- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
As an effort to unchain the NPA from burdensome restrictions on Joint Operations, I propose the following change:
Discuss.
Discuss.
Last edited:
[Draft] Amendment to Section 7.6: The North Pacific Army
- Thread starter Blue Wolf II
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
It has been enacted.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Would anyone like to make any suggestions before I call this proposal.to vote?
- TNP Nation
- sil_dorsett
- Discord
- sildorsett
What MJ means is...
That first part, "Clause 51 of Section 7.6 of the Legal Code is amended to read as follows:" is the enacting clause.
Joint Operational Freedom Act:
That first part, "Clause 51 of Section 7.6 of the Legal Code is amended to read as follows:" is the enacting clause.
Last edited:
Just my opinion, as outdated as it is is two things. Since we now can be in as many armies as we want, what's to stop anyone participating as a member of one of the other groups and doing things anyway. Or what gives the NPA the right, as rules stand now, to dictate how I act as a member of another army not representing the NPA or TNP at all. Second, being in gameplay since 2008, it is and as always been accepted that the leading organization sets the rules. Was even part of the NPA culture back in the day. When I was MoD of the SPSF back before I came here, I led MANY a tag raid in joint ops with the NPA and ERN and one of the unsung heroes here, who was MoD of the NPA at the time would point raids to tag a region because the rules back then of the NPA was that you had to restore the WFE before you left and that's just pointless in my opinion. I firmly believe if we are to make strong alleys we need to respect that he who leads sets the rules. We are NOT representing TNP in a joint raid we don't lead, we are supporting an alley.
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
- TNP Nation
- Boston Castle
- Discord
- seathestarlesssky
I worry a bit about how that might be abused, but am open to supporting if the Delegate or someone else can provide an example of where it might have been useful recently.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Sorry, not really a fan of how you formulated this. I'm also not sure I like how broad this form of exemption is, so in the interest of hopefully addressing the concerns of those who don't want to open the floodgates too wide or without a check, I propose this:
I limit the joint operations exemption to allies of TNP, as I don't imagine the RA would be cool with a blank check for any joint op between any organization. And I still require a vote for Class B exemptions. Class A being instant like it is now even for this scenario makes sense to me, as the joint op aspect is rather irrelevant given how easy Class A exemptions can be made. I also renamed the bill to my own take on it, thanks to Sil for the inspiration. You simply cannot cut the RA out of the process, particularly where destructive acts are concerned. If they are convinced an ally can be trusted to bring us targets we are comfortable bringing the torch to, and that doing so with that ally is good for us, then I don't see why we can't give them some extra leeway given our relations. Exemptions can always be pulled back if they abuse that trust.
What do you think of this?
Joint Operation Flexibility Act:
I limit the joint operations exemption to allies of TNP, as I don't imagine the RA would be cool with a blank check for any joint op between any organization. And I still require a vote for Class B exemptions. Class A being instant like it is now even for this scenario makes sense to me, as the joint op aspect is rather irrelevant given how easy Class A exemptions can be made. I also renamed the bill to my own take on it, thanks to Sil for the inspiration. You simply cannot cut the RA out of the process, particularly where destructive acts are concerned. If they are convinced an ally can be trusted to bring us targets we are comfortable bringing the torch to, and that doing so with that ally is good for us, then I don't see why we can't give them some extra leeway given our relations. Exemptions can always be pulled back if they abuse that trust.
What do you think of this?
Last edited:
Your missing my point. Current NPA rules say that I can join any othe armies I want to and we're a no longer a NPA only ruled organization\ (which I was responsible for back in the day). I can see the reasoning that during a joint op while flying the TNP colors that we as TNP/NPA people play to NPA rules regardless of what the other armies or leads do, but we now have a situation where the NPA joins a joint op with another raiding army as lead and I happen to belong to both armies. What's to stop me from participation in the op representing the other organization and doing what I want? Sorry, but as outdated as you may think I am, this has all been played out before. Back when I was MoD, I inherited a NPA that had a General that was also the head of the UDF at the time. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but when the NPA would raid,, I would be kicked from #jump while they stayed in our channel and the UDF (today's libcord) always seemed to be there ahead of us. The current world allows this to happen again. Welcome to history repeating itself.
Ans since the rewrite of the old ways making the delegate the only boss, we've become fenda anyway since most delegates not having the gameplay experience just send the NPA to go play in Libcord. Probably isn't 3 of us left that could create a tag list, much less lead a chase or even find detags.
Last edited:
I would like to ask @Blue Wolf II to weigh in on this suggested change to the bill, or heck anyone else since it’s been kind of quiet lately.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
To clarify, the intent is still to make that Class B exemptions apply to all joint operations with the designated ally correct? If the RA has to vote for Class B exemptions on every joint operation with the exempted ally, then the bill has no teeth and we're back to the current state of affairs.
As written now, it does not appear your changes explicitly allow specific allies' joint operations to be named as exempt, which is the point of the bill. I'm not sure if that was your intent. There is room to interpret the bill as essentially changing nothing, and I think everyone would like to avoid another situation where the Court gets to interpret and dictate their views on NPA restrictions based upon the whims of the day. It wasn't pleasant the last time it occurred.
Repeatedly having to vote on Class B exemptions, especially on operations with trusted allies, is annoying for the RA, the NPA, and our allies. My understanding is that, more than a few times, the NPA has not been invited by treated allies as anything other than a piler force specifically because NPA members are functionally worthless as ROs due to Class B restrictions.
This is not productive for anyone.
Last edited:
You’re not describing the formulation I’m going for. It’s been a while since I drafted it but I think I can see why you’re concerned, which will require further tweaking from me to make it harder to parse away from what it’s trying to do. The goal is to make it possible for the delegate to exempt all targets from specific allies, so that the RA has one vote on whether that ally’s targets are automatically exempt in joint ops. Once that vote is done, all future joint ops with that ally are exempt. The RA would have to do this on a case by case basis for each ally the Delegate sought such exemptions for.
I’ve added the phrase “categorically exempt all target regions” which I think makes the intent crystal clear. This, by the way, is something I believe was possible to do under the current system, but explicitly outlining it in the legal code should avoid the legal shenanigans you’re concerned with.
Last edited: