NS Geopolitics Survey Results

[Unibot III]

NS Geopolitics Survey

I had promised I would release the results of this survey, although, it should be stated that the sample size (10 respondents) is incredibly small. That low turnout probably reflects the political experience that the survey's questions demanded of its respondents. Regardless, the results are a fascinating look at how NS Gameplay perceives the current geopolitical leanings of the game-created regions (GCRs). Respondents were asked how much each GCR were aligned to five different political 'movements.'

Results

Here is an average of those scores. 0 = Not aligned, 10 = Very Aligned.

• TRR and TSP were regarded as strongly defender. NPO, strongly francoist. Balder was regarded as strongly imperialist while Osiris was regarded as strongly invader. The North Pacific was regarded as strongly independent.
• With regards to TEP and TWP, the former was seen as a moderate independent region that leaned invader, the latter was regarded as a moderate invader region with 'roots' in francoism, independentism, and imperialism.
• The results for the Celestial Union and the Undead Dominion greatly differed. One was viewed as a strongly defender region, the other, a strongly invader region.

	Imperialist	Independent	Defender	Francoist	Invader
NPO	3.56	2.11	4.00	9.33	3.00
TWP	4.13	5.50	0.88	5.50	6.50
TEP	2.13	5.88	2.88	2.50	4.63
TNP	2.89	8.11	2.22	0.89	3.78
TSP	0.10	4.30	7.70	1.70	1.20
BAL	8.22	5.67	0.11	2.00	4.67
OSI	4.44	4.67	0.22	2.22	8.56
TRR	0.00	0.67	9.22	1.33	0.22
LAZ (CELESTIAL)	1.00	3.56	7.67	2.44	1.78
LAZ (UNDEAD)	3.78	3.56	0.22	1.89	8.89

Similarities

As a quick and dirty measure of how similar or dissimilar a GCR is with another GCR, I averaged the difference between their scores and then used the square root of its square to ensure a positive integer. The higher the number, the more dissimilar a GCR ideologically to another - and vice versa.

	NPO	TWP	TEP	TNP	TSP	BAL	OSI	TRR	LAZ (CELESTIAL)	LAZ (UNDEAD)
NPO	-	2.88	2.96	3.53	3.76	4.22	3.98	4.20	3.16	3.76
TWP	2.88	-	1.85	2.51	4.23	2.07	1.43	5.55	3.93	1.79
TEP	2.96	1.85	-	1.22	2.53	1.92	2.08	3.85	2.23	2.30
TNP	3.53	2.51	1.22	-	3.09	2.38	2.62	4.27	3.09	2.71
TSP	3.76	4.23	2.53	3.09	-	4.17	4.01	1.32	0.60	3.96
BAL	4.22	2.07	1.92	2.38	4.17	-	1.80	5.49	4.04	2.20
OSI	3.98	1.43	2.08	2.62	4.01	1.80	-	5.33	3.80	0.49
TRR	4.20	5.55	3.85	4.27	1.32	5.49	5.33	-	1.62	4.98
LAZ (CELESTIAL)	3.16	3.93	2.23	3.09	0.60	4.04	3.80	1.62	-	3.58
LAZ (UNDEAD)	3.76	1.79	2.30	2.71	3.96	2.20	0.49	4.98	3.58	-
AVERAGE	3.60	2.92	2.33	2.82	3.07	3.14	2.84	4.07	2.89	2.86

• Treatied allies (with an average score of 2.19) register as much as 40% closer in terms of ideology than non-allies (an average of 3.65) - a vindication of Liberal IR over Realism: political relationships appear to reflect shared values as much as they do, strategic self-interest.
• The closest similarity between GCRs in terms of ideology is Osiris - Lazarus Undead (0.49), the next is TSP - Lazarus Celestial (0.60).
• The GCRs furthest apart in terms of ideology are the West Pacific and the Rejected Realms.
• Speaking of TRR: TRR edges NPO out as the most "different" GCR (REJECTS UNITE!), while TEP emerges as the most 'similar' to other GCRs.
• However, the distinction of least 'alike' GCRs holding treaties with another goes to NPO and Balder.
• Closest untreatied allies, excluding Lazarus Undead, would have been TEP and TWP (but they just signed a bilateral treaty last month), so that distinction also goes to Balder and TEP.

Standard Deviation

The standard deviation is a useful measure to determine how diverse the results were for each value. A higher number suggests respondents disagreed more in selecting a value. Standard deviation was highest for imperialism and lowest for defenderism and invaderism.

