Independence

[John Sheridan]

Me again. As many of you have guessed, I'm sure, I'm not really new to this game. I'm using this nation so my ideas and arguments will be evaluated on their merits, rather than on the merits of the gameplayer who believes them. I use this identity because, well, Babylon 5 was so well-written, so true-to-life, that we can see many parallels between a science-fiction television show, and the state of gameplay in NS.

So, lets look at Babylon 5 for a minute. On Babylon 5, ambassadors of the major powers met in a council room; Humans, Centauri, Narn, Minbari, and Vorlons. Accompanying them were a large group of smaller powers, including Drazi, Brakiri, and other species. Many of those smaller powers formed into a group called "The League of Non-Aligned Worlds." We don't get to hear a lot about them, but the League is usually mentioned as a single entity, giving it a larger power than the other minor species.

"Neutrals" in NationStates are very much like the lesser powers. I put the term in quotes, because it means many things. It might mean that you've no interest in playing the invader/defender game at all. For the purposes of this argument, I'm going to call that neutral. They're quite capable of banding together for mutual defence; often they don't, but that's their decision, as they certainly have in the past. At one time the FRA was such a band of neutral, founderless regions.

As I've said before, a little ideology can be a dangerous thing. I've also already linked the Defenders and the Invaders to the Vorlons and the Shadows; both representing the two major ideologies and superpowers of their two universes. The neutral group, which is composed of those true neutrals who don't want to be a part of the game, and another group I'm driving towards, have been said to represent the other races, caught in between. I even suggested that the neutral group might some day rise up, and tell the Defenders and the Invaders that we didn't need either of them anymore.

I recounted the Vorlon maxim, that understanding is a three-edged sword, and described it as being somewhat between the two extremes. I think, though, that while Defenders and Invaders inhabit one spectrum, the neutral group has two points, for the ease of understanding we'll say that one is above the Defender/Invader line, and the other is below. The one below is the neutral, the one that I described above. Wishes above all else to be left alone, and does very little to achieve any agency in inter-regional affairs.

The one above, I choose to call Independent. Independent regions are active, typically engaging in light, sport-like invading, or invading for reasons outside out of their own enjoyment. I'd classify imperialists in this group, generally speaking (not in all cases, but in many). The Independent group, of course, is going to be reasonably fractious, because the other major component of an Independent region is a rejection, not of invading or defending, but of the ideologies associated with both superpower groups. Decisions based on ideology will cloud your mind, rather than free it. It is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy for an invader to claim that an invasion of his region's sovereignty is wrong. By the same token, it is an ideological failure when a defender does the same damage to an invader that he abhors an invader doing to others. Ideology restricts our ability to think rationally about an issue.

Independent regions seek to use true realism, in the international relations sense, to examine decisions with regards to their own activities on an issue-by-issue basis. An Independent region may comfortable form Mutual Defence Agreements with founderless regions, and protect them for whatever reason, and still engage in sporting invading, or imperialism, so long as the reasons for the defence of these regions is practical, and not ideological. There are very few Independent regions. Qwendra, perhaps, qualifies in the sense that I mean it. There is a dearth of leadership in the game in this area, a void that is yearning to be filled by regions which can find the strength to reject both the Shadows and the Vorlons, er, the raider ideology and the defender ideology.

If you're a raider, or a defender, or somewhere in the middle, I encourage you to consider looking seriously at the ideologies put forwards, and the groups which purport to represent them. Consider the manner in which ideology constricts one's ability to act reasonably, and consider rejecting it, in favour of finding your own path

[Kalibarr]

Another interesting read. I haven't been able to, nor have I seen anyone able to describe this idea as well as you have.

[Southern Bellz]

These Sci-Fi references fly over my head, but I agree with the notion of how a large portion of NS play comes down to the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'. It makes something that should be exciting, boring as crap. I agree that more regions should attempt to forge a new path. The problem is often times in order to engage in military actions, you need the help of other regions, so by needing to work with raiders, you burn one bridge, and vise versa. Then you pretty much pick a side. I agree that neutral regions need to stick together and unite, and I feel that an initiative in The South Pacific called The South Pacific Collation could be a template for this to work. The goal originally was to find unique regions, that is active on gameplay, and is a source of unique ideas. Then take the different region's strengths and weaknesses, and by combining resources try to strengthen our strengths, and weaken our weaknesses.

