Informal Discussion: NSA

[Hileville]

So I was thinking about the NSA structure and wanted to jot down some things for discussion of the Assembly.

 

1.  I know some of the members dislike the NSA name so should we change the name of the Army?

2.  We have not been able to really keep a full General Corps together.  What are your thoughts about changing this to 2 Generals and the MoA making up the 3 person panel?  The MoA would be the only elected General.  I also think we should re-confirm Generals at every Cabinet Election in an Assembly vote.

3.  The general structure of the army was setup to allow flexibility for both raiding and defending.  Does the independent label actually hamper the flexibility of the army?  I'm not suggesting we choose either side but maybe removing the label entirely.

 

These are just a few thoughts that I was having and figured the Assembly should probably discuss them.  This thread is NOT intended to be a raider vs. defender argument so please take that elsewhere.

[Southern Bellz]

1) I think it should be changed now that NSA means something different in the US and that its not 'new'

 

I propose the 'Free Southern Army' or FSA.

 

2) As the Minister of the Army, and leader of one of the most active terms in TSP military history, I do have a few things to say about this.

 

The first is that I think the failure of the first GC had nothing to do with the structure.    If I recall correctly the formation of the GC was around when Sheepa led the first active term of the NSA since before I was even in the region.  It's hard to figure out who to appoint as general when the whole military is new. The NSA fell inactive, again, and at the start of my term, we were back at square one.  People have been vocal about me not appointing generals right away, but I have been trying to avoid the same mistakes.

 

I have been talking to some people about becoming generals.  I was actually going to announce some appointments soon along with more ranks.

 

3) 

 

Independent isn't a label.

[Cormac]

1. Call me a minimalist, but I just like South Pacific Army. Is there a reason we don't use that name of which I might be unaware?

 

2. I don't have a strong opinion on whether there should be two or three Generals, and would defer to those with actual experience in the NSA -- particularly the current MoA and former MoAs -- on what they think is best. I do think Assembly re-confirmation of Generals is a sensible idea.

 

3. I think it's fairly clear that independence is important to TSP, but as long as the military maintains an independent policy I don't think use or non-use of the label matters. I'm not sure how much not using the label is going to change the flexibility of the military though. It either is flexible or it isn't, and that has to do both with how we perceive the military and how others perceive it. I don't think those perceptions are likely to change just from dropping the label, if we still retain independent policy. In theory, independence should be making the NSA more flexible as that's part of the point of independence.

[Belschaft]

I think we should consider simply scrapping the CoC and allowing the MoA to run the army as they see fit. We don't have the numbers or military activity to necessitate it. 

[Southern Bellz]

And you're basing that on what?


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Southern Bellz]

Sorry for the double post, but I take a big issue with someone talking out of their ass and calling the military inactive. And I'm not going to let someone rewrite the facts in front of me.


I've worked really hard on the NSA, I'm proud of where we are, and calling it inactive is an insult to our accomplishments.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Rebel-topia]

1. While I understand the change from SPA to NSA was a "re-branding" change, I'm not really sure "NSA" should refer to The South Pacific's army. Truthfully, it sounds like the army of [region]The South[/region]... :mellow:

 

2. While I think its was best to give SB some time to get a General Corps together, its taken longer than I expected. With Penguin being the only General at the moment, and her lack of training, it would be best to get a full corps sooner rather than later. It was my opinion when I was MoS, and its my opinion now, that the army functions best with a few people with military GP knowledge to keep the army active. 

 

And now that we're actually running missions regularly, Id like to see some TGs going out to the region to bring in recruits. SB has this army jump-started, it'd be terrible to not try to grow our numbers.

 

3. I dont really understand your questions here. But, if you mean what I think you mean, I agree with Cormac. It doesnt matter what we call ourselves, as long as the army is sticking to the independent policy., then it really doesnt matter.

 

I think we should consider simply scrapping the CoC and allowing the MoA to run the army as they see fit. We don't have the numbers or military activity to necessitate it.

I think there needs to be some basic guidelines, and not have them change whenever a new MoA is elected. I do agree that our army is too small to need such guidelines.

