The Rejected Times

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is the kind of circular logic that makes Independence and incomprehensible ideology. A region's foreign policy is dictated by its interests, and its interests depend most specifically upon its foreign policy.

First things first, my post only says 'its interests depend most specifically upon its foreign policy', not 'A region's foreign policy is dictated by its interests'.

Independence is an ideology about what foreign policy a region should have. Unless, I guess, you're arguing with Onder, who will twist and turn the ideology to make even more mysterious and self-serving. It's no mystery why you believe defending isn't in any region's interest. You're a raider. (Oops, sorry.. imperialist.) It's not that difficult to figure out. For you, Independence is a means to convert regions to raiding, because the beloved and so-important "interests" a region must use to determine everything are one in the same with raiding.

People like me have been saying that all along, but even when Exhibit A spells it out for the supporters of Independence, they still take refuge in their abstract notions of "interests" and deny that independence is thinly-veiled raiderism in whatever flavor you like the most.

[Shadow Afforess]

Glen, I just don't get why you try anymore. It has long become clear to me that GP'ers love their cloak-and-dagger routines and will happily crucify any group of people that justifies their crusades. Foreign Policy is an oxymoron in NationStates because regions don't follow policies. Regions follow the whims of whoever happens to be in charge that particular day of the week. There is no continuity or culture because a regional culture would clash with the cult-of-personality needed to remain dictator-for-a-week. This is why region's "steal" real world cultural monikers (see Lazarus/Communist Party, Baldar/Egyptian, etc). Feeders can not create a legitimate culture of their own. To hide this fact, and hide that all the nations are just playing a giant game of follow-the-leader, a real world cultural curtain is added. No one looks past the curtains.

Wrong and wrong. It's called Balder and it has a Nordic theme. It's often useful to check, using either tags or the search regions page if you don't know about regions in NationStates. Secondly, Lazarus and Balder are not "feeders" they are "sinkers". Feeders are the five Pacifics. Sinkers are Balder, Osiris, The Rejected Realms & Lazarus. They all have their distinctive cultures and quite vibrant ones, at least in the case of Balder.

I have no interest in trying to correct your thinking, you are amongst those I would prefer stay inside Gameplay.

Secondly, if you think the feeders cannot create legitimate culture of their own, what does that make Capitalist Paradise? A region so bland and inactive, it is as if we have discovered the template of all dead regions. The forums have less posts than what Balder posts in half a month. Going through it, I'd feel bad for you guys if it wasn't for the fact that you frequently insult my region out of some sense of inadequacy when it comes to regional building. If Capitalist Paradise has a culture, it is that of irrelevant region that can't seem to figure out how to actually build a community. It is no wonder why capitalist paradise' most relevant moment was when it was a decent raiding target. It was only then that it was useful for NationStates. Perhaps you wish for it to return to the days when people would value it.

Attacking my idea by comparison only highlights my point. You think your region is good compared to another. You are just looking at different turds in a toilet bowl, to be blunt. At the end of the day, its still all shit.

Damn. Note to self, don't insult Balder when Rach is around.

I was not attempting to insult Balder, Rach, anyone with my posts. Describing reality, by definition, can not be an insult.

[Unibot III]

Am i reading the TRR update or the UDL update? Its hards to tell...

Neither. It's an edition of The Rejected Times.

[Common-Sense Politics]

First things first, my post only says 'its interests depend most specifically upon its foreign policy', not 'A region's foreign policy is dictated by its interests'.

Independence is an ideology about what foreign policy a region should have. Unless, I guess, you're arguing with Onder, who will twist and turn the ideology to make even more mysterious and self-serving. It's no mystery why you believe defending isn't in any region's interest. You're a raider. (Oops, sorry.. imperialist.) It's not that difficult to figure out. For you, Independence is a means to convert regions to raiding, because the beloved and so-important "interests" a region must use to determine everything are one in the same with raiding.

People like me have been saying that all along, but even when Exhibit A spells it out for the supporters of Independence, they still take refuge in their abstract notions of "interests" and deny that independence is thinly-veiled raiderism in whatever flavor you like the most.

For someone so intelligent, it's remarkable that you can't or refuse to grasp what is so very simple. Defending is of course in any number of region's interest. Being a defender region isn't just like being a raider region isn't unless the culture of that region is singularly focused on military gameplay. Independence is not a means to convert anyone to either side of the spectrum. Rather it's an alternative to the domination of defenderism interests where it doesn't belong. A community's interests are very tangible and self-evident and any hard line ideology, whatever that may be, that prevents the pursuit of those interests is a detriment to that community. Could it be that you are so immovable on the subject and deaf to explanation because the very idea of Independence is a threat to your own global agenda?

[Solorni]

I have no interest in trying to correct your thinking, you are amongst those I would prefer stay inside Gameplay.

Ummm, what? Did you even... even... try to read what I wrote? It wasn't that complicated.

Attacking my idea by comparison only highlights my point. You think your region is good compared to another. You are just looking at different turds in a toilet bowl, to be blunt. At the end of the day, its still all shit.

Well, you say your region is a turd. Not all regions are pieces of crap. Perhaps you should try some better ones then.

I was not attempting to insult Balder, Rach, anyone with my posts. Describing reality, by definition, can not be an insult.

I personally find ignorance insulting and your lack of knowledge regarding simple game facts combined with being unashamed in saying incorrect things to be both offensive and insulting.

[Tlik]

Damn. Note to self, don't insult Balder when Rach is around.

Ya you better not Georgie xD

Shit, Nierr is Georgie? Where are these lists and why does no-one notify me of their being updated?

[Whiskum]

First things first, my post only says 'its interests depend most specifically upon its foreign policy', not 'A region's foreign policy is dictated by its interests'.

Independence is an ideology about what foreign policy a region should have. Unless, I guess, you're arguing with Onder, who will twist and turn the ideology to make even more mysterious and self-serving.

On the contrary, I was merely objecting to you attributing a statement to me that I did not make in order to accuse me of 'circular logic'.

On the substantive issue of the relationship between a region's foreign policy and a region's interests, I addressed the subject quite clearly:

Second, in each case it depends at what stage a region is at and what is meant by their foreign policy.

A region's past relationships, the world geopolitical situation and a region's internal characteristics may make one foreign policy better than another.

Equally, it is very much in the interests of any given region that its arrived upon foreign policy objectives are promoted and achieved.

In those senses, what is in a region's interests and a region's foreign policy are interactive. However, that does not render the concepts meaningless.

Simply because what is in a region's advantage is affected by its foreign policy does not mean a particular foreign policy cannot be to a region's advantage.

They are inter-related, but we are really talking about the distinction between the overall foreign affairs stance being influenced by a region's characteristics and geopolitical position, as opposed to the successful implementation of specific foreign policy objectives being in a region's interests.

It's no mystery why you believe defending isn't in any region's interest. You're a raider. (Oops, sorry.. imperialist.) It's not that difficult to figure out. For you, Independence is a means to convert regions to raiding, because the beloved and so-important "interests" a region must use to determine everything are one in the same with raiding.

First, I do not believe 'defending isn't in any region's interest.'

Once again, you are displaying a remarkable capacity for constructing straw men.

What you say is complete and total distortion of my remarks:

However, maintaining a reactive update force (a significant effort for a region where military gameplay is a secondary activity) for the purpose of randomly defending all and sundry, nearly all of which you will have no connection with, against powerful regions, is unlikely to be in a political region's self-interest.

I was not talking about any region and moreover I was not even talking about all defending.

I was discussing about whether randomly defending all regions is in the self-interest of a political region, which wants to engage in military gameplay but does not see military gameplay as their prime purpose. That is discussing a specific category of region and only refers to random defending.

If had the view which you suggest is the case, then the UIAF, as well as LKE and TNI individually, would not have undertaken defensive operations.

It all depends whether the region in question benefits from the defensive missions in question.

As raiding, as an instrument of policy, allows missions to be conducted a pre-planned basis, removing the need for a reactive update force and allowing political regions to choose which regions they want to target and whom they want to fight against, for the purposes of a sustaining a political region's military it is as a tool superior. However, that does not mean all forms of raiding are beneficial or that all cases of defending are disadvantageous.

For independent regions, invading and defending are purely instruments. Using an instrument does not reflect any alignment with the associated tradition.

---

Second, earlier you were demanding that it be explained how the regional interests of a particular region can be related to specific circumstances.

