The Miniluv Messenger: TEP Liberated!

[Belschaft]

Glen, Rach; you're both looking at this only from your own perspective. Glen and others like him were trying to promote defender orientation in the GCR's as part of an effort to combat independent and imperialist influence there. At the same time Rach and others like her were trying to promote independent and imperialist influence in the GCR's to combat defender influence. You can't have a war, cold or hot, without having two opposing sides, and neither of you are being objective in this; you're claiming that the only side seeking influence was the other whilst ignoring the reality that you were guilty of the same actions.

The reality is that several things led to the de-facto end of the GCR cold war (a phrase I coined); the collapse of the NPO's standing and of their regime in Lazarus was one of them; another was the collapse of the UIAF and decreased strength of the Imperialist regions; the reduction in the strength and relevance of both the FRA and the UDL. As the UIAF was the main source of perceived imperialist influence, and FRUDL the main source of perceived defender influence their weakened state led to reduced tensions. NPO was more of a parasite in the conflict than anything, exploiting it to further their own goals.

I enjoy being vindicated in that my initial thesis on the GCR cold war proved to be largely correct, and that I was entirely correct in regards to Unibot and Glen's actions in TSP by Glen's own admission.

[Consular]

Who are the imperialists, again?

Obviously the super evil UIAF, who only ever defended GCRs and their right to sovereignty and independence. So sinister.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think it's interesting that you're openly acknowledging that you and Unibot were driving TSP's foreign affairs to meet defender goals. I really don't have much to say other than that, because that pretty much says it all. Who are the imperialists, again?

I don't think it was all that secret. People were claiming we were trying to turn TSP defender completely, which was false. But anti-imperialism was obviously a hallmark of my agenda. The thing is, you guys kept saying that we orchestrated the dissolution of the TSP-TNI alliance and egged on the Euro crisis. But in reality, I was happily surprised about TNI, and didn't think in my wildest dreams I could sever the alliance directly in the Assembly. I was resigned to simply relegating the alliance to Balder status-- technically allied, but no real relationship. Euro was also something that came as a surprise to me.

The two things I actually did to further an anti-imperialist (and by extension, defender) agenda was to ally with Lazarus and TTR. There was also an attempt by Belschaft to codify Independence into our constitution, and blocking that was a pretty big success. But the majority of things people said we orchestrated, we actually didn't. They were accidents at best.

You can call me imperialistic of you wish. I've been a citizen of TSP since 2013, and I've never held citizenship in more than one region at a time. I was elected to lead TSP's foreign affairs, was an unabashed defender and vocal anti-imperialist, and my foreign policy reflected my well-known views. I didn't act on behalf of any other region or group. I simply changed how TSP acted in interregional affairs in a way you and others didn't like.

@Bel: I think I've been pretty up front about the agenda I pursued, in this thread. I haven't said the defender/anti-imperialist bloc wasn't trying to further an agenda. I just think Rach is propagandizing, whereas I'm telling the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onderkelkia]

the downfall of Onder was a big reason why I stopped trying to hold onto TSP's foreign affairs.

I am astonished that you were so concerned about my positions as Commander of TNI Armed Forces and Executive Head of TNI Intelligence that you tried to hold "onto TSP's foreign affairs" until I resigned from these offices. In all frankness, TSP did not remotely feature in my diplomatic thinking at this stage.

After we cut the alliance, my firmly-held view was that TNI should have as little contact - positive or negative - as possible with TSP. Of course, that was only one perspective within TNI's foreign policy community, which was relatively collegiate, but in no sense did I encourage anything aimed at TSP.

Every major fight by anti-imperialists was waged in middle regions that we believed were going to fall to the imperialist camp completely: Lazarus before the PRL, TSP-TNI, TSP-Euro...

There was never the slightest possibility of Lazarus turning imperialist before the PRL.

Griffin and the others ejected never favoured anything but neutrality for Lazarus in foreign affairs. That is the firm stance that Griffin pursued for Lazarus in both her terms as delegate, despite being monarch of TNI at the time. The protests from "imperialists" in Lazarus were over proposals to alter the constitution to drastically extend the delegate's powers. It was the PRL who radically changed Lazarus, by turning it into a defender dictatorship.

Neither was there the slightest agenda from TNI, as you have suggested, to push TSP's stance into the so-called "imperialist camp".

Indeed, we actively avoided getting involved in TSP's internal debates. TSP made its decisions - including to ally with TRR - on its principles. TNI policy-makers at the time made our decisions on the basis of TNI's principles. If they became incompatible, then that was that. Our stance was no secret.

By 2014, our approach to TSP was largely reactive, sometimes about provocations which you have confessed here were intended to inflame the situation.

The thing is, you guys kept saying that we orchestrated the dissolution of the TSP-TNI alliance and egged on the Euro crisis. But in reality, I was happily surprised about TNI, and didn't think in my wildest dreams I could sever the alliance directly in the Assembly. I was resigned to simply relegating the alliance to Balder status-- technically allied, but no real relationship.

TNI was always clear in our public output that we had no time for paper alliances. An alliance with TNI was always a genuine relationship.

Our position on alliances with FRA regions was also clear. So clear that members of TSP's assembly raised it even as you assured them all was fine.

You perhaps erred in thinking we valued paper ties above our long-held stance.

In light of TSP's choosing your admitted anti-imperialist agenda over friendship with us, TNI would have accrued no benefit to legitimising the charade.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Onder, your downfall was an indicator that imperialism was no longer a threat that necessitated (in my selfish opinion) my protection. You were my main rhetorical foe, and really the spokesperson of imperialism. Once other imperialists started calling you out, and then the UIAF finally dissolved, it was pretty clear that imperialist spread had been stopped.

