The Rejected Times

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

You know, if TBR had any interest in retaking Mountains to the East, it probably would have been done the very next update, before, you know, there were reinforcements, and while we had a large group of slightly offput raiders gathered to inform of anything in the next few days. No, it certainly wasn't brought up, either

[Misley]

I would need to check but I am pretty sure LKE, TNI and Europeia have been around longer than any of the current big leftist regions... so I'm not sure why cormac thinks it is far more enduring.

Presumably he's referring to the fact that socialist regions use real-world socialism as a foundation for their activities, not gameplay ideologies. Socialism as an ideology is unquestionably more enduring than the gameplay ideologies that have developed in the past thirteen years or so in this game.

[Chester Pearson]

Wow I showed up in two articles. Things are looking up....

Wait till you're interviewed.

I have been.

[Consular]

I would need to check but I am pretty sure LKE, TNI and Europeia have been around longer than any of the current big leftist regions... so I'm not sure why cormac thinks it is far more enduring.

Presumably he's referring to the fact that socialist regions use real-world socialism as a foundation for their activities, not gameplay ideologies. Socialism as an ideology is unquestionably more enduring than the gameplay ideologies that have developed in the past thirteen years or so in this game.

Except that's not true at all. If we're using real life ideologies as a measure, the LKE and other monarchistic regions still win, no? Monarchy as a system of governance far predates modern socialism in a real world context. So, the concept and ideology of a monarchy is more enduring than that of socialism in both this game /and/ in real life.

As a sidenote that entire comparison is absurd. It's not really valid to compare how an NS ideology endures against a RL ideology. I would think the shortcomings in that to be rather obvious.

[Solorni]

I would need to check but I am pretty sure LKE, TNI and Europeia have been around longer than any of the current big leftist regions... so I'm not sure why cormac thinks it is far more enduring.

Presumably he's referring to the fact that socialist regions use real-world socialism as a foundation for their activities, not gameplay ideologies. Socialism as an ideology is unquestionably more enduring than the gameplay ideologies that have developed in the past thirteen years or so in this game.

Lenin would fully disagree

[Josh Sebastian]

Presumably he's referring to the fact that socialist regions use real-world socialism as a foundation for their activities, not gameplay ideologies. Socialism as an ideology is unquestionably more enduring than the gameplay ideologies that have developed in the past thirteen years or so in this game.

Except that's not true at all. If we're using real life ideologies as a measure, the LKE and other monarchistic regions still win, no? Monarchy as a system of governance far predates modern socialism in a real world context. So, the concept and ideology of a monarchy is more enduring than that of socialism in both this game /and/ in real life.

I agree. Not to mention, RL countries that have relied heavily on socialism as the basis, or a huge part of their ideologies, have indeed resorted to imperialistic tactics or actions themselves.

[RiderSyl]

The article on The Mountains on the East, specifically, its depiction of the mass ejections as one big final attempt to grief the region, is inaccurate.

TBR was actually attempting to refound the region by emptying it, but it failed because of an "ejection speed" glitch that NS staff acknowledged in a Technical thread shortly afterwards.

We weren't trying to grief the region's people. We were trying to end the raid by taking the region as a trophy, like we did with Silver Isles, Western Assembly, and many other occupations. In short, the intention there was gameplay, not griefing. It's actually a pretty big distinction, considering the former makes us players and the latter makes us assholes.

This might be an annoying case of facts getting in the way of a good defender narrative, but I figured this was worth clarifying.

[The Rainbow Collective]

Lovely to see even though cormac took on a new identity and claimed everything with his past identity is separate, that he is still attacking the same people with the same old lies he's been spreading for years, some things never change. It's also nice to know he can't be a true leftest since he didn't start in the NS left either(his claim against zenny).

That has no impact on my statement. His actions are clearly not significantly different then before despite his claims otherwise. When his identity was revealed is irrelevant. It's also worth noting since he already wrote this that he pretty much straight up lied. He knew he already wrote an article that is heavily linked to his past quarrels with various regions, but decided to claim his actions under this persona are completely separate.

I find it amusing that complaints about my former persona are being made by a puppet I don't recognize, who clearly has some other identity and is aware of my past. But then hypocrisy amongst the imperialists has always been strong.