I explained that what is to a region's advantage depends on the region and the circumstances, but that we could make broad generalisations about, for example, the issue discussed above, namely that political regions, unconstrained by idealism and not seeing military gameplay as their focus, generally would not benefit from indiscriminate defending because of the resources that it demands and the fact it offers regions no operational discretion.

Naturally, the fact that such regions do not gain from such indiscriminate defending may lead them to raid more if they wish to sustain a strong military, but it does not mean that they are ideologically committed to raiding and will only raid, or that they ideologically opposed to the basic act of defending.

Of course, independence is not balancing raiding and defending: it is using as much or as little of each as benefits the region concerned. Hence my earlier point about centrism being inappropriate to describe independence, because it cannot be at the centre of a spectrum with which it has nothing to do.

People like me have been saying that all along, but even when Exhibit A spells it out for the supporters of Independence, they still take refuge in their abstract notions of "interests" and deny that independence is thinly-veiled raiderism in whatever flavor you like the most.

If independence was 'raiderism', then it would not involve independent regions in the pursuit of numerous defensive operations.

'Raiderism' is not the rejection of the UDL's defender ideals; it is its own proud and historic tradition of raider regions like DEN, TBH, LWU, TBR.

For independent regions, raiding on the other hand is merely an instrument of policy, likewise defending, to be used when beneficial to the region.

What is beneficial (that is the region's interests) depends on the region concerned and the circumstances they find themselves in.

[Southern Bellz]

I think its a total failure for all three groups that they can't work together when they have a common goal.

I obviously know nothing of the details, but that's my knee jerk reaction.

[Glen-Rhodes]

For someone so intelligent, it's remarkable that you can't or refuse to grasp what is so very simple. Defending is of course in any number of region's interest.

You should be directing these comments to Onder, as he is the one who believes defending is not in a region's best interest, though he no doubt is contorting his words to deny ever saying so. I do see how defending can be in a region's interests, if they are a defender region. The same for raiders and raider regions. For these regions, they want to have destructive fun, fight for a cause, having a solid recruitment lure, etc.

What I do not believe is that Independence is anything more than a crock of B.S., because no self-proclaimed Independent has ever been able to describe how a region's "interests" dictate whether they raid one night and defend the next. Unlike raiders and defenders, who can spell out in many, many words -- essays, even -- what their interests are. Independents cannot, because Independence is an abstract ideology meant to increase the electoral prospects of Gameplayers and cloak the true tendencies of military and political leaders. How this has played out is that raiders tend to gravitate towards the Independence flag, far more than defenders, for whatever reasons. When you push these so-called Independents to the limits of their policy preferences, it's pretty easy to see that they're raiders, defenders, imperialists, etc. hiding behind a different label. That's why the Independent struggles to outline a region's interests and maintain face of being Independent.

[Harry Hands on His Wand]

I think it would be interesting given that Krulltopia was interviewed to look at his region in comparison to UIAF.

See because I think Krulltopia pretty clearly says he doesn't align the Pacific on the R/D spectrum, he allies with who is in the Pacific's best interests and who its friends/foes are at the time.

That seems to be in line with what Onder is saying, and proves that centrism/independence is not merely a ploy towards invading outright, since the Pacific is more friendly with Defenders currently, but certainly has not always been so as it was once considered one of the GCRs most friendly to UCR-invaders.

I think there's something to be said for the fact that regions which lack any military capacity can call themselves whatever they want since no one can point to activity which can prove otherwise.

Well, that is an interesting point.

[Whiskum]

You should be directing these comments to Onder, as he is the one who believes defending is not in a region's best interest, though he no doubt is contorting his words to deny ever saying so.

This is such a serious misreading of my remarks that I cannot believe it is anything other than intentional deceit on your part.

My position is that, because it involves an excessive use of resources and removes policy-making discretion in reactive update scenarios, it is not in a political region's self-interest to maintain the regular update force necessary to indiscriminately defend all and sundry against substantial invader powers:

However, maintaining a reactive update force (a significant effort for a region where military gameplay is a secondary activity) for the purpose of randomly defending all and sundry, nearly all of which you will have no connection with, against powerful regions, is unlikely to be in a political region's self-interest.

That is not saying that defending is never beneficial, even for these regions.

It is saying that one particular approach to defending is not normally to the advantage of a particular category of a region (as defined in my remarks).

If I believed that defending could never be beneficial,the UIAF, as well as the LKE and TNI individually would not have repeatedly engaged in such activities.

I do see how defending can be in a region's interests, if they are a defender region. The same for raiders and raider regions. For these regions, they want to have destructive fun, fight for a cause, having a solid recruitment lure, etc.

So do I.

Hence why I expressly excluded them from my comparisons in the post you are disputing:

Naturally, if the purpose of your region is idealistic and you accept idealistic defender views, or if it is to simply have fun raiding, then independence is not really a suitable approach because its premise being independent of the raider-defender divide, but if a given region is involved in gameplay but neither wishes to raid for fun as its principal social activity, nor is idealistically defender, then the framework of independence is an entirely suitable approach.

I removed both regions undertaking military activity as a key part of their activity for fun and regions with moral ideals from my comparison.

I was talking very specifically about political regions without such ideals and where military gameplay was a secondary concern.

What I do not believe is that Independence is anything more than a crock of B.S., because no self-proclaimed Independent has ever been able to describe how a region's "interests" dictate whether they raid one night and defend the next. Unlike raiders and defenders, who can spell out in many, many words -- essays, even -- what their interests are. Independents cannot, because Independence is an abstract ideology meant to increase the electoral prospects of Gameplayers and cloak the true tendencies of military and political leaders. How this has played out is that raiders tend to gravitate towards the Independence flag, far more than defenders, for whatever reasons. When you push these so-called Independents to the limits of their policy preferences, it's pretty easy to see that they're raiders, defenders, imperialists, etc. hiding behind a different label. That's why the Independent struggles to outline a region's interests and maintain face of being Independent.

This is nakedly a defender propaganda attempt reflecting their complete intolerance of anyone whose gameplay does not conform to their world view.

Of course independent regions are more than capable of discussing their own regional interests. More widely, we can make generalisations.

I have just described why in normal circumstances, as an instrument of policy raiding offers more advantages to political regions (for which independence is designed for, not idealistic defenders or those socially committed to military activity) in that it allows them to determine the scope of their operations, enabling policy discretion, and does not require as high a degree of resource commitment, so make more sense as a routine form of military activity.

On the other hand, where regions they have connections with require defending (such as the defences of Grand Central or Greater Wetlands), where they are acting against an invading force they are in a conflict with (e.g. GGR in Liberal Haven), or where they identify a specific cause, defensive operations may well be called for from such regions. In all these situations, defending is actually in the self-interest of the region concerned.

So it is perfectly possible to explain why a region might engage in both raiding and defending operations depending on the circumstances.

---

Once again, a region's interests is simply a way of saying what advantages a region - not all regions have the same interests.

What advantages a particular region depends on the nature of the region concerned and the circumstances of that region finds itself in.

Independence involves regions having the discretion to craft their own foreign policy, rather than conforming to binary raider/defender choices.

NationStates gameplay for independent regions is about the politics of inter-regional relations and their own internal politics.

Raiding/defending are merely activities which aid that. In many circumstances, raiding is more apt a tool, but defending can also help in that.

[Harry Hands on His Wand]

People want to help their friends and harm their enemies.

[Breidablik]

This is why region's "steal" real world cultural monikers (see Lazarus/Communist Party, Baldar/Egyptian, etc). Feeders can not create a legitimate culture of their own.

Wrong and wrong. It's called Balder and it has a Nordic theme.

w00t! My region got a mention again. We do have Egyptian theme... I mean, look at our regional flag.

[The Church of Satan]

Can you guys take your swastikas discussion to General?

Considering that the article was talking about the legality of the swastika, such a discussion would have no place in General.

That is true. Since we're discussing an article we are free to do so in this thread.

I have no obligation to respond to every statement you make. If I want to choose one I feel is more important, then that is what I will do. If you are not satisfied, there is the door my friend.

True, I was being presumptuous in my last statement. Regardless, what right have you to primarily associate their deeply religious symbol with that of an interpretation that has nothing to do with it, simply because you're being hypersensitive about it?

For one thing, that interpretation is the interpretation that the great majority of people take towards it.

To use a different example, in parts of the Balkans, the star and crescent symbol of Islam is considered offensive because of the atrocities and oppression the people there suffered from under the Ottoman Empire. The fact that the star and crescent is a religious symbol whose meaning has nothing to do with atrocities and bloodshed doesn't make the symbol any less offensive to the people groups who suffered oppression under a country that used that symbol.

Considering that the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Central and Eastern Europe are both more recent and far greater in magnitude than those committed by the Ottomans in the Balkans, the fact that people find Nazi imagery offensive is entirely normal. "Hypersensitivity" has nothing to do with it.

Not only that, but far more people on this site would use the swastika in its Nazi context than would people use it in its original context if it were allowed.

I see your point. I may not agree with it but you also see mine and I can be happy about it. It was a pleasure having this discussion.

[Common-Sense Politics]

For someone so intelligent, it's remarkable that you can't or refuse to grasp what is so very simple. Defending is of course in any number of region's interest.

You should be directing these comments to Onder, as he is the one who believes defending is not in a region's best interest, though he no doubt is contorting his words to deny ever saying so. I do see how defending can be in a region's interests, if they are a defender region. The same for raiders and raider regions. For these regions, they want to have destructive fun, fight for a cause, having a solid recruitment lure, etc.

What I do not believe is that Independence is anything more than a crock of B.S., because no self-proclaimed Independent has ever been able to describe how a region's "interests" dictate whether they raid one night and defend the next. Unlike raiders and defenders, who can spell out in many, many words -- essays, even -- what their interests are. Independents cannot, because Independence is an abstract ideology meant to increase the electoral prospects of Gameplayers and cloak the true tendencies of military and political leaders. How this has played out is that raiders tend to gravitate towards the Independence flag, far more than defenders, for whatever reasons. When you push these so-called Independents to the limits of their policy preferences, it's pretty easy to see that they're raiders, defenders, imperialists, etc. hiding behind a different label. That's why the Independent struggles to outline a region's interests and maintain face of being Independent.

I find it hard to believe that all of us are too stupid to say on one day "it is in our interests as a community to maintain a large, well trained military so we will arbitrarily raid and/or defend on any given night" and on another day say "this occupation is counter to our ideas of good form so we will seek to liberate" or "this region is an important military partner so it is in our interests to be involved in this operation". The point of an Independent foreign policy is maintaining the flexibility to make those decisions rather than being restricted by absolutism. In fact I know this point has been made, several times.

[Unibot III]

You should be directing these comments to Onder, as he is the one who believes defending is not in a region's best interest, though he no doubt is contorting his words to deny ever saying so. I do see how defending can be in a region's interests, if they are a defender region. The same for raiders and raider regions. For these regions, they want to have destructive fun, fight for a cause, having a solid recruitment lure, etc.

What I do not believe is that Independence is anything more than a crock of B.S., because no self-proclaimed Independent has ever been able to describe how a region's "interests" dictate whether they raid one night and defend the next. Unlike raiders and defenders, who can spell out in many, many words -- essays, even -- what their interests are. Independents cannot, because Independence is an abstract ideology meant to increase the electoral prospects of Gameplayers and cloak the true tendencies of military and political leaders. How this has played out is that raiders tend to gravitate towards the Independence flag, far more than defenders, for whatever reasons. When you push these so-called Independents to the limits of their policy preferences, it's pretty easy to see that they're raiders, defenders, imperialists, etc. hiding behind a different label. That's why the Independent struggles to outline a region's interests and maintain face of being Independent.

I find it hard to believe that all of us are too stupid to say on one day "it is in our interests as a community to maintain a large, well trained military so we will arbitrarily raid and/or defend on any given night" and on another day say "this occupation is counter to our ideas of good form so we will seek to liberate" or "this region is an important military partner so it is in our interests to be involved in this operation". The point of an Independent foreign policy is maintaining the flexibility to make those decisions rather than being restricted by absolutism. In fact I know this point has been made, several times.

Rationally though that does lead to absolutism.

1. Nobody is going to prioritize someone who is your opponent one week and your ally the next as allies, over those who are consistently on your side. Wish-washy rationalists are last minute invites out of desperation for numbers. That means you're cutting yourself out of a lot of operations because you lack trust.

