I would suggest you at least retain a command level that must be voted on by assembly, while the rest could be subject to normal advancement. Probably the highest rank, so that all groups would be on the same page on plans and limitations.
It’s worth noting the General Corps handles security checks for SPSF recruits. Assembly approval is by no means a perfect proxy for measuring community trust in granting the access those checks require, but it was one factor that was brought up previously, so I thought I’d mention it here as well.
What if we centralise security check processing for the whole government, and have each ministry or institution make decisions based on the conclusions provided by that centralised body?
I can include this in the Regional Security Act, although I do wonder who would be responsible for selecting an individual or individuals, and whether it would involve Assembly approval, or another process.
In my mind it would be similar to the current arrangement that I have with LegComm, where I make the decision on who to admit to the Great Council, but relying on the security checks and opinion that they provide.
That’s my understanding of this potential system too, but my question was more directed at what the successor to the Legislator Committee would look like, who appoints them, etc.
Really I don’t think we’d need much change from the current system. These would be people with privileged access to user information, so we’d definitely want to vet them at the Assembly level.
Alright. I will include a successor body in my Voter Registration Act draft.
It’s worth noting that the General Corps hasn’t had these permissions since we moved over to these forums… Only member who has the staff permissions required to view IP addresses is HumanSanity, and only by virtue of being in LegComm.
I’d like to propose a vote on the following wording.
I remain in agreement with Glen in terms of being skeptical of having a system where there are permanent Generals who are not directly accountable to the PM while the PM is also commander in chief. Either, the PM leads the military or the Generals do. The hybrid system is a legal mush pot that creates needless ambiguity.
Also, typo in 3(5) “Generals Corp”
-
- Should be will, not may. Either they have to write the rules, or someone else will, but you’ll want those rules.
And 2. d, it shouldn’t be in the decision process of a military to do, that’s an outcome of political considerations and should be handled by PM or assembly.
What I have drafted pretty much reflects the current system, where an elected Minister of Defence - in my draft the PM or a designated minister - acts as Civilian head of the military whilst the Generals Corps runs the SPSF. What you are proposing is a very significant increase in power of a PM who is already having their power vastly increased.
So not a fan of a PM appointing a MoD. You stand a good chance of a PM not knowing anything about gameplay or anyone in TSP that does. And I can personally vouch, as a LONG TIME player in the gameplay arena, that situation leads to inactivity and the loss of interest in general staff as they get tired of being told by noobs HOW to do things. At least having a MoD election, the people who know can get people they will follow into leadership.
The system of the SPSF being run by its Officer corps under the oversight of the Prime Minister (or Minister of Defense) is inevitable. The question is whether those Generals and Officers have autonomous decision-making power over the SPSF (the status quo) or the Prime Minister has actual authority to set the direction of the SPSF.
Voters are several levels of magnitude less informed than either the PM or the Generals.
So does a situation where the General staff just becomes inactive and inattentive and there’s no check on that inactivity or inattention.
I think the more logical way to go is to let the Prime Minister and (if one is appointed) the Defence Minister determine the organisational structure of the military, and that includes the role that Generals would fill in that structure.
1 Like
To this end, might I recommend the following amendment to the Charter, in lieu of the full Defense Act?
It’s fairly obvious what the intent of this is. I’m pulling the principles directly off the Resolution on Adopting Defending Military Principles.
I’m supportive of this in principle but would like to see our alignment implemented more concretely: I do think it is important to have specific provisions about which circumstances offensive military operations should be conducted. Stating our principles is important but for me, it rings a bit hollow if it’s just limited to a general declaration of policy.
What circumstances would you recommend?
I avoided anything further because I’m not well learned about the actual day to day that the SPSF does, and under what circumstances exactly a raid/invasion might be worthwhile to conduct. For me, this satisfies the requirement of outright stating our alignment in our highest governing document, while providing a great degree of flexibility to the Prime Minister and their military to execute their duties. If the SPSF executed a raid under shoddy circumstances, then it should be incumbent on the Assembly to hold the Prime Minister accountable.
I think the provisions under 2(3) of previous drafts were fine. So something like this: