11-12-2019, 11:00 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote:(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.