Raiding has consequences

[Zarvarza]

Now that ive gotten my rant done with, in all seriousness. nationStates, like socialism, are essentially one in the same. The more the socialists take under their wing, to 'protect you' the worse it becomes. Name me one nation simulation game where you cannot raid in some level or other. You cant, because there are none, because that would be boring. NS is already a boring game, because the powers that be make it rediculously difficult to make any real progress.

Why on earth, would you want to make a dull game even more dull by eliminating raiding. its evil you say... well evil is interesting, its fun, it gets Max more book sales. (I havnt bought a book of his since influence came).

I would recommend, that if you want a world where everyone is friendly and informational, then you should invent the game 'hippistates' where everyone gets along,and raiding isnt a mechanic of the game. It wont work, calling raiding evil wont work, this has been discussed so much its nausiating. I would recommend rather than call something evil, to look at yourself and your actions and change who you are... Stop thinking inside the box, and use your imagination to enhance the game.

[Zarvarza]

I charge the issue, because this entire topic was charged, and worded in such a way that the author clearly wanted it. im only giving him the radical responces he despirately tried to troll up with his wording.

[Takaram]

Now that ive gotten my rant done with, in all seriousness. nationStates, like socialism, are essentially one in the same. The more the socialists take under their wing, to 'protect you' the worse it becomes. Name me one nation simulation game where you cannot raid in some level or other. You cant, because there are none, because that would be boring. NS is already a boring game, because the powers that be make it rediculously difficult to make any real progress.

Why on earth, would you want to make a dull game even more dull by eliminating raiding. its evil you say... well evil is interesting, its fun, it gets Max more book sales. (I havnt bought a book of his since influence came).

I would recommend, that if you want a world where everyone is friendly and informational, then you should invent the game 'hippistates' where everyone gets along,and raiding isnt a mechanic of the game. It wont work, calling raiding evil wont work, this has been discussed so much its nausiating. I would recommend rather than call something evil, to look at yourself and your actions and change who you are... Stop thinking inside the box, and use your imagination to enhance the game.

I do agree with you on one point, these discussions are pointless and have basically all been repeated ad nauseum. You're obviously firmly in your trench, as are many other raiders, and many defenders are firmly in theirs, and these threads serve as nothing more than a place for both sides to claim superiority.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

I would recommend, that if you want a world where everyone is friendly and informational, then you should invent the game 'hippistates' where everyone gets along,and raiding isnt a mechanic of the game.

Quoted for win!

[Zarvarza]

You're obviously firmly in your trench, as are many other raiders, and many defenders are firmly in theirs, and these threads serve as nothing more than a place for both sides to claim superiority.

Im not a raider at all.... I simply support the game I love to play, and advocate for more activity. I love NationStates (as dull as it may be). the dullness makes it fun. Anyone who tries to take away from a good game is a .................... well, is not good. Celebrate the newfound innovations, that DONT take away, condemn the bad innovations, and put an end to people who opt for a weaker, more boring NS! Thats what im trenched into!

[Luna Amore]

The word corpse has an automatic shock value? I think you guys need to get out more.

The sentence was "Going to wait for him to CTE or [sic] dance on his corpse?" Ceasing to exist is a game mechanic that affects nations. CTEing is effectively the death of a nation in game, all be it reversable. Judging by the context of the sentence, he was refering to the 'corpse' of the nation.

He was exaggerating for effect. Hyperbole, nothing all that insulting. Insisting that it was some disrespectful insult is just plain silly.

My favourite part about your post was when you straw manned me; by making up positions that I didn't take and then subsequently attacking said false positions. I didn't say anywhere in my post that I was insulted; nor did I say that the word corpse itself was shocking -- especially not intrinsically and/or disrespectfully shocking; although, on the latter claim I can kind of see the position. Thank you for making those parts up to only attack them -- thank you so much <3. Rather, I stated that the sentence used -- which contained the word corpse -- was rhetoric. Which is a position that even you hold by stating that they were, "exaggerating for effect." Thank you for agreeing with me on that point.

Now, I can see what you've stated could be the case; but, I find it to be implausible due to the fact that they stated that Halc' was also engaging in an act as if the nation were an individual. Simply put, I believe that Wordy is trying to cover themselves by violating a standard that they held and/or respect -- it's not that hard to admit. -_-' I don't find that to be a huge deal; rather, I find not admitting to it to be one.

I am merely attacking the arguements presented. Feign indignation if you want.

You said, "I am also under the impression that Wordy was using rhetoric in order to entice a since of shock in the reader."

The word which Swift is up in arms (fair warning, I'm exaggerating. I don't know the actual position of his arms) about is the use of the word 'corpse' and the phrase 'dancing on a corpse'. You said you believed he said this to entice shock. My response of 'corpse has automatic shock value?' is therefore completely justified and not a strawman. Either stand by your words or stop arguing the point.

Swift's response was an overreaction which appealed to some nameless victims who would be offended by the use of the phrase 'dancing on his corpse'. Give me a damn break.

[Zarvarza]

Those are just excuses for bullying weaker regions. Of the regions I've defended, the vast majority of natives do not wish for their communities to be invaded or annexed. They want to be left alone.

And actions have consequences.

Today we see another long-time player, deciding to quit the game because of raider harassment. His/her region Mare Unae has been invaded repeatedly in the past year. After getting invaded the 5th time, it proved too much for this player.

Now this I particularly laughed at. Not because its wrong perse, but becuase of the wording.

Lets look deeper shall we.

Clearly the poster here is under the age of 20, and even so most likely in high school--- swept away in the post Columbine world of 'bullying is bad". Those Disney commercials denouncing bullying has clearly effected the writer. It used to be that those who were bullied would one day rise up, (especially in their senior year), and kick the @$$es of the bullies. But no. Not here, its bad, so we have players who go on and quit. Not on NS anymore... So, with that deeper into the rabbit hole we go.

No region likes to be raided, obviously. I've yet to find one that does, but a raided region is highly effective in showing its vulnerabilities to the world. Not vulnerabilites in army size, but rather in caring. Members who care about their regions protect them, they have plans in place to secure it the best they can until (logically) they refound it and make it ultimately secure. Regions who dont have these plans in place are filled with players who dont play, or dont care. Nations who quit because their piece of digital bites on Max's server get moved to the rejected realms obviously shows that that borrower of max's digital bits of information dont care about what they have. Basically, You quit because you had to move!!!!. how rediculous, and how obvious it shows that whatever the said region was, that that player didnt even care to defend the region in the best way possible, and would rather give up, than return back.

True story. Someone once invaded my region. I waited 5 YEARS to get my region back, because I cared, because I had pride, and because I felt there was more to do than just give up.

Players who honor their regions have strong defenses and work to prevent security breaches, and ultimately work to refound the region so that it can be even more secure. Players who honor their place in the region, dont quit, because someone gave them a bad day... and by day, I do mean day, because nearly every raider I know only stays for a day... two if the defenders are not on top of their game. So, you lost a player not because your regionw as invaded, but rather because that player didnt even care enough to join the defenders and win it back. Rather, that player chose to give up so so easily, and then make a dramatic scene of claiming to quit, which we all know wont happen anyway. Everyone Always comes back.

This is what raiding psychologically does to a region, it exposes it. If your region is EVER invaded, I would recommend taking a look at yourselves first, and seeing what you did wrong. Because for any raid to be successful it takes two parties, the raiders, and the weak, insecure, uncaring, unprepared, unloyal region.

To the writer, anime, or whatever, Rather than getting more dramatic than Oprah on her Christmas specials, why not go around and teach the founderless regions how to better prepare themselves. That would serve a far more useful purpose than acting like Bush and claiming everything to be evil just because you think its <whiny voice= 'unfair'>

[Sedgistan]

Zarvarza, this is a reminder specifically for you. Stay civil, and stick to attacking the argument, not the person/people making it.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

My favourite part about your post was when you straw manned me; by making up positions that I didn't take and then subsequently attacking said false positions. I didn't say anywhere in my post that I was insulted; nor did I say that the word corpse itself was shocking -- especially not intrinsically and/or disrespectfully shocking; although, on the latter claim I can kind of see the position. Thank you for making those parts up to only attack them -- thank you so much <3. Rather, I stated that the sentence used -- which contained the word corpse -- was rhetoric. Which is a position that even you hold by stating that they were, "exaggerating for effect." Thank you for agreeing with me on that point.

