Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Of The US on March 06, 2015, 04:25:48 AM
-
It has been said that Taijitu is neutral, though in our military actions we are decidedly defender, I believe that we should clarify our position entirely, are we neutral, or are we defender, if we are neutral why only defend, if defender only, why don't we do more?
-
After some discussion and controversy earlier tonight, it is apparent that we need to adapt an ideology for the Taijitu Militia to follow. We had intentionally left this unlegislated, because we simply did not feel like it had to be, but apparently some people found that confusing.
I suggest that we adopt regional sovereignty as our identity for the Taijitu Militia.
-
Admin note: I have merged two similar topics in this subforum.
-
After some discussion and controversy earlier tonight, it is apparent that we need to adapt an ideology for the Taijitu Militia to follow. We had intentionally left this unlegislated, because we simply did not feel like it had to be, but apparently some people found that confusing.
I suggest that we adopt regional sovereignty as our identity for the Taijitu Militia.
I support this as well.
-
After some discussion and controversy earlier tonight, it is apparent that we need to adapt an ideology for the Taijitu Militia to follow. We had intentionally left this unlegislated, because we simply did not feel like it had to be, but apparently some people found that confusing.
I suggest that we adopt regional sovereignty as our identity for the Taijitu Militia.
I agree with this sentiment. The ideals of sovereigntism - liberating communities from invading and imperialist powers - seems the most sensible option given the alignment of the Glorious Revolution.
-
Also at least one member of the Taijitu Militia is active nearly every day during update(s). It's something I take great pride in. The last thing we should be asking ourselves is "why don't we do more?"
-
After some discussion and controversy earlier tonight, it is apparent that we need to adapt an ideology for the Taijitu Militia to follow. We had intentionally left this unlegislated, because we simply did not feel like it had to be, but apparently some people found that confusing.
I suggest that we adopt regional sovereignty as our identity for the Taijitu Militia.
I support this as well.
given there is support for that view then I support it as well
Also at least one member of the Taijitu Militia is active nearly every day during update(s). It's something I take great pride in. The last thing we should be asking ourselves is "why don't we do more?"
What I meant by that wasn't why aren't we doing anything its why don't we have more people on and be a bigger part of things
-
The Taijitu Militia is known across NationStates for its activity, professionalism, and commitment. Simply realistically, we will not have as many updaters as TITO or a game-created region. But the updaters we do have are extremely active compared to other regions', and we are well known in defender circles and elsewhere. I think we are doing all we can with the resources we have and I only expect that to increase as our population increases.
-
Let's remain neutral so we stay out of the NS-Gameplayer bullshit
-
Let's remain neutral so we stay out of the NS-Gameplayer bullshit
:wb: :happy:
-
Let's remain neutral so we stay out of the NS-Gameplayer bullshit
:clap: :clap: :clap:
-
The notion of raiders and defenders being generally equally "GP Bullshit" has always bothered me.
I don't mind if we don't formally adopt an ideology, the status quo is fine by me, but I do mind this zeitgeist.
GP Bullshit, as I see it, consists of people elevating their egos over others and plotting, scheming, and defaming to that end.
This sort of self-aggrandizement, I think, is far more prevalent among imperialist and other invader regions.
While there definitely are asshole defenders out there, and defenders who love their ego a bit too much, in general that's not what defending is about, and it shows.
At the end of the day, to me defending isn't "GP Bullshit", it's combating "GP Bullshit".
-
Let's remain neutral so we stay out of the NS-Gameplayer bullshit
The problem with this, I think, is what OT has already described: We're neutral in name only. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia is already in essence a defensive military, in that it is only engaging in defensive operations. This is the preference of the vast majority of TaiMil's soldiers, and if an attempt to impose neutrality in the form of balancing invading and defending were made, most of TaiMil's soldiers would no longer be in TaiMil which would mean it would fall inactive. If an attempt to impose neutrality by restricting TaiMil to only supporting and defending the home regions of treaty allies and doing nothing else were made, inactivity would be the result of that too.
I'll grant that this may not be a problem for those who are not in TaiMil and have little or no interest in gameplay, but for those of us who are and do, it would be very disappointing. I will also point out that despite TaiMil having a de facto defensive alignment, we are still avoiding the gameplay bullshit you're worried about. People, like myself, are joining TaiMil precisely because it provides the opportunity to defend without the gameplay bullshit. Taijitu's repudiation of gameplay bullshit is part of its culture that isn't going to easily change, and isn't dependent on remaining neutral, because TaiMil already isn't neutral.
So, our options are basically as follows:
- Call TaiMil what it already is -- a sovereigntist military that engages in defensive operations -- and define that.
- Seek to impose true neutrality on TaiMil by forcing artificial balance that few, if any, in TaiMil actually want, in the form of both invading and defending or neither, and cause TaiMil to fall inactive.