You in particular weren't much of a practical threat once the TSP-TNI alliance was dissolved, because we had no other dealings with you. It was more the symbolism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onderkelkia]

I note that you make no attempt to defend the absurd claims that Lazarus or TSP were ever "going to fall to the imperialist camp completely".

Likewise, you offer no acknowledgement of the position which TNI took in 2014 regarding the meaninglessness of paper ties.

Onder, your downfall was an indicator that imperialism was no longer a threat that necessitated (in my selfish opinion) my protection. You were my main rhetorical foe, and really the spokesperson of imperialism. Once other imperialists started calling you out, and then the UIAF finally dissolved, it was pretty clear that imperialist spread had been stopped.

You in particular weren't much of a practical threat once the TSP-TNI alliance was dissolved, because we had no other dealings with you. It was more the symbolism.

In other words, your position stated in this thread is that you persisted in "trying to hold onto TSP's foreign affairs" - the external agenda of an entire GCR - until the "downfall" of a so-called "rhetorical foe" who posed no threat to TSP because TNI and the LKE had both chosen to have nothing to do with TSP.

You're quite right to call that course of action "selfish".

The "imperialist spread" - if you wish to call it that - had nothing to do with either "symbolism" around me or TNI's domestic disputes. You have (as on previous occasions) vastly over-estimated the significance of the fact that I often corrected inaccuracies in this forum related to UIAF/TNI/LKE.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You know the saying a canary in a coal mine? That's what you were for 2015. Don't make too much of it.

As for Lazarus and TSP... TNI was specifically targeted in the Lazarus purge, so I think that speaks for itself. In TSP, the goal was to get rid of the Independent vise grip, because Independence was viewed as simply imperialism-lite. Specifically, our foreign affairs were dominated by hand-wringing over what TNI would think, which is largely why I believed TNI wielded far too much influence in TSP.

I think you've misunderstood what the defender/anti-imperialist bloc was worried about. I certainly didn't think TSP would ever become imperialist itself. Our goal was to make sure imperialists didn't have *any* influence at all, not to simply oppose GCRs officially declaring themselves imperialist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onderkelkia]

I think you've misunderstood what the defender/anti-imperialist bloc was worried about. I certainly didn't think TSP would ever become imperialist itself. Our goal was to make sure imperialists didn't have *any* influence at all, not to simply oppose GCRs officially declaring themselves imperialist.

On the contrary, I can read what you said perfectly:

Every major fight by anti-imperialists was waged in middle regions that we believed were going to fall to the imperialist camp completely: Lazarus before the PRL, TSP-TNI, TSP-Euro... Of course, that makes it sound far more organized than it actually was.

You referred to "TNI-TSP" as an example of "anti-imperialists" fearing that TSP was "going to fall to the imperialist camp completely".

You now say that your objective was merely ensuring that "imperialists didn't have *any* influence at all". How does that square with your justification, for orchestrating TSP foreign policy as an anti-imperialist crusade, being the fear that TSP would actually "fall to the imperialist camp completely"?

On the one hand, you say you feared TSP would "completely" enter the "imperialist camp"; on the other, you indicate that that you never believed that TSP would become an imperialist region and that your defender takeover of TSP foreign policy was to eliminate the last shreds of imperialist influence.

This reasoning is utterly contradictory. All this speaks far more to your mind-set than it does to anything that TNI or the UIAF actually did.

You know the saying a canary in a coal mine? That's what you were for 2015.

If you are saying that the end of the UIAF was a "canary in a coal mine" indicating that 2015 would (compared to 2013 or 2014) represent a setback for the imperialist sphere, you are wrong. The collapse of the UIAF was the single catastrophic event for the imperialist sphere; not a warning sign.

Don't make too much of it.

Certainly not; in fact, the only person here making claims that my role had any bearing insofar as this issue is concerned is you.

You previously stated that "the downfall of Onder was a big reason why I stopped trying to hold onto TSP's foreign affairs." Considering that by that point I had no relevance to TSP foreign affairs as TNI and the LKE has both publicly chosen to have nothing to do with TSP, it is quite hard to see why you would base your decisions about your future in TSP on me and then talk about that fact here so many months later. This behaviour strikes me as rather odd.

As for Lazarus and TSP... TNI was specifically targeted in the Lazarus purge, so I think that speaks for itself.

Griffin and NES were targeted because they were an obstacle to Feux and Harmoneia's plan to turn Lazarus into a defender dictatorship.

Just look at what Funkadelia has to say on the matter here (in the third paragraph).

Above you listed "Lazarus before the PRL" as an example of defenders subverting a region because they feared it was "going to fall to the imperialist camp completely". However, there was never the slightest risk of Lazarus falling into "the imperialist camp" and no one supported the coup for that reason. Griffin and NES never advocated an imperialist foreign policy for Lazarus, and Griffin strongly supported neutrality during both her terms as delegate. On the other hand, they were opposed to the defender-backed power grab coordinated by Feux and Griffin oposed their constitutional amendments.

Defenders acted in Lazarus not because TNI was about take over the region, but because they themselves wanted to do so.

[Consular]

Mhmm. I wonder what regions like The North Pacific and The West Pacific, notably unimperialistic regions, might have to say about their being "imperialism-lite" merely because they use the independent tag.

To defend Onderkelkia for a moment (shocking I know), the reason you (rather ludicrously) perceive him as the spokesperson for imperialism is quite simply due to the rest of Imperial Command not caring enough about you and your opinions to bother responding to them. Onder however takes the path that leaving such nonsense unchallenged would be a worse thing than wasting our time and debating it. Different approaches, neither completely right I suspect. We always valued his willingness to engage with people we usually couldn't be bothered with. How exactly you've extrapolated his greater presence in debates to him being the primary indicator of the 'threat' of imperialism is a tad beyond me, and seems to just indicate a personal obsession on your part really. If your only concern was the "symbolic" threat of imperialism, then that makes sense I suppose, though it also renders your entire ideology somewhat hollow. If you were ever concerned with the practical 'threat' (not that there ever really was one beyond your own imagination), your tunnel vision on Onder did you a disservice.