2. Recruits aren't generally enticed with "flexibility". They're enticed with the thought of helping others or helping themselves. A coherent package of ideas. You can call them non-patriots all you like, but defenderism and invaderism makes soldiers, independentism makes politicians.

3. Since most soldiers are not flexible politicians, but soldiers with their own prerogatives, they'll promote other soldiers with similar ideas as them. This leads to a "trickle-down effect" where senior defender-leaning officials will promote junior defender-leaning officials and senior invader-leaning officials will promote junior invader-leaning officials, such that the army as a whole will gradually reflect their ideas more over time -- this is an observable phenomenon in, say, Chinese news media, where the Central Propaganda Department will hire more conservative officials, who in turn hire more conservative staff reporters.

Meaning at a macro and micro level, independent armies are steadily encouraged to align. Those that don't will inevitably become paper tigers because they lack interregional trust and involvement, while starved for recruits and fresh blood.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I find it hard to believe that all of us are too stupid to say on one day "it is in our interests as a community to maintain a large, well trained military so we will arbitrarily raid and/or defend on any given night" ...

Yes, I do think all of us are too stupid to think that way. Like I've said hundreds of times, nobody has ever been able to cogently explain what "interests" dictate which night a region defends and which night a region raids. There are no "interests." It boils down to whether the leaders lean raider or lean defender. Yet they pretend to be independent actors not beholden to any Gameplay alignment. They lie to everybody, and some even believe their own lies, and everybody goes along in willful ignorance. It's easier to pretend your region doesn't have a Gameplay alignment, when you're actively involved in Gameplay, than it is to sit down and have the debate on which side to take.

[Whiskum]

I find it hard to believe that all of us are too stupid to say on one day "it is in our interests as a community to maintain a large, well trained military so we will arbitrarily raid and/or defend on any given night" and on another day say "this occupation is counter to our ideas of good form so we will seek to liberate" or "this region is an important military partner so it is in our interests to be involved in this operation". The point of an Independent foreign policy is maintaining the flexibility to make those decisions rather than being restricted by absolutism. In fact I know this point has been made, several times.

Rationally though that does lead to absolutism.

1. Nobody is going to prioritize someone who is your opponent one week and your ally the next as allies, over those who are consistently on your side. Wish-washy rationalists are last minute invites out of desperation for numbers. That means you're cutting yourself out of a lot of operations because you lack trust.

2. Recruits aren't generally enticed with "flexibility". They're enticed with the thought of helping others or helping themselves. A coherent package of ideas. You can call them non-patriots all you like, but defenderism and invaderism makes soldiers, independentism makes politicians.

3. Since most soldiers are not flexible politicians, but soldiers with their own prerogatives, they'll promote other soldiers with similar ideas as them. This leads to a "trickle-down effect" where senior defender-leaning officials will promote junior defender-leaning officials and senior invader-leaning officials will promote junior invader-leaning officials, such that the army as a whole will gradually reflect their ideas more over time -- this is an observable phenomenon in, say, Chinese news media, where the Central Propaganda Department will hire more conservative officials, who in turn hire more conservative staff reporters.

Meaning at a macro and micro level, independent armies are steadily encouraged to align. Those that don't will inevitably become paper tigers because they lack interregional trust and involvement, while starved for recruits and fresh blood.

Of course, independent armies have to align. They need not be neutral; the best independent regions have a very clear foreign policy of their own.

That does not mean aligning as 'raider' or 'defender'. You can raid or defend however much each suits you - which may be mixed or biased to one.

Raiding or defending are not alignments on their own - We simply use them as instruments. Raider regions and defender regions make them alignments.

We make alliances with those regions with which you wish to be aligned and these regions work together to promote each other's interests.

There is no package of ideas in the UIAF other than serving the foreign policies of our regions as expressed to troops in command orders.

Yes, I do think all of us are too stupid to think that way.

Defenders may well be too ideologically constrained to ever consider operating based on regional and inter-regional political gameplay rather than moralistic ideals about what is. Ultimately, that is their choice about how to play the game. However, this assumption that everyone else is the same is arrogant.

Like I've said hundreds of times, nobody has ever been able to cogently explain what "interests" dictate which night a region defends and which night a region raids.

I have replied to you on this point numerous times now, and each time you ignore the reply without adressing the substance, so I will repeat it:

Of course independent regions are more than capable of discussing their own regional interests. More widely, we can make generalisations.

I have just described why in normal circumstances, as an instrument of policy raiding offers more advantages to political regions (for which independence is designed for, not idealistic defenders or those socially committed to military activity) in that it allows them to determine the scope of their operations, enabling policy discretion, and does not require as high a degree of resource commitment, so make more sense as a routine form of military activity.

On the other hand, where regions they have connections with require defending (such as the defences of Grand Central or Greater Wetlands), where they are acting against an invading force they are in a conflict with (e.g. GGR in Liberal Haven), or where they identify a specific cause, defensive operations may well be called for from such regions. In all these situations, defending is actually in the self-interest of the region concerned.

So it is perfectly possible to explain why a region might engage in both raiding and defending operations depending on the circumstances.

There are no "interests."

All referring to regional interests means is referring to what is in the advantage of a given region - that is all 'interests' means.

Naturally, there are very few things indeed that are in the advantage of all types of region at all times in the same way.

However, regions with particular characteristics and particular policies can be advantaged or disadvantaged by particular courses of action.

Yet they pretend to be independent actors not beholden to any Gameplay alignment. They lie to everybody, and some even believe their own lies, and everybody goes along in willful ignorance. It's easier to pretend your region doesn't have a Gameplay alignment, when you're actively involved in Gameplay, than it is to sit down and have the debate on which side to take.

So just because you do not agree with our position, we are liars for advocating it and everybody who does not object is 'wilfully ignorant'?

I have been expressing these views on NS gameplay since 2006. Are you saying that I have been lying for political gain all this time?

The fact that some defenders cannot conceive of any form of NS alignment beyond 'raider' or 'defender' does not mean that no one else can.

Other regions, such as Great Britain and Ireland, have been articulating this position since 2004 - numerous independent and imperialist regions have come and gone since then, with the LKE and TNI being two of the most successful surviving of this kind. For you to damn everyone in this tradition as a liar, simply advancing a fiction to gain political advantage, is not only inaccurate, intolerant and highly offensive, but deeply ahistorical.

Frankly, to have constructed such an absurd narrative about all these people being liars, reflects a rather bizarre refusal to come to terms with reality.

---

Independent regions do not pretend to 'not beholden to any Gameplay alignment'. Independence is not about neutrality.

We make foreign policy choices, all of which entail aligning for or against something.The LKE and TNI are at war with the FRA and the UDL.

That is not quivering away in fear of neutrality; that is taking an aggressive position (more aggressive than most independents, hence an aspect of imperialism). There are less extreme alignments which all independent regions can take depending on what they want to do.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Onder, I have responded to your 'answer' about what "interests" are supposed to guide regions when choosing to raid or defend. I dismissed your answer as the perfect example of how Independence is just a veneer for raiders and imperialists. Your description of a region's interests is that they are best served by raiding, and then defending only every now and then when an ally is under attack or you want to "counter-invade" (that's the newspeak we're using for liberating now, right?) against an enemy. That's the kind of "interests" one would expect a raider or imperialist to have.

[Letoilenoir]

Onder, I have responded to your 'answer' about what "interests" are supposed to guide regions when choosing to raid or defend. I dismissed your answer as the perfect example of how Independence is just a veneer for raiders and imperialists. Your description of a region's interests is that they are best served by raiding, and then defending only every now and then when an ally is under attack or you want to "counter-invade" (that's the newspeak we're using for liberating now, right?) against an enemy. That's the kind of "interests" one would expect a raider or imperialist to have.

And what interests would a defender region prioritise? Would they adopt an altruistic policy of defending any region, even if it means their "home" region becomes vulnerable?

[New Harry Potter]

Onder, I have responded to your 'answer' about what "interests" are supposed to guide regions when choosing to raid or defend. I dismissed your answer as the perfect example of how Independence is just a veneer for raiders and imperialists. Your description of a region's interests is that they are best served by raiding, and then defending only every now and then when an ally is under attack or you want to "counter-invade" (that's the newspeak we're using for liberating now, right?) against an enemy. That's the kind of "interests" one would expect a raider or imperialist to have.

And what interests would a defender region prioritise? Would they adopt an altruistic policy of defending any region, even if it means their "home" region becomes vulnerable?