Now, I can see what you've stated could be the case; but, I find it to be implausible due to the fact that they stated that Halc' was also engaging in an act as if the nation were an individual. Simply put, I believe that Wordy is trying to cover themselves by violating a standard that they held and/or respect -- it's not that hard to admit. -_-' I don't find that to be a huge deal; rather, I find not admitting to it to be one.

I am merely attacking the arguements presented. Feign indignation if you want.

You said, "I am also under the impression that Wordy was using rhetoric in order to entice a since of shock in the reader."

The word which Swift is up in arms (fair warning, I'm exaggerating. I don't know the actual position of his arms) about is the use of the word 'corpse' and the phrase 'dancing on a corpse'. You said you believed he said this to entice shock. My response of 'corpse has automatic shock value?' is therefore completely justified and not a strawman. Either stand by your words or stop arguing the point.

Swift's response was an overreaction which appealed to some nameless victims who would be offended by the use of the phrase 'dancing on his corpse'. Give me a damn break.

No you weren't, and I will explain: you're hinting that you melded his and my argument while critiquing mine -- which is engaging in a straw man; for you were establishing positions I did not take and then subsequently went on to attack them. Namely: 1)that the word corpse was offensive; 2)that the word corpse has "automatic"/intrinsic shock value; and 3)that the word corpse was the only part that was meant to entice shock value -- as opposed to its contextual nature in the phrase itself. This is ignoring your personal attack on me when you stated, "I think you guys need to get out more."

No, it isn't a justified argument because I stated that the phrase and not just the word corpse was intended to entice a sense -- yes, I used the phonetically similar adverb on accident -- shock in the reader; and not that the word was intrinsically shocking or offensive. I didn't even state that the phrase was offensive based on my standards. Rather, I stated that I agreed with Swift in that Wordy used the phrase it for propaganda reasons in order to instil shock in the reader. You at least agree with me on the propaganda aspect.

[Zarvarza]

Anime, I respect you for at least voicing your opinion, and despite my largly sarcastic, and deeply, painfully logical opinions on things, I hope that you dont take it too seriously, but I do hope you learn from my 7 year opinion of the game, and do something.

complaining here does nothing, Making true changes, Adapting, Moveing Foreward, and being innovative in your solutions. You think raiding is bad, or evil, thats fine, But please, please, do something more than this. NS needs good players. NS needs good defenders, AND good raiders. NS needs an informed population, and it is crying out for innovation and something new and different that works.

If you have a problem with something, bickering doesnt solve it, but actions do. I always laugh at the dullards of NationStates, who think you have to play a certain way. Most regions are carbon-copies of one another, and its horrid. Be someone different, think, and act. People will call you crazy for what you do, but do it anyway, prove them wrong, and move foreward.

I, for one dont feel sorry for people who quit because they had a bad day. But I do feel sorry for those who could have made a good change to NS, and yet failed because they got bogged down with in-the-box thinking like today.

Good luck with what you do.

[The Batorys]

I've always hated raiding. IMO everyone should just password their regions.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

I've always hated raiding. IMO everyone should just password their regions.

I can't stand those raiders either. I don't think they go far enough!

[Zarvarza]

I've always hated raiding. IMO everyone should just password their regions.

I can't stand those raiders either. I don't think they go far enough!

Remember the old days of raiding. Where entire regions were raided and refounded in a day, forums were hacked and destroyed, Moderators had to ban players daily, and then in a few instances take over regions entirely because the endless onslaught of raiding. Thats the Wild West of NationStates, Fun, Wrong, But fun. Nowadays people have ample options of protecting their regions and dont... I just dont get it!

[Mine89]

I've always hated raiding. IMO everyone should just password their regions.

I can't stand those raiders either. I don't think they go far enough!

I've always hated raiding too! IMO all liberation resolutions should be removed from the game, so the defenders can show their true skills!

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I've always hated raiding. IMO everyone should just password their regions.

I can't stand those raiders either. I don't think they go far enough!

GODDAM. 3 pages since my post and you're the first one to make a legitimate point.

[Mike the Progressive]

What a shame.

[Luna Amore]

I am merely attacking the arguements presented. Feign indignation if you want.

You said, "I am also under the impression that Wordy was using rhetoric in order to entice a since of shock in the reader."

