Unofficially On Behalf of the Natives of Islamic Republic of Iran and zz 9 plural z alpha

unibot

unibot

TNPer
Recently, the NPA attempted to invade Islamic Republic of Iran and zz 9 plural z alpha.

These two regions are completely innocent and deserved nothing that the North Pacific Army had planned for it (seizing their delegacy through foreign occupation, tagging their region temporarily).

Mcmasterdonia's only response to this has been that raiding offers opportunities for activity, but what was accomplished here that could not be accomplished with a simple training mission? Hell there was an opportunity to defend too, since The Black Riders raided Islamic Republic of Iran at the same update.

Why do these people deserve the treatment we're giving to them? And how can our region justify these actions; I've asked Mcmasterdonia if he would welcome and accept a similar coup/raid in the North Pacific and his only response has been to say "no" and "this style of raiding is less harmful"; which begs to question why some of our members feel they are above the Golden Law?

I request I be allowed to formally apologize to the regions we undeservingly and without justification invaded.

And moreover I request to propose a policy for the NPA to follow that all invasions to impose a foreign force in another region require political justification. Wanton invasions should not be permitted.
 
unibot:
Recently, the NPA attempted to invade Islamic Republic of Iran and zz 9 plural z alpha.

These two regions are completely innocent and deserved nothing that the North Pacific Army had planned for it (seizing their delegacy through foreign occupation, tagging their region temporarily).

Mcmasterdonia's only response to this has been that raiding offers opportunities for activity, but what was accomplished here that could not be accomplished with a simple training mission? Hell there was an opportunity to defend too, since The Black Riders raided Islamic Republic of Iran at the same update.

Why do these people deserve the treatment we're giving to them? And how can our region justify these actions; I've asked Mcmasterdonia if he would welcome and accept a similar coup/raid in the North Pacific and his only response has been to say "no" and "this style of raiding is less harmful"; which begs to question why some of our members feel they are above the Golden Law?

I request I be allowed to formally apologize to the regions we undeservingly and without justification invaded.

And more I request to propose a policy for the NPA to follow that all invasions to impose a foreign force in another region require political justification. Wanton invasions should not be permitted.
Click to expand...
I satisfied my obligations with the council of five. I had the support of KiwiTaicho in this decision.

I gave you other responses Unibot, but none would satisfy your unquenchable thirst for argument. As I have stated to you on many, many occasions. There are many different members in the NPA who want to be involved in a variety of different styles of missions, and don't suggest this person is only blue wolf as it is certainly not.

Some have also expressed displeasure that there are soldiers who do not follow every order. I have always made a point to not compromise the defender morals of members aka Unibot i did not order you to deploy, as that would have created a serious conflict of interest with you. I took a similar approach with Unibot.

I knew that I would never be able to justify this to you, as your view on this matter is so black and white. Also the issue with exclusively Liberating is that we will lose the perception of neutrality that we had. I need to allow people to test out both styles.

Don't forget you have to be prepared to work with and debate productively with people who have a different view to you on these matters.

I will strongly oppose moves by council to apologize to natives. I am not the only one to feel this would be a strong interference into my responsibility, and I satisfied all requirements that I needed to.

Furthermore, Unibot must not allow judgement be clouded in the Council of Five. Furthermore if such an apology is what council so desires, I would strongly rule out, Unibot making such statements on our behalf. That would be either the responsibility of myself, or our external affairs Minister Romanoffia.

I urge council to realize that I am trying to satisfy the need for some of our soldiers to take part in both fields in the game. I have not ignored the defender side entirely, we have had a good relationship and have assisted each other frequently. It is a difficult position to be in when you want to maintain both an active and engaged army.

Furthermore we agreed to stick to a very clear policy of minimal disruption. We had no intention of causing significant damage or banning, we planned to hold the region for a very short time.

I urge council to consider the variety of views in a diverse body such as the NPA, to note that I am carrying out my responsibility, and am seeking to keep an engaged army, while appeasing the differing views on raiding/defending that they have.
 
After further debate with Mcmasterdonia (which went nowhere), in which he noted, lovingly, that I'm just a lowly Minister of WA Affairs who had no business moseying around in military policy, I asked if I could contact NPAers about wanton raiding in general and try to inform them of the problems with it. I was ordered not to do so.

I asked if this order would violate my Freedom of Speech under the Bill of Rights, Mcmasterdonia has not responded fully to this query, but if he continues to press this order, I am prepared to bring it to the court.
 
I said I believed that to be a conflict of interest, that we should discuss this with council and that we would then take a course of action based on those deliberations.

