The Land of Kings and Emperors Embassy

[McChimp]

I'd say my knowledge of TSP is probably superior to all Europeian Presidents.

It's a terrible thing, tempting people to maliciously quote you like that. I need only skip two words...

[Tananat]

I'd say my knowledge of TSP is probably superior to all Europeian Presidents.

It's a terrible thing, tempting people to maliciously quote you like that. I need only skip two words...

Malicious quote editing is against NS rules

[McChimp]

Malicious quote editing is against NS rules

A terrible thing.

[Linkin Nights]

Something clearly has the Grey Wardens agitated.

Nah, I'm just amused by your self-aggrandizement, and if y'all make claims that are bullshit, I'll call you out on your bullshit.

In all honesty, your posts here in particular come across as annoyed and worried more than they do amused.

Oh, speaking of bullshit...

So, what's our political agenda? I'm not aware of one, and I run the damn thing.

TGW's agenda is undermining the idea of Independence, weakening Independent regions and establishing hegemonic Defender control of GCRs under your influence. It's a variation on the same agenda pursued by the ADN, the RLA, the FRA and the UDL before it.

Your claims of ignorance are comical. It would hardly be in your interests to advertise this agenda.

[Onderkelkia]

I must say our embassy is garnering a lot of attention from anxious defenders. I must congratulate Linkin and Akillian. I never seemed to have that effect.

as well as the lack of any sort of signs that a Balder military consists of more than a handful of pilers

A "handful" is a gross under-estimate of Balder's piler force. We currently have 6 pilers diverted from our main operation in Lazarus to support TWP's occupation of Mr Money Headquarters. That's less than a quarter of Balder's total deployment in Lazarus. The Lazarus mission is a clear sign of our strength.

The Queen and Akillian in particular have played key roles in expanding the size of the Jomsvikings.

Roavin's political ascension within The South Pacific has been accompanied by cooperation with The Grey Wardens to an extent that previously never existed.

Yes, because the Order was refounded just before I started gameplay. I started gameplay (solely with the South Pacific Special Forces) on June 28, 2016. The Order of the Grey Wardens were refounded on June 1, 2016. And in fact, I got introduced to the Wardens by Imki, Minister of Military Affairs at the time, who had reached out to Benevolent Thomas because she was looking for partners to work with across the spectrum.

Correlation? Sure. Causation? Hardly.

This is faulty reasoning. TGW's re-founding did not make it inevitable that TGW-TSP relations would grow to the extent that they have in the last year. After all, TSP did not cooperate to the same degree with TGW's predecessors. It conducted operations with the FRA Rangers and the UDL, but not routinely. SPSF soldiers couldn't claim TSP recognition and awards for participating in FRA-organised 'liberations' on their own accord without direction from their TSP superiors. The shift in the scale of cooperation required your commitment to advancing the defender cause within TSP. Indeed, you have confirmed previously that it was your "work in The South Pacific which [...] laid the groundwork for [you] even getting offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens".

Outside of prioritizing relationships with defender partners

TNP is a defender region now?

Of course not. The North Pacific is one of the premier Independent regions and made key contributions to drafting The Independent Manifesto. When Writinglegend said that The South Pacific has prioritised relations with defender partners, he will not have meant The North Pacific. You would presumaby try to maintain that The South Pacific has prioritised its relations with The North Pacific rather prioritising relationships with its defender partners.

This raises the question of how The South Pacific has chosen to behave on occasions when conflicts have arisen between TNP and its defender partners.

Look at the invasion of Japan last month. The occupation was co-led and organised by The North Pacific. The South Pacific committed 11 updaters - including 3 joint TGW/SPSF units - which contributed to the successful 'liberation'/counter-invasion of Japan. Following the 'liberation', the Grey Wardens released an update in which they boasted about "Europeia and the North Pacific, strolling into America's the Wardens' backyard" only to be defeated. Faced with a direct choice between TNP and serving defender interests, TSP's instinctive reaction was to serve defenders. TGW, with senior TSP members in its leadership, then used the mission - made possible with the help of TSP - in order to claim a propaganda victory over TNP by name. Those are all facts.

However, perhaps the most objectionable part of TGW's update was also the most revealing about the connection between TGW and TSP. TGW complained that "the independent and raider regions involved in the occupation of Japan were unaware of the need to go through the formal, legal process for being approved for occupation." Such rhetoric reflects that the objection of the defender establishment is ultimately to military independence. They object to sovereign regions performing military operations without their approval. The occupation of Japan did not meet their standards, despite TNP and Europeia's anti-griefing rules. By contrast, the earlier TNP-led occupation of The International Kingdom, which was performed jointly with The South Pacific, earned the defender stamp of approval to the point that a concerned native seeking their assistance was told that they should sit back and wait for the occupying forces to leave. That presents quite a contrast with the proactive effort to organise a 'liberation' against a mission without TSP support in Japan. The ultimate message being that Independent regions should only engage in defender-sanctioned raiding or TGW-TSP will pursue an offensive against them. Nothing could make it clearer that TGW and TSP threaten the sovereignty of any region which wishes to undertake offensive military operations.

[Consular]

LKE to TGW: "Please be our enemy? Oh pretty please, with a cherry on top?"

TGW: Nah brah.

Something clearly has the Grey Wardens agitated.

