| SPSF as part of Government |
Most of the issues with the region that I have can probably be covered by other topics, but thought I would bring this one up, as it is not really covered by any of the others. Probably one of my lesser concerns to be fair, and I may be alone in this view, but interested to see other people's opinions on this.
To cut to the chase, I don't think the head of the SPSF (or whatever they choose to call themselves this month) should hold a Ministerial position. This suggests that any of their actions have Government support, as the leader is part of the Cabinet. As far as I can see, with the level of activity the SPSF generates nowadays, it is not likely to be an issue anyway, but although the SPSF basically has free reign to do as they please for missions (which I do not believe should change), as stated above, as the leader gets a ministerial position, any mission they do undertake is really a reflection of the government. And to be honest, based on the state of the SPSF for at least the last 3 years, what they do/don't do doesn't reflect well. To be clear, I don't want this topic to be about how Ministers have performed in recruiting or missions, or stuff like how the SPSF can't even hold power of a 4 nation region (which was made an embassy for some reason) for any length of time. I am also not calling for a review of how the SPSF conducts missions, recruits etc, that can stay up to whoever heads the organization at the time I believe. I am only querying if this person should hold a ministerial position, and I personally don't think so. I honestly feel the SPSF should be completely independent of government. Don't feel like I am just picking on the MoA here BTW, as I do feel the entire cabinet structure can/should be better rationalised and will likely be addressing that in the next phase of this GC. Yes, I do know this has been discussed previously, but I feel this should be addressed again as part of this GC, when we are reviewing everything else. Sorry if this post is all over the place, as it probably is btw, been a long day for me, and too tired to rewrite as required to make it make more sense.
Maybe as a non voting Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. An effective MoA needs to be in on conversations with the government to avoid doing missions with/against other regions that may be having talks or something with the current cabinet.
There needs to be some kind of executive postion for the SPSF that can be represent it. They play a big part in pur foreign affairs, but they're too big to leave solely to the MoFA.
Personally I've felt that instead of making a Minister the head of the military, it should instead be the head of the military as its Minister. There may be some value in letting the SPSF determine its own leaders, rather than leaving it in the hands of regional politics. (03-22-2016, 12:36 PM)Farengeto Wrote: Personally I've felt that instead of making a Minister the head of the military, it should instead be the head of the military as its Minister. There may be some value in letting the SPSF determine its own leaders, rather than leaving it in the hands of regional politics. I couldn't agree more. (03-22-2016, 01:26 PM)Wolf Wrote:(03-22-2016, 12:36 PM)Farengeto Wrote: Personally I've felt that instead of making a Minister the head of the military, it should instead be the head of the military as its Minister. There may be some value in letting the SPSF determine its own leaders, rather than leaving it in the hands of regional politics. This would work as well and would allow continuity in that arena which is paramount to success in that arena.
Honestly, I would prefer if the SPSF was an independent body altogether. To the extent that it's a foreign policy tool, it's been more of a hindrance than a boon. Elections for the MoA are also pretty strange, because the only thing you can really campaign on is recruiting. Which is something every MoA has to do by definition.
An independent military would have to agree to fulfill our treaty obligations, though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(03-22-2016, 05:09 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Honestly, I would prefer if the SPSF was an independent body altogether. To the extent that it's a foreign policy tool, it's been more of a hindrance than a boon. Elections for the MoA are also pretty strange, because the only thing you can really campaign on is recruiting. Which is something every MoA has to do by definition. This is the catch-22 here. There are def. advantages to being able to disown the military, but we need it for treaty obligations and don't really want it running around as club outside of our control.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] (03-23-2016, 10:36 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:(03-22-2016, 05:09 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: Honestly, I would prefer if the SPSF was an independent body altogether. To the extent that it's a foreign policy tool, it's been more of a hindrance than a boon. Elections for the MoA are also pretty strange, because the only thing you can really campaign on is recruiting. Which is something every MoA has to do by definition. The two issues of an independent SPSF are 1. Getting it to fulfill treaty obligations at a moments notice if their off playing and leaving that mission would create political issues also with TSP. You also have the risk of a MoA going "We're not part of the government. Screw it, we're busy". The gameplay arena doesn't look kindly to people backing off commitments. 2. Being out of contact, the SPSF could get involved in a mission against a region the MoFA is having behind the door talks with in getting a treaty in place. Kind of hard for a MoFA to explain the SPSF raiding a region they're in talks with. As much as the SPSF is not a thing that interests most of you involved here, Gameplay is a very big deal in certain circles outside of TSP. You NEED the connections with other regions, military groups to help in coup attempts and defend the region. (03-23-2016, 10:36 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: This is the catch-22 here. There are def. advantages to being able to disown the military, but we need it for treaty obligations and don't really want it running around as club outside of our control. Well, if I recall correctly, which I do, the last time TSP needed to fulfill a treaty obligation was Lazarus, and while the MoFA was dicking around with a disputed election and three delegated-appointed representatives who did nothing but eternally prepare a statement that was never released, the SPSF was all "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of our troops deploying".
I think the same arguments for allowing the army to select it's own leadership could be just as easily made for either Regional Affairs or Foreign Affairs.
At the end of the day democratic accountability requires political oversight Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png) |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES | Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |