Advertisement
by Belschaft » Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:11 am
by Revall » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:13 am
by Benevolent Thomas » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:58 pm
Ballotonia wrote:Personally, I think there's something seriously wrong with a game if it willfully allows the destruction of longtime player communities in favor of kids whose sole purpose is to enjoy ruining the game for others.
by AkillianUK » Sat Apr 22, 2017 3:10 pm
by Theoden Sebastian » Sun May 07, 2017 6:58 am
by Jakker » Sun May 07, 2017 8:02 am
The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.
by Cerian Quilor » Tue May 09, 2017 7:29 am
by Akillian » Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:58 am
by Onderkelkia » Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:55 pm
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:The LKE has treaties with Europeia, United Kingdom, Arda en Estel, Equilism, Balder, Osiris and The West Pacific. These are all important relationships.
If anything, the demise of TNI and the abdication of Albion makes the LKE as an individual region more significant, not less. In 2008-15, TNI was generally more central to geopolitical events - even as a lone region before LKE revived in 2009 and Albion was created in 2013. While the LKE always made its own interventions and pursued its own projects, TNI was more important as the voice of Imperialism within our alliance network. The LKE has filled that role.
The loss of TNI - due to long-term structural decline in its activity - was a significant blow to Imperialism as a whole. TNI was a good and loyal ally to the LKE ever since Emperor Lucius granted it independence in September 2006. However, the LKE enjoys much the same relations that TNI had in its heyday.
All of this is just filler to say "LKE is the primary imperialist region in NS, while TNI was in the past," a mere statement of the obvious.
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:Our last significant occupation was The Union of Red Nations in April 2017. In the previous year, we undertook three major occupations (Belgium, South Pacific and The International Kingdom). All in all, our major occupations are indeed less frequent than those of the UIAF in 2013-15 or TNI in 2011-12.
Relative to TNI, it should be noted that the LKE has always been more orientated to diplomacy and intelligence than military affairs. TNI was mostly the lead military partner. While there have been periods where the LKE was the lead military partner in our relationship with TNI - in 2006-7, in late 2009 and the first half of 2010, and in mid-2013, before Albion was admitted to the UIAF - our model has generally been less orientated towards regular occupations.
We retain the capability to organise large and successful occupations, as The Union of Red Nations showed, but we have other focuses at the moment.
First off, you defend my arguments against the LKE's military relevance by saying "Look, the LKE conducted three major operations in 2016 and one in April" effectively making large-scale operations your benchmark by which you've attempted to measure military strength but in the next paragraph contradict yourself by saying that your "model has generally been less orientated towards regular occupations."
So you've used large-scale occupations as evidence of meaningful military operations while simultaneously holding that such large scale operations are not a benchmark for success because your model isn't as oriented to them. You can't have it both ways. Pick one.
The North Polish Union wrote:To claim that the LKE is as powerful as it used to be is nothing but a delusional overstatement, the LKE is militarily a shadow of its former self; were they not, we would see them conducting meaningful operations, something that I have not seen recently.
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:Our last significant occupation was The Union of Red Nations in April 2017. In the previous year, we undertook three major occupations (Belgium, South Pacific and The International Kingdom). All in all, our major occupations are indeed less frequent than those of the UIAF in 2013-15 or TNI in 2011-12.
Relative to TNI, it should be noted that the LKE has always been more orientated to diplomacy and intelligence than military affairs. TNI was mostly the lead military partner. While there have been periods where the LKE was the lead military partner in our relationship with TNI - in 2006-7, in late 2009 and the first half of 2010, and in mid-2013, before Albion was admitted to the UIAF - our model has generally been less orientated towards regular occupations.
We retain the capability to organise large and successful occupations, as The Union of Red Nations showed, but we have other focuses at the moment.
[...]
Secondly, and I've underlined the most important bits relevant to this, you claim that the LKE as achieved some sort of parity with TNI in it's heyday but then immediately admit that the scale of the LKE's military operations are less than that of TNI's. Of course, this would be fine had you not used such operations as a sort of benchmark for military success in the same paragraph.
The North Polish Union wrote:Thirdly, you note that the LKE undertook three major operations in 2016, an average of one every four months. Unfortunately, the LKE's last major operation was in April of this year, nearly six months ago. While the LKE is certainly not obligated to conduct their operations on a regular schedule (and I am not claiming they have to), this would still appear to show a falloff in meaningful military activity and does not help your argument in any way.
The North Polish Union wrote:Perhaps I do overestimate the importance of this forum, but even if I do, drowning your opponents in a sea of words hardly serves the interests of your regions when it frustrates and alienates even those that would be amenable to your position were that position to be presented in a more concise way.
The North Polish Union wrote:As for Slavia, it would appear that you and not me has little appreciation of context. Slavia has nothing to do with the decline of imperialism in any way and your arguments would be better served if they did not include attempts to discredit me through strawmen and speculation over my motives.
The North Polish Union wrote:However, as its clear from your last sentence that you think that my perceived distaste for you due to your affiliation with the UIAF is ironic, I will address it insofar as it is necessary to do so. Slavia and the UIAF signed a treaty of non-aggression after the events of early 2014 and by not attempting to refound Slavia, the UIAF was only fulfilling its legally binding treaty obligations. The fact that the UIAF followed such obligations does not and should not change the attitude of myself or any individual member of Slavia towards those in the UIAF at that time. If what you say is true and you were the only voice that supported upholding your organization's legal obligations all that that shows me is that the entire remainder of the UIAF's 2014 leadership was completely and utterly morally bankrupt and that the majority of the UIAF's leadership agreed to the non-aggression treaty in bad faith without ever intending to uphold the treaty. If your claims are true, all you did was uphold your organization's treaty obligations, which is not in itself an action worthy of any sort of merit.
Neither Slavia or its successor region of Imperium Slavicum has violated the non-aggression pact with the UIAF since that pact was signed, nor has there been any push to do so from anyone in the regional leadership. We uphold our treaty obligations and we expect the same from those that the treaty was signed with. The revelation that there was a substantial amount of support in the UIAF to break that treaty only highlights the fact that many imperialists are willing to violate such obligations to serve their own ends. This should serve as a serious wakeup call to any non-imperialist regions that either have treaties with imperialist regions or have high-ranking officials who are imperialists.
by Pozezdrze » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:35 pm
Onderkelkia wrote:As the response would be off-topic in the Lazarus thread, I am replying to The North Polish Union's post about the LKE here.The North Polish Union wrote:I never said it was. Those were three wholly independent statements, as shown by their separation by periods rather than commas or semicolons.
If you were not linking the condition of TNI and Albion to the LKE's position in the world, then the first two statements about TNI and Albion were entirely pointless insofar as you are trying to make an argument about the LKE's standing. What is the point of simply stating that TNI is dead and that Albion is antagonistic towards the LKE? I have previously acknowledged that the end of the UIAF - back in March 2015 - weakened the Imperialist sphere in general.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:All of this is just filler to say "LKE is the primary imperialist region in NS, while TNI was in the past," a mere statement of the obvious.
No, the first line concerns the strength of the LKE's alliance network and the final paragraph reflects on the impact of losing TNI's support for the LKE.
The second paragraph of the quoted segment does discuss the implications from the LKE replacing TNI as the pre-eminent voice of Imperialism within our alliance network. This issue is entirely relevant to assessing the LKE's position following the UIAF's demise. You are arguing that the LKE is less powerful now than it was during the era of the UIAF. In assessing the LKE's power and influence, surely it is in fact relevant if the LKE's allies now turn to the LKE in situations where they previously would have turned to TNI as the voice of Imperialism? Surely it is relevant if it means that the LKE is no longer constrained to follow TNI leadership in its engagement with the wider world? If people now speak of LKE instead of 'TNI' or 'TNI-LKE'? That is what they do now.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:First off, you defend my arguments against the LKE's military relevance by saying "Look, the LKE conducted three major operations in 2016 and one in April" effectively making large-scale operations your benchmark by which you've attempted to measure military strength but in the next paragraph contradict yourself by saying that your "model has generally been less orientated towards regular occupations."
So you've used large-scale occupations as evidence of meaningful military operations while simultaneously holding that such large scale operations are not a benchmark for success because your model isn't as oriented to them. You can't have it both ways. Pick one.
Unsurprisingly, this is a ludicrous misreading of my post. Nowhere in the first paragraph of the quoted segment is it stated or implied that large-scale occupations are the benchmark by which military strength should be judged. It was in fact you who made the assertion that regular occupations matter:The North Polish Union wrote:To claim that the LKE is as powerful as it used to be is nothing but a delusional overstatement, the LKE is militarily a shadow of its former self; were they not, we would see them conducting meaningful operations, something that I have not seen recently.
In responding to this, I began with a factual overview about the LKE's most recent occupations (because, as per usual, you failed to reference any specific contextual information in the course of making your presumptuous arguments). I made no claims whatsoever about what was or wasn't important.
The point that I explicitly made was that the LKE has always, going back before the UIAF, put less emphasis on regular occupations than TNI did.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:[...]
Secondly, and I've underlined the most important bits relevant to this, you claim that the LKE as achieved some sort of parity with TNI in it's heyday but then immediately admit that the scale of the LKE's military operations are less than that of TNI's. Of course, this would be fine had you not used such operations as a sort of benchmark for military success in the same paragraph.
Remarkably, you have managed to construct an argument which rests on not one but two ludicrous misreadings of my previous post.
Not in this section on military operations - but in the previous more general section - I stated that "the LKE enjoys much the same relations that TNI had in its heyday." The key word being "relations", i.e. the quality and range of its external relationships. I was not talking about 2015-17 LKE obtaining parity with TNI's military might during 2011-12. Instead, I was talking about the extent of the LKE's diplomatic ties (on the basis of the the treaties that I listed).
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:Thirdly, you note that the LKE undertook three major operations in 2016, an average of one every four months. Unfortunately, the LKE's last major operation was in April of this year, nearly six months ago. While the LKE is certainly not obligated to conduct their operations on a regular schedule (and I am not claiming they have to), this would still appear to show a falloff in meaningful military activity and does not help your argument in any way.
The operations in 2016 were not evenly spread out. One occurred in January 2016 (Belgium). The others, South Pacific and TIK, occurred in June and July. Despite the extensive gap between the last operation in 2016 and the occupation in April 2017, the LKE's capability was in no way diminished. We had the same number of troops- not least because they had been regularly deployed supporting allied operations - and the same allies deployed on our request.
The LKE doesn't do raids for the sake of raiding. We raid when it serves our interests to do so. That means conducting sufficient operations to maintain the confidence of our partners in our capability, but our allies and partners know and trust the LKE's abilities. You are also overlooking the context to the LKE's military activity - the war with the Founderless Regions Alliance, which ended in October 2016. For both the LKE and TNI historically, regular occupations - even outside FRA regions - were a way of demonstrating superiority over FRA forces. With the end of the FRA war, we have re-focused elsewhere.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:Perhaps I do overestimate the importance of this forum, but even if I do, drowning your opponents in a sea of words hardly serves the interests of your regions when it frustrates and alienates even those that would be amenable to your position were that position to be presented in a more concise way.
My posts are no longer than is necessary to reply substantively to the material that I am presented with.
I have not seen any evidence that my posts frustrate "those that would be amenable to my position". They largely seem to frustrate my enemies.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:As for Slavia, it would appear that you and not me has little appreciation of context. Slavia has nothing to do with the decline of imperialism in any way and your arguments would be better served if they did not include attempts to discredit me through strawmen and speculation over my motives.
Anyone familiar with the Gameplay forum since January 2014 will be well aware that your sole reason for intervening across numerous discussions - with whatever incredible arguments you seem to think might damage me - is a personal vendetta stemming back to the UIAF invasion of Slavia.
The invasion of Slavia has everything to do with why you are posting here.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:However, as its clear from your last sentence that you think that my perceived distaste for you due to your affiliation with the UIAF is ironic, I will address it insofar as it is necessary to do so. Slavia and the UIAF signed a treaty of non-aggression after the events of early 2014 and by not attempting to refound Slavia, the UIAF was only fulfilling its legally binding treaty obligations. The fact that the UIAF followed such obligations does not and should not change the attitude of myself or any individual member of Slavia towards those in the UIAF at that time. If what you say is true and you were the only voice that supported upholding your organization's legal obligations all that that shows me is that the entire remainder of the UIAF's 2014 leadership was completely and utterly morally bankrupt and that the majority of the UIAF's leadership agreed to the non-aggression treaty in bad faith without ever intending to uphold the treaty. If your claims are true, all you did was uphold your organization's treaty obligations, which is not in itself an action worthy of any sort of merit.
