Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment (2020)

[New Rogernomics]

Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment (2020)

Proposed by: @"New Rogernomics" ​

Preamble

This amendment will declare the operational guard commander a government official and not a minister, and allow for the Delegate to give more operational flexibility to the guard if they so authorize.

Section 1. Amendment of Section 1

(1) The Lazarene Regional Guard will be the sole military force of Lazarus, unaligned in alignment.

(2) The Delegate will be the commander-in-chief of the Regional Guard. The Delegate may appoint a citizen to serve as operational commander of the Regional Guard by a 50%+1 confirmation vote of the assembly, and be subject to all provisions for the removal of a government official of a two-thirds majority of the assembly. Operational command authority may be further delegated to a chain of command subordinate to the operational commander.

(3) The command, conduct, and membership criteria of the Regional Guard may be further regulated by law or by executive policy.

Section 2. Amendment of Section 2

(1) The regional military alignment of Lazarus will be neutral. Lazarus will bear the Neutral tag at all times.

(2) Lazarus may not bear any of the following tags: Defender, Imperialist, Independent, or Invader.

(3) The Regional Guard may engage in the following types of operations without prior approval of the Delegate:

a. Defense of Lazarus;
b. Defense of Lazarus' treaty allies, if mandated by treaty terms;
c. Invasion of regions upon which Lazarus has declared war, and defense of other regions against their military forces;
d. Defense of other Feeders and Sinkers at the request of their legitimate governments;
e. Assistance in other regions' legal Delegate transitions at the request of their legitimate governments;
f. Offensive or defensive training operations in game-created Warzone regions;
g. Invasion of fascist regions and defense of regions against fascist military forces;
h. Invasion of regions which pose a substantial threat to the out-of-character security or safety of NationStates players, and defense of regions against forces which pose such a threat.

(4) The Assembly may enact a resolution empowering the Regional Guard to invade a region that is the ally or protectorate of a region upon which Lazarus has declared war. Such a resolution may be approved or rescinded by two-thirds vote of the Assembly.

(5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to engage in other military operations upon the approval of the Delegate so long as:

a. Operations do not involve raiding regions exceeding 20 nations,
b. Operations do not exceed 72 hours in duration,
c. The RMB, WFE and embassies of a region are restored at the end of an operation.

Some folks want this put back to discussion. So Shareholders are welcome to re-draft this, if they want to tweak it and run it for vote again.

The alternative suggestion was put forward that the PM should be put in place of the Delegate, which would look something like this:

(2) The Prime Minister will be the commander-in-chief of the Regional Guard. The Prime Minister shallby a 50%+1 confirmation vote of the assembly, and be subject to all provisions for the removal of a Minister. Operational command authority may be further delegated to a chain of command subordinate to the operational commander.

Requested Edit: a. Operations do not involve regions exceeding 20 nations,

 

[Deleted1]

I fully support this amendment. Let's make the guard more interesting. I believe the delegate should remain the commander in chief.

 

[Atlantica]

de factothe Mountains to the East, a region frequently tagged in the past, exceeded 20 nations during a April 2019 chase (just look at the region's population history). By contrast, were the LRG to tag regions, it would be able to choose smaller regions virtually guaranteed to still fall under the 20-nation limit after adding taggers and chasers. The LRG would also be able to stage occupations of small regions which fall under the 20-nation limit after adding initial invaders; however, after adding pilers and Defenders, by the time of liberation that same small region would almost certainly exceed the 20-nation limit, rendering any liberation illegal.

 

[whatermelons]

Maybe we can make any exceptions for liberations? Or change 20 to 20 nations excluding obvious raider defender puppets

 

[Deleted1]

We should not base our law on how many nations may be in a region. a. under 5 should be removed.

 

[joWhatup]

Maybe we can make any exceptions for liberations? Or change 20 to 20 nations excluding obvious raider defender puppets

Perhaps amend it to read:

a. Operations do not involve regions exceeding 20 native resident nations, excluding military puppets

 

[Deleted1]

You can't always know what nations are military puppets.

