Europeian Broadcasting: Senate Interest Decline + Graphs!

[Small Huts]

^ See, this is a clearly-demarcated Unibot post.

I'm going to start calling it Uni-box Thinking, because he can't get outside of it.

[Anumia]

Oh, that's good. I'm stealing that.

[Unibot III]

Ah, the ol' independent "box" metaphor. The problem with the "box" metaphor is it conflates philosophy with a set of chains when ideology is rich and ampliative. A dreamscape of thought. You learn more as you explore beyond the boundaries of enlightenment.

"Independence" is the adoption of a set of core beliefs about what you should value that some will accept prima facie while assuming that anyone doing something else holds a cardboard cutout caricature of an intellect. If invaderism is conservatism or defenderism is marxism, independentism is like a cheap superficial neolibertarian tax-cuttin' ideology that praises itself as the only reasonable, "free" ideology, while constraining thinkers to just as many precepts (many of which are less considered or evaluated).

The only one who "pigeon hole's" beliefs in NS are so-called "independents", who conflate philosophies and see them as prisons, when it is they who are the most trapped by their initial starting premises.

[Solorni]

This would explain why defender ideology rarely works.

[Unibot III]

This would explain why defender ideology rarely works.

Your intervention here is as irrelevant as ever.

[Solorni]

This would explain why defender ideology rarely works.

Your intervention here is as irrelevant as ever.

Or is defender ideology like Marxism because they usually run poorer tin-pot dictatorships?

[Drop Your Pants]

Why do i feel this is all preperation for a big raid on Lazarus and The Rejected Realms?

[Solorni]

Why do i feel this is all preperation for a big raid on Lazarus and The Rejected Realms?

Aren't they both part of the FRA though?

[Whiskum]

Whiskum, I agree with that. But I don't really buy the distinction between raider motivations and imperialist motivations. I think you guys all see the game rather the same.

Far from imperialists and raiders seeing 'the game rather the same', imperialists and raiders do not even see the same game.

If you are citizen of the LKE, for example, then your main focus of your gameplay is the internal politics of the LKE - so standing for election or legislating.

Raiding is purely an add-on to that experience and it is pursued for political reasons as part of the region's foreign policy. Rather than viewing raiding as something fun or exciting, it is seen as as a necessary duty to secure military superiority and by extension the LKE's position in the world. The vast number of pilers that come out of the UIAF regions do not do it because they enjoy it, they do it because they want to further the interests of their region.

If you are a soldier in TBR, then your main focus is raiding. The reason you joined the region is to raid. You find the process of raiding enjoyable. The purpose of TBR as a region is to raid: of course as with any community it has social community, but it is a military organisation, not a political simulation.

One is playing the 'raider-defender' game as their prime focus. The other enters that foray as part of a wider picture.

Quite how you fail to see the vast differences in purpose, membership composition, organisational structure and the range of activities between imperialist and raider regions, and between imperialists and raiders as individuals, is beyond me. Nearly every feature, other than the fact they raid, is different.

You pursue the game with the hope of attaining more power and influence. Political aggrandizement. The failure in your philosophy is to see the object of your interest as "purely objective" when they are simply defined by your own materialism -- your own ideological background.

You are constrained even more than the defender.

The defender does not see a path towards idealism as a constraint of their gains, because they have no desire to make those gains. The defender is free and autonomous with different priorities. Whereas you are beholden to opportunities that present themselves to amass more and more...

It is true that most people in imperialist regions play the game to further themselves within their region and in turn to further their own region.

If we want to term that self-aggrandizement, then so be it. Self-improvement - or rather serving one's region - are equally or more apt descriptors.

That does not mean that imperialist regions are compelled to take any opportunity that comes in front of them - they can choose what they can do. Indeed, one of the reasons why invading is often more suitable for imperialists as a tool is because it allows them great scope to determine what they will do.

Of course imperialist regions operate in a realist perspective rather than one which accepts defender propaganda about what they can and cannot do.

Are imperialists free to defend whenever they judge it to be in their interests? Yes.

Are defenders free to raid whenever they judge it to be in their interests? No.

The idealistic defender mind-set which you have constructed is in practical terms far more a constraint than the realisation that this mind-set is rubbish.

Your kind words are only a product of your political relationship with them. If we were to follow your theory to its "ideal" - you would not be any more pleasant in regards to those who engage military gameplay for the intrinsic satisfaction anymore than those who engage in military gameplay to fit a normative ideal. The imperialist ought to condemn both as betraying their "interests" in favour of their whims or their principles, but the imperialist is not afraid to lie when it suits them.

On the contrary, I do not look down on raiders - I respect the fact that they gain enjoyment from raiding and I see nothing morally offensive about it.

Simply because people play the game for different reasons is not a reason for condescension. Different motivations should not mean disrespect.

Imperialists do not have to dislike raiders anymore than gamelayers as a whole should dislike roleplayers - different people have different interests.

It is defenders who see raiding as something morally offensive and therefore label all those who are involved in it: raiders and imperialists alike.

Defenders' tendency to interfere in imperialists's invasions, opposing their forces, naturally creates a tension that does not exist with raiders.

Every region focuses on its "interests", it's how those interests are defined that is telling. It's an "independent" discursive programme that rewrites the core of the region with a materialist nature.

I adopt a straightforward definition of a region's interests as something which is to the region's own advantage.

Naturally, that is a region's own advantage - not the advantage of the latest founderless region to have been invaded.

If you are arguing that the reason people defend is because it is in their region's interests to protect a region attacked by invaders, that is ridiculous.

There is no tangible connection between region's benefit and the interests of any random region, with which it has no relationship, which has been raided.

There is greater diversity between invaders and defenders than there is between independents. Independentism has more strictly defined itself as an "interest-based" pursuit which implies certain interests over other interests. Independentism does not reflect a region's diversity, it reflects a growing movement to spread an ideology for the sake of political control. Imperialism. The two are interconnected. Independentism at the interregional level is simply a political tool for Imperialism.

The differences between the motivations of defenders and invaders are many, the differences between "independents" are few and far between. Independents are contained towards a pre-package set of beliefs - a brochure which tells them what to think and what to do. The categories of "defender" and "invader" however are open to people of different motivations and incredibly inclusive.

Independence is based on recognising that military gameplay should not be seen through a raider-defender prism, but instead as just one of many arenas in which regional foreign policy objectives can be furthered, and one where both raiding and defending are legitimate tools available to regions to use.

That allows a region to fashion its military activity to whatever range of activities which best suits the style of region and its particular interests.

By contrast, a raider region raids while a defender region defends. Therefore, independence allows for a much freer range of military activity.

Independence mostly serves political regions which are focused not on engaging in military gameplay for fun but on that region's advantage. The military sphere is only a very small part of the range of activity in such regions and is usually subordinate to other pursuits as well as the region's policies.

It is true that if a region habitually and reactively defends as a form of military activity, then it is difficult for it to be independent, quite simply because its military activity ceases to be in accordance with what is simply in that region's advantage and more to do with any wider idealistic goals. However, that does not stop independent regions from carrying out defensive missions where to do so is to its advantage - for instance, where there is a connection with the region under attack. Whether or not an operation is a raid or defence is really irrelevant, what matters is whether that operation is to their advantage.

What you are really saying is that focusing on a region's interests is greedy and so regions should not be independent as a consequence of that.

You may deem this focus on a region's advantage to be materialistic, and believe all regions should deem other regions to have inherent rights. If a region believes in such ethical principles, then being an independent region is obviously unsuitable for them. Similarly, being an independent region is unsuitable for a region which is non-political and simply wants to engage in military gameplay for fun - then raiding or defending might be suitable.

For a political region which puts the promotion of its own advantage first, then clearly rejecting the labels 'raider' and 'defender' is the way to go.

[Small Huts]

Ah, the ol' independent "box" metaphor. The problem with the "box" metaphor is it conflates philosophy with a set of chains when ideology is rich and ampliative. A dreamscape of thought. You learn more as you explore beyond the boundaries of enlightenment.

"Independence" is the adoption of a set of core beliefs about what you should value that some will accept prima facie while assuming that anyone doing something else holds a cardboard cutout caricature of an intellect. If invaderism is conservatism or defenderism is marxism, independentism is like a cheap superficial neolibertarian tax-cuttin' ideology that praises itself as the only reasonable, "free" ideology, while constraining thinkers to just as many precepts (many of which are less considered or evaluated).

The only one who "pigeon hole's" beliefs in NS are so-called "independents", who conflate philosophies and see them as prisons, when it is they who are the most trapped by their initial starting premises.

You're a walking malapropism, bot.

"Independence is constraint"
"Ideology is freedom"

[Anumia]

10 Points to Small Huts.

[North East Somerset]

Why do i feel this is all preperation for a big raid on Lazarus and The Rejected Realms?

How do you know about Operation Sheep Shear?!

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Now I've decided to join Balder's community, let's see how that works out.

[Drop Your Pants]

Aren't they both part of the FRA though?

Also sister sinkers but i don't think that'll matter much

How do you know about Operation Sheep Shear?!

Do you want a naked sheep chasing you?

[Cormacville]

Maybe I'm missing something, but if this military is to be imperialist like the UIAF, and both Osiris and Balder have good relations with the current UIAF regions...why don't they just join the UIAF instead of creating a second military? I can't imagine the two forces being anything but cooperative with each other anyways.

Since this got buried in an argument that isn't about the actual topic and has gone on for three pages, I'll take a stab at this.

Osiris and Balder have much in common and an unwavering alliance dating back to July 2013. Even before that, despite a rocky relationship particularly under Earth's Delegacy, they were allies in the Pan-Sinker Security Pact (PSSP). These two regions are both Sinkers, with similar foreign affairs and military goals, and with concerns that are unique to game-created regions. UIAF member regions are all user-created regions with somewhat different foreign affairs and military goals, although there are likely to be times the two groups will have the same goals and will work together to pursue them.

Both Balder and Osiris are very close with the UIAF, the former having treaties with all three UIAF member regions and the latter having treaties with two and in the process of ratifying a treaty with The LKE. This close relationship is likely to continue, but the reason, as I understand it, for the creation of this joint military is for Balder and Osiris to pursue their common foreign affairs and military goals, which are unique to those regions. The foreign affairs and military goals of imperialist regions, while sometimes overlapping, are not always identical, and diversity while continuing to work together should be encouraged.

It's no different than Wintreath's and other regions' decision to sign a new multilateral treaty with other defender regions rather than simply joining the FRA.

[Ramaeus]

Ah, the ol' independent "box" metaphor. The problem with the "box" metaphor is it conflates philosophy with a set of chains when ideology is rich and ampliative. A dreamscape of thought. You learn more as you explore beyond the boundaries of enlightenment.

"Independence" is the adoption of a set of core beliefs about what you should value that some will accept prima facie while assuming that anyone doing something else holds a cardboard cutout caricature of an intellect. If invaderism is conservatism or defenderism is marxism, independentism is like a cheap superficial neolibertarian tax-cuttin' ideology that praises itself as the only reasonable, "free" ideology, while constraining thinkers to just as many precepts (many of which are less considered or evaluated).

The only one who "pigeon hole's" beliefs in NS are so-called "independents", who conflate philosophies and see them as prisons, when it is they who are the most trapped by their initial starting premises.

Uh huh... A flexible ideology is inherently inflexible? Right, that OBVIOUSLY makes perfect sense.

[Wintermoot]

Since this got buried in an argument that isn't about the actual topic and has gone on for three pages, I'll take a stab at this.

Osiris and Balder have much in common and an unwavering alliance dating back to July 2013. Even before that, despite a rocky relationship particularly under Earth's Delegacy, they were allies in the Pan-Sinker Security Pact (PSSP). These two regions are both Sinkers, with similar foreign affairs and military goals, and with concerns that are unique to game-created regions. UIAF member regions are all user-created regions with somewhat different foreign affairs and military goals, although there are likely to be times the two groups will have the same goals and will work together to pursue them.

Both Balder and Osiris are very close with the UIAF, the former having treaties with all three UIAF member regions and the latter having treaties with two and in the process of ratifying a treaty with The LKE. This close relationship is likely to continue, but the reason, as I understand it, for the creation of this joint military is for Balder and Osiris to pursue their common foreign affairs and military goals, which are unique to those regions. The foreign affairs and military goals of imperialist regions, while sometimes overlapping, are not always identical, and diversity while continuing to work together should be encouraged.

It's no different than Wintreath's and other regions' decision to sign a new multilateral treaty with other defender regions rather than simply joining the FRA.

I see...thanks for the reply.

[EBC (Ancient)]

Osiris and The Rejected Realms are currently undergoing elections for the delegacy. The cause for both elections has been the reigning delegate resigning. Frattastan, the delegate of The Rejected Realms was the second longest serving delegate in all of the Game Created Regions second only to Krulltopia.

Osiris

Following what many called an inactive term, Lord Ravenclaw resigned the delegacy just prior to when challenges for the delegacy would have been allowed. Lord Ravenclaw resigned upon finding out that there was a strong feeling of discontent with the activity of the government, as well he retired from NationStates.

The election has pitted Joshua Bluteisen against Severisen. Joshua, who was Lord Ravenclaws Vice Delegate has been in control of the delegacy and is seen as the political continuation of Lord Ravenclaw who has been backing him for the position. Meanwhile, Severisen also holds political sway as he is the current leader of the Osiris army and has presented himself as a fresh spark who can boost activity.

This election is very important for Osiris, in particular to demonstrate that the region can change leadership without the threats of coups or military action. Prior to the Osiris Fraternal Order there would often be such challenges to the system when people did not get their way. It is vital that everyone win or lose respect the results and the system. It will go a long way in helping prove that Osiris has changed permanently.

The current vote is at 7- 4 for Severisen in the regions legislature.

The Rejected Realms

In the Rejected Realms, Unibot has emerged as a surprise leader to become the next delegate of the The Rejected Realms. Despite his previous rocky history with the region, he has even gained the support of influential members of The Rejected Realms such as Sedge. Also running is the root admin Crazy Girl. The current speaker of the Assembly in The Rejected Realms; thechurchofsatan tried to run but members of the Rejected Realms who wanted to see him run forgot to second his nomination before the deadline.

The election has seen Crazy Girl running on a more feel good campaign while Unibot has been running on a campaign to increase activity and recruitment. As well, Unibot has stated his intentions to focus his Foreign Affairs efforts on Lazarus. Unibot is the more controversial choice, as he has been a polarizing figure in the feeders and sinkers.

Unibot being elected to the delegacy should provide more activity to The Rejected Realms which has been one of the more inactive Game Created Regions. As well, it could also shake up the current GCR political scene given that Unibot recently left The East Pacific amid multiple charges and has been banned from Balder. If Unibot is elected it should be interesting to see what would happen to the status quo.

Currently the vote is 8-5 in favour of Unibot.

[The Leningrad Union]

I voted for Crazy Girl, I would like to see her be the next delegate.

[Solorni]

I would also have voted for CG if I could. The world needs more female delegates again =(

[Zaolat]

More CG, less Unibot!

[Solorni]

I also just realized that there are no more female delegates now that Escade is no longer the delegate of TSP xP

[Ramaeus]

I wonder how quickly embassies will close once Uni becomes delegate.

[The Leningrad Union]

I wonder how quickly embassies will close once Uni becomes delegate.

The only thing faster than the speed of light.

[Mousebumples]

I also just realized that there are no more female delegates now that Escade is no longer the delegate of TSP xP

*waves*

I know you probably meant no more female GCR delegates, but specifying that would be nice to not make some of us feel overly minimized.