The word which Swift is up in arms (fair warning, I'm exaggerating. I don't know the actual position of his arms) about is the use of the word 'corpse' and the phrase 'dancing on a corpse'. You said you believed he said this to entice shock. My response of 'corpse has automatic shock value?' is therefore completely justified and not a strawman. Either stand by your words or stop arguing the point.

Swift's response was an overreaction which appealed to some nameless victims who would be offended by the use of the phrase 'dancing on his corpse'. Give me a damn break.

No you weren't, and I will explain: you're hinting that you melded his and my argument while critiquing mine -- which is engaging in a straw man; for you were establishing positions I did not take and then subsequently went on to attack them. Namely: 1)that the word corpse was offensive; 2)that the word corpse has "automatic"/intrinsic shock value; and 3)that the word corpse was the only part that was meant to entice shock value -- as opposed to its contextual nature in the phrase itself. This is ignoring your personal attack on me when you stated, "I think you guys need to get out more."

No, it isn't a justified argument because I stated that the phrase and not just the word corpse was intended to entice a sense -- yes, I used the phonetically similar adverb on accident -- shock in the reader; and not that the word was intrinsically shocking or offensive. I didn't even state that the phrase was offensive based on my standards. Rather, I stated that I agreed with Swift in that Wordy used the phrase it for propaganda reasons in order to instil shock in the reader. You at least agree with me on the propaganda aspect.

I initially challenged Swift. You responded to me in agreance with him. I'm not sure how you can say I melded two arguments together when only one was presented and then agreed with.

You said you agreed that it was done for shock value, that you made a joke post to diffuse Wordy's, and that Swift rightfully called Wordy out. The implication of all three being that you agree with Swift's judgement that not only is the phrase shocking, but that using the word corpse in a game setting is disrespectful to some unknown victims of undefined crimes (read: offensive).

You made no mention of the fact that you didn't agree on those points until after I had argued against them.

As a side point, the term shock value implies offense.

I don't see how 'you guys should get out more' is a personal attack. But then again, I don't see how using the phrase 'dancing on his grave' in a nation simulation game is shocking. I think Swift and anyone who agrees with his intial point are too easily shocked and should honestly get out more.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

No you weren't, and I will explain: you're hinting that you melded his and my argument while critiquing mine -- which is engaging in a straw man; for you were establishing positions I did not take and then subsequently went on to attack them. Namely: 1)that the word corpse was offensive; 2)that the word corpse has "automatic"/intrinsic shock value; and 3)that the word corpse was the only part that was meant to entice shock value -- as opposed to its contextual nature in the phrase itself. This is ignoring your personal attack on me when you stated, "I think you guys need to get out more."

No, it isn't a justified argument because I stated that the phrase and not just the word corpse was intended to entice a sense -- yes, I used the phonetically similar adverb on accident -- shock in the reader; and not that the word was intrinsically shocking or offensive. I didn't even state that the phrase was offensive based on my standards. Rather, I stated that I agreed with Swift in that Wordy used the phrase it for propaganda reasons in order to instil shock in the reader. You at least agree with me on the propaganda aspect.

I initially challenged Swift. You responded to me in agreance with him. I'm not sure how you can say I melded two arguments together when only one was presented and then agreed with.

You said you agreed that it was done for shock value, that you made a joke post to diffuse Wordy's, and that Swift rightfully called Wordy out. The implication of all three being that you agree with Swift's judgement that not only is the phrase shocking, but that using the word corpse in a game setting is disrespectful to some unknown victims of undefined crimes (read: offensive).

You made no mention of the fact that you didn't agree on those points until after I had argued against them.

As a side point, the term shock value implies offense.

I don't see how 'you guys should get out more' is a personal attack. But then again, I don't see how using the phrase 'dancing on his grave' in a nation simulation game is shocking. I think Swift and anyone who agrees with his intial point are too easily shocked and should honestly get out more.

Not quite on the first part; for I stated that I agreed with him on the fact that it was used for rhetorical reasons -- a point you agree with -- "in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader;" which you somewhat concede when you stated, "[Wordy] was exaggerating for effect." Perhaps not so much as meant to shock the reader in the sense you understand I mean by the word; rather, that it was meant to have some sort of reaction. Where you could state on where we disagree on that point is on the intentional degree Wordy meant in enticing a reaction

When I stated, "in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader," it doesn't follow that I found what Wordy said to be offensive, insulting, and/or shocking --- which was a counter argument you made towards me. Secondly, it doesn't follow that I found the word corpse to be offensive, insulting, and/or shocking -- especially intrinsically. That was another point you tried claim me with having. For all I stated was that Wordy stated what they did for rhetorical reasons in order to entice a sense of shock in the reader.

With your misunderstanding of my first claim and the other two propositions, it is a potential implication a reader can make; but, it doesn't follow that potential implication is one that I held. You took the risk in claiming that I held positions that I didn't hold, and then the claims were proven to be incorrect. As for me stating that I disagreed that I personally didn't find it to be offensive after you claimed it to be the case; well, as I mentioned earlier, all I claimed that that it was meant as a form of "rhetoric in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader." I claimed that the intention was meant to entice shock value, and not that I founding it to be shocking. My next statement was that I used humour in order to undermine the intentional shock I thought it was meant to entice.

Well, "getting out more," could imply that they have a low tolerance of said things because of numerous things, and that they should experience the cold harsh reality of life; and that you have knowledge and sentiments superior to said group because you have. If I am mistaken on that point, then I apologize for the aforementioned sentence, and concede that I was mistaken

As for your own sentiment on the phrases and words; that's fine? There isn't much to dispute about your feelings on the subject in this context. I can take only what you feel on it at face value and perhaps speculate from there.

[Luna Amore]

Not quite on the first part; for I stated that I agreed with him on the fact that it was used for rhetorical reasons -- a point you agree with -- "in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader;" which you somewhat concede when you stated, "[Wordy] was exaggerating for effect." Perhaps not so much as meant to shock the reader in the sense you understand I mean by the word; rather, that it was meant to have some sort of reaction. Where you could state on where we disagree on that point is on the intentional degree Wordy meant in enticing a reaction

When I stated, "in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader," it doesn't follow that I found what Wordy said to be offensive, insulting, and/or shocking --- which was a counter argument you made towards me. Secondly, it doesn't follow that I found the word corpse to be offensive, insulting, and/or shocking -- especially intrinsically. That was another point you tried claim me with having. For all I stated was that Wordy stated what they did for rhetorical reasons in order to entice a sense of shock in the reader.

With your misunderstanding of my first claim and the other two propositions, it is a potential implication a reader can make; but, it doesn't follow that potential implication is one that I held. You took the risk in claiming that I held positions that I didn't hold, and then the claims were proven to be incorrect. As for me stating that I disagreed that I personally didn't find it to be offensive after you claimed it to be the case; well, as I mentioned earlier, all I claimed that that it was meant as a form of "rhetoric in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader." I claimed that the intention was meant to entice shock value, and not that I founding it to be shocking. My next statement was that I used humour in order to undermine the intentional shock I thought it was meant to entice.

Well, "getting out more," could imply that they have a low tolerance of said things because of numerous things, and that they should experience the cold harsh reality of life; and that you have knowledge and sentiments superior to said group because you have. If I am mistaken on that point, then I apologize for the aforementioned sentence, and concede that I was mistaken

As for your own sentiment on the phrases and words; that's fine? There isn't much to dispute about your feelings on the subject in this context. I can take only what you feel on it at face value and perhaps speculate from there.

So basically this is almost entirely a misunderstanding caused by my misinterpreting your first post. Sorry for that. Well, it was a fun back and forth anyhow.

And I didn't intend the 'get out more' comment to be condescending. It's a phrase that I think has applied to most everyone (including myself) at one point or another.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

Not quite on the first part; for I stated that I agreed with him on the fact that it was used for rhetorical reasons -- a point you agree with -- "in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader;" which you somewhat concede when you stated, "[Wordy] was exaggerating for effect." Perhaps not so much as meant to shock the reader in the sense you understand I mean by the word; rather, that it was meant to have some sort of reaction. Where you could state on where we disagree on that point is on the intentional degree Wordy meant in enticing a reaction

When I stated, "in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader," it doesn't follow that I found what Wordy said to be offensive, insulting, and/or shocking --- which was a counter argument you made towards me. Secondly, it doesn't follow that I found the word corpse to be offensive, insulting, and/or shocking -- especially intrinsically. That was another point you tried claim me with having. For all I stated was that Wordy stated what they did for rhetorical reasons in order to entice a sense of shock in the reader.