It's a matter of record that Tim-Opolis, then High Constable of TGW, threatened to torch the LKE at the head of an invasion - in the event that we ever fell founderless - long before any LKE official said anything about TGW.

The LKE is going to oppose the political agenda of the Grey Wardens. Indeed, we're already doing that successfully. You don't get any choice in it.

"successfully"

The agenda of TGW is to defend. The LKE is doing very little to oppose that.

Do any of you even know how to trigger these days?

[Tim-Opolis]

Guys, this is fucking legendary.

Onder just took a TGW Shitpost seriously

This might be the event of the year, lads.

[Roavin]

Yes, because the Order was refounded just before I started gameplay. I started gameplay (solely with the South Pacific Special Forces) on June 28, 2016. The Order of the Grey Wardens were refounded on June 1, 2016. And in fact, I got introduced to the Wardens by Imki, Minister of Military Affairs at the time, who had reached out to Benevolent Thomas because she was looking for partners to work with across the spectrum.

Correlation? Sure. Causation? Hardly.

This is faulty reasoning. TGW's re-founding did not make it inevitable that TGW-TSP relations would grow to the extent that they have in the last year. After all, TSP did not cooperate to the same degree with TGW's predecessors. It conducted operations with the FRA Rangers and the UDL, but not routinely. SPSF soldiers couldn't claim TSP recognition and awards for participating in FRA-organised 'liberations' on their own accord without direction from their TSP superiors. The shift in the scale of cooperation required your commitment to advancing the defender cause within TSP. Indeed, you have confirmed previously that it was your "work in The South Pacific which [...] laid the groundwork for [you] even getting offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens".

Not faulty reasoning. Writinglegend implied that the military cooperation was my doing, and that's demonstrably not the case. Though yes, I fostered the military cooperation during my MoMA term, because I thought it was in TSP's interest to do so. I explained it in my campaign, had a long debate about it with (among others) Belschaft (not a friend of the "Defenderist" cause by any means), and got elected on that basis. It's one reason why, through the Imki/Roavin/Vietnam terms, SPSF has become, while not the biggest, certainly the most active and competent GCR military around today.

TNP is a defender region now?

Of course not. The North Pacific is one of the premier Independent regions and made key contributions to drafting The Independent Manifesto. When Writinglegend said that The South Pacific has prioritised relations with defender partners, he will not have meant The North Pacific. You would presumaby try to maintain that The South Pacific has prioritised its relations with The North Pacific rather prioritising relationships with its defender partners.

No. Rather, TRR/Laz/Spiritus didn't get special treatment, and in fact there has been a good bit less Laz-TSP interaction than TNP-TSP interaction.

This raises the question of how The South Pacific has chosen to behave on occasions when conflicts have arisen between TNP and its defender partners.

Look at the invasion of Japan last month. The occupation was co-led and organised by The North Pacific. The South Pacific committed 11 updaters - including 3 joint TGW/SPSF units - which contributed to the successful 'liberation'/counter-invasion of Japan. Following the 'liberation', the Grey Wardens released an update in which they boasted about "Europeia and the North Pacific, strolling into America's the Wardens' backyard" only to be defeated. Faced with a direct choice between TNP and serving defender interests, TSP's instinctive reaction was to serve defenders. TGW, with senior TSP members in its leadership, then used the mission - made possible with the help of TSP - in order to claim a propaganda victory over TNP by name. Those are all facts.

And once again, what you don't understand is that for a region that is independent in the true sense of the word (i.e. not subjected to the seminal text of so-called "Independence"), not every operation has to be fulfilling a foreign policy objective, or automatically be an affront to the opposing party. In fact, the Aurora Alliance (TSP-TNP) expressly allows being on opposing side of an arbitrary R/D conflict.

However, perhaps the most objectionable part of TGW's update was also the most revealing about the connection between TGW and TSP. TGW complained that "the independent and raider regions involved in the occupation of Japan were unaware of the need to go through the formal, legal process for being approved for occupation." Such rhetoric reflects that the objection of the defender establishment is ultimately to military independence. They object to sovereign regions performing military operations without their approval. The occupation of Japan did not meet their standards, despite TNP and Europeia's anti-griefing rules. By contrast, the earlier TNP-led occupation of The International Kingdom, which was performed jointly with The South Pacific, earned the defender stamp of approval to the point that a concerned native seeking their assistance was told that they should sit back and wait for the occupying forces to leave. That presents quite a contrast with the proactive effort to organise a 'liberation' against a mission without TSP support in Japan. The ultimate message being that Independent regions should only engage in defender-sanctioned raiding or TGW-TSP will pursue an offensive against them. Nothing could make it clearer that TGW and TSP threaten the sovereignty of any region which wishes to undertake offensive military operations.

TGW updates are routinely satirical. Obviously there isn't an application process to request permission to occupy a region with the Wardens. And you know all of this, so your use of that as a pretext is pure sophistry and renders your entire argument moot.

[Ikania]

Following the 'liberation', the Grey Wardens released an update in which they boasted about "Europeia and the North Pacific, strolling into America's the Wardens' backyard" only to be defeated. Faced with a direct choice between TNP and serving defender interests, TSP's instinctive reaction was to serve defenders. TGW, with senior TSP members in its leadership, then used the mission - made possible with the help of TSP - in order to claim a propaganda victory over TNP by name. Those are all facts.

However, perhaps the most objectionable part of TGW's update was also the most revealing about the connection between TGW and TSP. TGW complained that "the independent and raider regions involved in the occupation of Japan were unaware of the need to go through the formal, legal process for being approved for occupation." Such rhetoric reflects that the objection of the defender establishment is ultimately to military independence. They object to sovereign regions performing military operations without their approval. The occupation of Japan did not meet their standards, despite TNP and Europeia's anti-griefing rules.

Point of order, mister speaker, concerning the statement made by the honorable member for Opportunistic Fearmongering...

I wrote the update mentioned, and the honorable member most unfortunately takes my supremely satirical authorship, and its resounding silliness, completely out of context. I am not sure that he is entirely aware of the concept of a shitpost, and the enjoyably stupid content that comes along with it.

The joke about needing a permit to invade, and the entire world being our backyard, was a riff on the 'all the world belongs to America' meme. That is, this one:



However, the needs of a good shitpost report unfortunately didn't make much room for this particular image, since we aren't America. We're the Wardens. So I had to instead use one that made us synonymous with world conquest, in the spirit of America, which resulted in the use of Homer Simpson's "TRY AND STOP US" shirt.

Allow me to self-quote the paragraph, mister speaker:

It seems that the independent and raider regions involved in the occupation of Japan were unaware of the need to go through the formal, legal process for being approved for occupation. Every step of the way, from the Bureau of Arbitrary Raiding, to the Department of Defending, including the special waivers required from the Founderless Raid Agency, was completely ignored. With this egregious violation of the standards of bureaucracy seriously unnerving the leadership of the Wardens, our crack team of Germans skilled bureaucrats took it upon themselves to process the legal right to invade Japan. The conclusion was simple:

<'Permit denied', utilizing a gif of David Hasselhoff>

This is clearly a work of satire. There is no Bureau of Arbitrary Raiding, no Department of Defending, no Founderless Raid Agency, nor was there a team of German bureaucrats waiting in the closet to get to work like little schmetterlings in a jar. Likewise, there is no need to obtain a permit to raid from anyone, not us, that's to be sure.

The simple fact is, we liberated Japan because we are defenders, mister speaker, and that is what we do. Not because of who was occupying it, or vendettas... it was occupied for glory and we liberated it for the same glory. The victory is in the liberation, the satisfaction of victory, not because we get to rub it in the face of supposed enemies that we hate. There are particular people and organizations that certain Wardens may have a bone to pick with and that may drive operations, and they probably have before, but that's not an org-wide modus operandi, mission statement or official policy at all.

I assert further, mister speaker, that the honorable member is well aware of the satirical quality of our report content, and has deliberately chosen to ignore the obvious facts that no one drops flamin' hot parodies like the Grey Wardens can, and speaks from a position of jealousy and angst at his incapability to comprehend jokes.

I yield the floor.

[The couper of peace]

Guys, this is fucking legendary.

Onder just took a TGW Shitpost seriously

This might be the event of the year, lads.

Your right.
How this thread is turning out for this Userite Imperialist:
https://youtu.be/mIBTg7q9oNc

[The North Polish Union]

If I am to assume this was the case, I think that the question of whether TNI/LKE set up a culture within the UIAF where dissent or concerns with the direction of the organization were not tolerated; or whether the culture of the UIAF could have made that perception reasonable is highly important.

Now you are dreaming up any explanation which roughly supports your argument, regardless of whether or not there is any evidence for it.

It stretches all credulity to suggest that TNI and the LKE could have created a culture which stopped Albion's leadership from expressing a view within the UIAF. The Monarch of TNI, until the very month Albion left, was Charles Cerebella, the founder and first King of Albion. Was Cerebella gagging himself?

It was Cerebella who ultimately was responsible for determining TNI policy as well as Albion policy. He had no difficulties putting his views across within TNI, having (successfully) proposed significant policy changes during the 2010-13 period before the UIAF. How could TNI gag Albion when he ran TNI? Within the LKE, never mind TNI, Cerebella was capable of putting forward views I strongly disagreed with, as he did in both his early 2010 and mid-2013 terms as LKE Prime Minister when I was Crown Prince and Emperor respectively. Do you think that Cerebella amounted to nothing more than a puppet?

The only way that TNI could have gagged Albion, while Cerebella was Monarch of both regions, is if Cerebella was the one gagging Albion for TNI. Is that the claim you're making? Perhaps you think the weight of the LKE was sufficient to overcome the views of TNI and Albion to the point where no one in either region was capable of stating their own views? Given TNI was generally regarded as the leading partner in its relationship with LKE from 2009-2013, it seems most unlikely that the addition of Albion would have transformed the dynamic to the point where the Monarch of TNI was incapable of so much as offering a view. Rather, the addition of Albion made TNI the diplomatic centre of the alliance, as TNI-Albion and TNI-LKE were each relatively closer than LKE-Albion.

You ignore the other option. Cerebella kept his roles as monarch of Albion and TNI separate. In light of this (very likely) possibility your argument falls to bits. You also admit that [Cerebella] had zero involvement in Albion's decision to leave the UIAF, a very different statement from saying he opposed the decision to leave the UIAF.

