The Rejected Times

[Port blood]

The only people even making sense here are Punk Daddy and Joe

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Out in of interest, who exactly asside from this paper believes that Independence, and specifically alliances with Imperialist regions, is leading to political isolation for the GCR'S?

[Glen-Rhodes]

As unquestionably doomed to futility as the ongoing attempt to "archive" rulings and interpretations of WA proposals is, Kryozerkia has not contributed a single post to the discussion.

I feel partially, if not wholly, responsible for this farce of an "archive." When I suggested it, I really wanted to suggest starting over. Creating a blank state. No existing precedents; only new ones going forward. But that's too controversial of an idea for the rusty traditionalism of the WA. So now you guys are stuck with an impossible task, and it's questionable if there will be any real benefit to it. Has any contradictory ruling been corrected, yet, for example? Also, the way it's organized is just terrible. Players won't be able to find anything unless they already know exactly what they're looking for. I had imagined a robust keyword system, so players would be able to search by resolution topics and rules. The goal was to have a in-depth index of all rulings, where those rulings were explained, and not just a list of proposals and whether they passed a legality check.

Out in of interest, who exactly asside from this paper believes that Independence, and specifically alliances with Imperialist regions, is leading to political isolation for the GCR'S?

I've argued that position many times here and in TSP. Not "political isolation" in the sense that Independent GCRs end up all by themselves, but isolation in the sense that self-proclaimed Independents gravitate to one side of the R/D spectrum (usually R), leading their regions towards isolation from the other side (usually D). Unibot has also argued that theoretical Independence would lead to isolation, because rational R/D groups would be wary of working with a region that turns its coat as often as the sun rises and falls. I agree with that argument, though I don't think it's ever been the reality, because there's never been an Independent region that actually conforms to the pure form of the ideology.

[Shadow Afforess]

With that logic, anything I can get away with is legal.

Until, someone with more might and power puts you down.

It's a horrifying code of ethics. Based on Venico's statement, and past similar insane comments I've seen by many other famous GP'ers, I am highly tempted to create a satire newspaper to publicly ridicule the fully idiocy of GP commentators' statements. I mean, you guys come up with this stuff on your own, I'd barely have to do any work.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Has any contradictory ruling been corrected, yet, for example?

Yes, but I don't consider that a ringing endorsement at all - it just shows how some completely nonsensical rulings have gone unchallenged for so long.

[Venico]

Until, someone with more might and power puts you down.

It's a horrifying code of ethics. Based on Venico's statement, and past similar insane comments I've seen by many other famous GP'ers, I am highly tempted to create a satire newspaper to publicly ridicule the fully idiocy of GP commentators' statements. I mean, you guys come up with this stuff on your own, I'd barely have to do any work.

The people who define legal have the most force. All laws, all legitimacy, all governments are derived from their force and their ability to use force to stay in power. It's the reason revolutions work, it's the reason democracy works. Legal is defined by the person or people with the most power. This isn't always might, it can take forms of economic leverage, controlling someone's food supply, it doesn't equal brute force all the time (granted the ability to put down a rebellious force is a must for everyone who wants to be in power).

If a law isn't enforced by the police or a militia force, then what makes it anymore than hollow words on paper? That some stuffy person wrote it? Legality, legitimacy, both are derived from the ability to enforce, and defend.

[Cormac A Stark]

It's a horrifying code of ethics. Based on Venico's statement, and past similar insane comments I've seen by many other famous GP'ers, I am highly tempted to create a satire newspaper to publicly ridicule the fully idiocy of GP commentators' statements. I mean, you guys come up with this stuff on your own, I'd barely have to do any work.

I'm sorry, aren't you the person who has repeatedly said you don't recognize the sovereignty of any region except Capitalist Paradise?

[Whiskum]

Out in of interest, who exactly asside from this paper believes that Independence, and specifically alliances with Imperialist regions, is leading to political isolation for the GCR'S?

I've argued that position many times here and in TSP. Not "political isolation" in the sense that Independent GCRs end up all by themselves, but isolation in the sense that self-proclaimed Independents gravitate to one side of the R/D spectrum (usually R), leading their regions towards isolation from the other side (usually D). Unibot has also argued that theoretical Independence would lead to isolation, because rational R/D groups would be wary of working with a region that turns its coat as often as the sun rises and falls. I agree with that argument, though I don't think it's ever been the reality, because there's never been an Independent region that actually conforms to the pure form of the ideology.

If by 'the pure form of the ideology' you mean seeking to balance your levels of raiding or defending activity, that is in fact not independence at all.

The point of independence is really to utterly ignore whether a military action is called 'raiding' or 'defending', undertaking whatever military activity is most suitable to your region's characteristics and objectives. Of course, if you wish to raid or defend for fun, or defend for moral reasons, then ignoring whether something is 'raiding' or 'defending' is not on the table, but if a region does not fall into those categories, then there is no reason to pay heed to whether a particular form of military activity is categorised as being raider or defender: instead, you deploy your military in a self-interested fashion in whatever way you see fit in accordance with your foreign policy objectives. Such an approach may well in fact mean disproportionately raiding more than defending, because a region that has decided it does not want to raid/defend for fun/ideology then committing military resources maintaining a reactive update force to randomly defend regions it has no connection with against powerful regions is hardly self-interested behaviour - however, in no way does choosing to participate in military gameplay without going to the lengths of randomly defending all regions in the manner described make you a raider region.

To an extent, linking military activity and foreign policy does cut you off from other regions, but that is not because of the raider-defender spectrum; it reflects the choices of your region, as well as etiquette among allies - you do not deploy against your allies, likewise if people are regularly providing military support to you, deploying against them would similarly abnormal. By allying with someone, you make that choice: alliances matter and, if you making them strategically with inter-regional politics in mind, which is the assumption with independent regions, then you choose which other regions you want to align with and which you do not. If you randomly ally with every region, including regions which are enemies of each other, you are no one's ally.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Until, someone with more might and power puts you down.

It's a horrifying code of ethics. Based on Venico's statement, and past similar insane comments I've seen by many other famous GP'ers, I am highly tempted to create a satire newspaper to publicly ridicule the fully idiocy of GP commentators' statements. I mean, you guys come up with this stuff on your own, I'd barely have to do any work.

I'd be surprised if anybody actually believes LWU are the natives of Hogwarts, because they happened to occupy the region long enough to refound it. This is a case of opportunism and cynicism. We've seen before raiders take defender positions and try to twist them and noose defenders by their own morality. This is just another case. That's why it looks so much like satire; it normally is. But this time, it looks like they think they found something that'll stick.

They've found an argument that they think will win them a battle, but it's not an argument that will a war. Destroying the concept of natives doesn't serve in the raider-sphere's long-term interests, because the more loosely we define natives, the more of the NS world falls under defender purview. Certainly a loose definition of native would lead to a far more activist Security Council, where Liberations rarely move forward without the OK from natives. Anybody who argues that LWU are natives of Hogwarts is either in on the joke, or they're the gullible suckers the raider-sphere is counting on to carry the banner.

[Shadow Afforess]

It's a horrifying code of ethics. Based on Venico's statement, and past similar insane comments I've seen by many other famous GP'ers, I am highly tempted to create a satire newspaper to publicly ridicule the fully idiocy of GP commentators' statements. I mean, you guys come up with this stuff on your own, I'd barely have to do any work.

The people who define legal have the most force. All laws, all legitimacy, all governments are derived from their force and their ability to use force to stay in power. It's the reason revolutions work, it's the reason democracy works. Legal is defined by the person or people with the most power. This isn't always might, it can take forms of economic leverage, controlling someone's food supply, it doesn't equal brute force all the time (granted the ability to put down a rebellious force is a must for everyone who wants to be in power).

If a law isn't enforced by the police or a militia force, then what makes it anymore than hollow words on paper? That some stuffy person wrote it? Legality, legitimacy, both are derived from the ability to enforce, and defend.

This is sad, it's like NS'ers are discovering philosophy 101 by themselves. That you think this is a reasonable argument and explanation for ethics and power...shows everything you need to know. Keep talking, this is going to be a brilliant first article.

It's a horrifying code of ethics. Based on Venico's statement, and past similar insane comments I've seen by many other famous GP'ers, I am highly tempted to create a satire newspaper to publicly ridicule the fully idiocy of GP commentators' statements. I mean, you guys come up with this stuff on your own, I'd barely have to do any work.

I'm sorry, aren't you the person who has repeatedly said you don't recognize the sovereignty of any region except Capitalist Paradise?

Yes, and I stand behind my assertion. The shit you guys say makes me look saner by the day. Trying to paint yourselves as not crazy, in comparison to me, is a terrible strategy. I stand behind my crazy.

It's a horrifying code of ethics. Based on Venico's statement, and past similar insane comments I've seen by many other famous GP'ers, I am highly tempted to create a satire newspaper to publicly ridicule the fully idiocy of GP commentators' statements. I mean, you guys come up with this stuff on your own, I'd barely have to do any work.