- Do nothing, continue referring to our military alignment as neutral, continue letting TaiMil engage exclusively in defensive operations despite a neutral alignment, and continue enabling confusion about what TaiMil actually is. This confusion, rather than engaging in defensive operations, has been the only source of controversy.
I don't think we should be afraid to pursue the first option. TaiMil is already engaging exclusively in defensive operations and that hasn't caused any controversy or gameplay bullshit; making it official shouldn't either.
-
It's all Gameplay-Bullshit. All of it, Defending, Raiding, Imperialism, Sovereigntism and military operations in general. I tend to try to avoid even acknowledging this part of NS and being part of a community as it bores me to no end. I'm pretty sure if there are tailor-made hells mine would be a constant cacophony of R/D talk. So of course my opinion is just scrap the whole affair, but then the TaiMil was never going to be directed by the whims of one who opposes its existence. So just adopt a policy that works for y'all, be open about what exactly that is and keep having fun.
-
Yes, let's come up with our own "alignment"
Alignment was made by some bored GPer with an ego (cough cough Unibot), someone went so far as to make a chart of "NS celebrities"
Well I looked at that chart, I didn't know 90% of those fools. Just goes to show that even labeling an alignment is just as much bullshit.
So here's my alignment criteria.
It's got 7 dimensions planned out here:
1. Egotism vs. Community
2. Amount of activity on IRC
3. Automatons vs. Creative People
4. Sensitivity to humor and casual insults
5. Revolutionary Fervor
6. Alcohol, Caffeine, THC, Lysergsäure-diethylamid, and Gluten aggregate score
7. Quality of Map/Worldbuilding
(https://d324imu86q1bqn.cloudfront.net/uploads/asset/attachment/1199695/ello-0e7f31be-7d96-4571-a5f5-6e2ef31942b6.gif)
Obviously this score means our region scores very high and all others blow.
I mean this model shows that our region caters to a unique set of people.
-
Oz you just blew my mind.
-
- Call TaiMil what it already is -- a sovereigntist military that engages in defensive operations -- and define that.
This is the option I favor. Pretending we're neutral seems pointless when it's obvious to all who view TaiMil in action that we are not.
Trying to impose neutrality on a collection of defender-leaning Citizens seems worse than pointless: it would alienate members of our very industrious military, perhaps to the point where we no longer have enough active members to make a difference in game.
Calling ourselves "Defenders" would not bother me but I'm really not involved in this side of the game at all so I don't know how strong the backlash might be. In other words, I don't truly care if we go for "Sovereigntist" or "Defender". What matters to me is no longer mislabeling us as Neutral.
-
I don't think labeling ourselves defender would have negative repercussions, really. The worst negative that would come from it is that regions we already don't want to associate with, like the super srs and snobby monarchist-imperialist regions, wouldn't want to associate with us. And they already don't because whether we call ourselves defender or not, we're defending.
I think the decision to go with sovereigntist rather than defender is a personal preference of the people here, which is fine with me. I care less about labels than I do about what we're doing, but neutral isn't an accurate label for what we're doing.
-
I will fight any kind of vote that doesn't include the option that was here defended by Oz.
-
Would sovereignist match best with Taijitus revolutionary feel, or would just calling ourselves defender be best? I feel that sovereignist seems much more elegant than defender, and perhaps thats what we should go with, but then comes to the point of how we define it. It's already clear that most of us(there's more than likely another member of TaiMil that would have no issue with raiding) would leave were we to start doing raids as well as defending. So from that its clear that we should just be defender, but do we take part in all defenses, or only those that we deem relevant to our beliefs?
I will fight any kind of vote that doesn't include the option that was here defended by Oz.
The issue was how we define ourselves as neutral yet are clearly defender, and redefining ourselves to appropriately match how we act in reality.
-
So I think there's a way to do this that is sensitive to the concerns of both sides, those who don't want to become overly focused on and serious about gameplay and those who want to eliminate the confusion and make sure we establish what TaiMil is already doing as the norm. This approach would focus less on labels and more on actions.
What about something like this:
1. Regional Alignment
1. The alignment of the Citizens' Democracy of Taijitu will be neutral in regard to gameplay divisions.
2. Taijitu will remain open and welcoming without regard to gameplay political, ideological, or military alignment, or level of interest in gameplay.
3. Taijitu will continue to bear the in-game tag "Neutral" to reflect this regional alignment.
2. Militia Alignment
1. The alignment of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be regional sovereigntist.
2. The fundamental aims of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be to pursue the interests of Taijitu through military activity and to defend and uphold regional sovereignty.
3. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will execute all interregional military obligations agreed to by the Ecclesia, including but not necessarily limited to treaties and declarations of war.
4. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be respectful of regional sovereignty and will be barred from invading peaceful regions absent an interregional obligation agreed to by the Ecclesia.
5. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be empowered to invade regions that violate the sovereignty of peaceful regions, without an interregional obligation to do so and at the discretion of the Citizen-Sergeant.
-
The issue was how we define ourselves as neutral yet are clearly defender, and redefining ourselves to appropriately match how we act in reality.
Only Ecclesia can decide that, it won't be any militia or military hierarchy that can define how the militia acts, otherwise we're giving the military elite the opportunity to self-govern, that could be catastrophic for our revolution.
-
I think Cormac proposes anexcellent compromise that I support. I also agree with Delfos that I'd prefer to leave as much of the operations of the Militia to the Ecclesia as realistically possible. While I'd be fine continuing the status quo of "It's complicated", only the Ecclesia can decide if the Militia will take one side or the he other. The Militia cannot decide this by fiat.
Cormac's proposal allows the region to exist outside gameplay while giving the military a set mission statement.
-
I think Cormac proposes anexcellent compromise that I support. I also agree with Delfos that I'd prefer to leave as much of the operations of the Militia to the Ecclesia as realistically possible. While I'd be fine continuing the status quo of "It's complicated", only the Ecclesia can decide if the Militia will take one side or the he other. The Militia cannot decide this by fiat.
Cormac's proposal allows the region to exist outside gameplay while giving the military a set mission statement.
Heartily agreed! Very nice compromise, Cormac, and thanks for writing it up all official-like. It's good to have another Citizen around who's talented at creating such things, as many (including myself) are not. :)
-
So I think there's a way to do this that is sensitive to the concerns of both sides, those who don't want to become overly focused on and serious about gameplay and those who want to eliminate the confusion and make sure we establish what TaiMil is already doing as the norm. This approach would focus less on labels and more on actions.
What about something like this:
1. Regional Alignment
1. The alignment of the Citizens' Democracy of Taijitu will be neutral in regard to gameplay divisions.
2. Taijitu will remain open and welcoming without regard to gameplay political, ideological, or military alignment, or level of interest in gameplay.
3. Taijitu will continue to bear the in-game tag "Neutral" to reflect this regional alignment.
2. Militia Alignment
1. The alignment of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be regional sovereigntist.
2. The fundamental aims of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be to pursue the interests of Taijitu through military activity and to defend and uphold regional sovereignty.
3. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will execute all interregional military obligations agreed to by the Ecclesia, including but not necessarily limited to treaties and declarations of war.
4. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be respectful of regional sovereignty and will be barred from invading peaceful regions absent an interregional obligation agreed to by the Ecclesia.
5. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be empowered to invade regions that violate the sovereignty of peaceful regions, without an interregional obligation to do so and at the discretion of the Citizen-Sergeant.
I agree with this, this is pretty much what I had intended/hoped to see someone write up
-
So I think there's a way to do this that is sensitive to the concerns of both sides, those who don't want to become overly focused on and serious about gameplay and those who want to eliminate the confusion and make sure we establish what TaiMil is already doing as the norm. This approach would focus less on labels and more on actions.
I like this approach. Please allow me to interject some constructive criticism / suggestions to make it all it can be :)
1. Regional Alignment
1. The alignment of the Citizens' Democracy of Taijitu will be neutral in regard to gameplay divisions.
2. Taijitu will remain open and welcoming to nations without regard to gameplay political, ideological, or military alignment, or level of interest in gameplay.
3. Taijitu will continue to bear the in-game onsite tag "Neutral" to reflect this regional alignment.
2. Militia Alignment
1. The alignment of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be regional sovereigntist.
2. The fundamental aims of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be to pursue the interests of Taijitu through military activity and to defend and uphold regional sovereignty.
3. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will execute all interregional military obligations mandates agreed to by the Ecclesia, including but not necessarily limited to treaties and declarations of war.
4. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be respectful of regional sovereignty and will be barred from invading peaceful regions absent an interregional obligation mandate agreed to by the Ecclesia.
5. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be empowered to invade regions that violate the sovereignty of peaceful regions, without an interregional obligation specific mandate to do so and at the discretion of the Citizen-Sergeant.
[/quote]
Why the addition of "to nations"? To clarify the context for Taijitu being open and welcoming. Otherwise, I feel "open" could be reinterpreted a number of ways.
I prefer "onsite" to "in-game" as it's less fourth-wall-breaking to me.
I prefer "mandates" to "obligations" because I feel it better describes any hypothetical state of war, while still adequately covering mutual defense obligations.
I also think this proposal should amend the Militia Act rather than create a new law. If there is some agreement with this, I will draft up such a bill tomorrow.
-
I would be fine with amendment of the Militia Act rather than a separate law. That probably does make more sense.
-
I would also be fine with it ammending the Militia Act
-
Greetings!