I would argue that the sudden breaking off of treaties does not occur without some level of animosity towards one party by the other (and usually the party already holding this animosity is the one breaking the treaty off). Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there was some animosity on the part of Albion towards TNI/LKE prior to the dissolution of the UIAF.

There are a number of compelling reasons why a party may find it advantageous to publicly break off a treaty without giving fair warning to the other party. Reasons which are founded on tactical calculation rather than personal animosity. In particular, a region breaking off a treaty will often aim to control the narrative surrounding the treaty termination and shape the impressions of others before the other party has an opportunity to formulate a coherent response. By being the first party to release a statement, Albion doubtless perceived that it gained an upper hand. Indeed, at the exact same time as it broke off the UIAF, it contacted its other mutual allies with the LKE and TNI to inform them of their decision and advise them of Albion's relative strength. If Albion had informed the LKE and TNI of their plans, then we may have taken the opportunity to approach others privately about their move first.

You note that Albion contacted their non-UIAF allies in the immediate aftermath but previously attempted to explain Albion's withdrawal from the UIAF by saying that they "did not have tangible priorities like TNI and the LKE." If the absence of tangible priorities was enough to cause Albion to abandon one of their treaties, why ought it not be reason to abandon all of their treaties? Your logic makes little sense; you cannot have this both ways.

Unless they are evaluated against the facts, the views of any region tell you more about that region more than they do about anything else. The same goes for pretty much any person or organisation's views. Taken on their own, Albion's views tell you more about Albion and its character than they do about TNI or the LKE.

I see no reason as to why this ought to be the case. A region's views towards another region can say just as much about the other region as they say about the region holding the views.

I do not think that you can claim your last sentence is true unless you also choose to make the claim that you are (or were at one time) privy to the innermost thoughts and feelings of each of those TNI-Albion dual citizens. Since I assume you will not claim to be a mind-reader (and in fact, you have already denied this claim by asserting that if Albion harbored ill-will towards TNI/LKE they hid it from you) I must conclude that your last sentence is wholly unverifiable and very likely false.

Internal TNI tensions over whether Gryfynn would grant access to the founder to Harshhaven and the region's constitutional future more generally, were unrelated to UIAF or Albion objectively speaking. The issues under dispute concerned TNI's internal affairs. Albion had no legitimate stake in them - anymore than TNI could have claimed an interest in Cerebella's decision to give Bishop access to Albion's founder nation. These are internal matters.

You appear to be suggesting that TNI-Albion dual citizens could have been influenced to support Albion's withdrawal from the UIAF as a result of the dispute over TNI's founder nation. I don't think this proposition is correct, because my understanding is that Albion began discussing their exit from the UIAF prior to the start of the dispute in TNI, but if you're right and Albion left the UIAF because of the disagreement over TNI's founder nation, that hardly reflects well on Albion. Suggesting that this influenced Albion implies that Albion was interested in using the UIAF as a vehicle for controlling TNI and dumped UIAF once they failed in that objective after Cerebella stepped down as monarch. How is that theory meant to demonstrate TNI and LKE unreasonableness?

I was unaware of the exact timeline of TNI's internal dispute compared with Albion's discussions on leaving the UIAF.

I admit that you make excellent points here and I have no desire to attempt to rebut the majority of this section of your post.

What I take issue with is your last sentence, particularly when you claim that "shared membership at leadership level [is] more important than abstract ideological questions." Since shared leadership almost certainly implies "agreement around core foreign policy issues" (I challenge you to find a case where it does not that has significant repercussions) I choose to view that clause as redundant.

Shared membership at leadership level does not always lead to foreign policy agreement. I would give you the example of Hampshire, which was founded by SenatorTC, a senior LKE politician who ultimately became a Prince of the region. He was later succeeded as its head of state by another Prince of the LKE (who was also a former LKE Emperor). Yet when Hampshire was invited to join SRATO, it declined because it did not share our hostility towards the defender political establishment. This was while it had members in government positions in TNI and UKB (which was in a union with the LKE at the time). Shared membership only takes alliances so far if regional leaders are serious about maintaining an autonomous identity. There has to be genuine agreement.

Regardless of that point, there was no redundancy in my statement, as agreement around core foreign policy issues can exist without shared members at leadership level. For example, Empires of Earth participated in the Congress of Sovereigns in 2006-7 alongside the LKE, TNI and GB&I despite having fewer overlapping members than the other three regions. It did so because it shared our foreign policy concerns (in particular, it shared GB&I's interest in finding an alternative to ACCEL). Similarly, Gatesville participated in SRATO with no overlapping membership at leadership level whatsoever with TNI, GB&I or Europeia. Gatesville shared TNI's attitude to the FRA and indeed declared war on the FRA themselves around this time. Thus, agreement around core foreign policy issues can drive close alliances separate from shared memberships. Agreement around core foreign policy issues is a factor in its own right.

It is gross over-simplification to assert that all regions with shared membership at a leadership level necessarily have agreement around core foreign policy issues. NationStates regions can be subject to complex political forces. A variety of factors can influence regions towards different foreign policy positions.

Of course regions with shared leadership may not always have the same policy goals and regions without shared leadership may have the same foreign policy goals. The reason I claimed that part of your post as redundant was because you said "shared membership at leadership level and agreement around core foreign policy issues are more important than abstract ideological questions" (emphasis mine). What you are now trying to argue is that "shared membership at leadership level [or] agreement around core foreign policy issues are more important than abstract ideological questions."

