[NS Essay] Paradise Found

[Klaus Devestatorie]

and if it was up to LWU, TBH, or DEN, they would have burned the region to the ground anyway. In fact, all three got seriously pissed at us for letting TPC go too early.

Can't say I remember ever getting "seriously pissed" at Unknown for anything. But whatever.

Because you didn't, but others did.

[Feux]

Nice. Read the first one, I'll get to the others later. May I post?

[Unibot III]

Nice. Read the first one, I'll get to the others later. May I post?

Sure Feux!

[The Blaatschapen]

ArméeBelge-BelgischLege (ABBL)

It's spelled wrong. I'm not sure about the French part, but the Dutch part is: Belgisch Leger. Now you're just saying "belgian empty" rather than "belgian army".

[Eldarion Telcontar]

I apologize for any doubts I had before, you are crazy. But in a good way. *Goes back to reading*

[Feux]

Nice. Read the first one, I'll get to the others later. May I post?

Sure Feux!

I love you already have pretty formatting.

[The Bruce]

BOOK I: THE DECLINE IN DEFENDERISM

There were more ‘international’ news organizations (claiming to be independent that didn’t openly attach themselves to a group or region) that were pro-invader than pro-defender, unless you were to count internal organization-region news letters or news threads. There were a few regions created solely to promote international news reports, but over time the players responsible for content failed to continue working on it.

While there was certainly a lot of anger towards certain invader forums for their modifications of real life pictures of the players of defenders (to the point where many defenders chose not to upload pictures of themselves onto the forums) and the unmoderated written attacks were over the top, it was only a small segment of the defender population within the ADN that participated in or supported forum destruction. I think that under a lot of emerging anti-bullying laws (regarding the internet) in many countries the content of those targeted forums would have qualified as subject to these laws, if not making those posting this content in jeopardy of being prosecuted for libelous activity. That said, I still absolutely oppose forum destruction as a "gameplay" tactic.

I don’t believe that the three most active invader groups in the early days (the Farkers, the Driftwood Gang, and One Big Island) constitute individual aberrations, with regards to the transition from invader to political insider. It constituted a major shift in NationStates politics, exerting influence on the NationStates forums.

The biggest change for invaders made by DEN was to openly brag about their achievements and publicly claim their superiority as the greatest invaders ever, wherever they could post about it. Before DEN, invaders generally made it a point not to draw attention to themselves or provide potential intelligence to their enemies. Those who did were generally beaten down, so it didn’t gain a lot of favour as a policy for invaders, to tell everyone what they were doing and how cool they were. It made it much easier to dossier their nations and you could generally count on at least one invader during a mission using a ‘dirty’ puppet they had grown attached to. Before DEN, invaders generally didn’t do the billboard advertising of their activities or existence. The fact that DEN were able to function after doing this, created a model for future invaders to do the same (exemplified by the Black Hawks and the Black Riders).

[The Bruce]

BOOK II: ADDRESSING THE CAUSES OF THE DECLINE

The biggest cause for the decline of defending was definitely the activity gap that followed the introduction to the regional influence rules. The older anti-griefing rules that protected the natives of victim regions, resulted in a decline in invader activity. Without the ability to properly grief a region and banject whoever they wanted, many invaders were uninterested in invading. The decline of invader activity resulted in a decline of defender activity, because there was less to defend and less challenge when they did so. When the new regional influence rules were introduced, the invaders quickly took advantage of their new circumstances, but the defenders were slow to awake. Many of their regions and defender organizations had become inactive or ceased to exist, with players either having left the game completely or real life circumstances changed to limit their game activity during updates.

Invaders running amok, after regional influence rules, weren’t so much a case of defenders bowing down to the new rules as defenders largely unable to react, due to the personal circumstances of the personalities that previously drove their organizations. It is easier to find players that can pick a target and invade it, than to find players that can effectively spot invasions in process and stop them. It will always be more difficult to create an effective defender group than an effective invader group. The rise of the use of scripts in “gameplay” also left a bad taste in many people’s mouths.

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.

