#4 – Defenderism

[Wopruthien]

Keep as is.

[thechurchofsatan]

I think it's a good idea.

[Spartan Termopylae]

No necessary

[Guy]

I would entertain inserting a provision prohibiting the government from invading -- adhering to the principles of self-determination.

Adding 'defenderism' to the Constitution is likely just going to result in arguments over "Candidate Y is not defender enough!" or "The Government should do this, not that; it's more defenderist!"

[Cormac]

I agree with Wop, to be honest. Is the defender status of The Rejected Realms ever likely to be in serious dispute? I feel like it would just alienate our non-defender citizens without actually changing much. We're already defender; it doesn't need to be enshrined in law.

[Opressed Ones]

I would entertain inserting a provision prohibiting the government from invading -- adhering to the principles of self-determination.

Adding 'defenderism' to the Constitution is likely just going to result in arguments over "Candidate Y is not defender enough!" or "The Government should do this, not that; it's more defenderist!"

How about this:

The government and all its officials are prohibited to partipiciate in any invasion against any region that neither declared war on The Rejected Realms nor was declared war by the Assembly.

[Cormac]

I could support this:

E: As a defender region, The Rejected Realms government shall uphold the principle of self-determination, refrain from the invasion of other regions outside of times of war and support the activities of the RRA abroad.

I don't have any problem with The Rejected Realms having the defender tag, or even constitutionally prohibiting the government from invading, but I think legally referring to TRR as "a defender region" just sends the wrong message to non-defender citizens and prospective citizens. We don't want them to feel like second class citizens by legally enshrining an unnecessary label -- prohibiting government-sponsored invasion is enough to prevent things like joining an interregional organization that invades, etc.

I'm still not sure this is needed, but without the "defender region" language I could support it as a compromise.

[Cormac]

I'm worried about the absence of "defender region" being used as an excuse by a future delegation to remove the defender tag. "Defender region" does not mean "only for defenders" and I think we should avoid feeding that myth.

As currently worded, a future Delegate could still remove the Defender tag. Defining TRR as a defender region doesn't necessarily mandate the Defender tag. TRR is also a social region but we don't have the Social tag. That may be a less relevant example, but my point is that just because we're constitutionally defined as a defender region doesn't mandate continuation of the "Defender" tag -- if we want to do that, we should do that.

I could support language to mandate use of the Defender tag, especially since the RRA is based out of TRR, and I would much prefer that to referring to TRR as a defender region. TRR is many things to many people, and I don't think constitutionally defining TRR as a defender region is necessary.

[Guy]

The defender tag can be mandated by simple law, as per the Regional Controls clause.

Alternatively:

The Rejected Realms government shall uphold the principle of self-determination, refrain from the invasion of other regions outside of times of war, use the Defender regional tag and support the activities of the RRA abroad.

[Cormac]

I can support that language.

[Guy]

Well, as I stated, my preference would be for that to occur through regional legislation -- a Tags Act, perhaps, similar to the Flag and RMB Acts.

[Cormac]

Well, as I stated, my preference would be for that to occur through regional legislation -- a Tags Act, perhaps, similar to the Flag and RMB Acts.

I would be for this. As long as we prohibit invading in the constitution, nobody is going to mess with TRR's defender status anyway. We can define tags through statutory law.

[Kogvuron]

Honestly, I could go for either option, but if the majority is more comfortable with Cormac or Guy's language, that's fine by me

[Spartan Termopylae]

I don't like the idea of constitutionalising defenderism because it alienates those who are not defender. TRR has long been home to, well, anyone. We've had known raiders involved in a good way, people who may dislike this. We have defenders, who may love it, then there are the people in the middle who don't identify as either. I certainly don't, and raider/defender politics just take the biscuit. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

[Spartan Termopylae]

And I'm not suggesting otherwise. I just see no point in making this part of the constitution, and I believe my reasons are valid

[Kogvuron]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

By your definition of "broken", we would never do anything at all.

Based on Spartan's voting record I think he'd be fine with that

I think that simply stating that TRR cannot invade goes far enough

[Christian Democrats]

I don't believe the RR civilian government should maintain any official stance on military gameplay.

[Thought Transference]

FWIW I prefer to keep the tag as a separate issue, and then include the Defender tag in existing law concerning the flag. TRR is plainly defender, complete with RRA, and that's not going away. Combined with a tag law, Cormac's amendment to Unibot's "E." would protect everything.

I think we might need to consider addressing Unibot's other concern, that we not feed the myth that being a defender region means we're biased against our invader citizens. I'm pretty sure calling ourselves "defenderist" or "a defender region" won't seriously serve to lay that myth to rest. It could even suggest to someone of suspicious disposition that we're moving position and becoming more anti-invader.