	Imperialist	Independent	Defender	Francoist	Invader
NPO	3.09	2.32	2.69	0.87	1.58
TWP	3.27	2.27	1.13	2.78	2.56
TEP	2.95	1.96	1.73	2.45	3.02
TNP	3.44	2.89	2.11	1.36	2.91
TSP	0.32	2.41	2.16	2.06	0.92
BAL	2.86	3.28	0.33	2.96	3.00
OSI	3.75	3.24	0.44	2.54	1.42
TRR	0.00	1.32	1.09	2.06	0.44
LAZ (CELESTIAL)	2.00	2.79	1.41	2.70	1.64
LAZ (UNDEAD)	3.07	2.60	0.67	3.41	1.36

Rankings

For those who may find it easier to see the results as a ranking, here are the GCRs ranked in terms of perceived alignment.

	Imperialist	Independent	Defender	Francoist	Invader
Most Aligned	BAL	TNP	TRR	NPO	LAZ (UNDEAD)
	OSI	TEP	TSP	TWP	OSI
	TWP	BAL	LAZ (CELESTIAL)	TEP	TWP
	LAZ (UNDEAD)	TWP	NPO	LAZ (CELESTIAL)	BAL
	NPO	OSI	TEP	OSI	TEP
	TNP	TSP	TNP	BAL	TNP
	TEP	LAZ (UNDEAD)	TWP	LAZ(UNDEAD)	NPO
	LAZ (CELESTIAL)	LAZ (CELESTIAL)	OSI	TSP	LAZ (CELESTIAL)
	TSP	NPO	LAZ (UNDEAD)	TRR	TSP
Least aligned	TRR	TRR	BAL	TNP	TRR

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'm curious to know a bit about the alignment of the respondents, and why so few were asked to take the survey.

[Altmoras]

I'm curious to know a bit about the alignment of the respondents, and why so few were asked to take the survey.

It was posted in Neutral Ground wasn't it?

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'm curious to know a bit about the alignment of the respondents, and why so few were asked to take the survey.

It was posted in Neutral Ground wasn't it?

Oh, I don't know. If it was, I missed it. That's annoying -- I would have liked to have taken the survey.

[Unibot III]

I'm curious to know a bit about the alignment of the respondents, and why so few were asked to take the survey.

Ah, sorry you missed it, I had just posted it rather casually in Neutral Ground a few days ago.

EDIT: While we're on the subject, anything here you disagree with?

[Lands of Anarchy]

I'm curious to know a bit about the alignment of the respondents, and why so few were asked to take the survey.

Since you want to know, I responded as an Independent.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'm curious to know a bit about the alignment of the respondents, and why so few were asked to take the survey.

Ah, sorry you missed it, I had just posted it rather casually in Neutral Ground a few days ago.

EDIT: While we're on the subject, anything here you disagree with?

No worries, my own fault. I should check Neutral Ground more often!

I don't agree that Balder is an imperialist region, which is why I asked about the alignment of the respondents. That seems like a very defender-heavy claim to make, because I think most non-defenders would respect Balder's self-identification and call it independent.

On a lighter note, I am annoyed to see that Osiris is considered more likely to be defender than Lazarus and Balder, and less raider than Lazarus. We're the OG raider Sinker. I can see that there is much work to be done to ensure those results are not the same in future surveys.

[Unibot III]

I am annoyed to see that Osiris is considered more likely to be defender than Lazarus

There's a whole team of folks working to undo that if you're interested in helping.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I am annoyed to see that Osiris is considered more likely to be defender than Lazarus

There's a whole team of folks working to undo that if you're interested in helping.

I guess I walked right into that joke.

[Arthemesia]

Hmm, rather interesting results. I thank you for doing this. Due to you saying there were only ten responses, I doubt the complete credibility of such results. Nothing against you though, more the people who should of responded. This is well done.
You should do this for all of NS, but rather make it a simple political compass survey.

[Altmoras]

Ah, sorry you missed it, I had just posted it rather casually in Neutral Ground a few days ago.

EDIT: While we're on the subject, anything here you disagree with?

No worries, my own fault. I should check Neutral Ground more often!

I don't agree that Balder is an imperialist region, which is why I asked about the alignment of the respondents. That seems like a very defender-heavy claim to make, because I think most non-defenders would respect Balder's self-identification and call it independent.