The idea that defenders and invaders are just as bad for natives, or that they were just opposite sides of the same coin, was something that was hammered home through years of sustained propaganda by invaders. When defenders chose to invade the regions of invader groups, who had formerly declared war on them, invaders continually crowed, on every medium allowed, about defenders being just as bad as they were. When forum destruction was practiced by some defenders, defenders were said to be just as bad as invaders. Except when defenders start viewing victim regions as their personal playgrounds to joust with invaders, instead of as victim regions that need their help, this just isn’t so.

[The Bruce]

BOOK III: REJECTION OF DEFENDERISM'S REPLACEMENT

Without an official opt out for being invaded, the neutrality tag is a bit of a joke. Sure it can be said that you’re claiming to not take part in “gameplay,” but the moment you become founderless you also become a target. There is no opt out, short of having an active founder or close ties with invaders (not inactive or imagined ones). While relying on a neutral tag for your regional defence is a bit of a joke, maintaining an active region, with a sense of community that has core players vigilant against unwanted outside influences can be an effective deterrent.

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. It gives the invaders the best of all invasions. Not only do they get to victimize defenders directly, but they can get more of a rise from them, considering the already existing animosities between both camps. Similarly, posting on your World Factbook about how much you hate invaders and what you’ll do to them if you catch them in your region, is going to give you some extra attention. If all other factors are equal, because defender regions are likely going to be more active and aware of the potential for being invaded, even if they were founderless. Whether or not in one case the person leading the invasion is aware of the region’s history, it would be difficult to say that of everybody taking part (individuals or organizations) and difficult to say that their zeal in participating isn’t increased based on the target being defenders.

I would agree that many new players are going to find the military styled recruiting ads of invader groups appealing, partly because they indulge players who are either destructive by nature or those who like the easy opportunity for increased game activity (because answering 2 issues a day isn’t doing it for them anymore). This is especially true if they haven't already been a part of an active regional community, so they do not have an association with what they are destroying.

Regional activity will always come down to the activity levels of the core personalities of the region or organizations in that region. Always. Activity might even be initiated by only one player, but other players must step up or that one player will eventually give up on the region. Sustained regional or organizational activity comes from a dedicated and active core of players. Real life circumstances can derail this, temporarily or permanently removing individual player activity. When this happens to a number of core players it causes a gap in regional activity that the region may never recover from, because inactivity has a momentum of its own. If an event happens (like an attempted coup) to an inactive region without a core of dedicated and active core players, after the initial outrage there will be no change in activity.

The problem with equating embassy diplomacy with regional activity is that the opposite can actually occur. Maintaining active embassies and directing player time towards maintaining diplomacy outside your region can effectively limit the amount of time a player has to participate in their own region. Done right, you have a give and take of pan-regional activities that benefit all involved. Done wrong, it’s a drain on time that would be spent concentrating on regional activities, resulting in active diplomacy from an otherwise inactive region. You get a handful of active nations from each region, reporting back to their region how active there are diplomatically, but without any resulting increase of activity in the represented regions.

[The Bruce]

BOOK IV: GROUNDWORK OF DEFENDERISM AS AN ETHICAL THEORY

Firstly, there has always existed a body of ethics in NationStates gameplay, as long as people stated that they would do this, but not that. Ethics is about following a set out code of behavior or conduct. Morality is the judgment of that behavior or conduct. Invaders who have consistently destroy victim regions are very ethical, because they do what they say they will, although many would feel their activities immoral.

I would say that the political dimension of gameplay is born more out of personality conflict, than simply from ethics or morality. Otherwise invader groups wouldn’t work together as often and defender groups would work together more frequently. Ethics and morality might be used to justify the fallout from personality conflicts, but it’s often about personality conflicts. Because this is a text game, it is often difficult to understand tone or meaning. Players will infer meaning and tone, where it doesn’t exist, increasing personal conflicts. Certainly the larger political conflicts of the game went far beyond the issues of ethics and morality, often being war between individual players played out by their respective organizations.

