NationStates

Assessment and Commentary on the FRA

Greetings, I'm Unibot, the Arch-Chancellor of the Founderless Regions Alliance (FRA). In the following months I hope to bring about changes in how we operate and conduct our affairs with our member-regions and NationStates abroad. However, it is clear that people have genuine criticism and concerns to give in regards to how the Alliance operates, how we have operated and how we will operate. I'm not a historian, I do not claim to know everything that the FRA has done and what grievances it may have caused, but I look forward to trying to find solutions for the future, for some of the problems and whatnot that others may have with the FRA. Consider this your chance to give us a review of our administration, feedback and emphasis some of the problems that have plagued us in past so we can try to resolve these issues. I will be circulating this thread across our member-regions in the hopes to give a direct link to our member-regions for assessment, criticism and commentary, in addition to opening this discussion on the Official forums for non-members. In no-way am I suggesting that our representatives have not been giving me active feedback, but I have simply sensed that there is some deep resentment building up in areas of NationStates and member-regions and I wanted to offer a direct channel for such critical review. Thanks to a lovely poster for giving me this idea, she knows who she is.

Criticism for defending in general is off-topic in this thread, and please keep specific names out of your criticism as much as possible -- I want to try to keep the hostility out of this thread and the best way to do that is to cut the names out of it to make it a little less personal and confrontational.. but perhaps more constructive. Thanks!

The main problem I have with the FRA is its name. "Founderless" doesn't cover the nature of the membership of the FRA.

Ballotonia

Ballotonia wrote:The main problem I have with the FRA is its name. "Founderless" doesn't cover the nature of the membership of the FRA.

Ballotonia

Many of the regions have founders because we helped them refound to increase their regional security, actually a fair number have 'founder nations' that arnt any single persons nation in particular, just nations shared by a trusted group in the region to make sure the region is secure. So many with 'founder nations' still don't have founders.

If that is the worst criticism we get on this topic then I'll be very happy

It's me again. I'd like to talk a little about belief, and ideology. I don't have as much personal experience with the FRA, so this is going to be a little more general, but if the things I hear about the FRA are true, you may well want to listen as well.

Ideology can be a very good force, a very strong force. It guides us, helps us make decisions when we're not sure what to do, and shapes our worldview to keep it line with our ideals. It can provide a framework for examining the world. It also has a darker side. It can be a tool to obfuscate truth, oversimplify complex matters, and be the very start of crusades against those who are different, using the ideology as a crutch to prevent people from thinking about why they hate the others.

The problems with ideology rarely begin as anything but the best intentions. I'm reminded of a group which appeared on Babylon 5 for a time, the Night Watch. In the uncertain period following the Minbari war, many humans began to distrust aliens, and believed that other humans were actively working (or indirectly helping) to put an "alien" spin on everything, so that the human government wouldn't be afraid of the aliens, and would foolishly trust them. The paranoia about aliens fueled the Night Watch, created by an anti-alien ideology and a changing government, which was eventually given the power to examine everybody, and anybody who didn't toe the line, or seemed too "pro-alien." Eventually they were discredited, but it was a very awkward time in my career because of this group.

I'm sure that many others can provide other examples of ideology and paranoia mixing to bad result.

So what of the defenders who believe that there is a raider in every shadow? Can this be a healthy belief, when mixed with the absolutely intolerant ideology that many defenders have towards raiding? What does it mean when raiders who express an alternate viewpoint are derided as liars cast propaganda, instead of one who believes differently? Raiders posted, recently, a counter-offer to the FRA's offer to teach people about defending, by offering to teach people about raiding as well. The defenders' thread has been untouched by raiders, by their choice and intention, because the hope was that by offering up both viewpoints, neutrals would be able to choose between them (or, as was most likely, reject them both; see this thread).

The raiders ignored the opportunity to "score points" by going after some of the claims the defenders made, and offered themselves up instead, and what did they get for that? They got mobbed by defenders. Their honest opinions were called lies and propaganda, and intolerance reigned.

So my question for the FRA is this: In an environment where most people believe the truth to be in shades of grey, and where it's evident that both raiders and defenders have done some things which would be considered inappropriate, can you afford to hold on to the ideology you preach in terms of black and white? Is, perhaps, an ideology which suggests that defenders are pure, and raiders are wrong and evil, going to drive the FRA further out of touch with those people they purport to protect?

Edit: NVM, I'm tired of this.

John Sheridan wrote:Raiders posted, recently, a counter-offer to the FRA's offer to teach people about defending, by offering to teach people about raiding as well. The defenders' thread has been untouched by raiders, by their choice and intention, because the hope was that by offering up both viewpoints, neutrals would be able to choose between them (or, as was most likely, reject them both; see this thread).

Pardon? The first response in the defender thread was by a raider taking a stab at the FRA, the second by a raider pointing out not being interested. What do you mean "untouched" ?!? Did you even read that thread?

