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.