What exactly your anti-imperialist ideology is founded on is a bit illusive to me as well. I can't think of a single time TNI or the UIAF ever did anything at all which had negative effects for TSP, not did they ever attempt to influence or undermine TSP in any way whatsoever. I seem to remember UIAF soldiers spending many an update trying to save the region. Who were they saving it from? Excellent question. Why, Milograd, of course. The same individual who founded the PRL, whose purges you always seem to defend (or at the least, you deny they were unjust), and whose regime you desperately sought to align with in some perverse 'anti-imperialist' bloc.

I think the true cause of the 'cold war', if that's how we've decided to refer to the politics of the last few years, was the NPO. They created, rather deliberately, a conflict with the UIAF, allied themselves with defenders in a unholy little relationship which made no sense and was thoroughly ironic, and then just stirred up anti-imperialistic sentiment. Politicians like yourself ate that juicy stuff up of course, and were easily convinced it was somewhat your idea in the first place and that, as Bel puts it, the NPO were irrelevant to the conflict. This anti-imperialist facade was the perfect context that allowed the NPO to perform their coup of Lazarus, removing the neutral elements which they cleverly managed to label imperialists, and setting up an authoritarian regime. Throw defenders a bone in the policies of the LLA and its a cake. Easy. Who were the real imperialists here? The authoritarian regime which couped and enslaved another GCR, or the joint military force which had only ever fought to defend GCRs? Which were you more worried about, those who labelled themselves as imperialists, or those who actually enacted the things that made people nervous about imperialism? Crazy, really.

But yes. You're the hero of this story, GR, valiantly serving as the only person ever who can save TSP from the rampant influence of its friends. I can't even imagine the mental alacrity it takes to convince yourself you're so very important. Friends being TNI, a region which had only ever done right by TSP and behaved with the utmost professionalism, yet was treated with suspicion then disdain in return, by TSP's thoroughly inconsistent and unprofessional government. Just the way you've phrased yourself in these posts today makes it pretty clear you wanted to hold a grip on TSP's foreign affairs, not for TSP's own good, but to advance your own personal agenda, which you were absolutely convinced was obviously the best thing for everyone. Because everyone else was blind to the threat of imperialism, right?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

I'd like to again thank We Are Not the NSA, Reddogkeno101, McMannia, Gerzam, Revall, Raxion, In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam, Klaus Devestatorie, Aurum Rider, Knot , Nordic Arbor, and Victor Savage for their roles in assisting Harenhime in earning a mention in the #1 event. My name comes up a lot, since I ended up delegate, but it wouldn't have been possible without the contributions of every person in that chat. Some of them put in more time and effort then I did, certainly, in their roles as ministers, in organizing the fixingof the constitution and other elections, and so much more. Hell, I didn't even start the chat - Though I added many, I was brought into it as the fourth-ish person IIRC.

Please accept this official set of medals (Ribbons are soooooo last year) to be worn on the left breast, as a token of my gratitude.

---

Srsly tho kewl namedrop bro

[Klaus Devestatorie]

I'd like to again thank We Are Not the NSA, Reddogkeno101, McMannia, Gerzam, Revall, Raxion, In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam, Klaus Devestatorie, Aurum Rider, Knot , Nordic Arbor, and Victor Savage for their roles in assisting Harenhime in earning a mention in the #1 event. My name comes up a lot, since I ended up delegate, but it wouldn't have been possible without the contributions of every person in that chat. Some of them put in more time and effort then I did, certainly, in their roles as ministers, in organizing the fixingof the constitution and other elections, and so much more. Hell, I didn't even start the chat - Though I added many, I was brought into it as the fourth-ish person IIRC.

Please accept this official set of medals (Ribbons are soooooo last year) to be worn on the left breast, as a token of my gratitude.

(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)
(Image)

---

Srsly tho kewl namedrop bro

The person who commenced the operation was me. I like to think I was sort of in charge of the operation for the first half or so, but I had different goals (general lulz, not an outright coup). By the end I wasn't doing anything more than giving advice. Still interesting to watch what the rest of you are doing with the learning experience

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

The person who commenced the operation was me. I like to think I was sort of in charge of the operation for the first half or so, but I had different goals (general lulz, not an outright coup). By the end I wasn't doing anything more than giving advice. Still interesting to watch what the rest of you are doing with the learning experience

Wasn't sure if you wanted to be named dropped for that specifically, so I refrained, but yes You got the ball rolling, I only really took the reins after I ended up delegate.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Eh, Onder, "the imperialist camp" isn't limited to those who identify explicitly as imperialists.

And of course imperialists and their allies were obstacles in turning Lazarus defender. That's not really inconsistent with what I've been saying. Defenders can both oppose imperialist influence and support making a region defender. That's why I've been calling it the defender/anti-imperialist bloc, to show that not everybody in it had an agenda of advocating defender conversion.

@Consular: I'm not the only one who saw Onder as the chief spokesperson. Turns out that when only one person is on the forums offering vocal defenses of imperialism, that person becomes a spokesperson. I also seem to remember Onder specifically being a reason cited for why the UIAF fell apart.

As for the thrust of my "ideology," it's pretty simple. I don't like imperialism. I'm a defender. I wanted more treaties with defender-leaning regions, and others in TSP fretted over how TNI would respond. I saw that as proof that imperialism held too much influence over TSP, and proceeded to challenge its supremacy over the direction of our foreign affairs.

