The Rejected Times

[Kringalia]

I am very happy to have Glen as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Throughout his six months in office he has done nothing short of an excellent job, and whatever he says in his own free time is his own business. We won't be censoring his opinions, because he has a right to speak freely, and because they are precisely that, opinions, not official Cabinet statements.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The problem with this line of argument is that independents don't exclusively raid, and thus aren't raiders.

That's not what Belschaft's point is, though. He's arguing that defenders can't have good relations with Independents because they don't distinguish between the many flavors of raiding.

The big difference between raiders and defenders, and the reason independent regions can typically get along with raiders, is that raiders by and large don't care if SPSF for example is liberating a Nazi region or for that matter any raid that isn't their own raid. Meanwhile, defenders can't and won't accept any raid of any region at all, including as The Rejected Times has demonstrated in its latest edition raids of Nazi regions.

Except that this has been repeatedly proven false. Defender groups have been more than willing to let Independent regions raid, so long as both regions can meet each other on opposite sides of the battlefield. That's the same provision that exists in the TSP-Europeia treaty passed back in 2012. Yet when framed in an alliance between TSP and a clear defender region, Independents in TSP balked at the suggestion, saying that it was dumb and illogical, and that it was giving things away to defenders for nothing in return. So obviously there's more to it than the difference between raider and defender paradigms.

It's really very disheartening to see you advocating this defender intolerance of other military pursuits instead of advocating for independence in your capacity as TSP's Minister of Foreign Affairs. I can just imagine how an MoFA who bashes imperialism would go over in Osiris, or an MoFA who bashes defenderism in Lazarus. Do you feel at all compelled to actually represent the region you were elected to represent, instead of bashing the choices it has made?

I've been a highly vocal skeptic on Independence for a while now, certainly before my election as Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'm sure TSP appreciates your concern, though.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

For the record I consider the clause allowing TSP and Euro to fight each other be asinine, and it has never actually been implemented by us both adopting the simple principle of not attacking each other's operations. Any potential ally who wants to be free to attack you deserves to be laughed at and thrown out the door.

And my point was that defenders can't have good relations with independents until they recognize that independents aren't raiders. Nuance and basic reading comprehension are key skills for any diplomat.

[Cormac A Stark]

I am very happy to have Glen as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Throughout his six months in office he has done nothing short of an excellent job, and whatever he says in his own free time is his own business. We won't be censoring his opinions, because he has a right to speak freely, and because they are precisely that, opinions, not official Cabinet statements.

I didn't suggest censoring his opinions. I simply asked him if he felt at all compelled to actually represent the views of the region he was elected to represent, rather than the extremist views he advocates on a regular basis. Asking him a question, even a critical one, is not the same thing as advocating for his censorship.

That's not what Belschaft's point is, though. He's arguing that defenders can't have good relations with Independents because they don't distinguish between the many flavors of raiding.

Which is, in fact, part of the problem. The very fact that you consider independence one of "the many flavors of raiding" illustrates the problem, in that it is true beyond the shadow of any doubt that independent regions do not exclusively raid. Your own region's military certainly doesn't exclusively raid.

Except that this has been repeatedly proven false. Defender groups have been more than willing to let Independent regions raid, so long as both regions can meet each other on opposite sides of the battlefield. That's the same provision that exists in the TSP-Europeia treaty passed back in 2012. Yet when framed in an alliance between TSP and a clear defender region, Independents in TSP balked at the suggestion, saying that it was dumb and illogical, and that it was giving things away to defenders for nothing in return. So obviously there's more to it than the difference between raider and defender paradigms.

Again, there are differences here that you refuse to see because you're too wrapped up in "If they'll do it for other independents, they should do it for defenders. It's not fair!" Because Europeia is an independent region that pursues its own interests, and one of those interests is its alliance with The South Pacific, occasions on which they're going to meet on the battlefield are likely to be exceptionally rare. In fact, has it ever occurred?

On the other hand, defenders oppose all raids without exception, except for the bloc of defenders who won't defend Nazi regions from raids. Anytime SPSF raids, it is likely to encounter defender resistance on the battlefield.

What a Feeder or Sinker gets from a treaty with Europeia -- mutual defense, among other things -- is worth the small cost of tolerating the remote possibility that the two regions' military forces will meet on the battlefield. Mutual defense may not be worth the cost of tolerating frequent resistance to one's military operations. That's a decision for each region to make based on its own interests, but I can certainly see why a region wouldn't want to tolerate incessant resistance to its military operations in exchange for mutual defense that others, who will not incessantly oppose their military operations, can provide. Can't you?

