Because you didn't, but others did.
Advertisement
by Feux » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:29 pm
TheBestDudeInHistory wrote:Feux is what would happen if I had my shitposting physically removed, isolated, and permitted to become sentient on its own. And I mean that in the best way possible. Clearly I need to marry Feux.
by Unibot III » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:34 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by The Blaatschapen » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:50 pm
ArméeBelge-BelgischLege (ABBL)
by Eldarion Telcontar » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:50 pm
Ashton Mercer wrote:Some college could do an entire study of the social interactions of Ainur for a decade and get nowhere.
by Feux » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:53 pm
TheBestDudeInHistory wrote:Feux is what would happen if I had my shitposting physically removed, isolated, and permitted to become sentient on its own. And I mean that in the best way possible. Clearly I need to marry Feux.
by The Bruce » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:04 pm
by The Bruce » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:11 pm
by The Bruce » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:13 pm
by The Bruce » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:16 pm
by Unibot III » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:50 pm
The point that the new rule changes destroyed the moral authority of defenders doesn’t explain how this moral authority became manifest in the Security Council (including the introduction of Liberation resolutions). If anything, these changes to the WA made defending-invading more of a moral versus immoral activity, by giving it an official world stage to perform on.
I would confidently state that all other factors being equal (activity and endorsements to overcome) if you were a founderless defender region you have a much bigger bull’s-eye on you with regards to being targeted, than a founderless region with no ties to defenders.
Regional activity will always come down to the activity levels of the core personalities of the region or organizations in that region.
The biggest cause for the decline of defending was definitely the activity gap that followed the introduction to the regional influence rules.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Mallorea and Riva » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:51 pm
The Bruce wrote:That would also be the case where destroying a region becomes more desirable because more work has gone into building a community there, not just because it’s an available target. In these cases, it’s the difference between someone who likes to play the game and someone who uses gameplay as an arena for acting out their psychopathic tendencies.
by The Bruce » Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:35 pm
Unibot III wrote:Thanks you for your comments, Bruce. Good to see someone being critical. I'll touch on some of the most threatening criticisms (I think).
Unibot III wrote:The moral authority had to be re-injected into NationStates, Bruce. There were notable periods of intervention in 2009 where [violet] was debating with players on the Gameplay Forum (highly irregular) about the role of Defenders and where their moral authority is derived. This was an epistemic crisis that brewed from 2006 and came to its escalation in 2009.
Unibot III wrote:One founderless defender region was attacked last year, out of a hundred other regions that were not "defender" that weren't attacked -- and you know what? Even if Dharma had been "neutral", it would have been a big enough of a WA Region that it would have been raided anyway. So whatever "security" advantage it could possibly be to be neutral, it's not a materially significant advantage.
Regional activity will always come down to the activity levels of the core personalities of the region or organizations in that region.
Unibot III wrote:On the contrary, I think it is possible to have a bunch of people active in a region and they will sit around and discuss "inactivity" as a crisis and plan how to solve it. The real problem here isn't activity, it's lack of purpose and lack of identity. They already have the "activity problem" solved just by being able to have the regional discussion in the first place! What they really need to ask themselves is who should they be and what they should do.
The biggest cause for the decline of defending was definitely the activity gap that followed the introduction to the regional influence rules.
Unibot III wrote:That could explain why RLA eroded, but it doesn't explain why FRA never grew to become the institutionalized juggernauts that ADN or RLA were -- FRA was operating in a different time where the political climate was different.
by Cerian Quilor » Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:45 pm
Take for example, The DEN when it came to light that The DEN had assisted an invasion
of the Capitalist Paradise when it was historically documented that The DEN had
signed a peace compact with Capitalist Paradise in 2006.4 “The DEN has an
intentionally very vague policy towards formal alliances and treaties,” explained Former DEN
Field Marshal, Free Noldor States. “To sum it up, the DEN is going to raid what it wants to
raid, historical factors notwithstanding”.5 These statements and others do not bode well
for the confidence of those wishing to commit to diplomacy with invaders.