[Cormac]

For what it's worth, the NSA has been more active under SB than I've seen TSP's military since I began playing in 2012. I don't think Bel meant any offense by it, but maybe we shouldn't assume the NSA is too inactive for a General Corps just because that was previously the case. If the MoA thinks the General Corps should be retained I think we should retain it.

[Belschaft]

If you're satisfied with the CoC then by all means keep it, I simply thought you might want more flexibility SB.

[Sandaoguo]

The NSA is active, but small. I'm not aware of much recruitment for it. We should get together with some of the best recruiters in NS and figure out how they do it.

Regarding the structure, I like the current design. We should allow it to scale, but the current design should be the goal.

Lastly, I don't think going label free will do anything. If independence hampers the NSA, it's because of the political realities of the independent ideology, not the label. If it quacks like a duck...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

1. I've grown accustomed to NSA, but I wouldn't mind changing it to South Pacific Army.

2. I also wonder if most NSA members actually understand what military gameplay is all about, or just follow mobilisation orders. I do know that some understand, but perhaps our MoA could inform us about how training of new recruits is going? I also think we have some pending applications? I mention this because it would be great to know whether this new activity will be sustainable in the long term, with active members.

3. I support Hileville's proposal. I think it's important to have a General Corps to assist the Minister in planning and executing missions. I understand that this term has been about developing much needed activity in the NSA, but now it's time to start thinking about the GC, and how having generals can help activity and long term strategy.

4. If we aren't going to switch to either a defender or raider military (and I'm thankful that we aren't) then I don't see the point of removing the independent label. In practice it wouldn't change anything, and like Cormac said it's our actual policy that matters.

[Southern Bellz]

I'll make a detailed post of what has worked, what I think can still work and what hasn't worked tonight.


I've spent my entire term thinking about this and I have a lot to say


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Rebel-topia]

I very much look forward to hearing it, SB.

[Southern Bellz]

I very much look forward to hearing it, SB.

 

 

Preamble:

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">This document hereby establishes the New Southern Army (hereby known as NSA) Code of Conduct. These rules and guidelines shall be written instruction for all members of the NSA to follow.

Article 1: Command Structure

1. The NSA will be led by the Minister of the Army and a panel of three Generals, herein referred to as the General Corps.
   
2. Further ranks will be bestowed at the discretion of the General Corps.
   
3. All new NSA members will be designated the rank of Trainee
    until such time as they have a a complete understanding of the Code of Conduct and NS military gameplay.
   
4. Beyond the MoA and General Corps, the rankings will be as follows from next highest on down; Officer, Solider, Trainee
   .
   
5. The General Corps is responsible for the planning of and overseeing of all missions of the NSA.  Officers can lead operations and give orders on behalf of The General Corps.
   
   

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Article 2: Requirements of Membership

1. WA membership is required.
   
   
2. NSA members must be Citizens of The South Pacific in full compliance with the Charter and Code of Laws.
   
3. NSA members are required to return to The South Pacific and endorse the delegate, vice delegate, and CCS when not on mission
    keep an influence puppet in TSP, for purposes of regional defense. When not participating in operations, members are encouraged to gather WA endorsements and influence on this nation.
   
   
4. NSA members must treat each other with respect and offer assistance to one-another whenever possible.
   
5. NSA members are expected to sign in during roll call, and respond to mission orders even if unable to participate
   . participate in at least one update a week, when not on a leave of absence, provided three or more operations are planned and carried out in a given week.​
   

Article 3: Disciplinary Regulations, Procedures and Actions

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Section 1 - Disciplinary Regulations

1. Aiding the enemy; Giving an enemy region or organisation any information or assistance, in particular serving in enemy forces or spreading enemy propaganda.
   
2. Disgraceful conduct; Conduct unbecoming of a member of the NSA.
   
3. Disobeying a lawful command; Intentionally or recklessly disobeying a lawful command.
   
4. ​Espionage; obtaining or attempting to obtain information of a confidential, restricted or private nature with the intent to disclose said information to an individual or individuals not authorized to possess it.
   
