(06-06-2019, 07:52 PM)Roavin Wrote: Regarding our interests: There isn't a central authority for "Defender Interests" (and I'd know, I was the defender for basically all of 2017 and still have access to the collective backchannels); rather there exists a common understanding of defender values. If we formally identify as Defender, then our interpretation of these values will henceforth comprise part of our interests, because we have made it so. That does not mean we subjugate any of our autonomy to anybody else, and the Assembly can still decide to revert that at a later time.

(06-06-2019, 07:27 AM)The United Chinese Republic Wrote: Draft proposal, as an Amendment to the Charter:
-snip-

Instead of that, I'd propose (in addition to a resolution similar to OP) this change:

Quote:(3) The military shall utilize Defender principles and values as guideline to their deployment. They may engage in:
a. defense, liberation, and support operations in allied, partnered, or arbitrary non-antagonistic regions at any time,
b. non-destructive offensive operations against antagonistic regions at any time, and
c. colonization or destruction of non-antagonistic regions only with the express permission of the Cabinet and the Assembly,
d. colonization or destruction of antagonistic regions at any time.
For this section, a region with which the Coalition is at war, which espouses hateful ideologies, which systemically embraces on-site or off-site conduct violations, or has considerably attacked the Coalition or one of its allies or partners, shall be considered antagonistic.

Maybe "antagonistic" isn't the right word here but I think the gist is clear.

The above clearly says "Defender", but also fills in a few of the details on what that means for us. Specifically, we defend arbitrary regions, but we may go on the offensive against rule breakers, fascists, DoS sycophants, opponents in war, or direct antagonists of allies. 

This is a solid amendment, though I'd make a few changes:

- "Arbitrary" in Clause A seems off; the word "other" feels more natural, though I understand if the former would be preferred.
- I can't really tell the difference between a non-destructive offensive operation and a destructive one. Could you please clarify this to me?
- "Espouses hateful ideologies", while good, could possibly be manipulated to mean any region.