The False Independence - Principles for a New Lazarus

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

No.

Yes.

You are wrong.

[Mahaj]

Not exactly sure why you think morals have no place in a political simulation game...

[Cerian Quilor]

Because A:) Morality has nothing to do with politics and B:) Keyword, Game.

[Afforess]

Because A:) Morality has nothing to do with politics and B:) Keyword, Game.

You're wrong.

Legitimate political power comes from the consent of the governed. I guess this gets overlooked a lot in gcr politics because the silent majority tend to express no opinions on goverence either way, most of the time. Silence tends to be construed as tacit approval, so the elites carry on with their song and dance as long as the silent majority is not disturbed. Lazarus's elite have published this drivel of late as part of their latest series of great distractions. I'm sure that eventually, the GCRs will reach a level of distraction (by theming the region in a satanic/nazi/[insert-shocking-idea-here] fashion) which disturbs the silent majority, will result in some forced sacrifices and guillotines and the GCR will reset. In fact the latest Communist fad is just the most recent example of this trend. It's a rather small step from Communism to more shocking ideals too, viva la revolucion.

The distractions are nessecary because behind the veil is the reality is that NationStates is an utterly pointless waste of time, and so much ado over nothing must be generated to distract from this horrific truth.

[Silver Seas]

Aff, I'm still not talking about just the GCRs. I'm talking about the entire gameplay world. Pay attention.

[Afforess]

Aff, I'm still not talking about just the GCRs. I'm talking about the entire gameplay world. Pay attention.

The same applies to UCRs, just to a lesser extent as founders ensure power is centralized.

[Letoilenoir]

Belongs in the Game Created Regions forum, not Gameplay surely?

[Mahaj]

Because A:) Morality has nothing to do with politics and B:) Keyword, Game.

You think that there is no part of politics that stems from someone's view on morality?

[Inquestra]

Because A:) Morality has nothing to do with politics and B:) Keyword, Game.

You think that there is no part of politics that stems from someone's view on morality?

It shouldn't. If it does, they're doing it wrong.

-Cerian, with a puppet by accident.

[Mahaj]

You think that there is no part of politics that stems from someone's view on morality?

It shouldn't. If it does, they're doing it wrong.

-Cerian, with a puppet by accident.

But even "Murder should be illegal" stems from morality.

[Cerian Quilor]

First of all, Law and Politics, while related, are not the same thing. Second of all, banning murder is productive for a whole laundry list of reasons unrelated to morality.

[Unibot III]

I agree that in a political environment, an ethical system between political contenders largely degrades into nothing of substance -- politics is total war between opponents.

I disagree, however, that morality isn't an extremely important element to a political environment, but not as a system between political contenders, but as the backdrop of their behavior that colours their relationship with the public. Every mistake of an opponent is framed to the public within terms of how it is wrong, not technically, but ethically. Almost anything and everything policy-wise we can say is often framed to the public within terms of how it is right or wrong. Leaders consider not only what is right and wrong, but what the public will perceive as right or wrong.

Make no mistake however: morality does exist, it just isn't necessarily the most important thing on the mind of political agents. Politics is not, however, conducted in vacuums, there is always a public and there is always a backdrop of culture and ethics and norms and beliefs that provide a contextual structure to the political environment.

[Kantrian Recruiter]

In Gameplay, Unibot, there isn't a Public. Earlier you talked about 'the people'. The 'people' are Roleplayers, generalites, and the like. They're not in Gameplay, unless they join it. Once they do, they're just as much a member of the Gameplay elite as I am. The entire population of Gameplay is part of the Political Class of Gameplay.

[Unibot III]

In Gameplay, Unibot, there isn't a Public. Earlier you talked about 'the people'. The 'people' are Roleplayers, generalites, and the like. They're not in Gameplay, unless they join it. Once they do, they're just as much a member of the Gameplay elite as I am. The entire population of Gameplay is part of the Political Class of Gameplay.

Bullshit. There is most definitely "a public". It's just kind of plainly obvious. Not everyone pursues power and influence in the game, it may simply take someone who isn't an imperialist to see that. They might be an inconvenient fact to you, the role they play in Gameplay may be something you'd like to ignore, but they do in fact exist.

[SFBA wabbitslayah]

Gameplay is also about community culture, which doesn't have to include politics 100% nor have to be about roleplay. You're right Cerian in that politics is a Major facet of Gameplay, if not the most of all facets. Though, Unibot isn't wrong in his assessments either. You came from Europeia, correct Cerian? The focus of community was strongly on politics, and as an outsider same seems to be of LKE/TNI/Imperialists.

I've been in Europeia and other regions focused strongly on politics, but I've been elsewhere with other focuses that weren't roleplay but were Gameplay.

My thoughts lie somewhere between what you & Unibot have been saying.

EDIT: Typos

[Todd McCloud]

Judging by the OP, Game-created regions are:

1. The same as other GCRs
2. Inactive
3. Isolated (their militaries are, at least)
4. Misguided
5. Confused (from an army standpoint)
6. Need userite regions to survive

These are rather bold claims. Honestly, though, I am left to assume that the author does not include TEP as a game-created region. Anyone who attempts to immerse themselves in that region's culture will find that the following is true in regards to the claims above:

1. Different flair of gameplay
2. Active, in government, military, and non-government affairs
3. Active abroad and willing to participate with other armies
4. Stand with clear direction
5. Hold an untainted objective
6. Is able to stand up on its own.

Now that this confusion has been lifted, TEP wishes to announce that it is indeed a game-created region. Maybe we don't like it. Maybe we do. But the bottom line is we're strong in our resolve and keep one quality near and dear: having fun. And since fun is defined differently from player to player, diversity is high among us.

That being said, I personally wish to be the first to welcome the glorious region of The East Pacific back into the GCR fold. The original arguments are now invalid, and we can all move on from here.

[Solorni]

In Gameplay, Unibot, there isn't a Public. Earlier you talked about 'the people'. The 'people' are Roleplayers, generalites, and the like. They're not in Gameplay, unless they join it. Once they do, they're just as much a member of the Gameplay elite as I am. The entire population of Gameplay is part of the Political Class of Gameplay.

Bullshit. There is most definitely "a public". It's just kind of plainly obvious. Not everyone pursues power and influence in the game, it may simply take someone who isn't an imperialist to see that. They might be an inconvenient fact to you, the role they play in Gameplay may be something you'd like to ignore, but they do in fact exist.

This would explain your speeches where we wondered who in the world you were talking to

The issue with this post, is that you're one of the primary forces in the game which pursues power and influence first and foremost.

[McMasterdonia]

Judging by the OP, Game-created regions are:

1. The same as other GCRs
2. Inactive
3. Isolated (their militaries are, at least)
4. Misguided
5. Confused (from an army standpoint)
6. Need userite regions to survive

These are rather bold claims. Honestly, though, I am left to assume that the author does not include TEP as a game-created region. Anyone who attempts to immerse themselves in that region's culture will find that the following is true in regards to the claims above:

1. Different flair of gameplay
2. Active, in government, military, and non-government affairs
3. Active abroad and willing to participate with other armies
4. Stand with clear direction
5. Hold an untainted objective
6. Is able to stand up on its own.

Now that this confusion has been lifted, TEP wishes to announce that it is indeed a game-created region. Maybe we don't like it. Maybe we do. But the bottom line is we're strong in our resolve and keep one quality near and dear: having fun. And since fun is defined differently from player to player, diversity is high among us.

That being said, I personally wish to be the first to welcome the glorious region of The East Pacific back into the GCR fold. The original arguments are now invalid, and we can all move on from here.

Well said.

[Solorni]

Hear hear

[Unibot III]

I would disagree, Todd. I think you're being too charitable to the original EPSA, which really struggled for activity until opening up to participation with other military organizations during AMOM's term. Its prior history as a neutral army was not particularly successful and I think trying to balance a more Invader stance now would be disastrous for the modern EPSA.

Likewise, TEP has been previously inactive on and off for years under its most neutral regimes -- more so than its fellow GCRs who flirted with a moral direction.

There's a lot of lessons from "The False Independence" that TEP has already put into action to help succeed and I imagine TEP will continue to take cues from this new emerging direction that is counter to the old Westwindean Consensus (activity = chaos; R/D is limiting; military focus should be attacking fringe minorities).

[Cerian Quilor]

In Gameplay, Unibot, there isn't a Public. Earlier you talked about 'the people'. The 'people' are Roleplayers, generalites, and the like. They're not in Gameplay, unless they join it. Once they do, they're just as much a member of the Gameplay elite as I am. The entire population of Gameplay is part of the Political Class of Gameplay.

Bullshit. There is most definitely "a public". It's just kind of plainly obvious. Not everyone pursues power and influence in the game, it may simply take someone who isn't an imperialist to see that. They might be an inconvenient fact to you, the role they play in Gameplay may be something you'd like to ignore, but they do in fact exist.

This is the bullshit, Unibot. Gameplay IS politics.

@Wabbitslayah: If its not politics (which includes R/D under that heading) then its not part of Gameplay.

[Tim-Opolis]

I would disagree, Todd. I think you're being too charitable to the original EPSA, which really struggled for activity until opening up to participation with other military organizations during AMOM's term. Its prior history as a neutral army was not particularly successful and I think trying to balance a more Invader stance now would be disastrous for the modern EPSA.

First of all, Unibot, the original EPSA did quite well for a GCR Military. They had active members, a dedicated group, and were all decent updaters. They lacked numbers, which is a problem for all military forces ever. The struggle that EPSA had is the struggle that any new group actually trying to be competent tends to have.

As for the bolded part, you've made this presumption about militaries...quite often. No offense, mate, but you've generally been wrong.

[Unibot III]

I would disagree, Todd. I think you're being too charitable to the original EPSA, which really struggled for activity until opening up to participation with other military organizations during AMOM's term. Its prior history as a neutral army was not particularly successful and I think trying to balance a more Invader stance now would be disastrous for the modern EPSA.

First of all, Unibot, the original EPSA did quite well for a GCR Military. They had active members, a dedicated group, and were all decent updaters. They lacked numbers, which is a problem for all military forces ever. The struggle that EPSA had is the struggle that any new group actually trying to be competent tends to have.

As for the bolded part, you've made this presumption about militaries...quite often. No offense, mate, but you've generally been wrong.

I disagree, the original EPSA struggled to get off the ground and I think your heavy bias to Independence as a military ideology is informing your opinion of a military organization that you had little interaction with at that time.

[Cormac A Stark]

First of all, Unibot, the original EPSA did quite well for a GCR Military. They had active members, a dedicated group, and were all decent updaters. They lacked numbers, which is a problem for all military forces ever. The struggle that EPSA had is the struggle that any new group actually trying to be competent tends to have.

As for the bolded part, you've made this presumption about militaries...quite often. No offense, mate, but you've generally been wrong.

Without commenting on the EPSA because I'm not well informed on it, Unibot isn't wrong about the general problem that neutrality and "independence" create for Feeder and Sinker forces. For these type of "independent" forces to be at all active, they have to divorce themselves from mainstream military gameplay altogether and focus on extremists (i.e., Nazis), adspammers, etc. If they try to be "independent" within mainstream military gameplay, they either fall inactive or they become nothing but auxiliary forces of various regions and groups that are active in mainstream R/D (and very often auxiliary forces of competing groups, which means it does nothing to actually enhance their foreign affairs either).

I fundamentally disagree with this essay's view that all Feeders and Sinkers should be defender but it's spot on in regard to "independence." So-called "independence" hasn't made Feeder/Sinker forces at all independent, only inactive or confined to operations no one in mainstream R/D actually cares about. Feeders and Sinkers that actually want a military active in mainstream military gameplay -- and it's fine if there are some that don't, or some that would actually prefer targeting extremists -- need to choose a side. The game would also be far more interesting, with far more interesting conflicts, if more Feeders and Sinkers chose a side of the R/D spectrum and stopped trying to insist on this "post-R/D" fantasy that military gameplay can move beyond R/D. It cannot, R/D is the fundamental military component of NationStates, and any Feeder or Sinker that wants to be active in mainstream military gameplay needs to accept that and choose one or the other.

[Tim-Opolis]

First of all, Unibot, the original EPSA did quite well for a GCR Military. They had active members, a dedicated group, and were all decent updaters. They lacked numbers, which is a problem for all military forces ever. The struggle that EPSA had is the struggle that any new group actually trying to be competent tends to have.

As for the bolded part, you've made this presumption about militaries...quite often. No offense, mate, but you've generally been wrong.

Without commenting on the EPSA because I'm not well informed on it, Unibot isn't wrong about the general problem that neutrality and "independence" create for Feeder and Sinker forces.

Ah, two different interpretations then. I assumed he was stating that anything Invader in a GCR was doomed to fail; likely so he could follow up with a moral thesis on Defending. Which is, well, wrong. Exhibit A: The Sekhmet Legion. Regarding independence, I still endorse it but do grudgingly agree that it's very difficult to succesfully pull of.

I don't disagree with your overall analysis, nonetheless, as you might know already (from hearing myself voice some of those points ocassionally)