Neither Slavia or its successor region of Imperium Slavicum has violated the non-aggression pact with the UIAF since that pact was signed, nor has there been any push to do so from anyone in the regional leadership. We uphold our treaty obligations and we expect the same from those that the treaty was signed with. The revelation that there was a substantial amount of support in the UIAF to break that treaty only highlights the fact that many imperialists are willing to violate such obligations to serve their own ends. This should serve as a serious wakeup call to any non-imperialist regions that either have treaties with imperialist regions or have high-ranking officials who are imperialists.
For someone who is so fixated with the invasion of Slavia, you do not seem to remember what actually happened.
When I said that I was the lone advocate of accepting the deal I negotiated with you instead of re-founding Slavia, I was not talking about the actual treaty signed following SCOP's thwarted invasion of Anzia and the UIAF's retaliatory invasion of Slavija in April 2014. That was after the invasion of Slavia.
Rather, I was talking about the potential deal that you and I discussed over telegram during the actual invasion of Slavia in January/February 2014. The deal we discussed had similar terms to the eventual deal that I struck with Bolkania over Slavija in April 2014, but the UIAF opted not to take the deal on the table and instead proceeded with attempting a re-found. A nation slipped into the region as the re-found was attempted and the natives re-took it.
The UIAF never once considered going back on the April 2014 treaty - it delighted us - so your insinuations about imperialists are unwarranted.
by Onderkelkia » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:38 am
Pozezdrze wrote:My point was not to say that LKE's influence as a region was dependent on TNI and Albion, but with the collapse of the UIAF and the withdrawal of TNI and Albion from the active imperialist sphere, imperialism as a whole was weakened; a point which we seem to be in agreement on.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:And if it stopped with Onder it would force him to admit that his overbearing attitude is at least partly responsible for the decline of imperialism as a relevant ideology.
That is a rather strange interpretation of this discussion. The decline of "imperialism" from its heights in 2012-15 had nothing to do with the mid-2014 dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty and everything to do with the end of the United Imperial Armed Forces and the structural decline of The New Inquisition. The dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty was the outcome that TSP's Foreign Minister contrived to obtain by forming an alliance with The Rejected Realms.
As an individual region, the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed - if not more so.
Pozezdrze wrote:Had the UIAF merely disbanded without the collapse of TNI and the ideological shift of Albion (or even if these things had happened, but to a lesser extent) the imperialist sphere as a whole would be in much better shape.
Pozezdrze wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:No, the first line concerns the strength of the LKE's alliance network and the final paragraph reflects on the impact of losing TNI's support for the LKE.
The second paragraph of the quoted segment does discuss the implications from the LKE replacing TNI as the pre-eminent voice of Imperialism within our alliance network. This issue is entirely relevant to assessing the LKE's position following the UIAF's demise. You are arguing that the LKE is less powerful now than it was during the era of the UIAF. In assessing the LKE's power and influence, surely it is in fact relevant if the LKE's allies now turn to the LKE in situations where they previously would have turned to TNI as the voice of Imperialism? Surely it is relevant if it means that the LKE is no longer constrained to follow TNI leadership in its engagement with the wider world? If people now speak of LKE instead of 'TNI' or 'TNI-LKE'? That is what they do now.
You've again merely stated the obvious. Of course the LKE has a network of alliances and it's influence as an imperialist region increased as TNI's decreased. However, I have all along been evaluating the strength of the imperialist sphere as a whole, rather than just that of the LKE. You, on the other hand are merely evaluating that of the LKE. As the LKE is the standard-bearer for imperialism this makes sense, but it does not adequately address my arguments.
Pozezdrze wrote:And you have also misinterpreted my initial post. I said that the LKE has not been "conducting meaningful operations," to which you replied with a brief list of the LKE's "meaningful operations" that exclusively focused on large-scale occupations. Of course, a region is free to decide for itself what it wants to conduct as "meaningful operations" and had you responded that some sort of activity outside of large-scale occupations was what LKE considers "meaningful" we wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, you chose not to do this and instead responded with a list of occupations as examples of the LKE's "meaningful operations," thereby making that kind of activity the benchmark. LKE may put less of an emphasis on these operations than TNI did, but by referring to such operations exclusively when asked about the LKE's military action, you made such actions the standard by which you wished LKE to be judged in this regard. If you're unhappy about the conclusions that standard leads to you could have and ought to have chosen a different standard.
Our last significant occupation was The Union of Red Nations in April 2017. In the previous year, we undertook three major occupations (Belgium, South Pacific and The International Kingdom). All in all, our major occupations are indeed less frequent than those of the UIAF in 2013-15 or TNI in 2011-12.
Pozezdrze wrote:The question remains though, how does one measure the relative influence of an ideology? Is it by the quality and quantity of their external relations? By the success of their regional military? Or some combination of the two? I would argue that its the third.
Pozezdrze wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:The operations in 2016 were not evenly spread out. One occurred in January 2016 (Belgium). The others, South Pacific and TIK, occurred in June and July. Despite the extensive gap between the last operation in 2016 and the occupation in April 2017, the LKE's capability was in no way diminished. We had the same number of troops- not least because they had been regularly deployed supporting allied operations - and the same allies deployed on our request.
The LKE doesn't do raids for the sake of raiding. We raid when it serves our interests to do so. That means conducting sufficient operations to maintain the confidence of our partners in our capability, but our allies and partners know and trust the LKE's abilities. You are also overlooking the context to the LKE's military activity - the war with the Founderless Regions Alliance, which ended in October 2016. For both the LKE and TNI historically, regular occupations - even outside FRA regions - were a way of demonstrating superiority over FRA forces. With the end of the FRA war, we have re-focused elsewhere.
This, again, is a fair point, but many of the arguments I have used above in this post still apply to it.
Pozezdrze wrote:To provide just one example, earlier this month, in Albion's embassy thread Kylia Quilor made a post in which she told you that "you're not helping yourself or Imperialism across NS like this."
Pozezdrze wrote:This is an absurd accusation to make. Nearly the only time since 2014 that the events surrounding Slavia had any influence on my posting decisions was when I questioned the motivations for Balder's support for the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. On that occasion, my concerns were adequately addressed by officials of both Lazarus and Balder and I have not raised them since, rather I have supported Balder's continued presence in Lazarus (albeit with some reservations). Your habit of assuming that any and all of my posts have something to do with Slavia is either entirely ungrounded in reality or a brazen attempt to discredit my arguments offhand.
Pozezdrze wrote:Then you should have been more clear. When you refer to being an advocate of "taking the deal [you] negotiated with [me]" my natural assumption was that you were referring to a deal that was public knowledge. I was not expecting you to, in a public context, refer to a deal that not only never came to fruition, but to the best of my knowledge was never public knowledge. Our posts on this forum are read by more people than the two of us, and when referring to private negotiations it is best to specify that one is doing so, especially when similar negotiations yielded a published treaty while the one's being referenced did not.
by Kylia Quilor » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:15 am
by Onderkelkia » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:50 am
Kylia Quilor wrote:If this is all about confirming existing prejudices, what on earth are you even doing here, Onder?
by Kylia Quilor » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:05 am
Onderkelkia wrote:Kylia Quilor wrote:If this is all about confirming existing prejudices, what on earth are you even doing here, Onder?
I do sometimes consider whether a policy of complete abstention from the Gameplay forum, beyond posting official regional statements and other notices, would be a superior approach. The upper leadership of TNI occasionally debated the merits of such a strategy, as opposed to engaging with the enemy - and that is what the overwhelming majority of our opposing interlocutors in the Gameplay forum are, as opposed to mere opponents. They are the enemy.
The clinching argument for continuing to post isn't persuading waverers about the merits of our position on specific issues. There are very few genuine waverers, most of them will be unmoved by arguments in lengthy discussions and most of them are irrelevant to the interests of our regions in any case. Persuasion is far more effectively carried out on regional off-site forums and one-on-one conversations, where subversive influences are not present and the target audience can be tailored according to the policy objectives of one's region/s. The Gameplay forum is most unsuitable for such a task.
The key argument for continuing to engage is to avoid conceding ground to the enemy. If we were to completely ignore the Gameplay forum, it would be monopolised by hostile forces who could use it as a platform for projecting their views unchallenged. Our failure to challenge their positions would be interpreted as a sign of weakness by (already-aligned) gameplayers - not weakness in terms of the substantive merits of our specific arguments, but of our confidence in our overall position. A Gameplay forum which is a site of contestation is not much use to either side, as no one is ever genuinely persuaded by the back and forth to think further than the pre-existing perspectives they favour due to regional or friendship ties. A hypothetical Gameplay forum in which one side reigned exclusively would be a different matter, especially now there is an established culture of key players following Gameplay debates.
Deciding whether to engage the enemy on this particular front is a relatively close call and the calculus might shift depending on the dynamics of the Gameplay forum in the future, but my general inclination is not to concede any ground to the enemy. It's a question of confrontation; not persuasion.
by Aelbarrow » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:20 am
by New Rogernomics » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:31 am
Sometimes conceding ground is necessary, as to not make a debate tense, and to have a clear discussion on the issue in question. Points conceded in a debate however, do not have to imply that you don't still adhere to those points, but that for purpose of that debate, you are prepared to put them aside to discuss the central issue at hand, which yourself and your opponent want to debate. Within a basic sense, staying in an entrenched position might hold your position, in the eyes of those already agreed to your point of view, but it won't move that discussion forward, and instead would stall it along semantic points of the discussion.Kylia Quilor wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:I do sometimes consider whether a policy of complete abstention from the Gameplay forum, beyond posting official regional statements and other notices, would be a superior approach. The upper leadership of TNI occasionally debated the merits of such a strategy, as opposed to engaging with the enemy - and that is what the overwhelming majority of our opposing interlocutors in the Gameplay forum are, as opposed to mere opponents. They are the enemy.
The clinching argument for continuing to post isn't persuading waverers about the merits of our position on specific issues. There are very few genuine waverers, most of them will be unmoved by arguments in lengthy discussions and most of them are irrelevant to the interests of our regions in any case. Persuasion is far more effectively carried out on regional off-site forums and one-on-one conversations, where subversive influences are not present and the target audience can be tailored according to the policy objectives of one's region/s. The Gameplay forum is most unsuitable for such a task.
The key argument for continuing to engage is to avoid conceding ground to the enemy. If we were to completely ignore the Gameplay forum, it would be monopolised by hostile forces who could use it as a platform for projecting their views unchallenged. Our failure to challenge their positions would be interpreted as a sign of weakness by (already-aligned) gameplayers - not weakness in terms of the substantive merits of our specific arguments, but of our confidence in our overall position. A Gameplay forum which is a site of contestation is not much use to either side, as no one is ever genuinely persuaded by the back and forth to think further than the pre-existing perspectives they favour due to regional or friendship ties. A hypothetical Gameplay forum in which one side reigned exclusively would be a different matter, especially now there is an established culture of key players following Gameplay debates.
Deciding whether to engage the enemy on this particular front is a relatively close call and the calculus might shift depending on the dynamics of the Gameplay forum in the future, but my general inclination is not to concede any ground to the enemy. It's a question of confrontation; not persuasion.
I think you're understating the possibilities of persuadability quite significantly. While many people in GP are entrenched in a view, there's nothing that dictates what those views are, or how they relate to a specific context. There are many cases where, going into an incident in GP, a persons starting position is neutral, and thus, persuadable. Moreover, the optics matter, as you seem to agree.
Ceding the narrative entirely is a problem (I can completely agree with your argument there), but the specific rhetoric used can also create its own problems - a narrative of overbearing arrogance (which is often spun about you and the LKE, even among people who are on your side) is not that much optically better.
by Onderkelkia » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:09 pm
Kylia Quilor wrote:I think you're understating the possibilities of persuadability quite significantly. While many people in GP are entrenched in a view, there's nothing that dictates what those views are, or how they relate to a specific context.
Kylia Quilor wrote:There are many cases where, going into an incident in GP, a persons starting position is neutral, and thus, persuadable.
Kylia Quilor wrote:Moreover, the optics matter, as you seem to agree.
Kylia Quilor wrote:Ceding the narrative entirely is a problem (I can completely agree with your argument there), but the specific rhetoric used can also create its own problems - a narrative of overbearing arrogance (which is often spun about you and the LKE, even among people who are on your side) is not that much optically better.
by The North Polish Union » Tue Sep 19, 2017 1:13 pm
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:My point was not to say that LKE's influence as a region was dependent on TNI and Albion, but with the collapse of the UIAF and the withdrawal of TNI and Albion from the active imperialist sphere, imperialism as a whole was weakened; a point which we seem to be in agreement on.
Of course we are in agreement that the position of the Imperialist sphere as a whole is not as positive as before the end of the UIAF. I have been expressly acknowledging such on the record for over two years now. Including in my initial response to your attempt to insert this into the Lazarus-TSP discussion:Onderkelkia wrote:That is a rather strange interpretation of this discussion. The decline of "imperialism" from its heights in 2012-15 had nothing to do with the mid-2014 dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty and everything to do with the end of the United Imperial Armed Forces and the structural decline of The New Inquisition. The dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty was the outcome that TSP's Foreign Minister contrived to obtain by forming an alliance with The Rejected Realms.
