The Black Hawks News

[Snozzerland]

Hmmm. I read the guide, and I'm undecided. Raiding seems funner, but defending seems more fufilling if done correctly.

Recommendations?

[Argo Rhos]

OOooh fenda fight.

*grabs popcorn*

[Crazy girl]

Snozzerland: each side has it's charms, and I know really nice people on either side. And really not so nice people on either side too

I'm surprised no one has actually tried to recruit you, actually. I guess they're too busy arguing. Welcome to the world of politics

[Mahaj]

Hmmm. I read the guide, and I'm undecided. Raiding seems funner, but defending seems more fufilling if done correctly.

Recommendations?

Defend.

And ask questions if you, y'know, have questions.

[Tramiar]

a morality thus prefers the freedom that is better for society as a whole.

No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to convince me raiding is bad for this game. Raiding adds a whole new aspect, with raiders and defenders, attracting and keeping people on both sides that might otherwise not be here. As for rl and ns comparisons, if needed, i can find quotes of you relating raiding and beating up a kid on the playground.


Snozzerland- i would suggest raiding, but i have a bias. Look around and see which would make you happier. Ask questions. There are plenty of people willing to answer them

[Snozzerland]

Hmm. From what I know so far, raiding doesn't seem bad, it just adds a whole new level to the game, with defenders/raiders. I guess some defenders do it for the sake of "raiding is bad!" which I don't really get. I think both sides are in good fun, but I really haven't seen raiders do anything so far, so I wouldn't know.

anyway, I'm still deciding on raiding/defending. Defending currently has my preference at the moment, but I want to see/participate in a raid/defense before I decide.

[Unibot II]

a morality thus prefers the freedom that is better for society as a whole.

No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to convince me raiding is bad for this game. Raiding adds a whole new aspect, with raiders and defenders, attracting and keeping people on both sides that might otherwise not be here. As for rl and ns comparisons, if needed, i can find quotes of you relating raiding and beating up a kid on the playground.

I like to think back to a quotation that Kandarin had in his signature:

Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship. - unattributed

We have NationStates.. this giant box that tons of players use for all different purposes and then there is raiding, which you admit is a bit different than other ways to play with the box because instead of just playing with it and sharing it with others... raiders grab the box and shout "MINE NOA!"

I don't think it is entirely unbelievable that players that once shared this box would want to make a stand against this kind of behavior. Defenders and people who share their beliefs thus think: the box is for everyone to use so long as their usage doesn't keep others from using the box how they wish and Raiders and people who share their beliefs alternatively think: the box is for everyone to use however they like -- the only limitation is the will of superior competitors.

By holding the former position, defenders and people who share their beliefs form the basis of a "morality" in the game and subsequently a sense of justice. By holding the latter position, raiders and people who share their beliefs affirm that squabbles over resources and conflicting interests should be decided by combat alone (e.g., Haven or Belgium, if you want your region, you have to fight for it!). Thus raiders also have a morality, although they wouldn't use that word to describe it but it's clear in WA debates like "Liberate Belgium" that some raiders have a sense that it is wrong for the 'weak' to be given what the 'strong' have gained through conquest.

It is important to note however that if a defender or someone who shares their beliefs thinks that a person who raids is morally deficient in real life simply for raiding.. they are grossly mistaken. This can be summed up in the brief maxim, "NS is a game", or expounded on more by recalling that the morality-in-game is derived from the system that the need for justice orginates -- comparing moral violations between systems (i.e., NS v. RL) is bound to be impossible or in philosophical terms the two moral systems are incommensurate of one another.

[Argo Rhos]

So to sum up what Uni said, "To each his own". Some may prefer defending, some may prefer raiding.,some may just not care.

[Tramiar]

Hmm. From what I know so far, raiding doesn't seem bad, it just adds a whole new level to the game, with defenders/raiders. I guess some defenders do it for the sake of "raiding is bad!" which I don't really get. I think both sides are in good fun, but I really haven't seen raiders do anything so far, so I wouldn't know.

anyway, I'm still deciding on raiding/defending. Defending currently has my preference at the moment, but I want to see/participate in a raid/defense before I decide.