With your misunderstanding of my first claim and the other two propositions, it is a potential implication a reader can make; but, it doesn't follow that potential implication is one that I held. You took the risk in claiming that I held positions that I didn't hold, and then the claims were proven to be incorrect. As for me stating that I disagreed that I personally didn't find it to be offensive after you claimed it to be the case; well, as I mentioned earlier, all I claimed that that it was meant as a form of "rhetoric in order to entice a [sense] of shock in the reader." I claimed that the intention was meant to entice shock value, and not that I founding it to be shocking. My next statement was that I used humour in order to undermine the intentional shock I thought it was meant to entice.

Well, "getting out more," could imply that they have a low tolerance of said things because of numerous things, and that they should experience the cold harsh reality of life; and that you have knowledge and sentiments superior to said group because you have. If I am mistaken on that point, then I apologize for the aforementioned sentence, and concede that I was mistaken

As for your own sentiment on the phrases and words; that's fine? There isn't much to dispute about your feelings on the subject in this context. I can take only what you feel on it at face value and perhaps speculate from there.

So basically this is almost entirely a misunderstanding caused by my misinterpreting your first post. Sorry for that. Well, it was a fun back and forth anyhow.

And I didn't intend the 'get out more' comment to be condescending. It's a phrase that I think has applied to most everyone (including myself) at one point or another.

Pretty much, and that's fine lol.

[TheDefenestrated]

Just so we're on the same page here...

Defenders want to demolish raiding, take it out completely, because it's mean and evil (debatable)?

If so, this is how I see things happening. Not only are you going to make defending pointless, thus demolishing not one, but two aspects of the game that contributed to a major part of its activity, you are also destroying a facet of the game that populates about a third of the active players.That's a simplistic estimation, the other two thirds being defenders and neutrals. You just complained about losing one player--an old-timer, yes, which is regretable indeed --but how about losing 30% of the active player population?

[Kazomal]

Those are just excuses for bullying weaker regions. Of the regions I've defended, the vast majority of natives do not wish for their communities to be invaded or annexed. They want to be left alone.

And actions have consequences.

Today we see another long-time player, deciding to quit the game because of raider harassment. His/her region Mare Unae has been invaded repeatedly in the past year. After getting invaded the 5th time, it proved too much for this player.

Now this I particularly laughed at. Not because its wrong perse, but becuase of the wording.

Lets look deeper shall we.

Clearly the poster here is under the age of 20, and even so most likely in high school--- swept away in the post Columbine world of 'bullying is bad". Those Disney commercials denouncing bullying has clearly effected the writer. It used to be that those who were bullied would one day rise up, (especially in their senior year), and kick the @$$es of the bullies. But no. Not here, its bad, so we have players who go on and quit. Not on NS anymore... So, with that deeper into the rabbit hole we go.

No region likes to be raided, obviously. I've yet to find one that does, but a raided region is highly effective in showing its vulnerabilities to the world. Not vulnerabilites in army size, but rather in caring. Members who care about their regions protect them, they have plans in place to secure it the best they can until (logically) they refound it and make it ultimately secure. Regions who dont have these plans in place are filled with players who dont play, or dont care. Nations who quit because their piece of digital bites on Max's server get moved to the rejected realms obviously shows that that borrower of max's digital bits of information dont care about what they have. Basically, You quit because you had to move!!!!. how rediculous, and how obvious it shows that whatever the said region was, that that player didnt even care to defend the region in the best way possible, and would rather give up, than return back.

True story. Someone once invaded my region. I waited 5 YEARS to get my region back, because I cared, because I had pride, and because I felt there was more to do than just give up.

Players who honor their regions have strong defenses and work to prevent security breaches, and ultimately work to refound the region so that it can be even more secure. Players who honor their place in the region, dont quit, because someone gave them a bad day... and by day, I do mean day, because nearly every raider I know only stays for a day... two if the defenders are not on top of their game. So, you lost a player not because your regionw as invaded, but rather because that player didnt even care enough to join the defenders and win it back. Rather, that player chose to give up so so easily, and then make a dramatic scene of claiming to quit, which we all know wont happen anyway. Everyone Always comes back.