I think most anti-imperialists don't like imperialism because they're either defenders or defender sympathizers, and see imperialism as simply a more developed and political form of raiding. But I do know that some officials in TSP went sour on imperialists because of how Onder and others treated them.

Your attempt to vilify me doesn't really bother me. I'm used to it by now. Yes, I believe supporting defense or raiding and its flavors is better for TSP, and I pursued an agenda along those lines. Shocking that a well-known defender sympathizer would do such things! But this is no different than my predecessors preferring raiders and imperialists over the UDL, FRA, etc. Only difference is that their accomplishments aren't considered selfish and political.

In this game, if you support alliances with raiders and imperialists, that's totally legitimate. You're only acting in the objective interests of your region. But if you support alliances with defenders instead, you're being unprofessional, disgustingly political, and over all selfish.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zaolat]

Eh, Onder, "the imperialist camp" isn't limited to those who identify explicitly as imperialists.

And of course imperialists and their allies were obstacles in turning Lazarus defender. That's not really inconsistent with what I've been saying. Defenders can both oppose imperialist influence and support making a region defender. That's why I've been calling it the defender/anti-imperialist bloc, to show that not everybody in it had an agenda of advocating defender conversion.

@Consular: I'm not the only one who saw Onder as the chief spokesperson. Turns out that when only one person is on the forums offering vocal defenses of imperialism, that person becomes a spokesperson. I also seem to remember Onder specifically being a reason cited for why the UIAF fell apart.

As for the thrust of my "ideology," it's pretty simple. I don't like imperialism. I'm a defender. I wanted more treaties with defender-leaning regions, and others in TSP fretted over how TNI would respond. I saw that as proof that imperialism held too much influence over TSP, and proceeded to challenge its supremacy over the direction of our foreign affairs.

I think most anti-imperialists don't like imperialism because they're either defenders or defender sympathizers, and see imperialism as simply a more developed and political form of raiding. But I do know that some officials in TSP went sour on imperialists because of how Onder and others treated them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right but if you were Glen-Raids and an Imperialist in this scenario. TSP is Defender or more leaning at that time you would come to the same exact conclusion but on the opposite side of the coin.

In the end, it's just as "bad" what you have some as you view Imperialism has done.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yeah, Zaolat, I'm not arguing against that fact. I don't believe there's an objective "best interests" for GCRs to follow in their foreign affairs. But those who vilify me don't accept and acknowledge that they've been just as political in their dealings.

This is a game of politics. We all have preferences. If GCR politicians didn't pursue political agendas, this game would be very static and boring.

In TSP, I ran as somebody who supported defenders, and I ran on the treaties with Lazarus and TRR. Everybody knew that I was anti-imperialist. The agenda I pursued followed my preferences, and I worked to convince people I was doing the right thing (and kept getting reelected, btw), which is how democracy and elections work. There's nothing wrong with that.

The main difference between what I did and what I believe I was fighting against, is that I held no political influence over any other region. Everything I did was for and about TSP. Whereas, in my view, imperialists thrive on spreading out and gaining influential footholds in other regions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onderkelkia]

Eh, Onder, "the imperialist camp" isn't limited to those who identify explicitly as imperialists.

In other words, when you confidently cited "TNI-TSP" as an example where defenders felt forced to seize control of TSP foreign policy in order to prevent TSP falling "completely" into "the imperialist camp", you didn't really mean "TNI-TSP" at all. You meant you had a disagreement with other TSP citizens.

Citizens who had no membership of imperialist regions (indeed, for example, I've not once had a conversation with Belschaft) but who favoured retaining an alliance with TNI - in light of our loyal support to TSP in the 2011 and 2013 coups - as opposed to following your own ideological pro-defender preferences.

So it turns out that there was no actual intervention from the imperialist sphere, if by that you mean people who have any actual connection to imperialist regions or subscribe to imperialist ideology. You are talking merely about people who favoured continued relations with TNI. On the other hand, you have confessed that your motivations were ideological in character and that you ran TSP foreign policy aiming to further the defender world's interests.

And of course imperialists and their allies were obstacles in turning Lazarus defender. That's not really inconsistent with what I've been saying. Defenders can both oppose imperialist influence and support making a region defender. That's why I've been calling it the defender/anti-imperialist bloc, to show that not everybody in it had an agenda of advocating defender conversion.

The problem with this argument is that there no one was exerting "imperialist influence" on Lazarus. Griffin and NES never advocated that Lazarus should follow an imperialist foreign policy. Griffin was supported by FRA members during both her terms as delegate and maintained a firmly neutral stance (despite being monarch of TNI at the time). How, then, was there any risk of Lazarus falling "completely" into "the imperialist camp" when Griffin was out of office and no one was advocating the adoption of imperialist foreign policy? The dispute arose because of Feux's attempts to consolidate power.

The fact is that the motivations of the PRL's founders were about removing the obstacles in their path to turning a GCR into a defender dictatorship.

There is no equivalence whatsoever between the actions of imperialists and defenders in Lazarus.

I'm not the only one who saw Onder as the chief spokesperson. Turns out that when only one person is on the forums offering vocal defenses of imperialism, that person becomes a spokesperson.

No one is denying that I regularly spoke out in defence of the UIAF on these forums, but so what? Why is that politically significant? Regularly answering criticisms directed at the UIAF hardly means that you have unilateral control of it, which is the way you seem to have interpreted the situation.

Furthermore, I would point out that most gameplay politics takes place outside of this forum: for example, on IRC (which I almost never go on).

The main difference between what I did and what I believe I was fighting against, is that I held no political influence over any other region. Everything I did was for and about TSP. Whereas, in my view, imperialists thrive on spreading out and gaining influential footholds in other regions.