Cormac Stark and The Rainbow Collective aren't at all the same. Yes, I'm opposing imperialists, particularly after they invaded a leftist region - would you expect anything else from a socialist? Had imperialists not invaded Eastern Europe last week, and been joined in doing so by The Communist Bloc of all regions, I doubt I would have anything to say about them as their other, mainstream R/D gameplay business is none of my concern and I don't care about it. You'll note that Cormac Stark was a frequent critic not only of imperialists, but also invaders, and I've had nothing negative to say about, for example, The Black Riders.

If you expect a socialist not to be anti-imperialist and oppose imperialist invasion of a socialist region, I really don't know what to say to that.

I would need to check but I am pretty sure LKE, TNI and Europeia have been around longer than any of the current big leftist regions... so I'm not sure why cormac thinks it is far more enduring.

Way to completely miss the point, because that sure wasn't it. I wasn't contrasting socialism with the imperialist ideologies of the regions you cite, but rather with the sandcastle ideologies of the regions imperialists have found so easy to manipulate - namely, the gameplay democracies of several GCRs.

[Jeckondria]

Yay! I helpded!

[Onderkelkia]

I note there has been no attempt to defend the downright absurd aspersions made on the character of Europeian democracy in Cormac's article.

[Consular]

I would need to check but I am pretty sure LKE, TNI and Europeia have been around longer than any of the current big leftist regions... so I'm not sure why cormac thinks it is far more enduring.

Way to completely miss the point, because that sure wasn't it. I wasn't contrasting socialism with the imperialist ideologies of the regions you cite, but rather with the sandcastle ideologies of the regions imperialists have found so easy to manipulate - namely, the gameplay democracies of several GCRs.

Would you care to give some specific examples and reasoning supporting them? Or is it more fun for you to just make incredibly vague snipes at regions you dislike without justification?

I'll presume, forgive me if I'm incorrect, that this is yet another of your attacks on Balder. In which case you'd be rather wrong, for the same reasons discussed above - if we make real life ideological comparisons, Balder is a monarchy, which as noted is a demonstrably more enduring ideology than modern socialism in both real life and in NationStates.

I suppose there is some difference in the sense that the monarch is elected, but then I would think few socialist regions, the Internationale included, accurately mimic RL socialism anyway.

In just NS terms, Balder has a system of government and internal culture that has been remarkably stable for an extended period of time - Balder has perhaps not existed all that long in the broader scheme of things but it has been very stable for the time which it has, and I believe it will continue to be so, regardless of your empty attacks and the pathetic attempts to undermine its government by supposedly 'anonymous' groups.

[The Rainbow Collective]

I note there has been no attempt to defend the downright absurd aspersions made on the character of Europeian democracy in Cormac's article.

You want to get bogged down in the minutiae of how the government of Europeia and the governments of its imperialist monarchist allies differ, but nobody wants to get bogged down in an argument like that with you because that wasn't actually the point. The point is that when you get past the window dressing of Europeia it differs not at all from its imperialist allies in terms of its external policy. It is an imperialist region that indiscriminately invades other regions to project its power, but the variations in its government and the re-branding of imperialism as "independence" have made it more appealing to other democratic regions.

Would you care to give some specific examples and reasoning supporting them? Or is it more fun for you to just make incredibly vague snipes at regions you dislike without justification?

Specific examples weren't the point. The point, simply put, is that leftist regions are guided by a real ideology, socialism, and that leftist regions therefore aren't as likely to be taken in by imperialism as regions that have an incredibly vague commitment to democracy, but otherwise stand for nothing else.

If you can't figure out which GCRs have an incredibly vague commitment to democracy, but otherwise stand for nothing else, I'm not sure what I can do for you.

I'll presume, forgive me if I'm incorrect, that this is yet another of your attacks on Balder.

It isn't. Balder was never taken in by imperialists, it has always belonged to them. Well, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, they did have to do a little bit of work to chase the UDL out of Balder, but since then it has been an uncontested member of the imperialist sphere, and as you say, it is a monarchist region.

I won't address the rest of your points since I wasn't even referring to Balder.

[Corvus Corax]

@Cormac: I just note here again that so called "Democracy" in Nationstates is hard coded to the game mechanics, totally beyond how this or that regional community tag themselves or what kind "political machinery" is behind those tags.