As an individual region, the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed - if not more so.
If your argument was only about the Imperialist sphere as a whole, rather than the LKE specifically, then there was little point to your post.
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:Had the UIAF merely disbanded without the collapse of TNI and the ideological shift of Albion (or even if these things had happened, but to a lesser extent) the imperialist sphere as a whole would be in much better shape.
Without TNI's long-term internal decline and Albion's desire to forge their own ideological destiny, the UIAF would not have disbanded.
TNI contributed something distinct from the UIAF, but Albion's contribution to the Imperialist sphere was as a source of additional military units for the UIAF from August 2013 to March 2015. Its departure was of little consequence beyond the loss of the UIAF as an instrument and the demoralising effect on TNI.
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:You've again merely stated the obvious. Of course the LKE has a network of alliances and it's influence as an imperialist region increased as TNI's decreased. However, I have all along been evaluating the strength of the imperialist sphere as a whole, rather than just that of the LKE. You, on the other hand are merely evaluating that of the LKE. As the LKE is the standard-bearer for imperialism this makes sense, but it does not adequately address my arguments.
As shown above, my initial response was to draw a distinction between the Imperialist sphere as a whole and the LKE specifically.
If you were in agreement with that position - as you now claim to be - then the discussion could have ended there and then. Instead, your own reply to that post stated that "To claim that the LKE is as powerful as it used to be is nothing but a delusional overstatement", hence why I continued to discuss LKE.
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:And you have also misinterpreted my initial post. I said that the LKE has not been "conducting meaningful operations," to which you replied with a brief list of the LKE's "meaningful operations" that exclusively focused on large-scale occupations. Of course, a region is free to decide for itself what it wants to conduct as "meaningful operations" and had you responded that some sort of activity outside of large-scale occupations was what LKE considers "meaningful" we wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, you chose not to do this and instead responded with a list of occupations as examples of the LKE's "meaningful operations," thereby making that kind of activity the benchmark. LKE may put less of an emphasis on these operations than TNI did, but by referring to such operations exclusively when asked about the LKE's military action, you made such actions the standard by which you wished LKE to be judged in this regard. If you're unhappy about the conclusions that standard leads to you could have and ought to have chosen a different standard.
When you a raise a question about the LKE's military activity, then it is reasonable to respond first by briefly noting the LKE's most recent occupations. Nowhere did I make any statement which expressed or implied that occupations were the benchmark by which military activity should be judged.
That is something that you have read into the discussion on the basis of this alone:Our last significant occupation was The Union of Red Nations in April 2017. In the previous year, we undertook three major occupations (Belgium, South Pacific and The International Kingdom). All in all, our major occupations are indeed less frequent than those of the UIAF in 2013-15 or TNI in 2011-12.
From the outset, in those very two sentences, I made clear that the LKE conducted such occupations less frequently than TNI didd. If my purpose had been establishing that occupations are the main criterion for judging a region's value, then I would hardly start by pointing that difference out.
In any case, beyond our own occupations, the LKE's most recent military deployments were Ankh Mauta in July and Ebola Quarantine Zone in August.
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:The question remains though, how does one measure the relative influence of an ideology? Is it by the quality and quantity of their external relations? By the success of their regional military? Or some combination of the two? I would argue that its the third.
The LKE has always maintained that the purpose of having a regional military is improving a region's overall relationships with other regions (its external position). The military is a subordinate instrument of foreign policy. Focusing on military activity as a co-equal factor is judging means rather than ends.
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:To provide just one example, earlier this month, in Albion's embassy thread Kylia Quilor made a post in which she told you that "you're not helping yourself or Imperialism across NS like this."
That was not a post in which she was saying her own opinion on anything was changed as a result; it was a post in which she was saying, like you, that she perceived that it might be detrimental as regards the opinion of others. Both of you are misunderstanding how the Gameplay forum works. It is not mainly a place where relatively unaligned observers can be swayed to one side. It is primarily a place where players on different sides confirm existing prejudices.
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:This is an absurd accusation to make. Nearly the only time since 2014 that the events surrounding Slavia had any influence on my posting decisions was when I questioned the motivations for Balder's support for the Undead Dominion of Lazarus. On that occasion, my concerns were adequately addressed by officials of both Lazarus and Balder and I have not raised them since, rather I have supported Balder's continued presence in Lazarus (albeit with some reservations). Your habit of assuming that any and all of my posts have something to do with Slavia is either entirely ungrounded in reality or a brazen attempt to discredit my arguments offhand.
So you are admitting to forming an initial view about Balder's intervention in Lazarus based on an entirely unrelated incident in January 2014?
Why would you form a view based on Slavia in relation to that and none anything else? More likely you are merely conceding that point immediately because you have already admitted on the record to being influenced by Slavia when someone else raised the topic (as others have noticed your personal vendetta).
It seems fairly odd and unconvincing that Slavia would influence your view on that and not anything else in these past three years. It seems far more likely that all your various attempts to discredit the Imperialist sphere, the LKE and me individually can be traced back to animosity from that invasion.
Onderkelkia wrote:Pozezdrze wrote:Then you should have been more clear. When you refer to being an advocate of "taking the deal [you] negotiated with [me]" my natural assumption was that you were referring to a deal that was public knowledge. I was not expecting you to, in a public context, refer to a deal that not only never came to fruition, but to the best of my knowledge was never public knowledge. Our posts on this forum are read by more people than the two of us, and when referring to private negotiations it is best to specify that one is doing so, especially when similar negotiations yielded a published treaty while the one's being referenced did not.
I doubt anyone other than you has the slightest interest today in the UIAF invasion of Slavia. I addressed my remarks to you.
My remarks referred to a potential deal discussed in the context of the UIAF invasion of Slavia and the UIAF considering whether or not to attempt to re-found Slavia as part of that invasion (the option which it chose). Why would you read this as referring to an actual treaty which was formed well after the invasion of Slavia and the UIAF's attempted re-founding? The Slavija treaty was discussed later than that, as a settlement to the UIAF's subsequent retaliatory invasion of Slavija in April 2014. Whereas I discussed the potential Slavia agreement with you, I negotiated the later Slavija treaty with Bolkania. Furthermore, given that I was the "lone advocate" of the agreement, it hardly makes sense to believe I was talking about a treaty that the UIAF accepted.