1. This hardly applies to Unibot, of TRR and the UDL, with whom you have have admitted to making a "concerted push" to advance this agenda.

2. You say that unlike what you were fighting against, you had "no political influence over any other region." None of your domestic opponents in TSP had the slightest influence over TNI or any other imperialist region. They weren't on our radar. How then can you believe that you were fighting imperialism?

[Glen-Rhodes]

(Forgive me not quoting. It's difficult on Tapatalk.)

Insofar as there were players in TSP who wanted to keep the alliance, obviously there was disagreement. I don't know what broader point you're trying to make, though, except obfuscating what I've said were my motivations.

To be clear, yes, I felt (and so did others within and without the TSP government) that TNI wielded too much influence over TSP's foreign affairs. The dissolution of the TSP-TNI alliance, though a happy accident from where I stood, was a resounding victory for anti-imperialists in TSP (of which I was the most influential). You keep trying to further a story that I actively attempted to dissolve the alliance. That was all you guys. TNI was far too revered in TSP for me to do that in the Assembly. Like I said, relegation to second-class status was the best I could do.

You characterize my actions as "ideological pro-defender preferences." Yes of course that's true. But Belschaft and others also had ideological pro-imperialist and pro-Independent preferences. Again, it seems only defenders are accused of being ideological and political in this game.

As for me "furthering the defender world's interests," that's only true insofar that my interests aligned with other defenders'. If the UDL or the FRA, who were "the defender world" back then, benefitted from my actions, that's good for them, but their welfare wasn't at the heart of my agenda. (I actually remember being pretty disliked by the UDL leadership after Unibot was pushed out. And I never really had any involvement with the FRA.)

----

Griffin was the TNI monarch. Other players were members of TNI and imperialists. Lazarus couldn't be defender with them there, I think we call agree on that. That pretty much speaks for itself.

----

You were the public face, official or not. That carries symbolism. What more explanation do you want? This is a silly argument.

----

1. I'm not Unibot.

2. I'm not seeing the relevance of this question. I never said or implied that Belschaft or any other of my opponents had influence over other regions the same way that TNI/LKE members did. Even if they did, what does that have to do with my anti-imperialist agenda?

Are you trying to say that I had no reason to "fight imperialism" in TSP because there weren't any influential TSP/TNI dual citizens in TSP? If so, that's true, there wasn't. For as much as that was truth in a lot of other regions, that wasn't the case in TSP. If I had to guess, it's because TSP's ruling elite were already anti-defender and pro-imperialist. Unlike other regions, there wasn't a battleground in TSP. That's all speculation obviously.

But I don't see how that has any bearing on how I was fighting imperialism in TSP. The TNI alliance still existed, and through it TNI still exerted influence over our foreign affairs. You've always been unreasonably pedantic about this, though. I'm anticipating you questioning me how TNI could exert influence without any TNI members being in TSP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onderkelkia]

Insofar as there were players in TSP who wanted to keep the alliance, obviously there was disagreement. I don't know what broader point you're trying to make, though, except obfuscating what I've said were my motivations.

You have repeatedly ignored the point for multiple posts now, so I will explain it again.

Before my intervention in this thread, you commented:

Every major fight by anti-imperialists was waged in middle regions that we believed were going to fall to the imperialist camp completely: Lazarus before the PRL, TSP-TNI, TSP-Euro... Of course, that makes it sound far more organized than it actually was.

In stating that you believed "TNI-TSP" was a battleground between "the imperialist camp" and "anti-imperialists", you imply that TNI was somehow pushing TSP towards the imperialist sphere. That is not the case, as TNI's approach to TSP in 2013-14 was reactive. Insofar as there was a struggle within TSP, it was between you and your political opponents. Given that it was an internal dispute, it is wrong for you talk as if TNI was seeking to convert TSP to imperialism.

To be clear, yes, I felt (and so did others within and without the TSP government) that TNI wielded too much influence over TSP's foreign affairs.

TNI never made any moves to influence TSP foreign policy on any specific issue - even when you proposed the alliance with TRR, we ignored the matter until it passed, rather than trying to interfere in TSP's internal decision-making. So we made no interventions within TSP's political processes.

Given that TNI never once attempted to alter the outcome of TSP internal politics, presumably by "wielded too much influence" you simply mean the continuing fact that TN and TSP were allied and the implications of this. Regardless, however much you may have disliked the fact that previous TSP administrations entered freely into this pact, that is very different from TSP's relations with TNI putting it on the verge of falling "completely" into "the imperialist camp" by the time that you became Foreign Minister, which you cited as justification for blatantly making TSP foreign policy pro-defender. To the extent that, TSP's outlook was affected, it was a result of internal discussions with no TNI involvement. TNI had no specific agenda in relation to TSP.

The dissolution of the TSP-TNI alliance, though a happy accident from where I stood, was a resounding victory for anti-imperialists in TSP (of which I was the most influential). You keep trying to further a story that I actively attempted to dissolve the alliance. That was all you guys. TNI was far too revered in TSP for me to do that in the Assembly.

In my previous post, I made no comment on whether you were actively attempting to dissolve it. I merely referred to your view of it, which was adverse.

That said, considering our stated position on alliances with FRA regions and the fact that our possible reaction was pointed out in the debate in TSP's assembly, our response was entirely predictable. If you really could not see the possibility of that outcome, TSP was badly served. You emphasised earlier that you and Unibot became deeply concerned about the rise of the imperialist sphere. You would have done well to develop a better understanding of us.

Like I said, relegation to second-class status was the best I could do.

Something which TNI had no reason to accept. Why would TNI guarantee UIAF military assistance in exchange for "second-class status"?

You characterize my actions as "ideological pro-defender preferences." Yes of course that's true. But Belschaft and others also had ideological pro-imperialist and pro-Independent preferences. Again, it seems only defenders are accused of being ideological and political in this game.

