[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment

[McChimp]

The Delegate is the commander-and-chief. If the Delegate can't do their responsibility they shouldn't be Delegate. So that doesn't really stick. If they can't do adequate discretion, why would you argue that such an individual is good enough to be in any position, let alone a military one? The procedure for that is a removal vote. We had the same policy during the Humane Republic of Lazarus without issue, and that was when Lazarus had an active military under the Founderless Regions Alliance.

No it doesn't. It is clear that the only other things in the game you can do are raids and defenses, and as stated out previously requiring the assembly to do a vote for every defense or every raid makes for a slow process. It certainly doesn't mean to imply a Delegate can authorize to invade a region and take it over.

If someone is a truly inept Delegate that couldn't tell the difference between authorizing a raid, a defense, or a liberation, then they shouldn't be Delegate. This point doesn't really stand for the same reason as the first point, which is why would you advocate an inept Delegate be commander-and-chief of the military, and why would you rely on some act to define what an inept Delegate would fail to do under any circumstances?

There is evidently a change in the Delegate's responsibilities here-where before they were not responsible for authorising operations and therefore the region's alignment, now they are. By placing it at the discretion of one person, instead of at the discretion of the law, you are allowing Lazarus to be aligned as it was during the HRL, as the FRA was. Leaving it at the discretion of the Delegate doesn't guarantee a fair balance between raiding and defending.

I don't think that the Assembly should vote over every operation-that's patently absurd. What I am saying is that if it is your intention to make Lazarus independent, this is not the way to achieve that. I would actually prefer a law saying that Lazarus is aligned one way or the other than this, which allows any alignment. It just doesn't make sense for a region to be unstably aligned: it'll be bad for our interregional relations, it'll create unrest amongst our own community. This will lead to arguments and it will be a threat to the security of our region.

Voting to remove our Delegate because of their R/D alignment is exactly what we should be avoiding, not encouraging as this law does. That is exactly the kind of thing that will lead to a Delegate couping. I don't understand how you could even offer up "well you can always remove the Delegate if you don't like their stance on R/D" as an argument with a straight face.

The Assembly can amend the Guard Act at any time to define what operations it permits or not. This amendment is not for that, but allow for the Delegate to permit defenses and raid operations requested by the military. Which raises the second point, if the official/minister in charge of the guard proposes something the region doesn't like, they can again be removed.

Why are you writing this amendment without those more rigorous restrictions that you admit ought to be made? Is there some kind of urgency?

[Debussy]

If you can't trust the delegate then you absolutely can't trust anyone to do anything here and just give up. The delegate is suppose to be head of security, head of making sure everyone is safe and appointing successors that do the same. I have no problem here.

[New Rogernomics]

There is evidently a change in the Delegate's responsibilities here-where before they were not responsible for authorising operations and therefore the region's alignment, now they are. By placing it at the discretion of one person, instead of at the discretion of the law, you are allowing Lazarus to be aligned as it was during the HRL, as the FRA was. Leaving it at the discretion of the Delegate doesn't guarantee a fair balance between raiding and defending.

Actually they are as the commander-and-chief is responsible for the conduct of their minister. If they are authorizing operations that create a regional alignment, then we must hold the Delegate AND the minister/official responsible.

It is not at the discretion of one person, any more than it is the discretion of one person, if a Head of State, such as a Queen, or a President, is the commander-and-chief of the military, as there is a clear chain of command that follows from the commander-and-chief, through to subordinates, which in turn are all directly responsible for their conduct to the legislature and the citizenry.

There is no such thing as an achievable balance between "raiding" and defending", and nor can you argue that invading other regions and being at war, as is currently justified by acts (or has been in the past), is a fair balance - as in itself war is not a balance but the goal with aim of seizing the sovereign territory of another region. If you have any military of any kind at all, you will make other regions not like you. That seems more of an argument against the existence of a military than an argument against this amendment.

I don't think that the Assembly should vote over every operation-that's patently absurd. What I am saying is that if it is your intention to make Lazarus independent, this is not the way to achieve that. I would actually prefer a law saying that Lazarus is aligned one way or the other than this, which allows any alignment. It just doesn't make sense for a region to be unstably aligned: it'll be bad for our interregional relations, it'll create unrest amongst our own community. This will lead to arguments and it will be a threat to the security of our region.

Making Lazarus independent or not is not the declared purpose of this amendment, nor does it stand the hope of making unrest to allow the commander-and-chief of the military to allow raids and defenses requested by the military, and NOT by the Delegate. Unless you are seriously suggesting TNP is descending into civil war because they allow the commander-and-chief to decide. Nowhere does this permit the Delegate to suggest an operation, as it must be suggested first by their operational commander, an operational commander that is directly responsible to the region for their conduct.