These are two fundamentally different statements. I replied to one statement and you have replied to me with an attempt to claim that your first post, in reality, meant the other statement.

You in essence admit that it is in the LKE's best diplomatic interests for their leadership to acquire government roles in allied regions and act on their imperialist views in those regions to the betterment of the LKE.

There was no such admission. Acknowledging the obvious point that regions with shared members at leadership level will find it easier to have a multilateral command structure - such as the UIAF - does not constitute an admission to planting members elsewhere in order to control other regions.

Overlapping memberships are most effective as a foundation for relations where they are organic. That was the case with TNI and the LKE, ever since Viktoria Gryfynn, the founder of TNI, first joined the LKE in July 2006 and was so impressed that she turned TNI into an Imperialist region as a result. The later political cooperation of the LKE and TNI was all the more effective due to deep, long-standing, organic ties. I can acknowledge that ties of that kind are, objectively speaking, an effective basis for cooperation without suggesting that I condone planting members in the manner that you suggest.

Is the origin of your involvement in Balder "organic?"

Firstly, when you note that the LKE's relationship with The Kingdom of Great Britain was "terrible" all you admit is that when two regions, each with a "belligerent style" attempt to enter into diplomatic relations, the results are less than stellar. That is to say, belligerence does not lend itself to good diplomacy. Of course, you will no doubt point to other "belligerent" regions with which the LKE has had successful relations, particularly, I assume, TNI. The difference between TNI-LKE relations and KoGB-LKE relations is undoubtedly due to "shared membership at leadership level," and one can only assume that the reason for the decline of KoGB-TNI relations was at least on some level due to failure to achieve "shared membership at leadership level" in a timely manner.

Your argument here appears to be that regions which act belligerently towards their enemies cannot have good relations with each other unless they have shared membership at leadership level. How does this compare with your original argument about a larger number of Imperialist regions being better for the interests of an individual Imperialist region? Those arguments don't work well together. The classic Imperialist regions - by which I mean the LKE, TNI and GB&I - always treated their adversaries belligerently, with declarations of war, aggressive diplomacy and strident rhetorical opposition. Aggression towards our enemies has been an inherent feature in our approach; it's one of the key attributes that distinguishes Imperialism from Independence. So in arguing that regions which share this quality don't get along with each other unless they have membership ties, you are implicitly contradicting your prior argument that it is easier for Imperialist regions to maintain relations with each other than it is for them to have relations with non-Imperialist regions.

In over a decade of history, it may surprise you to learn that the LKE and TNI have maintained close relations with a number of Imperialist and non-Imperialist regions with a similarly belligerent approach towards their enemies, without close membership ties at leadership level. At different points in our history, these regions have included the likes of Corporate Conservative, Gatesville, The Black Riders, Great Green Federation, Ceseris and Catlandatopia. There was a degree of mutual respect - misplaced in the case of The Black Riders - between the leaderships of these regions and the LKE.

As for the LKE's relations with The Kingdom of Great Britain, you are simply wrong to presume that 'the decline of KoGB-TNI [sic] relations was at least on some level due to failure to achieve "shared membership at leadership level" in a timely manner.' Significant membership ties existed at leadership level when the LKE ended all relations with KGB. When relations broke down, Krimson Lancaster was the Prince of Wales of KGB. Not only was he an LKE member first, but been granted a peerage to recognise several terms of service in the LKE Cabinet. On the LKE side, the LKE Prime Minister at the time was Charles Lancaster, who was prominent in KGB at the time and is now the incumbent Prince of Wales of KGB. When the LKE announced the treaty termination, KGB responded by firing Theoden Sebastian, then Prince Imperial and now Crown Prince of the LKE, as their Director of Intelligence. Shared membership at leadership level between LKE and KGB existed going back to 2013, well before genuine relations were formed in the course of 2015, and well before before they collapsed a few months later. Shared membership at a senior level also continued (albeit with a partly different set of individuals) into mid-2016, when the LKE rejected KGB's request for a new treaty, even as other regions with lower membership ties (for example Europeia and Albion) either formed or retained treaties with KGB. So your attempt to link the weakness of KGB-LKE relations to a lack of leadership ties runs against all the facts.

Again, this goes back to my rebuttal to you above. You continue to argue from the "or" statement when in reality you posted the "and" statement. In light of that my arguments are hardly self-contradictory.

It is increasingly clear that you are not engaging in a discussion based on an interpretation of the facts, but are instead desperately searching for anything which can be used to support your pre-conceived view that I and/or the LKE must be the guilty party in any scenario. I can only assume that you hold this attitude as a result of the UIAF victories in Slavia and Slavya and my role at the time. As such, I don't believe this conversation is going anywhere.

It is increasingly clear that you are not engaging in a discussion based on an interpretation of the facts, but are instead desperately searching for anything which can be used to support your pre-conceived view that I must be have a vendetta against you. I can only assume that you hold this attitude as a result of the UIAF failure to secure refound in Slavia and my role at the time. As such, I don't believe this conversation is going anywhere.

[Consular]

I can only assume that you hold this attitude as a result of the UIAF failure to secure refound in Slavia and my role at the time.

