[2402.AB] Amendment to the Charter and Military Code

Assembly
, ,
1

An SPSF retheming is a change that has been due for a long time, and after some backstage discussion we’ve decided to go forward with a naval theme.

Amendment to the Charter:

(2) The military will be led by the Prime Minister, along with a corps of generals board of admirals appointed by the Prime Minister and approved by the Assembly. The Prime Minister and general corps Admiralty may establish further hierarchy, create programs, and appoint deputies as they see necessary.

Amendment to the Miltary Code:

1. General Corps Admiralty

(1) The General Corps Admiralty is a commission comprising up to three Commanders Captains and the Prime Minister, or their appointed designee. A Commander Captain on the General Corps Admiralty shall be called an General Admiral.

(2) The General Corps Admiralty shall be the supreme entity leading the military, hold responsibility for the planning and overseeing all missions of the military, decide all personnel matters including applications and promotions, and handle disciplinary actions as a tribunal.

(3) In case of a vacancy on the General Corps Admiralty, the Prime Minister may appoint a Commander Captain with approval by the Assembly to become an General Admiral. Should there be no Generals Admirals, the military shall not operate except for the self-defense of the South Pacific, for the defense of an ally, or for the purposes of explicit treaty obligations.

(4) An General Admiral is removed from the General Corps Admiralty if

  1. the General Admiral no longer holds the rank of Commander Captain (temporary demotions shall not be considered for this purpose),
  2. a simple majority of the General Corps Admiralty votes for the removal, or
  3. the General Admiral is recalled by the Assembly through regular order.

2. Ranks

(1) The attainable ranks in the military are, from lowest to highest:

  1. Trainee Cadet, which is the entry rank for any new member of the military, regardless of prior experience;
  2. Soldier Ensign, which is the rank for which a member of the military is considered to be able to autonomously follow any order described in battlefield-typical terms;
  3. Officer Lieutenant, which is for individuals deemed capable of leading troops in operations;
  4. Commander Captain, which is considered the rank that can plan and execute larger, potentially long-term operations.

(2) The General Corps Admiralty may introduce specialized ranks within the main ranks at its discretion.

(3) The General Corps Admiralty shall define rank requirements for each rank, which must be viewable by any member of the military. The requirements must include objective criteria based on operations performed by the individual in the name of this military, as well as subjective criteria based on the General Corps Admiralty’s judgement of the individual’s character as it relates to the specific rank to be attained.

(4) For the rank requirements for Commanders Captains, the General Corps Admiralty must include criteria that require state-of-the-art skills and knowledge required for liberating a large game-created region.

(5) When rank requirements are changed such that there are members of the military that no longer qualify for their current rank, the General Corps Admiralty must grant a reasonable grace time for affected members to meet these new requirements before they are demoted.

3. Rules

(1) A member of the military must show respectful behavior towards a superior, must not bully, humiliate, or intimidate their subordinates, and must not act in an unbecoming manner toward their peers.

(2) A member of the military may not intentionally or recklessly disobey a lawful command given by a superior, or intentionally or recklessly put at risk, delay, or otherwise disrupt a lawful operation.

(3) A member of the military may only be a member of another military with assent of the General Corps Admiralty, which it may rescind at any time and for any reason. If the member’s other military is on the opposing side of an arbitrary R/D conflict, the member may not change sides for the duration of the operation, and shall be considered suspended from the military for the duration of the operation should they be engaged on the opposing side.

(4) A member of the military must not aid the enemy. A member who is also a member of another military and engaged alongside that military on the opposing side during an arbitrary R/D conflict shall not be considered in conflict of this rule.

(5) A member of the military may not obtain or attempt to obtain confidential information with the intent to disclose it to individuals or organizations not authorized to possess it.

(6) A member of the military is required to perform at least one mission every calendar month, unless suspended or granted leave by the General Corps Admiralty.

(7) The General Corps Admiralty may instate additional rules that do not contradict rules stated here at its discretion. These rules must be publicly visible.

