[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard (December 2018)
- Thread starter Cormac
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2018
- Messages
- 203
- Feather
- ƒ1,688
I've removed what used to be Section 3, because I think it belongs in a different law to regulate the military, not in a constitutional law. Constitutional laws should only establish basic frameworks, not meticulous details.
For reference though, this is what used to be Section 3, and could be used in further military-related legislation:
For reference though, this is what used to be Section 3, and could be used in further military-related legislation:
I see Training in the warzones as a great opportunity that is often under utilized
Vulturret
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2018
- Messages
- 168
- Feather
- ƒ1,361
This bill, if passed, would be both extremely detrimental to Lazarus' ability to posses broad strength and to its ability to properly fulfill the best interests of the region. The bill, more broadly, is written in a way that is sympathetic to the author's current Gameplay views, however ever-changing those may be, rather than in a way that is beneficial to Lazarus.
The mere thought that Lazarus would adopt this bill is of course as laughable as it is absurd. This horrendous bill has no place in the Lazarene Law Index, nor does it reflect the actual reality of what is best for Lazarus. This bill portrays Lazarus as exactly what it shouldn't be - a region with a hyper-restricted military that cannot be used to Lazarus' advantage. Whilst this bill does plenty to help Lazarus' allies (which is in no way a bad thing) and other regions randomly (an extremely absurd clause which is wholly unnecessary), I'm not sure what advantage this bill poses for Lazarus.
I am not denying that there are several decent elements about this bill (and Cormac more generally is a fantastic legislator, even if I disagree with much of what he legislates), but there are many unfortunate clauses which I shall endeavor to explain corrections for in the below:
The fact of the matter is that neutral alignments do not exist. A region can not truly remain neutral, in all steps for intervention there is a decision that must be made by the relevant commanders and command structures that cannot be reasonably construed as "neutral." It is therefore logical to conclude that Lazarus should be an Independent region - one that does operations to its choosing (except of course when legally bound by internal law or diplomatic documents) and for its gain. This power to conduct operations "for your own gain" (so to speak) is of course a power that comes with great responsibility. The Commander-in-Chief and her delegates would naturally need to exercise caution in military deployments, considering whether or not it is warranted and in the best interests of Lazarus, as well as weighing the internal and external political potential for benefits to reap and repercussions to deal with. This is a critical responsibility which I would trust the Commander-in-Chief and her delegates to exercise responsibly.
I haven't the time at this point to address the various specific provisions of the limited options of mission types to participate in, but I of course have made my view on expanding that and making it discretionary rather clear above. I would like to hear input of the Citizenry on this.
The mere thought that Lazarus would adopt this bill is of course as laughable as it is absurd. This horrendous bill has no place in the Lazarene Law Index, nor does it reflect the actual reality of what is best for Lazarus. This bill portrays Lazarus as exactly what it shouldn't be - a region with a hyper-restricted military that cannot be used to Lazarus' advantage. Whilst this bill does plenty to help Lazarus' allies (which is in no way a bad thing) and other regions randomly (an extremely absurd clause which is wholly unnecessary), I'm not sure what advantage this bill poses for Lazarus.
I am not denying that there are several decent elements about this bill (and Cormac more generally is a fantastic legislator, even if I disagree with much of what he legislates), but there are many unfortunate clauses which I shall endeavor to explain corrections for in the below:
Personally, I would support Lazarus adopting the Independent ideology (as defined by the ever-present Independent Manifesto), rather than maintain a "neutral" alignment. This is in no way a personal preference (as I am personally more of an Imperialist and raider), but rather an ideology adopted by both Balder and the North Pacific that is the best for game-created regions, as it allows them to participate in military operations in a variety of ways that are beneficial to them and of their own choosing. There is absolutely no benefit to Lazarus being restricted to the types of operations that you have personally selected. I am slightly appalled that you are shaping the region in this way, but it is of course your right to promote the legislation you see fit.
The fact of the matter is that neutral alignments do not exist. A region can not truly remain neutral, in all steps for intervention there is a decision that must be made by the relevant commanders and command structures that cannot be reasonably construed as "neutral." It is therefore logical to conclude that Lazarus should be an Independent region - one that does operations to its choosing (except of course when legally bound by internal law or diplomatic documents) and for its gain. This power to conduct operations "for your own gain" (so to speak) is of course a power that comes with great responsibility. The Commander-in-Chief and her delegates would naturally need to exercise caution in military deployments, considering whether or not it is warranted and in the best interests of Lazarus, as well as weighing the internal and external political potential for benefits to reap and repercussions to deal with. This is a critical responsibility which I would trust the Commander-in-Chief and her delegates to exercise responsibly.
I haven't the time at this point to address the various specific provisions of the limited options of mission types to participate in, but I of course have made my view on expanding that and making it discretionary rather clear above. I would like to hear input of the Citizenry on this.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2018
- Messages
- 116
- Feather
- ƒ1,283
The independent manifesto has many bad traits. I give my full support to this bill and am unaligned military of Lazarus.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2018
- Messages
- 203
- Feather
- ƒ1,688
While the swipe at me in Vulturett's first paragraph is cute, the neutrality in the bill is based on broad support for neutrality in Lazarus. I don't have any personal preference for it. What I do have a preference for is actually creating a military, which we're not going to do if the community won't vote to create one.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 92
- Feather
- ƒ1,214
Not sure the various swipes in your post were super necessary tbh Vulturret. There are ways to disagree without being silly -- let's not default to attacking each other.
