The Rejected Times

[Feuer Ritter]

As for a new "Great War" - I don't see why imperialists or independents need to justify The Black Riders "injudicious and aimless destruction of random founderless regions". They are entitled to raid, and although their activities are somewhat aimless, we can hardly criticise them for prolificacy. Their record has been one of being valuable and above all, reliable, military partners for imperialist militaries, for many years. We aren't going to throw that away on a whim.

Cormac's anti-TBR sentiment is pushing him to create useless and fictional scenarios in order to discredit The Black Riders. TBR and the imperialist regions (especially UIAF) have always had and still maintain good relations when it comes to military cooperation, and neither side is willing to change that.
As for the Cormac-Ainur-TEK "alliance", I see it as good humor and nothing else.

[Glen-Rhodes]

@NES: My article does not argue that Independence is waning in TSP. I argue that one form of Independence -- the kind espoused particularly by Belschaft -- in which non-Independents are viewed with suspicion and can't possibly have the region's best interests in mind, is what's waning in TSP. A new form of Independence, characterized by the word "openness," is growing more popular. It's less antagonistic and more open to multiple interpretations of what is best for the region.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Solorni]

What I find very neat about independentism is that there are so many varieties and interpretation to it.

[Karpathos]

It's probably super convenient too.

[Evil Lord Sauron]

What I find very neat about independentism is that there are so many varieties and interpretation to it.

Yes, and when someone doesn't quite use the 'correct' interpretation of it, we can look forward to a 500 page Onder rant about it.

[Evil Wolf]

What I find very neat about independentism is that there are so many varieties and interpretation to it.

Yes, and when someone doesn't quite use the 'correct' interpretation of it, we can look forward to a 500 page Onder rant about it.

Oh, you're both so silly. Everyone knows that only the Defender definition for what an "independent" is, specifically Unibot's definition, is the correct definition.

Everyone who says otherwise is clearly a raider, or a pro-raider, or a Centralist, which is a raider, probably. Listen, that's not important; point being, if a Defender didn't define it, it's just not right.

[Whiskum]

Independence is the rejection of basing foreign policy and military activity around 'raiding' and 'defending' for their own sake, instead using raiding and defending as forms of military action instrumentally however much they are needed according to such regional priorities as determined by self-interest.

Now, there's scope in that to adopt different political positions to other independent regions by its very nature. However, the key features of independence are that it prioritises a region's self-interest over raiding and defending for its own sake, and that it equates military action to a foreign policy instrument.

[The Church of Satan]

@Ritter

One doesn't need Cormac's sentiments to discredit TBR. TBR does a good job of that already, lol.

I agree with Whiskum's definition of Independence. It's the most logical and convenient interpretation.

[Space Dandy]

Independence is the rejection of basing foreign policy and military activity around 'raiding' and 'defending' for their own sake, instead using raiding and defending as forms of military action instrumentally however much they are needed according to such regional priorities as determined by self-interest.

Now, there's scope in that to adopt different political positions to other independent regions by its very nature. However, the key features of independence are that it prioritises a region's self-interest over raiding and defending for its own sake, and that it equates military action to a foreign policy instrument.

While I wholeheartedly agree, just as with Imperialism being a sub-variant, I would say that there is a more laxer sub-variant that is slightly less focus on foreign policy. Even fewer, but some regions just want to defend or raid just for some extra fun, but do not subscribe to Defender nor Raider. I could be wrong, but I have seen just a few over the years.

[Whiskum]

Independence is the rejection of basing foreign policy and military activity around 'raiding' and 'defending' for their own sake, instead using raiding and defending as forms of military action instrumentally however much they are needed according to such regional priorities as determined by self-interest.

Now, there's scope in that to adopt different political positions to other independent regions by its very nature. However, the key features of independence are that it prioritises a region's self-interest over raiding and defending for its own sake, and that it equates military action to a foreign policy instrument.

While I wholeheartedly agree, just as with Imperialism being a sub-variant, I would say that there is a more laxer sub-variant that is slightly less focus on foreign policy. Even fewer, but some regions just want to defend or raid just for some extra fun, but do not subscribe to Defender nor Raider. I could be wrong, but I have seen just a few over the years.

Imperialism may be a sub-variant, but it still fulfils all the criteria outlined.

Naturally, there are regions which claim they raid or defend for 'some extra function', but 'do not subscribe to Defender nor Raider' causes. Yet these regions should not be classed as independent, because the function of the activity itself is the same motivation as for raider groups and some defenders. So essentially a region raiding in this scenario raids for the same reason a raider region would raid. Moreover, if you take away the foreign policy aspects, then a region still sees raiding and defending not as forms of military action, but as a separate raider-defender game to be played for its own purpose.

So, let us be clear. These kinds of regions are not independent. That said, they do not neatly fit into traditional raider or defender spheres either. However, independence should not be used as a catch-all term for everything between pure raiders and idealistic defenders. It has its own meaning.

[The North Polish Union]

Since when does your word on what constitutes independence have to be law, Onder?

For you, "independence" is an ideology which regions follow if they want their military actions to be based in their foreign interests, and not subscription to either the raider or defender camps. This I can agree with.

However, in further stating that "independence" can apply only to this aforementioned type of region, and not those "which claim they raid or defend for 'some extra function', but 'do not subscribe to Defender nor Raider' causes" simply because they operate under "the same motivation[s] as [...] raider groups and some defenders." That is, it rules out those regions that raid or defend for fun.

Thos essentially eliminates almost every militarily non-aligned region in NS from being "independent", including, I might add, in all probability, the UIAF itself. Even though the UIAF's military actions are dictated by foreign policy to some extent, they are also dictated by fun. If the UIAF found R/D to be unspeakably dull, they would undoubtedly pursue their foreign interests through some other avenue if at all possible.

Ultimately, I cannot help but feel that your definition of "independence" as taking military actions solely as a result of foreign interests and without other considerations is no more accurate, and certainly less practicable, than Unibot's definition, which is, essentially, "independence is raiding by a different name".

[Whiskum]

Since when does your word on what constitutes independence have to be law, Onder?

Where precisely did I claim that it constituted 'law' or that it carried that degree of authority?

Simply because I am outlining an argument does not imply that I believe everyone should be compelled to agree with it.

I am giving a description of what 'independence' is, not 'independence' the dictionary definition as applied to NationStates regions (which obviously entails a far broader category of regions, including raider and defender regions), but 'independence' of the raider and defender game in military activity and foreign policy - terminology which has developed since 2010 as a tradition and as a category of description in certain regions, perhaps most notably Europeia.

Now, people can disagree with my arguments as to what tradition involves or they can even reject the usage of this terminological choice altogether. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise - rather I merely stated my perspective. There is need no whatsoever to attach a disclaimer to such statements.

However, in further stating that "independence" can apply only to this aforementioned type of region, and not those "which claim they raid or defend for 'some extra function', but 'do not subscribe to Defender nor Raider' causes" simply because they operate under "the same motivation[s] as [...] raider groups and some defenders." That is, it rules out those regions that raid or defend for fun.

First, as was reflected in an edit to my post which occurred 48 minutes prior to your own post (so presumably you began composing this reply to my post before that point), the reference to 'some extra function' was edited to 'some extra fun' to quote accurately from the preceding post made by Space Dandy.

You are right as to my intended meaning however, namely that regions where the purpose of their raiding is simply for fun cannot be considered independent regions (it should be added here that independent regions may of course find the process of raiding fun, but if so this must be incidental).

Regions which raid or defend for fun are ultimately playing the raider or defender game for its own sake. It is from raiding or defending that they derive their enjoyment from - hence they raid for its own sake or they defend for its own sake. A region raiding in these circumstances raids for the same reason as a pure raider group (though there are potentially other differences, hence why I specified that I would not necessarily place them in the raider tradition).

Another that should be clarified here is the difference between the enjoyment which is derived from the fun of the 'raider-defender game' itself on the one hand and the enjoyment which is derived from the satisfaction of making progress in foreign policy objectives through the use of military operations. The satisfaction of regions with an independent approach is the same satisfaction derived from partaking in other aspects of gameplay regional government.

Thos essentially eliminates almost every militarily non-aligned region in NS from being "independent"

Assuming that by 'militarily non-aligned in NS' you mean all regions that don't call themselves raider or defender, most of them are not independent in the sense described above - indeed the vast majority have absolutely nothing to do with either inter-regional gameplay politics or military activity. These regions are better regarded as isolationist or neutral - in case, they most definitely do not raid or defend as if they were in the independent tradition.

Independence has never embraced isolationism or neutrality. Independence is a proactive foreign policy approach.

As for the regions that raid or defend primarily for fun that do not call themselves raider or defender - which in practice is a very small category - these regions have not rejected the basis of the raider and defender game as independent regions have. They see raiding as raiding, not as military action to advance their self-interest. Apart from the fact they do not call themselves raider, the underlying motivation for their military gameplay is the same.

including, I might add, in all probability, the UIAF itself. Even though the UIAF's military actions are dictated by foreign policy to some extent, they are also dictated by fun. If the UIAF found R/D to be unspeakably dull, they would undoubtedly pursue their foreign interests through some other avenue if at all possible.

