The One Stop Shop for Your Lazarus Scandal Needs!

[Jar Wattinree]

The Pacific region has been themed around the New Pacific Order for over fourteen years. I'd say that qualifies, unless you meant an IRL group claiming a GCR?

I was thinking more a group entering a region to take it over, all the while claiming they had an inherent right to do so.

Sums up a lot of coups.

[Consular]

The Pacific region has been themed around the New Pacific Order for over fourteen years. I'd say that qualifies, unless you meant an IRL group claiming a GCR?

I was thinking more a group entering a region to take it over, all the while claiming they had an inherent right to do so.

Some might argue the NPO did just that, 14 years ago.

[Syberis]

Eh. Laïcité c'est magnifique. I think it wouldn't be bad to have a Lazarus themed a little around the Bible, with corresponding names (Bethany, Nazareth, Galilee, etc) as well as positions (Bishops, Patriarchs, a Pope maybe). But I think it would be best to distance it from any actual theological disputes or 'real' Christianity, because naturally that might turn off non-Christians. Or Protestants.

We would be a catch-all region, a refuge of sort for Christians of all stripes. We would, however, embrace religious tolerance and democratic governance of a hybrid between a secular and religious state.

Now explain why a specific ideology deserves a GCR, besides "I totally like the name."

If that's the metric we go by to determine mandate to rule, then NS has fallen quite far indeed.

[Auralia]

If that's the metric we go by to determine mandate to rule, then NS has fallen quite far indeed.

If a bunch of Christians decide to move to Lazarus, become natives, and manage to set up a Christian government because they have the most endorsements, they have every right to do so -- especially since Lazarus presently has no government and the sitting delegate has basically endorsed the idea of various groups competing for the delegacy.

[Elegarth]

If that's the metric we go by to determine mandate to rule, then NS has fallen quite far indeed.

If a bunch of Christians decide to move to Lazarus, become natives, and manage to set up a Christian government because they have the most endorsements, they have every right to do so -- especially since Lazarus presently has no government and the sitting delegate has basically endorsed the idea of various groups competing for the delegacy.

"Become natives"...

ones wonders what is the scientific approach to "become a native"... A given lenght of residency? A given level of activity? What?

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

If that's the metric we go by to determine mandate to rule, then NS has fallen quite far indeed.

If a bunch of Christians decide to move to Lazarus, become natives, and manage to set up a Christian government because they have the most endorsements, they have every right to do so -- especially since Lazarus presently has no government and the sitting delegate has basically endorsed the idea of various groups competing for the delegacy.

I'm interested in the "become natives" part of that. How long would you expect it to take before a group of people who enter a region with the intent of imposing their rule are considered to be legitimate natives with a right to do that? Essentially, how long does an invader have to be in a region before they're considered a native?

EDIT: And I got Ninja'd. Great minds think alike, I guess...

[The New California Republic]

become natives

"Become natives". That is such a contradiction in terms in the context of the current debate.

[Auralia]

It's a good question. I think any nation that comes to a region with the intention of permanently living there and building a regional community is a "native", for what it's worth.

The regional polling mechanic uses a definition of "native" that is a function of the nation's influence relative to other regions, but I'm not sure that makes much sense. If two nations want to participate in a regional community, does one have greater rights than the other simply because the other lived in a previous region for a longer period of time?

[Arlo]

If that's the metric we go by to determine mandate to rule, then NS has fallen quite far indeed.

If a bunch of Christians decide to move to Lazarus, become natives, and manage to set up a Christian government because they have the most endorsements, they have every right to do so -- especially since Lazarus presently has no government and the sitting delegate has basically endorsed the idea of various groups competing for the delegacy.

Fortunately for us wishful thinking isn't worth much so that is very unlikely to happen.

[Syberis]

If that's the metric we go by to determine mandate to rule, then NS has fallen quite far indeed.

If a bunch of Christians decide to move to Lazarus, become natives, and manage to set up a Christian government because they have the most endorsements, they have every right to do so -- especially since Lazarus presently has no government and the sitting delegate has basically endorsed the idea of various groups competing for the delegacy.

If a bunch of outsiders decide to move with the express goal of taking over down the road... You wouldn't be natives. That's not how it works.

Yeah, I suppose they could take Lazarus. But why would anyone support them? Why would anyone recognize them?

[Auralia]

If a bunch of outsiders decide to move with the express goal of taking over down the road... You wouldn't be natives. That's not how it works.

I wasn't aware that any particular theory of political ethics or definition of "native" had achieved consensus in NationStates gameplay.