Sadly the idea has not taken off properly, but perhaps it is because I have not pushed the idea to the right regions. However, I feel it has been a success for all involved so far. Currently the only two regions involved are The South Pacific and One Big Island. In my opinion we are some of the most stand out neutral regions (with a little bit of biased). Because both regions have worked with defenders and raiders directly. OBI as being Mercs for both sides, and The South Pacific for providing a platform for both raiders and defenders to speak their minds.

Regardless, creating a network of regions to exist outside the current framework of raiders and defenders is something that is of interest of me.

[Ballotonia]

What you describe sounds to me like plain Realpolitik.

Some ideologies, like the Defender ideology, instruct one to perform acts of kindness to totally unknown others. To help them overcome an evil they cannot overcome on their own accord.

The invader ideology simply says it's all OK to commit those acts of evil, because for them it all 'just having fun'. While destroying what others have built, mind you, for the sake of ones own entertainment.

Realpolitik, realism, Machiavellianism, or pragmatism, all share a supposed lack of ideology. It centers around doing whatever is best for oneself, without considering any OTHER ideological basis: believing in realpolitik being good is an ideology in and of itself.

It should come as no surprise that I reject your realpolitik on ideological grounds. It leads to unethical decisions being made, let's call it immoral behavior if you will.

Ballotonia

[Oliver the Mediocre]

What you describe sounds to me like plain Realpolitik.

Sounds about right.

Some ideologies, like the Defender ideology, instruct one to perform acts of kindness to totally unknown others. To help them overcome an evil they cannot overcome on their own accord.

But that's a matter of your point of view. I have no doubt that you believe that's precisely what you're doing, and I respect you (somewhat) for believing so strongly, but in my mind a more accurate description is that you're defending order. Now, humanity has a fundamental preference for order, so more people prefer that than don't, but order taken to extremes leads to stifling, stagnation, and authoritarianism. I'm not accusing you personally of going too far, but it's a constant concern.

The invader ideology simply says it's all OK to commit those acts of evil, because for them it all 'just having fun'. While destroying what others have built, mind you, for the sake of ones own entertainment.

Of course, this also a matter of your point of view. Many invaders, in particular those who do not encourage or condone the act of regional destruction, do not consider invading a truly destructive activity. You suggest it's inherently evil, and I know you truly believe that, and that I cannot convince you out of your true belief, but it is a belief, and not a fact. Sometimes when order and stagnation overwhelm, it's necessary for there to be an injection of chaos into the system. We provide such an injection at timely intervals, keeping everybody on their toes.

Realpolitik, realism, Machiavellianism, or pragmatism, all share a supposed lack of ideology. It centers around doing whatever is best for oneself, without considering any OTHER ideological basis: believing in realpolitik being good is an ideology in and of itself.

I'd actually disagree with you and the OP on this point. I think what they all share, rather than a lack of ideology, is a lack moralized ideology. Machiavelli accepts that there is a different sort of morality for the Prince than for his subjects, as sometimes to keep your people safe from harm, one must do terrible things. So yes, even the belief in the rejection of moral ideology is an ideology, but the OP's suggestion is certainly different from both the Invader and Defender ideologies.

It should come as no surprise that I reject your realpolitik on ideological grounds. It leads to unethical decisions being made, let's call it immoral behavior if you will.

No shock here. I'm sure it'll come as a shock to few that I like the OP's suggestion. I've never truly felt like an invader, and I've never truly felt like I would ever fit in in the defender camp. Maybe a third option isn't such a bad thing.

[Ballotonia]

Sometimes when order and stagnation overwhelm, it's necessary for there to be an injection of chaos into the system. We provide such an injection at timely intervals, keeping everybody on their toes.

Alternative: maintain peace and order, allowing building of structures (political, regional, whatever) to continue. In RL the western world has had 65 years of peace now. Imagine what things would look like in Europe and the USA if we all were still fighting WWII, or the USA and USSR at some point had decided to just start throwing nukes at each other thinking 'hey let's shake things up a bit!'