Lindisfarne support this text. We also support it being part of the Militia Act.
1. Regional Alignment
1. The alignment of the Citizens' Democracy of Taijitu will be neutral in regard to gameplay divisions.
2. Taijitu will remain open and welcoming to nations without regard to gameplay political, ideological, or military alignment, or level of interest in gameplay.
3. Taijitu will continue to bear the in-game onsite tag "Neutral" to reflect this regional alignment.
2. Militia Alignment
1. The alignment of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be regional sovereigntist.
2. The fundamental aims of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be to pursue the interests of Taijitu through military activity and to defend and uphold regional sovereignty.
3. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will execute all interregional military obligations mandates agreed to by the Ecclesia, including but not necessarily limited to treaties and declarations of war.
4. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be respectful of regional sovereignty and will be barred from invading peaceful regions absent an interregional obligation mandate agreed to by the Ecclesia.
5. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be empowered to invade regions that violate the sovereignty of peaceful regions, without an interregional obligation specific mandate to do so and at the discretion of the Citizen-Sergeant.
[/quote]
Vole Sappander
Secretary for Defence
Lindisfarne
( Having said this, I still don't understand how the military functions in NationStates.
Linda :-[ )
-
Rewritten bill:
The Militia Act will be amended by appending the following sections:
V. The alignment of the Citizens' Democracy of Taijitu will be neutral in regard to gameplay divisions.
1. Taijitu will remain open and welcoming to nations without regard to gameplay political, ideological, or military alignment, or level of interest in gameplay.
2. Taijitu will continue to bear the onsite tag "Neutral" to reflect this regional alignment.
VI. The alignment of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be regional sovereigntist.
1. The fundamental aims of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be to pursue the interests of Taijitu through military activity and to defend and uphold regional sovereignty.
2. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will execute all interregional military mandates agreed to by the Ecclesia, including but not necessarily limited to treaties and declarations of war.
3. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be respectful of regional sovereignty and will be barred from invading peaceful regions absent a mandate agreed to by the Ecclesia.
4. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be empowered to invade regions that violate the sovereignty of peaceful regions, without a specific mandate to do so and at the discretion of the Citizen-Sergeant.
-
Looks good, but I suggest, since there are elections soon, to do this after the elections, since it's part of the election debate.
-
I have no problem with tabling this until after we have a Citizen-Delegate-elect.
-
Looks good, but I suggest, since there are elections soon, to do this after the elections, since it's part of the election debate.
Oh crap I need an opinion on this :O
-
Rewritten bill:
The Militia Act will be amended by appending the following sections:
V. The alignment of the Citizens' Democracy of Taijitu will be neutral in regard to gameplay divisions.
1. Taijitu will remain open and welcoming to nations without regard to gameplay political, ideological, or military alignment, or level of interest in gameplay.
2. Taijitu will continue to bear the onsite tag "Neutral" to reflect this regional alignment.
VI. The alignment of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be regional sovereigntist.
1. The fundamental aims of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be to pursue the interests of Taijitu through military activity and to defend and uphold regional sovereignty.
2. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will execute all interregional military mandates agreed to by the Ecclesia, including but not necessarily limited to treaties and declarations of war.
3. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be respectful of regional sovereignty and will be barred from invading peaceful regions absent a mandate agreed to by the Ecclesia.
4. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be empowered to invade regions that violate the sovereignty of peaceful regions, without a specific mandate to do so and at the discretion of the Citizen-Sergeant.
I actually quite like this, but as mentioned by others, its best to do this after the election
-
Rewritten bill:
The Militia Act will be amended by appending the following sections:
V. The alignment of the Citizens' Democracy of Taijitu will be neutral in regard to gameplay divisions.
1. Taijitu will remain open and welcoming to nations without regard to gameplay political, ideological, or military alignment, or level of interest in gameplay.
2. Taijitu will continue to bear the onsite tag "Neutral" to reflect this regional alignment.
VI. The alignment of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be regional sovereigntist.
1. The fundamental aims of the Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be to pursue the interests of Taijitu through military activity and to defend and uphold regional sovereignty.
2. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will execute all interregional military mandates agreed to by the Ecclesia, including but not necessarily limited to treaties and declarations of war.
3. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be respectful of regional sovereignty and will be barred from invading peaceful regions absent a mandate agreed to by the Ecclesia.
4. The Taijitu Citizens' Militia will be empowered to invade regions that violate the sovereignty of peaceful regions, without a specific mandate to do so and at the discretion of the Citizen-Sergeant.
I move that we vote on this, now that our new Citizen-Delegate has been elected.
-
seconded, I don't think anybody expressed against the vote, I think it can be voted as is right now.
-
I'll second.
-
This has gone to vote here (http://forum.taijitu.org/legislative-and-treaty-votes/amendment-to-the-militia-act/).