Yeah, I suppose they could take Lazarus. But why would anyone support them? Why would anyone recognize them?

I imagine some people would support them because they like the idea of a Christian government in Lazarus? Or, assuming the government is democratic, because it has the support of a majority of Lazarenes? In other words, the same reasons anyone supports any government?

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

If a bunch of outsiders decide to move with the express goal of taking over down the road... You wouldn't be natives. That's not how it works.

I wasn't aware that any particular theory of political ethics or definition of "native" had achieved consensus in NationStates gameplay.

I'm pretty sure there's a reasonable consensus of what it isn't, and that's any group of people who intend to install their own government before they even enter the region.

[Auralia]

I wasn't aware that any particular theory of political ethics or definition of "native" had achieved consensus in NationStates gameplay.

I'm pretty sure there's a reasonable consensus of what it isn't, and that's any group of people who intend to install their own government before they even enter the region.

I don't understand this. Why should nations have to be blank slates before immigrating to a region? Why can't they have their own vision of an ideal regional community and desire to put it into practice? Why does that disqualify them from being a native?

[The New California Republic]

I'm pretty sure there's a reasonable consensus of what it isn't, and that's any group of people who intend to install their own government before they even enter the region.

I don't understand this. Why should nations have to be blank slates before immigrating to a region? Why can't they have their own vision of an ideal regional community and desire to put it into practice? Why does that disqualify them from being a native?

No, the fact that they are not a native disqualifies them from being a native.

[Auralia]

I don't understand this. Why should nations have to be blank slates before immigrating to a region? Why can't they have their own vision of an ideal regional community and desire to put it into practice? Why does that disqualify them from being a native?

No, the fact that they are not a native disqualifies them from being a native.

That's circular logic. I've already said that I define a native as any nation that comes to a region with the intention of permanently living there and building a regional community.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

I'm pretty sure there's a reasonable consensus of what it isn't, and that's any group of people who intend to install their own government before they even enter the region.

I don't understand this. Why should nations have to be blank slates before immigrating to a region? Why can't they have their own vision of an ideal regional community and desire to put it into practice? Why does that disqualify them from being a native?

Going into a region to contribute is fine, but there's a difference between contributing and coming in with a preconceived plan to change the theme and government of a region. That's an invasion.

[The New California Republic]

No, the fact that they are not a native disqualifies them from being a native.

That's circular logic.

Not really, just like the fact that "I am not a bird" disqualifies me from being a bird...

I've already said that I define a native as any nation that comes to a region with the intention of permanently living there and building a regional community.

Well, that definition is certainly different...

[Cute Puppies]

This just in: a brood of angry Christian moms try to raid Lazarus to turn the region into a Christian Minecraft server

[The New California Republic]

This just in: a brood of angry Christian moms try to raid Lazarus to turn the region into a Christian Minecraft server

Lies!

[Auralia]

Not really, just like the fact that "I am not a bird" disqualifies me from being a bird...

In the absence of a non-self-referential definition of "bird", yes, that is also circular logic.

I've already said that I define a native as any nation that comes to a region with the intention of permanently living there and building a regional community.

Well, that definition is certainly different...

What's your definition?

[Auralia]

Going into a region to contribute is fine, but there's a difference between contributing and coming in with a preconceived plan to change the theme and government of a region. That's an invasion.

Lazarus presently has no theme or government.

[The New California Republic]

What's your definition?

A nation that has been in the region for an extended period of time. In contrast to your definition, where a nation can join a region 10 minutes ago and still be a "native" for some bizarre reason...

Also, I am not debating the circular logic thing, my original point was facetious, and it doesn't warrant this little farce of debating what is and isn't circular.

[Auralia]

What's your definition?

A nation that has been in the region for an extended period of time. In contrast to your definition, where a nation can join a region 10 minutes ago and still be a "native" for some bizarre reason...

Insofar as the term "native" is really used to mean a nation with the right to participate in the governance of a regional community, I don't see why this status should be a function of the length of time spent in a region.

The ability to contribute to a regional community has to do with one's talents, vision, and commitment to the region, not one's length of residency. As such, I think the former provides a better foundation for the concept of "native" than the latter.

[TempestShadow]

Going into a region to contribute is fine, but there's a difference between contributing and coming in with a preconceived plan to change the theme and government of a region. That's an invasion.

Lazarus presently has no theme or government.

Anarchy is both a theme and a government (or lack thereof)

[Cute Puppies]

Total anarchy > glorified Christian Minecraft server