Yes, that is correct. However, these are regions that certainly present a risk not only for our region but also for the NS itself. Even if the affected regions are not our allies, they are, as the draft envisages, innocent regions. People who participate in these invasions and are members of these regions cannot be trusted and represent an imminent risk.
I think we verge on the extreme if we adopt legislation that will allow the proscription of all regions that ever raid.
2 Likes
I understand your point. In my view, the intention is to restrict regions that do this constantly, that is, ârepeated or unapologetic acts of hostilityâ, that is, I believe that a single raid act would not fit into this.
However, if it seems confusing, we can put: ârepeated and unapologetic acts of hostilityâ.
So if they repeatedly do something that the bill says should result in a proscription but then apologize, nothing happens?
Probably. But if itâs an untrue excuse, it will come to light and it wonât do any good.
Then the change is completely nullified and pointless. Whatâs the utility in allowing hostile regions a free pass because they apologize?
3 Likes
This makes sense, honestly.
Against.
The proposal written as is will make every organization that tag raids or assists in a contested occupation-which is almost every raider and independent region (including generally friendly/defender-sympathetic regions such as TNP and Carcassonne) open to proscription. The current law is perfectly fine.
3 Likes
If we have no current legal grounds to proscribe a group like the Brotherhood of Malice, then the law is clearly not âperfectly fineâ. Just because they have not yet directly attacked us or one of our allies, that doesnât make them any less of a threat to us or our interests.
Regardless, I have written a new draft in the OP that narrows the proposal further.
Why do we need the powers of proscription to contain BoM or other raider groups? Whatâs the missing middle that this draft is trying to fill?
1 Like
EmC, correct me if Iâm wrong, please. How long will we leave members of a region that cause a lot in the region and NS and that our âsoldiersâ fight a lot against, open to entering when they see fit here? What we have today is an immense concern, Europe (or Europeia, sorry about that) was INVADED and NOTHING was done. How long will we allow them here? This is absurd. Everyone who participates in these regions knows very well what they are getting into. No more, no less.
I was not in the SPSF for an extended time, but the majority of R and D (as far as Iâm aware) happens at update. A proscription wouldnât do much to stop that I donât think, and TSP has other ways of safeguarding against raiders.
2 Likes
For the less informed among us could you explain why we would want to proscribe a group like the Brotherhood of Malice?
I plan to vote no, if this ever comes to a vote. I think that we shouldnât proscribe people just for being a Raider or being Independent. Also, I get that we are Defender aligned, but what obligation do we have to innocent regions? Donât we liberate by choice?
1 Like
Why should we hold the door open for raiders to come in as they please and ultimately undermine our defender way of life? Missing middle?
Why are you directing this at me?
The Brotherhood of Malice is a group of raiders who have engaged in the infiltration, invasion, and delegate tipping of multiple large regions in the game. As a result of said actions, regions such as The North Pacific and Europeia have declared war on the Brotherhood, which has also been the subject of sanctions by the member regions of the Modern Gameplay Compact.
In these instances, the South Pacific currently does not have any grounds to proscribe the Brotherhood because none of these actions were committed against a region allied to our region, but there is nothing stopping them from committing the same here when they choose to. We are already potentially seeing that play out with one of their members seeking citizenship.
The new draft doesnât allow for the proscription of âIndependentâ regions unless they engage in the destruction of innocent regions. And where are you taking this line of questioning? Is the SPSF supposed to curl up into a ball and let the raiders run free?
I donât know if Iâd go as far as saying we have a âdefender way of lifeâ. Speaking for myself I certainly think that raiding is an intrusive and unkind way to play the game but itâs not like defending is such a big part of my game identity or that I even associate defending as one of the regionâs pillars. To me when someone mentions the South Pacific I think of democracy, gameside community development, and roleplay; defending doesnât even make the list so Iâm not sure how we can talk about a âdefender way of lifeâ as if it was something that needed protecting.
1 Like
However, Independent regions will engage in the destruction of innocent regions so long as it is in their best interest. Thatâs the point of being independent.
If an innocent region gets raided, my view is that we go into libcord to liberate it. Nothing more, nothing less. We donât need to ban raiders from the region.
Idk, I thought you thought the same or similar 
Those filthy raiders coming in and getting up to their ways of trying to⌠engage in democracy?
2 Likes
I disagree, especially considering the fact that we stated the following in the Resolution on Adopting Defending Military Principles in 2019:
Resolved that the Coalition of the South Pacific:
âŚ
(2) Declares that these principles are a fundamental aspect of our community and culture, and will strive to reflect these principles in our Charter, constitutional laws, and military guidelines, but that the Coalition will as always let our traditions and culture develop naturally in adopting these principles.
Well, the day they do that, they will certainly have to hear from us because I sure as hell wonât stand for it. Thatâs not being Independent, that is being a bully.