Although I very much doubt they were advocating that TSP adopt a specifically imperialist foreign policy, I fail to see the point. My complaint is with your remarks about TNI. In particular, I am pointing out that most of your allegations are more pertinent to your opponents within TSP rather than TNI.

As for me "furthering the defender world's interests," that's only true insofar that my interests aligned with other defenders'. If the UDL or the FRA, who were "the defender world" back then, benefitted from my actions, that's good for them, but their welfare wasn't at the heart of my agenda. (I actually remember being pretty disliked by the UDL leadership after Unibot was pushed out. And I never really had any involvement with the FRA.)

It is strange that you would protest the term "defender world", given that you used it yourself, earlier in this thread, while contextualising your actions:

The reality is that the defender world, lead mostly by Unibot, became more and more obsessed about the political rise of imperialism and particularly the UIAF in 2013-14. Defenders utilized their influence in some GCRs to lean them towards defending, or to promote anti-imperialist sentiment in neutral or Independent regions. In 2014-15, Unibot and myself made a concerted push for the argument that Independence was within the imperialist sphere and merely a more palatable cover for imperialist gameplay in neutral regions. That culminated in the dissolution of the TSP-TNI alliance, which was a significant event in the "Cold War."

Through your admitted association with Unibot, your actions were clearly part of a wider phenomenon within the inter-regional defender community.

The same can't be said of your opponents within TSP, who had no contact with TNI.

Griffin was the TNI monarch. Other players were members of TNI and imperialists. Lazarus couldn't be defender with them there, I think we call agree on that. That pretty much speaks for itself.

First, if becoming defender had sufficient democratic support, Lazarus could have taken that path without conducting a purge.

Second, how does any of this justify your earlier remark that "Lazarus before the PRL" was "going to fall to the imperialist camp completely"?

What you describe merely establishes that, in order to get a defender dictatorship, Griffin and others needed purging. It doesn't show that Griffin and others were pushing Lazarus towards imperialism, when she in fact backed neutrality. The fact is that it was the defenders in Lazarus were the aggressors.

You were the public face, official or not. That carries symbolism. What more explanation do you want? This is a silly argument.

If by "silly" you mean the matter is inconsequential, we are in agreement.

It is indeed extremely "silly" that you keep placing so much emphasis on the supposed "symbolism" of me defending LKE/TNI/UIAF on these forums, to the point where you have claimed earlier in this thread that you were trying "to hold onto TSP's foreign affairs" until my resignations as Commander of TNI Armed Forces and Executive Head of TNI Intelligence, despite the fact that TNI had publicly elected to have nothing further to do with TSP.

1. I'm not Unibot.

Nowhere did I claim that you are, but your account indicates that you were acting in coordination with him towards the same purposes:

In 2014-15, Unibot and myself made a concerted push for the argument that Independence was within the imperialist sphere and merely a more palatable cover for imperialist gameplay in neutral regions. That culminated in the dissolution of the TSP-TNI alliance, which was a significant event in the "Cold War."

Accordingly, it is reasonable to trace that effort back to the interests of the UDL and TRR.

2. I'm not seeing the relevance of this question. I never said or implied that Belschaft or any other of my opponents had influence over other regions the same way that TNI/LKE members did.

On the contrary, you claimed that those you were "fighting against" exercised influence over other regions, whereas you were just loyal to TSP:

The main difference between what I did and what I believe I was fighting against, is that I held no political influence over any other region. Everything I did was for and about TSP.

Based on your response now, you would presumably argue that it was "TNI/LKE members" who you were "fighting against" in TSP.

However, TNI and the LKE were not engaged in any struggle over TSP. Our actions were nearly all in response to what you were doing.

This goes to my fundamental point, which is that to the extent that there was any struggle over TSP's foreign policy direction, TNI was not a party.

Are you trying to say that I had no reason to "fight imperialism" in TSP because there weren't any influential TSP/TNI dual citizens in TSP? If so, that's true, there wasn't. For as much as that was truth in a lot of other regions, that wasn't the case in TSP. If I had to guess, it's because TSP's ruling elite were already anti-defender and pro-imperialist. Unlike other regions, there wasn't a battleground in TSP. That's all speculation obviously.

First, parts of this paragraph seem to contradict your earlier statements. For example, you state there was no "battleground" involving TNI in TSP, yet in your earlier posts you argued that "TSP-TSP" was a case where a GCR was going to "going to fall to the imperialist camp completely" without your swift and heroic defender takeover of its foreign policy. Presumably you would argue that the so-called "anti-defender and pro-imperialist" elites of TSP were the "imperialist camp" in TSP - despite the fact that TNI had virtually no contact with any of those individuals. These people were not proxies for TNI. To the extent that you may have engaged them in any disagreements within TSP, you were "fighting against" them, not TNI (who took no part in TSP politics).

Second, you state that there were influential TNI dual citizens, presumably promoting an imperialist agenda, "in a lot of other regions". Which regions would these be? Griffin joined Lazarus in 2008, well before the present gameplay political landscape and with no intention or expectation of influencing its political direction. In Osiris, from my limited knowledge, I would say that the role of TNI dual citizens within their internal politics has been very much secondary. In Balder, NES and Cerebella obviously joined after it was created, as of course did many others from across the NationStates political spectrum (with your comrade Unibot, of course, being its first delegate). In none of these regions has there been any TNI agenda to influence policy. Moreover, there are GCRs other than TSP, such as TEP and TWP (in fact, all the feeders), which had no TNI presence then. You have imagined a threat which never existed.

