NATION

PASSWORD

Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Talk about regional management and politics, raider/defender gameplay, and other game-related matters.
Not a roleplaying forum.
User avatar
General T R Franks
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Apr 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby General T R Franks » Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:55 am

[posted LIVE IN GAME in 'Feudal Japan' with my WA raider nation 'Roger Hooper' and reposted for the raider community in 'The Old Raiding Club' using this nation 'General T R Franks' - replicated here for admin and mod perusal as per request]

Defenders should forget about trying to mitigate the global condemnation they are receiving for their Security Council interference in regional sovereignty by cheap, pointless chatter which you hope might change the situation.

Spamming the board here will not make anyone change their mind about defenders perverting the freedoms of all nations and regions in NS.

Senior raiders liasing with the delegate here are all pretty laid back about the outcome, so for those fendas who haven't been watching too carefully, here's roughly where we're at:

Despite defenders proposing and passing SRC#6 nominating Feudal Japan as the battlefield (the time and place of their choosing), raiders had the region in complete lockdown 24 hours prior to the Resolution being implemented.

By 96 hours after implementation and password removal, all senior raiders, empire builders and neutral nations here had made co-ordinated contact with the delegate and the cross-verification of all nations deepened. Numerous dubious nations have been ejected and the watchful eyes of global raider forces patrol the region 24/7.

Despite having SCR#6 passed by an overwhelming 4575 to 894 votes, rather than any co-ordinated public statement by the proposers and supporters of this legislation, the only defender voices heard are those that are against WA pervertion of regional sovereignty and mechanical rule changes.

Across the globe there is no concentrated diplomatic support anywhere for any of the six Security Council Resolutions so far, least of all for passing SCR#6 to destroy a region of only two nations and a delegacy of 640 days.

Meanwhile as we speak, watered-down, 'show pony commendation' proposals are being put forward in hope that in-crowd popularism will dilute the vulgarity of 'the six' which create precedent to destroy regional independence for all players across NS.

The scope to railroad further destructive and coercive WA SCR's by narrow NS forum moderation viewpoint has been challenged directly and the 'primacy of the gamemap' in point of fact has been established by the now undeleted 'gamemap manifesto' which correctly places the NS forum as supplemental to the NationStates game and not some replacement or usurpment of it:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14641

Acknowledging the battle won in Feudal Japan, raider groups got back to business early with The Black Hawks being the first to rotate more flexible troops out of FJ securing another great victory while creative opportunism saw Lone Wolves United and The Commonwealth take long held Africa with mod assistance to overcome a localised glitch.

Defenders would be better off consulting with their diplomatic cadre either to devise some argument which supports destruction of regional independence of sovereignty across NS or devise a way for them to unsupport it in the same way that long game defenders from Chicago have done by their recent public statement distancing themselves from the contradictory position that you want to 'uphold the right to regional freedom by defending neutral regions' while simimultaneously stripping regions of their independent status and right to regional autonomy they have enjoyed since the game began rolling out of the Pacifics.

This might wash in smalltownsville, but if NS hopes to replicate geopolitical complexity and relevance vis-a-vis the real world and keep players engaged, it has to acknowledge that the political superstructure of the UN and all the world's navies have little real relevance over three million square miles where a handful of Somali boatmen are maintaining their form of localised independence and effectiveness irrespective of how you, me, the UN, the navy or anyone else likes it.

How many 'superior' armies or political machines have been overcome or neutralised in the history of the world? Ever noticed that Afghanistan has mostly been a battlefield for the last two thousand years? How many attempts at global hegemony have ever really managed to patrol the world? Who would come close? - Alexander? Genghis Khan? The Romans? The Incas? The Brits? The USA? How small is the worldview, right?

So by any yardstick NS wandering off into fantasyland that there is or ever was some central ruling power who could 'go anywhere, do anything and always achieve their whim' decouples NS from geopolitical real world complexity and it's all downhill from there.

NS has been there, tried that, it was called NS2. Breaking the framework of independent regional messageboards and self-governing autonomous communities while trying to funnel players down a revenue path to express themselves was never going to work. It's regrettable that the NS game owner and community were not treated with the sincerity that was supposedly displayed at the beginning of the NS2 transaction and there is no doubt long game players have had to content with significant and in some cases terminal destruction of their local regional communities. It would be madness to go down this path again.

If anything, what we have seen is that despite the onslaught to NS that NS2 was, it's the longer term player constituency who function well as independent autonomous self-governing communities who have kept this game alive.

It's now roughly 10 days since Feudal Japan was secured and from a nominal top line of 70 endorsements the scaling back will continue. It's good to see more raiders evidently briefed on protocols because raiders are no longer asking questions publicly on the board which help our enemies like, "How long are we going to be here?", "Are we going to refound?" and so on. Instead, people asking those sort of questions are highlighting themselves as worthy of further scrutiny.

Groz has been delegate now for 650 days (congrats mate) so there's no hurry or fear motivation that defenders can apply here. Standard raider procedure is already in effect with longer term garrison troops being installed while those more fluid troops are already long gone taking the raider flag to other lands.

So fendas, if you can't think of anything, here's one honourable way out to save some face and NS from further regional community destruction -

1) Publicly renounce your support for the vain and vulgar six WA SCR's passed and take steps to have these recinded by public motion or internal diplomatic fiat.

2) Renounce any and all claim on Feudal Japan as forfeit for 'illegal overreach of WA authority by abuse of Security Council process' thereby acknowledging that one cannot champion or 'defend' regional rights by destroying region sovereignty and autonomy.

Or not? The choice is yours to make, however you should be aware that while raiders have been content to delegitimise the 'vain and vulgar six' across the NS gamemap, we have simultaneously opted to preserve your veneer of respectability on the NS forum by not shining any light on your inappropriate actions and untenable position which attacks the freedoms of all players and regions in NS while pretending to defend them.

And as you know on forums, posts remain, people link to them, and this matter isn't going to go away there like it will here. The chattering classes love a good moral dilemma and will tear apart your non-sense in no time. If you can't even support your own position, how will anyone else be able to? Is that where you'd like this to go? How widely do you want to damage your credibility and to what depths would you like it damaged?

All over NS there is diplomatic silence and no support for any of your actions or SCR's passed and we don't see 4575 WA's here to support you - you are not even here to back yourselves or your resolutions.

So talk amongst yourselves and bring NS back from the abyss of regional destruction by taking your diplomatic foot out of your mouths, do yourself the justice in valuing the very communities you supposedly hope to 'defend'.

Defend the freedoms you champion in fact as well as by rhetoric - erase the six SCR's passed so far and look to creative ways to expand your influence which are not at the expense of independent communities and all players across NS.

We don't need another NS holocaust just because defenders think they have the fantasyland right to police the world.

User avatar
San Petulina
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 13
Founded: May 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby San Petulina » Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:10 am

Cool story, bro.

User avatar
RhynoD
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 490
Founded: Nov 11, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby RhynoD » Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:19 am

San Petulina wrote:Cool story, bro.

Cha. Wanna go play some ultimate frizbee, brah?
So a horse walks into a bar and the bartender says, "Hey, why the long face?"
Former top poster and First President of the Social Spam Alliance.
Sarkhaan wrote:This. And just about everything else RhynoD said.

User avatar
Kryozerkia
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 11096
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Kryozerkia » Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:43 am

San Petulina wrote:Cool story, bro.


RhynoD wrote:
San Petulina wrote:Cool story, bro.

Cha. Wanna go play some ultimate frizbee, brah?


Let's see...
It adds nothing to the thread. Check.
It is utterly irrelevant. Check.
It can only be one thing. Spam.
Both of you are warned for spamming.
Last edited by Kryozerkia on Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Problem to Report?
Game-side: Getting Help
Forum-side: Moderation
Technical issue/suggestion: Technical
A-well-a, don't you know about the bird
♦ Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word ♦
♦ A-well-a, bird, bird, b-bird's the word

Get the cheese to Sickbay

"Ok folks, show's over... Nothing to see here... Show's OH MY GOD! A horrible plane crash! Hey everybody, get a load of this flaming wreckage! Come on, crowd around, crowd around, don't be shy, crowd around!" -- Chief Wiggum

User avatar
The Sedge
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Sep 25, 2007
Corporate Bordello

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby The Sedge » Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:13 am

This is a rather convoluted and rambling statement, so I'll try and respond to the comprehensible bits I can pick out of it.

These are the points I could dredge out, with my responses afterwards:

There's a 'global comdemnation' of defenders for their 'Security Council interference in regional sovereignty'

Contradicted in your own statement by saying 'all over NS there is diplomatic silence and no support for any of your actions or SCR's passed'. Which is it to be - diplomatic silence or global condemnation? I haven't come across much at all in the way of condemnation of the liberation resolutions, other than from those with vested interests - raiders, and WA players who dislike the existence of the Security Council. I really don't understand how you manage to equate the massive majorities in favour of the liberation proposals with this mysterious global body of individuals condemning them.

The raiders have 'won' in Feudal Japan

All I can say here is that its nearly 2 years since the region was invaded - the liberation resolution was proposed despite this, and we're not going to just give up after a couple of weeks.

The only defender voices heard are those against Security Council resolutions

I saw a defender post on either Feudal Japan's or TORC's RMB saying they didn't really like them. Other than that, I literally cannot find a single other defender who dislikes the liberation resolutions.

SCR#6 was passed to destroy a region of only two nations and a delegacy of 640 days

'Liberate Feudal Japan' was passed to liberate a region from the grasp of the occupying invaders who'd destroyed the region. This would then allow the natives of Feudal Japan (ie those people currently in Tokugawa Japan) to move back to their homeland.

Something about the 'primacy of the gamemap'

The forum is not just here to serve the game - it is part of the game. Many NS players spend all their time on the forum (look through the RP forums/General/Forum 7). Whats wrong with having an area to discuss changes to the game - you surely can't expect them to be discussed on RMBs?

Defenders have a 'claim' on Feudal Japan

Nope. We'll liberate it, and hand it over to the natives - they're the only ones with a legitimate claim on the region.

If there is anything else you'd like me to reply to, could you possibly try and make your points a bit shorter.

User avatar
Evil Wolf
Minister
 
Posts: 2271
Founded: Apr 28, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Evil Wolf » Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:24 am

Personally, I don't understand why no one from my side has tried to repeal SCR#6, except of course for the fact that most raiders have never written a WA proposal and never want to.

I was thinking about doing it myself...but then the above stated reasons got the better of me. :p

But really, if the guys in Nazi Europe can put up an appeal, even if it failed, someone involved in FJ should be able to do the same.
It's ok! You can trust me! I've been Commended!

Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.

Mallorea and Riva should be a Game Moderator Game Administrator.

User avatar
Anime Daisuki
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 464
Founded: Feb 21, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Anime Daisuki » Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:23 am

It is just me, or are invaders (particularly a few members of DEN, Unknown and Salford) over-reacting a little in recent times?

Let's be professional about it. Shall we?

User avatar
General T R Franks
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Apr 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby General T R Franks » Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:05 pm

[posted LIVE IN GAME at The Old Raiding Club]

@The Sedge, the proposer of WA SCR#6, so confident in the worth of his myopic, untenable proposal that he is unable to formulate comments or relate his illogical dross to the NS gamemap context, instead preferring to hide on the NS forum rather than champion the SCR in full public light of NS.

Hey, maybe not go that far, how about starting with some argument to back yourself up in your own region of South Pacific? Or try to spread out your commentary across your three 'League of the Pacifics' regions or whatever you call them?

Maybe try to build some support to bridge the glaring impass between you saying something on the forum that you are supposedy confident in while saying absolutely nothing in a public NS capacity and at the same time attempting to strip regions of their regional sovereignty just because you "do not understand" what the subject of the post was about - geopolitical realism on NS.

In just which part of smalltownsville do you live? Turned on a TV recently, discovered the world just isn't about you and what you think should go on in other people's regions?

If you think I'll be posting further remarks here or on the NS forum to participate in this garbage when you have said zip on the gamemap you are as bewildered as your SCR proposal is infantile.

Need further clarification on that point, refer my first forum post linked to in the topic opener above.

Here's a tip - language is a vehicle for meaning, not the meaning itself.

When you learn to address the wholism of what was written and can string a few paragraphs of argument together, get back to me. In fact don't, we've all heard enough already and you're so dead in the water you don't even fly the flag of your supposed achievement of passing a SCR on your WFE or in your recruitment telegrams to new nations.

Thinking linguistic or semantic interplay in the forum outlands of Technical is gonna to buy you any NS cred for SCR#6 is pretty sad.

By your refusal to even publicly support your own WA SCR in your own region, the feeders, Feudal Japan or anywhere you perfectly highlight the disconnect between the NS gamemap and forum I alluded to earlier.

Crapping on in the NS forum when you as the proposer of the resolution and all defenders generally as the vanguard of its passing have been called to account for yourselves on the gamemap is simply not good enough.

Do not waste your time typing on this forum to me, address your comments directly to the body corporate of NS on the gamemap, rather than pretending what you have proposed and passed via the WA is cogent or in anyway addresses the reality of the NS gamemap or bears any semblance of geopolitical reality vis-a-vis the real world.

It doesn't and if you don't understand this, then step aside and let me see who of your number does - if you can't cut the mustard in the court of NS public opinion, then bring on another fenda who can.

And this 'attack' isn't personal, far from it, anyone proposing this type of garbage would be in the crosshairs, whoever they were, so don't feel glum chum, it's all just a game - so play it on the gamemap.

Or do you still not understand that your attempts to interfere in all nations rights and all regions independence of sovereignty doesn't concern everyone?

----

Apologies to all TORC patrons for hammering home these rather obvious points, seems our enemies are running and hiding on the forum and can't whip up enough words or friends to even back what they propose on their own WFE's or RMB's and yet still somehow claim it's relevant to the game.

If I perceive there is any raider mileage to be gained by these cross-referenced type posts I won't be cluttering up TORC with responding to fenda crappola like this here, I'll take it to another region. Thanks for hanging in there.

*tips doorman an old worn copy of Nietzche's autobiography with sections of the chapter 'Maxims and Arrows' highlighted. Wonders if he's given the wrong book, so hands over another Neitzsche volume entitled 'Twilight of the Idols' just in case.

User avatar
The Sedge
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 167
Founded: Sep 25, 2007
Corporate Bordello

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby The Sedge » Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:15 pm

The forums is part of the game. Really - it actually is. And frankly, if a debate needs to be had, its the best place to have one, because there's a permanent record of what people have said.

As for not defending the resolution, I visited the forums of several regions (including all the feeders) to view the debates on the 'Liberate Feudal Japan', and took part in the debate on some of them. However, the main debate on resolutions occurs on this forum. I don't know what you have again this place - it really isn't that bad. Further to that, I did also justify the resolution to Feudal Japan - the natives of that region, who were kicked out by Groznia et al.

Again, your post leaves me confused, and I don't think I'm the only one. The reference to South Pacific (not my region)/the League of Pacifics really doesn't make any sense in the context of what (I think) you're trying to argue.

I have no intention of visiting TORC to justify myself, as it doesn't seem like the ideal location for a reasoned debate.

User avatar
Mavenu
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Mavenu » Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:17 pm

I should point out that the league of the pacifics idea died around 2004...

Though i noticed someone tried to resurrect it this past week.

and we're the south pacific ;)
Last edited by Mavenu on Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scolopendra
Minister
 
Posts: 3146
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Scolopendra » Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:56 pm

A few comments.

General T R Franks wrote:The scope to railroad further destructive and coercive WA SCR's by narrow NS forum moderation viewpoint has been challenged directly and the 'primacy of the gamemap' in point of fact has been established by the now undeleted 'gamemap manifesto' which correctly places the NS forum as supplemental to the NationStates game and not some replacement or usurpment of it:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14641

You're saying that, because it wasn't deleted, it's valid and we agree to it?

Boy, are you out of your league.

If it's not something like goatse, generally it just gets locked. Seeing how it did get locked, that's pretty much shooting down the concept that the forums are secondary to the "gamemap." They aren't. They are a completely valid (and more or less independent) way to play with the toy that Mr. Barry has provided.

if NS hopes to replicate geopolitical complexity and relevance vis-a-vis the real world

Have you seen some of the issues? NS was never intended to be a hardcore real-life politics/world events simulator. There are other applications and places which do that much better.

So by any yardstick NS wandering off into fantasyland that there is or ever was some central ruling power who could 'go anywhere, do anything and always achieve their whim' decouples NS from geopolitical real world complexity and it's all downhill from there.