I'd be surprised if anybody actually believes LWU are the natives of Hogwarts, because they happened to occupy the region long enough to refound it. This is a case of opportunism and cynicism. We've seen before raiders take defender positions and try to twist them and noose defenders by their own morality. This is just another case. That's why it looks so much like satire; it normally is. But this time, it looks like they think they found something that'll stick.

They've found an argument that they think will win them a battle, but it's not an argument that will a war. Destroying the concept of natives doesn't serve in the raider-sphere's long-term interests, because the more loosely we define natives, the more of the NS world falls under defender purview. Certainly a loose definition of native would lead to a far more activist Security Council, where Liberations rarely move forward without the OK from natives. Anybody who argues that LWU are natives of Hogwarts is either in on the joke, or they're the gullible suckers the raider-sphere is counting on the carry the banner.

That is why a satire newspaper that takes their ridiculous claims to their logical extreme would be so funny. It's absurd. I hope no one believes this stuff in real life.

[Venico]

Afforess I am more than willing to debate this with you over telegram if you'd like. I stand behind my assessment and will continue to unless I see a more sound argument. If you want to raise actual points against my statement then feel free to do so. However, you haven't yet.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Somehow, I don't think Venico and Afforess are going to settle the debate on the Hobbesian vs. Lockean vs. Kantian world, no matter the venue they use.

[Shadow Afforess]

Afforess I am more than willing to debate this with you over telegram if you'd like. I stand behind my assessment and will continue to unless I see a more sound argument. If you want to raise actual points against my statement then feel free to do so. However, you haven't yet.

Based on my past experiences with you and others like yourself, I will not take you up on your offer. I am highly suspicious of such an offer and find it unlikely that I would be debated on good faith. So with those facts in mind, I'd rather simply make light of your absurd statements. Surely everyone else will agree it is the more entertaining of the two options, yes?

Somehow, I don't think Venico and Afforess are going to settle the debate on the Hobbesian vs. Lockean vs. Kantian world, no matter the venue they use.

Amen sister.

[Nierr]

Somehow, I don't think Venico and Afforess are going to settle the debate on the Hobbesian vs. Lockean vs. Kantian world, no matter the venue they use.

I would be happy to moderate such a debate though.

[Venico]

Ah so now I get lumped into a group and am dismissed. I will debate any point as long as it is productive and both sides have something to learn from it. Whether or not you believe me and would like to continue just calling things absurd instead of productive conversation is your choice.

[V I Lenin]

If by 'the pure form of the ideology' you mean seeking to balance your levels of raiding or defending activity, that is in fact not independence at all.

The point of independence is really to utterly ignore whether a military action is called 'raiding' or 'defending', undertaking whatever military activity is most suitable to your region's characteristics and objectives. Of course, if you wish to raid or defend for fun, or defend for moral reasons, then ignoring whether something is 'raiding' or 'defending' is not on the table, but if a region does not fall into those categories, then there is no reason to pay heed to whether a particular form of military activity is categorised as being raider or defender: instead, you deploy your military in a self-interested fashion in whatever way you see fit in accordance with your foreign policy objectives. Such an approach may well in fact mean disproportionately raiding more than defending, because a region that has decided it does not want to raid/defend for fun/ideology then committing military resources maintaining a reactive update force to randomly defend regions it has no connection with against powerful regions is hardly self-interested behaviour - however, in no way does choosing to participate in military gameplay without going to the lengths of randomly defending all regions in the manner described make you a raider region.

To an extent, linking military activity and foreign policy does cut you off from other regions, but that is not because of the raider-defender spectrum; it reflects the choices of your region, as well as etiquette among allies - you do not deploy against your allies, likewise if people are regularly providing military support to you, deploying against them would similarly abnormal. By allying with someone, you make that choice: alliances matter and, if you making them strategically with inter-regional politics in mind, which is the assumption with independent regions, then you choose which other regions you want to align with and which you do not. If you randomly ally with every region, including regions which are enemies of each other, you are no one's ally.

Another attempt to justify mythical independence, as if by calling aggressive Imperialism "Independence" it is somehow nicer. I don't think anyone is fooled by this.

On the matter of the Hogwarts action, the LWU and raiders are clearly in the wrong - merely occupying something does not make you the rightful owners of it. Rightful ownership is underpinned by just acquisition, and this was not a just acquisition.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

I've argued that position many times here and in TSP.

The last time I checked you wrote for this paper, so you don't count as an "aside" from this paper.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I've argued that position many times here and in TSP.

The last time I checked you wrote for this paper, so you don't count as an "aside" from this paper.

I'm not a staff writer. I just do commentary whenever Unibot bugs me enough. If there were any other paper as active and with a similar readership, and they bugged me, I'd write for them too.

Also, I get the feeling that you'll just dismiss everybody who shares the same views. But you'll still be asking if there's anybody who shares the same views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Evil Wolf]

On the matter of the Hogwarts action, the LWU and raiders are clearly in the wrong - merely occupying something does not make you the rightful owners of it. Rightful ownership is underpinned by just acquisition, and this was not a just acquisition.

Ah, so can you please point out who are the rightful owners of Hogwarts? Please do so by name, because I have a feeling its going to be a very short list and I probably have an in depth rebuttal already prepared for every single nation you're going to claim are "true natives".

[Whiskum]

If by 'the pure form of the ideology' you mean seeking to balance your levels of raiding or defending activity, that is in fact not independence at all.

The point of independence is really to utterly ignore whether a military action is called 'raiding' or 'defending', undertaking whatever military activity is most suitable to your region's characteristics and objectives. Of course, if you wish to raid or defend for fun, or defend for moral reasons, then ignoring whether something is 'raiding' or 'defending' is not on the table, but if a region does not fall into those categories, then there is no reason to pay heed to whether a particular form of military activity is categorised as being raider or defender: instead, you deploy your military in a self-interested fashion in whatever way you see fit in accordance with your foreign policy objectives. Such an approach may well in fact mean disproportionately raiding more than defending, because a region that has decided it does not want to raid/defend for fun/ideology then committing military resources maintaining a reactive update force to randomly defend regions it has no connection with against powerful regions is hardly self-interested behaviour - however, in no way does choosing to participate in military gameplay without going to the lengths of randomly defending all regions in the manner described make you a raider region.

To an extent, linking military activity and foreign policy does cut you off from other regions, but that is not because of the raider-defender spectrum; it reflects the choices of your region, as well as etiquette among allies - you do not deploy against your allies, likewise if people are regularly providing military support to you, deploying against them would similarly abnormal. By allying with someone, you make that choice: alliances matter and, if you making them strategically with inter-regional politics in mind, which is the assumption with independent regions, then you choose which other regions you want to align with and which you do not. If you randomly ally with every region, including regions which are enemies of each other, you are no one's ally.

Another attempt to justify mythical independence, as if by calling aggressive Imperialism "Independence" it is somehow nicer. I don't think anyone is fooled by this.

Another attempt to lump all varieties of approach and ideology which do not conform to defender ideals together in order to demonise them.

Moreover, I made no claims about what was 'nicer'; on the contrary, I do not think that is a valid metric and referred to indepednence as self-interested.

Finally, 'aggressive imperialism' is a variant of independence, but it is perfectly possible to be an independent region without being an imperialist region.

[The North Polish Union]

Afforess I am more than willing to debate this with you over telegram if you'd like. I stand behind my assessment and will continue to unless I see a more sound argument. If you want to raise actual points against my statement then feel free to do so. However, you haven't yet.

Based on my past experiences with you and others like yourself, I will not take you up on your offer. I am highly suspicious of such an offer and find it unlikely that I would be debated on good faith. So with those facts in mind, I'd rather simply make light of your absurd statements. Surely everyone else will agree it is the more entertaining of the two options, yes?

So you'd rather mock people on the forums instead of having a decent discussion? Where I come from that's called 'trolling'.

[Vaculatestar64]

Well, that's what Afforess is doing from where I'm standing.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

The last time I checked you wrote for this paper, so you don't count as an "aside" from this paper.

I'm not a staff writer. I just do commentary whenever Unibot bugs me enough. If there were any other paper as active and with a similar readership, and they bugged me, I'd write for them too.

Also, I get the feeling that you'll just dismiss everybody who shares the same views. But you'll still be asking if there's anybody who shares the same views.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh, the view is utter nonsense which is why it's failed to gain any traction outside of extreme defender circles. Far from being isolated the Independent GCR'S all have large alliance networks with a multitude of different UCR and GCR regions. The only people they're "isolated" from is defender organizations, and I hardly consider that to be problematic. It's also inevitable, until such time as defenders stop propogandarizing Independents as being raiders in disguise and recognize the right of sovereign regions to engage in offensive military operations.

If the UDL and FRA want to restrict themselves to defensive operations only then that's their choice, but people who don't do the same aren't isolating themselves.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Oh, the view is utter nonsense which is why it's failed to gain any traction outside of extreme defender circles.

I think the reality here is that none of our constructed ideologies are actually widely held by anybody. Most people aren't involved in this kind of meta play. The number of people who identify strongly as Independents is likely as small as the number of people who argue against it. Most people in this game see the R/D as a dichotomy, and categorize groups as either raiders or defenders, based on whether they, well, raid or defend. It's very unlikely that the average person in NS recognizes any distinction between an Independent region that usually raids, and a raider region. If TSP were to shift and start usually defending, they would see TSP as a defender GCR. I'm sure all of the self-proclaimed Independents would probably see it that way, too.