This is what raiding psychologically does to a region, it exposes it. If your region is EVER invaded, I would recommend taking a look at yourselves first, and seeing what you did wrong. Because for any raid to be successful it takes two parties, the raiders, and the weak, insecure, uncaring, unprepared, unloyal region.

To the writer, anime, or whatever, Rather than getting more dramatic than Oprah on her Christmas specials, why not go around and teach the founderless regions how to better prepare themselves. That would serve a far more useful purpose than acting like Bush and claiming everything to be evil just because you think its <whiny voice= 'unfair'>

Wow, what a bunch of self-righteous, cookie-cutter bullshit. You get all your opinions from TV?

Some people like raiding and defending, some people just wanna RP international relations within their region without having their fun fucked with by someone who's playing a different game entirely (that's why we have passwords). Let each have their own.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Wow, what a bunch of self-righteous, cookie-cutter bullshit. You get all your opinions from TV?

Some people like raiding and defending, some people just wanna RP international relations within their region without having their fun fucked with by someone who's playing a different game entirely (that's why we have passwords). Let each have their own.

NEVER.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

Wow, what a bunch of self-righteous, cookie-cutter bullshit. You get all your opinions from TV?

Some people like raiding and defending, some people just wanna RP international relations within their region without having their fun fucked with by someone who's playing a different game entirely (that's why we have passwords). Let each have their own.

Lets not actually engage with what he said, no, lets just deride it as "self-righteous, cookie-cutter bullshit." Wouldn't want an actual debate or discussion on the issues to break out here...

Sovereignty, by which I mean sovereign authority over a given territory, is not in and of itself a right: It is a state of being which must be asserted. Nations, in real life, and arguably regions in NationStates (as a national analogue), either accept and respect the sovereignty of other nations and regions, or they don't. It usually depends on a number of circumstances, one of which involves being able to portray oneself as the sole legitimate authority in the territory.

The reason for this is that with the rights of sovereignty come responsibilities, including but not limited to protecting your citizens from harm. Any foundered region must, therefore, by default, be a sovereign region.. but what of regions with no founder, and no delegate (or no founder and a weak delegate)? From time to time they are called upon to assert their sovereignty, when raiders come knocking. Those who fail are, at least in my opinion, failed states. If you cannot muster the resources to fend off five raiders, as most raids involve five invaders or less, you can hardly claim sovereignty by relying on the actions of others.

So there. I await your angry, principled, but ultimately unrealistic replies.

[Free Noldor States]

Wow, what a bunch of self-righteous, cookie-cutter bullshit. You get all your opinions from TV?

Some people like raiding and defending, some people just wanna RP international relations within their region without having their fun fucked with by someone who's playing a different game entirely (that's why we have passwords). Let each have their own.

Lets not actually engage with what he said, no, lets just deride it as "self-righteous, cookie-cutter bullshit." Wouldn't want an actual debate or discussion on the issues to break out here...

Sovereignty, by which I mean sovereign authority over a given territory, is not in and of itself a right: It is a state of being which must be asserted. Nations, in real life, and arguably regions in NationStates (as a national analogue), either accept and respect the sovereignty of other nations and regions, or they don't. It usually depends on a number of circumstances, one of which involves being able to portray oneself as the sole legitimate authority in the territory.

The reason for this is that with the rights of sovereignty come responsibilities, including but not limited to protecting your citizens from harm. Any foundered region must, therefore, by default, be a sovereign region.. but what of regions with no founder, and no delegate (or no founder and a weak delegate)? From time to time they are called upon to assert their sovereignty, when raiders come knocking. Those who fail are, at least in my opinion, failed states. If you cannot muster the resources to fend off five raiders, as most raids involve five invaders or less, you can hardly claim sovereignty by relying on the actions of others.

So there. I await your angry, principled, but ultimately unrealistic replies.

You see? Now you have a justification for the existence of raiding, not it's ethical stance or anything, derived from political theory. And just like when a state can not assert their sovereignty by its own means, it has the option to enter a treaty with other states to work together to fend off possible threats. For example, NATO or the Warsaw Pact, or in NS, the FRA. Just like in real life you can't guarantee other states will respect your sovereignty if you ethically justify it, then nations are forced to ultimately defend it.