NationStates

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:34 pm**

If UCRs can pull of independence, why can't GCRs? At the end of the day, GCRs are not as differant from UCRs as they'd to think.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:40 pm**

Unibot III wrote:I disagree, the original EPSA struggled to get off the ground and I think your heavy bias to Independence as a military ideology is informing your opinion of a military organization that you had little interaction with at that time.

First of all, I think your heavy bias towards a non-existant greater "moral" cause seems to be informing/impairing your opinions much more than any of my beliefs might be affecting mine.

As for EPSA, if you'll remember, I'm the one who actually communicated with them rather than sellthe UDL and basically bend over for them at the slightest mention of them defending. Example: The UDL/TEP Treaty that TEP disregarded... while you went into total denial of their disregard until the Lieutenants put their feet down :|

In fact, of you'd remember, EPSA was succesfully doing invasion/tag operations without anyone elses support during the time you mention. That sounds at least moderately succesful to me; though that might just be because you wouldn't let UDL defend those raids... Moral Crusade until a chance for political influence appears, right?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:51 pm**

Silver Seas wrote:If UCRs can pull of independence, why can't GCRs? At the end of the day, GCRs are not as differant from UCRs as they'd to think.

There are three reasons GCRs don't pull off independence the way UCRs do.

1. GCRs don't have Founders, which means that they lack the stability and security to do bold things on both sides of the R/D spectrum that independent UCRs could accomplish. If a GCR alienates both sides of the R/D spectrum by being active both raiding and defending, that GCR finds itself isolated with no allies to come to its defense in event of a coup. This is a problem UCRs with Founders don't have to worry about.

2. Again, GCRs don't have Founders.

This means that they are typically democratic with relatively high Delegate turnover, obvious exceptions being The Pacific and in a different way The West Pacific. Again, because GCRs lack a Founder to set a clear direction for the region, people of various backgrounds join the region, and the moderating influence of democracy leads to "independence" becoming not doing anything to piss off the people of various backgrounds in your region rather than working independently on both sides of the R/D spectrum.

3. GCRs don't do "independence" the same way many UCRs do. Take, for example, Europeia. Europeia is in fact an independent region in that it's welcoming to people of diverse gameplay backgrounds, but it's an independent region that has embraced a clear direction for its military -- moderate raiding as a way to keep the ERN well trained and active, with defenses and liberations typically confined to regional interests (i.e., defense of treaty allies or other friendly prominent regions). Independent GCRs, on the other hand, are typically unwilling to embrace clear directions for their military forces. They don't successfully make the community welcoming for people of diverse gameplay backgrounds while giving the military a clear direction and insisting that community =/= military; they instead attempt to make the community welcoming by conflating community and military and keeping the military directionless to keep everyone in the community happy.

Again, this is due in part to UCRs being more homogeneous than GCRs because the former have a Founder to set a clear direction for the region from the beginning while the latter do not.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:55 pm**

I'm not entirely sure I agree with your logic, but you have more GCR experience than I, and you make a good set of points. Thanks for explaining your reasoning.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:01 pm**

Tim-Opolis wrote:As for EPSA, if you'll remember, I'm the one who actually communicated with them rather than sellthe UDL and basically bend over for them at the slightest mention of them defending. Example: The UDL/TEP Treaty that TEP disregarded... while you went into total denial of their disregard until the Lieutenants put their feet down :|

In fact, of you'd remember, EPSA was succesfully doing invasion/tag operations without anyone elses support during the time you mention. That sounds at least moderately succesful to me; though that might just be because you wouldn't let UDL defend those raids... Moral Crusade until a chance for political influence appears, right?

EPSA was not doing much regularly until AMOM's second term. There was an amendment to the EPSA's policies that made more activity possible.

Excuse me, but I had left the game by the time that EPSA started invading random regions (that had embassies with GGR).I would have opposed those actions and considered it a violation of our treaty with TEP. I support Chief Solm's decision to cancel relations with TEP over that issue -- when TEP refused to step down on the conduct.

Before that point, EPSA had only been invading regions that refused to follow TEP's adspam laws and this attack had prior been threatened to the regions that consistently broke TEP's adspam laws (and out right defied them). The latter behavior is a lot different than the arbitrariness of the invaders which I pledged to fight against; I didn't get into the business of being a defender to become the interregional policy police. There's a difference between The Black Riders and a region attacking another region because the other region has broken its laws persistently and overtly shows no regard for them.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:30 pm**

2. Again, GCRs don't have Founders. This means that they are typically democratic with relatively high Delegate turnover, obvious exceptions being The Pacific and in a different way The West Pacific. Again, because GCRs lack a Founder to set a clear direction for the region, people of various backgrounds join the region, and the moderating influence of democracy leads to "independence" becoming not doing anything to piss off the people of various backgrounds in your region rather than working independently on both sides of the R/D spectrum.

Why whatever do you mean Cormac?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:06 pm**

Unibot III wrote:I would disagree, Todd. I think you're being too charitable to the original EPSA, which really struggled for activity until opening up to participation with other military organizations during AMOM's term. Its prior history as a neutral army was not particularly successful and I think trying to balance a more Invader stance now would be disastrous for the modern EPSA.

Likewise, TEP has been previously inactive on and off for years under its most neutral regimes -- more so than its fellow GCRs who flirted with a moral direction.

There's a lot of lessons from "The False Independence" that TEP has already put into action to help succeed and I imagine TEP will continue to take cues from this new emerging direction that is counter to the old Westwindean Consensus (activity = chaos; R/D is limiting; military focus should be attacking fringe minorities).

On the contrary, I believe the EPSA has been successful from the start. It began slow, but then again so does every other military. The main problem with EPSA's early days was listening to both sides of the coin for direction. That didn't dissuade them from doing what they did; rather, it did bog them down with all the treaties they had signed along the way. Had they refrained from doing that, we wouldn't have had some of the problems we had early on. When groups started to say to TEP "Hey! You can't do that!", TEP initially tried find a way around it. It wasn't until they said "Try me" that the army really started taking off. Today, it is an active military, and is directed internally by its own people.

I must also disagree with the second aspect. The luls in activity were either due to some external event (summer low, New Year's low), or due to some serious internal event (drama). Other than that, I can't detect a correlation between "relative" neutrality and activity. It simply doesn't add up.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:38 pm**

Wickedly evil people wrote:
2. Again, GCRs don't have Founders. This means that they are typically democratic with relatively high Delegate turnover, obvious exceptions being The Pacific and in a different way The West Pacific. Again, because GCRs lack a Founder to set a clear direction for the region, people of various backgrounds join the region, and the moderating influence of democracy leads to "independence" becoming not doing anything to piss off the people of various backgrounds in your region rather than working independently on both sides of the R/D spectrum.

Why whatever do you mean Cormac?

Nothing offensive, as to be honest I've come to respect The Pacific's and The West Pacific's way of doing things more than the cookie cutter democratic model of most GCRs. Allowing a sitting Delegate to choose his or her successor, rather than electing them democratically, can ensure stability and continuity and also give a GCR more flexibility to pursue objectives other GCRs might be too timid to pursue due to their democratic structures. It's no accident that under this model the NPO has been a major factor in gameplay for a decade and The West Pacific currently has one of the only active GCR military forces, and that both are quite stable in comparison to other GCRs.

My personal hope is that Osiris will also adopt this model, though I think that's fairly unlikely.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:17 pm**

I would say TWP and TP are more democratic than the sham regions.

If you're in the WA you get to vote for the Delegate. If you aren't you don't.

If you have the Delegate's chair you can use game rules to help your successor, but if the WA nations aren't engaged politically by the Delegate (meaning that you've acquired a ruling mandate via those doing the voting) it does not matter how good your advantages are via influence and game mechanics you are doomed to fail eventually.

Remember Wickedly evil people being overtaken by Rolheath ?

That was because I didn't pay attention to my constituency's needs and was overthrown because of it.

I modified my behavior since then to be sure I'm not on the wrong side of political movements within the region.

We are democracy, the rest of you aren't. No offense

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:21 pm**

The NPO isn't a democracy, even in a purely WA sense. They have this thing called a really, really low endocap.

And the NPO wasn't a 'force' in Gameplay for a long time, until the last year and change it had been fairly inactive on the world stage for quite some time before that.

A lack of democracy is no more a garuntee of anything than democracy, at the end of the day. Just a trend line.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:33 pm**

Klaus Devestatorie wrote:The essay has merit, but it appears to mix up multiple brands of "Independence" and mix and match between specific tenants of each brand for it's own convenience. It would be better if individual brands were identified and then addressed each in turn.

Well I find that the notion of raider/invader and defender ignores the real question of what constitutes respecting sovereignty of other regions, does respecting sovereignty entail maintaining the integrity of a region as is, or instead the extent of social harm to a community; a NS community is not always socially harmed by a raid or an invasion, in fact it can be quite the opposite as raiders and invaders can become contributing members to the community. You could combine both into a non-interference principle i.e. an NS 'Prime Directive', but such an idea isn't popular among raider/invader or defender camps for obvious reasons.

So to me this discussion or 'essay' as you term it, lacks a lot of concepts that are staring everyone in the face on a daily basis in NS. Independence is neither a boon, nor a deficit for GCR's or UCR's; either can result in hardship or implosion given the right social circumstances of a community.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2013 7:43 pm**

Wickedly evil people wrote:I would say TWP and TP are more democratic than the sham regions.

It's an interesting move to proclaim the two GCR regions with the oldest-serving delegates as "more democratic" than "sham regions", but okay.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:17 am**

Wickedly evil people wrote:I would say TWP and TP are more democratic than the sham regions.

If you're in the WA you get to vote for the Delegate. If you aren't you don't.

If you have the Delegate's chair you can use game rules to help your successor, but if the WA nations aren't engaged politically by the Delegate (meaning that you've acquired a ruling mandate via those doing the voting) it does not matter how good your advantages are via influence and game mechanics you are doomed to fail eventually.

Remember Wickedly evil people being overtaken by Rolheath ?

That was because I didn't pay attention to my constituency's needs and was overthrown because of it.

I modified my behavior since then to be sure I'm not on the wrong side of political movements within the region.

We are democracy, the rest of you aren't. No offense

Two words. The Commonwealth.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:51 am**

Todd McCloud wrote:
Wickedly evil people wrote:I would say TWP and TP are more democratic than the sham regions.

It's an interesting move to proclaim the two GCR regions with the oldest-serving delegates as "more democratic" than "sham regions", but okay.

Sham regions have fake elections, the same players as all the other regions are 'citizens' you go round and round with the same old cast. WA nations in the region have to apply for citizenship? That's the sham.

Mind you if you guys want to run every region and pretend to the WA nations that you're all different players that fine with me. Seems a lot like franchising fake democracy TNP style to me.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:10 am**

Wickedly evil people wrote:
Todd McCloud wrote:It's an interesting move to proclaim the two GCR regions with the oldest-serving delegates as "more democratic" than "sham regions", but okay.

Sham regions have fake elections, the same players as all the other regions are 'citizens' you go round and round with the same old cast. WA nations in the region have to apply for citizenship? That's the sham.

Mind you if you guys want to run every region and pretend to the WA nations that you're all different players that fine with me. Seems a lot like franchising fake democracy TNP style to me.

Have you ever, I don't know, TG'd the WA nations in your region and talk to them about voting, delegates, gameplay, etc? We do. This citizenship is not something for only elite members; rather, the path is clearly defined for them to choose if they want to. There are no barriers. The trouble is many simply choose not to involve themselves in gameplay. And that's their choice. No one can force them to do something they don't want to do. Our job is simply pushing them to do so and if they want to, then clearing the path of as many obstacles as possible.

Our current delegate election features three first-time runners who are native to the region. They don't really go out try to soak up citizenships from other regions - they seem to be content with how things are going in their home region. Judging by the excellent campaigning, I have no qualms with either of them being a delegate. And that's, realisitically, the way it should be. Pass the torch on, so to speak. Give one of the other natives a chance to run things. Or someone who has some really good ideas and a whole lot of motivation.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 7:59 am**

our history includes

Lots of Ants lol another story obviously

Enlightened Defenders, I didn't know who that was even but PD recommended him

Punk Daddy, TNP resident, etc.

We do engage all WA nations in the region, it's how you build a consensus.

That's why AGP is Delegate, he's built a political consensus.

I'll agree we do it differently

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:54 pm**

Punk Daddy was not even slightly active in TNP when he became TWP delegate, for the record. His originally feeder is TSP, in any case.

Lots of Ants was, in part, a Gatesville agent.

But you've deliberately ignored my point regarding the Commonwealth. ROLHEATH did not happen to be able to defeat you with solely TWPers, because of your position as Delegate. The Commonwealth intervened at a minor update, boosting his endorsement count over yours.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:30 pm**

Cerian Quilor wrote:First of all, Law and Politics, while related, are not the same thing. Second of all, banning murder is productive for a whole laundry list of reasons unrelated to morality.

Are you confusing Morality with Religion?
Someone can have good "morals" and not be connected to any religion whatsoever. "Morals" are merely things perceived as "good" by society.
Religious Morals can be different because a person may not agree with that particular religion.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:45 pm**

I'm not confusing Morality with religion. You're confusing Morality with society's ethical outlooks.

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:48 pm**

Silver Seas wrote:I'm not confusing Morality with religion. You're confusing Morality with society's ethical outlooks.

Connections!

Morality
Ethics

Posted: **Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:03 pm**

NSG, HERE WE COME!!!

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:08 am**

Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:Punk Daddy was not even slightly active in TNP when he became TWP delegate, for the record. His originally feeder is TSP, in any case.

Lots of Ants was, in part, a Gatesville agent.

But you've deliberately ignored my point regarding the Commonwealth. ROLHEATH did not happen to be able to defeat you with solely TWPers, because of your position as Delegate. The Commonwealth intervened at a minor update, boosting his endorsement count over yours.

I knew who LoA was, believe me.

I NEVER have known or even thought about what the Commonwealth is or was. I had no clue until this post that they were even involved or who was involved other than I think I recall Blue Wolf helped, but I might be wrong.

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:19 pm**

Wickedly evil people wrote:
Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:Punk Daddy was not even slightly active in TNP when he became TWP delegate, for the record. His originally feeder is TSP, in any case.

Lots of Ants was, in part, a Gatesville agent.

But you've deliberately ignored my point regarding the Commonwealth. ROLHEATH did not happen to be able to defeat you with solely TWPers, because of your position as Delegate. The Commonwealth intervened at a minor update, boosting his endorsement count over yours.

I knew who LoA was, believe me.

I NEVER have known or even thought about what the Commonwealth is or was. I had no clue until this post that they were even involved or who was involved other than I think I recall Blue Wolf helped, but I might be wrong.

The Commonwealth was a group of regions underneath a singular federal government with a combined population of maybe 1400 across 6-7 at its zenith. The TWP operation was probably the height of the Commonwealth's military power; we dropped in maybe 40 nations underneath our own steam. Blue Wolf was the Minister of Defense for The Commonwealth at the time. The Holy Dominion Confederation assisted, although with how many nations I don't remember. The Aeazen Combine was also operating in The Commonwealth at the time at the invitation of the Head of State, Queen Rose Alphanesia, and they brought in maybe 6-8 unmarked nations. I don't personally remember who, if anyone else, assisted.

This was before the existence of "minor updates"; BW looked at the matter and decided that there was no right or wrong way to deploy that many nations, and thus simply moved them in without any regard to the update time. I guess you either didn't notice or didn't care, because apparently it worked in the end.

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:07 pm**

I would say TWP and TP are more democratic than the sham regions.

Pacifica is a meritocracy.

Posted: **Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:09 pm**

Which is apparently what Cormac calls a democracy. Go figure.

NationStates

The False Independence - Principles for a New Lazarus