NSUN/WA resolutions have always had the force of legislation on member nations. This is patently unrealistic; real-life UN resolutions aren't, for example, German law by default. And it's always been that way.

If anything, what we have seen is that despite the onslaught to NS that NS2 was, it's the longer term player constituency who function well as independent autonomous self-governing communities who have kept this game alive.

Perhaps. The forums have these sorts of communities as well. It's the height of arrogance to assume that raiders and similar are the only such things with these traits.

In essence, you are operating off of three false assumptions:

1) Regional gameplay is the primary purpose of the NationStates 'service.' All other items are secondary to that.

This is patently false. As originally conceived, the issues are probably the primary purpose of the NationStates 'service' but the overall structure was offered as a toy. Most of the gameplay developed--forum, WA, raiding--is player-created and, by and large, enforced by social inertia.

2) Raiders enjoy a majority support in the general population.

This is probably not true. People who hang around raiders are raiders; this leads to memetic self-reinforcement and can lead to the appearance of general support. From what I've seen, however, over a much broader population, raiders are generally disliked because most people have no interest in playing that game with the NationStates toy.

3) Raiders are the sole continuous community of any import.

This is also patently false. Each forum has multiple communities which are self-supporting and continuous; various alliances on the RP forums, groups of like-minded players in the WA forum, ideologically aligned friend-groups in General, so on and so forth.
Idealism at All Costs! . . . Welcome to the Segments, the happiest libertarian socialist nationalists you'll ever meet.
People is people, whether they be the guy down the street, a scary and/or sexy space alien, a giant doom robot, or a candy-colored pony.
Caught you peekin!

User avatar
Atlas Holdings
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Feb 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Atlas Holdings » Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:14 am

Good. I expected some heat on this, no surprise it comes from the moderator corner rather the defender corner, eh? But why should that be? Oh, that's right I assumed mods were somehow working with defenders, lol, what made me think that? Somehow you seem to be taking their place in their absence anyway.

Let's play slice and dice later, for now let's see who else can contribute to the debate. Don't make the mistake of assuming you can focus in on the 'me' here, you should know very well that I don't make ridiculous assumptions like "raiders are in the majority" (whoever heard such nonsense) and that I will be happy to advance just about any argument for the raider agenda whether 'I' 'believe' it or not.

Everything you're getting is good old-fashioned high grade raider propaganda to advance the agenda here for us, the (persecuted?) raider minority, remember? :clap:

So assuming I've advanced a raider hypothesis on the unrealistic geopolitical extension of the WA across the gamemap, and assuming you have advanced a defender antithesis, does anyone have the synthesis or any directions we can travel?

[Atlas Holdings is a semi-public General T R Franks nation who's never done anything on the NS gamemap although he once did run interference on a raid, so he's worthless for further operations. He does however, come in handy in The Globe where he's mostly a sleepy git but he gets some kudos now and again because his very presence there prevents the region turning into a hotbed of defender and moderator radicalism ;)]

User avatar
Scolopendra
Minister
 
Posts: 3146
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Scolopendra » Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:35 am

Which simply continues the schizophrenic self-contradicting argument someone else pointed out--one does not 'debate' propaganda, at least not in any rational fashion. Believing them or no, your propaganda puts forward several arguments which are predicated upon statements of "fact;" these statements are false. Simply asserting these statements do not make them so, and any reasonable third party, like those you are presumably attempting to convince, will find the logic behind them wanting because the assumptions they are established upon are patently false.

I've not established any antithesis, merely pointed out the incorrect assumptions upon which your propaganda is predicated. A defender antithesis would probably center around how raiding is basically just permitted bullying or something of the sort. That's not my scene so I cannot honestly comment on it.

The problem is that you have established that you are a propagandist who does not really believe in what you're saying (essentially), instead having an ideological goal that you are attempting to promote. There is a fine line between "devil's advocate" and "troll" and a willingness to debate concepts based on their merits is essentially the delineation between the two, a delineation that you've essentially rejected as unimportant seeing how you are here to propagandize. This is thin ice indeed to skate upon, and the ability to craft a sentence (which you do have a gift for, it must be admitted) is no protection in that case.
Idealism at All Costs! . . . Welcome to the Segments, the happiest libertarian socialist nationalists you'll ever meet.
People is people, whether they be the guy down the street, a scary and/or sexy space alien, a giant doom robot, or a candy-colored pony.
Caught you peekin!