Voting to remove our Delegate because of their R/D alignment is exactly what we should be avoiding, not encouraging as this law does.

How? This amendment does not permit R/D as a policy. It permits the operational commander to request an operation that MAY be a defense or MAY be a raid, it does not justify whether a raid or a defense is moral or not, or even if one should take place, and it does NOT permit the Delegate to propose an operation. It does not mention "raid" or "defense" at all either, as those are just some options permitted by allowing the military to propose operations to the Delegate, and not the only options. 

That is exactly the kind of thing that will lead to a Delegate couping. I don't understand how you could even offer up "well you can always remove the Delegate if you don't like their stance on R/D" as an argument with a straight face.

The military deciding upon an operation and presenting it to the Delegate for approval, can hardly make a Delegate into a power-hungry idiot that wants to coup the region. They have to be that well before, and since you bring up "couping", I hardly think saying in an act "you can R/D" will prevent the Delegate couping. They'll do that anyway. It certainly didn't stop anyone who couped Lazarus multiple times. So my original point still stands, if you appoint/elect an incompetent military commander, then that is on region  - and not on this proposed amendment. 

I don't understand why you are so determined to refute the position that the commander-and-chief of the military and the operational commander is ultimately responsible to their region, and that the ultimate sanction is to remove them from their position. It is also incorrect to suggest that I implied at any point that is the only sanction, as that includes the court and public opposition encouraging the Delegate to change their mind. 

This never states "raid" or "defense" in the whole amendment, and certainly doesn't advocate for either.

Finally, it is not in the spirit of this amendment to allow the Delegate to set R/D policy, and in my opinion to do so would require another amendment that details regional positions on R/D and not just allowing the operational commander to propose an operation to the Delegate, and frankly I don't think anyone is ready to declare Lazarus exclusively "raider" or "defender" at this time.

[McChimp]

If they are authorizing operations that create a regional alignment, then we must hold the Delegate AND the minister/official responsible.

 

The military deciding upon an operation and presenting it to the Delegate for approval, can hardly make a Delegate into a power-hungry idiot that wants to coup the region. They have to be that well before, and since you bring up "couping", I hardly think saying in an act "you can R/D" will prevent the Delegate couping. They'll do that anyway. It certainly didn't stop anyone who couped Lazarus multiple times. So my original point still stands, if you appoint/elect an incompetent military commander, then that is on region - and not on this proposed amendment.

 

I don't understand why you are so determined to refute the position that the commander-and-chief of the military and the operational commander is ultimately responsible to their region, and that the ultimate sanction is to remove them from their position. It is also incorrect to suggest that I implied at any point that is the only sanction, as that includes the court and public opposition encouraging the Delegate to change their mind.

The only sanction the citizenry can legally pursue against the Delegate is removal, according to the Mandate. The Court can't do anything about people not playing by the rules unless they commit a crime. That is exactly the kind of action we shouldn't be giving ourselves reason to do, and that it's even on the table right now is a sure sign that this can create unrest and be used as justification for a coup.
 

There is no such thing as an achievable balance between "raiding" and defending", and nor can you argue that invading other regions and being at war, as is currently justified by acts (or has been in the past), is a fair balance - as in itself war is not a balance but the goal with aim of seizing the sovereign territory of another region. If you have any military of any kind at all, you will make other regions not like you. That seems more of an argument against the existence of a military than an argument against this amendment.

Wars declared against regions like the NPO absolutely cannot be equated to R/D, where we would be acting as an unprovoked aggressor or intervening in other people's business.
 

Making Lazarus independent or not is not the declared purpose of this amendment, nor does it stand the hope of making unrest to allow the commander-and-chief of the military to allow raids and defenses requested by the military, and NOT by the Delegate. Unless you are seriously suggesting TNP is descending into civil war because they allow the commander-and-chief to decide. Nowhere does this permit the Delegate to suggest an operation, as it must be suggested first by their operational commander, an operational commander that is directly responsible to the region for their conduct.

 

How? This amendment does not permit R/D as a policy. It permits the operational commander to request an operation that MAY be a defense or MAY be a raid, it does not justify whether a raid or a defense is moral or not, or even if one should take place, and it does NOT permit the Delegate to propose an operation. It does not mention "raid" or "defense" at all either, as those are just some options permitted by allowing the military to propose operations to the Delegate, and not the only options.

Lazarus is not TNP. Lazarus has already had a civil war motivated largely by the R/D rift, and has already been subverted by raiders. If the Delegate chooses to veto one side of R/D or if the commander chooses only to suggest one side, then Lazarus will have become aligned by personal actions rather than by law. I don't think that ought to be possible but this act (as it is) makes it so.
 

This never states "raid" or "defense" in the whole amendment, and certainly doesn't advocate for either.