"The bill, more broadly, is written in a way that is sympathetic to the author's current Gameplay views, however ever-changing those may be, rather than in a way that is beneficial to Lazarus."
No. The way he's written it is more or less what the majority of the region has expressed when asked about their feelings on the matter. I strongly support neutrality too, so if you're gonna argue that's just Cormac's current agenda you can toss that opinion in the trash because it's provably wrong.
"The mere thought that Lazarus would adopt this bill is of course as laughable as it is absurd. This horrendous bill has no place in the Lazarene Law Index, nor does it reflect the actual reality of what is best for Lazarus."
Was the aggressively melodramatic language necessary? Take it from me -- it rarely helps your position. You could have just said "I don't think this bill is what is best for Lazarus". The rest of this is fluff and honestly a bit mean spirited.
"Personally, I would support Lazarus adopting the Independent ideology (as defined by the ever-present Independent Manifesto)"
My turn to be melodramatic? Yes I think so. I had to physically suppress a gag reflex when I read this part. My thoughts on that particular manifesto can be summed up as "please no" -- this coming from someone present at the negotiations where it was originally drafted, so yeah, I think I'm qualified to speak on the subject.
"The bill, more broadly, is written in a way that is sympathetic to the author's current Gameplay views, however ever-changing those may be, rather than in a way that is beneficial to Lazarus."
No. The way he's written it is more or less what the majority of the region has expressed when asked about their feelings on the matter. I strongly support neutrality too, so if you're gonna argue that's just Cormac's current agenda you can toss that opinion in the trash because it's provably wrong.
"The mere thought that Lazarus would adopt this bill is of course as laughable as it is absurd. This horrendous bill has no place in the Lazarene Law Index, nor does it reflect the actual reality of what is best for Lazarus."
Was the aggressively melodramatic language necessary? Take it from me -- it rarely helps your position. You could have just said "I don't think this bill is what is best for Lazarus". The rest of this is fluff and honestly a bit mean spirited.
"Personally, I would support Lazarus adopting the Independent ideology (as defined by the ever-present Independent Manifesto)"
My turn to be melodramatic? Yes I think so. I had to physically suppress a gag reflex when I read this part. My thoughts on that particular manifesto can be summed up as "please no" -- this coming from someone present at the negotiations where it was originally drafted, so yeah, I think I'm qualified to speak on the subject.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 452
- Feather
- ƒ1,931
How intriguing, Vulturret. Please, instead of launching such bold insults with such sharp and over-the-top language, peruse Lazarene history instead.
This is what Lazarus needs: a restricted military. How many times have R/D politics torn us apart before the region learns its lesson? This fear is perfectly legitimate, more so if you observe our past. R/D politics lead to the poisoning of a society such as Lazarus. If we ever adopt a more standard military, I fear for our future. For we shall lean one way or the other, and given that raiders, defenders and everyone in between inhabit this land, we should not shoot ourselves in the head again.
This "Independence" manifesto proposal of yours is also absurd. Lazarus must not be aligned with any ideology whatsoever: our history has shown the devastation it can cause. Moreover, we may, in a worst-case scenario, end up restricted in foreign policy to a set of regions like Balder (which I am not particularly fond of). When we have capital "I" Independence and miniscule "i" independence as two separate terms in NSGP terminology, do we want Independence, or independence?
Unless you lived under a rock during the ConCon, there was near-universal support, if not unanimous approval for bills like these: a restricted military which shall never be a threat to us ever again. This is not the personal ideals of Cormac, but of the majority of Lazarus.
This is what Lazarus needs: a restricted military. How many times have R/D politics torn us apart before the region learns its lesson? This fear is perfectly legitimate, more so if you observe our past. R/D politics lead to the poisoning of a society such as Lazarus. If we ever adopt a more standard military, I fear for our future. For we shall lean one way or the other, and given that raiders, defenders and everyone in between inhabit this land, we should not shoot ourselves in the head again.
This "Independence" manifesto proposal of yours is also absurd. Lazarus must not be aligned with any ideology whatsoever: our history has shown the devastation it can cause. Moreover, we may, in a worst-case scenario, end up restricted in foreign policy to a set of regions like Balder (which I am not particularly fond of). When we have capital "I" Independence and miniscule "i" independence as two separate terms in NSGP terminology, do we want Independence, or independence?
Unless you lived under a rock during the ConCon, there was near-universal support, if not unanimous approval for bills like these: a restricted military which shall never be a threat to us ever again. This is not the personal ideals of Cormac, but of the majority of Lazarus.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
- Messages
- 295
- Feather
- ƒ1,514
Manifestos and ideology is dumb, unaligned is the way to go.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2018
- Messages
- 203
- Feather
- ƒ1,688
Other than Vulturett's suggestion that we adopt the Independent Manifesto's brand of "independence," there hasn't been substantive discussion of any change to this for the past four days. We should get this squared away as quickly as reasonable, particularly if the declaration of war passes.
I move for a vote.
I move for a vote.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2018
- Messages
- 619
- Feather
- ƒ2,940
- Status