While supposed to give a sense of obligation to the members of the military, this law hasn’t been applied for years. It makes sense that the military code of the SPSF should set some minimum monthly requirements to keep membership on the organization, but this has not been taken into consideration.
Something to add here is that this law adds a requirement for SPSF members but no consequences are listed in the case of not attending any update for over a calendar month.
Still, since this part of the Military Code is literally not being applied (since several years ago), and lacks any clear effect on SPSF members, there’s no reason why it should still be part of it.
It’s not that we never look at it, but the reality is that if someone is still willing to get notified about major operations there isn’t really any advantage to turning them down — in fact, it would be a disadvantage. Every person is another step closer to a victory. But the nature of defender military operations is that, well, you need something to defend. Sometimes raiders just don’t stage a large-scale occupation in a.l given month.
This is the question from my perspective. If the timeline were extended to six months, would you propose a specific consequence associated with failure to comply with that requirement? If so, what? If not, I would favor eliminating the requirement altogether, rather than lengthening it but still, in practice, never applying it.
This has been the case, yes. The SPSF forum group used to have around 80+ members, of which only ~10-15 were “decently active”, meaning that they participated enough to make an impression on the officers. This does not mean they participated in a mission at least once a month.
Many members in the TSP discord server also conserve their SPSF roles even if they haven’t participated in any update in over a month. For instance, there are members who have the role, since 2021 who have never participated in any update.
Taking this into consideration, it’s true that that raiders don’t stage large-scale occupations every month in order to attract some members who may only want to participate in liberations. However, there are still other operations that occur every update, and the law does not distinguish any difference between operations; calling it just “missions”, which could include either detagging, chasing, liberating, premoves…
While I also agree that there’s no advantage on turning down people who might decide to participate in any liberation after >1 month of inactivity (not performing any “missions” during that time), I also think there should be a way for the SPSF to effectively see how large of a day-to-day force it is. It wouldn’t really be good for us to say the SPSF contains 80 members, although 75 of those members only participate once in a blue moon.
Some argument could be made for the establishment of some branch of the SPSF which could include a reserve force just for liberations, but that’s just an undeveloped idea.
As someone who would have been removed by this requirement had it been enforced, but came back to activity recently, I fully support its removal.
I would also like to bring up sleepers. Removing inactive SPSFers who have put sleepers into vulnerable regions actively detracts from potential resources as well.
I think the best way to keep track of that is just to track who updates when in a spreadsheet, and then data can be easily pulled from that. Giving people a role or title based around that would basically require such record keeping anyways.
I’d like to revive discussion on this topic, as I would like to see it passed. I intend to motion it to a vote soon if no new opinions are brought forth. Had I not forgotten about this topic due to the lack of responses after mine I would have motioned it to vote when the debate period finished.
question: how can we enforce this effectively when it’s hard to know whose inactive and on hiatus for a while and no one knows or wasn’t told. I know this isn’t the best question it’s just something I’m wondering.
The SPSF updates in Libcord, which is the defender discord server. As a part of that, Libcord officers maintain records of who is present each update, so it’s very easy to tell who hasn’t met the activity requirement.
If we wanted to enforce it, we could easily do so. However the law simply isn’t enforced because there’s no benefit to enforcing it and it would be actively detrimental to the SPSF to enforce it.
This amendment is to remove it since it’s not enforced and we don’t want to enforce it.
No, it wouldn’t. The SPSF relies on activity to be able to liberate regions who have fallen to raiders. If we allow defenders (nearly said peacekeepers then!) to remain plodding along, doing their own thing, a liberation is not going to be successful without drafting in defenders from embassy regions, which is pointless, what’s the point in having the SPSF if we have to do that? If we enforce it and remove people and, as you seem to be implying, alienate them and they don’t recommend anyone apply to join the SPSF, it’s the same difference, there still are not enough defenders to liberate a region and we need to join with embassy regions’ militaries to successfully liberate a region.
This is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how Defenderdom operates and has operated for a very long time now.
No significant liberation is ever carried out by one military organization. The whole of defenderdom has rallied around a centralized command structure in Libcord. Day to day operations are run there, commanded there, and planned there.
The other bit of context is that R/D is mostly background small operations with the occasional spike to massive ones. Most days, most things can be done by five people, but once every couple months we need to call on hundreds. Removing the calendar month requirement essentially allows us to more easily call on retired folks when those updates come around when they’re needed most.
This was actually a misunderstanding in itself, where did I mention the small operations at all? Clue: I didn’t, hence, it had nothing to do with the small operations, in fact, I would be extremely worried if with the active members they were not in a position to liberate small regions, having been Prime Minister of a small region frequently raided in the past, shame on me if I don’t understand small liberations, and having done and been part of liberations myself in the past, not one or two, but many small liberations (with the Allied Liberators, not the SPSF) we would have a serious problem if the small ones couldn’t be fulfilled, I am talking about the big ones. They can be rallied around and organised and planned as much as they like, without the people, it’s not going to happen.
The misunderstanding I’m pointing to is your comment that,
A liberation is always going to involve our allies, with our without this amendment. Liberations big or small happen at a multi-regional scale with our defender partners.
based on my limited knowledge of the SPSF, I’m pretty sure it needs to be active and having actual members, not relying on our allies like Italy before the Cold War.
Just to point out the issue with this law; the SPSF has had inactive people already for a really long time, and this law hasn’t been applied. When someone in the SPSF is inactive, there’s no punishment for that.
But even then, the SPSF’s current situation makes it so that if we punish those that aren’t active constantly, but may participate in the larger liberations, we’ll basically run out of members that may be useful in those cases.
Is it good to have inactive members? It’d be ideal if they weren’t inactive, but it’s better to have someone that will occassionally help you, than to have no one.