4. Disciplinary Actions

(1) The General Corps Admiralty is responsible for determining whether a member of the military has conducted themselves in a way not befitting their rank or not befitting their membership in the military. Upon making such a determination, the General Corps Admiralty will issue one or more disciplinary actions as appropriate, keeping in mind the severity of the infraction and the individual’s disciplinary history.

(2) A disciplinary action given to a member of the military can be any one of:

  1. Temporary demotion, in which the affected member must serve under a lower effective rank for a duration of up to one month;
  2. Indefinite demotion, in which the affected member’s effective rank is indefinitely lowered by virtue of no longer meeting rank requirements;
  3. Suspension, in which the affected member may not serve the military for a duration of up to one month;
  4. Honorable discharge, in which the affected member is dismissed of duty in good faith;
  5. Dishonorable discharge, in which the affected member is dismissed of duty and not permitted to return without special assent of the Assembly.

(3) A member of the military subject to a disciplinary action may appeal that disciplinary action and offer a defense to be reviewed by the General Corps Admiralty. If an amicable resolution cannot be achieved, the member may demand that the charge be brought to the High Court. In this case, the court shall conduct a trial akin to a criminal trial, in which General Corps Admiralty shall act as the Complainant, the accused member as the Accused, and the disciplinary actions listed herein shall be used by the court for sentencing.

4 Likes
2
I have a few comments:
  • This feels slightly contradictory. Is the military led by the Prime Minister and the Admiralty, or is the Admiralty the “supreme entity leading the military”? My suggestion would be the rephrase the second clause to “the primary entity leading the military”.
  • Is there a reason why “Captain” and “Admiral” are capitalised? I feel that they shouldn’t be.
  • In such cases who is allowed to exercise operational command? Would it be the Prime Minister?
  • If assent may be rescinded “at any time and for any reason” does that mean that assent could be lawfully rescinded for, say, having a public disagreement on unrelated matters with an admiral?
  • Why would honourable discharge be one of the allowed disciplinary actions? If one is being disciplined to the extent that discharge is warranted isn’t that almost by definition dishonourable?
3

On the nomenclature changes, I am in full support.

On substance, I second all of Kringle’s questions above. I would also add a further point with respect to this one:

Not only does the language of the act seem internally contradictory as to who ultimately leads the military, as Kringle points out, but there also seems to be some tension between the idea that the Admiralty is the “supreme entity leading the military” and Article V of the Charter, which vests the Prime Minister with responsibility for “directing the regional military.”

4

Well, since Banexet’s current objective is just just the nomenclature, I think it would be better to address these issues in another proposal, since this would certainly have to be deeper, which is not, I believe, the intention of the author of the current proposal.

2 Likes
5

Honestly, I’m still not sure where this sense came from. It’s kind of felt like this is something that just kept being brought up over in the Office of the Cabinet and somehow turned into a political box to tick, but maybe that’s just me.

6

I think that’s reasonable. We really have updated the Military Code’s concept of who leads the military in a post-PM-as-unitary-executive world.

From my perspective, they’re formal titles of ranks. Why wouldn’t they be capitalized?

I imagine this provision is in the current Military Code as a hold over from when we were Independent, since the Generals had to exercise lots of discretion in operational selection and oversight. Since we’re now defender, Generals still have ample role in building the long-term health and sustainability of the SPSF, but the SPSF can now function without them.

Honestly, I think we should remove the “one General death spiral” scenario altogether.

Yes, but that’s also more of a holdover from how we used to do things than something relevant to how things work now. For over a year at this point, we’ve had a one-org policy, with the only exception that some SPSF members were grandfathered in. We may as well put this policy into the Military Code given that, contrary to the doomsaying of some, we’re actually doing better than ever now.

No idea, I agree with getting rid of it.

7

I motion this draft to a vote.

8

Second!

9

We are now at a vote!

2 Likes
10

I’m disappointed that the draft was motioned when discussion was underway.

11

Discussion was unrelated to the aesthetic changes that the draft contained. A second discussion, more related to your questions, is here.

12

I’m aware of what the initial draft entailed, and yet this was a productive space to have a discussion on related changes. There was no downside to letting the discussion progress and legislators reach a consensus draft.