The Rejected Times

[Port blood]

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

needs moar nudes

[Cormac A Stark]

Yes, to clarify for Tlik, my point was not that colonization is common today. My point was that even in the case of colonization, which I agree has not been common for some time, imperialist military operations are not as damaging to regions as Guy is claiming.

To be frank, I haven't seen a destructive imperialist military operation except against declared enemies since I started playing NationStates in February 2012, so I was trying to address any possible imperialist military activity in the absence of Guy providing any actual examples of this supposedly more destructive activity.

[Nierr]

To be frank, I haven't seen a destructive imperialist military operation except against declared enemies since I started playing NationStates in February 2012, so I was trying to address any possible imperialist military activity in the absence of Guy providing any actual examples of this supposedly more destructive activity.

would've been about the time you started but still happened. *shrugs*

[Whiskum]

To be frank, I haven't seen a destructive imperialist military operation except against declared enemies since I started playing NationStates in February 2012, so I was trying to address any possible imperialist military activity in the absence of Guy providing any actual examples of this supposedly more destructive activity.

would've been about the time you started but still happened. *shrugs*

The operation which took place in North Atlantic was in November 2011, so that would have been about three months before Cormac joined.

Guy claimed that 'typically' operations by imperialists had the most negative outcomes for regions - a single operation 2.5 years ago is not 'typical'.

Of course, I am not saying that operation was wrong, far from it we have no ethical qualms, but it is not in any sense typical of our military conduct.

[Nierr]

would've been about the time you started but still happened. *shrugs*

The operation which took place in North Atlantic was in November 2011, so that would have been about three months before Cormac joined.

Ah, fair enough, I was going by when the nation in there left the WA.

[Whiskum]

The operation which took place in North Atlantic was in November 2011, so that would have been about three months before Cormac joined.

Ah, fair enough, I was going by when the nation in there left the WA.

The nation left the World Assembly in the first half of December 2011 (2 months before he joined), but the bulk of the operation took place in November.

[Glen-Rhodes]

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 know it will surprise everybody, but I have a very different perspective on this, based on my talks with both groups as well. Raiders and defenders have the same red lines. Raiders don't want you to defend or liberate against them. Defenders don't want you to raid against them. Working with defenders isn't difficult because of "pseudo-moralistic baggage." It's difficult because, whenever Independent regions like TSP have talked to defenders, it's always been from a default position of, "We're going to raid, and you just have to accept that and never work against us." When TSP has talked to raiders, it's instead been, "We're going to raid, and we'd like you to help us."

Raiders would definitely care if TSP liberated one of their conquests the next week, just as we saw with LWU making a fuss about TSP voting for the Hogwarts liberation. The only reason the issue never popped up is because TSP's government tacitly accepted that the military would never work against allied raiders. Yet while accepting that demand of raiders, Independent TSPers damned defenders for making the same type of demand. Where defenders went wrong was being upfront and honest about their expectations. TSP's government ignored those issues when it went a treaty spree with raiders and imperialists, either purposefully or simply because TSP's Independent governments typically leaned raiders and wouldn't naturally think of what problems would arise if TSP really started defending.

[Evil Wolf]

just as we saw with LWU making a fuss about TSP voting for the Hogwarts liberation.

[Citation Needed]

[Glen-Rhodes]

just as we saw with LWU making a fuss about TSP voting for the Hogwarts liberation.

[Citation Needed]

Multiple IRC conversations from LWU trying to get TSP's delegate to change his vote.

[Evil Wolf]

I believe that's called SC lobbying. It sort of happens when people are lobbying for a SC proposal, something Defenders also tend to do a lot, I should note.

Thanks for letting me know TSP delegate is sharing private IRC conversations with his cabinet, however. Any other useful information you'd like to share with us?

[Cormac A Stark]

If all that occurred was Security Council lobbying, that's hardly "making a fuss."

[Solorni]

Yeah, I always tell regions that if they don't support "x" proposal in the SC that I will send spies to destabilize their region, send troops in there and do my utmost to prevent any member of that region from ever being commended. It's all part of SC lobbying and it's not a big fuss like GR is saying.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Raiders don't want you to defend or liberate against them. Defenders don't want you to raid against them.