I've been a highly vocal skeptic on Independence for a while now, certainly before my election as Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'm sure TSP appreciates your concern, though.

It just seems very odd to serve as Minister of Foreign Affairs for a region that has time and again chosen independence not only as its military alignment but also as its foreign policy orientation, when you oppose independence. It seems similarly odd for an independent region to choose such a person as their Minister of Foreign Affairs. Nonetheless, obviously that's between you and the voters of TSP, I just find it peculiar and can't help but wonder why you even wanted the job of being the chief diplomatic representative for a region whose foreign policy orientation and military alignment you vehemently oppose.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I am very happy to have Glen as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Throughout his six months in office he has done nothing short of an excellent job, and whatever he says in his own free time is his own business. We won't be censoring his opinions, because he has a right to speak freely, and because they are precisely that, opinions, not official Cabinet statements.

I didn't suggest censoring his opinions. I simply asked him if he felt at all compelled to actually represent the views of the region he was elected to represent, rather than the extremist views he advocates on a regular basis. Asking him a question, even a critical one, is not the same thing as advocating for his censorship.

What you're actually doing, and what you've done before (and others, too), is trying to say, "Are you sure you want to say that? Are you sure we aren't going use this against you to get you recalled or voted out in the next election?" It's a cheap tactic that I've never fallen for, so I don't know why you guys keep trying. I've been elected to office 3 times in TSP. I've been elected twice as Minister of Foreign Affairs. It's like you guys refuse to acknowledge it. There's no way TSP would ever elect a non-Independent as Minister of Foreign Affairs! Maybe TSP isn't as monolithic on this issue as you like to think.

Which is, in fact, part of the problem. The very fact that you consider independence one of "the many flavors of raiding" illustrates the problem, in that it is true beyond the shadow of any doubt that independent regions do not exclusively raid. Your own region's military certainly doesn't exclusively raid.

Err, no, that's not what I said. I did not say that Independence was a flavor of raiding. Belschaft's point wasn't about what defenders think of Independence. He argues that defenders not distinguishing between raiding and imperialism and Independents who exclusively align themselves with raiders and imperialists is what prevents good relations. Defenders do not see the ideology of Independence itself as a flavor of raiding, only the practical reality of those who have adopted it, and run governments under its name, that have military forces that are largely indistinguishable from raiders and imperialists.

Again, there are differences here that you refuse to see because you're too wrapped up in "If they'll do it for other independents, they should do it for defenders. It's not fair!" Because Europeia is an independent region that pursues its own interests, and one of those interests is its alliance with The South Pacific, occasions on which they're going to meet on the battlefield are likely to be exceptionally rare. In fact, has it ever occurred?

The clause wasn't included in the treaty because Europeia was also an Independent region, or because it was unlikely for our two regions to meet on opposite sides of the battlefield. (In fact, that you automatically think it would be unlikely only goes to show how Independence in practice has been dominated by raiders and raider leaners.) The clause was adopted because it's a central tenant of the Independence ideology: we should ensure that the region can act in its interests, rather than tie it down.

Both regions would, theoretically, raid and defend. That's the entire point of Independence, right? They would likely come across each other at some point in time, so the treaty should predict that and address it. Because a random raid and a random defense are simply what our forces would be doing most of the time, it's not really a grave violation of trust and friendship to work on opposite sides there. Neither party is truly hurt, but one party could make a fuss about it anyways if they wanted to. So the clause is there to agree that we won't make a fuss over some minor random mission.

That is pretty much standard fare for Independence, if we're doing it the way it should be done. If it's okay for Europeia to defend against a TSP raid, it should be okay for defenders to do it, too, and vice-versa. That's the way those defenders saw it. But for quite a few Independents in TSP, what was okay for Europeia was not okay for defenders. That's not a function of what Europeia's motives are, or how defenders see the world. That's a function of the inconsistency of applied Independence. Whenever defenders are involved, there are Independents out there who will think of any reason to oppose them, normally based on personal grudges rather than "regional interests" or whatever undefined terms they use for their own ends.

