NPA Doctrine Simplification Act

Lord Dominator

Lord Dominator

Election Commissioner
-
-
-
Hello. Pursuant to my prior statement on changes I would suggest if the Court did in fact rule current NPA procedure to be in violations of the Legal Code, I offer my proposed amendment to resolve the issues and allow the NPA to continue operating as it has been. This takes the form of removing the lesser possible changes that the NPA is prohibited from doing that other militaries do as a matter of routine, but leaving in place the restrictions on direct harm to native nations in a region (most notably, the restriction on changes to embassies). The requirement for natives to provided a means to undo changes has been retained. The most obvious change is the combination of sections 6.32 and 6.33, which I have done here as the requirements between the two are functionally the same (both in law and seemingly in practice), particularly when the embassy restriction is removed.

Please do comment as you will, I am most interested in knowing if 2 & 3 here are valid for passage as written (outside of the actual bigger proposal).

1. Sections 7.6.32 and 7.6.33 of the Legal Code will be struck out an be replaced by the following:
32. When deployed in a foreign region, The North Pacific Army will act with respect towards the natives of the region, refrain from excessive use of force, and refrain from permanent harm to the region. Excessive force includes the forced removal of any natives, adding a password to the region, or refounding the region. Before leaving a region, The North Pacific Army must provide natives with the means to restore the region to its original state. Exceptions to this clause must be publicly authorized by the Delegate when it is in the best interests of The North Pacific or its allies, subject to the approval of the Regional Assembly by a majority vote or pursuant to a declaration of war.
Click to expand...
2. Sections 7.6.34 through 7.6.37 will be renumbered as appropriate.
3. All exceptions previously authorized under either 7.6.23 or 7.6.33 will remain in force under the new 7.6.32.
Click to expand...
 
This change is a non-starter for me. Removing restrictions on the NPA is not something I can support.
 
I cannot support this. I don't see the need for a "simplification" of the legal code in an area where, on the contrary, more regulations and restrictions are needed. Unless we want the NPA to slowly turn into Lily, one amendment at a time.
 
If I am reading this right, the suggestion is that it should be OK for us to close or alter another region's embassies. Because? (and "Gee, Mom, but everybody else is doing it," is not good enough.)
 
The trouble with this is that closing embassies leaves a permanent mark on the region, and I’m not sure I can support that.
 
Venicea:
I cannot support this. I don't see the need for a "simplification" of the legal code in an area where, on the contrary, more regulations and restrictions are needed. Unless we want the NPA to slowly turn into Lily, one amendment at a time.
Click to expand...
Could you perhaps demonstrate where we need more restrictions? The NPA is often referred to in off-the-cuff remarks as one of the more backwards orgs in gameplay, and as the group that brings the big numbers to most joint operations I don't see a reason why that should remain the case.
 
Bobberino:
Could you perhaps demonstrate where we need more restrictions? The NPA is often referred to in off-the-cuff remarks as one of the more backwards orgs in gameplay, and as the group that brings the big numbers to most joint operations I don't see a reason why that should remain the case.
Click to expand...
What I meant to say is that we need stricter and more explicit regulations compared to what LRW proposed. Personally I believe that something more could be done to regulate the behaviour of the NPA when they are not leading an operation or to prevent the raid of an embassy region (see the raid on Nationstates), but that's just my opinion.
As for your second point, sorry I wasn't aware that acting with respect towards the native of a region was considered out of fashion in the R/D community. I guess times have changed.
 
Figured I'd reply to the responses not opposed to the concept:
Great Bights Mum:
If I am reading this right, the suggestion is that it should be OK for us to close or alter another region's embassies. Because? (and "Gee, Mom, but everybody else is doing it," is not good enough.)
Click to expand...
The intention was rather that we retain the ability to attend more traditional raids as support where embassies are closed as has been the case, as the current Legal Code and recent R4R have precluded. I presumed that the NPA would likely continue with not closing embassies when leading a raid if that was the wish of the region, with the only difference beibg the lack of explicit exception needed for every target region when things like the recent Lily led antifash run happens.
Comfed:
The trouble with this is that closing embassies leaves a permanent mark on the region, and I’m not sure I can support that.
Click to expand...
I don't think it leaves anymore of a mark than a raid in general does, just one that takes a few extra days to undo.
Fregerson:
Yeah. Maybe Peeps' proposal is more direct.
Click to expand...
And here I thought mine would be :p
 
Cretox State:
So are delegacy changes. What's your point?
Click to expand...
I’d rather leave as little permanent changes as possible on tagged regions, but I don’t support a ban on the NPA raiding because we’re independent.
Additionally, closing embassies and reopening them causes a bigger mark on the page :P
 
Comfed:
I’d rather leave as little permanent changes as possible on tagged regions, but I don’t support a ban on the NPA raiding because we’re independent.
Additionally, closing embassies and reopening them causes a bigger mark on the page :P
Click to expand...
Weird thing to get hung up on, but alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top