Just make the delegate the ceremonial head of the military and allow the admiralty to retain their de facto control over day to day ops.
You still have official elected civilian control over the military while allowing the military itself to do what’s best for itself. Further, it puts us more in line with RL examples such as the British military.
I’m 95% joking, but it would serve as a valid solution to the identified problem.
Edited the amendment to remove changes to the definition of “admiral” and leadership of the SPSF.
Support for this new amendment.
Agreed–support for this new version.
As debate on this proposal seems to have ceased I motion this proposal to a vote.
removed the no admiral rule
Good proposal, full support.
Okay, let me go through what I understand the changes to be:
SPSF no longer needs Admirals to function. I have no opinion on this.
In case of dual membership, the moment the two militaries are on opposite sides of a conflict (not the actual SPSF member with dual membership, but just the militaries), the SPSF member is dishonorably discharged. I can understand this if it’s meant as a deterrent against dual membership, but quite frankly, it’s very harsh and illogical. Suppose Soldier Cheesypickles is in both RRA and SPSF, and SPSF undertakes an authorized offensive action that wasn’t communicated to RRA. RRA then, in the heat of update, moves in to defend. Cheesypickles is then immediately dishonorably discharged, despite not being online at update because the player behind Cheesypickles is at school at the moment. That’s a bit absurd, don’t you think?
The requirements to perform a mission at least once a month was removed. I suppose I have no strong opinion on this; Admiralty can impose activity requirements without needing the Military Code to do so, so this is fine.
Honorable discharge was removed, because OP couldn’t conceive of an instance where it makes sense. Well, not meeting activity requirements is a perfect example of an honorable discharge.
So, overall, I’m not very impressed by this draft, and it’s certainly not a cleanup but rather an actual change.
A lot of SPSFers are strictly liberators that only update when a liberation/siege is occurring. The occupations that necessitate these changes are sporadic and often happen less than once a month. Here is the list of all the major contested occupations so far this year:
Most of these operations only have liberation/siege jumps in the first few updates of the operation, and thus liberators often go more than a month between updates. Since liberators make up a large portion of our force, it feels unfair to discharge them from the military when the opportunity to lib hasn’t arose.
I do admit that this draft changes quite a bit of the Military Code, but it’s mostly in areas that I think should be removed to better align with the current state of the SPSF and our relationship with raiders and the rest of defenderdom. This Military Code, in fact, still contains many holdovers from when we were still an independent organization, with no major changes being made to the code since 2017 (2 years before we became defenders). Therefore, the Military Code is well overdue for an update.
Well, that’d be a much more honest explanation of what you’re doing than “cleanup”, don’t you think?
You presumably mean “without assent”. But you completely ignored my underlying point. Either we have a dual-membership process (and then it should be sensible), or we don’t. You’re proposing keeping a dual-membership process but making it absurdly onerous and heavy-handed.
Virtually always, sure, but I have seen this exact scenario (with different orgs) happen. 
I’m with you on removing the activity requirement, but that doesn’t mean the Admiralty might not want to have some sort of requirement anyway. Like, somebody that hasn’t been on a jump in 2 years or such.
Dishonorable discharge means somebody cannot rejoin SPSF without special permission from the Assembly. That really should be reserved for somebody screwing up really badly.
In fairness, the current Military Code doesn’t restrict honourable discharge as a disciplinary action to such benign causes. It doesn’t seem reasonable to allow honourable discharges as an option for more serious infractions.
We don’t, since all current dual-members are grandfathered from years ago and there hasn’t been a dual-member admitted since 2022, when dual membership was practically banned.
With the lack of dual members that we have nowadays (and the unlikeliness to accept one anytime soon), in addition to the increasing homogeneity and improving communication apparatus between defending orgs, this scenario can nowadays only be seen with unmatched levels of incompetence. I’ve added a caveat specifying only defensive operations counting just to be safe.
Right now, there doesn’t seem to be any advantage of imposing an activity limit, especially since we haven’t demasked people for inactivity and there’s no reason to start now.
Why not? Keep your membership up to date.
Interesting point on not having a mechanism to “purge the ranks”, so to speak, is that one could in theory “permanently” get a vote on OWL recommendations by just signing up for SPSF and not voting.
We oftentimes have people, including experienced defenders, returning for liberations after not showing up to an update for extended periods of times. Even if we did have an activity limit, it feels like that would better fit under Admiralty-set rules (Rule 6/7) rather than codified in the Military Code.