And that I did not want a similar situation with TSP.

Don't mislead council.
 
Furthermore we agreed to stick to a very clear policy of minimal disruption. We had no intention of causing significant damage or banning, we planned to hold the region for a very short time.
Click to expand...

And would you accept your own region being treated like this? No, you have said no to this. We should be focusing our raid activities in justified settings.

We should be apologizing to the natives of Islamic Republic of Iran and zz 9 plural z alpha for, without reason or justification, invading their region and intending on seizing their delegacy for the sake of foreign occuption.

I opposed the laxness of the Directive on the issue of wanton regional invasion; my vote was ultimately overruled. But I protest to the delegate to uphold his campaign promise to ensure the NPA keeps to policy that will not affect it's reputation negatively and plee to the rest of the Cabinet to review our military's policy.
 
mcmasterdonia:
I said I believed that to be a conflict of interest, that we should discuss this with council and that we would then take a course of action based on those deliberations.

And that I did not want a similar situation with TSP.

Don't mislead council.
Click to expand...
Do not mislead council, mcmasterdonia. You accuse of me of lying, I will accuse you of being disingenuous to save face, that's how this goes:

<@mcmasterdonia> You are in the council of five, you are not minister for external affairs, and you are not minister for defence.

I was disgruntled when I was appointed Minister of WA Affairs, because I felt as though I had been relegated to the position farthest away from public policy which I had campaigned on; Eluvatar assured me that as a Council of Five member I had an equal stake in public policy discussions -- I've since had several debates of WA policy with other councilors, for example.
 
Yes Unibot, mcmasterdonia just asked for a full Council of Five meeting. I think it is essential we discuss this subject.
 
As a point of reference I will confirm that as Elu's temporary representative on the council, I was in full support of this operation and I mirror the Minister for Defence's sentiments. This was planned very carefully and all sides were considered.

I would also point out that this is a very difficult area of discussion where people have very different views.

I would also point out as a member of the NPA, I have observed that that the Defence Minister has gone out of his way to try and accept and respect all the different views that people hold.

And with all due deference to Unibot, I think an apology to the region is inappropriate. I welcome any chance to discuss this further because as far as I have seen, a consensus on this issue still has not been reached.
 
KiwiTaicho:
And with all due deference to Unibot, I think an apology to the region is inappropriate.
Click to expand...
So if our region was raided without any political justification whatsoever, we would not expect an apology?
 
unibot:
KiwiTaicho:
And with all due deference to Unibot, I think an apology to the region is inappropriate.
Click to expand...
So if our region was raided without any political justification whatsoever, we would not expect an apology?
Click to expand...
To be fair, the NPA did not successfully raid any regions <_<
 
Ator, there's a draft submitted to us by the NPA which is looking fairly good:

The Svoboda Doctrine

1. The North Pacific Army has four primary purposes:

a. To protect and defend the region of The North Pacific;
b. To protect and defend the allies of The North Pacific;
c. To assist the allies of The North Pacific in whatever capacity is available and authorized;
d. To maintain a well trained military;

2. The NPA is authorized to deploy as "aggressors" under the following circumstances:

a. To attack a region designated as an enemy by a preliminary assessment of the Cabinet as organized by the Delegate or a declaration of war by the Regional Assembly (A preliminary assessment may not be effective for more than two weeks);
b. To preemptively stop a direct threat to the North Pacific;
c. To preemptively stop a direct threat to a North Pacifician ally;
d. To a "Warzone" region for training.;

3. The NPA is otherwise authorized to deploy under the following circumstances:

a. A direct threat to the North Pacific;
b. A direct threat to a North Pacific ally;
c. To assist a region or organization as authorized by the delegate;
d. To carry out a mandate of war from the Regional Assembly;

4. The NPA must follow all of the following criteria under missions as aggressors, except against designated enemy regions:

a. Minimize collateral damage;
b. Respect the culture of the region;
c. Minimize threat to The North Pacific and allies;
d. Restore region when leaving;

5. The NPA must follow the following criteria under all other missions in foreign regions:

a. Respect the wishes of the natives;
b. Contact most recent native delegate;
c. Restore region if required;

6. The NPA must not do the following except following a regional consensus toward a region at war with TNP:

a. Remove any residents from an invaded region that resided in the region prior to said invasion;
b. Act with any degree of disrespect;
c. Alter the region's chosen embassy list without regional consent.
Click to expand...