Morality becomes an issue when you apply it to players who are playing a game. If I shoot other players in an online multiple player game, where you run around shooting with guns, is that immoral? No. That was kind of the point of playing. If you teabag another player and text them abusive messages in an attempt to behave like a little troll then probably yes, you wouldn’t be a very moral person. Similarly, if as an invader your main motivation is to cause torment to the natives of victim regions and take great delight in getting them deleted by the Mods, after baiting them, you aren’t behaving morally. 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.

Owing to online site relocation, I had a lot of time in front of a computer today with no way to do any work

[Unibot III]

Thanks you for your comments, Bruce. Good to see someone being critical. I'll touch on some of the most threatening criticisms (I think).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Mallorea and Riva]

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.

An interesting read. I think Bruce is on to something with the issue of personality conflict that was glossed over however, perhaps another chapter on that would be beneficial.

[The Bruce]

Thanks you for your comments, Bruce. Good to see someone being critical. I'll touch on some of the most threatening criticisms (I think).

I would hope that they weren't threatening. Otherwise, I would refer to my point about inferred intent or meaning that result in text games.

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.

In reference to gameplay, if violet or the moderators did anything but try to be impartial, they wouldn't be doing a good job. Because "gameplay" has been deemed part of the game, the morality of pure gameplay activity (and not WA multying, baiting, or spam) isn't within the sphere of activities for them to moderate for morality.

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.

Again, I say all other factors being equal. There are not a lot of founderless defender regions that are out there and those that are, are more aware of the possibility of being invaded. They are more difficult targets than a region of similar size and endorsements, with less awareness and activity. They take more planning, as evidence by the sleeper raid on TPC, which kind of bordered on creepy (in how long they pretended to be actively posting friends with other nations in the region before turning on them).

Regional activity will always come down to the activity levels of the core personalities of the region or organizations in that region.

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.

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.

The biggest cause for the decline of defending was definitely the activity gap that followed the introduction to the regional influence rules.

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.

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.

[Cerian Quilor]

(I wrote this in Notepad, so the Formatting appears a little off. I wasn't willing to make more time to fix the formatting. Sorry. )

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.

You're actually quite wrong here. From what I recall of the debate regarding the invasion of
Capitalist Paradise, the point was made that the treaty was signed by not The DEN, but by a
now defunct former breakaway org, The DEN Army. Now, its possible that you could just be
misremembering, but given your general history of lying when it suits you and your arbitrary
moral crusade, I think its far more likely you decided to slip this into your gigantic
torrent of words.

I shall also reject Independence

That's quite a tall order, Unibot. Let's see if you follow through on it.

I am skeptical of how “free” this
Independence is

You can be as skeptical as you want. You are not the arbiter of veracity in NationStates,
and indeed, you are usually the metric of poorly concealed lies and falsehoods.

Raiders are not calculative beings that pursue the invasion of founderless defender
regions over founderless independent regions or even founderless raider regions

Incorrect on multiple levels. TNI, the LKE, Asgard, Europeia, Kantrias, Ainur have all
engaged in military activity relevant to targeting defenders and defender aligned
regions, as well as other enemies of the region, as well as other kinds of political
advancement.

Even TBH, BoM and TBR have done the same, from time to time, though far less often than
Indepenant/Imperialist Regions.

Let's run down a few examples:

Belgium: Belgium was an early source of defenders and transregional and interregional
defender organizations, plus, as you say, it was the source of the revitalization of modern
defenderism.

The Rejected Realms: As a member of the FRA, TNI targeted a region with it was at war.

Concosia: A region that was a self-described enemy of a region with which TNI had been
allied. And TNI continued to work under this assumption and operated to recapture it when
the UDL not only invaded the region but also did that horrible no good dirty rotten evil
thing known as 'piling' to ensure it could hold the region.

TUKB: TNI, the LKE, Europeia and more worked together to help liberate a region owned by an
ally (the LKE) of the two other leading forces in the operation (TNI and Europeia). They were
aided by other forces. The Black Riders, for example. As Charles Cerebella, Deputy
commander of The New Inquisition and Reich Elector (Head of Foreign Affairs) of TNI at
the time said a short time later, the help of pure raider orgs like TBR would not have been
achieved if not for a track record of support by TNI for TBR operations, etc. You can decry
the embedment (as you call it later), but again, as regions playing for their own
interest, embedment works pretty damn well in achieving interests.