Far from being isolated the Independent GCR'S all have large alliance networks with a multitude of different UCR and GCR regions. The only people they're "isolated" from is defender organizations, and I hardly consider that to be problematic.

You don't see it as a problem, but it is still a form of isolation brought about by the actions of self-proclaimed Independents.

It's also inevitable, until such time as defenders stop propogandarizing Independents as being raiders in disguise and recognize the right of sovereign regions to engage in offensive military operations.

As somebody who as negotiated a treaty with defenders in the past, and who has talked to defenders about this issue to exhaustion, I can authoritatively say that the "defenders" your talking about are actually fine with GCRs doing "offensive military operations." The only drawback is that they also want to be able to defend against those operations. That's where people like you balk. Why would we ever agree to sign a treaty allowing defenders to go against our operations? That's partly why negotiations failed with the UDL.

The hypocrisy of this is, of course, that demand isn't unique to defenders. TNI won't let TSP defend against TNI. As TNI's alliance network spreads, and more raiders work together, it is very possible that TSP will never be able to defend, because we'll always end up going against TNI somehow. But the same people who balk at defenders see absolutely nothing wrong with what TSP has gotten itself into with TNI. This is the foreign policy of "Independents" in TSP over the past few years. It's exactly what we should have expected, too, based on Onder's admission that Independents will tend towards raiding, because raiding tends to be in a region's interests more so than defending.

So, yeah, I don't think defenders will ever stop linking Independence and raiding. The link is plain as day. The consequences of Independence are terrible for defenders today, just as they were from the start. Independence was never an ideology of rationality. Defenders never had a chance to utilize Independence, because it's always been a tool for people who prefer raiding.

[Whiskum]

I think the reality here is that none of our constructed ideologies are actually widely held by anybody. Most people aren't involved in this kind of meta play. The number of people who identify strongly as Independents is likely as small as the number of people who argue against it. Most people in this game see the R/D as a dichotomy, and categorize groups as either raiders or defenders, based on whether they, well, raid or defend. It's very unlikely that the average person in NS recognizes any distinction between an Independent region that usually raids, and a raider region. If TSP were to shift and start usually defending, they would see TSP as a defender GCR. I'm sure all of the self-proclaimed Independents would probably see it that way, too.

'Most people in this game', indeed most people in gameplay, do not reside in regions which engage in any form of military activity.

Raider and defender regions are themselves relatively rare; political regions with significant military activity are similarly uncommon.

So inevitably, people who are not informed or involved in something will tend to see military gameplay as a separate sphere - as simply 'R/D'.

However, if you talk to the 'average person' in the LKE, TNI or Europeia, political regions which are involved in significant degrees of military activity, you would in fact find an awareness of the nature and importance of independence as foreign policy. More so still if you spoke to policy-makers.

Furthermore, even if they do not articulate it in terms of independence as it is conceived by those regions which practise it, the average person in NS gameplay is more than capable of noticing the fundamental differences between TNI, LKE, Albion, Europeia, Balder, Osiris, etc., and TBR, LWU, BOM, etc.

TNI won't let TSP defend against TNI.

For independent regions, military activity is a reflection of foreign policy.

The point of an alliance is to fight together, not against each other.

So, yeah, I don't think defenders will ever stop linking Independence and raiding. The link is plain as day. The consequences of Independence are terrible for defenders today, just as they were from the start. Independence was never an ideology of rationality. Defenders never had a chance to utilize Independence, because it's always been a tool for people who prefer raiding.

Independence is not 'a tool for people who prefer raiding' in the sense that people find raiding more fun or more idealistically preferable.

Rather, people who have no particular preference for raiding or defending, who then focus on self-interest, will naturally utilise raiding more simply because there is nothing whatsoever self-interested about the act of maintaining a constant reactive update force to randomly defend regions you have connection with against more powerful regions if you are a political region which has no commitment to defender idealism. Raiding can be planned, allowing it to be tailored to a region's policy's decisions and requires a lower level of resources use for a region which is overwhelmingly non-military in its nature.

That does not mean they will fail to utilise defending meaningfully where a region has an particular specific interest at stake in a defensive operation.

If you alter the metric from idealism to self-interest, then naturally that is less palatable for idealistic defenders than raiders or defenders in it for fun.

However, independence is not designed to be comfortable for defenders or indeed raiders for that matter; it's designed to serve a given region. In an ideal environment for independence, people in general are expected to subordinate personal preferences for styles of gameplay to that region's policies.