[Proposal] Charter of the Lazarene Regional Guard Amendment

[New Rogernomics]

RE: (5) The Regional Guard may be empowered to engage in any other military actions short of an act of war upon approval of the Delegate.

Iz raiding a region an act of var?

In the history of the game....nope. As I'd interpret it, that requires a continual occupation, that is more something exclusive to invaders (who didn't just tag but outright take over a region). You can ask any raider/defender/invader that question and get a different answer. Can it be morally or ethically questionable though, sure. If you don't like that your Delegate is permitting raids of fellow GCRs then you should probably vote to remove them. 

Though I'd really question the region that would think that putting in place a Delegate that believes in raiding GCRs at will, is the right decision. :/

Making sure the military commander was a reputable and level-headed leader is a requirement of being a Delegate, if you can't appoint one, then best to pack up bags and not be the Delegate of any GCR, let alone Lazarus.

That said, even if you were to amend this to state, "the military is only permitted to raid or defend upon a per-operational vote of the assembly", there is no way to prevent creative interpretations of that, and anyone who tried would be arguing that a raid or a defense operation of a certain type is "moral" while another is not. I'd be curious to see anyone define a raid as a "moral" act, which is what a specific definition would require.

You either permit raids or defenses, or you adopt the non-interventionist position. It is the height of moral hypocrisy to argue for an interventionist policy that permits taking over warzones, aiding foreign allies, and making war on foreign foes, while simultaneously claiming they are moral to be doing so. To engage in a military action is immoral from the point you put a single nation in another region without their consent.

So the most extreme interpretation is Lazarus having a military at all is an "act of war", so if that is the concern, it is time to repeal the Guard Act entirely, and make it exclusively a home-defense only force that cannot engage in any military operations beyond supporting Delegacy transitions - as that is the only truly morally justified position. Since if we are arguing that a "raid" or a "defense" can be unacceptable, that implies that there is such a thing as a moral military operation.

Sorry, if that was a bit pushy, though this brings in the ethics and morality of gameplay R/D. From a defender position there is no moral "raid", only a morally unacceptable act that violates the sovereignty of another region, and when you raid, the region will not want you there - so you can't raid without violating their sovereignty.

Ultimately however, the refusal to allow raids (while attacking raiders) can be interpreted as a defender bias, so that too is making an R/D position.