Ballotonia

[Oliver the Mediocre]

Sometimes when order and stagnation overwhelm, it's necessary for there to be an injection of chaos into the system. We provide such an injection at timely intervals, keeping everybody on their toes.

Alternative: maintain peace and order, allowing building of structures (political, regional, whatever) to continue. In RL the western world has had 65 years of peace now. Imagine what things would look like in Europe and the USA if we all were still fighting WWII, or the USA and USSR at some point had decided to just start throwing nukes at each other thinking 'hey let's shake things up a bit!'

Real life war isn't really equivalent to NS raiding. It's a heck of a lot more like paintball than it is like throwing a nuke. I'm trying to be reasonable here, can't you manage the same? Peace and order can be good, but taken too far it leads to stagnation, rather than growth, when people get so fond of the peace and order that they've known for so long that they're unwilling to change when change becomes necessary. I also accept, for the record, that chaos, when taken too far, is a supremely destructive and dangerous force, and unchecked, it's a terrible and frightening thing. We need each other to maintain the balance, or we need a more centrist way, to keep things from stagnating while still preventing horrendous destruction.

Can't you accept that perhaps the best path lies somewhere in the middle? Or am I expecting too much to ask you to challenge your own biases?

[Kshrlmnt]

Yeah, I'm a raider and pretty firmly aligned--but I can respect this idea of independence. (Though I will be admittedly annoyed if an independent group touches my stuff. ) The point for me is less ideology and more skill. If you're someone who raids or defends well, I'll respect that.

If you spew venom even when someone's trying to be rational... not so much. *coughs*

[Ballotonia]

Real life war isn't really equivalent to NS raiding. It's a heck of a lot more like paintball than it is like throwing a nuke.

Fine: group of people carrying paintball equipment rush into a random office building and start shooting at people who are busy doing anything but paintball. Second group marches in trying to force the first group out, so the office workewrs can get back to going about their business. Better?

I'm trying to be reasonable here, can't you manage the same? Peace and order can be good, but taken too far it leads to stagnation, rather than growth, when people get so fond of the peace and order that they've known for so long that they're unwilling to change when change becomes necessary.

If you feel change is necessary, then fine, argue in favor of change. Sadly, invaders typically do not engage in politics, just mere destruction. If only they'd be arguing for changes in politics, be it left to right or vice versa, I might even end up finding myself agreeing with them on their suggested policy change. I however cannot approve of their choice of method: force over debate.

Ballotonia

[Oliver the Mediocre]

I'm trying to be reasonable here, can't you manage the same? Peace and order can be good, but taken too far it leads to stagnation, rather than growth, when people get so fond of the peace and order that they've known for so long that they're unwilling to change when change becomes necessary.

If you feel change is necessary, then fine, argue in favor of change. Sadly, invaders typically do not engage in politics, just mere destruction. If only they'd be arguing for changes in politics, be it left to right or vice versa, I might even end up finding myself agreeing with them on their suggested policy change. I however cannot approve of their choice of method: force over debate.

Politics is power, Ballotonia. Force is a legitimate tactic in achieving political goals; even the General Assembly of the WA accepts that, and does not restrict its members in war. That said, describing the actions of the average raider as "mere destruction" is arguable. You won't listen, though, so I won't go through it again. I hope you'll decide to open yourself to an alternative point of view, and to examine your own biases, in the future.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Here we go. Some defender prattling on about peace and order like it somehow is an inherently good thing, and then some raider trying to convince her otherwise for some completely unknown reason.

Conflict, the cycle of peace and war is what drives the world and gives meaning to life. The same holds true (although to a lesser degree) for NS. So these discussions, while sometimes interesting to those who haven't heard a thousand times before, are ultimately meaningless. Reality will not, and indeed cannot change. Nor would I have it any other way.

Now back to the OP. I agree wholeheartedly; I love the idea of bringing real politics back to interregional warfare. Not that I have a problem with idealogical groups; the traditional raider and defender is and will always be an important aspect of this game.