I shall also reject Independence
I am skeptical of how “free” this
Independence is
Raiders are not calculative beings that pursue the invasion of founderless defender
regions over founderless independent regions or even founderless raider regions
Sure, a lot of the people showing up after-the-fact are piling on for their own
personal reasons
in terms of chemistry, Independence is
not a state of equilibrium, but a political
state that is given to change over time due to
extraneous variables influencing and embedding
the Independent Region into a steady
configuration of one archetypal military
alignment. It may take one year, it may take
five years, but the trajectory is always
present when a region continually gets
involved with military operations abroad in
arbitrary regions.
when one uses the fact that one is
playing a game to respond to one’s assertion,
that player has failed to sufficiently
respond.
However, this “Law” is obviously
insufficient to convince those that assert
that “this is just game”, therefore it would
appear that a better counter-argument would
use the fact that this is a game as an
explicit premise of the counter-argument. Why
then, do ethics exist in NationStates? Because
this is a nation-simulation game. What good,
we can ask ourselves, would a nation-
simulation be if it did not simulate the
dispute of ethics of conduct between nations
or the dispute of ethics of invasions or
warfare? A nation-simulation would appear to
be lacking if the question of whether it is
right or wrong to invade in a situation or the
extent of what was permissible in an invasion
was never questioned. Certainly it is possibly
for people to come to different conclusions
over what is permissible or impermissible, but
to deny even the vaguest prospect of moral
impermissibilities is to deny a nation-
simulation its ability to simulate nationhood
well.
how does one calculate and predict
happiness
the happiness of the raiders is gained
through Schadenfreude, the misfortune of
others
Moreover, utilitarianism fails to
provide a suitable concept of equality.
Ultimately, being invaded is not a
pleasant experience. One’s community loses
control over the administration of the region,
the occupation can last days, weeks, possibly
even months, one’s colleagues and one’s self
can be removed from the region and the
Regional Message Board is overrun with spam
and gloating from invaders.
As a final proviso to my theoretical
approach to native rights, I would propose
that behind the Veil of Ignorance, mutually
disinterested rational beings are not going to
be concerned with legitimized war efforts
between regions where one region has broken
some law against another region and the
consequences of war were clearly promulgated.
Why? Because unlike the actions of typical
invaders, these actions are not necessarily
arbitrary — they may be legitimate and legally
proscribed responses to actions by a subject
that said subject could have simply chosen not
to have done
The journey back to the political
centre of NationStates will be a long path for
Defenders and those who sympathise with these
beliefs – they have been marginalized and
their old political connections have been
broken or eroded, but their spirit never has
faded and never will. Defenders proudly fight
every day on the battlefield, yet they hide
their beliefs and they remain silent on the
political battlefield. Neutrality over seven
years has become an institutionalized goliath
that is leisurely and plump with political
privilege that their ideology neither deserves
nor complements; those who engage this goliath
will face arguments from moderation, self-
interest and exceptionalism – my only hope is
that I have provided these political warriors
with the sufficient intellectual toolkit of
answers and replies for the realization of
this bright and prosperous future
The reason why I am suggesting people
need to choose one or the other extreme is
because I am arguing that the middle ground
doesn't achieve a region's full interests or
potential -- largely because people like you
aren't the norm and the appeal for a realist
Army isn't substantial. See Book III for
further information.
One founderless defender region was
attacked last year, out of a hundred other
regions that were not "defender" that weren't
attacked -- and you know what? Even if Dharma
had been "neutral", it would have been a big
enough of a WA Region that it would have been
raided anyway. So whatever "security"
advantage it could possibly be to be neutral,
it's not a materially significant advantage.
by Unibot III » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:00 pm
Active players aren't sitting around discussing how to be active in a region, otherwise devoid of activity. They are generating activity. Inactive but worried players are the ones sitting around trying to figure out how to generate activity. You generate activity by being active. You lead by example. Region's do need to have a sense of identity or commonality (in terms of identifying with their community) but do not necessarily have to have a higher purpose other than being social within that community. The activity must take a form (be that role-playing or what have you), but the region doesn't have to have a higher purpose to be successful.
More importantly was the way that the FRA operated, than when it operated. The FRA was prone to personality disputes, especially at the leadership level *cough* *cough* that all but gutted it. I would say that it is a testament to the enduring nature of this organization that it survived that level of turmoil, from the fall out of the South Pacific coup. Most organizations would have folded after that kind of internal destruction.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Cerian Quilor » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:09 pm
by The Bruce » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:26 pm
Unibot III wrote:Active players aren't sitting around discussing how to be active in a region, otherwise devoid of activity. They are generating activity. Inactive but worried players are the ones sitting around trying to figure out how to generate activity. You generate activity by being active. You lead by example. Region's do need to have a sense of identity or commonality (in terms of identifying with their community) but do not necessarily have to have a higher purpose other than being social within that community. The activity must take a form (be that role-playing or what have you), but the region doesn't have to have a higher purpose to be successful.