This is where the whole thing just falls apart in your lap. You're correct that we don't want people to liberate against us. For example I would prefer it if the UIAF did not liberate a region I'm attempting to hold. However in consideration of this we do not put our friends in a position in which they must liberate a region we hold (we don't hit UIAF colonies or allies).

Meanwhile defenders don't want us to raid "against them" which is a meaningless statement because "against them" means "at all". That's why raiders are easier to work with.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Glen, I'm going to reveal something shocking to you; everyone expects their partners and allies to leave their operations alone. If you raid or lib in an allies sphere of interest then they are going to be upset. If you fight on the opposing side of an ally they will be upset.

The key thing here is that only one group claims a sphere of interest that extends to every single region in the game. Raiders don't give a crap if you run a liberation - so long as they're not the target.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Meanwhile defenders don't want us to raid "against them" which is a meaningless statement because "against them" means "at all". That's why raiders are easier to work with.

That's exactly why the UDL agreed to a clause within our proposed treaty specifically allowing TSP and the UDL to be on the opposite sides of a mission.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Meanwhile defenders don't want us to raid "against them" which is a meaningless statement because "against them" means "at all". That's why raiders are easier to work with.

That's exactly why the UDL agreed to a clause within our proposed treaty specifically allowing TSP and the UDL to be on the opposite sides of a mission.

Which actually meant that UDL was to be free to attack TSP operations and interests, rendering a treaty meaningless.

[Evil Wolf]

Yeah, I always tell regions that if they don't support "x" proposal in the SC that I will send spies to destabilize their region, send troops in there and do my utmost to prevent any member of that region from ever being commended. It's all part of SC lobbying and it's not a big fuss like GR is saying.

In our case, I do believe what was said was "Vote against the Liberation and we will owe you big time and repay you in whatever you ask of us using all of our manpower, connections, influence, and allies. Don't and...um, well your loss but no hard feelings."

Kringalia said "I'll think about it" which I think was his polite way of saying no, and never did anything. No other lobbying was conducted after that point and no "fuss" was made. In fact, if Glen-Rhodes hadn't mentioned it here, I very much doubt anyone would even know we lobbied Kringalia. We did it in private and dealt with Kringalia, and only Kringalia, after all.

I'm at least now reassured by Glen, in his accidental release of information, that LWU can't trust Kringalia with even a minor issue of a liberation proposal lobbying without him spilling it to everyone for use as propaganda later. Very disappointing. I do hope TSP doesn't give this sort of treatment to everyone they have contact with.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In fact, if Glen-Rhodes hadn't mentioned it here, I very much doubt anyone would even know we lobbied Kringalia. We did it in private and dealt with Kringalia, and only Kringalia, after all.

I was also asked about Kris's vote and whether or not he would change it.

Regardless, this definitely isn't the point I was trying to get across at all. This is silly tangent, and it's even sillier to make into a trustworthiness issue. Telling your friends and fellow government officials that somebody tried to lobby you for an SC vote isn't a breach of confidentiality.

[Nierr]

Very disappointing. I do hope TSP doesn't give this sort of treatment to everyone they have contact with.

To be fair, if you were delegate and you were being lobbied by x group, would you not tell your cabinet?

'X group' of course meaning every group but the UDL/FRA, because if either of those lobbied you you'd be screaming 'interference in our region' from the rooftops.

[McMasterdonia]

Very disappointing. I do hope TSP doesn't give this sort of treatment to everyone they have contact with.

To be fair, if you were delegate and you were being lobbied by x group, would you not tell your cabinet?

'X group' of course meaning every group but the UDL/FRA, because if either of those lobbied you you'd be screaming 'interference in our region' from the rooftops.

To be honest, Blue Wolf probably wouldn't. I'm not sure what Evil Wolf would do. He normally voted however he liked on WA resolutions!

[Unibot III]

'X group' of course meaning every group but the UDL/FRA, because if either of those lobbied you you'd be screaming 'interference in our region' from the rooftops.

Heh, so true.

[The Rejected Times]

Recording a session with three mystery big-wigs...




Please suggest an off-the-cuff question for me to ask them!

NS related questions have a better chance of being used.

[Todd McCloud]

Rank the GCRs in order of best to worst, in your personal opinion.

Re-quoting Mouse's question.

[Dalimbar]

If you were to be couped by someone, who would it be?

[Funkadelia]

What do you think of Lazarus' recent foreign policy stances/assertions?