Raiding/Defending

[Jinckus]

Hello, fellow Gameplayers. For awhile, something has bothered me about the terms "raiders" and "defenders". It is that raiders and defenders consider themselves different than each other, yet they use the same mechanics to get their "mission" completed. Would it not be more appropriate then to rename "defenders" to "counter-raiders", as a 'defender' assumes that they are native to the location being invaded. In my tenure on Nationstates, I've noticed that the biggest difference between raiders and defenders is that one has a higher horse, and has the WA overtly on their side- in the form of Liberations, which are always used as a last line of "defense" against the raiders. But in reality, once a raider captures a region, do they not become defenders of the land that they have "fought" to capture? Would that not make them "defenders" against the "defenders" whom are attempting to raid back the region and restore it to the natives? Would it not make more sense to simply call "defenders" counter-raiders, and natives "defenders"- as most raiding regions make puppets to become natives of the target region before they pounce, accumlating massive amounts of regional influence in order to eject any member of the "defending" region, or the "counter-raiders"?

It seems to me that this is a topic that isn't questioned because it's "status quo", so I ask this of you folks, why do you call it the raiding/defending game when in reality it's just raiding and counter raiding? Is it because it's too much of a mouthful? Or is it because you want to feel different from each other? To me, raiding/defending is merely two sides of the same coin - and natives are caught right smack dab in the middle of it.

[RiderSyl]

It's simple.

1. 'Defending' may just be counter-raiding on a technical level, but the 'defenders' have people that are very good at spewing rhetoric to make it sound like 'defending' is the holiest activity since the Crusades, while raiding is the most wicked thing since the Black Plague.

2. Raiders will say that 'defenders' don't deserve to be called counter-raiders because that would imply they're somehow raiders. I agree with that notion. Let them keep their self-created label.

[Jinckus]

It's simple.

1. 'Defending' may just be counter-raiding on a technical level, but the 'defenders' have people that are very good at spewing rhetoric to make it sound like 'defending' is the holiest activity since the Crusades, while raiding is the most wicked thing since the Black Plague.

2. Raiders will say that 'defenders' don't deserve to be called counter-raiders because that would imply they're somehow raiders. I agree with that notion. Let them keep their self-created label.

So you're in favor of the status quo. Why though?

[NoblePhnx]

We call them defenders because they defend regions from invaders or attackers. If you are country A and Country B attacks you, then Country C rides to your aid then Country C is defending you against Country B.

Its just what you call it for example you can call them special forces or you can call them counter-terrorists. The difference to me is calling them special forces is broader and includes more than just going after terrorists.

[Indian Empire]

Hello, fellow Gameplayers. For awhile, something has bothered me about the terms "raiders" and "defenders". It is that raiders and defenders consider themselves different than each other, yet they use the same mechanics to get their "mission" completed. Would it not be more appropriate then to rename "defenders" to "counter-raiders", as a 'defender' assumes that they are native to the location being invaded. In my tenure on Nationstates, I've noticed that the biggest difference between raiders and defenders is that one has a higher horse, and has the WA overtly on their side- in the form of Liberations, which are always used as a last line of "defense" against the raiders. But in reality, once a raider captures a region, do they not become defenders of the land that they have "fought" to capture? Would that not make them "defenders" against the "defenders" whom are attempting to raid back the region and restore it to the natives? Would it not make more sense to simply call "defenders" counter-raiders, and natives "defenders"- as most raiding regions make puppets to become natives of the target region before they pounce, accumlating massive amounts of regional influence in order to eject any member of the "defending" region, or the "counter-raiders"?

It seems to me that this is a topic that isn't questioned because it's "status quo", so I ask this of you folks, why do you call it the raiding/defending game when in reality it's just raiding and counter raiding? Is it because it's too much of a mouthful? Or is it because you want to feel different from each other? To me, raiding/defending is merely two sides of the same coin - and natives are caught right smack dab in the middle of it.

If it has the word "Raider" in it, I dont want it, unless it is the Mongols.

[Jinckus]

We call them defenders because they defend regions from invaders or attackers. If you are country A and Country B attacks you, then Country C rides to your aid then Country C is defending you against Country B.

Its just what you call it for example you can call them special forces or you can call them counter-terrorists. The difference to me is calling them special forces is broader and includes more than just going after terrorists.

But Country B becomes the occupying force of Country A, "owning" it, thus becoming the defenders of Occupied Country A, whilst Country C has now become the "raiders" even if they are white-knighting Country A's "liberation" in the name of Country A's government.
----

If it has the word "Raider" in it, I dont want it, unless it is the Mongols.

And why is that?

[Solorni]

Imperialists would argue this for sure.

[Indian Empire]

We call them defenders because they defend regions from invaders or attackers. If you are country A and Country B attacks you, then Country C rides to your aid then Country C is defending you against Country B.

Its just what you call it for example you can call them special forces or you can call them counter-terrorists. The difference to me is calling them special forces is broader and includes more than just going after terrorists.

But Country B becomes the occupying force of Country A, "owning" it, thus becoming the defenders of Occupied Country A, whilst Country C has now become the "raiders" even if they are white-knighting Country A's "liberation" in the name of Country A's government.
----

If it has the word "Raider" in it, I dont want it, unless it is the Mongols.

And why is that?

Because I normally hate raiders unless you are the Mongols.

[Jinckus]

So it's just a "I hate anything calling itself a "raider" and not a reasonable argument?

[Nephmir]

So it's just a "I hate anything calling itself a "raider" and not a reasonable argument?

Welcome to the Gameplay forums!

[Eluvatar]

Where you argue that by occupying a region raiders become its owners, defenders could hardly disagree with you more.

[Indian Empire]

Where you argue that by occupying a region raiders become its owners, defenders could hardly disagree with you more.

Correct, I am a defender and I could agree less with Raiders... unless those raiders are the Mongol Empire.

[Valrifell]

So it's just a "I hate anything calling itself a "raider" and not a reasonable argument?

That is the basic premise of Defenderism, yes.

[Eluvatar]

So it's just a "I hate anything calling itself a "raider" and not a reasonable argument?

That is the basic premise of Defenderism, yes.

I would not advise trusting a raider's definition of defenderdom

[Lord Nuke Is So Kewl]

Where you argue that by occupying a region raiders become its owners, defenders could hardly disagree with you more.

We took it by force, therefore it is rightfully ours. If the natives wanted it, they'd overthrow us.

[NoblePhnx]

We call them defenders because they defend regions from invaders or attackers. If you are country A and Country B attacks you, then Country C rides to your aid then Country C is defending you against Country B.

Its just what you call it for example you can call them special forces or you can call them counter-terrorists. The difference to me is calling them special forces is broader and includes more than just going after terrorists.

But Country B becomes the occupying force of Country A, "owning" it, thus becoming the defenders of Occupied Country A, whilst Country C has now become the "raiders" even if they are white-knighting Country A's "liberation" in the name of Country A's government.
----

1.Not quite when Country B becomes the occupying force the traditional defenders to not see it as the raiders "owning" it perhaps even raiders won't truly see themselves as owning it and having truly been victorious until the lockdown/refound process is completed because until then the result is still in question.

2. So Country C have become equivalent to raiders because they have to enter the Territory of country A themselves to try and oust the invaders of country B especially when they do not intend to establish their own rule? I don't think so this is the basic principle of warfare you HAVE to enter to liberate.

[Eluvatar]

Where you argue that by occupying a region raiders become its owners, defenders could hardly disagree with you more.

We took it by force, therefore it is rightfully ours. If the natives wanted it, they'd overthrow us.

The doctrine that might makes right tends not to be very popular. I certainly do not agree with it.

[Lord Nuke Is So Kewl]

We took it by force, therefore it is rightfully ours. If the natives wanted it, they'd overthrow us.

The doctrine that might makes right tends not to be very popular. I certainly do not agree with it.

i'm hardly concerned with what the rest of NS thinks.

[RiderSyl]

I would not advise trusting a raider's definition of defenderdom

The raider definition of defenderdom is the most true because raiders have the most experience and familiarity with defenders, without being part of the defender culture of rhetoric, self-importance, and holier-than-thou attitude. Really, the definition of defenderdom that should never be trusted is that of defenders themselves.

[Jinckus]

So it's just a "I hate anything calling itself a "raider" and not a reasonable argument?

Welcome to the Gameplay forums!

I do not believe you are familiar with me, I've actually been to the Gameplay forum on a few occasions, but until recently, I've stopped even logging into NS. I'm merely just trying to stir up the beehive and see what folks say about the the r/d, and how open they are to a third option in self-labeling of themselves.

[Kazmr]

I would not advise trusting a raider's definition of defenderdom

The raider definition of defenderdom is the most true because raiders have the most experience and familiarity with defenders, without being part of the defender culture of rhetoric, self-importance, and holier-than-thou attitude. Really, the definition of defenderdom that should never be trusted is that of defenders themselves.

Than the same should go for the defender definition of raiders

I happen to believe that you guys are all Reptilians, here trying to gain control of Nationstates. I'm a defender, so I have experience and familiarity with you guys without being a part of raider culture of self-aggrandizing report posts, native taunting, and devil may care attitude. Really, the definition of raiderdom that should never be trusted is that of raiders themselves, so I say again, you all must be Reptilians :3

[Jinckus]

Than the same should go for the defender definition of raiders

I happen to believe that you guys are all Reptilians, here trying to gain control of Nationstates. I'm a defender, so I have experience and familiarity with you guys without being a part of raider culture of self-aggrandizing report posts, native taunting, and devil may care attitude. Really, the definition of raiderdom that should never be trusted is that of raiders themselves, so I say again, you all must be Reptilians :3

As the former grand chancellor of Illuminati, I can say with utmost confidence that we were the only Reptilians pretending to be humans.

[RiderSyl]

Than the same should go for the defender definition of raiders

Actually, nobody should ever trust the defender definition of anything.
Being a dedicated defender means you eventually become detached from reality. It's science.

I'm a defender, so I have experience and familiarity with you guys without being a part of raider culture of self-aggrandizing report posts, native taunting, and devil may care attitude. Really, the definition of raiderdom that should never be trusted is that of raiders themselves, so I say again, you all must be Reptilians :3

Congratulations on not being able to form an original thought, and copying my comment instead.
And also proving that defenders' definitions of themselves and raiders are not based in reality.

[Kazmr]

Excellent observation, here is your cookie kid.

[Sichuan Pepper]

Defenders is the correct terminology. Nations mount a defence of a region during an attack or invasion. Calling a kettle a pot really does not change the situation.

There has been a great deal of work on behalf of raiders / invaders to remove the demonization of attacking regions and holding / destroying them. Invade / destroy / raid is what they do. There is little point in masking that with any other name for it.