 

[Deleted1]

Can we add something like this under section 1 -

(4) If the Delegate has decided to appoint an operational commander, the Delegate's appointment will be subject to reconfirmation coinciding with elections for prime minister.

 

[whatermelons]

I don’t think there will be so many non obvious ones. If there were it’s probably natives lol

 

[McChimp]

I remain opposed. This is unsurprising since only a few short months have passed since this exact law failed. This is a waste of time.

The Guard is capable as-is. The inevitable result of this would be a raider-aligned Lazarus.

Not only would this bill jeopardise several of the government's foreign policy objectives, the very idea that our future delegate is going to keep proposing it until voter exhaustion sets in may have already caused them significant damage.

 

[Wymondham]

Full support on this

 

[joWhatup]

I remain opposed. This is unsurprising since only a few short months have passed since this exact law failed. This is a waste of time.

The majority of people voted in favour - just not the majority required. Clearly NR and the people who have offered actual feedback disagree with you.

The Guard is capable as-is. The inevitable result of this would be a raider-aligned Lazarus.

Not only would this bill jeopardise several of the government's foreign policy objectives, the very idea that our future delegate is going to keep proposing it until voter exhaustion sets in may have already caused them significant damage.

 

[McChimp]

The majority of people voted in favour - just not the majority required. Clearly NR and the people who have offered actual feedback disagree with you.

I don't dispute that there are people in favour. My dispute is that it's unlikely, given the short span of time that has passed, that more people are in favour and therefore this proposal can only have been remade in the hopes that we will tire of arguing against it.


Since you left the role, the Guard has been hailed by other regions as the most active sinker military. The idea that the Guard would be made more active by allowing tags/detags is simply a lie, and it really upsets me to see our newer players eating it out of the hands of people who have a conflict of interest with regards to this matter.


Our objectives are no more complex than being friends with as many great regions as possible. I think that some of the people in favour of this bill don't realise what a mess it makes of that goal, how much of the wider world it will close off. I think that others still know this well, and are pursuing the objectives of other regions here.

Even in the few weeks since I took this position it has astonished me the goodwill Lazarus has recieved from every corner of gameplay because of our uninvolvement in R/D. Aside from the NPO, who we're obviously at war with, I do not think there is a single GCR with whom we could not be close friends right now. For once, Lazarus is doing something special and unique and it is doing us so much good and it makes me so angry to see that being thrown away.

 

[New Rogernomics]

For the record, I am neither in favor or not in favor of this* legislation. I put the first version forward to vote, as the discussion seemed to have gone around in circles, and it was perhaps best to settle what people wanted and didn't want through a vote.

Plenty of people found it acceptable as written, though not everyone did , and it failed. The point of getting involved on my end was that if we are going to have a debate, let's discuss the issue and suggest what we like or don't like, and if we don't get anywhere on this one issue, then move on from it.

When I brought the first drafts up, the idea was give the Delegate (or PMs if we want it that way) the right to say no for operations, as then the region could stop any operations that might be R/D or controversial. As I felt it should have an in-built off switch if the Regional Guard ever gets out of hand.

This can either be a Pandoras Box or an opportunity, so I'd suggest Shareholders put their ideas of what they think the guard should be like in this thread, but with some kind of provision for what is too far for the guard.

*My own ideas weren't developed enough on creating an R/D dynamic alternative, so I didn't bring them up further.

 

[joWhatup]

Since you left the role, the Guard has been hailed by other regions as the most active sinker military. The idea that the Guard would be made more active by allowing tags/detags is simply a lie, and it really upsets me to see our newer players eating it out of the hands of people who have a conflict of interest with regards to this matter.

Our objectives are no more complex than being friends with as many great regions as possible. I think that some of the people in favour of this bill don't realise what a mess it makes of that goal, how much of the wider world it will close off. I think that others still know this well, and are pursuing the objectives of other regions here.

Even in the few weeks since I took this position it has astonished me the goodwill Lazarus has recieved from every corner of gameplay because of our uninvolvement in R/D. Aside from the NPO, who we're obviously at war with, I do not think there is a single GCR with whom we could not be close friends right now. For once, Lazarus is doing something special and unique and it is doing us so much good and it makes me so angry to see that being thrown away.