I disagree, I think regions where their purpose is simply to be social are the ones most plagued by inactivity. Some endure, most do not. Furthermore, to "lead by example", one needs to have a clear understanding of who one is and what one is going to do.
More importantly was the way that the FRA operated, than when it operated. The FRA was prone to personality disputes, especially at the leadership level *cough* *cough* that all but gutted it. I would say that it is a testament to the enduring nature of this organization that it survived that level of turmoil, from the fall out of the South Pacific coup. Most organizations would have folded after that kind of internal destruction.
Unibot III wrote:Sure you can look to Falc and Myself, but I think most of the other leaders of the FRA did not have as much of an ego. I'm not talking about endurance, I have no doubt that the FRA could maintain itself in its current condition for the next two or three years easy. I'm talking about size, scope, institutionalization and power. The ADN had essentially built itself a political fortress -- its use of 'network' is appropriate. The FRA was, for most of its existence, a "fringe" political group and actor in comparison to the ADN (no offense intended with the negative connotation of "fringe") -- this has very little to do with the leadership of the FRA, they moderated quite a bit in comparison to the RLA, but they existing in an unfavorable political climate.
by Unibot III » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:39 pm
I think that the culture of the FRA was always different from the larger defender organizations. Were they just more footloose and fancy free? I don't know. Some people felt that they were undisciplined as defenders and were a bit like the cowboys of defender groups (especially early on). I always felt that they brought a lot of enthusiasm to defending and worked well with others. Was there the same political will to drive towards expansion in the FRA, as there was in the ADN? Was there more of a tug of war in member regions between doing stuff in your region and doing stuff with the FRA? Was it that they were more based on regions than based on the organization, in comparison to other multiple region defender groups like the ADN?
Cerian Quilor wrote:Anyway, I'm sick and going to bed.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Blackbird » Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:14 pm
by The Bruce » Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:45 pm
Blackbird wrote:Something lacking from these activity discussions in the emergence of other, better political games.
2006 saw a huge migration of keystone players to CyberNations. The entire Senate of the New Pacific Order. Cornerstones of the ADN, like Pope Hope, Neboe, among others. RLA folk like myself, Koona, Eurosoviets, Xha'dam. Members from TWP like Dilber. Equilism folk like Moo-Cows. Large numbers from the Meritocracy. In a game like NS, where there really aren't organizations with large numbers, losing a few key players can be deadly. Combined with the crappy regional influence rules, which most defenders disliked, there were just greener pastures. Moreover, by harnessing the skills veteran players had honed in NS, CN was a cakewalk, and we loved it. We swiftly built powerful institutions based off of our NS knowledge.
However many people were ever in the ADN and RLA, and I'll hazard a guess no more than 100-200 combined defenders existed in 2006, if you have a region of 10-20 active people, if 3-4 leave, that can kill a tight-knit community. Larger organizations are much better able to sustain themselves, which is pretty much why almost no large region from 2002-03 is still large today. It's just difficult to get big enough to be self-maintaining.
I can and perhaps will (if I'm not lazy) comment more on specific points made later. Just wanted to put my two cents in on this issue.
by Ananke II » Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:23 am
The Bruce wrote:it was only a small segment of the defender population within the ADN that participated in or supported forum destruction.
by Blackbird » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:03 am
Ananke II wrote:The Bruce wrote:it was only a small segment of the defender population within the ADN that participated in or supported forum destruction.
Uhm, what? From my recollection ADN was always opposed to forum destruction and un-authorised forum access (e.i. through password stealing and such). Pope Hope made a point of helping out even invader regions with info and IP matching, when someone gained forum access through password cracking or whatever it's called. RLA had a couple instances of intel agents thrashing invader forums. I don't recall any ADN agents doing so. Admittedly others would've known more about our intel ops than I, but something like that certainly would've come to the ADN cabinets attention.
by Unibot III » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:34 pm
Blackbird wrote:Unistrut supported it.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by General Halcones » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:46 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement