IX. THE COUNCIL ON REGIONAL SECURITY AND CORAL GUARD
…
(7) Participation, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d’etat or invasion of the Coalition or any of its allies will disqualify a prospective or sitting member from membership in the Council on Regional Security immediately and permanently. Participation in normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military will not be considered a violation of this clause.
IX. THE COUNCIL ON REGIONAL SECURITY AND CORAL GUARD
…
(7) Participation, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d’etat or invasion of the Coalition or any of its allies will disqualify a prospective or sitting member from membership in the Council on Regional Security immediately and permanently. Participation in normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military will not be considered a violation of this clause.
Now that we have defender-aligned and defender-owned frontiers such as The Wellspring and A Taco Paradise that can be targeted in a traditional raid, members of the CRS that are hypothetically in a raider organization can participate in a raid of one of these frontiers and still be engaged in “normal raiding” efforts, providing a loophole to this section. This bill attempts to patch up this loophole.
Interesting, but we also know that there are invasions against riaders, as happened with that region that I forgot the name of (Solidarity?), so I don’t think it would necessarily be a bad thing.
Maybe include:
“(7) Participation, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d’etat or invasion of the Coalition or, any of its allies or innocent regions will disqualify a prospective or sitting member from membership in the Council on Regional Security immediately and permanently.”
That definition is way too broad: We don’t do DNDs based on embassies alone, and several R/D neutral/independent regions that some of our members are in have embassies with raider regions.
So even if the person who wants to join the CRS was a member of a raider region, as long as they have not raided us or our allies, they can be accepted. There is no legal provision that prevents them.
Is the problem here just raiding? If so, would the below solve it?
IX. THE COUNCIL ON REGIONAL SECURITY AND CORAL GUARD
…
(7) Participation, in whole or in part and at any time, in any coup d’etat or invasion of the Coalition or any of its allies will disqualify a prospective or sitting member from membership in the Council on Regional Security immediately and permanently. Participation in normal raiding, defending, or liberation efforts as part of an organized military will not be considered a violation of this clause.
Maybe I’m thinking too much, but Raid doesn’t necessarily invalidate someone for the CRS position. For example, what happened in Solidariedade was a raid, but it was not promoted by raiders, so if someone who participated in that wanted to join the CRS, they could not, legally, be accepted.
Yes, you’re right. But this also ends up implying the issue of raiders, since, for example, a person could have done several raids with them, but none of them were against the Coalition or one of our allies, so could they be accepted?
They’ll probably be proscribed anyways, but a nation that applies for the CRS is probably dedicated enough to TSP that they wouldn’t have foreign entanglements with a raider region. Your proposed amendments also disqualify ex-raiders that have renounced ties to raiderdom, which there are several of in TGW command, for example.
Also, this is my first time putting something to a vote as Deputy Chair. I think I got everything right, but let me know if anything seems out of place.
I voted against it because it seems too broad. If someone raided an ally of TSP 10 years ago, they can’t be considered for the CRS even if they have been a defender/in TSP for 9.99… years.
This is also unnecessary, if someone is an active raider, A. they most likely won’t be nominated, B. even if they are they probably won’t be confirmed, and C. if they are confirmed then it is the will of the region
This is what the bill is like right now, except with the frontiers update, raiders can now raid one of our allies in something that would be described as “normal raiding activities”, necessitating the change.
