[2512.AB] Removing an out-of-practice military law

[Qaz]

Well, further to this point, the Assembly has a structure in place and if you are not active, you are out, why should the SPSF be any different? If anything, I don’t think the issue here is removing the law, I think it’s telling the people who are not enforcing it that it’s time to pull their finger out and start enforcing it.

[Vrigny]

Thing is, if we start applying this law in the SPSF, we’ll start losing members, and in military gameplay, that’s always bad. In the Assembly, if there are less people to vote for something? Well, there’s less representation and such, but it doesn’t matter, you don’t need a minimum amount of votes to win in the Assembly.

Another thing to mention is that the people who should theoretically enforce this law aren’t even that active, some of them even being close to being over a month without any updates. In that case, they should be kicked out themselves as well, but that would lead to the collapse of the SPSF, again.

It’s not a good idea to start demanding activity, if you don’t do anything to foster activity. In the end, it’s like punishing people without any rewards if they do well.

[ExquisiteGentleman]

yeah that’s a good idea, maybe we can encourage recruitment aswell… idk how but we could encourage people to join it

[Zhuang]

This action seems quite pragmatic. I like it

[Heliseum]

This is an important part of this. Undeniably, the SPSF has significant issues right now. It has been neglected by inactive leadership both in the Admiralty and Cabinet.

There is a plan that people are now working on to pull the SPSF out of this situation in the incoming administration. We need time and flexibility to get that done. It takes months to train someone to be an officer and much longer to consider appointing an admiral.

Application of this rule will hobble any ability we have to repair the SPSF and at worst may literally destroy it.

[Erstavik]

Support

[Vrigny]

I move to bring this proposed amendment to a vote.

[Heliseum]

I second this.

[Ace]

I support bringing it to a vote

[Zhuang]

I also support this motion

[Griffindor]

I would respectfully ask that the Chair hold off on bringing this to vote since discussion only just restarted after a five month hiatus.

[Welly]

Given the lengthy interregnum between the introduction of these amendments and the motion to vote and the fact that members of the Assembly appear to be actively discussing the proposal, the Chair will delay bringing this to a vote for a period of 48 hours. See Legislative Procedure Act 2(9) (authorizing the Chair to “delay votes for a reasonable time frame . . . to avoid preemption of active debate”).

[Qaz]

So how do you increase activity? By deciding not to? I’m sorry, if people don’t have time for it, they can leave, same for anything.

[Of_the_Ages]

@Qaz

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

Liberations are very large scale operations. Save for the absolute smallest liberations, not a single defender organization is capable of succeeding alone.
As it stands, we work together with basically every defender organization, and on occasion we also work with Independents.
The absolute smallest liberations I’m talking about are not against established raider groups, but rather the raids of people who are new to raiding and don’t fully understand how it works. If we pinged for them, we could field enough updaters to fix the smaller ones, but we don’t because we have enough manpower from working with our defender allies.

@Qaz

which is pointless, what’s the point in having the SPSF if we have to do that?

More people is always better when defending. R/D is a numbers game. Just because we wouldn’t be able to liberate alone doesn’t mean that the defenders we have are useless. When defending every person counts. This is true even when we’re working with other militaries.

@Qaz

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

Kicking people from the SPSF is not a matter of them not recruiting people. Often inactive people can be relied upon to show up for very large liberations despite their inactivity. That is where we lose updaters, not from recruitment.

@Qaz

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.

You are operating under the assumption that if we work with other militaries the number of people we have is meaningless. This is not true. Even when working with other militaries every updater counts, and we work with other militaries every update.

@ExquisiteGentleman

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.

All defender militaries rely on each other. R/D mechanics are very different than war, so your comparison to Italy in the world wars is incorrect and misleading. We do need active members, but even if we were the strongest military on NS we’d still heavily rely on our allies.

@Qaz

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

When you say liberations of small regions, how many endorsements on the raider delegate are we talking?

@Qaz

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.

Would you mind sharing what region for context? And how big were the Allied Liberators? I haven’t heard of them, assuming you don’t mean the Allied Liberation League.

@Qaz

What is the point in having inactive people in the SPSF willy nilly?

Sometimes people still show up to a liberation even if they don’t meet the activity requirement. Letting inactive people stay doesn’t pose any detriment to us. Not having even a single defender show up to a liberation can and has caused us to lose. Thus, we want to remove the activity requirement because it’s better to let people stay and update on rare occasions than to not have them at all.

@Qaz

Me: I haven’t.

You have misunderstood quite a lot about defending. You seem to assume we work alone (we don’t), that it’s possible for a strong military to liberate on their own (which they can’t against any established occupation), and that the numbers of updaters we bring are meaningless if other organizations are also brining their members (every single person still matters). You claim to have experience defending, but I’m having a hard time believing you had any significant engagement in operations. Perhaps you did and it was a very long time ago, and if that is the case your experience seems to be quite outdated and has largely lead you into false assumptions about how defending is currently.

@Qaz

Well, further to this point, the Assembly has a structure in place and if you are not active, you are out, why should the SPSF be any different? If anything, I don’t think the issue here is removing the law, I think it’s telling the people who are not enforcing it that it’s time to pull their finger out and start enforcing it.

Because the assembly does not require active members in the same way that defending does. When defending we need all the manpower we can get. A single updater can make or break an operation’s success. The assembly is not benefited by people who show up once in a blue moon. The SPSF is. They are different things with different goals, different requirements to meet those goals, and thus need different requirements when it comes to activity.

[ExquisiteGentleman]

oh… sorry sorry that’s my fault. Thanks for clarifying.

[Qaz]

1. Well, it is a bit, we can never hope to do larger-scale operations because the management of the Ministry won’t take the necessary actions to make the SPSF more active, that’s what this boils down to. I’ve only ever been in the SPSF for a few months and I feel like I care about it more, right now, than anyone else does.

2. Seven or eight?

3. Think about it logically, if they are smaller regions and smaller efforts, you won’t have heard of them. Secondly, this was nine or ten years ago so I don’t expect you to know them, neither do I expect them to still exist. If what you are saying by ‘I’ve never heard of them,’ is really, ‘they were not significant therefore they don’t count,’ let me tell you they did count and the experience I got from them is invaluable and extremely helpful, especially now. So yes, I would mind, I won’t be naming them, there’s no point, they are gone, which is a common theme with smaller regions.

4. I repeat the point that it is not me who has misunderstood another but that others have misunderstood me. I am not prepared to re-state everything I have already stated on this point a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth time, not gonna happen.

[Of_the_Ages]

@Qaz

I’ve only ever been in the SPSF for a few months and I feel like I care about it more

I cannot find records of any updates attended by you in Libcord, which is where the SPSF has defended from for about the last nine years, meaning your brief stint in the SPSF must be older than that. I encourage you to rejoin the SPSF and actually update a few times before you continue to give false and misleading information about the SPSF.

[Pronoun]

So — frankly I have not had time to dive into the weeds on this issue.

I will briefly say that, from my experience in the SPSF, it helps to have a ‘mailing list’ of people. There are some smaller day-to-day operations and some more occasional large operations where we really need every person we can get. If someone’s willing to, metaphorically, stay subscribed to our mailing list and get notified about those operations when we really need people — I don’t think we really gain anything by kicking them out.

[Griffindor]

Isn’t that our “Tsunami force”?

[Heliseum]

I think you mean the Tidal Force (the Tsunami Force is the main, regularly updating branch of the SPSF).

But no, not really. The Tidal Force are explicitly off-update members that cannot be around at the specific times we’d need for a liberation. They’re also used for piles and other simpler asynchronous stuff, so they’re not necessarily trained for liberating either.