John Sheridan wrote:The raiders ignored the opportunity to "score points" by going after some of the claims the defenders made, and offered themselves up instead, and what did they get for that? They got mobbed by defenders. Their honest opinions were called lies and propaganda, and intolerance reigned.

If they were interested in defenders not posting in their thread they should've:
1. sticked to telling the truth. Publicly lying is asking for someone to point it out;
2. not posted in the defender thread themselves just to take a stab at defenders.

Ballotonia

Ballotonia wrote:

John Sheridan wrote:Raiders posted, recently, a counter-offer to the FRA's offer to teach people about defending, by offering to teach people about raiding as well. The defenders' thread has been untouched by raiders, by their choice and intention, because the hope was that by offering up both viewpoints, neutrals would be able to choose between them (or, as was most likely, reject them both; see this thread).

Pardon? The first response in the defender thread was by a raider taking a stab at the FRA, the second by a raider pointing out not being interested. What do you mean "untouched" ?!? Did you even read that thread?

And it wasn't made by anybody with a controlling interest in what the raiders had put forward. I know it's easy to talk about "raiders" and "defenders" as two groups, but defenders generally have a common ideology and consider themselves one group. Raiders generally don't. Evil Wolf doesn't speak for me, just because we both partake in the same activity.

Ballotonia wrote:

John Sheridan wrote:The raiders ignored the opportunity to "score points" by going after some of the claims the defenders made, and offered themselves up instead, and what did they get for that? They got mobbed by defenders. Their honest opinions were called lies and propaganda, and intolerance reigned.

If they were interested in defenders not posting in their thread they should've:
1. sticked to telling the truth. Publicly lying is asking for someone to point it out;
2. not posted in the defender thread themselves just to take a stab at defenders.

Ballotonia

1. You call it a lie, we call it a different point of view. You're going to keep calling it a lie, but that doesn't make you inherently correct and us inherently lying bastards. It means we have different points of view.

2. If you can call Evil Wolf's post in the thread even remotely equivalent to storming this thread and saying we're lying bastards, even then, the point remains that raiders are not a monolithic group, and the raiders who actually set up this thread have stayed entirely out of the defender thread, except with a polite and inobtrusive post that there was another point of view. Get off your high horse and come live in the real world.

Oliver the Mediocre wrote:And it wasn't made by anybody with a controlling interest in what the raiders had put forward. I know it's easy to talk about "raiders" and "defenders" as two groups, but defenders generally have a common ideology and consider themselves one group. Raiders generally don't. Evil Wolf doesn't speak for me, just because we both partake in the same activity.

Defenders do NOT consider themselves one amorphous group. There are different groups within, some who don't really get along so well. The claim in the post I was quoting referred to both defenders and invaders in general, without distinguishing any sub-group in EITHER.

Oliver the Mediocre wrote:1. You call it a lie, we call it a different point of view. You're going to keep calling it a lie, but that doesn't make you inherently correct and us inherently lying bastards. It means we have different points of view.

Claiming invading doesn't harm natives is a lie, because it ignores the factual evidence that actual harm is actually done. Factual evidence was hence provided. Invaders are fully aware of the harm they do, it has been pointed out to them time and time again. Willingly knowingly telling an untruth is a lie.

Oliver the Mediocre wrote:[...] the raiders who actually set up this thread have stayed entirely out of the defender thread, except with a polite and inobtrusive post that there was another point of view.

The "raiders who actually set up this thread" part is an extra qualification not present in the post I responded to. You claim here is hence not what was brought forth, and not what I was talking about either. I did not claim anything contrary to what you state here, so I see no point in you stating it in response to my post, as if it somehow contradicts what I stated.

Ballotonia

I think FRA has to be more honest about it's mistakes and communicate better.

Guys... I said.. don't make this about defending in general. Thank you for the genuine comments thus far.

Oliver the Mediocre wrote:And it wasn't made by anybody with a controlling interest in what the raiders had put forward. I know it's easy to talk about "raiders" and "defenders" as two groups, but defenders generally have a common ideology and consider themselves one group. Raiders generally don't. Evil Wolf doesn't speak for me, just because we both partake in the same activity.

Nope. You see your group as more divided and individualistic and our group as more unitary because you're the outsider to our group -- defenders are very divided, which is unfortunate in many cases.

EDIT: I'm fairly sure I just made an off-topic post in my own thread, dammit.

Unibot II wrote:

Oliver the Mediocre wrote:And it wasn't made by anybody with a controlling interest in what the raiders had put forward. I know it's easy to talk about "raiders" and "defenders" as two groups, but defenders generally have a common ideology and consider themselves one group. Raiders generally don't. Evil Wolf doesn't speak for me, just because we both partake in the same activity.

Nope. You see your group as more divided and individualistic and our group as more unitary because you're the outsider to our group -- defenders are very divided, which is unfortunate in many cases.

The so-called "Invader community" is hardly united either. If I can accept that you're not as united as you might appear, surely you can accept the same.

And now for something completely different.

Speaking out of my general experience with the FRA as a whole, I would have to agree with Ballotonia. "Founderless" Regions Alliance it is not, the FRA hardly has any founderless members anymore. It seems like every single time they get a new founderless member, Lone Wolves United (and I don't know why, maybe I'm not paying attention but it always seems to be my group) comes along and invades them almost immediately after their acceptance into the FRA. On two separate occasions, I believe The Franco Spanish Empire and Central Europe raids, we were successful in forcing the targeted regions completely out of the FRA entirely via threats of force. On two other occasions, The Black Market and Global Right Alliance, we forced you lot to desperately send e-mails to the CTEd founders in a last ditch, but ultimately successful, effort to revive the founder of said regions. I view this in general to be a major failing on the part of the FRA.

Past major Defender alliances such as the Alliance Defense Network (ADN) and the Red Liberty Alliance (RLA) both had many founderless regions which held membership in their groups. In the case of the ADN The Ocean of Purity, which was invaded repeatedly but always recovered, comes to mind and the RLA quite famously had The Proletariat Coalition , a much hated defender region which, to date, still has not been successfully invaded. These groups, your predecessors, took risks which made them both effect and strong. The FRA, on the other hand, gets beat a couple of times then flat out quits. Its actually quite discouraging to watch. I would recommend the FRA get its hands dirty rather than keeping it "safe and clean".

On another note, I was greatly vexed by the no-notice closing of the Lone Wolves United embassy on the FRA forums. Historically LWU strives to maintain warm relations with our Defender opponents and the embassy closing by the FRA, of which no reason was provided, was deeply troubling. Lone Wolves United had maintained an embassy with the FRA almost since its very creation and continues to this day to keep a space reserved on our forums for the FRA to come and post updates, although at this time none have been submitted. I would very much like to see relations between our organizations reopen but given the FRA's somewhat recent anti-invader policies when it comes to foreign relations, such as refusing to grant any active Crasher ambassador status, I rather doubt this will occur. Still, with the leadership change I remain cautiously optimistic.

Evil Wolf wrote:Past major Defender alliances such as the Alliance Defense Network (ADN) and the Red Liberty Alliance (RLA) both had many founderless regions which held membership in their groups. In the case of the ADN The Ocean of Purity, which was invaded repeatedly but always recovered, comes to mind and the RLA quite famously had The Proletariat Coalition , a much hated defender region which, to date, still has not been successfully invaded. These groups, your predecessors, took risks which made them both effect and strong. The FRA, on the other hand, gets beat a couple of times then flat out quits. Its actually quite discouraging to watch. I would recommend the FRA get its hands dirty rather than keeping it "safe and clean".

You're overlooking a very important difference in the game between then and now: the institution of Influence was accompanied by the abolishment of the prior invasion rules. While priorly it was counter-productive for invaders to even try to grief a region into oblivion (mod-bombs would take care of the invaders and the region would be returned to the natives), nowadays invaders capturing a region and holding it for eternity is an actual real threat. And even with Liberations there's not much which can be done about it if the invaders pile in and the invader delegate remains active.

So, in conclusion, I don't think it's for to blame FRA for being a weaker defender organization than the ADN was. The nature of the game itself has shifted to a technical built-in advantage for invaders (where, incomparison, the ADN played on a more level field and often won through numerical advantage alone, though invaders back then not being all too intelligent in their approach certainly helped a lot... those numbers are gone now, lots of defenders and invaders simply quit playing).

Ballotonia

Evil Wolf wrote:On another note, I was greatly vexed by the no-notice closing of the Lone Wolves United embassy on the FRA forums. Historically LWU strives to maintain warm relations with our Defender opponents and the embassy closing by the FRA, of which no reason was provided, was deeply troubling. Lone Wolves United had maintained an embassy with the FRA almost since its very creation and continues to this day to keep a space reserved on our forums for the FRA to come and post updates, although at this time none have been submitted. I would very much like to see relations between our organizations reopen but given the FRA's somewhat recent anti-invader policies when it comes to foreign relations, such as refusing to grant any active Crasher ambassador status, I rather doubt this will occur. Still, with the leadership change I remain cautiously optimistic.

Not sure when your outpost was closed, it would either have been closed for inactivity or when we closed all diplomatic relations ( ) but I would be surprised if you weren't given notice of it in some form.

You're welcome to ask for an outpost once more, Europeia have one so I don't see why LWU wouldn't be allowed one

Numero Capitan wrote:You're welcome to ask for an outpost once more, Europeia have one so I don't see why LWU wouldn't be allowed one

Yeah, I don't mind it either.