OTOH if we make the "defender" tag an extension of the Flag rule and then frame the law along the lines already mentioned, we can easily make it clear that we distinguish between the behaviour of individual nations who only represent themselves, and our region as a whole or nations who officially serve in some sense as representatives of our region.

Just some thoughts.

[Guy]

Well, if we just want to go minimalist:

E: The Rejected Realms government shall uphold the principle of self-determination and refrain from the invasion of other regions outside of times of war.

Then introduce a Tags Act, calling for a Defender tag. I think everyone could get behind that.

[Cormac]

Nobody thought The Rejected Realms was anything other than a defender region even when it wasn't tagged that way, except perhaps a few neutral individuals here in TRR. The undisputed defender status of the RRA as our sole military, as well as our regional membership first in the Alliance Defense Network immediately followed by the Founderless Regions Alliance, makes TRR's defender status pretty clear without adding exclusionary language to the constitution.

I can support the amendment already discussed, sans "defender region," but I'll be voting against any amendment with the "defender region" language in it. It just isn't necessary and as an unnecessary amendment, it's unnecessarily divisive. We shouldn't make non-defender citizens feel less a part of TRR for no particular reason.

I would hate to see a constitutional prohibition against invasion, which has a positive and practical purpose, fail because it has an unnecessary label attached to it. Not everyone who's against invasion even identifies as defender. Let's focus less on the label and more on the behavior we want to promote or prohibit.

[Guy]

I just don't see the need for it. It's meaningless, just as much as the "independent" and "Independent" and "Raider" or "Imperialist" or "invader" labels don't actually mean anything. It's what you do that matters, not what you call yourself.

I reiterate my point that this would just lead to arguments over "Candidate Y is not defender enough!" or "The Government should do this, not that; it's more defender!", probably mostly between defenders.

[Cormac]

Non-defender citizens aren't any less a part of TRR because TRR is a defender region and we shouldn't give up the term "defender region" because of that misconception - we have to be proud of her heritage and take back the term, "defender" - we can't let it be regarded as a dirty word.

They may not, in reality, be any less a part of TRR, but that doesn't mean they won't feel any less a part of TRR. My concern is with how they will perceive their place and participation in the region, not with the factual reality of the situation. Though, to be candid, I can easily see non-defenders becoming second class citizens not only in perception but in reality if a hardcore defender mentality sets in. More on that below.

Imperialists don't shy away from calling themselves imperialists. Independents don't shy away from putting "independent" all over their laws. We shouldn't hide our identity either, or otherwise we hurt that identity altogether.

This is not a good argument against the region becoming exclusionary. As a matter of course, imperialists find ways to prohibit defender participation in their regions, with draconian measures like "Membership in a Proscribed Organization," for which I was tried, convicted, and banned in The New Inquisition for merely joining the United Defenders League, before even taking any military action against any TNI raid.

While usually more subtle about it, independent regions often find ways to exclude defenders (and sometimes raiders and imperialists) by making them feel like second class citizens or questioning their loyalty to their regions based on their ideologies and military activities. You, yourself, have been subject to this treatment in independent regions. So have I.

Raider regions are even more exclusionary than imperialist and independent regions. And last but certainly not least, some defender regions are every bit as exclusionary. Try to continue participating in 10000 Islands as an independent, let alone an imperialist or raider. While 10000 Islands is the most extreme example, other defender regions subject non-defenders to the same second class treatment you'll find people subjected to in independent regions.

Nearly without fail, adoption of an ideological label is accompanied or immediately followed by exclusion of those who don't share the label. I don't want that in The Rejected Realms and neither, apparently, do most who have expressed their opinion here. It runs completely contrary to the other principle, perhaps more important to the region even than defending, of being a home for the rejects of NationStates. Those rejects are not all defenders and those who aren't should not be made to feel like they're rejected even by fellow rejects.

This isn't "unnecessarily divisive" and given you're the oppositional voice here, it's a bit cheeky to say we shouldn't do it because it is divisive - doing something because people don't agree with it is hardly a good reason to not do something.

I prefer to think of myself as the majority voice. Nobody else has expressed support for constitutionally classifying TRR as "a defender region." Let's focus on actions, rather than labels.

[Libetarian Republics]

I personally came to TRR as a non-defender and enjoy the inclusiveness, despite the defender majority. A defender label would have ruined it for me.

[Spartan Termopylae]

I'm not sure what relevance my voting history has, well, anywhere, really. I vote the way I need to

[Cormac]

And who cares if it makes non-defenders feel excluded, right?