[Consular]

@Consular: I'm not the only one who saw Onder as the chief spokesperson. Turns out that when only one person is on the forums offering vocal defenses of imperialism, that person becomes a spokesperson. I also seem to remember Onder specifically being a reason cited for why the UIAF fell apart.

As for the thrust of my "ideology," it's pretty simple. I don't like imperialism. I'm a defender. I wanted more treaties with defender-leaning regions, and others in TSP fretted over how TNI would respond. I saw that as proof that imperialism held too much influence over TSP, and proceeded to challenge its supremacy over the direction of our foreign affairs.

I think most anti-imperialists don't like imperialism because they're either defenders or defender sympathizers, and see imperialism as simply a more developed and political form of raiding. But I do know that some officials in TSP went sour on imperialists because of how Onder and others treated them.

Your attempt to vilify me doesn't really bother me. I'm used to it by now. Yes, I believe supporting defense or raiding and its flavors is better for TSP, and I pursued an agenda along those lines. Shocking that a well-known defender sympathizer would do such things! But this is no different than my predecessors preferring raiders and imperialists over the UDL, FRA, etc. Only difference is that their accomplishments aren't considered selfish and political.

In this game, if you support alliances with raiders and imperialists, that's totally legitimate. You're only acting in the objective interests of your region. But if you support alliances with defenders instead, you're being unprofessional, disgustingly political, and over all selfish.

Let's get this straight. You saw the fact that other citizens in TSP (who were not connected with TNI or other imperialist regions in any way) cared about the opinions of a region they were formally allied with as a bad thing? I don't know how you think foreign relations should work (well, actually we do, we've seen the laughably inconsistent mess you support), but for most places being considerate about what your allies think matters. They aren't just some random people, they're allied to your region, close friends bound to aid each other by treaty. I know when Albion was making changes to its foreign policy we tried to keep our allies as informed as possible, and were very much aware of how they might react. Caring about maintaining friendship with your allies isn't indicative of overbearing influence. It's indicative of well considered foreign affairs. Your attitude is indicative of a lack of understanding of international relations, of the fact that friends do influence how you behave, it's a two way street and there's nothing wrong with that. With your inability to grasp this it's a wonder TSP has any friends at all after your tenure as a minister.

Don't build up strawmen. You can support relationships with defenders without being unprofessional and nobody here has said otherwise. The thing is, the 'defenders' you've supported relations with are actually imperialists in practice, more so than regions which you've been so dogmatically attacking, which is what makes your stance so odd. I note you haven't responded to where I pointed out the ludicrous decision you made to pursue relations with Lazarus, a puppet state of the very much imperialist NPO. Even ignoring that it was founded by an individual who couped your region, it was upheld and controlled by an external regime. How you manage to justify hating groups like the UIAF who have always supported GCR sovereignty, while at the same time recognising a GCR which had been turned into a puppet state of an outside force (and therefore legitimising said puppet state), is a bit beyond me. Either in your hate for invaders and therefore the imperialist regions you became so tunnel visioned that you didn't notice the blatant hypocrisy, or as I suspect you were just easily manipulated by the NPO and the games it played to obscure its ambitions. Or of course, perhaps you were aware of it and just didn't care, because the NPO promised it would make Lazarus defender. Funny how easily so many defenders sold everything they believed in for a vague promise of a defender GCR. Or maybe it's not that funny, given many defenders have a remarkably poor record for respecting GCRs in general.

[Guy]

I love how this is a three-page discussion about a topic that as MoFA and Delegate I never thought to be of much influence on GCRs' FA. NS really isn't a good lab for how IR should work. Most of it seems to play out in people's minds

The bottom line is that there are people, who believe in certain ideologies and see their interest as aligning with that of certain UCRs, who advocate for those outcomes within GCRs. Perhaps more disappointingly, many of those people seem to only care for their membership of those GCRs when those issues are at stake, particularly when they can influence them at the ballot box. On the other hand, it is natural that members of the community care most about those issues, which often do go to the heart of regional identity.

The issues relating to Lazarus have been widely canvassed before. I'd suggest to Consular to do the requisite reading prior to speaking in such determined terms on the matter.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's very possible anti-imperialists in TSP (including myself) saw imperialist influence that those imperialists themselves didn't see. That happens all the time in politics. But not something you've ever understood, Onder

On a side note, you place too much importance in yourself. No, I was not *waiting* for your downfall to become less focused on winning MoFA elections. Never said that. What I *did* say is that your downfall was a sign that I *could* step back and no longer needed to oversee TSP's foreign affairs. I think I mentioned a few posts back the idea of a canary in a coal mine...

@Consular: I never cared what TNI wanted. I didn't want them as an ally, and I supported dissolving the alliance when Belschaft proposed it earlier in 2013. So yeah, I didn't like that the foreign affairs goals I wanted us to achieve were stymied by concerns over an alliance with an imperialist region I didn't like. You guys write these posts as if this should be a shocking revelation. It's politics, yo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onderkelkia]

It's very possible anti-imperialists in TSP (including myself) saw imperialist influence that those imperialists themselves didn't see. That happens all the time in politics. But not something you've ever understood, Onder

Our discussion of influence arose from your statement above that "TNI wielded too much influence over TSP's foreign affairs".

Saying that TNI wielded influence over TSP implies that TNI is consciously seeking particular outcomes. It is accordingly no answer for you to claim that TNI had unspecified effects upon TSP politics which TNI itself did not know about. If TNI affected TSP policy without knowing about it, as you are now arguing, this was because TSP politicians independently chose to consider TNI's views. That is very different from there being any TNI agenda to influence TSP.

TNI being an external factor which TSP politicians took into consideration must be distinguished from TNI being an actor within TSP's policy process.

