The Miniluv Messenger: Big Brother is Watching Gameplay

[Venico]

The only opinion is the one that I pointed out and that was a grab for humor. The UDL doesn't want to subvert GCRs...well maybe Cam does but the Osiris incident in 2012 was a point as to why that policy was in place. My opinion of the UDL is that it's a defender organization that needs to get active again. I have a lot of respect for them (even if their security is so-so). I don't see how you can argue that the story of Cameron call for new leadership and more GCR influence isn't the main focus of the piece.

@Uni the dig at you is accurate. If I have to explain why then maybe you really are blind to your own tendencies.

[Cerlon]

The only opinion is the one that I pointed out and that was a grab for humor. The UDL doesn't want to subvert GCRs...well maybe Cam does but the Osiris incident in 2012 was a point as to why that policy was in place. My opinion of the UDL is that it's a defender organization that needs to get active again. I have a lot of respect for them (even if their security is so-so). I don't see how you can argue that the story of Cameron call for new leadership and more GCR influence isn't the main focus of the piece.

@Uni the dig at you is accurate. If I have to explain why then maybe you really are blind to your own tendencies.

That is one case of opinion, but I am clearly referring to the fact that the article makes numerous remarks that have no place in a "journalistic" piece. The following quote, for example, is something you'd never see in real journalism:

"...the UDL is on life support (this strong claim is supported with no evidence) and needs some help quickly if it wants to rise from the grave of irrelevance (charged language with a clear bias, also implying your opinion that the UDL is irrelevant)."

As for your claim about the UDL, there are very clear, intentional implications that the article does a poor job at hiding.

"Cam wants to retract the Neutral Policy the UDL has taken with GCRs in order to avoid getting involved in political conflicts or even helping coups as seen in 2012. Cameron believes that retracting this policy will allow them to "pick newcomers off the boat" and extend their reach further into the affairs of regions. In the words of a Merry Man, 'We need more GCR influence.'"

The first red part is simply propaganda: you are presenting highly controversial, incomplete statements as facts, and are doing so without support. Given that the "facts" are neither very relevant to the event in the story nor concrete enough to warrant using as fluff/background information, I'd say that you're using them intentionally, and are thus propagating.

The comment about the coup proves the point. It's a vague, out-of-context, and controversial statement that is being snuck in between the lines as a fact that contributes to the propaganda line that the UDL is imperialistic (verbatim from later in the piece).

What bothers me about that is that you are hiding behind a vague piece of slander that is semantically true (i.e. if a UDLer disputes that post, you can say that the UDL helped push NK to the delegacy), which makes you look "right" and makes them look pedantic, but is contextually incomplete and false in the sense that the implication is that the UDL helped a coup intentionally, which is not true. If you wanted to do the truth of the situation a justice, or, at the very least, attempted to be objective, you would have noted that the UDL was tricked. If I were an uninformed reader, I'd think that the UDL went around helping coups because they're, as you say, "imperialistic", but the information that journalism is supposed to deliver obviously doesn't match up with that storyline.

And let's also note the plurality in the statement. Why "coups" instead of "coup", since that incident was a one-time event? It seems to me like it's intended to be hyperbolic with purpose.

Overall, I'm not impressed, and I am actually somewhat disappointed. You have writing talent, but this propaganda piece is just a wound on the integrity of NS journalism, and it will continue to be until you're honest with yourself and your readers.

[Inspired By The Novel]

When you are proposing that your group enter a GCR to increase your groups influence, in addition to combatting another group who you feel is doing the same thing. You are not advocating that your region should get involved in R/D on your side because you think that having that available is going to help your new region.

An active contributing member of the region who thinks that defending/raiding would be a good thing to have for the community is fine. I am not talking about that.

Clearly as stated, going into a region to further your own region, or group within that GCR is not. Simply put, you may feel it will benefit, but it's not why you are there. Advocating that a group enter a region to use your numbers to influence the region, and ensure that it happens is manipulation, and those who were there before will find their own voice has lesser value in the debate. You add in a second group, then the debate suddenly becomes a battlefield between two opposing factions that are there only to promote an outside interest. The natives are lost in the shuffle.

This is an incomprehensible post.

[Venico]

I don't have writing talent, I'm an intelligence guy. What would have been the most objective thing I could have done would have simply been a link to the screenshot and possibly links to relevant material such as number reports on UDL operation numbers since 2012/2013 until now.