 

Finally, it is not in the spirit of this amendment to allow the Delegate to set R/D policy, and in my opinion to do so would require another amendment that details regional positions on R/D and not just allowing the operational commander to propose an operation to the Delegate, and frankly I don't think anyone is ready to declare Lazarus exclusively "raider" or "defender" at this time.

Why change the section relating to alignment at all if the point of the amendment is not to permit R/D? What is it supposed to permit?

[New Rogernomics]

Amended it a bit. Will respond when I get time tomorrow.

[Debussy]

(5) The Regional Guard will be not be permitted to propose military operations that promote a regional military alignment.

Why is this the entire guard and not just the guy running it? Shutting everyone up on what they want to do isn't a great idea. Does this mean people can still make suggestions as long as you aren't "RAID RAID RAID DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND." I'm fine if thats the case.

[New Rogernomics]

(5) The Regional Guard will be not be permitted to propose military operations that promote a regional military alignment.

Why is this the entire guard and not just the guy running it? Shutting everyone up on what they want to do isn't a great idea. Does this mean people can still make suggestions as long as you aren't "RAID RAID RAID DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND." I'm fine if thats the case.

It was only meant to be the operational commander.

[Roavin]

On a procedural note, it would be easier to follow along if each change was documented in the post announcing the change, rather than just editing OP.

Regarding the substance of the current draft: I think it's okay-ish, though as I've said many times before, my worry here is opening up Lazarus in a way that defenders or raiders could seek incentive to storm in.

(5) The Regional Guard operational commander will be not be permitted to propose military operations that promote a regional military alignment.

This part is in practice not enforceable. What sort of operation promotes an alignment? Does simply chasing once promote defenderism? Does a single tag run promote raiderism? What if in one month there are 4 "raid-type" operations but only 1 "defense-type" operation simply because of happenstance of availability? Really, this isn't something that can be written into law that can be reasonably interpreted.

A better approach may be to write that the RG command structure shall strive to not unduly favor any ideology. That's still not enforceable, but it doesn't try to be, and gives an implicit mandate that can serve as context for judicial interpretation.

Having the Delegate (who, in this system, is not political) have the final say rather than any political official (Cabinet) is a neat way of avoiding the chance of having outside ideologues politicize the choice of operations. I'm still not sure the RG really needs to engage in anything else than it already can, but this is at least shaping up into something I could maybe support.

[Debussy]

I have to agree with Roavin, and his suggestion would be a better approach to that issue. As it is written now, it could be a source of problems.

[New Rogernomics]

On a procedural note, it would be easier to follow along if each change was documented in the post announcing the change, rather than just editing OP.

Regarding the substance of the current draft: I think it's okay-ish, though as I've said many times before, my worry here is opening up Lazarus in a way that defenders or raiders could seek incentive to storm in.

(5) The Regional Guard operational commander will be not be permitted to propose military operations that promote a regional military alignment.

This part is in practice not enforceable. What sort of operation promotes an alignment? Does simply chasing once promote defenderism? Does a single tag run promote raiderism? What if in one month there are 4 "raid-type" operations but only 1 "defense-type" operation simply because of happenstance of availability? Really, this isn't something that can be written into law that can be reasonably interpreted.

A better approach may be to write that the RG command structure shall strive to not unduly favor any ideology. That's still not enforceable, but it doesn't try to be, and gives an implicit mandate that can serve as context for judicial interpretation.

Having the Delegate (who, in this system, is not political) have the final say rather than any political official (Cabinet) is a neat way of avoiding the chance of having outside ideologues politicize the choice of operations. I'm still not sure the RG really needs to engage in anything else than it already can, but this is at least shaping up into something I could maybe support.

I've been hearing privately and publicly, the various ways that people want the military policy of Lazarus to be.

So my initial draft did not fly with everyone, some of whom either want full on R/D or are heavily opposed to any kind of R/D. 

So it isn't as flexible as my first one was. 

I did try to say that both Tubbius, and even myself wouldn't ever authorize an operation that could bring the region into disrepute, which was the whole point of having the effective veto of the Delegate on any operation. 

That part about military options though, was added, because some folks were getting the false impression that this amendment would undermine the neutrality parts that are mentioned earlier in the existing act. It does not restrict anyone advocating for raider or defender policy, as it only caters for the situation where the commanding officer declares the Guard a "raider" or "defender" org and and flies in face of regional neutrality by doing so - and that is why it is enforceable. 

The existing legislation already states the equivalent of " unduly favor any ideology" as well, though to some this isn't clear enough:

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

It seems from what I am hearing is that enough seem to be supportive of allowing us to participate in the military options of allies, which would imply allowing Lazarus to join raids of Osiris, or defense operations of TSP, if those regions were okay with that. So that's what the current amendment intends to allow.