User avatar
Zooob
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Zooob » Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:44 pm

I will decide how the game is played by me on the gamemap and what makes sense in a geopolitical context to me, not you. And, so will everyone else decide what makes sense to themselves. So chill on the 'big Stalin' act.

It's too bad if your last century idealism doesn't cut it with 21st century cultural mash and clash, and I don't give a damn about your restricted metaphysical framework or the angst you have expressing it either.

I denounce your attempts to persecute individual player classes - you're meant to be a mod, pretend you're neutral here, and stop presuming I am criticising anyone for their gamemap contributions. I am criticising them for their lack of gamemap contributions - so pull your head in, read the previous post and try to refer to the notion of 'geopolitical relevance vis-a-vis the real world'.

Keep attacking me if you like - it should be clear I don't give a damn about what you say about anything, so if you want to chime into the debate constructively, refer to the context outside your narrow forum boundaries and, I assume, rather narrow life experience - otherwise, why the venom?

Attempting to use an invisible majority to override regional sovereignty on NS while you try to bury raider opposition off this forum isn't gonna happen. Take a look at Nagasakii's latest gem:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13142&start=50

Your type of "idealism at all costs" you evidently wear on your sleeve will always contrast to my "I'll take a bit of idealism, a bit of realism and a whole lot of the other good things and mash them all together". Don't like it? Live in the West? - to bad, look out your window, it's not ideal, it's reality.

Do what you like, say what you like, maybe pretend to be creepy and impartial now rather than just hostile and pro-fenda? It's pretty cool to be a "Franks-hater" in some circles so if you milk that it should give you instant cache. You might think I can't have my cake and eat it, but with NS you can, otherwise why have the possibility of more than one character? Raiders can/do/will play multiple hands in multiple regions creating multiple complexities of meanings. Too bad you can't handle that or seem not to like it much. I'll give you a round of applause anyway :clap:

And, getting back to what this was originally about - did you consider the Somali's position vis-a-vis WA overreach in all this?

[Zooob is a General T R Franks who is in training to be a 'zombie nation'. If you have any suggestions for a flag or maybe even a better motto, that would be very much appreciated. I encourage all players to explore the joys of a zombie nation and see how much fun they can be ;) ]

User avatar
Algy non
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Sep 04, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Algy non » Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:47 pm

I am neither a raider nor a fenda....

but it seems that an almighty load of bo**ocks is being talked here by a bunch of former (and current) raiders, including Groz - who, lets face it, had a questionable reputation at best, who are pissed off because the nation (FJ) they raided and trashed, to hold as some sort of 'monument', is being finally liberated from them....

Dress it up how you like, with the verbal diarrhoea of 'Squeaky wheel gets the grease' posts on RMB's and forums and 'neo political gameplay' and the bullying tactics of self righteous indignation, but the bottom line is a lot of people voted for WA SCR#6 - and just why do you think that was??
regards
A

User avatar
Scolopendra
Minister
 
Posts: 3146
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Scolopendra » Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:50 pm

Zooob wrote:I will decide how the game is played by me on the gamemap and what makes sense in a geopolitical context to me, not you. And, so will everyone else decide what makes sense to themselves. So chill on the 'big Stalin' act.

And you're the one making the universal statement that all forms of using the NationStates service are secondary to and supportive of the raiding game. I have merely shown that to be false. Note that I have not once told you how to play.

'Accusing the accuser' is a well-known rhetorical tactic but it tends to be extremely transparent and relatively ineffective in this environment.

It's too bad if your last century idealism doesn't cut it with 21st century cultural mash and clash, and I don't give a damn about your restricted metaphysical framework or the angst you have expressing it either.

Strawman--you're taking my nation's motto, which may nothing whatsoever to do with my personal opinion, and trying to draw it out into an attack. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant.

I denounce your attempts to persecute individual player classes - you're meant to be a mod, pretend you're neutral here, and stop presuming I am criticising anyone for their gamemap contributions. I am criticising them for their lack of gamemap contributions - so pull your head in, read the previous post and try to refer to the notion of 'geopolitical relevance vis-a-vis the real world'.

Right. You are criticizing people for their lack of 'gamemap' contributions, which would be like, say, oh, Automagfreek criticizing raiders for their lack of forum RP contributions. That would presume that the NationStates service is made primarily for RP, just as you presume it to be primarily about the 'gamemap.' It is not. Therefore, your criticisms are misplaced and essentially boil down to telling people how to play the game.

Since the assumptions the entire argument is based on are flawed--the NationStates toy has little to nothing to do with real-life relevance nor does it demand gameplay presence on the 'gamemap'--there is no need to go into the details of your argument.

Keep attacking me if you like -

I am attacking your arguments because they are based on incorrect first principles. Please indicate any personal attacks on my part.

it should be clear I don't give a damn about what you say about anything,

Then your claims of desiring 'debate' are meaningless, no? If you desire an echo chamber for your ideas, this is not where you are going to find it.

so if you want to chime into the debate constructively,

Criticism can be constructive: I have pointed out your assumptions are flawed. You can improve your argument by changing the assumptions to fit reality and then argue your case from there. Why are you so resistant to accepting my assistance and improving your argument so as to be more effective in achieving your aims, which is to convince people that you are right?

refer to the context outside your narrow forum boundaries and, I assume, rather narrow life experience

Meaningless statement, although I'll note the jab. I've done more than you might think, but this is again an irrelevant statement--my experience is not in question, here, and the ad hominem appeal to experience does not logically support an argument.

- otherwise, why the venom?

Disagreement is not venom. Please indicate particular statements that evidence my venom. I can certainly do it in terms of venom directed towards me from you, but you notice how I'm not taking it too poorly.

Attempting to use an invisible majority to override regional sovereignty on NS while you try to bury raider opposition off this forum isn't gonna happen.

I have practically nothing to do with the WA and thus I am not attempting to use any such thing to do any such thing--that accusation is misplaced. Maybe you're thinking of Ardchoille. If disagreeing with your argument is "bury[ing] raider opposition off this forum" then I am guilty of that, though I would think that in the eyes of a disinterested third party--you understand, the very people you are attempting to convince--such an equation would be considered something of a stretch and probably reflect poorly on your argument.

Take a look at Nagasakii's latest gem:

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=13142&start=50

I read it, and it suffers the same fundamental flaw with your argument. Nevertheless, debate continues on that thread and I see no real reason to interject over there. Discussion on that thread should remain on that thread, and only serves to distract from this one here.

Your type of "idealism at all costs" you evidently wear on your sleeve will always contrast to my "I'll take a bit of idealism, a bit of realism and a whole lot of the other good things and mash them all together". Don't like it? Live in the West? - to bad, look out your window, it's not ideal, it's reality.

Please forgive me for copying and pasting:

Strawman--you're taking my nation's motto, which may nothing whatsoever to do with my personal opinion, and trying to draw it out into an attack. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant.

Do what you like, say what you like, maybe pretend to be creepy and impartial now rather than just hostile and pro-fenda? It's pretty cool to be a "Franks-hater" in some circles so if you milk that it should give you instant cache.

I have no need to buy influence by becoming a "Franks-hater," nor has my argument been hostile (beyond disagreement), nor has it been pro-defender. That would be a false dichotomy; disagreeing with you does not automatically support the defender argument.

And again, all I am seeing are unfounded accusations in response to constructive criticism. Why is that?

You might think I can't have my cake and eat it, but with NS you can, otherwise why have the possibility of more than one character? Raiders can/do/will play multiple hands in multiple regions creating multiple complexities of meanings. Too bad you can't handle that or seem not to like it much. I'll give you a round of applause anyway :clap:

This is a complete non-sequitur since it does not follow from any statement I made. I myself have several puppets and have "play[ed] multiple hands in multiple regions creating multiple complexities of meanings."

More accusations, hm. I know some general at some time said that the best defense is a good offense, but are you certain that it is wise (or indeed supportive of your cause) to swing out so blindly like that?

And, getting back to what this was originally about - did you consider the Somali's position vis-a-vis WA overreach in all this?

I don't think we have any Somali players, so I doubt that "the Somali" has any position on the WA.