Perhaps I erred in assuming that you remembered what actually happened in the incident that you are so aggrieved by. Either that or you immediately rushed for an opportunity to adopt the worst possible conclusion, without checking, based on your long-standing prejudices against the UIAF.
by Onderkelkia » Tue Sep 19, 2017 2:32 pm
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:Of course we are in agreement that the position of the Imperialist sphere as a whole is not as positive as before the end of the UIAF. I have been expressly acknowledging such on the record for over two years now. Including in my initial response to your attempt to insert this into the Lazarus-TSP discussion:
If your argument was only about the Imperialist sphere as a whole, rather than the LKE specifically, then there was little point to your post.
In my initial post, I spoke of "the decline of imperialism as a relevant ideology" and from there proceeded to demonstrate why this is the case using examples. How you got the idea that
this is somehow about the LKE and the LKE alone is beyond me.
The North Polish Union wrote:To claim that the LKE is as powerful as it used to be is nothing but a delusional overstatement, the LKE is militarily a shadow of its former self; were they not, we would see them conducting meaningful operations, something that I have not seen recently.
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:Without TNI's long-term internal decline and Albion's desire to forge their own ideological destiny, the UIAF would not have disbanded.
TNI contributed something distinct from the UIAF, but Albion's contribution to the Imperialist sphere was as a source of additional military units for the UIAF from August 2013 to March 2015. Its departure was of little consequence beyond the loss of the UIAF as an instrument and the demoralising effect on TNI.
So Albion's departure was "of little consequence" even though it resulted in "the loss of the UIAF and the demorali[zation] of TNI?" Explain how this can possibly be the case.
The North Polish Union wrote:As I showed above, my initial post referenced "the decline of imperialism as a relevant ideology" to which your response was "the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed." If you were indeed in agreement with me as you claim to be (i.e. that the imperialist sphere as a whole has been weakened) the "discussion" would have ended without you even posting.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:And if it stopped with Onder it would force him to admit that his overbearing attitude is at least partly responsible for the decline of imperialism as a relevant ideology.
That is a rather strange interpretation of this discussion. The decline of "imperialism" from its heights in 2012-15 had nothing to do with the mid-2014 dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty and everything to do with the end of the United Imperial Armed Forces and the structural decline of The New Inquisition. The dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty was the outcome that TSP's Foreign Minister contrived to obtain by forming an alliance with The Rejected Realms.
As an individual region, the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed - if not more so.
The North Polish Union wrote:I mentioned "meaningful operations" to which you responded with a list of long-term occupations and solely long-term operations. I even later admitted that it is well within the LKE's right to determine for themselves what constitutes a "meaningful operation." I have nowhere insisted that the LKE's military be judged by their long-term operations, rather, by choosing such operations as the sole example of meaningful military activity you created that metric for yourself and it would appear that your unwillingness to accept that now stems from the fact that your claim that the LKE is as or more powerful than it was when the UIAF existed is completely indefensible by that metric.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:the LKE is militarily a shadow of its former self; were they not, we would see them conducting meaningful operations, something that I have not seen recently.
Our last significant occupation was The Union of Red Nations in April 2017. In the previous year, we undertook three major occupations (Belgium, South Pacific and The International Kingdom). All in all, our major occupations are indeed less frequent than those of the UIAF in 2013-15 or TNI in 2011-12.
Relative to TNI, it should be noted that the LKE has always been more orientated to diplomacy and intelligence than military affairs. TNI was mostly the lead military partner. While there have been periods where the LKE was the lead military partner in our relationship with TNI - in 2006-7, in late 2009 and the first half of 2010, and in mid-2013, before Albion was admitted to the UIAF - our model has generally been less orientated towards regular occupations.
We retain the capability to organise large and successful occupations, as The Union of Red Nations showed, but we have other focuses at the moment.
The North Polish Union wrote:When those ideologically aligned with you believe that your rhetoric does not "hel[p] yourself or Imperialism across NS" you can draw your own conclusions about how anyone not ideologically aligned with you must feel about said rhetoric
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:So you are admitting to forming an initial view about Balder's intervention in Lazarus based on an entirely unrelated incident in January 2014?
Why would you form a view based on Slavia in relation to that and none anything else? More likely you are merely conceding that point immediately because you have already admitted on the record to being influenced by Slavia when someone else raised the topic (as others have noticed your personal vendetta).
It seems fairly odd and unconvincing that Slavia would influence your view on that and not anything else in these past three years. It seems far more likely that all your various attempts to discredit the Imperialist sphere, the LKE and me individually can be traced back to animosity from that invasion.
Again, unsubstantiated conspiracy theorizing. When something is about Slavia I will say its about Slavia (and I have done so when it is necessary).
The North Polish Union wrote:Your initial post was unclear about what negotiations you were referring to, as I have explained previously. When you attempt to discredit my memory to avoid accepting responsibility for your lack of clarity the only individual whose reputation is damaged is you.
by Consular » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:50 pm
Aelbarrow wrote:Minister of the Exterior, Nick Powell, ordered the closure of Albion's embassy and announced the termination of the Treaty of Pendragon between the LKE and Albion. The Imperial Government took these steps after it was discovered that Albion provided support to military operations against The New Inquisition, a treaty ally of both the LKE and Albion.
by The North Polish Union » Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:06 am
Onderkelkia wrote:The sheer number of points that have arisen in this discussion solely due to your absurd and possibly deliberate misreadings is notable.The North Polish Union wrote:In my initial post, I spoke of "the decline of imperialism as a relevant ideology" and from there proceeded to demonstrate why this is the case using examples. How you got the idea that
this is somehow about the LKE and the LKE alone is beyond me.
You are ignoring my initial response, in which I acknowledged "the decline of Imperialism" relative to the era of the 2013-15 UIAF, and your own reply to that response, which expressly disputed my claim that the LKE's position today is as strong as it was during the UIAF. That is why we are talking about LKE.
For reference, this was the relevant section of your reply:The North Polish Union wrote:To claim that the LKE is as powerful as it used to be is nothing but a delusional overstatement, the LKE is militarily a shadow of its former self; were they not, we would see them conducting meaningful operations, something that I have not seen recently.
Having said that, you can hardly claim that you were only ever talking about the Imperialist sphere being weaker than it at the start of 2015. If that was the case, then the discussion could have ended with my initial post. Instead, you opened a new line of discussion by disputing the point regarding LKE.