Raids on Warzones can be continued. This amendment, though, provides a good tool for Lazarus to train new people and to still do stuff even when you don't have the 5+ updaters necessary for a Warzone. This does nothing to change our neutral alignment - all it does is provide a good tool for FA and the Military to use to their advantage. The other GCRs aren't run by fools - if we are able to tag and detag alongside them, they won't cut us off.

 

[McChimp]

That's because both Osiris' and Balder's military lack any signs of life whatsoever. As for "simply a lie", it most certainly is not - being able to tag and detag would mean you could train people far better and easier, and even with smaller numbers you could actually get some practice and fun, both of which are necessary to keep a healthy military.

As for a "conflict of interest", what are you implying and who are you accusing?

Except we are not taking a side. If anything, this means we can build ties through military cooperation alongside our allies and provide them with a larger force in case they need help. Being allowed to build a healthy military does not mean selling it off to foreign interests, as you oddly seem to believe.

Raids on Warzones can be continued. This amendment, though, provides a good tool for Lazarus to train new people and to still do stuff even when you don't have the 5+ updaters necessary for a Warzone. This does nothing to change our neutral alignment - all it does is provide a good tool for FA and the Military to use to their advantage. The other GCRs aren't run by fools - if we are able to tag and detag alongside them, they won't cut us off.

This argument has been had a thousand times before and a thousand times before participation in R/D has resulted in alignment and division. This proposal doesn't represent any new ideas, it represents the stagnant ideas of a dying past. You lack the vision to see that what might have worked for the raiders who came before you will not work for you.

 

[joWhatup]

I will ignore your baseless, empty accusation made to score some cheap political points for now. I’d invite you to bring it to court, but we both know you won’t.

Now, as for the argument itself, I never claimed the military was inactive - people like Sylven and Melons are capable leaders and keep it active. It is still a struggle to keep it active if you need 5+ updaters every single time you want to do an operation. While I’m not a fan of either tagging or detagging, it does provide an opportunity to train new people in things like switching and jumping. It doesn’t require large teams either - so if the turnout to take a Warzone turns out disappointing, or you missed the initial target, you can still practice and have fun.

 

[Wymondham]

Although I'm not expressing an opinion on this until voting. Perhaps we can all maybe chill. I though we were meant to have moved on from calling people who disagree with us foreign subversives

 

[McChimp]

Although I'm not expressing an opinion on this until voting. Perhaps we can all maybe chill. I though we were meant to have moved on from calling people who disagree with us foreign subversives

Sure, we could pussyfoot around the fact that JoWhatup is the Khan of a raider org that plastered their flag on this region and proclaimed a raider paradise not two years ago.

Maybe we can set aside the fact that he leads an organisation that our sister sinker and ally Osiris-who you are supposed to represent as a Vizier-recently proscribed for being subversives.

Perhaps we should ignore the lip service he gave Scardino of East Pacifican infamy during each and every stage of his recent coup attempt.

Or maybe it'd be nice if the people who support this bill took even a cursory glance at who they're aligning themselves with and didn't make it so easy for him to drag this place back into the gutter.


I'm not calling him a subversive because I disagree with him, I disagree with him because he's a subversive. There are plenty of people in this region with whom I have had serious disagreements and did not call subversives.

 

[Wymondham]

Although I'm not expressing an opinion on this until voting. Perhaps we can all maybe chill. I though we were meant to have moved on from calling people who disagree with us foreign subversives

Sure, we could pussyfoot around the fact that JoWhatup is the Khan of a raider org that plastered their flag on this region and proclaimed a raider paradise not two years ago.

Maybe we can set aside the fact that he leads an organisation that our sister sinker and ally Osiris-who you are supposed to represent as a Vizier-recently proscribed for being subversives.

Perhaps we should ignore the lip service he gave Scardino of East Pacifican infamy during each and every stage of his recent coup attempt.


Or maybe it'd be nice if the people who support this bill took even a cursory glance at who they're aligning themselves with and didn't make it so easy for him to drag this place back into the gutter.