First, speaking for those who have been responsible for the strategic direction of all three UIAF regions and who thereby have determined why and how these regions participate in military activity, I can assure you that we have always found military gameplay for itself to be incredibly tedious.

Second, there is a difference between an incidental enjoyable experience of raiding on the one hand and then seeking to gain such an experience being the determinant of regional policy on the other. Soldiers might find the process of military action fun, but that does not mean it is why their region raids.

Third, the three regions whose militaries constitute the UIAF engage in military activity to gain a powerful instrument of foreign policy power; an instrumen which has benefited our regions and allowed them to pursue meaningful geopolitics throughout their histories. Raiding for fun has never been the point.

Ultimately, I cannot help but feel that your definition of "independence" as taking military actions solely as a result of foreign interests and without other considerations is no more accurate, and certainly less practicable, than Unibot's definition, which is, essentially, "independence is raiding by a different name".

The definition which I have outlined is in fact the most practicable definition; the one which has the most meaning and which extends to all regions active in gameplay which truly reject the basis of the raider and defender game, engaging in military action not for its own sake but for regional priorities.

If a region's fundamental purpose in raiding or defending is simply fun, then they are doing it for its own sake, not to advance the region's self-interest.

[Christian Democrats]

I even reckon that defender and invader regions, with the Battlefield Effect largely not present in their regions, more closely realize the independent ideal than officially independent regions do. Take for example, The Rejected Realms, which — after formally becoming a defender region this year— sought a Non-Aggression Pact with Osiris, an imperialist-invader region. Meanwhile, the citizenry here in The Rejected Realms recently voted a vocal non-defender, Christian Democrats, as its most well regarded executive officer (in terms of performance). The official shift towards defenderism has closed a gaping void… an endless debate in The Rejected Realms, allowing us to focus the past few months on cultural development and growth instead.

I always find others' opinions about me to be amusing.

I keep my views on military gameplay somewhat enigmatic, and I'm either wildly popular or wildly unpopular in any particular place as my high approval rating in TRR shows just days after some players are decrying me as "the most detestable player in NationStates."

[Unibot III]

I'm either wildly popular or wildly unpopular in any particular place [/url]

Don't get too full of yourself, I'm the king of that.

[Space Dandy]

I'm either wildly popular or wildly unpopular in any particular place [/url]

Don't get too full of yourself, I'm the king of that.

and you are?

[Zybodia]

Don't get too full of yourself, I'm the king of that.

and you are?

The king of getting too full of himself. Can't you read?

[Space Dandy]

and you are?

The king of getting too full of himself. Can't you read?

Reading is for fendas, Zy.

[The Blaatschapen]

The king of getting too full of himself. Can't you read?

Reading is for fendas, Zy.

That explains a lot.

[The Rejected Times]

Frak destroys LWU Forum
COMMENTARY | TRR STAFF


The Wolf's Den (pictured above) is no more.

A void has been left in the heart of the Lone Wolves United community - its recorded history and its past culture has been lost to a violent internal attack on their region. With their forum destroyed, it's sadly possible that much of their historical records are irrecoverable.

The forum currently sits with a simple, disingenuous message to visitors:

"Board will be back online in 24 hours. Error with a script, be back soon".

Fortunately, much of the region's oldest history has survived on its first forum - this includes old mission announcements, media and philosophy texts. However, the new forum contained everything from late 2009 onward.

The forum destroyer in this instance is Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, a senior LWU official. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds has also been known as Frak, Haxstree or Anur-Sanur in NationStates. A notable troublemaker, Frak was involved in a series of attempted coups on The South Pacific, The Rejected Realms, The East Pacific and The North Pacific.

Osiris, in wake of the tragedy, has declared Frak as "personna non grata" in Osiris and released a statement condemning his actions and the loss of Lone Wolves United's forum. As of right now, Evil Wolf is still attempting to recover the forum, while dozens have sent their condolences and well wishes.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I've heard so much from a wide array of people about how Frak is untrustworthy. Why do people keep letting this player into their regions?

[Venico]

I've heard so much from a wide array of people about how Frak is untrustworthy. Why do people keep letting this player into their regions?

When you have a mad dog on a chain you assume the chain will hold. It's the same reason people trusted Georgie. But LSD is also really good at infiltration and tech. So maybe in their eyes the usefulness outweighed the risk?

[Nierr]

It's the same reason people trusted Georgie.

What?

[Shizensky]

I sincerely hope you're able to recover it all, EW. I wouldn't wish this on anybody.

[RiderSyl]

Again, a disgraceful act. Hopefully LWU is able to recover what was lost.

[Karpathos]

How is it that Frak came in to the service of LWU? Via Gatesville?

But yeah, hope you get your history back. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.