My only suggestion is to change it to this:

The Svoboda Doctrine

1. The North Pacific Army has four primary purposes:

a. To protect and defend the region of The North Pacific;
b. To protect and defend the allies of The North Pacific;
c. To assist the allies of The North Pacific in whatever capacity is available and authorized;
d. To maintain a well trained military;

2. The NPA is authorized to deploy as "aggressors" under the following circumstances:

a. To attack a region designated as an enemy by a preliminary assessment of the Cabinet as organized by the Delegate or a declaration of war by the Regional Assembly (A preliminary assessment may not be effective for more than two weeks);
b. To preemptively stop a direct threat to the North Pacific;
c. To preemptively stop a direct threat to a North Pacifician ally;
d. To a "Warzone" region for training.;

3. The NPA is otherwise authorized to deploy under the following circumstances:

a. A direct threat to the North Pacific;
b. A direct threat to a North Pacific ally;
c. To assist a region by deploying in said region as authorized by the delegate;
d. To carry out a mandate of war from the Regional Assembly;

4. The NPA must follow all of the following criteria under missions as aggressors, except against designated enemy regions:

a. Minimize collateral damage;
b. Respect the culture of the region;
c. Minimize threat to The North Pacific and allies;
d. Restore region when leaving;

5. The NPA must follow the following criteria under all other missions in foreign regions:

a. Respect the wishes of the natives;
b. Contact most recent native delegate;
c. Restore region if required;

6. The NPA must not do the following except following a regional consensus toward a region at war with TNP:

a. Remove any residents from an invaded region that resided in the region prior to said invasion;
b. Act with any degree of disrespect;
c. Alter the region's chosen embassy list without regional consent.
Click to expand...

My reasoning for the alteration is, the current wording allows for tag raids if the delegate authorizes a raid in conjunction with a raider-region or raider-organization.
 
I'm happy with your version Unibot. Who submitted this to the Council (you said the NPA but I have not seen any record of this in the NPA forum or elsewhere)?
 
Ator People:
I'm happy with your version Unibot. Who submitted this to the Council (you said the NPA but I have not seen any record of this in the NPA forum or elsewhere)?
Click to expand...
It was apart of some tense negotiations last night between Scandigrad, Mc and Elu, Roman and I. This draft does essentially everything my draft did.. except it doesn't identify the Army as "defender". For all intended purposes, both army proposals are "defender" though (I think some people are misunderstanding what being defender implies).
 
unibot:
Ator People:
I'm happy with your version Unibot. Who submitted this to the Council (you said the NPA but I have not seen any record of this in the NPA forum or elsewhere)?
Click to expand...
It was apart of some tense negotiations last night between Scandigrad, Mc and Elu, Roman and I. This draft does essentially everything my draft did.. except it doesn't identify the Army as "defender". For all intended purposes, both army proposals are "defender" though (I think some people are misunderstanding what being defender implies).
Click to expand...
Would the new proposal allow us to do defender missions without the Delegate's express permission? Could/Would there be categorical authorization for this sort of mission?
 
Ator People:
unibot:
Ator People:
I'm happy with your version Unibot. Who submitted this to the Council (you said the NPA but I have not seen any record of this in the NPA forum or elsewhere)?
Click to expand...
It was apart of some tense negotiations last night between Scandigrad, Mc and Elu, Roman and I. This draft does essentially everything my draft did.. except it doesn't identify the Army as "defender". For all intended purposes, both army proposals are "defender" though (I think some people are misunderstanding what being defender implies).
Click to expand...
Would the new proposal allow us to do defender missions without the Delegate's express permission? Could/Would there be categorical authorization for this sort of mission?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be better phrased,

"c. To assist a region by deploying in said region unless the mission is disapproved by the delegate;"

?
 
unibot:
Ator People:
unibot:
Ator People:
I'm happy with your version Unibot. Who submitted this to the Council (you said the NPA but I have not seen any record of this in the NPA forum or elsewhere)?
Click to expand...
It was apart of some tense negotiations last night between Scandigrad, Mc and Elu, Roman and I. This draft does essentially everything my draft did.. except it doesn't identify the Army as "defender". For all intended purposes, both army proposals are "defender" though (I think some people are misunderstanding what being defender implies).
Click to expand...
Would the new proposal allow us to do defender missions without the Delegate's express permission? Could/Would there be categorical authorization for this sort of mission?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it would be better phrased,

"c. To assist a region by deploying in said region unless the mission is disapproved by the delegate;"

?
Click to expand...
I would prefer that.
 
Ator People:
McMasterdonia, has a PM been sent to NPA members for the survey we agreed upon in the last meeting?
Click to expand...
Well, it came to my attention that council was acting as if the Survey was an unnecessary formality. I will start it today.