Regardless, our discussion of TNI influence in TSP only arose because you pointed to it to justify citing "TNI-TSP" as an example where a GCR was about to "completely" fall into "the imperialist camp" before you seized control of its foreign policy as part of a "concerted effort" from the defender world. How is the term "TNI-TSP" an accurate description of a dispute which your newest argument accepts that TNI was unaware of? It was an internal TSP matter.

On a side note, you place too much importance in yourself. No, I was not *waiting* for your downfall to become less focused on winning MoFA elections. Never said that.

Nowhere did I suggest you were "waiting" for my so-called "downfall". So in fact, I never said that you said that.

You have constructed this straw-man so you can ignore the actual point I made.

What I said in my previous post was that you claimed that "you were trying "to hold onto TSP's foreign affairs" until my resignations as Commander of TNI Armed Forces and Executive Head of TNI Intelligence, despite the fact that TNI had publicly elected to have nothing further to do with TSP." That doesn't say you claimed you were waiting for those resignations to happen; it merely says that you claimed that you were trying and this encouraged you to stop.

Far from emphasising the importance of my role to TSP's affairs, my argument is that my resignations in TNI, considering that TNI had made clear it wanted nothing to do with TSP, should have been irrelevant to you in determining when to resign in TSP. It is strange you placed such emphasis on it.

What I *did* say is that your downfall was a sign that I *could* step back and no longer needed to oversee TSP's foreign affairs.

What you precisely said was this:

Aside from my declining political popularity in TSP after the sketchy election between Wolf and me, the downfall of Onder was a big reason why I stopped trying to hold onto TSP's foreign affairs.

The point I am making is that, as TNI had no relations with TSP, why was your desire to serve as TSP Foreign Minister affected by events in TNI?

It suggests a fixation on spurious fears about me, TNI and the imperialist sphere that was wholly unmerited by the reality of TSP's situtation.

I think I mentioned a few posts back the idea of a canary in a coal mine...

Indeed you did. You also ignored my reply to this point, so I will repeat my response here:

You know the saying a canary in a coal mine? That's what you were for 2015.

If you are saying that the end of the UIAF was a "canary in a coal mine" indicating that 2015 would (compared to 2013 or 2014) represent a setback for the imperialist sphere, you are wrong. The collapse of the UIAF was the single catastrophic event for the imperialist sphere; not a warning sign.

[RiderSyl]

NS really isn't a good lab for how IR should work. Most of it seems to play out in people's minds

[Consular]

The issues relating to Lazarus have been widely canvassed before. I'd suggest to Consular to do the requisite reading prior to speaking in such determined terms on the matter.

I'd suggest to Guy that if he'd like to actually engage with any of my arguments, rather than making useless statements like this, then I'd be happy to further explain them to him. Is there anything specific you took issue with, or did you just think you'd make a little dig that implied I didn't know what I was talking about in lieu of a real response. Because nothing I said is wrong.

[The Miniluv Messenger]

Big Brother is watching Gameplay

---

Swept Away: Prolific Raider Cora Subjected to Puppet Sweep

After continually evading forum ban, the infamous Cimmerian Raider Merc has had his puppets deleted and is presumed Delete-on-Sight.

By Cormac Skollvaldr

---

CIMMERIA - It began yesterday afternoon in the Gameplay forum thread for The Miniluv Messenger, when the player known as Coraxion, or Cora, evaded a two week forum ban by posting with a recently revived puppet nation. Cora had previously received a two week forum ban for flaming and flamebaiting from forum moderator Luna Amore on 30 December 2015. Although it later became clear that Cora was not entirely aware of his forum ban or at least the reason for it, his main nation, Cora II, as well as the puppet from which he had posted, Prolesky, were deleted by Moderation. As the situation unfolded, Cora continued to evade his forum ban with newly created puppets, indicating that he wanted to be designated Delete-on-Sight by Moderation -- actions which are commonly referred to as "suicide-by-mod." Moderators swept Cora's puppets for deletion early this morning and he is now presumed Delete-on-Sight.

Among the puppets deleted was C R O M, the Founder nation of Cimmeria, which quickly became the premier tag raiding region following the collapse of The Black Riders in 2015. It is unlikely that Cimmeria will suffer the same fate as The Black Riders, however, as yesterday Cora ejected all but a handful of Cimmeria's most trusted residents and imposed password protection in anticipation of the impending puppet sweep. While Cimmeria may not be subjected to a swarm of angry natives and defenders, it remains an open question whether the region will continue without its Founder or whether its most dedicated raiders will now devote their time to established raider regions like DEN or The Black Hawks, to the recently rebooted Black Riders, or to the recently created Brotherhood of Shadows.

Often referring to himself as the Cimmerian Raider Merc, Cora has been a force to be reckoned with in gameplay for years. Prior to his enlistment in The Black Riders, he was known as Proletaurus, a major figure within the Antifa movement who had at one time shared administration of Antifa. As a Black Rider, he became known as the most dedicated and enthusiastic tag raider in NationStates, with a unique raider ideology that even many raiders found extreme and abrasive. Nonetheless, Cora was able to attract a circle of similarly dedicated tag raiders, and after the collapse of The Black Riders he and his Cimmerian raiders became the undisputed leaders in tag raiding. Although tag raiding is likely to continue in Cora's absence, it is hard to imagine another player with such enthusiasm, dedication, and genuine love for that aspect of NationStates gameplay.

You'll be sorely missed on the tag fields, Cora, and from The Miniluv Messenger, all of your friends, and the many who like and respect you, one last time: CROM!

Correction: Moderator Sedgistan has clarified that although his puppets have been swept, Cora is not designated Delete-on-Sight at this time, though that may be under consideration. Although The Miniluv Messenger only reported that Cora was presumed Delete-on-Sight, it's clear that this presumption is the basis of the article, and we regret the error. More developments in this situation will be reported as they occur.