The Rejected Times

[Zaolat]

As much as I sympathize with how incredibly boring this discussion is, you guys could always just not read it if you don't want to.

I think everyone gives up once they notice that its beginning once more. I just don't think its fair for them to take over every thread with the exact same conversations and manage to get away with it because its like 5% on topic. If they want to keep on posting, they can deal with us bitching at them and making them feel unwelcomed.

5%? People are talking about TSP and Independence, I can't see how it's hardly only 5%.

Besides, if no one posted or argued, gameplay would be a rather boring recruitment forum.

[Onderkelkia]

As much as I sympathize with how incredibly boring this discussion is, you guys could always just not read it if you don't want to.

I think everyone gives up once they notice that its beginning once more. I just don't think its fair for them to take over every thread with the exact same conversations and manage to get away with it because its like 5% on topic. If they want to keep on posting, they can deal with us bitching at them and making them feel unwelcomed.

The article is on TSP and independence. Discussing TSP and independence is on-topic.There are previous substantive issues affecting those questions.

These are not at all the 'exact same conversations' in any sense: they refer to some of the same events (out of which further discussion can arise if one side does not accept the other side's interpretation of those events) and general arguments, but the specific issues involved are usually distinctive.

If one side gets to state its case, the other side has to have a right of reply. These discussions are not consciously created but arise from one side making a point as part of the argument on the topic which is critical of the other and which the other side has every reason to dispute fully.

As Tancerlo said, if you are not interested in these debates, you can simply ignore the posts concerned.

[Anumia]

A Consensus Reached: Down with Independentism
The South Pacific disavows its old “Independent” label

*looks over the chessboard* I suppose congratulations are in order for Unibot and Glen Rhodes for winning the latest stage in their open war of attrition against independence, big I, little i, the eye in the middle of the OnderNESRachelluminati triangle, whichever I you want to pick.

I am sure they will publicly disagree with my assessment, for they must, but look at the crowing nature of the article, from the title onward: this is in line with quite clearly visible long-term desires as publicly stated to angle away from Independence as a concept - the name is an early casualty, not the last.

Of course, a rose by any other name smelling as sweet, or not so, to hear tell from that side, the mere name change is only a token; thus it continues.

"We don't like independence because it is too vague, so let's pass a new 'value-neutral wording' that is surely more specific."

The value-neutral wording isn't vague - it's very clear what it means.

A. The SPSF must, at all times, observe our laws, policies, the charter and our legal and contractual obligations.
B. Defend The South Pacific
C. Refrain from conduct abroad which contradicts foreign policy
D. Make an effort to include, welcome and accommodate all citizens as members, regardless of their beliefs.

On the contrary, a line like "the region must do what is in its interests" - leaves it unstated what those interests are, meaning the assembly has a protracted debate about it on every issue; both sides trying to hit each other with a hammer that says "we're protecting the region's interests and you're traitors", because the wording never left room for reasonable disagreement over what the region's interests are.

Not only is the new wording pretty much the distilled core of exactly what Independence means to myself and plenty of others anyway, but also Unibot's assessment of the apparent redefinition is as poor as its intention is clear.

The claim that framing independence about following a region's "interests" requires the populace/legislature to have arguments on every individual issue about what their interests are, and that this somehow contrasts instead with following the new word, "policy", is neither true nor anything other than the latest in a continual beat-up (by Unibot and some others) on Independence and terminology surrounding the notion. Change the language about a subject and you change people's perceptions, making it easier to push a certain point of view.

Firstly, on the matter of specific, individual issues, unless one is advocating building a formulaic framework wherein every contingency is defined and predetermined, thus eliminating the need for executive or popular choice and decision-making (which pretty much also eliminates the need for a region at all - let's just code our responses to all events and run the simulation!), there are obviously going to be situations that cause discussion, disagreement, and perhaps even argument - after all, that's where much of the activity in a political simulation game is likely to come from.

That apparently the Assembly would be at loggerheads on every issue says to me both that this would be the case in any situation other than a dictatorship (because obviously there are strong and established stances on both sides of the aisle in TSP that will by the nature of a democracy contend with one another) and that TSP's democracy is quite robust and active as a result of this continual refresh and renewal, allowing the Coalition to take ongoing input from its people about the path to take. Indeed, it is this ability to argue for change and contest established principles that has afforded G-R and Unibot opportunity for the slow but steady draw towards their personal preferences for TSP's regional alignment

Secondly, on the matter of broad, general stances, whether you call it "interests" or "policies" is moot: we speak of the same thing. Foreign policy is the execution of the interests of the region on the world stage. Pretending that by changing the wording from "interests" to "policy" actually has any substantive difference, other than for the purposes of claiming the former is the language of independence and thus inferior to the language of not-independence.