If you have more endorsements for your Delegate candidate then others have, your candidate is legitime and Democratically Elected by the given votes (endorsements) to a winner. These Elections happen in every region 2 times in one day.

UCR Executive Founders are the interesting way (and only mean) to limit that in-built democracy, as they can set delegate access non-executive, effectively being as a dictators/monarchs/despots etc. totally independently to how a region is 'tagged' or self indentified.

Everyone are equally tied to these principles. Then people consider widely raiders as "Evil" and un-democratic...

[The Rainbow Collective]

That's a valid point.

When referring to democracy, in this thread, I'm referring to regions that adhere to "forum democracy." Essentially, these regions stand for democratic elections and government hosted on their forums, for their regions, but stand for little else. It's an extremely self-centered, minimalist democratic ideology, if it can even be described as an ideology.

Those truly committed to democracy, as an ideology, would be committed to it not only for themselves, but for others. The regions in question are not, though some of them used to be. These regions essentially stand for nothing except the preservation of their own democratic forum governments, and as regions that stand for nothing they have proven time and again willing to fall for anything. This is how they differ from socialists, which was my point - socialism can't be as easily undermined by imperialists dressing up as socialists as the commitments of these regions to democracy was undermined by imperialists dressing up as democrats.

[Onderkelkia]

I note there has been no attempt to defend the downright absurd aspersions made on the character of Europeian democracy in Cormac's article.

You want to get bogged down in the minutiae of how the government of Europeia and the governments of its imperialist monarchist allies differ, but nobody wants to get bogged down in an argument like that with you because that wasn't actually the point.

Actually, that was your point:

Its government differs little from the governments of its imperialist monarchist allies

Your statement here very clearly refers to the nature of Europeia's government, as opposed to its external policy.

Likewise, when talking about the implications of TNP and TSP signing a treaty with Europeia, you referred to them as 'democratic communities', as if Europeia was not a democratic community itself. The internal running of Europeia (and to a lesser degree the imperialist regions) is highly democratic.

Indeed, perhaps your comrades in Lazarus (or their supporters in the New Pacific Order) could learn from Europeia's democratic example.

The point is that when you get past the window dressing of Europeia it differs not at all from its imperialist allies in terms of its external policy. It is an imperialist region that indiscriminately invades other regions to project its power

There are substantial differences - Europeia, for instance, maintains its TSP treaty, whereas TNI and Kantrias cut their treaties following TSP's TRR treaty.

Additionally, if you look at Europeian military operations, you will find it is relatively rare for normal occupations to be justified in relation to a specific grievance arising from a characteristic of the region concerned, in contrast to the UIAF. ERN operations are generally far less overtly political.

So the fact that Europeia is Independent, in that uses its military as an instrument of foreign policy and does not submit to to moralistic constraints on offensive operations, does not mean that it is Imperialist, in that it uses military and diplomatic tools to aggressively expand and project power.

the re-branding of imperialism as "independence" have made it more appealing to other democratic regions.

I note the addition of the word 'other' before 'democratic' in this comment, in contrast to your choice of wording in the article.

It's widely acknowledged that Independence and Imperialism are linked, in that Imperialism is a sub-variant of Independence. That means that Imperialist regions have Independent characteristics but Independent regions don't necessarily have Imperialist characteristics. If Independence was purely a re-branding exercise, as opposed to an approach based on these characteristics, then it would make no sense to acknowledge that Imperialist regions are Independent.

I would further remind you that the Independent Manifesto signatories were wider than Europeia and the regions whose militaries constitute the UIAF.

[Solorni]

I just didn't think it was worth debating Cormacs aspersion on Europeian democracy.

[The Rainbow Collective]

You want to get bogged down in the minutiae of how the government of Europeia and the governments of its imperialist monarchist allies differ, but nobody wants to get bogged down in an argument like that with you because that wasn't actually the point.

Actually, that was your point:

Its government differs little from the governments of its imperialist monarchist allies

Your statement here very clearly refers to the nature of Europeia's government, as opposed to its external policy.

Except that my actual statement, in context, was this:

Its government differs little from the governments of its imperialist monarchist allies and the Europeian Republican Navy primarily engages in indiscriminate invasion of other communities, but the genius is in the branding.

