The Military Code was written in a period where the game mechanics and R/D atmosphere was very different from what we have now, and as such a lot of the Military Code is now outdated. The changes here aim at modernizing the Military Code to fit today’s SPSF and R/D environment.
2. Ranks
[…]
(4) For the rank requirements of Lieutenants, the Admiralty must include criteria that require skills and knowledge necessary for leading troops in operations.
(45) For the rank requirements of Captains, the Admiralty must include criteria that require state-of-the-art skills and knowledge necessaryrequired for liberating a large frontier and game-created region.
(56)
3. Rules
[…]
(3) A member of the military may notonly be a member of another military.with assent of the Admiralty, which it may rescind at any time and for any reason. If the member’s other military is on the opposing side of an arbitrary R/D conflict, the member may not change sides for the duration of the operation, and shall be considered suspended from the military for the duration of the operation should they be engaged on the opposing side.
(4) A member of the military must not aid the enemy. A member who is also a member of another military and engaged alongside that military on the opposing side during an arbitrary R/D conflict shall not be considered in conflict of this rule.
I would like to hear input from current and former MoDs along with higher ups in the SPSF
As for me, I feel that the only part that I would support is the addition of the requirements for lieutenants, otherwise I would be against. I shall provide a breakdown of my opinions
First:
I feel that these are necessary requirements, as leading is a part of the role of lieutenant in section 2.(1)c of the Military Code. The requirement of knowledge of such duties that may need to be performed is a important aspect of any successful operation. This could potentially be reworked if necessary to apply to all ranks.
Next:
This does not need to be changed from the original. While the liberation of a GCR is extremely unlikely to ever even be a concern, it would be among the largest operations in the history of R/D and we would need many extremely knowledgeable and skilled people in charge. The change from required to neccecary has little to no effect, and is unnecessary.
Third:
This change creates uncertainty for multiple things. First, it removes the clearly outlined consequence for violation of the section. Second, it removes some clarification that could potentially cause delays in the temporary suspension which would endanger the confidentiality of the military and it’s operations. This change also does not define what it means to “be engaged on the opposing side” which brings more uncertainty and potential delays.
Lastly:
This change, while only one word, fundamentally changes the section. I do think this section needs clarification but the removal of a single word does not do so and may even cause more confusion.
If this amendment comes to vote without very significant changes, I will be voting against.
There are more changes than just this I’d like to see made to the Military code, but those are a project I’d want to work on writing myself in another resolution.
Demonstrate the ability to lead smaller operations using battlefield-typical terms
I don’t oppose adding it, but without giving an argument as to why it’s foundational enough to the rank to be defined by the Assembly and not the Admiralty it feels like you’re just legislating for the sake of legislating; creating restrictions in search of a problem to solve.
This is not a change I support. Operations involving GCRs are almost always going to be more complicated than just a large frontier given the magnitude, both mechanically and politically, and we don’t need a step down in requirements here. The knowledge and skills required are all going to be ones that you’d need to liberate a large frontier, although with perhaps the exception of SC Liberations and Injunctions. Being capable of liberating a GCR is not something I would remove, and while I’d be perfectly happy to add an “and large frontier” onto that, as it stands I am against this.
This is a massive change in policy.
This is a massive change in policy regarding something we don’t see anymore. I am in support, but feel this should go farther.
This section is all about legislating members of the SPSF who are in other militaries during a conflict where the two militaries are at odds. It was a solution to a symptom that existed at the time the Military Code was written, but whose root cause has been fixed since then. The first sentence of Article 3 Section 3 gives us our one org policy, that you cannot be a member of another military. It legislates this through the stipulation of the exception that you may be a member of another military with the permission of the Admiralty, an exception that exists to grandfather in those who were members of other militaries at the time this was written. The last example of this exception was Eshia, who left the SPSF recently. With the departure of Eshia from the SPSF we have no more members who are part of another active military. The Admiralty has no intention of granting this exception again, and we stand behind the one org policy.
The elimination of these parts are largely meaningless in a purely technical sense, as we likely will never come to see this situation in the future. From a political stance, eliminating these parts is a strong reinforcement of our one org policy. This is something I very much support, but I do not feel this goes far enough. I would rather see this change:
Here’s at least one of them replying to your post.
The last time there was even a situation where this could be necessary was the Fedele TEP coup in 2019. We will probably never need to liberate a GCR, while the liberation of large frontiers is relatively common and the most complex and highest-profile operations possible, which is why they are something captains should need to know how to lead.
I feel like this removes uncertainty by putting a prohibition on anyone joining an opposing operation. I seriously considered banning joining multiple militaries entirely, and I’ll change it if it’s more clear since we don’t have anyone currently who is a member of another military since Eshia left.
Joining the other side of a military conflict should be considered aiding the enemy, this is not a clarification.
Uh, I think the Military Code requires captains to know how to liberate a large GCR because TSP is a large GCR. Beyond that, the Admiralty can define the requirements for each rank as necessary.
Our ranks line up well with the Libcord command ranks-Cadet/Ensign for a regular Liberator, Lieutenant for Junior Command, and Captain for Update Command. Junior Command/Lieutenants are supposed to be able to lead updates and command troops, while Update Command/Captains are the ones that plan complex and large-scale liberations. Since we conduct pretty much all of our operations from Libcord, and all other defender regions have a lower-level officer position similar to our Lieutenant rank (Lieutenant in the LDF, Warden-Lieutenant in TGW, etc.) that roughly correspond to a Junior Command role in Libcord, we should codify what is expected out of Lieutenants-that they should be able to command troops at updates, but not necessarily plan large liberations. This will codify what is already standard across all large defender militaries.