Did the UIAF fail to secure Slavia? Are you sure of that?

[Akillian]

Akillian is a multi-term former Prime Minister in the LKE, and UK - the current Consul of Foreign Affairs in Arda en Estel, and Minister of War in Balder. All significant experience by any measure, and cumulatively this paints the picture of someone quite a bit more than a "nobody" I daresay.

My condolences to Akkilian for his decision to remain in a place like LKE.

I wouldn't want to have started out in any region other than the LKE. My 5 years there have been very good.

You're reading a lot into non-existent Warden involvement in the Lazarus Coup. If we had been offering support, either strategical or military, the resistance would have had some level of discipline, a clear chain of command that established when people keep their mouths shut, and a significant lack of making plans and then failing to follow through on them due to incompetence.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that the effects of TGW involvement would be that great.

Roavin is the leader of The South Pacific as well as the leader of the Grey Wardens. He's openly supporting the revolt as leader of TSP. It doesn't matter whether he's acting on TGW's behalf, he's still the same player with the same level of military and organisational ability. If his input makes little difference when it is officially from TSP, then his advice would have no greater impact if he was giving it officially as the head of TGW.

Players as experienced as Writinglegend can notice trends in a region's foreign policy without being regional members.

Oh, is that all we need to make claims now? Well, if his experience gives him the ability to notice the trends, the couple years I've got on him give me enough experience to notice that all your rhetoric's baseless hot air.

That's not the point I was making. It was argued that WL's comments shouldn't be taken seriously because he has never been in TSP. I'm saying that anyone with WL's level of foreign affairs experience can analyse TSP's foreign policy and make their own conclusions from that. That does not mean that WL or anyone else's claims are necessarily correct. You can decide that based on what was said. But you can't dismiss specific observations on TSP foreign policy because they are from someone who isn't in TSP, unless your position is that no one can comment on the policies of any region unless they are a member of that region.

There seems to be a common theme emerging here from NES, OnderKelkia, Akillian, etc - in their discourse above, with Roavin and Glen-Rhodes for instance.

A general attitude of condescension towards anyone who isn't in their immediate social circle, consisting predominantly of imperialist elitists whose interests are narrowly defined around their social status in certain regions.

Wow look, I can make hard-hitting statements with no factual basis too.

The Lord High Steward noted specific statements which reflected this attitude on your part, whereas nowhere has the Emperor, the Lord High Steward or I dismissed someone on the grounds that they're "a nobody".

Once again, claiming that something is true does not make it true. WritingLegend is claiming it to be true, but not saying why it's so. Just like Common-Sense Politics. Or Onder. Or Cormac. Or ... well, you, but I'm nice and I'm giving you a chance to show that you're right. So, let me ask this again, and this time I'll ask so that you can't just say "hey look over there". Do you have evidence to support your claims, and if so, will you quote or link them directly?. And again, real evidence. Not somebody saying it's so, because that ain't proof.

Because if it's true, you must be able to demonstrate it, right? Demonstrate TGW subversion of TSP, or TGW support in Lazarus. Either one. Come on. Put up, or shut up.

Writinglegend demonstrated so with evidence that I don't think you refuted effectively. You've not even attempted to refute it in full, by leaving details like hosting the Defender Expo out. If TSP wants to be thought of differently, it should change its behaviour.

[Linkin Nights]

Something clearly has the Grey Wardens agitated.

It's a matter of record that Tim-Opolis, then High Constable of TGW, threatened to torch the LKE at the head of an invasion - in the event that we ever fell founderless - long before any LKE official said anything about TGW.

The LKE is going to oppose the political agenda of the Grey Wardens. Indeed, we're already doing that successfully. You don't get any choice in it.

"successfully"

The agenda of TGW is to defend. The LKE is doing very little to oppose that.

Do any of you even know how to trigger these days?

As I outlined above, TGW's military activity is secondary to its Defender ideological agenda. The LKE's diplomacy is doing a great deal to oppose that agenda.

Yes, we know how to trigger. I actually teach a seminar on it in my capacity as Adjutant-General of the Imperial Army.

[Warden Roavin]

You're reading a lot into non-existent Warden involvement in the Lazarus Coup. If we had been offering support, either strategical or military, the resistance would have had some level of discipline, a clear chain of command that established when people keep their mouths shut, and a significant lack of making plans and then failing to follow through on them due to incompetence.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that the effects of TGW involvement would be that great.

Roavin is the leader of The South Pacific as well as the leader of the Grey Wardens. He's openly supporting the revolt as leader of TSP. It doesn't matter whether he's acting on TGW's behalf, he's still the same player with the same level of military and organisational ability. If his input makes little difference when it is officially from TSP, then his advice would have no greater impact if he was giving it officially as the head of TGW.

TGW isn't just me, you know.

Once again, claiming that something is true does not make it true. WritingLegend is claiming it to be true, but not saying why it's so. Just like Common-Sense Politics. Or Onder. Or Cormac. Or ... well, you, but I'm nice and I'm giving you a chance to show that you're right. So, let me ask this again, and this time I'll ask so that you can't just say "hey look over there". Do you have evidence to support your claims, and if so, will you quote or link them directly?. And again, real evidence. Not somebody saying it's so, because that ain't proof.

Because if it's true, you must be able to demonstrate it, right? Demonstrate TGW subversion of TSP, or TGW support in Lazarus. Either one. Come on. Put up, or shut up.