...which very clearly refers to Europeia's external policy, i.e., its "indiscriminate invasion of other communities." I point out that its government differs little from its imperialist monarchist allies as a note that it is not as democratic as other democratic regions; it does not, for example, have a directly democratic legislature as do The North Pacific and The South Pacific, but like its imperialist monarchist allies rather has an elected legislature typically comprised of regional elites with maybe one or two newcomers thrown into the mix - depending on how may elites want to be senators in any given term.

The broader point is that Europeia appeals to other democratic regions as a moderate, more democratic, independent alternative to its imperialist allies, when in reality the governmental differences between Europeia and its allies are negligible and the external policy differences are virtually non-existent, despite your obsession with minutiae which I'll get to in a minute.

Likewise, when talking about the implications of TNP and TSP signing a treaty with Europeia, you referred to them as 'democratic communities', as if Europeia was not a democratic community itself. The internal running of Europeia (and to a lesser degree the imperialist regions) is highly democratic.

That was not my intent, and you're nitpicking. Everyone knows that Europeian government is a democratic republic, albeit a less democratic government than those that opt for a directly democratic legislature. It was not my intention to say that either Europeia or even other imperialist regions are non-democratic, but rather to point out that their systems of government are closer to each other than to the GCRs and other more robustly democratic regions, such as Equilism, that Europeia tries to appeal to.

In any case, the presence or absence of a democratic government was not at all the point of the article.

The point is that when you get past the window dressing of Europeia it differs not at all from its imperialist allies in terms of its external policy. It is an imperialist region that indiscriminately invades other regions to project its power

There are substantial differences - Europeia, for instance, maintains its TSP treaty, whereas TNI and Kantrias cut their treaties following TSP's TRR treaty.

That isn't a substantial difference. Europeia is not at war with the FRA and doesn't have any reason to cancel a treaty with The South Pacific for the reason The New Inquisition did, and everyone knows Kantrias is, at best, a second tier imperialist region that was just following the leader. If Europeia canceled its treaty with The South Pacific, imperialists would have no leverage at all with the Coalition anymore. It is the Europeian treaty that allows the UIAF to shun The South Pacific but still maintain influence over it, indirectly, through their very close ally which is in lockstep with UIAF external policy.

That's actually my point; Europeia secures these treaties and brings these regions into the imperialist sphere so that other, more extreme imperialist regions don't have to, and its branding is such that it makes Europeia more appealing than other imperialist regions.

Additionally, if you look at Europeian military operations, you will find it is relatively rare for normal occupations to be justified in relation to a specific grievance arising from a characteristic of the region concerned, in contrast to the UIAF. ERN operations are generally far less overtly political.

Again, this isn't a substantial difference. It's in the nature of Europeian re-branding of imperialism to seem more peaceful, to publicly air and aggressively pursue fewer petty grievances. If they were identical to other imperialist regions, they wouldn't be serving their purpose. It's smoke and mirrors, not substance. Europeia is substantially in lockstep with other imperialist regions in regard to external policy. The UIAF is the military wing of imperialism and Europeia is the diplomatic wing.

It's widely acknowledged that Independence and Imperialism are linked, in that Imperialism is a sub-variant of Independence. That means that Imperialist regions have Independent characteristics but Independent regions don't necessarily have Imperialist characteristics. If Independence was purely a re-branding exercise, as opposed to an approach based on these characteristics, then it would make no sense to acknowledge that Imperialist regions are Independent.

It would make perfect sense if you're trying to differentiate independence from imperialism, when in substance there is no difference between the supposedly distinct ideologies.

What exactly is the substantial difference between independent and imperialist regions?

I would further remind you that the Independent Manifesto signatories were wider than Europeia and the regions whose militaries constitute the UIAF.

I've already acknowledged that imperialists have roped other regions into imperialism or its re-branding, independence, so I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. The other signatories of the Independent Manifesto are also imperialist, or at least engaged in imperialist activity while perhaps being largely ignorant of what their alignment really means. A rose by any other name is still the same damn flower.

---

And all of this is very much distracting from the actual point of the article. The very brief discussion of Europeia in the article was to illustrate a pattern of behavior. Whether you want to call it the imperialist sphere, the indeperialist sphere, the independent-imperialist sphere, or what have you, the fact of the matter is that there are several regions that have very similar external policy goals that comprise the same sphere and pursue those goals through differing tactics.

Europeia, with its moderate branding, has brought regions that otherwise wouldn't be part of this sphere of influence into it, in ways that its imperialist-monarchist allies would not be able to accomplish. The Communist Bloc is also part of this sphere, no matter how much it wants to use socialist titles, propaganda, graphics, etc. Ideologically, it barely differs, if at all, from other indeperialist regions, and differs substantially from virtually every other active socialist region in NationStates. The Communist Bloc is to the left as Europeia was to moderate democratic regions - a way to subvert the principles that should naturally derive from the socialist or democratic ideologies of those regions, and instead bring them into the indeperialist sphere and the practice of indiscriminate invasion of other regions.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not sure how I've been "punished" over my opposition to granting the RMB binding votes in the legislature. My opposition led to Tsunamy abandoning his more radical plan. The supporters of bicameralism have rallied around a much weaker proposal, one I still won't vote for. I am also not alone in my opposition, even if it's not so much a united front as it is an ad hoc alliance based on common interest.

Your editorial not only misrepresents my views, but it overplays your own hand. You've gone full-on and adopted the political rhetoric of the real world left, trying to paint me as a "conservative" in TSP, which is totally laughable. TSP didn't see as much change under any other MoFA as we did under my tenure. My opposition to a deeply flawed idea that will in all likelihood destroy forum-based governance in the long run does not make me an old white-haired and regressive conservative. It makes me not reckless.

[Solorni]

I always knew GR was a darn Republican :/

[North East Somerset]

Cormac, you are so wide of the mark on Europeia it's embarrassing. You are basically arguing that any region which chooses to exercise its sovereign authority to instruct its military to invade other territories is part of an imperialist conspiracy. What independent regions - whether they be Europeia, TNP or TNI - have in common - is that they all believe they can instruct their militaries to engage in offensive exercises - without the moral approval and authority of defender leadership. Not that they are "all imperialists". What an utterly ridiculous and back-to-front argument.

I must note you made your identity so obvious with your rhetoric and style I had no need whatsoever to ask Misley to confirm it, I could tell without a doubt. As for the whole notion that The Rainbow Collective is somehow a "different" player I have to say that is a convenient but totally discreditable stance - because you are using the same rhetoric down to the exact wording about TCB being "imperialists dressed in red" that Cormac was espousing in their embassy thread just days before you ragequit.

This isn't a new persona, indeed far from being out of character - it represents about the only thing you have ever consistently achieved - pulling off another Cormachiavellian shift in allegiance.

[The Rainbow Collective]

Cormac, you are so wide of the mark on Europeia it's embarrassing. You are basically arguing that any region which chooses to exercise its sovereign authority to instruct its military to invade other territories is part of an imperialist conspiracy. What independent regions - whether they be Europeia, TNP or TNI - have in common - is that they all believe they can instruct their militaries to engage in offensive exercises - without the moral approval and authority of defender leadership. Not that they are "all imperialists". What an utterly ridiculous and back-to-front argument.

That would be utterly ridiculous, except it isn't the argument I'm making.

The argument I'm making is that these regions have virtually indistinguishable external policy objectives. It isn't just about them invading other regions, otherwise invaders would also be imperialists and that isn't the argument I'm making. It's also the hostility toward those who do not invade and/or those who prefer to defend other regions, the unwillingness to defend other regions except under extremely limited circumstances, and the drive to get as many regions as they can to conform to these objectives. These are objectives that all of the imperialist regions, including Europeia, share.

It isn't just about ordering their militaries to engage in offensive exercises - it's about limiting regions to that almost exclusively, having nothing but contempt for those who do not, and attempting to bring as many other regions under your umbrella as possible. Unlike invaders, imperialists aren't content with just invading and letting other regions do their own thing. Other regions must conform to your standards, and that is as much true of Europeia as it is of any of the self-identified imperialist regions.

In regard to the rest of your post, I'm not going to engage in petty personal squabbles with you. If you want to think of me as Cormac Stark, have at it. But discussion of my identity has no bearing on the article I've written for The Rejected Times, so I would appreciate you keeping your posts on-topic.