The UDL is inactive and irrelevant in the current state of gameplay. The number of operations performed by them is down per month and has been going down for quite a long time. The only thing even keeping that number from 0 for the past month or so has been Ravania detags. Is it also an opinion that TBH is inactive and irrelevant? Is it an opinion that they also need something to bring them from the metaphorical grave? These are statements that are backed up by common knowledge of the average person reading Gameplay.

The comment on the Neutrality policy is still background for the reasoning behind it. Cam wants to repeal X which is in place to prevent Ys as seen in Z. This was not meant in a "Look at them! They help coups!" sort of way but rather a reason WHY this policy is there. Coups is pluralized because it's referring not only to the past and present but to the future. This is a policy to prevent the UDL from aiding coups. It would be odd to say, "This is a policy to prevent the UDL from aiding coup." And the second red marked line there is a direct line from Cameron's statement.

I don't feel that I misleading readers, I don't feel that I am misrepresenting facts. This is meant to show a horrifying statement by a member of the UDL's conclave who has the potential to be their leader. I point out WHY it's horrifying. I'm sorry that I've disappointed you but as long as I've informed and woken up a few people to the potential for an imperialistic UDL in the future then I feel I've done my job. *shrug* I don't write these things to impress, I write them to inform the public of information I obtain.

VeniEdit: So many typos, why I post while half awake. >.< Bah, also apparently yo is recognized as a word by spellcheck. Interesting.

[Whamabama]

This is an incomprehensible post.

Let me make it simple for you then.

You are the leader of the UCK, whether this is a region or group does not matter. You decide that the UCK needs to have influence in the feeders. So you choose TWP, or whatever. You move yourself, and some others into the region with the goal of making TWP allies to the UCK, and proposing laws that would prohibit TWP into going into a different direction than the UCK.

These actions, and motivations are not advocacy of an activity within your region. You are acting as a member of the UCK, promoting the UCK.

This is not respecting the sovereignty of the region. It's making the region "your little plaything".

most GCR's welcome new members, whether they are new to the game, or from other regions. RPers, and GPers alike, and even those who just hang out in the spam areas of the forum are welcome. I think you will find the majority of those players only want you to be involved, hopefully actively. Work towards making the region better. Ideas are good, even if they do include things you might be also doing elsewhere. However I think you will find few happy that you are there to ensure that they follow the rules of the UCK, and the UCK's agenda. Even if the UCK finds a member of the ZEBR in the region, who they find themselves at odds with.

[Inspired By The Novel]

So you choose TWP, or whatever. You move yourself, and some others into the region with the goal of making TWP allies to the UCK, and proposing laws that would prohibit TWP into going into a different direction than the UCK.

These actions, and motivations are not advocacy of an activity within your region. You are acting as a member of the UCK, promoting the UCK.

This is not respecting the sovereignty of the region. It's making the region "your little plaything".

And? What is your point?

If I am the "native" political party B in TWP, and I propose an alliance with UCK because I think it is the right thing to do, why is this any better or worse than a member of UCK coming in a proposing that same alliance? What makes the person in B better than the one from UCK?

Make a meaningful distinction, because you haven't articulated one.

Are you saying categorically that a "foreigner" can not seek to make policy in a GCR?

Are you saying native political parties are immune from corruption or poor decision making?

The distinction you fail to articulate is about ends, what is the end in sight of the given politician.

Native or foreign doesn't matter, as long as that person acts with an end that they believe is in the best interests of -that- region. Defenders, who seek only to protect, are in a position to satisfy that requirement. This is the only distinction that can have merit. Xenophobic prohibitions do not.

[Whamabama]

And? What is your point?

If I am the "native" political party B in TWP, and I propose an alliance with UCK because I think it is the right thing to do, why is this any better or worse than a member of UCK coming in a proposing that same alliance? What makes the person in B better than the one from UCK?

Make a meaningful distinction, because you haven't articulated one.

Are you saying categorically that a "foreigner" can not seek to make policy in a GCR?

Are you saying native political parties are immune from corruption or poor decision making?

The distinction you fail to articulate is about ends, what is the end in sight of the given politician.

Native or foreign doesn't matter, as long as that person acts with an end that they believe is in the best interests of -that- region. Defenders, who seek only to protect, are in a position to satisfy that requirement. This is the only distinction that can have merit. Xenophobic prohibitions do not.

Wow, I can't believe what I just read..........surely I am being trolled.......

[Inspired By The Novel]

And? What is your point?

If I am the "native" political party B in TWP, and I propose an alliance with UCK because I think it is the right thing to do, why is this any better or worse than a member of UCK coming in a proposing that same alliance? What makes the person in B better than the one from UCK?

Make a meaningful distinction, because you haven't articulated one.

Are you saying categorically that a "foreigner" can not seek to make policy in a GCR?

Are you saying native political parties are immune from corruption or poor decision making?

The distinction you fail to articulate is about ends, what is the end in sight of the given politician.

Native or foreign doesn't matter, as long as that person acts with an end that they believe is in the best interests of -that- region. Defenders, who seek only to protect, are in a position to satisfy that requirement. This is the only distinction that can have merit. Xenophobic prohibitions do not.

Wow, I can't believe what I just read..........surely I am being trolled.......

I think you are so used to hiding behind your thoughtless propaganda that you simply can't contemplate the fact that your buzzwords are meaningless.

One would have thought you'd have grown out of such things by now, Wham.

[Whamabama]

You are going to have to try harder than this.

[Inspired By The Novel]

You are going to have to try harder than this.

lol, I'm cool. Have fun repeating the same tired rhetoric you've been spitting for years.

[Solorni]

First of all, I agree with what Wham said and it's not thoughtless propaganda. Second of all, this might be good for the UDL. People are discussing it as if it's not the Titanic or the Hindenburg. So I think it's an improvement that we're discussing how it's been plotting to take over GCRs and going against it's mandate than how it's going to sink/explode.

[North East Somerset]

Unibot has always stood by Mahaj due to his loyalty, but the time has come to choose between Mahaj and a future where the UDL is a relevant and global force once more. Surely if they do not act soon, FRA will fill the power vacuum left by their demise under new Leadership, once and for all. I don't know whether Cameron is the right person to lead UDL, but at least he has some actual ideas.

[The North Polish Union]

You are going to have to try harder than this.

lol, I'm cool. Have fun repeating the same tired rhetoric you've been spitting for years.

Frak?

[Inspired By The Novel]

lol, I'm cool. Have fun repeating the same tired rhetoric you've been spitting for years.

Frak?

Nope

Whamabama is an old player, and what he is saying has been said before, many times. People say things like "regional sovereignty" without actually investigating what it means, because it has become convention to employ the term.

That is what I mean by "thoughtless", not that the first people (like Unlimited) were thoughtless but that it becomes thoughtless to just repeat what are essentially propagandist terms as if they are a real investigation into the circumstances.

Everyone recognized back in the day these ideas were good propaganda, but when we talk about cosmopolitans and regionalists and some of the nuance that Unibot has brought to analysis, these old ideas don't hold up. You have to question everything.

Accusing someone of turning a region into "their little plaything" is an old, old trick that doesn't actually investigate (1). How do you distinguish types of advocacy in a fair and equitable way? (2). Who has a right to advocate within a region? (3). What matters more, where someone is from or the end they have in sight?

Someone can be a native and pursue policy X because it will help to expand their own power. Corruption is not something that only foreigners are capable of.

If you look at Francoism, it isn't even about us vs them really in a regionalist sense, it is about how one desires to utilize the region - is the end for the region in itself, or for some ulterior purpose.

If a Defender is a protector, then his end is always for that region in itself. Therefore his advocacy is no less than a honest native's, because it is of the same character - looking to the health of the region itself. It doesn't matter that the Defender is not a native, because that isn't what makes advocacy good. "I live here so I am right and my motives are pure" - no.

You could argue a foreigner can't possibly know what is good for a region he doesn't live in, or it isn't fair because he doesn't have to live with the consequences of a potentially bad decision, but that is a different argument. You'd then be saying Defenders should have to live in region X for Y amount of time before legislating for it, and such a requirement should have to apply to natives too.

[Whamabama]

Whamabama is an old player, and what he is saying has been said before, many times. People say things like "regional sovereignty" without actually investigating what it means, because it has become convention to employ the term.

That is what I mean by "thoughtless", not that the first people (like Unlimited) were thoughtless but that it becomes thoughtless to just repeat what are essentially propagandist terms as if they are a real investigation into the circumstances.

Everyone recognized back in the day these ideas were good propaganda, but when we talk about cosmopolitans and regionalists and some of the nuance that Unibot has brought to analysis, these old ideas don't hold up. You have to question everything.

Accusing someone of turning a region into "their little plaything" is an old, old trick that doesn't actually investigate (1). How do you distinguish types of advocacy in a fair and equitable way? (2). Who has a right to advocate within a region? (3). What matters more, where someone is from or the end they have in sight?

Someone can be a native and pursue policy X because it will help to expand their own power. Corruption is not something that only foreigners are capable of.

If you look at Francoism, it isn't even about us vs them really in a regionalist sense, it is about how one desires to utilize the region - is the end for the region in itself, or for some ulterior purpose.

If a Defender is a protector, then his end is always for that region in itself. Therefore his advocacy is no less than a honest native's, because it is of the same character - looking to the health of the region itself. It doesn't matter that the Defender is not a native, because that isn't what makes advocacy good. "I live here so I am right and my motives are pure" - no.

You could argue a foreigner can't possibly know what is good for a region he doesn't live in, or it isn't fair because he doesn't have to live with the consequences of a potentially bad decision, but that is a different argument. You'd then be saying Defenders should have to live in region X for Y amount of time before legislating for it, and such a requirement should have to apply to natives too.

First off your problem is your assumption that I am repeating propaganda I heard from somewhere else. I am not really concerned with your asking me what Sovereignty means to me, but instead you assume I can only repeat some statement that I heard from somewhere, and am hopeful I sound like I know something. Like you said, I have been around for a bit, not near as long as some others, but I have been around the block a few times.

That being said, I have been around long enough to come to my own conclusions to most situations in the game. Nor am I shy about trying to implement policy within my own region if I feel it needs to be changed, or altered. I have no need to spout off repeated catch phrases, thank you.

As far as the misguided thoughts that a defender's advocacy is the same as an honest natives, that to me is scary to even think about, simply put, nobody can claim to know what the will of these natives are simply because you are a defender. Nor is the desire to not be a defender corruption. Most don't even want any part of the military dynamic at all. Does this make them corrupt? Should defenders come in, and impress them into service? Force them into being these moral honest citizens whether they like it or not?

Who are you to charge into any region and tell them they must do something they don't want to do? Much less stand at the gates screaming do or else.

You can ask them to join you in your dedication to defending, you can recruit them, plead with them to do so. All that is fine to do. The moment you charge into the region in numbers to make them, you become worse than the very imperialists you seem to hold so much resentment for. They at least are honest about it.

[North East Somerset]

Unibot may well have written the UDL GCR Non-Interference Policy. But the overwhelming historical evidence is he personally just can't resist interfering to try and impose his world views on everyone else. The collective memory is often short, but for me it's a simple case of actions speak louder than words.

[Inspired By The Novel]

It's not about knowing what the native wants, Whamy, it is about what the end is.

An imperialist sees the region as a means to an end - the end is to aggrandize themselves and expand their Empire.

A defender sees the region as an end in itself - the end is to protect that region.

Therefore their advocacy is of the same character as a native. So to answer your who do you think you are? hands on your hips question, I would ask the same of any native that has the temerity to try to pass legislation in their own region.

Unless you are advocating anarchy, if the end is the same - the region as an end in itself - the advocacy is the same as well.

A defender, if he is being a proper defender and doesn't have ulterior motives, is always in the clear to advocate in a GCR, because his end is pure.

An imperialist, if he is being a proper imperialist, always sees the GCR as a means to an ulterior end. That's what an imperialist is.

[Whamabama]

It's not about knowing what the native wants, Whamy, it is about what the end is.

An imperialist sees the region as a means to an end - the end is to aggrandize themselves and expand their Empire.

A defender sees the region as an end in itself - the end is to protect that region.

Therefore their advocacy is of the same character as a native. So to answer your who do you think you are? hands on your hips question, I would ask the same of any native that has the temerity to try to pass legislation in their own region.

Unless you are advocating anarchy, if the end is the same - the region as an end in itself - the advocacy is the same as well.

A defender, if he is being a proper defender and doesn't have ulterior motives, is always in the clear to advocate in a GCR, because his end is pure.

An imperialist, if he is being a proper imperialist, always sees the GCR as a means to an ulterior end. That's what an imperialist is.

You are not a defender, you don't even know what a defender is. Much less preach to me about it.

The next question is who you will pretend to be when you create your new identity.

[Tano]

It's not about knowing what the native wants, Whamy, it is about what the end is.

An imperialist sees the region as a means to an end - the end is to aggrandize themselves and expand their Empire.

A defender sees the region as an end in itself - the end is to protect that region.

Therefore their advocacy is of the same character as a native. So to answer your who do you think you are? hands on your hips question, I would ask the same of any native that has the temerity to try to pass legislation in their own region.

Unless you are advocating anarchy, if the end is the same - the region as an end in itself - the advocacy is the same as well.

A defender, if he is being a proper defender and doesn't have ulterior motives, is always in the clear to advocate in a GCR, because his end is pure.

An imperialist, if he is being a proper imperialist, always sees the GCR as a means to an ulterior end. That's what an imperialist is.

I keep trying to understand your posts, but all I see is a bunch of bullshit arguments for defenders to push their motives on GCRs.

[Inspired By The Novel]

It's not about knowing what the native wants, Whamy, it is about what the end is.

An imperialist sees the region as a means to an end - the end is to aggrandize themselves and expand their Empire.

A defender sees the region as an end in itself - the end is to protect that region.

Therefore their advocacy is of the same character as a native. So to answer your who do you think you are? hands on your hips question, I would ask the same of any native that has the temerity to try to pass legislation in their own region.

Unless you are advocating anarchy, if the end is the same - the region as an end in itself - the advocacy is the same as well.

A defender, if he is being a proper defender and doesn't have ulterior motives, is always in the clear to advocate in a GCR, because his end is pure.

An imperialist, if he is being a proper imperialist, always sees the GCR as a means to an ulterior end. That's what an imperialist is.

You are not a defender, you don't even know what a defender is. Much less preach to me about it.

The next question is who you will pretend to be when you create your new identity.

We can take it to the update if you think you are hot, Mr. Sudden Hostility For No Reason.

I wouldn't call Biyah's toilet boy an exemplar of Defenderism.

[Whamabama]

We can take it to the update if you think you are hot, Mr. Sudden Hostility For No Reason.

I wouldn't call Biyah's toilet boy an exemplar of Defenderism.

Well biyah's toilet boy, you still ain't no defender. I would say join the RRA, but you already tried couping the TRR, so the prospect isn't so good that they would let you in.

[Inspired By The Novel]

Well biyah's toilet boy, you still ain't no defender. I would say join the RRA, but you already tried couping the TRR, so the prospect isn't so good that they would let you in.

I don't know what you are talking about, only that you have moved the point of discussion away from its substance so that you could conduct this unfounded personal attack.

I have no interest in couping TRR or joining the RRA, only protecting the delegacy of Unibot from anyone who would harm it. To that effect I have endorsed him, will help new players on the RMB when I can, and suggest improvements, such as an auto-registration script.

That is my only desire, and that is what this puppet is here to do. If you want to fight it out at the update though, I am sure I can turn in far more successful defenses than you can.

[Consular]

Overall, I'm not impressed, and I am actually somewhat disappointed. You have writing talent, but this propaganda piece is just a wound on the integrity of NS journalism, and it will continue to be until you're honest with yourself and your readers.

lol, what a load of nonsense.

Do you hold The Rejected Times to such standards as well? Because this piece is no more opinionated than those articles. It almost seems like you're making a deliberately lateral attack on the piece to distract from the actual subject matter, no?

I also find it hilarious that, as far as I've noticed, nobody has yet confirmed whether Cam is indeed still the UDL foreign affairs guy. Twice, that question has been asked. I would have thought answering it would be a simple y/n?

[Cormac A Stark]

I would have preferred that NK didn't become delegate for 12 hours and Empire didn't have this show of power over the sheep.

Mahaj wasn't even online when that call was made. It was Tim and Cormac, I believe and they were being bullied straight up by Biyah and friends.

No idea if this has been covered already because I don't feel like reading all the comments in this thread, but I did not endorse NK, I tried to get UDL not to endorse NK, and when conferring with Mcmasterdonia we both agreed it was stupid to endorse NK and the NPA didn't endorse him either. Don't conflate me with Tim's and Sovreignry's idiotic decision, please.

Milograd can also kindly step down off his high horse. It's literally absurd for him to complain about biased journalism from anyone else; it's what he does.

[The Blaatschapen]

You are not a defender, you don't even know what a defender is. Much less preach to me about it.

The next question is who you will pretend to be when you create your new identity.

We can take it to the update if you think you are hot, Mr. Sudden Hostility For No Reason.

I wouldn't call Biyah's toilet boy an exemplar of Defenderism.

(emphasis mine)

Knock it off.

The Blaatschapen - Nationstates moderator