The Rejected Times

[The Dark Star Republic]

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 didn't say the thing your quote attributes to me. :|

[Tlik]

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".

Ravania is the true native of all NationStates. We play the R/D game, but only he truly feels the sorrow of destroyed regions. *nods*

[The Grim Reaper]

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".

Ravania is the true native of all NationStates. We play the R/D game, but only he truly feels the sorrow of destroyed regions. *nods*

I'm waiting for a rebuttal on this one, EW.

[SFBA Campinia]

Ravania is the true native of all NationStates. We play the R/D game, but only he truly feels the sorrow of destroyed regions. *nods*

I'm waiting for a rebuttal on this one, EW.

Or a lange essay by Onder.

[Port blood]

I'm waiting for a rebuttal on this one, EW.

Or a lange essay by Onder.

Or threat everyone to a beer

[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 didn't say the thing your quote attributes to me. :|

Sorry, messed up quote tags. I was responding to Glen but deleted the wrong tag.

[V I Lenin]

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.

I don't need to demonise attacking other regions who you have no legitimate grievance with, Whiskum, your "ideology" does that all by itself.

If you really didn't care about perceptions, you wouldn't spend so much time arguing on this forum. You want to have your cake and eat it, not subject of the Court of Public Opinion - but also its Judge and Jury...

[Whiskum]

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.

I don't need to demonise attacking other regions who you have no legitimate grievance with, Whiskum, your "ideology" does that all by itself.

Actually, you will find that the whole point of independence is to reject labelling and demonisation based on functional forns of military acttion.

If you really didn't care about perceptions, you wouldn't spend so much time arguing on this forum. You want to have your cake and eat it, not subject of the Court of Public Opinion - but also its Judge and Jury...

Where I precisely did I claim to not care at all about perception? That would indeed be absurd. It is which perceptions you care about and why that matters.

You claimed that I was presenting independence as as 'nicer' than defender idealism; on the contrary, being 'nice' had nothing to do with my argument.

Usually, my time arguing on this forum is dedicated to correcting inaccurate or offensive remarks made about my regions or their military.

[Unibot III]

Actually, you will find that the whole point of independence is to reject labelling and demonisation based on functional forns of military acttion.

All you do is demonize defenders. Despite the fact that thinking open-mindedly here, it shouldn't be in your interests to deliberately try to ostracize and frustrate defenders.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Actually, you will find that the whole point of independence is to reject labelling and demonisation based on functional forns of military acttion.

All you do is demonize defenders. Despite the fact that thinking open-mindedly here, it shouldn't be in your interests to deliberately try to ostracize and frustrate defenders.

Probably because while raiders have managed to come to an understanding and mutual respect with imperialists the defender sphere has not. You argue that independence is polarizing towards raiding and that organizations are unwilling to work with groups which claim independence as an ideology yet it seems to be only defender groups which push this.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

All you do is demonize defenders. Despite the fact that thinking open-mindedly here, it shouldn't be in your interests to deliberately try to ostracize and frustrate defenders.

Probably because while raiders have managed to come to an understanding and mutual respect with imperialists the defender sphere has not. You argue that independence is polarizing towards raiding and that organizations are unwilling to work with groups which claim independence as an ideology yet it seems to be only defender groups which push this.

Indeed. Personally I was usually able to do business with both raider and defender groups when necessary, but dealing with raiders is the easier of the two. Largely it's because they don't have any of the pseudo-moralistic baggage that some defenders do, and don't care that we might lib a region next week, but the complete lack of bad blood stemming from propoganda, espionage, etc, helps a lot.

I imagine that Onder has similar experiences.

[Whiskum]

Actually, you will find that the whole point of independence is to reject labelling and demonisation based on functional forns of military acttion.

All you do is demonize defenders. Despite the fact that thinking open-mindedly here, it shouldn't be in your interests to deliberately try to ostracize and frustrate defenders.

Nowhere have I claimed that defenders are inherently malicious or that the act of defending is ethically wrong.

Nor have I adopted sought to define any group that disagrees with my regions' beliefs as being 'defender', whereas what has often been said by UDL ideologues is that any region that fails to accept that there is an ethical problem with raiding, and is therefore willing to raid, is automatically 'raider'.

Some in the UDL and more recently Lazarus have lumped imperialist regions with in raider regions and equate all independent regions with imperialism, one sub-variant of independence. Any region involved in military gameplay whose style is other than that of exclusively 'defender', that believes raiding is permissible, is labelled and demonised, largely because defenders use 'raider' to mean those who are opposed to them rather than recognising raiders as a distinct, proud tradition which should be assessed by outsiders in terms of its own history, regional structures and operational practices.

I have of course made specific criticisms of defender organisations, but these have not been based on moralistic attacks on the nature of defending as a functional form of military gameplay. Rather, they have arisen from specific grievances involving acts of those organisations against my regions.

I also concur with the observations of Mallorea and Riva and South Pacific Belschaft. Unconstrained by idealism, raiders are usually prepared to be more flexible to respect the aims and nature of independent regions. On occasions, this has not been the case and strong disagreements have arisen, but these have usually been limited to particular groups during particular periods; defender groups in general are much less willing to adapt and respect our agenda. However, the fact that raiders are prepared to be flexible and accommodate independent regions does not mean the two are the same thing: that is a definition of 'raider' derived from the absence of defender idealism, where any region that refuses to conform is so labelled and not irregularly demonised.

[Guy]

Let's talk about the outcome on regions here.

My qualms with any form of invading is its impact on the native population. Some forms are far more harmful than others, of course - and typically it is those who identify as Imperialists that have the most negative outcomes for regions. (Although recently, other groups have also engaged in similar conduct.)

I don't mind that groups who invade self-identify using different labels - Raider, Independent, Imperialist. Onder has his own classification system, some might reject it.

But for me, the motives and goals of a group that has invaded a region does not matter. What matters is what they are going to do with the region they have invaded, and how that is going to affect it and its natives. My inquiries begin and end there.

[Solorni]

I want a new issue already. Booored.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Let's talk about the outcome on regions here.

My qualms with any form of invading is its impact on the native population. Some forms are far more harmful than others, of course - and typically it is those who identify as Imperialists that have the most negative outcomes for regions. (Although recently, other groups have also engaged in similar conduct.)

I don't mind that groups who invade self-identify using different labels - Raider, Independent, Imperialist. Onder has his own classification system, some might reject it.

But for me, the motives and goals of a group that has invaded a region does not matter. What matters is what they are going to do with the region they have invaded, and how that is going to affect it and its natives. My inquiries begin and end there.

The Independent's response is that some regions deserve to be raided, and even destroyed. The imminent destruction of Nazi Europe is a an ideal case. Under certain circumstances I support the destruction of specific regions, or if not possible then the thwarting of their operations and attacks on their interests. But I have never advocated for, engaged in, or supported causing damage to regions arbitrarily. I've never ejected people from a region, or endorsed someone doing so, without cause - that the region is an enemy of my region, or is opposing an ongoing military operation.

The distinction between a raider and an independent region is simple. A raider will attack any region they can, arbitrarily and without cause. They will often try to destroy or damage the regions they capture. And the raider region usually lacks any form of civic or political government, and has no real FA program; it is principally a military region.

An Independent region does not attack regions arbitrarily, but rather operates with cause. Sometimes they will conduct training operations in regions they have no cause against, but they will rarely try to cause damage to or destroy these regions. Most importantly, the independent region has an extensive civic and political government, and an extensive FA program; it is not principally a military region.

[Cormac A Stark]

Let's talk about the outcome on regions here.

My qualms with any form of invading is its impact on the native population. Some forms are far more harmful than others, of course - and typically it is those who identify as Imperialists that have the most negative outcomes for regions. (Although recently, other groups have also engaged in similar conduct.)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this assessment.

Imperialist regions are not necessarily nor even typically as damaging to the regions they invade as is typically true of raiders. The imperialist regions that comprise the UIAF, for example, rarely eject and ban natives unless the target region is an enemy region or unless they intend to colonize the region (which has become increasingly rare).

In the latter case, regions that engage in colonialism, like The Land of Kings and Emperors, actively try to develop their colonies and presumably natives who were present in such regions before colonization are welcome to participate after colonization. The LKE has also granted colonies independence from their Empire after they have demonstrated a capacity to be self-governing and self-sustaining. Not insignificantly, The LKE also extends its protection to former colonies, as notably but not exhaustively demonstrated in 2012 when The LKE and allies liberated The United Kingdom of Britain from occupation by The Greater German Reich.

