The South Pacific Army

[Antariel]

For recruitment head: Marshal? (it was the original medieval job) /History major.For head of intelligence; Army Spymaster? Because Spymaster sounds cool.

[Sheepa]

That shouldn't be in law though.

I think beyond

MoS
Deputy
Top Merit General Dude

the MoS should have the liberty to create ranks as he sees fit. If we define all the ranks in law then he'd have to go to the Assembly for any change, which wouldn't be good as it would slow down the Army.

I'd just define the top 3 and give the MoS the power to independently create subservient or ancillary ranks.

I agree with this. Define the top ranks (which I've more or less done so now in the SPA forums with what we've been discussing), and leave all the other ranks open to change or addition.

Not sure about those names Antariel, but we can work on that

[Belschaft]

For recruitment head: Marshal? (it was the original medieval job) /History major.

For head of intelligence; Army Spymaster? Because Spymaster sounds cool.

Why exactly does the army need an intelligence organisation? Speaking from experiences, keeping operational and intelligence sections separate is the norm in NS, for very good reasons; intelligence is far more restricted than operations. Intel is the MoS' job, and whilst I don't know the current state of our intel network - I no longer need to - we've previously done a fairly good job at it.

The army really doesn't need an independent intel officer, and that kind of function should be kept at the MoS level, where there is direct assembly accountability.

[Sheepa]

I get what you mean Belschaft, perhaps intelligence is the wrong term to use here. The job mainly deals with collecting update times and other information on regional 'targets'. It is a job that needs to be done, and to me it seems worthy of a title. How about 'Logistics?' It wouldn't be a rank, though. Just a title.

[Belschaft]

Generally speaking that's something anyone with officer rank should be capable of, and I'd personally have that as one of the requirements for qualifying for it. Getting an update time is easy, same goes for any other info on targets. It was pretty much the second thing FRA taught me - how to find an update time, that is - and I could teach anyone how to do it in about two minutes. Really, having a specific person in charge of it is not needed, and will just encourage people to be lazy about it; 'Oh, no need for me to show some iniative and get an update time, I'll just let x do it instead'.

[Haxstree]

Generally speaking that's something anyone with officer rank should be capable of, and I'd personally have that as one of the requirements for qualifying for it. Getting an update time is easy, same goes for any other info on targets. It was pretty much the second thing FRA taught me - how to find an update time, that is - and I could teach anyone how to do it in about two minutes. Really, having a specific person in charge of it is not needed, and will just encourage people to be lazy about it; 'Oh, no need for me to show some iniative and get an update time, I'll just let x do it instead'.

Why are you telling the MoS how to run the army?

This isn't the FRA, we don't have the infrastructure. When you have an army with one or two people experienced in actual GP and the rest of the ranks largely new, it seems like it would make perfect sense to assign someone a logistics role.

And you are speaking in the old army jargon, your army, which is no longer in service. There are no longer officer and enlisted ranks, just one rank ladder.

To invoke "this is how the FRA does things" does us little good now. This entire discussion has gotten out of hand. This thread is in the Grand Council Forum, which is about legal reform not micromanaging the army or dictating to the MoS.

Put the army in law with the MoS, Deputy MoS, and highest GP-merit General in law, with the delegacy control of it up for debate, but don't debate the merits of other positions or how the army should collect update times in a venue that is supposed to be about legal reform. Invoking an experienced and long established (although dying) GP entity and expecting our new army to conform to their processes and expectations is a mistake to make in another thread.

[Hileville]

Can we get back on track here. What do we want to put into law regarding the army?

[Haxstree]

I would suggest what I have before, and what I believe the current MoS finds agreeable. Simply establish the army as a division of the MoS in law, and mandate these positions be filled in law.MoSDeputyTop Merit General DudeWith the MoS having the greatest authority, then the Deputy MoS, then a top merit based (not election based) General. The rest of the rank structure/general operation should be left up to the MoS and whomever he/she chooses to confer with.I think what is up for debate is where the delegacy fits in, should it for example be explicitly above the MoS in the law that governs the Army? I think at least their should be a provision that mandates the suspension of all foreign army activities and a rallying back to the South Pacific if the delegate is in danger. How this would be acted upon (delegate declared or some other body?) could be discussed. If the delegate was put at the head though, you might not need that kind of specific provision because presumably the delegate would just order people back himself/herself if a serious attack was deemed imminent.

[Antariel]

A standing order to fall back if coup threatens seems wise; I could lead Team Australia in from the east!

[Haxstree]

A standing order to fall back if coup threatens seems wise; I could lead Team Australia in from the east!

CHARRRRRGE

[Antariel]

Rebeltopia would function as Eomer in such a charge.

[Rebel-topia]

The rest of the rank structure ... should be left up to the MoS and whomever he/she chooses to confer with.

But once ranks and such are set up, it shouldn't be messed with. I think changing the titles/ranks/ect every time a new MoS is elected seems stupid. Not that every new MoS is going to change everything, but there should be some basic outline for how the SPA is run.

[Haxstree]

If you want an outline that mandates more than the place of the MoS, Deputy MoS, and top General then it would be interesting to see your proposal.Or do you mean not define ranks but perhaps define the promotion process?It would be great if you could draft a proposal for what you have in mind, I would just keep in mind that it would kind of suck if the MoS had to go to the Assembly every time he wanted to create/abolish a new rank. If someone really crazy gets elected he could always get impeached quickly afterwards too.

[Rebel-topia]

not so much to define ranks, but once they are created, they shouldn't be changed after a new MoS is elected. If for instance, if what is used is what Bels had set up, then that should be stuck with. It would be a pain the the butt to all in the SPA if the titles were changed after someone new takes office... Thats all I'm saying.

[Sheepa]

The MoS should have the ability to change the ranks as he/she sees fit , but have the optional power of creating a mandate that would protect the rank system. This mandate would make the rank system law, but future MoS' would have the power to put a mandate to a vote to abolish/ammend it if they wish.

[Rebel-topia]

The problem I see with that is are we up for having each time a new MoS is elected, the whole system changes? I can see that, in a few months from now, when/if we have more members, then new ranks will need to be created. But having changes just so the new MoS can have his/her way isn't exactly what they should be focused on.

[Unibot]

What about running the Army separate from the government like TRR's army? Armies are generally hurt by its head being elected since it causes instability; politicians come and go and when they're in power they spend most of their time undoing what the past minister did. Take for example, the FRA's leadership vs. UDL or TITO's leadership.Not necessarily supporting the idea, but it's 4 am and its come across my mind.

[Hileville]

I don't know if I like that idea. Not having the government in charge of the Army in some way would cause the same problems that TRR is having now. The government would have no control over the army and therefore could not order them to support our allies. I will have to think about it some more.

[Belschaft]

The benefit of having the MoS head the army has always been that it therefore directly falls under the purview of the Assembly, like all other elements of our executive, whilst also ensuring that the Government retains political control over it. Removing the SPA from MoS control essentially creates a competing and separate power base within the region, like TRR, and creates the problems we see there directly ie; arguments between Government/Assembly and the army.

[Antariel]

But gives the Army speed to act on changing circumstances.

[Hileville]

I have attached a poll to the first page of this thread with the following options.Delegate - Commander-in-Chief, MoS and Deputy in control of operations but bow to the will of the Delegate for a green light on operations.Delegate - Given Complete Control over the Army which is led by an appointed GeneralMoS - Given Complete control over the ArmyCompletely separate Army that is not held responsible to the Delegate or MoS.Other - Please explain your proposal in detailPlease vote in the poll so we can try to come to some kind of agreement here.

[Hileville]

THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS ON ONE POTENTIAL WAY WE CAN GO. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT.

<strong class='bbc'>Preamble</strong>



In order for continuity to be established between the changes to the Ministry of Security, we hereby establish that the South Pacific Army shall be a permanent entity of the South Pacific under the following parameters.



<strong class='bbc'>Article I: Command Structure and Duties of those in Command</strong>



<strong class='bbc'>1.</strong>  The command structure of the South Pacific Army shall be established in the following way:

? ??

? ?? (?1)  Legally elected Delegate - Shall serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and have the final say in all operations it conducts.

   

    (?2)  Legally elected Minister of Security - Shall serve as the General-in-Chief and has the responsibility of running all aspects of the Army and inform the Delegate immediately on all operations it intends to conduct.  The General-in-Chief is able to appoint a Deputy to assist in carrying out these duties.



? ?? (?3)  The General-in-Chief may layout other positions of command with the approval of the Delegate.



<strong class='bbc'>Article II: Responsibilities of the Army</strong>

[Rebel-topia]

My only problem with the wording is what happens if the LEGALLY ELECTED DELEGATE goes rogue? It's happened before (across NS), and it's bound to happen again. The army wouldn't be able to protect TSPs best interest in this situation. I'm all for getting the Delegate involved, but I think they should work side-by-side. Bounce missions off each other, but giving MoS final say would be best.