being defender means we're starting from the premise that a) we will defend against raids and liberate occupations and b) we will act according to our democratic values in doing so, and basing our reaction to a situation from there. If you need to personally think about it in "interests" language, we're basically saying that defending and being pro-democratic is always in our interests.

(This post was last modified: 06-21-2019, 05:35 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply