Warzones Incorporated

[joWhatup]

[color=2A957F]Introduction[/color]

Warzones Incorporated is a subsidiary company of the Corporation of Lazarus, aimed at providing a more sophisticated presence in NationStates for Warzone communities, and a greater influence in their affairs for LazCorp. For the following sections, LazCorp refers to the government of LazCorp, and a Warzone refers to the government of a game-created Warzone region, as acknowledged by LazCorp.

[color=2A957F]Obligations[/color]

LazCorp must work to protect the associated regions of Warzones Inc. from takeover.

LazCorp (with the blessing of the Warzone in question) may help Incorporated Warzones with:

• recruitment of new member nations,
  
• cultural activity organization,
  
• regional security,
  
• and forging diplomatic connections.

Incorporated Warzones must:

• provide military support (if available) to the Lazarene Guard,
  
• acquiesce to diplomatic changes in their region demanded by LazCorp,
  
• and mention their Warzones Inc. membership in their region's WFE when in their control.

[color=2A957F]Membership[/color]

A Warzone will be Incorporated if it agrees to join Warzones Inc. and LazCorp accepts it as a member.

LazCorp may remove a Warzone from Warzones Inc. at any time by notifying the Warzone in question that they're being removed from the agreement.

Any Warzone may leave Warzones Inc. at any time by telling LazCorp that they're leaving the agreement. A three-day grace period will be granted to the Warzone to decide it's course.

Thoughts, comments, etc. would be appreciated!

 

[Deleted1]

Any time LazCorp makes a decision and LazCorp is the cabinet, does that mean the cabinet must decide altogether, by vote, or what?

 

[Ryccia]

I believe LazCorp refers to the state, not the Cabinet alone. As the Prime Minister is the Head of Government, I suppose their decision is final.

 

[Deleted1]

It doesn't, Ryccia, but it should.

For the following sections, LazCorp refers to the Cabinet of LazCorp

Furthermore, are we really going to protect warzones without a guard captain and the 3 people, including myself, who are willing to go on operations? I don't see the point in all this when we can't even do what it obliges.

I see the cabinet disowning a warzone we can't save, which they can easily do in this treaty, and if that's the case, there is no point to this document.

 

[joWhatup]

It doesn't, Ryccia, but it should.

For the following sections, LazCorp refers to the Cabinet of LazCorp

Furthermore, are we really going to protect warzones without a guard captain and the 3 people, including myself, who are willing to go on operations? I don't see the point in all this when we can't even do what it obliges.

I see the cabinet disowning a warzone we can't save, which they can easily do in this treaty, and if that's the case, there is no point to this document.

I hope future cabinets are smart enough to realise how unreliable and spineless they seem if they simply abandon protectorates as soon as they are raided. As to the Guard thing, while a fair point, we are also not without resources. We can always call upon allies and friendly forces, as well as drive recruitment internally.

 

[Ryccia]

It doesn't, Ryccia, but it should.

For the following sections, LazCorp refers to the Cabinet of LazCorp

Furthermore, are we really going to protect warzones without a guard captain and the 3 people, including myself, who are willing to go on operations? I don't see the point in all this when we can't even do what it obliges.

I see the cabinet disowning a warzone we can't save, which they can easily do in this treaty, and if that's the case, there is no point to this document.

Sorry about my oversight, my mistake.

 

[Deleted1]

Can we change this to this?

 

[Demonos]

Can we change this to this?

Why

 

[Deleted1]

@"demonos" I wasn't...I'm not sure if that was a slight. I am not sure what I did in your mind to deserve it, either.

The changes I suggested would make it clear the PM's decision would be the final say.

 

[Demonos]

@Debussy. The "final say", should go to Tubbius of Treadwellia.

My honorable friend and fellow Lazarene, what slight? Is a question an accusation now?
Our difference in opinions are clearly evident. The Principality cheers for JoWhatup.
Their efforts are evidence of diplomatic exchange, at least, so far. Demonos could change her mind.

Could you vet Warzone Inc.? Why scrutinize syntax when the real investigation should fall
upon the other region. Would this be worth the ink upon the page?
The security of Lazarus is in her friends. Therefore, the more we have; shouldn't that... behoove us, yes?

 

[Deleted1]

I see what you mean, but the constitution is not structured that way. I am not trying to insult you, but the PM has direction over FA.

 

[Demonos]

You could never insult me @Debussy. We do this, after all, for Lazarus.

A) You didn't answer our questions.

B) We skimmed through the Mandate... where again does it say The PM has "direction over [Foreign Affairs?]?"

 

[temmi]

I think this is a good idea, but not one that our region seems prepared to commit to at this time. I think we should be more focused on activity and engagement in our own community, before committing to aiding other regions in the same ways.

Again, I think this is a really great idea and I look forward to when we have the resources and people in order to help other regions. From my experiences here so far, I think our efforts would be better spent on focusing internally. I don't see how we can fulfill any of the promises that this document would have us make.

 

[Deleted1]

If the PM is the only one who can introduce treaties or remove them, they are overseeing FA @"demonos"

 

[joWhatup]

Can we change this to this?

I think this is a good idea, but not one that our region seems prepared to commit to at this time. I think we should be more focused on activity and engagement in our own community, before committing to aiding other regions in the same ways.

Again, I think this is a really great idea and I look forward to when we have the resources and people in order to help other regions. From my experiences here so far, I think our efforts would be better spent on focusing internally. I don't see how we can fulfill any of the promises that this document would have us make.

@temmi a fair concern, but I would disagree - I think that this, if implemented well, will indeed drive activity, within the Guard at least. While we should most certainly look inwards, I do not believe we cannot do that while also keeping a concern out for our interests abroad.

 

[temmi]

helping

 

[joWhatup]

The treaty does not require us to do so. It says we may do so, and it will presumably take the form of working with them to improve their security by advising them and having someone recruit on their behalf when that person has time and is willing to do so.

 

[Demonos]

If the PM is the only one who can introduce treaties or remove them, they are overseeing FA @"demonos"

Looking directly at Art. IV of the 12th Mandate and "Establishment of the Cabinet"The PM will set the course of The Cabinet with such ministries, programs, and activities as they determine are beneficial for Lazarus", and at Sec. 6, "[/size]

 

[New Rogernomics]

You should be looking in Article 1:

I. Assembly of Lazarus

Composition of the Assembly

(1) The Assembly will be comprised of all citizens of Lazarus.

Powers of the Assembly

(2) The Assembly may establish and revise its own procedural rules by 50%+1 vote.

(3) The Assembly may enact, amend, or repeal general laws and resolutions by 50%+1 vote.

(4) The Assembly may enact, amend, or repeal treaties, at the request of the Prime Minister, by 50%+1 vote.

 

[Demonos]

".[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif](I)Sec.4[/font]the PM is the only one who can introduce treaties or remove them, they are overseeing FA..repealonly"only" at the request of the PM can treaties be introduced