Of course, I kid.

This thread, at least according to your title, are your observations on NS Geopolitical Realism. I have pointed out that NS is generally not geopolitically realistic, nor was it probably intended to be. As such, appeals to real-life situations such as Somali pirates are completely irrelevant, and therefore it makes no sense to argue about what meaning Somali pirates in the real world may have for a smallish browser game on the Internet. It would make more sense to argue what effect those Somali pirates have on the price of rice in Peoria.

Now that I've gone through a complete deconstruction of your last post, I hope the next shows greater reflection. Otherwise, I don't think my choice to present an opposing side will actually require any more effort on my part, since no one likes to read what essentially boils to "nuh uh!" and "uh huh!" for several pages.
Last edited by Scolopendra on Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Idealism at All Costs! . . . Welcome to the Segments, the happiest libertarian socialist nationalists you'll ever meet.
People is people, whether they be the guy down the street, a scary and/or sexy space alien, a giant doom robot, or a candy-colored pony.
Caught you peekin!

User avatar
Katganistan
Senior Game Moderator
 
Posts: 35381
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: Observations on NS Geopolitical Realism

Postby Katganistan » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:25 pm

I was wondering: is there a particular reason to use three separate puppets in four posts to make an argument?
Last edited by Katganistan on Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Murray the Evil Skull
Envoy
 
Posts: 257
Founded: Mar 17, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Murray the Evil Skull » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:09 am

Probally he wanted to make it seem like more people supported his reasoning....who know what goes through the minds of invaders.
Murray the Evil Skull for WA Leader!
In your heart, you know He's right!


Warning: the player posts in Character, and will respond in Character.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20838
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:06 am

Murray the Evil Skull wrote:Probally he wanted to make it seem like more people supported his reasoning....who know what goes through the minds of invaders.


Quite so. After all, look at how he spouts all of these lines accusing defenders...
General T R Franks wrote:Defenders should forget about trying to mitigate the global condemnation they are receiving for their Security Council interference in regional sovereignty

Spamming the board here will not make anyone change their mind about defenders perverting the freedoms of all nations and regions in NS.

WA pervertion of regional sovereignty

Defenders would be better off consulting with their diplomatic cadre either to devise some argument which supports destruction of regional independence of sovereignty across NS or devise a way for them to unsupport it in the same way that long game defenders from Chicago have done by their recent public statement distancing themselves from the contradictory position that you want to 'uphold the right to regional freedom by defending neutral regions' while simimultaneously stripping regions of their independent status and right to regional autonomy they have enjoyed since the game began rolling out of the Pacifics.

2) Renounce any and all claim on Feudal Japan as forfeit for 'illegal overreach of WA authority by abuse of Security Council process' thereby acknowledging that one cannot champion or 'defend' regional rights by destroying region sovereignty and autonomy.

your inappropriate actions and untenable position which attacks the freedoms of all players and regions in NS while pretending to defend them.

look to creative ways to expand your influence which are not at the expense of independent communities and all players across NS.


... and yet utterly fails to recognise that the invaders themselves are (due to the very nature of their defining activity) responsible for many cases of -- to use his own words -- "interference in regional sovereignty", "perverting the freedoms of all nations and regions", "pervertion of regional sovereignty", "destruction of regional independence of sovereignty" ,"stripping regions of their independent status", "destroying region sovereignty and autonomy", "untenable position which attacks the freedoms of all players and regions in NS while pretending to defend them", and expanding their influence "at the expense of independent communities and all players across NS"...
That's obviously either a serious case of self-delusion or a serious case of hypocrisy...

But then, should we really expect serious thinking from anybody who can look at NS, with all of its potential, and apparently see nothing but an online version of 'Risk'? :(
Last edited by Bears Armed on Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 31925
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:35 am

I'd love to know how that blog you've just announced on TORC's RMB fits in with your theory of the gamemap.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Gameplay

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cantonstan, Dalimbar, Esfalsa, Goobergunchia II, Grea Kriopia, Haku, Honeydewistania, HumanSanity, Ikania, Jewish Underground State, Khronion, Minskiev, Quebecshire, Refiria, Refuge Isle, Roylaii, Sanjurika, The Sygian

Advertisement

Remove ads