[DRAFT] [REPEALS] Executive Services Act

Hello I am also here to complain about your one-org policy. It’s something we at EPSA have talked about in the past, and solidly opposed for a variety of reasons.

I am concerned at your rebuff of Zukchiva’s concerns. I know that you did a heck of a lot for EPSA in the past, but I’m not sure this qualifies you to overrule its current members. You cite several points from the ages past, but I’d like to see some more recent examples before I would find that convincing. Your justification was largely normal regionalist talking points, which I’m well documented as opposing, so I won’t go into that. But on the R/D side: It’s true that there are raider orgs that you can’t trust. Indeed it’s almost the point of raider orgs that you can’t trust them. But you haven’t been in EPSA command recently, whereas almost every member has objected here to your plan.

Even looking at very immediate concerns, there literally aren’t enough people to run EPSA once this has been enacted. Looking at the past, members in other orgs have been invaluable to our successes.

I’d be happy to talk about your points further. In fact, I’d be happy to talk about any of this further, as I’m sure would all of EPSA command, and I’d feel a lot better if I knew you had an in-depth talk to Zuk.

1 Like

EPSA command essentially did not exist at the time I proposed this. :clown_face:

I stand by my position regardless; I always have and I always will. The only concession I am willing to make is to split that out of this amendment omnibus so that its apparently contentious nature doesn’t split a vote on the other necessary changes. I firmly believe that there is no acceptable circumstance in which members of foreign militaries can sidestep WA checks and I intend to attempt to address this - either via a one-org policy or other limitations on voting when an individual’s status cannot be confirmed by the election commission.

I’m in favor of limiting EPSA soldiers to allied military membership. It would strengthen regional alliances, and it’ll avoid soldiers embroiling the region in an interregional crisis.

I’m going to agree there should be a separate discussion then vote on this.

The way I see it right now we’ve got three options:

  • Leave it as be
  • Limit EPSA soldiers to only being EPSA, no other org
  • Limit EPSA soldiers to only being EPSA + allied orgs
  • (secret fourth option) the voter restrictions which you’d need to expand on

I’m personally leaning towards the third one. I understand the first one poses security issues, but imo the third one fixes those for us. The second one just seems too strict given several of our commanders (Vor and myself) are also part of allied military organisations and greatly contributed to those (Vor with the Europeian Republican Navy [ERN], myself with the Thaempirial Army [THA]). Some other of our soldiers come from the same orgs noted above.

It’s also worth noting my presence here is in part due to the allowance of dual (or more) membership. TEP partially poached me from Thaecia thanks to EPSA. Thus EPSA can also be considered a recruitment tool to TEP, one way to poach players from other regions. Something which can be argued is needed in a F/S world.

You add to that the fact that Thaecia’s army was by and large trained by EPSA (Andusre and myself were EPSA soldiers before THA existed as a proper standing army) and we run into another problem created by such strict measures. TEP quite literally helped create one of the most powerful independent/non-aligned armies currently on NS, one that is attached to one of our closest and most loyal ally. This would not be possible under the new regime you’re preaching.

1 Like

Altys mostly addressed what I was going to say, but I also would like to mention that EPSA Command absolutely did exist at the time this thread was made, any other suggestion is simply false, as one could easily verify by viewing the official EPSA Discord, The Executive Server, or simply asking Altys or a former OO such as Aga or myself. An activity drought is no reason to pretend it ceases to exist, especially given the assumed idea that we’d like to see activity build up again. Seeking and considering the input of those who have been directing and advising an organisation for the past few months before setting your position on a policy change for that organisation in stone is an easy and important step that I think you were wrong to skip over. That being said, I appreciate the fact that this is a proposal with a general invitation to comment, and I’m glad we were able to make our input known.

1 Like

Tabled as per 60-day Abandonment Policy