By contrast, raiders frequently eject and ban natives regardless of whether a region is an enemy region or they have any interest in developing the region as a colony. Regions that raiders refound are often, though not always, more trophies than colonies, as rarely are attempts made to develop the regions after refounding. Mind you, I'm not arguing that this makes raiders bad as I don't subscribe to defender morality, but the idea that this is less damaging to regions than imperialist military activity is simply and clearly wrong.

[Catharnus]

This is a really nice propaganda piece, but it needs more picτυres of tekbirs.

[Tlik]

Let's talk about the outcome on regions here.

My qualms with any form of invading is its impact on the native population. Some forms are far more harmful than others, of course - and typically it is those who identify as Imperialists that have the most negative outcomes for regions. (Although recently, other groups have also engaged in similar conduct.)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this assessment.

Imperialist regions are not necessarily nor even typically as damaging to the regions they invade as is typically true of raiders. The imperialist regions that comprise the UIAF, for example, rarely eject and ban natives unless the target region is an enemy region or unless they intend to colonize the region (which has become increasingly rare).

In the latter case, regions that engage in colonialism, like The Land of Kings and Emperors, actively try to develop their colonies and presumably natives who were present in such regions before colonization are welcome to participate after colonization. The LKE has also granted colonies independence from their Empire after they have demonstrated a capacity to be self-governing and self-sustaining. Not insignificantly, The LKE also extends its protection to former colonies, as notably but not exhaustively demonstrated in 2012 when The LKE and allies liberated The United Kingdom of Britain from occupation by The Greater German Reich.

By contrast, raiders frequently eject and ban natives regardless of whether a region is an enemy region or they have any interest in developing the region as a colony. Regions that raiders refound are often, though not always, more trophies than colonies, as rarely are attempts made to develop the regions after refounding. Mind you, I'm not arguing that this makes raiders bad as I don't subscribe to defender morality, but the idea that this is less damaging to regions than imperialist military activity is simply and clearly wrong.

See, last time I commented on imperialism, CQ explained to me that imperialists rarely bothered with colonising any more. I mean, by numbers alone, there have been far, far fewer colonies in recent months than trophy regions - and this is talking just about imperialist regions with potential raider support. When you also remember that imperialist regions are often fairly happy to provide support to raiders, that ratio gap just gets wider.

I mean, I'd quite like to see real imperialism. I've said this for quite a while now, imperialism is interesting to me, and on paper it should be far better for the natives than simply burning regions as far to the ground as possible before you get bored. But every time I comment on it, people tell me that real imperialism doesn't exist. It feels to me in this post like you're having your cake and eating it, and if so, please could the rest of us have some of the yummy real-imperialist cake that you've been hoarding?

[Whiskum]

My qualms with any form of invading is its impact on the native population. Some forms are far more harmful than others, of course - and typically it is those who identify as Imperialists that have the most negative outcomes for regions. (Although recently, other groups have also engaged in similar conduct.)

On what evidence do you rest this claim? How does the the 'typical' imperialist operation have a more negative outcome than a raider operation?

Native ejections are relatively rare with imperialist regions: indeed, prior to some relatively recent UIAF operations, no LKE-led operation from 2006 to 2013 ever involved the ejection of a native. So I want to know on what metric that you claim that imperialists' operations have worse outcomes.

Imperialists do use invasion as a means of foreign policy, which can mean that where there is a specific justification (such as the existence of a state of war or a link to one's enemies), there can be grave consequences for a region which has defied or is defying an imperialist region. However, these consequences are not necessarily fatal: cooperating can mean a prompt withdrawal and an agreement not to be raided again, as in the case of Slavya.

So there may be some specific regions which are targeted more, some less, as a result of linking military operations with foreign policy. Yet in terms of general operational conduct (considering for instance that UIAF troops are generally proscribed from posting on raided RMBs), I see no basis for your claim. On most occasions where imperialists are harsher, there is generally a justification involving hostilities or prior bad acts with the region concerned.

In any case, your inquiries may start and end with this issue, but an independent region's inquiries start and end with with its own interests as opposed to moralising about the interests of others. This is a game and everyone should be protecting and advancing their own interests; if we do not have positive relations with a region, we have no reason to concern ourselves with its interests in this game - such considerations are the place of it and its allies.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this assessment.

Imperialist regions are not necessarily nor even typically as damaging to the regions they invade as is typically true of raiders. The imperialist regions that comprise the UIAF, for example, rarely eject and ban natives unless the target region is an enemy region or unless they intend to colonize the region (which has become increasingly rare).

In the latter case, regions that engage in colonialism, like The Land of Kings and Emperors, actively try to develop their colonies and presumably natives who were present in such regions before colonization are welcome to participate after colonization. The LKE has also granted colonies independence from their Empire after they have demonstrated a capacity to be self-governing and self-sustaining. Not insignificantly, The LKE also extends its protection to former colonies, as notably but not exhaustively demonstrated in 2012 when The LKE and allies liberated The United Kingdom of Britain from occupation by The Greater German Reich.

By contrast, raiders frequently eject and ban natives regardless of whether a region is an enemy region or they have any interest in developing the region as a colony. Regions that raiders refound are often, though not always, more trophies than colonies, as rarely are attempts made to develop the regions after refounding. Mind you, I'm not arguing that this makes raiders bad as I don't subscribe to defender morality, but the idea that this is less damaging to regions than imperialist military activity is simply and clearly wrong.

See, last time I commented on imperialism, CQ explained to me that imperialists rarely bothered with colonising any more. I mean, by numbers alone, there have been far, far fewer colonies in recent months than trophy regions - and this is talking just about imperialist regions with potential raider support. When you also remember that imperialist regions are often fairly happy to provide support to raiders, that ratio gap just gets wider.

I mean, I'd quite like to see real imperialism. I've said this for quite a while now, imperialism is interesting to me, and on paper it should be far better for the natives than simply burning regions as far to the ground as possible before you get bored. But every time I comment on it, people tell me that real imperialism doesn't exist. It feels to me in this post like you're having your cake and eating it, and if so, please could the rest of us have some of the yummy real-imperialist cake that you've been hoarding?

Unlike in the 2006 and parts of the 2007 period, in the present day it is rare for imperialist regions' military operations to have colonisation objectives.

However, colonialism is not 'real imperialism': it is a variant of 'real imperialism', certainly, but the definitions of the two have never been the same. Imperialism involves the expansion and projection of a region's power over other regions, in NS usually more aggressively than other independent regions.

Colonisation of targets which are invaded is one way of doing this but it is not the only way.

The LKE already has a base of colonies, some of which it conquered or negotiated into the Empire back in 2006. At present most colonial efforts are dedicated to Munster. Some colonies have indeed been granted independence in concert with the will of the native population (from TNI in September 2006, or The Empire of Knights in early 2007, to more recent cases like UKB or The Imperial Legion), and indeed the Kelkia Doctrine, established in May 2007 to prevent the colonisation of United America by TNI, does indeed offer a grant of support to such former colonies when problems come to our attention.

[Tlik]

See, last time I commented on imperialism, CQ explained to me that imperialists rarely bothered with colonising any more. I mean, by numbers alone, there have been far, far fewer colonies in recent months than trophy regions - and this is talking just about imperialist regions with potential raider support. When you also remember that imperialist regions are often fairly happy to provide support to raiders, that ratio gap just gets wider.

I mean, I'd quite like to see real imperialism. I've said this for quite a while now, imperialism is interesting to me, and on paper it should be far better for the natives than simply burning regions as far to the ground as possible before you get bored. But every time I comment on it, people tell me that real imperialism doesn't exist. It feels to me in this post like you're having your cake and eating it, and if so, please could the rest of us have some of the yummy real-imperialist cake that you've been hoarding?

Unlike in the 2006 and parts of the 2007 period, in the present day it rare for imperialist regions' military operations to have colonisation objectives.

However, colonialism is not 'real imperialism': it is a variant of 'real imperialism', certainly, but the definitions of the two have never been the same. Imperialism involves the expansion and projection of a region's power over other regions, in NS usually more aggressively than other independent regions.

Colonisation of targets which are invaded is one way of doing this but it is not the only way.