I think the language of the proposal by Scandigrad is better/more neutral and more likely to pass the regional assembly (who I don't want to bypass in this).

I'm sure the current delegate would offer support of the NPA's actions in any Liberation, without me having to seek his approval everytime. The issues we have to balance is maintaining an air of neutrality, and guarding against a potential future raider-inclined delegate. By making it into law, the delegate would have to amend the law.

With Unibot's original proposal, I don't think this would pass the regional assembly. 1: I am uncomfortable with bypassing the assembly and 2: if it doesn't pass through the assembly there is nothing to stop a raider inclined delegate should they be elected anyway.
 
With Unibot's original proposal, I don't think this would pass the regional assembly. 1: I am uncomfortable with bypassing the assembly and 2: if it doesn't pass through the assembly there is nothing to stop a raider inclined delegate should they be elected anyway.
Click to expand...

Especially after running through the RA List, I see your point. I'm not sure if it would pass either.

But our current language allows for tag-raiding if the delegate approves. That's the major point that I and other cabinet ministers are probably going to have a problem with.
 
If you think neither option is ideal, please comment:
Click to expand...

^ From Mc's survey, this sort of guts the purpose of the survey; we're just going to get two dozen results of, "I'D LIKE TO DO BOTH" -- 'cause that's what Mc's been teaching his soldiers to do. >_<

Newbies are incredibly impressionable. I really sincerely doubt the new recruits have been really really pushing to do both without Mc's orientation leaning that way. You can make 90% of newbies either hardcore defender or hardcore raiding, in about an hour -- it's all how you teach it them. It would not be surprising if the same indoctrination power existed for centrism.
 
I've only really had brief comments, which have been "I will be there whatever the NPA does". Or noting that Neutrality is best. I think the current proposal would address that.

Edit: I should also state that I adopted the centrist view as a way of combating against Blue Wolf's raider desires. Ask Eluvatar about it. He wanted the NPA to be a raider squadron, with him as its leader. Also because I am not one for indoctrinating people, I allow them to make their own assessments.
 
BWII doesn't want what he says, he pushed for full raiderization; to get you to go centrist. >_<
 
Let's see what the survey says and go from there. We may have to amend the proposal to get it to pass in the RA. But I would like to see something go through the RA if it's possible (though it might not be).
 
unibot:
BWII doesn't want what he says, he pushed for full raiderization; to get you to go centrist. >_<
Click to expand...
Now that would be a disaster.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of raiding unless it is to harass regions with which we are at war, their allies and anyone who lends material support to enemies of the region.

And you can't run an effective military organization by consensus or order and discipline will never be achieved.
 
I agree that we can make the decision to ally ourselves to be defender only.

However we must consider the regional assembly, was all I was saying.

I disagree with the statement Blue Wolf wanted the army to be centrist. He asked me to not allow in defenders for obvious reasons, which was why I pushed for the convention we held earlier where a neutral to centrist view was agreed.
 
To make the army raider. Don't let Defenders in, only new recruits indoctrinate them with raider ideas. Luckily the convention didn't agree to that. Anyway, my past record can stand on its own. I'm not expecting that many more survey responses, so i'd like a cabinet meeting when possible.
 
mcmasterdonia:
To make the army raider. Don't let Defenders in, only new recruits indoctrinate them with raider ideas. Luckily the convention didn't agree to that. Anyway, my past record can stand on its own. I'm not expecting that many more survey responses, so i'd like a cabinet meeting when possible.
Click to expand...
BWII is not incredibly dumb, Mc, he'd probably figure you wouldn't accept that position. I still stand by my theory he requested an aggressively raider army to (1) either get what he wanted right from the start, or at the very least, (2) tie your hands and push for centrism where BWII could ultimately squander a raider army subtly -- the centrist view of defenderism and raiderism being two sides to the same coin is shared by most raiders and belittles the sentiments of goodwill that defenders believe in ergo, a centrist orientation and development always degenerates to raiderism. Historically, I can't think of a centrist army that hasn't degenerated into a de facto raider army -- BWII would know this and thus would have good motivation to push for centrism as a contingency plan.
 
A raider army for TNP would be, well, very bad public relations in the foreign policy department for all too obvious reasons.

IMHO, what we need is a consistent overall policy that covers the entire government. We need a set of goals that covers both foreign, domestic, military and all policies in general so that each element of government works towards a common goal - and so that certain situations don't arise that undermines the the government or region as a whole. Essentially, all divisions of the executive branch need to be working for a common end goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top