You seem to think that the end of the UIAF weakening Imperialism is a new insight. It has been readily acknowledged for years. It was also entirely unrelated to the topic of the original thread - Lazarus/TSP. One would almost think you were looking for an opportunity to make a cheap shot.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:So Albion's departure was "of little consequence" even though it resulted in "the loss of the UIAF and the demorali[zation] of TNI?" Explain how this can possibly be the case.
Once again, you are indulging yourself in a ludicrous misreading.
I stated that Ablion's departure "was of little consequence beyond the loss of the UIAF as an instrument and the demoralising effect on TNI." I was not saying that it was of little consequence if those factors are included in the analysis. I stated it was little consequence if those factors are excluded.
Why did I seek to separate the end of the UIAF from the other implications of Albion's departure? I separated out the end of the UIAF because I was replying to your point that "the imperialist sphere as a whole would be in much better shape" if the UIAF had ended without Albion's ideological shift.
This discussion is so ridiculous that, at this stage, I can only assume you are engaging in deliberately misreadings to prolong our conversation.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:As I showed above, my initial post referenced "the decline of imperialism as a relevant ideology" to which your response was "the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed." If you were indeed in agreement with me as you claim to be (i.e. that the imperialist sphere as a whole has been weakened) the "discussion" would have ended without you even posting.
Your original claim wasn't simply that Imperialism had declined relative to 2015. Rather, it was that I was responsible for this outcome.
To demonstrate, this is the relevant section of your original post and my reply to it:Onderkelkia wrote:That is a rather strange interpretation of this discussion. The decline of "imperialism" from its heights in 2012-15 had nothing to do with the mid-2014 dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty and everything to do with the end of the United Imperial Armed Forces and the structural decline of The New Inquisition. The dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty was the outcome that TSP's Foreign Minister contrived to obtain by forming an alliance with The Rejected Realms.
As an individual region, the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed - if not more so.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:I mentioned "meaningful operations" to which you responded with a list of long-term occupations and solely long-term operations. I even later admitted that it is well within the LKE's right to determine for themselves what constitutes a "meaningful operation." I have nowhere insisted that the LKE's military be judged by their long-term operations, rather, by choosing such operations as the sole example of meaningful military activity you created that metric for yourself and it would appear that your unwillingness to accept that now stems from the fact that your claim that the LKE is as or more powerful than it was when the UIAF existed is completely indefensible by that metric.
You have no basis for claiming that I selected occupations as the sole indicator of meaningful military activity or the LKE's power.
Merely because I began my remarks by referencing the most recent LKE-led occupations does not mean I was claiming that they are the only thing that mattered. That is a claim that you have read into my comments merely because I mentioned such occupations as part of a wider response.
This is the entirety of my original response on this point:Onderkelkia wrote:Our last significant occupation was The Union of Red Nations in April 2017. In the previous year, we undertook three major occupations (Belgium, South Pacific and The International Kingdom). All in all, our major occupations are indeed less frequent than those of the UIAF in 2013-15 or TNI in 2011-12.
Relative to TNI, it should be noted that the LKE has always been more orientated to diplomacy and intelligence than military affairs. TNI was mostly the lead military partner. While there have been periods where the LKE was the lead military partner in our relationship with TNI - in 2006-7, in late 2009 and the first half of 2010, and in mid-2013, before Albion was admitted to the UIAF - our model has generally been less orientated towards regular occupations.
We retain the capability to organise large and successful occupations, as The Union of Red Nations showed, but we have other focuses at the moment.
Rather than engaging with the substance of this response or my subsequent posts on this topic, you have instead opted to misread the first paragraph as an assertion that only occupations matter and insisted on conducting all subsequent discussion within that framework. That is highly unreasonable. on large-scale occupations. Of course, a region is free to decide for itself what it wants to conduct as "meaningful operations" and had you responded that some sort of activity outside of large-scale occupations was what LKE considers "meaningful" we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:When those ideologically aligned with you believe that your rhetoric does not "hel[p] yourself or Imperialism across NS" you can draw your own conclusions about how anyone not ideologically aligned with you must feel about said rhetoric
There were always be disagreements over tactics among those with a similar ideological disposition. The existence of such disagreements is not evidence about what tactics are most effective. In any case, I would not say that Kylia Quilor is that aligned with me. We each regularly espouse views that the other never would. Independence and Imperialism are about advancing the interests/power of specific regions; there is no firm assumption of similar views on policy issues among everyone who subscribes to Independence or Imperialism as a theoretical framework. The LKE and Kantrias are very different places.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:Again, unsubstantiated conspiracy theorizing. When something is about Slavia I will say its about Slavia (and I have done so when it is necessary).
I am sure that others familiar with your posting pattern since the January 2014 invasion of Slavia will see that it is a fair assessment.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:Your initial post was unclear about what negotiations you were referring to, as I have explained previously. When you attempt to discredit my memory to avoid accepting responsibility for your lack of clarity the only individual whose reputation is damaged is you.
Whereas I have explained why my initial post referred to a potential deal, and one which was not actually taken, in the context of the January/February 2014 invasion of Slavia, when the UIAF had the chance to re-found Slavia. On the facts presented in my post - that it arose during the invasion of Slavia, that the UIAF had the option of re-founding Slavia and I was the lone advocate for the deal in the UIAF - that it could not have possibly been a reference to the treaty that the UIAf actually signed in April 2014 following the invasion of Slavija. Either due to a failure of recollection surrounding the specific details or deliberately due to your long-standing animus against the UIAF, you misinterpreted the post to enter into an unjustified monologue against the UIAF. It is not my responsibility that you (once again) misread my post to reach an unsupportable conclusion tied to an argument that supports your vendetta.
by Onderkelkia » Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:58 am
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:The sheer number of points that have arisen in this discussion solely due to your absurd and possibly deliberate misreadings is notable.
You are ignoring my initial response, in which I acknowledged "the decline of Imperialism" relative to the era of the 2013-15 UIAF, and your own reply to that response, which expressly disputed my claim that the LKE's position today is as strong as it was during the UIAF. That is why we are talking about LKE.
For reference, this was the relevant section of your reply:
Having said that, you can hardly claim that you were only ever talking about the Imperialist sphere being weaker than it at the start of 2015. If that was the case, then the discussion could have ended with my initial post. Instead, you opened a new line of discussion by disputing the point regarding LKE.
You seem to think that the end of the UIAF weakening Imperialism is a new insight. It has been readily acknowledged for years. It was also entirely unrelated to the topic of the original thread - Lazarus/TSP. One would almost think you were looking for an opportunity to make a cheap shot.