If there's no objections from either, I would participate in one of each if I were you. Make a more informed decision than just trying one and saying "Well, that was fun, I think I'll stick with it." Both are fun in their own ways. The real question is which kind of fun do you prefer?


Uni... I'm not even certain what we're arguing about anymore. Or that we even are arguing, as you're not saying much I disagree with.

[Argo Rhos]

Hmm. From what I know so far, raiding doesn't seem bad, it just adds a whole new level to the game, with defenders/raiders. I guess some defenders do it for the sake of "raiding is bad!" which I don't really get. I think both sides are in good fun, but I really haven't seen raiders do anything so far, so I wouldn't know.

anyway, I'm still deciding on raiding/defending. Defending currently has my preference at the moment, but I want to see/participate in a raid/defense before I decide.

Defending isn't as fun. Raiding is boring if you only do the update raids. personally, I prefer long term assignments where I pose as a native and then strike when they're weak.

[Mahaj]

Hmm. From what I know so far, raiding doesn't seem bad, it just adds a whole new level to the game, with defenders/raiders. I guess some defenders do it for the sake of "raiding is bad!" which I don't really get. I think both sides are in good fun, but I really haven't seen raiders do anything so far, so I wouldn't know.

anyway, I'm still deciding on raiding/defending. Defending currently has my preference at the moment, but I want to see/participate in a raid/defense before I decide.

Defending isn't as fun. Raiding is boring if you only do the update raids. personally, I prefer long term assignments where I pose as a native and then strike when they're weak.

Defending is to fun! You never really defender, Nuke.

[Argo Rhos]

Defending isn't as fun. Raiding is boring if you only do the update raids. personally, I prefer long term assignments where I pose as a native and then strike when they're weak.

Defending is to fun! You never really defender, Nuke.

No, but, I was in my dreams and that's gotta count for something.

[Unibot II]

So to sum up what Uni said, "To each his own". Some may prefer defending, some may prefer raiding.,some may just not care.

Um, no. I would say the defender position is much more developed and logically preferable and the only reason why the raider position hasn't seriously hurt the game is because there's enough people out there with the defender position to keep the game from devolving into total war.

[Argo Rhos]

So to sum up what Uni said, "To each his own". Some may prefer defending, some may prefer raiding.,some may just not care.

Um, no. I would say the defender position is much more developed and logically preferable and the only reason why the raider position hasn't seriously hurt the game is because there's enough people out there with the defender position to keep the game from devolving into total war.

To each his own. I'll drink to that buddy. Cheers!

[Ad Infinitum]

On the topic of the word "fenda", somebody (was it EW?) explained its origins not that long ago. It clearly was intended from the onset to be derogatory. Though some of the newer defenders may never have experienced it as such, for many who have experienced its original use, the word will always be painful.

Also, I have been in founderless regions before. There is little that makes you feel so helpless as having your region defaced by raiders and spammers. By the time a detag mission comes through, the damage has been done.

(And yes, I do volunteer work. That doesn't mean I don't have any time to spend on the internet.)

Just want to echo this post. Jedi's right, it was Evil Wolf who explained the origin, and claiming it was originally created by Powell to be directed at defenders who only claimed to be defenders, but were really only self-interested.

viewtopic.php?p=7388549#p7388549

That said, yeah, I don't appreciate being called selfish, especially after doing what I do on NS and in between updates. My whole career, my whole life is dedicated to self-sacrifice and service to others. So yes, I find the word is offensive. And if you knew my humor, you'd probably understand the gravity of the word "offensive" coming from me.

[SunRawr]

D= Holy cow! I go to work for a few hours and the thread explodes!

[Tim-Opolis]

Yup. And we have a guy to convert to raiderism

*points to guy at top of page*

[Ballotonia]

Raiding adds a whole new aspect, with raiders and defenders, attracting and keeping people on both sides that might otherwise not be here.

At the same time, it also suppresses a different kind of gameplay: where military actions between regions are politically motivated instead of just for the lulz of causing destruction in/of a weaker region. There are still some groups (like The Red Fleet) who will act to further their political agenda, but their effect and importance is marginalized by a larger group of players who invade without any political motivations whatsoever. Which IMHO is sad, really, for a political game.

Ballotonia

[Earth22]

Having done both and still being part of the UDL (though my WA is sitting happily in Osiris, as it has for about a month now), they're both fun. I don't really like the moral debate of it, personally, but that's more because I play the game to be around my friends and the people I like and..that's that.. There are good people on both sides of the game; I can't say I know the TBH people as well as I knew others when I did actively raid, but I'm sure y'all are fun too and the UDL crew are a fun silly bunch that I'm proud to call my allies.

Anyways, it's really just a personal decision. Find people you get along with, find people you enjoy doing whatever you choose to do with. Do it, do it well, and just have some fun. There's happiness/achievement points to be found on both sides (and anywhere in between) of the spectrum.

I personally like defending now because it fits more into my schedule of 'if I have a WA, there's almost always something to do' and it's less of the exact same thing over and over again but that's just me. Not that it matters, really; my WA is in Osiris like I said.

Also, in regards to "fenda", if people are obviously offended by it..why would you not take the small amount of effort not to use it? It just seems a bit rude, especially as the reason behind it has been pointed out.

Anyways, congrats to The Black Hawks for gaining a new member and good luck on the field.

[Snozzerland]

Yeah, I think I'll join up with you guys. Any things I should know?

[SunRawr]

If you mean The Black Hawks, move to our region. If you mean the defenders, take it to their thread.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Any theories on the flag?

The symbol represents the Black Hawks using the world as your perch or more specifically in our case, native communities.

The perch in this case is detrimental to the region it sits on, so it slowly pierces inward like a sword.

The choice of the Black Hawk to represent your soldiers is to represent the freedom of raiding and nature of raiding (you're always flying to the next prey).

Now that is an interesting interpretation. Well said.

And Earth, well said as well. On a side note if the term "fenda" is found offensive, then I suppose I will cease using it, although for the record I actually liked the term when I defended.

In other TBH news, the occupation of The West has ended.

[North East Somerset]

There's happiness/achievement points to be found on both sides (and anywhere in between) of the spectrum.

Omg I love collecting achievement points.

No, seriously, kudos for admitting that defending is not about the morality side of things to you, which obviously is not a viewpoint completely in tune with your Gracious Leader, or the official UDL beliefs in general. But that need not matter. Indeed I concur, I don't really find the morality debate has very much credence in the grand scheme of things, but if people want to utilise it politically then a response in gameplay context is only appropriate. Hence the frequent "debates" on these issues between the sides and others.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Raiding adds a whole new aspect, with raiders and defenders, attracting and keeping people on both sides that might otherwise not be here.

At the same time, it also suppresses a different kind of gameplay: where military actions between regions are politically motivated instead of just for the lulz of causing destruction in/of a weaker region. There are still some groups (like The Red Fleet) who will act to further their political agenda, but their effect and importance is marginalized by a larger group of players who invade without any political motivations whatsoever. Which IMHO is sad, really, for a political game.

Ballotonia

One style of military gameplay doesn't preclude another. If the effect and importance of those groups is marginalized, it's because they aren't active enough to make their mark on the game, not because raider purists are somehow overshadowing them. Maybe they need work on their propaganda machine.

[Marxiangrad]

At the same time, it also suppresses a different kind of gameplay: where military actions between regions are politically motivated instead of just for the lulz of causing destruction in/of a weaker region. There are still some groups (like The Red Fleet) who will act to further their political agenda, but their effect and importance is marginalized by a larger group of players who invade without any political motivations whatsoever. Which IMHO is sad, really, for a political game.

Ballotonia

One style of military gameplay doesn't preclude another. If the effect and importance of those groups is marginalized, it's because they aren't active enough to make their mark on the game, not because raider purists are somehow overshadowing them. Maybe they need work on their propaganda machine.

I think Ballotonia's main point of reference was the fact that simple raider groups manage to draw larger groups simply because there's no application of real politics (which in a game that's essentially political role-play is bizarre IMO) to any form of recruitment, so just by sheer numbers you appear to have a larger impact (also because you have no choice of regions you trash, every region is fair game, regardless of political allegiances, whereas we hand-pick our targets), but having said that, I think we've had enough clashes with UDL for them to recognise us. They may not like to admit it yet.