I just don't buy this crock you're selling, Cormac. I never have. There is no reason why an Independent region cannot work with defenders. In the past, the reasons manufactured have been because the leaders of Independent regions haven't liked specific defenders, or they were former raiders or former imperialists who never thought in the first place to work with defenders. There is nothing within the ideology of Independence that prevents an Independent-defender alliance, when defenders are ready and willing to be more pragmatic and less morally absolute when it comes to an Independent region raiding. That's what you keep ignoring. Can you not fathom a defender that thinks an Independent region raiding doesn't prohibit good relations with that region? This idea that defenderism and Independence are two mutually exclusive concepts is just plain simplistic and lazy.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Can you name a defender group that is willing to be pragmatic about independence? Because we've all been looking for one quite hard, and we're yet to find one.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Can you name a defender group that is willing to be pragmatic about independence? Because we've all been looking for one quite hard, and we're yet to find one.

Only every single one I've talked to... Back in October 2013, the UDL sent us a treaty that included an explicit clause almost identical to the one in the TSP-Europeia treaty. Spiritus also offered the same deal back in February of this year.

So, yeah. How many treaty drafts and diplomatic messages will you have to see before you believe it? I know for a fact that this isn't the first time I've personally told you about it.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Can you name a defender group that is willing to be pragmatic about independence? Because we've all been looking for one quite hard, and we're yet to find one.

Only every single one I've talked to... Back in October 2013, the UDL sent us a treaty that included an explicit clause almost identical to the one in the TSP-Europeia treaty. Spiritus also offered the same deal back in February of this year.

So, yeah. How many treaty drafts and diplomatic messages will you have to see before you believe it? I know for a fact that this isn't the first time I've personally told you about it.

You mean the UDL treaty draft which the Cabinet rejected by a vote of five to one, deeming UDL a fundamentally untrustworthy organization? It's not like TSP and UDL don't have diplomatic relations or anything.

As for a treaty with Spiritus, I don't seem to recall any such proposal ever being brought to the Assembly. For the life of me I can't think of who's job that might be.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yes, that treaty, which included the Europeian-style clause in it, regardless of whether you supported or opposed the treaty itself.

The point being that people who say defenders aren't willing to be pragmatic with Independent regions are lying or are simply ignorant.

[Kringalia]

Yeah...that wasn't a 5-1 vote. Let's not make up facts.

[Drop Your Pants]

Yeah...that wasn't a 5-1 vote. Let's not make up facts.

Bel isn't expecting people to fact check him

[Mekhet]

And sooner or later Defenders will have to accept that distinction, if they want any realistic prospect of fruitful relationships with Independent regions.

Why? Defenders aren't the ones who tried to change the long accepted terminology. No matter what your motivations are, at the end of the day you are either raiding a region or defending it, hence "R/D" as the common acronym. (We've had this debate over at the TSP forums, already.) Independent regions shouldn't have trouble accepting the basic truth about NS military gameplay. Defenders don't call out specific groups and defend against them. Defenders act against raiding itself. If an Independent region can't see a way to have 'fruitful relationships' with defenders because of that, then that's the fault of Independents within those regions trying to ignore basic realities.

There's a reason why defenders don't want to, whether they realize it or not. That's because "raiding" is "bullying". To some extent that's always been true for defenders, even if a few of them do not vilify raiders themselves, they see raiding as bullying in a sense.

By having "Independent" and "Imperialist" and all these other extra categories, to defenders it deviates from the black and white "Defenders" & "Raiders". It's easier to lump it all into raiding because raiding is the enemy that must be stopped to protect the communities and natives from destruction and bullying.

Basically.

Those defenders that don't give a shit whether a bunch of natives get ousted and their region destroyed, and just play for fun, you notice they are more accepting of different terms.

[Nierr]

Why? Defenders aren't the ones who tried to change the long accepted terminology. No matter what your motivations are, at the end of the day you are either raiding a region or defending it, hence "R/D" as the common acronym. (We've had this debate over at the TSP forums, already.) Independent regions shouldn't have trouble accepting the basic truth about NS military gameplay. Defenders don't call out specific groups and defend against them. Defenders act against raiding itself. If an Independent region can't see a way to have 'fruitful relationships' with defenders because of that, then that's the fault of Independents within those regions trying to ignore basic realities.

There's a reason why defenders don't want to, whether they realize it or not. That's because "raiding" is "bullying". To some extent that's always been true for defenders, even if a few of them do not vilify raiders themselves, they see raiding as bullying in a sense.

As an aside, most of the site thinks that way too.

[Drop Your Pants]

Those defenders that don't give a shit whether a bunch of natives get ousted and their region destroyed, and just play for fun, you notice they are more accepting of different terms.

It's a well known fact I don't give a rats ass about natives but i tend to stick with the Raider/Imperial description. Easier to type than using whatever term they've dreamt up for themselves.

[Anumia]

For the record I consider the clause allowing TSP and Euro to fight each other be asinine, and it has never actually been implemented by us both adopting the simple principle of not attacking each other's operations. Any potential ally who wants to be free to attack you deserves to be laughed at and thrown out the door.

I'm still preparing the strike on TSP to punish Kringalia for his crimes!

[Common-Sense Politics]

There's a reason why defenders don't want to, whether they realize it or not. That's because "raiding" is "bullying". To some extent that's always been true for defenders, even if a few of them do not vilify raiders themselves, they see raiding as bullying in a sense.

As an aside, most of the site thinks that way too.

As an aside, most of the site has a cumulative single digit IQ.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yeah, let's not call people stupid just because they see R/D in the typical "good versus evil" framework almost all games utilize.

[Common-Sense Politics]

Yeah, let's not call people stupid just because they see R/D in the typical "good versus evil" framework almost all games utilize.

That's not why I'm calling them stupid. I'm calling them stupid because they're stupid just like any cross section of the human population, particularly one frequented by teenagers.

[South Pacific Belschaft]

For the record I consider the clause allowing TSP and Euro to fight each other be asinine, and it has never actually been implemented by us both adopting the simple principle of not attacking each other's operations. Any potential ally who wants to be free to attack you deserves to be laughed at and thrown out the door.

I'm still preparing the strike on TSP to punish Kringalia for his crimes!

Never forget that our Appellate Justice controls Euro's founder nation. Our vengeance would be swift and final

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yeah, let's not call people stupid just because they see R/D in the typical "good versus evil" framework almost all games utilize.

That's not why I'm calling them stupid. I'm calling them stupid because they're stupid just like any cross section of the human population, particularly one frequented by teenagers.

And you assume that you're not part of that cross-section because...? Let's just not assume stupidity at all.

[Common-Sense Politics]

That's not why I'm calling them stupid. I'm calling them stupid because they're stupid just like any cross section of the human population, particularly one frequented by teenagers.

And you assume that you're not part of that cross-section because...? Let's just not assume stupidity at all.

Nah, I'm exceptionally intelligent. People say I'm grumpy.

[Drop Your Pants]

Yeah, let's not call people stupid just because they see R/D in the typical "good versus evil" framework almost all games utilize.

It's an old R/D tactic GR, if they don't agree with you then insult them

[Tano]

Yeah, let's not call people stupid just because they see R/D in the typical "good versus evil" framework almost all games utilize.

It's an old R/D tactic GR, if they don't agree with you then insult them

But...but...wha...

Well...at least...at least I"m not stupid!

(jkjkjkjk )

[South Pacific Belschaft]

Yeah, let's not call people stupid just because they see R/D in the typical "good versus evil" framework almost all games utilize.

I wouldn't use the word stupid, but I think simplistic would be a fair description. It's a very two dimensional view of NationStates, lacking in any form of nuance or sense of realism. I think it could, looked at logically, cause more problems for adherents than it solves as most independent regions are fairly benign. If you bring morality into NS then you have to consider peoples behaviour more broadly, rather than adopting a childish "defending=good, raiding=bad". I can think of plenty of defenders who were or are awful people, in terms of their personal behaviour and attitudes, and engaged in activities deemed unacceptable by most of us, and raiders who are lovely people and act in an honourable and trustworthy manner. And there have been both defender and raider groups that have engaged in, tolerated and excused practically every kind of unsavoury behaviour.

Morality can't be reduced to a badge, and in all my time in NS I've never come across anything to indicate that defenders are, taken as a group, more moral than raiders or any other group.

[Evil Wolf]

Yeah, let's not call people stupid just because they see R/D in the typical "good versus evil" framework almost all games utilize.

It's an old R/D tactic GR, if they don't agree with you then insult them

I don't think so. He's calling them stupid not because they was to utilize the "typical 'good versus evil' framework almost all games" have, but rather he's calling them stupid because they claim raiders are "bullies" in spite of the "typical 'good versus evil' framework almost all games" have. Would be like going into World Of Warcraft and accusing people of being "bullies" for picking a specific side in the game and also for killing players in a PvP server when all the "victim" of this "bullying" wants to do is in-game fish (or some other activity), not PvP...on a server that allows Player vs Player. Which is sorta stupid.

At least, that's how I see it.