Ireland: An FRA-associated region raided by TNI - albeit ended when the founder of the
region ressurected.

GGR - Asgard ressurrected itself for a moment to raid GGR, a Nazi Region. Asgard, before its
original collapse, had made itself a prominent enemy of Nazis.

Christmas: The Raid over the new year. Cerebella, Commander of TNIAF, said later that
it was essentially a training operation. That is in some sense true - the fact that we
scheduled ourselves to have a raid and occupation at that point on that day was
because we wanted to engaged in a training raid and hold operation. However, as the man
responsible for organizing, leading, pointing and holding on that op, I specifically chose
Christmas (and only was barely able to do it when an unexpected extra updater was able to
be online in time) because the UDL was occupying at the time to 'pre-emptively
defend' it, and because the region had strong association with defenderism as one of the
most contentious and debated Liberation resolutions (and its association with raider-
turned more defender than the defender-pope Cormac) that led me to choose Christmas, as
opposed to one of the other targets I had in mind at the time. TNI being at war with the
UDL. I chose it in the hopes of embarressing the UDL and jabbing Cormac in the eye - Cormac
also being notably a convicted traitor in TNI. And we saw, quite awesomely, Cormac leave the
UDL in the aftermath of the Christmas operation.

A United Kingdom: When George of TUK couped his own region, destroying the forums and
passwording TUK, he also founded as many other regions with similar names to spite the people
that were thrown out of TUK. Europeia made a pledge then to the refugees of TUK, and later,
when AUK became founderless, raided it with the intent to give the refugees a new home.
Which was successful.

Ether: The RKA joined in support of TBR's hold here because of Ether's association with
Aretist Glass Gallows and Tiamat. TBR didn't raid it because of that, true, I'll grant, but TBR is a pure raider.

These are a handful of examples, yes, but they are real and meaningful ones. Moreover, they
are examples from roughly the last year or so, off the top of my head.

Eastern Islands of Dharma, being your former region, is an entirely legitimate target
targeted by TBH, with strong defender ties.

Sure, a lot of the people showing up after-the-fact are piling on for their own
personal reasons

Again, another of raiding activity happening
within the realm of interests and defender-
targeting.

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.

Independance does not market itself as an
equilibrium. Moreover, the primary reason (as
has been pointed our numerous times in regards
to TNI, the LKE and and Europeia, most notably
by Onder Kelkia, but just as much and just as
well by others) that they do not not defend,
if they are Independant but primarily raid is
because it is very difficult to engage in
proactive defending. defending, by its very
nature, is reactive, more manpower intensive,
and doesn't rebound in as many benefits for
the region defending. Moreover, because of its
manpower intensivity, defending usually leads
to association with and eventually membership
in large defender organizations like the ADN,
ALL, FRA, UDL, RLA, etc. Such loss of
sovreignty and control of a regional military
is unacceptable to many regions. Defenders are
far more condemnatory of independance and
neutrality (even with regions that are
independant and neutral but operate primarily
as defenders) whereas raiders or not. I don't
recall seeing any pure raiders condemning or
talking about independant mordor (indeed, I
held citizenship in Mordor for a time, only
leaving because RL time pressures forced me to
contract my activities in NS) or the north
pacific the same way defenders (such as you
yourself, or your parrot, Mahaj) talk about,
say, Europeia. That's because even pure
raiders are far more respecting of the
sovreignty of regions with the power to
protect their sovreignty than defenders, even
when that sovreignty doesn't go to their
benefit (in the case of Mordor and TNP)

