[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment

[Imaginary]

Tubbiuz haz like zero military experience... and I think not a vhole lot of interezt in learning hov to plan operationz for a military (correct me if im miztaken tubbiuz), zo I think giving the direction of operationz to him primarily izn't a vay to make the guard more active. The commander of an army iz generally the perzon vho givez direction to it, and I think that'z a good vay for it to vork. They are put in the pozition becauze they are good and truzted in vhat they do, and don't need to be judged az trying to align or not align the region every op they take on (altho i might be a lil biazed atm for thiz!)

Zo far in the guard ve have done moztly raidz on varzonez, and I think zome might zay that thiz iz "promoting the raider alignment" becauze in zome vayz it iz.. after all people are learning to point up and jump at a trigger and kick people out and put up regional paraphenelia; not crozz and dozz and reztore old VFEz or zomething. But that hazn't been a problem becauze doing vhatever in varzonez haz been zpecifically alloved to the guard by lav.

And zo I agree vith your former pozt NR that any nev lav zhould probably deal in abzolutez, not rezt zo heavily on vague and differently perceived alignment termz.

Not zure hov to actually put make a feazible lav out of that though, zo juzt my vague thoughtz on. u.u It'z nice reading y'allz' opinionz!

[New Rogernomics]

Tubbiuz haz like zero military experience... and I think not a vhole lot of interezt in learning hov to plan operationz for a military (correct me if im miztaken tubbiuz), zo I think giving the direction of operationz to him primarily izn't a vay to make the guard more active. The commander of an army iz generally the perzon vho givez direction to it, and I think that'z a good vay for it to vork. They are put in the pozition becauze they are good and truzted in vhat they do, and don't need to be judged az trying to align or not align the region every op they take on (altho i might be a lil biazed atm for thiz!)

Well generally, the commander-and-chief doesn't require military experience, as they are meant to be given advice by the operational commander, and they rely on the Regional Guard to give them an honest and fair assessment, as without that trust the whole relationship falls apart. So if the operational commander is allowed to be biased, then it is reasonable to follow that the commander-and-chief will then get poor advice and not necessarily make the right decision. 

So with this amendment, the feasibility is to be around not whether the operational commander can say that they favor "raiding" or "defending", and instead about the operational commander establishing the Regional Guard publicly as a raider or defender organization, and only organizing raids or defenses, and defying the part of the existing act that expresses a neutral alignment of the Regional Guard.

Ultimately however, even without military experience the commander-and-chief can understand when their operational commander is upsetting the region, causing strife with friendly or allied regions, and disrupting the neutral alignment, and for those situations you'd either want the operational commander to be prevented from doing any of that in the first place or to remove them outright. 

If you don't make clear in the Regional Guard Charter however that such actions are not permitted, then it will appear an unfair action or dismissal, as the Delegate would be sanctioning them for something they had never been clearly excluded from doing.

[Roavin]

I'll give an example: In the US, the President is Commander-in-Chief, though many times the CiC comes from a civilian rather than military background. That isn't an issue though (current administration notwithstanding) because the CiC is briefed and has a cool head and a set of advisors to help decide if what's being proposed by the Generals is reasonable or not. Another example, Imki became Minister of Military Affairs in TSP in June 2016 despite no prior R/D experience. Still, she was able to effectively perform at the job because she learned what she needed to do and was able to make informed decisions. So I don't see why civilian, non-military oversight of the military is ipso facto a problem, and in particular with the recent amemdment that makes the Delegate a non-political office, Delegate oversight is quite a clever solution.

To address Chimp's concern: Ever since TSP adopted the non-political Delegate system in 2016, Delegates have by an large all been trusted members of the community that were either never military gameplayers or had retired from military gameplay long before. Now, in TSP a group of clever gameplayers could still try to subvert the electoral process and push a plant to the Delegacy but that isn't even possible here in Lazarus, because the Delegate is selected by a line of succession. Given the people I think of as current or future Delegates (Tubbs, NR, Imaginary), all of them are so Laz-first that none of them would even consider allowing Lazarus to be swayed by malign actors from either the raider, defender, or imperialist camp. If we ever have to seriously consider recalling a Delegate because of R/D alignment, we would have much deeper problems at that point already.

[New Rogernomics]

The proposal has been edited to include most of what we discussed on discord.

[New Rogernomics]

Since this has gone through so many edits and changes I am going to create a new proposal thread for the current OP, which will be considered the true start of the discussion period before it moves to a vote.