I don’t see how that would be true.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

You can't be independent/unaligned and be Delegate because "nOn dEfendEr dElegAte!!!1!"
You can't be independent/unaligned and be MoFA because if you were elected, your term would br useless because you couldn't go in a policy direction that you wanted to go in if it wasn't "stay full defender".

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

Reply

I mean, look at TRR.

A Prime Minister has to manage an entire Cabinet, and much of their work is domestic issues. A MoMA admittedly would have to be comfortable with mostly defending, but why wouldn’t someone who is unaligned be alright with that? A MoFA has to be good at communication and skilled at maintaining alliances; that doesn’t have much to do with your ideological leaning.


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

Reply

It really doesn't matter what alignment the delegate is so long as we trust them. R/D is the one thing they will explicitly not be doing, unless they went rogue, which is surely as likely whatever ideology they profess.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

I think what Prarie is trying to say is that depending on how fervent we are in our beliefs, we may inadvertently cause otherwise delightful full-of-potential individuals to feel unwelcome in TSP.

Edit: I think ... he should correct me if I'm wrong ...

(This post was last modified: 06-17-2019, 12:01 PM by Amerion.)

Reply

It seems more of a feature than a bug that a hardcore raider or someone who’s anti-defender would feel like they’re not able to reach their full potential in a defender TSP... The same thing has been true for years and years for anybody who’s preferred TSP be raider or defender than Independent or non-aligned. (Though it was easier for raiders for the longest time...)

Someone who prefers monarchism and wants to get cozier with non-democratic regions will also feel less welcome to run for Cabinet, because TSP has a pro-democracy culture and identity. We’re not about to shed that just to make it easier for an imperialist to win an election or feel that their odds of winning are higher.

If someone holds views contra to the general views and culture of TSP, they’ll have to do the hard work of advocating for their position over years and building up a base of support for it. That’s what our TSPer defenders have done. Hell, I can’t tell you how many elections I had to *really fight* to win, outright lost, or never ran in the first place because TSP’s culture wasn’t ready for an out and proud defender.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 06-17-2019, 12:44 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

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

Reply

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?

Reply

I think what Prarie is trying to say is that depending on how fervent we are in our beliefs, we may inadvertently cause otherwise delightful full-of-potential individuals to feel unwelcome in TSP.

Edit: I think ... he should correct me if I'm wrong ...

You're correct.

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

Reply

I think what Prarie is trying to say is that depending on how fervent we are in our beliefs, we may inadvertently cause otherwise delightful full-of-potential individuals to feel unwelcome in TSP.

Edit: I think ... he should correct me if I'm wrong ...

You're correct.

To give a short example, Regional Affairs wouldn’t really care about alignment, unless you’re actively engaging in R/D stuff. Numerous individuals have made their mark on TSP without needing to defend their ideology, if it didn’t agree with the official stance of the South Pacific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ProfessorHenn
Legislator

Reply

I would like to back up what Erinor said here. Your alignment should only be of concern if it concerns the job you have.

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