You brought up the LKE before I did. Since you admit that imperialism as a whole has declined why is it then necessary to bring up LKE at all? Again, your post agreed that imperialism has declined before going of on a tangent in the last sentence that "As an individual region, the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed - if not more so." It is difficult to see what this has to do with the imperialist sphere as a whole.
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:Once again, you are indulging yourself in a ludicrous misreading.
I stated that Ablion's departure "was of little consequence beyond the loss of the UIAF as an instrument and the demoralising effect on TNI." I was not saying that it was of little consequence if those factors are included in the analysis. I stated it was little consequence if those factors are excluded.
Why did I seek to separate the end of the UIAF from the other implications of Albion's departure? I separated out the end of the UIAF because I was replying to your point that "the imperialist sphere as a whole would be in much better shape" if the UIAF had ended without Albion's ideological shift.
This discussion is so ridiculous that, at this stage, I can only assume you are engaging in deliberately misreadings to prolong our conversation.
Of course Albion's departure did little beyond dissolving the UIAF and demoralizing TNI. It is again difficult to see what other effects it could have had. Your argument essentially says "this action had serious consequences, but beyond these serious consequences there are few consequences," its essentially a tautology and contributes nothing to your argument.
Pozezdrze wrote:Had the UIAF merely disbanded without the collapse of TNI and the ideological shift of Albion (or even if these things had happened, but to a lesser extent) the imperialist sphere as a whole would be in much better shape.
The North Polish Union wrote:And you never actually challenged my initial assertion, instead dragging the discussion off to other venues. I still hold that your overbearing attitude is likely to drive away would-be imperialists, feel free to challenge the assertion if you like.
Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:And if it stopped with Onder it would force him to admit that his overbearing attitude is at least partly responsible for the decline of imperialism as a relevant ideology.
That is a rather strange interpretation of this discussion. The decline of "imperialism" from its heights in 2012-15 had nothing to do with the mid-2014 dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty and everything to do with the end of the United Imperial Armed Forces and the structural decline of The New Inquisition. The dissolution of the TNI-TSP Treaty was the outcome that TSP's Foreign Minister contrived to obtain by forming an alliance with The Rejected Realms.
As an individual region, the LKE is as powerful and relevant now as it was when UIAF existed - if not more so.
The North Polish Union wrote:All I stated was that I had not seen the LKE conduction meaningful operations. You chose to respond to that with a list of occupations the LKE has engaged in recently. I did not force you to provide only occupations as examples of meaningful operations, you chose that yourself. You and you alone inflicted the metric of occupations as meaningful operations on the LKE and your desperate and repeated attempts to disown the metric that you set for yourself now that you've realized your arguments are indefensible from that metric are telling.
As you have already conceded all the specific points arising from the second and third paragraphs in the ensuing discussion, you have no actual argument beyond distorting the first paragraph to claim it says something it did not. I am not sure what you hope to achieve through such dis-ingenuousness.Onderkelkia wrote:The North Polish Union wrote:the LKE is militarily a shadow of its former self; were they not, we would see them conducting meaningful operations, something that I have not seen recently.
Our last significant occupation was The Union of Red Nations in April 2017. In the previous year, we undertook three major occupations (Belgium, South Pacific and The International Kingdom). All in all, our major occupations are indeed less frequent than those of the UIAF in 2013-15 or TNI in 2011-12.
Relative to TNI, it should be noted that the LKE has always been more orientated to diplomacy and intelligence than military affairs. TNI was mostly the lead military partner. While there have been periods where the LKE was the lead military partner in our relationship with TNI - in 2006-7, in late 2009 and the first half of 2010, and in mid-2013, before Albion was admitted to the UIAF - our model has generally been less orientated towards regular occupations.
We retain the capability to organise large and successful occupations, as The Union of Red Nations showed, but we have other focuses at the moment.
The North Polish Union wrote:I never claimed that there was any sort of enforced ideological homogeneity among imperialists, that would be absurd. For someone that insists that I misread your posts as frequently as you have been doing you've just yourself committed a rather egregious act of such a misreading.
The North Polish Union wrote:The fact is, Kylia is much more ideologically aligned with you than you are with the overwhelming majority of posters on this forum, and when she feels (as someone espousing a similar but not identical ideological standpoint) that your rhetoric does more harm than good that speaks volumes about the impact your rhetoric must have on those not so similarly aligned.
Further, as an example, if a defender were to tell Unibot that his rhetoric does more harm to defending than good (despite this hypothetical defender not sharing the exact ideological tenets as Unibot) that criticism ought to be more meaningful than if a raider told Unibot the same
thing. The above analogy applies just as well to this situation, albeit with different actors.
The North Polish Union wrote:Onderkelkia wrote:Whereas I have explained why my initial post referred to a potential deal, and one which was not actually taken, in the context of the January/February 2014 invasion of Slavia, when the UIAF had the chance to re-found Slavia. On the facts presented in my post - that it arose during the invasion of Slavia, that the UIAF had the option of re-founding Slavia and I was the lone advocate for the deal in the UIAF - that it could not have possibly been a reference to the treaty that the UIAf actually signed in April 2014 following the invasion of Slavija. Either due to a failure of recollection surrounding the specific details or deliberately due to your long-standing animus against the UIAF, you misinterpreted the post to enter into an unjustified monologue against the UIAF. It is not my responsibility that you (once again) misread my post to reach an unsupportable conclusion tied to an argument that supports your vendetta.
Indeed, you explained that the post was not about the deal that was put in place in April 2014, and I have not since challenged that that explanation is correct, nor have I continued down the line of reasoning I had been following prior to your explanation. However, had you worded your initial post in such a way that your prior explanation would not have been necessary we would not be having this discussion.
As it is, the only reason we still are having the discussion is because of your unwillingness to admit that the initial post's wording was unclear. Of course you believe it is clear, had you not I am sure you would not have posted it; but the fact that you believe it is clear has no bearing on whether or not other readers will find it as clear as you found it when writing it.
by Kylia Quilor » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:12 am
Further, as an example, if a defender were to tell Unibot that his rhetoric does more harm to defending than good (despite this hypothetical defender not sharing the exact ideological tenets as Unibot) that criticism ought to be more meaningful than if a raider told Unibot the same
thing. The above analogy applies just as well to this situation, albeit with different actors.
Users browsing this forum: Merlovich, The Way Sun Cooperation