On a lighter note, I am annoyed to see that Osiris is considered more likely to be defender than Lazarus and Balder, and less raider than Lazarus. We're the OG raider Sinker. I can see that there is much work to be done to ensure those results are not the same in future surveys.

Well Osiris hasn't taken the same steps against Defenders that Balder has. For example you guys don't consider anyone fighting against your exclusively raider military to be guilty of an offense. Nor have you proscribed an entire feeder because it leans towards defending. Honestly Osi is kind of slacking in the Anti-Defender department

1) A citizen shall be guilty of an offence if they provide assistance to any foreign state (be it alliance, region or super-regional group) which subsequently fights the Jomsvikings in military action if this citizen knew of, or was reckless to, the prospect of this foreign state engaging the Jomsvikings in battle.

As a general comment the nature of the responses themselves seem weighted towards the ideologies of regional leadership rather than the overarching culture or history of the region itself. Imperialists in Balder, Defenders in TSP, Invaders in Osiris/Undead Lazarus etc.

[Kylia Quilor]

<snip>

He did that already. Check out Unibot's signature.

IIRC: Balder proscribed TSP for the prejudicial remarks made by TSP's leadership towards Balder, and indeed, threatening commentary from TSP. Not just for 'being defender'. Else the previous Lazarene regime would have been hit with proscription, as would have say, RIA or TITO.

[Unibot III]

You should do this for all of NS, but rather make it a simple political compass survey.

I made that back in the day, although the compass is no longer operational.

[Kylia Quilor]

You should do this for all of NS, but rather make it a simple political compass survey.

I made that back in the day, although the compass is no longer operational.

Its not?

The compass was like the only good thing you ever did.

[Zaolat]

Ah, sorry you missed it, I had just posted it rather casually in Neutral Ground a few days ago.

EDIT: While we're on the subject, anything here you disagree with?

No worries, my own fault. I should check Neutral Ground more often!

I don't agree that Balder is an imperialist region, which is why I asked about the alignment of the respondents. That seems like a very defender-heavy claim to make, because I think most non-defenders would respect Balder's self-identification and call it independent.

On a lighter note, I am annoyed to see that Osiris is considered more likely to be defender than Lazarus and Balder, and less raider than Lazarus. We're the OG raider Sinker. I can see that there is much work to be done to ensure those results are not the same in future surveys.

I voted Balder as Ind 10 iirc.

[Unibot III]

As a quick and dirty measure of how similar or dissimilar a GCR is with another GCR, I averaged the difference between their scores and then used the square root of its square to ensure a positive integer. The higher the number, the more dissimilar a GCR ideologically is to another - and vice versa:

	NPO	TWP	TEP	TNP	TSP	BAL	OSI	TRR	LAZ (CELESTIAL)	LAZ (UNDEAD)
NPO	-	2.88	2.96	3.53	3.76	4.22	3.98	4.20	3.16	3.76
TWP	2.88	-	1.85	2.51	4.23	2.07	1.43	5.55	3.93	1.79
TEP	2.96	1.85	-	1.22	2.53	1.92	2.08	3.85	2.23	2.30
TNP	3.53	2.51	1.22	-	3.09	2.38	2.62	4.27	3.09	2.71
TSP	3.76	4.23	2.53	3.09	-	4.17	4.01	1.32	0.60	3.96
BAL	4.22	2.07	1.92	2.38	4.17	-	1.80	5.49	4.04	2.20
OSI	3.98	1.43	2.08	2.62	4.01	1.80	-	5.33	3.80	0.49
TRR	4.20	5.55	3.85	4.27	1.32	5.49	5.33	-	1.62	4.98
LAZ (CELESTIAL)	3.16	3.93	2.23	3.09	0.60	4.04	3.80	1.62	-	3.58
LAZ (UNDEAD)	3.76	1.79	2.30	2.71	3.96	2.20	0.49	4.98	3.58	-
AVERAGE	3.60	2.92	2.33	2.82	3.07	3.14	2.84	4.07	2.89	2.86

• Treatied allies (with an average score of 2.19) register as much as 40% closer in terms of ideology than non-allies (an average of 3.65) - a vindication of Liberal IR over Realism: political relationships appear to reflect shared values as much as they do, strategic self-interest.
• The closest similarity between GCRs in terms of ideology is Osiris - Lazarus Undead (0.49), the next is TSP - Lazarus Celestial (0.60).
• The GCRs furthest apart in terms of ideology are the West Pacific and the Rejected Realms.
• Speaking of TRR: TRR edges NPO out as the most "different" GCR (REJECTS UNITE!), while TEP emerges as the most 'similar' to other GCRs.
• However, the distinction of least 'alike' GCRs holding treaties with another goes to NPO and Balder.
• Closest untreatied allies, excluding Lazarus Undead, would have been TEP and TWP (but they just signed a bilateral treaty last month), so that distinction also goes to Balder and TEP.

In some ways, I find these observations dovetail nicely with a case I made for multilateral treaties earlier this year. At the time I proposed the democratic GCRs should 'treaty up' before a coup, since then TEP has signed a new treaty with TWP and Lazarus, the other region that identified as having a soft power problem, has unfortunately been couped. Independentism is often portrayed as the most "rational" of the NS ideologies, but I've always doubted its realism when it seems to result in foreign policy objectives that betray its realism; in the case of the democratic GCRs, independentism seems to have driven a wall between them to the extent that they weren't able to pursue a much-needed mutual security pact.

EDIT: And yes, I know I'm a dork.

[Fauxia]

So, I assume "Invader" "Defender" and "Independent" mean what I know them to mean. What's "Francoist?" And what's the difference between "invader" and "imperialist?"

[Ikania]

What's "Francoist?" And what's the difference between "invader" and "imperialist?"

Francoism

Feeders ruled by feederites: good

Feeders ruled by outside forces: bad

Democracy is weaksauce, autocratic neo-feudal meritocratic caste system is the way to go.

Invader vs Imperialist

Imperialist: We came, we saw, we conquered.

Invader: We came, we saw, we left.

[Louisistan]

What's "Francoist?"

Blah blah blah, GCRs are special, blah blah blah, we are Feederites, blah blah, dirty Userites, blah blah something something ebul defender userite elite blah blah.

About sums it up.

The distinction between Userite and Feederite however is not as clear-cut as the ideology would have you believe in this era of Cosmopolitanism. And so, obviously, people who could be argued to fall into both categories are categorised as "Userite" if they oppose Francoism and "Feederite" if the don't.


This explanation might have been heavily biased.

[Consular]

And what's the difference between "invader" and "imperialist?"

Arguably nothing at all.

[Pergamon]

Francoism

Francoism is an ideology named after the New Pacific Orders founder nation Francos Spain.
Francoism believes in the existence of two classes in a constant struggle, a conflict that supersedes any R/D alignment and anything else: Feederites VS Userites.

(Almost) All nations are born in Feeders, these sticking to their homelands, whether the region they have been born in or another GCR and have no other affiliation but the respective GCR are considered: Feederite.
Nations that leave their Feeder for regions of their own, or friends or another user-created region for whatever reason, become residents of UCR.
If said residents then - ultimately affiliated with their UCR - try to conquer, manipulate, abuse or exploit a GCR for the glory, progress or political influence of their UCR and/or specific clique, they are Userite. The eternal enemy of any Francoist.

GCR for GCR, the ultra regionalist paradigm of Francoism. While Francoism itself isn't pure regionalist due to the strong believes in the feederite class. Any pure GCR native has the exalted status to be of the "their kin", by dogma, being a "brother", a "sister", no matter in which GCR they reside. This kinship is not regionalist and Francoism promotes that members of this class must stand together against the common enemy: outside forces that seek to exploit the GCR.

The Francoist seeks constant GCR empowerment and by believes does anything possible to strengthen his/her specific GCR while ensuring that it keeps locked down and in fact and indeed "unplayable ground" for outside forces, such as the Pacific itself, for example.

Francoism accepts the realities of the game mechanics and in a way, ironically describes that off-site legislature means no protection against userite exploiters. It doesn't condemn or hate democracy, but it regards it in most cases as entry ticket for outside forces to not only influence GCR but also as source that gives those outside forces a solid base to infest them with their thoughts, ideas and merits to push them in a direction they see fit. The Dictatorship of the Feederites, is the desired state, where pure GCR natives hold absolute control over the regional mechanics with no realistic chance for outsiders to topple their place.

For more than a decade and to this day, the New Pacific Order/The Pacific can be regarded as military arm, as the fighting core of Francoism and Feederite principles.

Edit: Didn't realize my "n" button was not always as functional as I wished it to be. Missing "n"'s have been added.