Another major factor of independance, which
you convieniently ignore is the relationship
between regional identity and military
activity. Were raiding (and thus all military
activity) banned tommorrow, regions and groups
like the UDL, the FRA, TBR, TBH, BoM, etc
would no longer have any Raison d'être. By
contrast, Europeia, TNI, the LKE, Kantrias,
TNP, Osiris, Ainur, TBI, Mordor, most
individual FRA members (presumably. I admit,
FRA members have such a low interregional
prominence that I know little about them)
would continue to exist. Things would change -
legal and cultural changes would occur if
raiding were banned, such as the repeal of
obsolete legislation regulaing military
activity, the disolution of miliary
organizations and positions (such as the ERN
and the Grand Admiral in TNI, or the Ministry
of War and the RKA in Kantrias, or the NPA and
the Minister of Defense in TNP), but the
regions would continue to exist. Because no
aspect of miliary activity is the Raison
d'être of those regions.

Now, its entirely possible that the people in
TBR, the UDL, TBH, BoM, the FRA, etc will
continue to play NS, and that the friendships
and connections made between players of those
groups (I would imagine many members of TBR,
for example, consider their fellows friends
worth keeping beyond TBR. Same with
friendships you, Unibot, may have forged with
people in the UDL. As you yourself have said,
you'd keep playing in Roleplay and the WAGA as
an Intfeder were military activity to cease).
I'd keep playing in Europeia, TNI and Kantrias
were military activity to cease. Most
Europeians, TNIers and Kantrians would, and
I'd assume that also applies to North
Pacificans, Mordorites, Ainurians, Osirians,
LKEers, etc, as well.

That lack of military activity being the
Raison d'être for these regions, that it isn't
core to their indentity, is a crucial key to
understanding Independance. Rather than
addressing this inherent weakness in your
arguement, you create a distinction between
internal identity and external identity that
is not wholly extant.

The issue here, Unibot, is that you are
operating under a completely differant
worldview than players that live independant
and operate independantly. You refuse to
accept things that don't fit into your
dichotomous approach to Gameplay and thus you
have to either wedge something that doesn't
fit into one side or the other, or you dismiss
it as ineffective and irrelevant. Usually you
make an attempt at doing both, which further
weakens an already thin arguement. This whole
Book (indeed, all three books I've read to
this point) is akin to Fox News or Rush
Limbaugh - in the sense that is only preaching
to the choir of your own side, an attempt to
stir up the base and rally them around
yourself and a renewed effort to enhance the
cause of defenderism. It is not, however, an
attempt to persuade others to your line of
thinking - because you fail to use the
language that others not in your camp think it
because you are so constrained by your
worldview. Now, inherently, there's nothing
wrong with such an effort - rallying and
reinvigorating yourside is a very good thing
to do. But it is not a persuasive arguement.

when one uses the fact that one is
playing a game to respond to one’s assertion,
that player has failed to sufficiently
respond.

Only when you exist in a moral crusading world
and take this game as seriously as one takes
real life. Which, again, people who say it is
just a game don't do.

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.

This entire arguement actuallu justifies the
existence of raidimng in the first place as a
question of moral creation and dichotomy, to
allow you to make these cases.

Moreover, members of raider and
independant/imperialis/neutral regions have
justified raiding outside of a purely game
context before. They operate in an
interregional relations approach of realism,
self-interest and power projection. At the
very least, all pure raider regions accept as
an implicit premise that military gameplay in
NS is not a world of ought and ought nots, but
rather a world of cans and cannots. That
ownership of a delegacy does not belong to the
natives inherently, but rather, to whomever
can hold it. (This was cogently laid out by
COE most recently) The reason I say this is
because while many people may get off on
playing the bad guy (one of my favorite D&D
characters ever was a necromancer named Lyrus
who I played for over a year, and he was as
ruthlessly awesomely evil as they come.), very
few people in the real world are the villians
of their own stories. I don't think Koth
considers himself a truly evil person.
Mallorea and Rivea may love playing a bad guy
in NS who loves to 'grief' regions and banject
natives (as he has said himself), but I highly
doubt that he considers himself an evil person
in the real world. Rather, he operates under a
differant moral worldview.