On the contrary, defenderism and invaderism are much more flexible. TSP had a hard time sustaining its diversity under independentism, whereas in defenderism you have, say UDL and TITO under the same umbrella.

I have to give it to Unibot; he's funnier these days.

Being "Independent", literally is a region going it's own way that's not strictly purely one of those listed above nor a sub-branch of those.

That's not true. Independent is not a residual category - it's a category with quite restrictive criteria. Your region to be independent has to above all else pursue its own interests -- and the ambiguity over what are a region's interests are already decided for you by a cabal of foreign powers. There's nothing particularly "independent" about it.

However, the same joke told repeatedly loses its flavour...

TSP-Europeia relations aren't the best, thanks to what Europeia leaders did during the Regional Sovereignty Conference. But as far as I'm concerned, the alliance still exists and will exist, as I have no intentions of revisiting it. I do actually believe we can be allies with a diverse range of regions. I don't buy into the crap that our alliances with Lazarus and TRR mean we're a defender region and can only get along with other defenders. That's the BS that everybody else is buying into, including those Europeians who created the ultimatum shitstorm. I imagine that another MoFA will come along who isn't a defender, but rather leans raider or imperialist or Independent or whatever, and they'll have a better time working with Europeia and other likeminded regions. So it would be short-sighted for either of our regions to declare the alliance blown up.

G-R speaks some sense here towards the end; our general stance and diplomatic personnel remaining fairly consistent for a while (suggesting that this shall continue into the foreseeable future), there is a good chance that if/when TSP elects a MoFA who isn't personally opposed to Independence, the Republic, which is arguably one of the foremost Independent regions, and TSP, a region that was proudly proclaiming Independence a year ago (and thus stood in the foremost crowd with us, in excellent friendship without any hiccups in relations at the time), are likely to get along better, like we did in the past.

What's in our interests right now is to have an active and entertaining region, and the SPSF is one facet of that. Redefining its purpose to remove ideological constraints -- in spite of Independents arguing that it's not an ideology -- and make more clear what its expectations are, will help the Cabinet in affecting those interests.

For our viewers playing along at home, a tip: when the side including well-known idealogue and demagogue Unibot talks about "removing ideology" from something...well, damn, you're gonna need a lot of salt.

But for the people at the top in Independent regions, they are raiders. They are imperialists. They are the kind of people who tell other Independent regions that defending is against their interests. Independence, for them, is raiding with an intellectual twist. But you only have to look at what kinds of military operations Independent regions do, who they hang out with, who they ally with, who they demonize, who they dislike, and all that stuff to see what Independence is in practice.

Again, you know this. We all know this. It is Cowboys and Indians for the vast majority of players, and regions like TSP that try to buck the trend but still be part of the club end up with nothing but issues.

Leaving aside the ongoing demonisation of Independence by you and Unibot...

I have been a key constant in the foreign affairs of the Republic for some time. President during the celebration of our alliance, dealt directly with the last two leaders of the Coalition as leader of the Republic, then transitioned to Minister of Foreign Affairs afterward and remain there. You may seek to discard my relevance to Independence, but the Independence Conference we are wrapping up was my idea, as was offering the hosting to The South Pacific, so good luck there, and good luck calling me a raider.

Or perhaps Malashaan, previously my Vice President and now our new President, who has always had an internal focus in Europeia (in a similar fashion perhaps to Kringalia's internal focus in TSP), and had little to do with the raider world. Even Kraketopia, probably the President most interested in raiding for the past year, wasn't terribly far in that direction.

Indeed, I recall more than half a decade ago, in discussions then on Europeia's foreign affairs alignment, vigorously arguing against being an invader/raider or imperialist region, along with others like HEM. "We stand apart from the axis!" was the cry, and indeed matters discussed and argued back then took a very similar line to the ultimate core of Independence, only the latter had not yet been conceived and fleshed out as a concept; that came years later.

Barring some quite brief periods years in the past where a dearth of native military leadership forced us to bring in outside help (a matter we have long since rectified, and indeed is another factor in our distaste of subscribing to any ideological worldview, nor allowing the military to dictate our foreign policy), it would be impossible to call Europeia a raider or imperialist region.

Likewise, though I cannot give history owing to my lack of experience there, as noted by McMasterdonia earlier in this thread, The North Pacific stands as TSP's oldest ally, and one that quite clearly raids and defends as it wishes in accordance with its principles, following an Independent framework. By disparaging long-term allies (after all, to read your words we are all hypocrites, fools, or somewhere in-between) in perhaps calculated diplomatic mismanagement, the Minister continues his transparent and inexorable push towards his personal preferences for TSP, contrary to their own foreign policy history before his ascendancy.

---

I and I'm sure many others would be quite happy to commend The South Pacific on providing a more defined overarching foreign and military policy, if it didn't come with such attack on Independence as a concept inclusive of the pots-hots and other insults, demonstrated here by TSP officials. If you just wanted to clarify what Independence/your outlook meant to the Coalition under current leadership, that could have been done without the rest.

---

That's because Onder is a machine, he simply retrieves information from his database.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Europeians can chant that they're not "part of the axis" all they want. But a spade is a spade is a spade. When Europeia starts defending with as much zeal as it raids, then I'll reassess my opinion. Until then, own up to raiding and don't pretend that the Independence label makes you functionally different from any other raider group out there. There's no shame in it. Or prove me wrong and show me that Europeia is known as much for its defense and liberations as it is for its raiding and piling. The whole point of my critique on Independence is that it is meaningless when regions consistently behave only one way. If TSP were to start defending way more than raiding, I would start calling our region defender, just as I use to call us a raiding region. Again, no shame in it.

[Anumia]

1) Making sure we match every raid with a defence/liberation just to keep the score equal in your book is a false equivalence, complete foolishness, and nothing to do with any form of Independence according to anyone except people who pretend it is the only method that is acceptable to them. I could charge the same: in this very thread someone (I believe Unibot) spoke of the "independence" (lower-case i) of regions like Lazarus and TRR. Until they raid with the same zeal and are known for raiding as much as defending, they cannot pretend to have any independence in their foreign policy.

2) Although they are rarer (but then again, how many raids do we do that are of massive long-term significant either? Most raids are practice or support for allies), the defences/liberations we have done have been significant and noted, and to my memory range from the second Liberation ever, Feudal Japan, where we took a stand on the opposite side of many of our traditional allies and friends because we determined it was the right side to be on and aligned with our interests, and most recently up to fighting in the Osiris Campaign.

3) Your personal opinion, which comes with an unhealthy dose of "Independence is bad because it isn't defending!", is noted.

[Anumia]

I would start calling our region defender

Looking forward to it, I imagine

[Unibot III]

TRR is politically independent - we are a sovereign region and our foreign and martial policy is our choice ultimately. I would also say we run a foreign policy based on strategy and a consideration of what we believe is best for TRR - and in that sense pursue some decisions based on realism, but all of these things are limited with the lack of materialism in NationStates. It's been the view of our governments for the past decade that TRR is to be a world leader in terms of its commitment to peace, not the projection of sheer power abroad. As a Whovian myself, I am drawn to thinking of The Rejected Realms like the Ood -- the most vulnerable of the world's powers naturally will be the most kind of all, although the resistance and strength of those who others might consider weak should never be overlooked. This policy of good faith and humanitarianism, I believe, has and will continue to be one of the core defining aspects of our region and primarily responsible for the state's survival, year after year from Kandarin and beyond.

Yours,
Unibot.
Delegate of The Rejected Realms.

[Anumia]

I want to get the Chang meme in here with "But do you raid?"

[Zaolat]

Anumia gets it! I agree with the assessment.

I take it though Glen, you prefer the black and white dichotomy of Raider (Imperialist) vs Defender and screw everything else because if it ain't one of those two then they don't participate in military gameplay and maybe politics?

[Lethen]

I know this is something we've oft-repeated so it may hold less water with many people, but Europeia would defend more if we were actually given the opportunity. But alas, if everyone decides we're raiders then why would they think to invite us along? Vicious cycle, you see.

Now, onto something else that actually made me leave Europeia and post here for the first time in ages...I rarely leave the region, you see.

But for the people at the top in Independent regions, they are raiders. They are imperialists. They are the kind of people who tell other Independent regions that defending is against their interests. Independence, for them, is raiding with an intellectual twist. But you only have to look at what kinds of military operations Independent regions do, who they hang out with, who they ally with, who they demonize, who they dislike, and all that stuff to see what Independence is in practice.