5. Ill-Treating Subordinates; Bullying, humiliating, degrading or using unnecessarily harsh behavior against a subordinate.
   
6. Misconduct towards a superior officer; Disrespectful behavior or communication to a superior officer.
   
7. Obstructing an operation; Putting at risk or otherwise delaying, disrupting or discouraging a lawful operation.
   
8. Failure to meet membership requirements; Failing to meet the NSA requirements of membership.
   

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Section 2 - Disciplinary Procedures

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">Discipline is at the discretion of the MoA and The General Corps and is limited to:

1. Demotion.
   
2. Dishonorable Discharge.
   
3. Honorable Discharge.
   
4. Private apology.
   
5. Public apology.
   
6. Suspension.​
   

[Southern Bellz]

I do think there is a very valid reason for the code of conduct, to keep a basic framework/structure for the NSA.

 

1) Having Generals will ensure that that if the MoA falls inactive there can still be some activity, and that the wheel is not reinvented from scratch every time there is a new MoA.  Plus, as far as leading missions there is some knowledge transfer some people will need to effectively lead operations.

 

2) I think simplifying ranks will be much easier to maintain than a long list of ranks.  I don't think more detailed ranks provide much benefits, where as ranks that clearly define powers is easy to understand and helpful.

 

The rest is just more or less modernizing the NSA to reality.

 

The Discipline part is to avoid any long drawn out affair.  The NSA is an army, and it is hard enough to run it when everything is going perfectly.  If there is a violation of the above, and the MoA and GC feel the need to take actions, it should be that simple to resolve.

[Arbiter08]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
​Espionage; obtaining or attempting to obtain information of a confidential, restricted or private nature with the intent to disclose said information to an individual or individuals not authorized to possess it.

 


</blockquote>
 

I think that this needs to be reworded a bit. As it stands, any espionage against any region, including regions we are hostile to, is against the CoC.

[Geomania]

Can we put in a clause exempting NSA soldiers from the constitutional stipulation that citizens maintain a UN nation in the region?

[Kris Kringle]

There is no requirement for citizens to keep a WA nation in the region, as far as I know.

[Geomania]

Sorry, Kris. I meant to say that NSA members should be exempted from disclosing their WA nation.

[Kris Kringle]

For running for office? That's reasonable I guess.

[Commonwealth of Callistaire]

What about South Pacific Defense Force? It avoids sounding too American/Southern (NSA), and it avoids tie-ing the name to one particular branch of the military (particularly as "The South Pacific" sounds a lot more like a maritime focused area than a land-locked one.)

 

Of course you then run the risk of the name sounding slightly defender-ish.

[Cormac]

Defense Force sounds more than slightly defender-ish, it sounds defender. You really don't use "defense" or "liberation" in the name of your military unless you're a defender military, or at least I've never seen any non-defender region use either of those words. It would probably lead to quite a bit of confusion.

 

There are options other than army if we feel SPA is too bland. We could go navy, which would also be consistent with our status as a Pacific, and go with something like South Pacific Fleet, South Pacific Grand Fleet, South Pacific Coast Guard ( ), or even just South Pacific Navy though that's just about as bland as South Pacific Army.

 

I'm also going to suggest based on my own military leadership experience that we need more ranks than Officer, Soldier, Trainee. A more developed ranks system serves as an incentive for greater activity because of the potential for advancement in rank, and it also provides a natural base later for the General Corps as you can look at lower ranked officers to see who might make a good General. This system might not need to be legally codified, but we should give the MoA and/or the General Corps the power to develop the ranks system beyond three.

[Southern Bellz]

I think the ease of administration provides more benefits than a rank system.


I want the NSA to feel like a system where once the basics are done, you are on the same level as others.


There will be a new MoA frequently, and it has to be easy to both assess what the current situation is as well as run things in a way that works for them.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Rebel-topia]

The only thing I have a slight issue with is a puppet should be used for missions, while a "main nation" should remain in TSP. That keeps NSA members in compliance with Article 2.2. Other than that, I fully support SBs re-working of the NSA CoC.

[Unibot]

In my experience, badges and point systems serve as just as good of incentives as new ranks.