I, unlike many people who raid (such as TBH
and TBR, which consider condemnations to be a
badge of honor or a mark of success and
prominence) don't consider raiders to be 'bad
guys' because I extend the worldview that
raiders use to justify their actions in NS to
themselves outward into the rest of NS. Others
do that as well.

how does one calculate and predict
happiness

How? each person does that for themselves.
There is no universal metric for happiness,
because people experience that emotion
differantly and for differant regions. Take
for example the movie Battleship. It was
panned by the critics, and indeed, many people
who aren't professional critics. They didn't
like it. That's fine. I enjoyed it. Why?
Because it was amusing, it was fun to watch,
and when I came out of the theater, I wasn't
wishing I could get those two hours (or
whatever) of my life back. I enjoy rading
(else I wouldn't do it, at the end of the day)
and I enjoy the Foreign Affairs and regional
politics aspects of it as well. Moreover, I
also enjoy argueing, and I enjoy snarking at
people I don't like/disagree with on the other
side.

Thus, raiding, as a whole complex, makes me
happy. Because I enjoy myself doing it. Not
everything can be broken down into artibrary
measures and scales and indexes.

the happiness of the raiders is gained
through Schadenfreude, the misfortune of
others

Again, you make a general statement that is
not true for everyone that engages in raiding
activity. For example, the enjoyment I derive
from raiding does not come from the misfortune
of others. Rather, as I laid out above, I
enjoy much of the whole complex, and I also
enjoy, in the act itself, the thrill of
success, the thrill of building up, being
nervious and anxious about victory, and then
finally, winning. Its a rush, and its fun. The
camradire among raiders is fun as well (though
during Raid Convos, I am often the stick in
the mud who wants people to talk a little
bit/a lot less ).

Moreover, utilitarianism fails to
provide a suitable concept of equality.

There is no equality. By living in a
founderless region without a password when
options to protect themselves from raids exist
and are easily accesable (secure passwords,
moving, refounding), natives of founderless
regions make themselves second-class citizens,
as it were. They are not equal. They have
chosen to expose themselves to risk, actively
or passvely.

A fundamental problem with extending morality
into NationStates Military Gameplay is the
issue of harm.

In the TV show highlander, the character
Darius, a former ruthless conquoring general
turned priest and ardent pacifist commented
that war was a great intellectual exercise,
but that when you add the suffering that it
causes, it becomes wrong (he was explaining
why he was engaging in an intellectual
exercise involving war.) And I agree. Indeed,
if war IRL didn't cause human death,
destruction of property and other human
suffering, I'd advocate for more of it, as a
way to settle international disputes, create
patriotism and foster competition as well as
engage in the intellectual exercise that is
war.

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.

Relating to my above point, these 'terrible'
things you lay out as the reasons why Raiding
is terrible are not moral injustices. At
worst, they are rightly only mildly annoying.
I was, way back before I got involved in
Gameplay, in a region that got raided. I was
banjected. I was indeed mildly annoyed. but
you know what? I lived with it. I didn't start
railing against the evils of raiding, or
overreact to what is ultimately a minor
nothing in the long life of humans, especially
since it is involving purely digital
information on a website that serves no broad
purpose beyond a game.

Do some raiders engage in activity that can
accurately be called trolling, or
cyberbullying? Yes. Very much so. But
fortunately, raiders don't have a monopoly on
that, as has been born our numerous times.
Cyberbullies will be cyberbullies regardless
of faction, and trolls will be trolls.

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

Ah. And here is the rub. You can say that
military activity based on war isn't
nessesarily as bad, at least to most people,
but in order to have a military that is
trained and prepared for use in a war or the
like. This is the primary reason why TNI,
Europeia, etc, engage in tag raids and other
raids against regions that they do not
nessesarily have a direct grievance with.
Otherwise, when the rubber hits the road, the
military of these regions will be less
effective, and likely unable to succeed in
their objective. Moreover, the existence of
founders (something I defend as a key way to
opt-out of military gameplay) makes it harder
to target the enemy directly, thus creating a
need for indirect warfare - battlefield
victories by TNI against the FRA/UDL, even
when targeting regions that have no direct
connection to the FRA or the UDL or
defenderism in general are victories in the
war between TNI and the FRA and TNI and the
UDL.

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

Defenders would have an easier time getting
back into the center if they respected neutral
and independant regions, if they respected
regional sovreignty (rather than trying to
subvert it internally by flooding the
democratic process with inactive weekend
players who show up, vote, and leave, or by
doing things like attacking a region founded
to be an LKE colony (TUKB, as the FRA did in
2010), or by going against the expressed
wishes of the people of Suffolk and
'liberating' it, as the FRA did. Or by
Falconias trying to subvert Europeia, or by
painting loyal members of TNI as spies in an
attempt to create chaos within TNI and have
the region consume itself (the fact that all
the members of TNI accused as spies were
members of the opposition who sought to limit
the power of the monarchy vis-a-vis the
elected government is telling, and proof of a
deliberate attempt to use political divisions
to destroy the region). If Defenders instead
acted morally, then they'd attract more people
to their cause.

[quote=Weed]It is far too late for me to start
on this, as I already said, but I just want to
say that it looks like once again Uni, you've
gone far and beyond what you should.[/quote]

God, this. So much.

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.

Because you live in the wrong world as opposed
to people who make that arguement that
choosing a side explicitly is not in regional
interests does not mean you are actually
right.

[quote=Apollo]I apologize for any doubts I had
before, you are crazy. But in a good way.
*Goes back to reading[/quote]

Not sure I'd say 'good', but certainly in an
interesting way.

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.

Inaccurate. More than one defender and defender aligned region was raided in the last year. And again, because only Founderless regions can be targeted, the pool of direct targets is limited, thus increasing the desire to fight wars with defenders indirectly. And one year, out of over ten, is not a good sample anyway. Its a case study, but not a sample.

Whew! *wipes brow*

[Unibot III]

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.

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.

@Cerian Quilor: Well, that is a way to ensure that your response looks long.

[Cerian Quilor]

Well, it is long by word count, though tiny compared to your doorstopper.

But that was not the intent. I didn't intend to rebut/critique that many points, so I used notepad. Then I kept writing.

Anyway, I'm sick and going to bed. It may take a while to get back to any critiques you make of my critique.

[The Bruce]

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.

As individual player circumstances change, this is true. Having a multi-faceted region gives more opportunities for regional activity, but it does not ensure that those carrying the most weight in a region make use of those opportunities. If you've gathered a bunch of players under the banner of shooting the breeze, trying to make them into something else might not take. In cases of players sitting around complaining about a lack of activity, it's because there's a lack of activity. It's like a bunch of people sitting on the hoods of their cars complaining that nobody wants to go for a drive. Active players are active players. They don't sit around bemoaning a lack of activity. They generate it. Real life circumstances may dictate that their NS time be curbed to the point where they can't do so, but that isn't the same thing.

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.

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.

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?

[Unibot III]

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?

I think the political will was there, yes. But I think you're right to point out that not all FRA member-regions were particularly dedicated to the defender cause (which speaks to the time that the FRA developed in) -- this was something I had a problem with as AC.

Anyway, I'm sick and going to bed.

Aww, get better soon, CQ!

[Blackbird]

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.

[The Bruce]

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.

Another big event in 2006 that was a kick in the pants for NationStates communities was the Invision Server 1 Crash, since Invisionfree tended to be the default for offsite regional forums. Even after they managed to recover older data, eight months of posts, prior to the system crash were never recovered. A few people managed to hunt through the google cache and wayback machine, to recover some treasured lost threads. Invisionfree taking a month to figure out that those posts were forever lost didn't help things either. Those regions using Server 1 (the older regions) were put on pause during this time and many never recovered from the crash.

[Ananke II]

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.

[Blackbird]

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.

Unistrut supported it.

[Unibot III]

Unistrut supported it.

I heard he supported it to bait The Red Factions and Ketoprofen into doing it.

[Blackbird]

Unistrut supported it.

I heard he supported it to bait The Red Factions and Ketoprofen into doing it.

Indeed he did. He supported them and wanted them to do it.

[General Halcones]

You must have a lot of time on your hands Uni!

What is the purpose in producing all this text?