Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Welcome to the forums of the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features

Username:   Password:
Image hosting by Photobucket
Should an alignment be specified in the Constitution?
Topic Started: Apr 23 2015, 03:23 AM (702 Views)
Kazmr Apr 23 2015, 03:23 AM Post #1
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 The PRL was explicitly and constitutionally a defender region. Non defenders could join, but typically could not serve in the LLA.

Do we want this to be the case in the new Lazarus?

I lean in favor of yes. I think we built a strong defender tradition under the PRL, and I think now is the time to build on it. The entire defender community came together to liberate Lazarus with unprecedented results, and it would be a shame to move away from those who perhaps could be said to have been our biggest supporters.
Mini Profile Top
 
Replies:
Cormac Apr 23 2015, 05:50 AM Post #11
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 Maybe we should constitutionally mandate that regional alignment can either be defender or neutral. I can see the argument that we may eventually decide we don't want to be militarily active at all, but it's a lot more difficult for me to foresee Lazarus voluntarily becoming a region that raids, barring some large influx of people who want to deliberately swing the region in that direction.

Constitutional restrictions against invading would also prevent that kind of influx. Well, maybe not prevent it, but heavily discourage it.

Alternatively, I do think requiring a supermajority to change alignment is a decent compromise.
Mini Profile Top
 
Gulliver Apr 23 2015, 06:02 AM Post #12
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 Requiring a super-majority to change it would have to be written into the constitution anyway, so if we feel that we want that to be the case then we should specify it in the constitution or, as you suggest, forbid adopting certain alignments in the constitution.
Mini Profile Top
 
Ainin Apr 23 2015, 05:43 PM Post #13
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 I think we should codify a "defender or none" alignment into the Constitution. It would be a good safeguard so that we keep a principled and consistent stance (i.e. not independence),
Mini Profile Top
 
Benevolent Thomas Apr 23 2015, 05:49 PM Post #14
Member Avatar
Blessed of the Vale
 I concur with recent sentiments expressed in regards to this topic.
Mini Profile Top
 
Guy Apr 23 2015, 06:49 PM Post #15
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 [Foreign perspective]

TRR recently passed an Amendment prohibiting invasions outside of times of war. It's a good solution, as it's something that's really unambiguous -- it's hard to have massive court fights over "did we invade a region", as opposed to "is this consistent with a defender alignment" which is a far tougher question.
Mini Profile Top
 
Arlo Apr 24 2015, 10:23 AM Post #16
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 I'm inclined towards neutral, but anyway; I'd leave it out of the constitution entirely and later, once things are more setup, pass a military creation act or something and have alignment specifically built into that. Can always entrench the act so it requires a higher majority to be repealed then.

I just think alignment is tied too closely to military stuff, and that we should maybe leave the army stuff til later on, if we even want one.
Edited by Arlo, Apr 24 2015, 10:24 AM.
Mini Profile Top
 
Dyr Nasad Apr 24 2015, 10:44 PM Post #17
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 I could support wording similar to what Guy outlined
Mini Profile Top
 
killer kitty Apr 28 2015, 02:48 AM Post #18
Member Avatar
THIS COLOR ANNOYS LAMB
 i am 100% opposed to coding a Defender military into Lazarus law.

The PRL was forced upon Lazarus as was the defender alignment. Prior to that, the Lazarus military was independent and largely regionalist. I view the Defender-only perspective to be an outside viewpoint forced upon the region by the NPO and pro-NPO sympathizers.
Mini Profile Top
 
Harmoneia Apr 28 2015, 03:36 AM Post #19
Member Avatar
Mhysa
killer kitty
Apr 28 2015, 02:48 AM
i am 100% opposed to coding a Defender military into Lazarus law.

The PRL was forced upon Lazarus as was the defender alignment. Prior to that, the Lazarus military was independent and largely regionalist. I view the Defender-only perspective to be an outside viewpoint forced upon the region by the NPO and pro-NPO sympathizers.
You mean the neutral army with like 2-3 members? :P

Most of us in here right now and defenders and we aren't NPO. It's become part of the culture. Lazarus is also a member of the FRA and you can't ignore that just because you want to.
Mini Profile Top
 
Kazmr Apr 28 2015, 04:18 AM Post #20
Member Avatar
Lazarene
 Its hard to call a military 'independent' if, well, there isn't actually a military :P
Mini Profile Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Constitutional Convention 2015 · Next Topic »
Image hosting by Photobucket


Theme by Sith - Recolored by Seth of Outline