Again, you know this. We all know this. It is Cowboys and Indians for the vast majority of players, and regions like TSP that try to buck the trend but still be part of the club end up with nothing but issues.

I'm 100% certain I've never been heavily involved in the military side of things in NS, and I don't think I've been regularly involved in the Republican Navy outside of the Volunteer/Reservist capacity (reinforcing operations after-the-fact, really) for something going on 4+ years. And I've been involved in a leadership capacity in Europeia in one way or another since one or two months after Day 1, explicitly involving myself in all of our domestic and foreign affairs conversations, so I guess that would make me a "person at the top," which is why I'm awfully confused. Did I miss something along the way? Is my alter ego raiding and colonizing and hanging out with all sorts of hard-core raiders when I think I'm asleep?

[Benevolent Thomas]

I know this is something we've oft-repeated so it may hold less water with many people, but Europeia would defend more if we were actually given the opportunity. But alas, if everyone decides we're raiders then why would they think to invite us along? Vicious cycle, you see.

Oh boo hoo. The ERN is one of the more sizable orgs in NS and are very capable of defending purely with their own forces. Just try it for fun. I often work with EPSA who are independent and I do trust them. I trust them because they go out and defend when they feel like it. They don't need defender orgs to invite them out or hold their hand, they just go out and do it. When I see that, I see a potential gameplay partner. Prove to us that it is possible for the ERN to defend and maybe y'all will get a call during the next major liberation (assuming you're not part of the occupying force).

EDIT: EPSA, not TEP

[Glen-Rhodes]

I take it though Glen, you prefer the black and white dichotomy of Raider (Imperialist) vs Defender and screw everything else because if it ain't one of those two then they don't participate in military gameplay and maybe politics?

I think if you're an Independent region that subscribes to Onder's interpretation of Independence, you are in effect a raider or an imperialist region. I think if people can guess 99 times out of 100 what side of a military op you're on, then you belong to that side. Independence for certain regions is a justification for raiding, rather than a foreign policy doctrine. On the rare occasions these regions take a minute to figure out what their interests are, they will always find a way to make raiding in their interests, because it's what they like to do.

I don't care if a region chooses to raid. If we're going to keep this military game going, there has to be two sides after all. What I care about is people pretending they're somehow more intellectual or sophisticated by saying they're Independent. I care about the label being co-opted by these regions, because it makes it that much more difficult for regions that do actually defend and raid regularly to engage in the game.

In short, no, I don't think the game is black and white. But I think black and white do exist, and many Independent regions are a lot less grey than they pretend to be.

[Zaolat]

I take it though Glen, you prefer the black and white dichotomy of Raider (Imperialist) vs Defender and screw everything else because if it ain't one of those two then they don't participate in military gameplay and maybe politics?

In short, no, I don't think the game is black and white. But I think black and white do exist, and many Independent regions are a lot less grey than they pretend to be.

This may be true, but I'd rather see rather than fighting against the label and demonizing it, to create the image of what would be in your case "positive Independence" and not what you would see as "negative Independence" that you want to avoid. If you personally believe Onder's interpretation is the wrong way to go about it, show that the label doesn't have to be his "interpretation".

As far as I'm concerned I don't necessarily agree nor see the label as what Onder interprets it from his viewpoint of what it should be, and neither would I agree with your interpretation of what it should be from you viewpoint. What I do see, is that the core of "Independence" is not yet elaborated on such as those viewpoints would have. While this does indeed mean all forms of Independence will be varied from region to region and player to player, it shouldn't be "owned" by one group or another. Thus no need to fight the label itself, but make it into something you and your region want it to be and push that out as a viable alternative form of Independence.

As said at it's core it's not a bad thing at all, and when it all comes down to it, TSP from what's been stated in this thread has only in effect switched words around and is technically Independent in it's core sense of the label. I'm seeing this in the middle ground basics, and I don't agree that TSP should reject the label because they don't like how NES and Onder interpretative. All you do by trying to fight the label into oblivion as something bad is reinforce that label to be the interpretations that you and the rest that feel somewhat the same as you do not agree with.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying it's a wrong move of TSP, it's that I don't agree with the reasoning behind this whole thing.

[Anumia]

I know this is something we've oft-repeated so it may hold less water with many people, but Europeia would defend more if we were actually given the opportunity. But alas, if everyone decides we're raiders then why would they think to invite us along? Vicious cycle, you see.

Oh boo hoo. The ERN is one of the more sizable orgs in NS and are very capable of defending purely with their own forces. Just try it for fun. I often work with EPSA who are independent and I do trust them. I trust them because they go out and defend when they feel like it. They don't need defender orgs to invite them out or hold their hand, they just go out and do it. When I see that, I see a potential gameplay partner. Prove to us that it is possible for the ERN to defend and maybe y'all will get a call during the next major liberation (assuming you're not part of the occupying force).

EDIT: EPSA, not TEP

*chuckles* "If you don't defend and liberate more, you're not Independent!" "Maybe we would if there were better reasons and more opportunities..." "Pah you can do it yourself, go do defending for a while and then we'll accept that you are Independent because you let us tell you to go do defending for a while!"

Did I miss something along the way? Is my alter ego raiding and colonizing and hanging out with all sorts of hard-core raiders when I think I'm asleep?

Nethel is a region-crasher!

[Yao]

I know this is something we've oft-repeated so it may hold less water with many people, but Europeia would defend more if we were actually given the opportunity. But alas, if everyone decides we're raiders then why would they think to invite us along? Vicious cycle, you see.

Well, we can always test that theory. I'll be sure to sometime invite the ERN to participate in liberations with the LLA.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I see what you're saying Zaolat, but I think it's too late for any region to change what Independence means. Onder's interpretation is the controlling one, because that's how the regions who most loudly proclaim their Independence actually behave. Whatever other regions are doing isn't Independence anymore. Sooner or later, somebody will make a new name for it.

[Yao]

I see what you're saying Zaolat, but I think it's too late for any region to change what Independence means. Onder's interpretation is the controlling one, because that's how the regions who most loudly proclaim their Independence actually behave. Whatever other regions are doing isn't Independence anymore. Sooner or later, somebody will make a new name for it.

Or just not use a name for it at all. Because the idea of using a bloc-creating label for the concept of being independent is total doublethink.

[Solorni]

And once again the political defenders attack independence.

[Orange Wolf]

And once again the political defenders attack independence.

This does not require noting. As defenderism is inherently interregional-federalist, it opposes regional-sovereigntism.

[Unibot III]

No, it opposes a kind of sovereigntism. One view sees general non-aggression as being an obligation of sovereign states, while the other sees general aggression as being the right of all states. It's the difference between the Post-War liberal view on sovereigntism and classic "realist" Westphalian sovereignty. This is something defenders and imperialists butted heads over in the Regional Sovereignty Conference.

[Orange Wolf]

No, it opposes a kind of sovereigntism. One view sees general non-aggression as being an obligation of sovereign states, while the other sees general aggression as being the right of all states. It's the difference between the Post-War liberal view on sovereigntism and classic "realist" Westphalian sovereignty. This is something defenders and imperialists butted heads over in the Regional Sovereignty Conference.

Non-invader regions are so inferior they have no sovereignty an invader region is bound to respect.

[Yao]

And once again the political defenders attack independence.

What, is "independence" not political or something?

[Solorni]

And once again the political defenders attack independence.

What, is "independence" not political or something?

No no, I'm just talking about the people who haven't defended in quite a long time and yet still push defender beliefs in the GCRs.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Regional sovereignty in my opinion should be a fundamental rule of defenders to protect and at the very least respect. Unfortunately not everyone holds those views and it becomes a huge problem for GCR's that allow non - WA members voting rights and government positions. There would be far less chance of forcing a view or belief on a GCR if WA Nations were the only ones able to hold any power.
That said anyone that is forcing or pushing defender beliefs in GCR's has already broken the golden rule of protecting / respecting sovereignty and should not be considered a defender any longer. Perhaps meddler would be a better term. *shrugs*

Sorry for the segway from Independence.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Or just not use a name for it at all. Because the idea of using a bloc-creating label for the concept of being independent is total doublethink.

No, it needs a name. Independence has a monopoly on "regional interests" determining foreign policy. That monopoly needs to be broken.

I'm a fan of just calling it what it is -- realism. You have offensive realism, which is what most Independent and imperialist regions do. They seek to maximize their power. Then you have defensive realism, which is really what TSP does. We seek to not be dominated. Those are the overarching goals of our doctrines, but how it's all played out is very different, which is why Independence as a label hasn't worked out.