The LKE already has a base of colonies, some of which it conquered or negotiated into the Empire back in 2006. At present most colonial efforts are dedicated to Munster. Some colonies have indeed been granted independence in concert with the will of the native population (from TNI in September 2006, or The Empire of Knights in early 2007, to more recent cases like UKB or The Imperial Legion), and indeed the Kelkia Doctrine, established in May 2007 to prevent the colonisation of United America by TNI, does indeed offer a grant of support to such former colonies when problems come to our attention.

So Cormac's talking nonsense?

[Drop Your Pants]

Probably because while raiders have managed to come to an understanding and mutual respect with imperialists the defender sphere has not. You argue that independence is polarizing towards raiding and that organizations are unwilling to work with groups which claim independence as an ideology yet it seems to be only defender groups which push this.

Its easy enough for defenders to have a mutual understanding, I did it in Lazarus during my term as delegate. You just need to learn how to barter

[Coraxion]

Probably because while raiders have managed to come to an understanding and mutual respect with imperialists the defender sphere has not. You argue that independence is polarizing towards raiding and that organizations are unwilling to work with groups which claim independence as an ideology yet it seems to be only defender groups which push this.

Its easy enough for defenders to have a mutual understanding, I did it in Lazarus during my term as delegate. You just need to learn how to barter

Cimmerians can do that.

If all available resources could be directed against Nazi-Goons in NationStates, I can finally be free and Play the Game... and Raid and Crash natives for hobby as much I Like, even against 40 fendas.

1st Confirmed Sheep Kill will be the day of Celebration.

[Whiskum]

Unlike in the 2006 and parts of the 2007 period, in the present day it rare for imperialist regions' military operations to have colonisation objectives.

However, colonialism is not 'real imperialism': it is a variant of 'real imperialism', certainly, but the definitions of the two have never been the same. Imperialism involves the expansion and projection of a region's power over other regions, in NS usually more aggressively than other independent regions.

Colonisation of targets which are invaded is one way of doing this but it is not the only way.

The LKE already has a base of colonies, some of which it conquered or negotiated into the Empire back in 2006. At present most colonial efforts are dedicated to Munster. Some colonies have indeed been granted independence in concert with the will of the native population (from TNI in September 2006, or The Empire of Knights in early 2007, to more recent cases like UKB or The Imperial Legion), and indeed the Kelkia Doctrine, established in May 2007 to prevent the colonisation of United America by TNI, does indeed offer a grant of support to such former colonies when problems come to our attention.

So Cormac's talking nonsense?

I do not believe that Cormac was claiming that colonisation, in the present day, formed a significant component to imperialist military activity. Rather I believe he was reflecting regarding colonialism's influence on the imperialist tradition and the differing nature of attitudes comared to raiders this reveals.

Probably because while raiders have managed to come to an understanding and mutual respect with imperialists the defender sphere has not. You argue that independence is polarizing towards raiding and that organizations are unwilling to work with groups which claim independence as an ideology yet it seems to be only defender groups which push this.

Its easy enough for defenders to have a mutual understanding, I did it in Lazarus during my term as delegate. You just need to learn how to barter

You say you displayed this mutual understanding while you were Delegate of Lazarus.

If only all your esteemed successors had shown this understanding and bartering attitude when it came to dealing with people with imperialist views.

[Tlik]

[R]egions that engage in colonialism, like The Land of Kings and Emperors, actively try to develop their colonies and presumably natives who were present in such regions before colonization are welcome to participate after colonization.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the present tense. Hey ho...

[Whiskum]

[R]egions that engage in colonialism, like The Land of Kings and Emperors, actively try to develop their colonies and presumably natives who were present in such regions before colonization are welcome to participate after colonization.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the present tense. Hey ho...

That comment makes no reference to continued raiding. Colonialism can be practised without continued raiding operations.

The LKE does indeed engage in colonialism: at the moment most of our attention is dedictaed to the region of Munster, we invaded in July 2006.

So there was an original invasion underpinning that (and other former LKE colonies to), which I assume is what is meant by the reference to natives.

---

However, we do not currently invade regions with the purpose of colonising regions and, by and large, we have not done so or a long time.

Instead, we have used miitary operations to pursue other forms of imperialist objective; colonialism has never been the same as imperialism.