The Treaty of Amity (TSP-UDL)

[Sandaoguo]

UDL's price for joint training missions has always been making the other military junior to the UDL, as well as making that military give up any kind of raiding.

I'm keenly aware of the UDL's traditional behaviors when it comes to writing treaties. I'm also aware of how standard language is copied among nearly all gameplay treaties. Any treaty or agreement would be negotiated, and I don't see how you're in a position to demonstrate the preferences and red lines of current UDL leadership.
 

A TSP military would be doomed to fall into inactivity and decay if we agreed to that.

 
The TSP military is already inactive, and I remind you and everybody else that raiding isn't the only way to have an active military. Also... "we?" Let's be honest here: you came out of the woodwork so you could complain about us repealing the TSP-Osiris treaty. Any suggestions that you're here for benevolent reasons aren't very credible.

[StGeorgie]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="StGeorgie" data-cid="106502" data-time="1381956527">
UDL's price for joint training missions has always been making the other military junior to the UDL, as well as making that military give up any kind of raiding.

I'm keenly aware of the UDL's traditional behaviors when it comes to writing treaties. I'm also aware of how standard language is copied among nearly all gameplay treaties. Any treaty or agreement would be negotiated, and I don't see how you're in a position to demonstrate the preferences and red lines of current UDL leadership.

 

A TSP military would be doomed to fall into inactivity and decay if we agreed to that.

 

The TSP military is already inactive, and I remind you and everybody else that raiding isn't the only way to have an active military. Also... "we?" Let's be honest here: you came out of the woodwork so you could complain about us repealing the TSP-Osiris treaty. Any suggestions that you're here for benevolent reasons aren't very credible.
 


</blockquote>
Because the people running the UDL are, Unibot and possibly Hileville aside, exactly the same people as those who negotiated the TEP-UDL treaty in which TEP were required to refrain from raiding.

 

Ahuh. And who exactly is going to make up this military who isn't already a defender with the UDL, FRA, Spiritus or Mordor?

 

The fact is this, defender militaries are reactionary. Raider militaries are proactionary. Independent militaries, which is what I'd very much want any TSP military to be, can be both. Reactionary militaries traditionally do not work in the GCRs, especially in the last few years.

 

When I founded the Medjai Guard, I purposefully did it in a way that could appeal to both defender inclined and raider inclined members of Osiris. With careful management of information, there is no reason why we couldn't do the same here.

 

I'll leave your comments on my presence here unanswered, mainly because I wouldn't want this conversation, which is of vital importance to any future military of the South Pacific, to dissolve into allegations over just why either of us are here, UDL Merryman Glen-Rhodes.

 

Leaving the UDL for a moment, we have to recognise that our military is already incredibly inactive and almost entirely non existent. We should try and discuss ways to make it more active.

Indeed we should discuss ways to make it more active. http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/topic/...e-an-army/ is a good place to start.

[Sandaoguo]

Because the people running the UDL are, Unibot and possibly Hileville aside, exactly the same people as those who negotiated the TEP-UDL treaty in which TEP were required to refrain from raiding.

Which is a position TEP was clearly willing to accept, if not eager to accept.
 

Ahuh. And who exactly is going to make up this military who isn't already a defender with the UDL, FRA, Spiritus or Mordor?

We are a feeder region with an influx of new nations each day. There is not a finite pool of players from which we have to choose. I'm not sure what point you think you're even making, here. If it's impossible to "go defender" because you can't find people who aren't currently defending, then it would be impossible to find people who aren't already raiding, too.
 

The fact is this, defender militaries are reactionary. Raider militaries are proactionary. Independent militaries, which is what I'd very much want any TSP military to be, can be both. Reactionary militaries traditionally do not work in the GCRs, especially in the last few years.

An "independent military" is just a euphemism for a raider army, as is evident by nearly every attempt to establish one, and evident by your belief that raiding is inherently a better activity for regional armies. Regardless, an agreement between the UDL and TSP does not necessitate turning TSP is an exclusive defender region. Even if we do, you are still plainly and obviously wrong that defending cannot bring about activity for regional armies. R/D is a two-sided game. Reaction is still action, and there are plenty of raiding groups out there against which the NSA can defend.

[Southern Bellz]

This isn't even worth debating. This might be the weirdest debate I've seen on tsp

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[StGeorgie]

I'll address the rest of your post when I'm back on my laptop, but on your infinite pool of nations point, you're wrong.


Number of new members the major defender groups have had in the last month:


UDL: 7 (coming off of Unibot's period of recruiting)

FRA: 1

Spiritus: 6 (5 were previously members but the head of the SDF required members to reapply)


so that's a total of 14 in the last month. Of those, at least two are members of at least two of those (Horse, Campinia) and one is immobile (Bel).


There isn't an infinite pool of recruits we can draw on in any realistic terms.

[Sandaoguo]

There isn't an infinite pool of recruits we can draw on in any realistic terms.

 

We are a feeder region. There are new nations we can recruit. How else do you think we'll build up the NSA, regardless of what missions they end up doing?