Isn't it obvious? Part of being a Defender is altruistically defending others knowing full well that said defense may piss other people - usually Raiders (so who cares anyway?) - off.

Defending is all about sacrificing for someone else, Raiding is all about satisfying the need to bully and exert power over someone else.

[Whiskum]

Onder, I have responded to your 'answer' about what "interests" are supposed to guide regions when choosing to raid or defend. I dismissed your answer as the perfect example of how Independence is just a veneer for raiders and imperialists.

That does not really address the substance of whether my argument reflects what is to the advantage of the type of regions I discuss.

It merely seeks to define a willingness to raid more than defending as being equivalent to being a raider region, which is pure nonsense.

A raider region is a military region which exists to raid as its principal activity, usually accepting Raider Unity - e.g. TBR, TBH, DEN, LWU.

Regions in the imperialist tradition are a type of independent region, because they are political regions that reject the raider/defender divide.

Your description of a region's interests is that they are best served by raiding, and then defending only every now and then when an ally is under attack or you want to "counter-invade" (that's the newspeak we're using for liberating now, right?) against an enemy.

Let us imagine the type of region I am talking about - a region created for its internal politics and inter-regional politics, without defender ideals, where military activity is seen as central rather than peripheral rather than being one of the region's core social activities. A region that wishes to use its military as a meaningful instrument to fulfill its core nature and purposes in internal and inter-regional politics. If a region does not conform to that definition, than I am not talking about that region, but of course most observations would show that a great many regions in gameplay do broadly meet that definition.

Take that type of region specifically. I am not saying that defending is never to their advantage. On the contrary, defensive operations where their interests are involved - where they have a connection to a vulnerable region (that might be an alliance or a historical link), or whether there is a specific cause in line with that region's policy for a defending a particular region - acting in those circumstances could be in their self-interest.

However, there is no genuine advantage for such regions in maintaining the constant update force necessary to reactively defend mostly irrelevant regions against powerful regions, when doing so involves much more extensive resource use than planned operations and, more importantly, removes discretion over which operations you deploy in and which you choose to fight - something that is essential for political regions who want to control their foreign policy.

It is not 'newspeak' to adopt the more neutral term of counter-invasion in place of 'liberation'.

That's the kind of "interests" one would expect a raider or imperialist to have.

No, you would not expect raider regions to behave in that way. You would not have seen a raider region planning the counter-invasion of Liberal Haven.

Imperialist regions are a sub-category of independent regions.

[Wordy]

I have to say Onder makes perfect sense. Imperialists take action that is driven by their protecting their interest. Whether that be to invade or defend. It cannot simply be categorised but is always central to what the need or goal is.

[SFBA Campinia]

If you insist on using the term counter-invasion, well then raiders DO counter-invade; see Western Assembly...

[Glen-Rhodes]

Onder, you're still saying that it's never in a region's interest to be defender. Under your theories of big-I Independence, it is not in a region's interests to emulate the UDL or the FRA or XKI or any other defender group that came before them. Instead, big-I Independent regions have a a strong interest in attacking other regions, because that means they can settle for a large force of on-call pilers, instead of the labor intensive force defenders have to muster to be successful. It's only ever in a region's interest to defend if they're doing it for an ally or a specific cause. That is literally what you are saying, so I don't know why you bothered to reiterate your point in even more paragraphs.

And you know what? I agree with you. I agree that Independent regions are a lesser form of raiders and imperialists. Regions go Independent when their leaders are too craven to pick a side. It's politically advantageous to them, because they get to pretend like they're staking out the middle ground, being the only reasonably person in the room, and people flock to it like they flock to so-called political independents in the real world. Yet, just as in the real world, Independents don't actually exist. It's a cloak for their real alignment, which comes out the longer you watch their actions develop a clear pattern.

It's why Europeia, a supposedly big-I Independent region, freaked out when one of its presidential candidates suggested being friendly with defenders. It's why the Independents in TSP see the TNI treaty as sacrosanct, and fret whenever anybody talks about a treaty with defenders. These Independents lean raider at best and are full blown wolves in sheep's clothing at worst. It's the reason why we don't see big-I Independent regions doing defenses all the time. Independence is a load of crock.

Yet no matter how many times anybody points this out, no matter how much proof they have, people will still fall for the charade.