[Roavin]

And what's the difference between "invader" and "imperialist?"

Arguably nothing at all.

Granted, one of them is significantly more verbose

[Unibot III]

So, I assume "Invader" "Defender" and "Independent" mean what I know them to mean. What's "Francoist?" And what's the difference between "invader" and "imperialist?"

Defenderism asserts the native right to self-determination for regions, opposing the arbitrary invasion of regions.

Invaderism asserts and celebrates the freedom of players to arbitrarily invade regions.

Imperialism finds state interest, regional expansion and the projection of power, justifies invasions [In practice, their invasions are often of an arbitrary nature, not unlike invaders.]

Francoism believes in a class struggle between feederites (loyal to GCRs) and userites (not loyal) within game-created regions, they seek feederite liberation from userite oppression.

Independentism is a NS take on IR Realism, which posits that regions should act in their self-interest rather than according to values. [My longstanding beef with independentism is it rarely in practice seems to follow a region's self-interest - the most successful independent regions just couple their foreign policy with others' (invader, imperialist, or defender) foreign policies.]

[Fauxia]

Francoism

Francoism is an ideology named after the New Pacific Orders founder nation Francos Spain.
Francoism believes in the existence of two classes in a constant struggle, a conflict that supersedes any R/D alignment and anything else: Feederites VS Userites.

(Almost) All nations are born in Feeders, these sticking to their homelands, whether the region they have been born in or another GCR and have no other affiliation but the respective GCR are considered: Feederite.
Nations that leave their Feeder for regions of their own, or friends or another user-created region for whatever reason, become residents of UCR.
If said residents then - ultimately affiliated with their UCR - try to conquer, manipulate, abuse or exploit a GCR for the glory, progress or political influence of their UCR and/or specific clique, they are Userite. The eternal enemy of any Francoist.

GCR for GCR, the ultra regionalist paradigm of Francoism. While Francoism itself isn't pure regionalist due to the strong believes in the feederite class. Any pure GCR native has the exalted status to be of the "their kin", by dogma, being a "brother", a "sister", no matter in which GCR they reside. This kinship is not regionalist and Francoism promotes that members of this class must stand together against the common enemy: outside forces that seek to exploit the GCR.

The Francoist seeks constant GCR empowerment and by believes does anything possible to strengthen his/her specific GCR while ensuring that it keeps locked down and in fact and indeed "unplayable ground" for outside forces, such as the Pacific itself, for example.

Francoism accepts the realities of the game mechanics and in a way, ironically describes that off-site legislature means no protection against userite exploiters. It doesn't condemn or hate democracy, but it regards it in most cases as entry ticket for outside forces to not only influence GCR but also as source that gives those outside forces a solid base to infest them with their thoughts, ideas and merits to push them in a direction they see fit. The Dictatorship of the Feederites, is the desired state, where pure GCR natives hold absolute control over the regional mechanics with no realistic chance for outsiders to topple their place.

For more than a decade and to this day, the New Pacific Order/The Pacific can be regarded as military arm, as the fighting core of Francoism and Feederite principles.

Edit: Didn't realize my "n" button was not always as functional as I wished it to be. Missing "n"'s have been added.

Thanks for the in-depth explanation. So, in a way, Francoism is a form of NS racism, not that Francoites are actually racist, of course. Maybe just NS Nationalism/Regionalism would be a better way to put it.

[Fauxia]

So, I assume "Invader" "Defender" and "Independent" mean what I know them to mean. What's "Francoist?" And what's the difference between "invader" and "imperialist?"

Defenderism asserts the native right to self-determination for regions, opposing the arbitrary invasion of regions.

Invaderism asserts and celebrates the freedom of players to arbitrarily invade regions.

Imperialism finds state interest, regional expansion and the projection of power, justifies invasions [In practice, their invasions are often of an arbitrary nature, not unlike invaders.]

Francoism believes in a class struggle between feederites (loyal to GCRs) and userites (not loyal) within game-created regions, they seek feederite liberation from userite oppression.

Independentism is a NS take on IR Realism, which posits that regions should act in their self-interest rather than according to values. [My longstanding beef with independentism is it rarely in practice seems to follow a region's self-interest - the most successful independent regions just couple their foreign policy with others' (invader, imperialist, or defender) foreign policies.]

So basically the difference between invaders and imperialists is that the former raids for fun and the latter raids for state reasons. Ok. Thanks