[Zenya]

"A lot of people though are exploring and learning and that puts them in a vulnerable position, especially here, where their first exposure is going to hold more significance than anything following. It's known that TCB has an effective propoganda machine in which other leftist regions are demonized.
The victims of this machine need support and re-education. Not disdain. It's easy to see from the outside, but for people who were raised in this toxic environment, we can only hope they escape and we can repair the damage."

"The citizens seem to get along with general decorum and speak as sane people. A new player with far leftist leanings that doesn't know better can easily get sucked into TCB and mislead from there as they develop both emotionally and politically."

This is so representative of why many people can't take the Leftist community seriously. Bloody delusional.

[North East Somerset]

It isn't just about ordering their militaries to engage in offensive exercises - it's about limiting regions to that almost exclusively, having nothing but contempt for those who do not, and attempting to bring as many other regions under your umbrella as possible. Unlike invaders, imperialists aren't content with just invading and letting other regions do their own thing. Other regions must conform to your standards, and that is as much true of Europeia as it is of any of the self-identified imperialist regions.

I just don't think there is any substantive evidence for this. It's basically complete nonsense. There are quite substantive differences between Europeian and UIAF foreign policies. I fail to see where other regions have been ordered to exclusively engage in offensive exercises for instance. It's impossible to address these allegations because they are so baseless. Virtually all defenders are equally guilty of all the things that you allege against imperialist regions with regards to propagating their philosophy and seeking to exterminate the opposition.

Yes, well, I suppose my rhetoric and style don't change regardless of what I'm doing. I was afraid that would give me away, and it did. Oh well. The Rainbow Collective isn't a different player, it's a different persona. I'm quickly understanding that most people, particularly my enemies, aren't going to bother to comprehend the distinction, and I'm not going to bother endlessly arguing about it. If you want to call me and think of me as Cormac Stark, have at it. You're not wrong that I'm using the same rhetoric against TCB, but what you're failing to grasp is the difference in motivation. I don't care what any of you are doing anymore except in relation to leftist regions, and it just so happens that imperialists have invaded a leftist region, Eastern Europe, because it had the audacity to maintain an embassy with another leftist region. Had this invasion not taken place, you wouldn't be hearing from me, and that is the difference.

Eastern Europe was targeted by UIAF because it had an embassy with an FRA region, not because of relations with leftist regions. I would have thought that would have been obvious by now. It's the same rhetoric as immediately before when you "retired" so I fail to see why we should treat you as different.

I fail to see how this constitutes a shift in allegiance. I've always worked with the left on anti-fascist action, it's actually one of the only things that was consistent under my previous gameplay persona.

So the only thing you did consistently with your "former" Cormac persona is the main basis of your current persona - yet we're supposed to treat it differently? Even when you've already also turfed out a lost of Cormac-esque anti-imperialist rantings as well? Hmmm....

Regardless, I'm not going to engage in anymore of these petty personal squabbles with you. If you want to think of me as Cormac, do that, I don't care. But if you want an actual response from me leave personal attacks out of it, I'm not going to wade into the sewage of gameplay with you again. Only rats belong there, which is why you're so comfortable.

You don't want to "wade into the sewerage of gameplay" - but within weeks of establishing your persona you do precisely that by writing and publishing an absurd attack on independent and imperialist regions which you know I am a leading member of.

And yet you want people to see you as the victim in this - and me as the antagonist? Well.... what can I say, really. It's pathetic.

[Misley]

For someone who likes to criticize the fact that we talk about you, you sure do love talking about us.

Theres a large difference between me expressing my personal opinions and using inter-regional and state media to do so This is what, the 3rd or 4th article on TCB that's been posted by you and your little buddies? Not to mention the constant Zenya-related factbooks I come across (now in multiple languages too).

The Communist Bloc has only been the subject of one R&B article, so this would be the second article written about TCB by a member of TI.

You "come across" them because you read TI's RMB where they're mentioned, you mean?

[Zenya]

You "come across" them because you read TI's RMB where they're mentioned, you mean?

Yes? Thats all you guys have been talking about the last week (other than Cuba, very disappointed with how you treated him, he was very kind to me and I consider him a friend), so I see no reason why I shouldn't keep up with your lies that you actively promote here and across NS.