Raiding/Defending

[Cora II]

Raiding = The Art of Electing Delegates and keeping them in Power for Fun of creating the pieces of Art
Defending = The Practice for trying make The Artists living more harder, usually not for Fun
Defenderism = Hypocritical Moral philosophical assumption that making The Artists Living harder would bring you sooner to the mythical "Home"
Best defense available = Keeping Founder Alive in a region and Delegate Access Barred (Widely recommended by Raiders, not by Defenders)
Native = Whomever cannot or are not willing understand the practical application of "Best Defense available", usually because living in deep faith to The Cult of "Home"

[RiderSyl]

Excellent observation, here is your cookie kid.

If you hand out a cookie every time someone... oh f**k it.

[Jinckus]

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.

Except I'm not I'm referring more to "Defenders" than anything. It's almost as if you missed the entire portion of calling "defenders" "counter-raiders".

[RiderSyl]

Except I'm not I'm referring more to "Defenders" than anything. It's almost as if you missed the entire portion of calling "defenders" "counter-raiders".

Apparently you're a raider puppet, 'removing the demonization of raiding' and 'masking it with another name'.

Now see where I'm coming from with my earlier definition of 'defenderism'?

If they even get the slightest notion you're against them, even if you're a completely neutral party, then you get "calling a kettle a pot" and get lumped in as part of some made-up GREAT RAIDER CONSPIRACY.

Raiders may be the evil ones, but when the "good guys" act like this, for example... why would you ever wanna be a good guy?

[Indian Empire]

Except I'm not I'm referring more to "Defenders" than anything. It's almost as if you missed the entire portion of calling "defenders" "counter-raiders".

Apparently you're a raider puppet, 'removing the demonization of raiding' and 'masking it with another name'.

Now see where I'm coming from with my earlier definition of 'defenderism'?

If they even get the slightest notion you're against them, even if you're a completely neutral party, then you get "calling a kettle a pot" and get lumped in as part of some made-up GREAT RAIDER CONSPIRACY.

Raiders may be the evil ones, but when the "good guys" act like this, for example... why would you ever wanna be a good guy?

Maybe he is Wreck it Ralph

[Quilavaland]

Invaders invade regions and defenders defend the original inhabitants, simple as that. I guess defenders could be liberators if there really must be a name change, but counter-raiders implies that raiders are more important and defenders are just a spinoff or counter-movement. It's also too long and complicated a name for such a basic concept. So yeah raiders and defenders or raiders and liberators, but not counter-raiders or counter-defenders because, pun intended, that's just counter-intuitive.

[Jinckus]

Invaders invade regions and defenders defend the original inhabitants, simple as that. I guess defenders could be liberators if there really must be a name change, but counter-raiders implies that raiders are more important and defenders are just a spinoff or counter-movement. It's also too long and complicated a name for such a basic concept. So yeah raiders and defenders or raiders and liberators, but not counter-raiders or counter-defenders because, pun intended, that's just counter-intuitive.

You bring up a good point. Liberator is not a term I had considered using, as I was focused on the fact that they are the same side of the coin. Anyways, if my memory is correct, 'defenderism' is literally a spin-off and counter movement of raiding. Originally when the game was founded, before there was regional influence, a region decided to exploit the WA delegate function (it was called the UN back then I think), and thus started the raider v. defender movement. My memory might be faulty on that, but the point stands that this game was originally all going to be about politics and that raiding and defending sort of cropped up as an unintended by-product of the system.

Apparently you're a raider puppet, 'removing the demonization of raiding' and 'masking it with another name'.

Now see where I'm coming from with my earlier definition of 'defenderism'?

If they even get the slightest notion you're against them, even if you're a completely neutral party, then you get "calling a kettle a pot" and get lumped in as part of some made-up GREAT RAIDER CONSPIRACY.

Raiders may be the evil ones, but when the "good guys" act like this, for example... why would you ever wanna be a good guy?

Maybe he is Wreck it Ralph

I'm going to wreck it!

[Indian Empire]

Invaders invade regions and defenders defend the original inhabitants, simple as that. I guess defenders could be liberators if there really must be a name change, but counter-raiders implies that raiders are more important and defenders are just a spinoff or counter-movement. It's also too long and complicated a name for such a basic concept. So yeah raiders and defenders or raiders and liberators, but not counter-raiders or counter-defenders because, pun intended, that's just counter-intuitive.

You bring up a good point. Liberator is not a term I had considered using, as I was focused on the fact that they are the same side of the coin. Anyways, if my memory is correct, 'defenderism' is literally a spin-off and counter movement of raiding. Originally when the game was founded, before there was regional influence, a region decided to exploit the WA delegate function (it was called the UN back then I think), and thus started the raider v. defender movement. My memory might be faulty on that, but the point stands that this game was originally all going to be about politics and that raiding and defending sort of cropped up as an unintended by-product of the system.

Maybe he is Wreck it Ralph

I'm going to wreck it!

I can fix it!

[Lord Nuke Is So Kewl]

You bring up a good point. Liberator is not a term I had considered using, as I was focused on the fact that they are the same side of the coin. Anyways, if my memory is correct, 'defenderism' is literally a spin-off and counter movement of raiding. Originally when the game was founded, before there was regional influence, a region decided to exploit the WA delegate function (it was called the UN back then I think), and thus started the raider v. defender movement. My memory might be faulty on that, but the point stands that this game was originally all going to be about politics and that raiding and defending sort of cropped up as an unintended by-product of the system.



I'm going to wreck it!

I can fix it!

Are you Bob the Builder?

[Sichuan Pepper]

*shrug*
I am not invested in this but if you want to understand the terms used or change them you need to understand the motivations behind them.
Invaders attack regions.
Defenders defend regions.
It is not Invaders V Defenders and you need to understand who is being attacked to start with. Therefore changing the term Defenders to counter-raiders implies we are there to attack the invaders. That is not the case.
The same goes for when invaders are occupying a region. They are not defending themselves when Defenders try to liberate as once again.....Defenders are not attacking them....they are attempting to defend the region / natives.

Changing the term used implies a different motivation. That motivation could be different depending on the groups involved at the time.

[Indian Empire]

I can fix it!

Are you Bob the Builder?

No, i'm the Mongols whom would have grown much larger had it not been for several deaths.

[Lord Nuke Is So Kewl]

Are you Bob the Builder?

No, i'm the Mongols whom would have grown much larger had it not been for several deaths.

So you're Ghengis the Builder? Bobs Mongolian brother?

[Indian Empire]

No, i'm the Mongols whom would have grown much larger had it not been for several deaths.

So you're Ghengis the Builder? Bobs Mongolian brother?

Im the Mongols...

[Jinckus]

*shrug*
I am not invested in this but if you want to understand the terms used or change them you need to understand the motivations behind them.
Invaders attack regions.
Defenders defend regions.
It is not Invaders V Defenders and you need to understand who is being attacked to start with. Therefore changing the term Defenders to counter-raiders implies we are there to attack the invaders. That is not the case.
The same goes for when invaders are occupying a region. They are not defending themselves when Defenders try to liberate as once again.....Defenders are not attacking them....they are attempting to defend the region / natives.

Changing the term used implies a different motivation. That motivation could be different depending on the groups involved at the time.

But are you not invading the region in response to the invaders in the first place, making you counter-raiders?

What /really/ separates a defender from a raider, except semantics?

[Cora II]

Could we simply end this thread. It doesn't change anything how people are called, even less how they do.

Eternal war between Yojos and Malas will continue anyway, totally regardless are Yojos called Muffs and Malas called Grulfs, or not.

[NoblePhnx]

What /really/ separates a defender from a raider, except semantics?

The fact that you are so dedicated to making that so.

Eternal war between Yojos and Malas will continue anyway, totally regardless are Yojos called Muffs and Malas called Grulfs, or not.

such. a. good. answer.

[Aurum Rider]

Pure Raiders = People who make the first move invading regions for fun.
Imperialists = People who make the first move invading regions for political reasons.
Moderate Raiders = People who make the first move because they are terrible traitors who are defenders in disguise

Pure Defenders = People who react to the first move to defend regions for fun.
Every other Defender = People who react to the first move to defend regions for who cares why.

/thread

[Orange Wolf]

You fail to note that the pure defenders' fun is griefing against the fun of raiders. They try to ruin people's experience of gameplay

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

"Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches-
Had bellies with stars.
The Plain-Belly Sneetches-Had none upon thars.

Those stars weren’t so big. They were really so small.
You might think such a thing wouldn’t matter at all...."

[Sichuan Pepper]

I wish I could like that post ^ Made me laugh.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Yay! I made someone smile

[New Lucitania]

how can i get a big military fast

[Sichuan Pepper]

erm.......put wheels on em?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

erm.......put wheels on em?

Or rockets

In seriousness, are you referring to travel speed? Having a big one immediately? Are we talking R/D military, or Issues kinda military? Why add it into this thread?

[The Stalker]

Personally I never liked the raider vs defender dynamic.

I more see it more as raiders vs natives. And defenders being a kind separate mix of the two. Raiders are always fighting natives, and only occasionally defenders as well.

Many defenders were once / are natives of regions that were attacked or destroyed by raiders. Taking up the defenderism cause to help other natives aboard through "counter-raiding", as militant native group.

This track leads to an overlap between these natives shifting between serving as defenders and as delegates in their native community. Both function to serve the native needs, whether at home or aboard. You see many former defenders becoming delegates and attacked natives becoming defenders.

This is also why there are so many more raiders than defenders, because the opposite of raiders isn't defenders, it's the natives.

Using this raider vs native dynamic is it clear to see why the WA is clearly so pro-Native, and anti-raider in terms of liberation. If the WA was pro-defender, you'd see more people commended for defending, which is hardly the case, while raiders get condemned for raiding far more often.