Writinglegend demonstrated so with evidence that I don't think you refuted effectively. You've not even attempted to refute it in full, by leaving details like hosting the Defender Expo out. If TSP wants to be thought of differently, it should change its behaviour.

What evidence? You keep just mentioning that there is evidence, but you refuse to show what evidence specifically you mean. Quote it specifically.

The mere presence of the Defender Expo, by the way, does not prove TGW subversion of TSP or TGW support in Lazarus. It was a cultural event initiated by Escade. If the mere presence of "defender-y stuff" in the South Pacific is your evidence to believe in subversion, that is laughable.

As I outlined above, TGW's military activity is secondary to its Defender ideological agenda. The LKE's diplomacy is doing a great deal to oppose that agenda.

What ideological agenda?

[Onderkelkia]

Guys, this is fucking legendary.

Onder just took a TGW Shitpost seriously

This might be the event of the year, lads.

Nearly all TGW posts are of that low quality. That does not give TGW a pass to say anything they like without consequence.

This is faulty reasoning. TGW's re-founding did not make it inevitable that TGW-TSP relations would grow to the extent that they have in the last year. After all, TSP did not cooperate to the same degree with TGW's predecessors. It conducted operations with the FRA Rangers and the UDL, but not routinely. SPSF soldiers couldn't claim TSP recognition and awards for participating in FRA-organised 'liberations' on their own accord without direction from their TSP superiors. The shift in the scale of cooperation required your commitment to advancing the defender cause within TSP. Indeed, you have confirmed previously that it was your "work in The South Pacific which [...] laid the groundwork for [you] even getting offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens".

Not faulty reasoning. Writinglegend implied that the military cooperation was my doing, and that's demonstrably not the case. Though yes, I fostered the military cooperation during my MoMA term, because I thought it was in TSP's interest to do so. I explained it in my campaign, had a long debate about it with (among others) Belschaft (not a friend of the "Defenderist" cause by any means), and got elected on that basis. It's one reason why, through the Imki/Roavin/Vietnam terms, SPSF has become, while not the biggest, certainly the most active and competent GCR military around today.

The issue is that you are conflating the mere existence of TGW-TSP cooperation with its significant expansion as a deliberate choice under your tenure. Writinglegend said: "Roavin's political ascension within The South Pacific has been accompanied by cooperation with The Grey Wardens to an extent that previously never existed." That does not attribute the existence of TGW-TSP cooperation to you. Rather, it links your political ascent with the expansion of military cooperation between TGW and TSP. You admit that you fostered TGW-TSP military cooperation as Minister of Military Affairs and that this was a plank of your campaign for that position. TGW-TSP cooperation reached levels well in excess of TSP's prior cooperation with the FRA and the UDL.

In building that relationship with the pre-eminent Defender military, as opposed to an equivalent Raider organisation like TBH, you made an ideological choice with inevitable consequences for the sphere within which TSP military members' social interactions takes place and the region's long-term external position. Your reward for your efforts in TSP was gaining leadership of TGW which distinguishes you from Imki or Vietnam. As you have confirmed previously, it was your "work in The South Pacific which [...] laid the groundwork for [you] even getting offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens".

This raises the question of how The South Pacific has chosen to behave on occasions when conflicts have arisen between TNP and its defender partners.

Look at the invasion of Japan last month. The occupation was co-led and organised by The North Pacific. The South Pacific committed 11 updaters - including 3 joint TGW/SPSF units - which contributed to the successful 'liberation'/counter-invasion of Japan. Following the 'liberation', the Grey Wardens released an update in which they boasted about "Europeia and the North Pacific, strolling into America's the Wardens' backyard" only to be defeated. Faced with a direct choice between TNP and serving defender interests, TSP's instinctive reaction was to serve defenders. TGW, with senior TSP members in its leadership, then used the mission - made possible with the help of TSP - in order to claim a propaganda victory over TNP by name. Those are all facts.

And once again, what you don't understand is that for a region that is independent in the true sense of the word (i.e. not subjected to the seminal text of so-called "Independence"), not every operation has to be fulfilling a foreign policy objective, or automatically be an affront to the opposing party. In fact, the Aurora Alliance (TSP-TNP) expressly allows being on opposing side of an arbitrary R/D conflict.

Once again, you reveal your ideological crusade against Independence and illustrate that this is shaping the external behaviour of The South Pacific.

We know you hate Independence and The Independent Manifesto (or 'the seminal text of so-called "Independence"' as you put it). However, if The South Pacific was serious about its relationships with Independent regions, it would respect their ideological position, even where it is not technically obliged to do so. The North Pacific is not only a signatory of The Independent Manifesto; the primary author of the document was the then Delegate of TNP. If you were genuinely prioritising your relationship with TNP as much as with defender partners, then surely you would go out of your way to respect their beliefs in matters directly pertaining to their interests. Instead, TSP opted to prove a point based around the Defender sphere's hatred of Independence.

It is common place for treaties to include provisions specifying that engaging on opposites sides of a conflict in a third region shall not constitute aggression for the purposes of the treaty. That does not mean that it is welcome or helpful for one partner to use its military force to defeat another and claim a propaganda victory over them; it just means that such an action does not rise to the level of a treaty violation. Normally, allies try and help each other out beyond what they are required to do in the exact text of a treaty. That is how all the successful alliances my regions have been involved in have worked.

If you were prioritising your relationship with The North Pacific over relations with defender partners, you would not have opted to 'liberate' a TNP-led occupation in conjunction with the Grey Wardens, allowing TGW to boast about defeating TNP. That detracts directly from the welfare of TNP. A significant military defeat can undermine impressions of military strength crucial to foreign policy success and TGW's update did all it could to highlight it.

However, perhaps the most objectionable part of TGW's update was also the most revealing about the connection between TGW and TSP. TGW complained that "the independent and raider regions involved in the occupation of Japan were unaware of the need to go through the formal, legal process for being approved for occupation." Such rhetoric reflects that the objection of the defender establishment is ultimately to military independence. They object to sovereign regions performing military operations without their approval. The occupation of Japan did not meet their standards, despite TNP and Europeia's anti-griefing rules. By contrast, the earlier TNP-led occupation of The International Kingdom, which was performed jointly with The South Pacific, earned the defender stamp of approval to the point that a concerned native seeking their assistance was told that they should sit back and wait for the occupying forces to leave. That presents quite a contrast with the proactive effort to organise a 'liberation' against a mission without TSP support in Japan. The ultimate message being that Independent regions should only engage in defender-sanctioned raiding or TGW-TSP will pursue an offensive against them. Nothing could make it clearer that TGW and TSP threaten the sovereignty of any region which wishes to undertake offensive military operations.

TGW updates are routinely satirical. Obviously there isn't an application process to request permission to occupy a region with the Wardens. And you know all of this, so your use of that as a pretext is pure sophistry and renders your entire argument moot.

Satire can be an effective political weapon. Saying that your posts are satire hardly nullifies discussion about your underlying message. It seems that the Grey Wardens want to have it both ways. They want to be able to make whatever threats they like - with all the benefits which come from that - while disowning responsibility for their message. The fact that your arguments are made in satirical form hardly invalidates discussion arising from them.

The satire of the Grey Wardens gives us insight into their mentality.

No one has suggested that the application process referenced in TGW's update exists. Rather, it was a rhetorical device which reflected the long-held presumption of the Defender sphere that they have the exclusive right to determine which military operations are legitimate or not. It is ironic that you accuse me of "pure sophistry" while at the same time disingenuously pretending that my argument comes down to whether such an application process actually exists. The Grey Wardens used the existence of such an application process as a metaphor for their stamp of approval. Look at the contrast between natives being told to wait out the invasion of TIK and the proactive effort to liberate Japan. Both operations were co-led by TNP, but one with TSP and the other with Europeia. The differing treatment in these cases shows how TGW's rhetoric reflects their thinking and has shaped their practice.

[The Greatest Bestest Nation]

The Grey Wardens used the existence of such an application process as a metaphor for their stamp of approval.

I think you overestimate how much effort TGW puts into their shitposts.

[Onderkelkia]

The Grey Wardens used the existence of such an application process as a metaphor for their stamp of approval.

I think you overestimate how much effort TGW puts into their shitposts.

I think you overestimate how much effort it takes to use one thing to represent another.

TGW say they are producing satire. It's almost inherent that some sentences will have meanings which don't match those literally expressed.

[Ikania]

Satire can be an effective political weapon. Saying that your posts are satire hardly nullifies discussion about your underlying message. It seems that the Grey Wardens want to have it both ways. They want to be able to make whatever threats they like - with all the benefits which come from that - while disowning responsibility for their message. The fact that your arguments are made in satirical form hardly invalidates discussion arising from them.

The arguments are not made because there is no argument to be made. The update in question was pure humor with no underlying ideological agenda whatsoever, and you will not, and are not being taken seriously when you try and dissect it as intricately written propaganda. It was an artfully trashy shitpost I wrote at 3 in the morning after a night of doing nothing and in advance of having to wake up at 6:30. If I wanted to insert a subversive message and make threats towards other regions, sabre rattling about destroying them and conquering their lands to my satisfaction... well, first, I'd be an Imperialist, but second, I would've done it in a much more clever way than pasting a Wardens logo onto the cover for a Scorpions single.

No one has suggested that the application process referenced in TGW's update exists. Rather, it was a rhetorical device which reflected the long-held presumption of the Defender sphere

No, it isn't.

that they have the exclusive right to determine which military operations are legitimate or not.

No, we don't.

It is ironic that you accuse me of "pure sophistry" while at the same time disingenuously pretending that my argument comes down to whether such an application process actually exists. The Grey Wardens used the existence of such an application process as a metaphor for their stamp of approval.

There is no stamp of approval to be taken or given away. The raison d'etre of the Grey Wardens is to liberate conquered regions and defend other regions from being conquered in the first place. If a region is raided, unless there is a particularly good reason not to liberate it, it will be targeted for liberation. This is not an arrogant presumption of supremacy. This is not pretentious bragging about our moral superiority and authority to determine the means and justifications acceptable in R/D. This is gameplay, in its most raw and simple form. Imperialists, and to that extent, raiders, have no right to claim defender malignancy towards non-cooperators and brand them as some sort of threat- defender actions are in reaction to aggression on your part against the sovereignty which you so highly speak of. However, you have even less of a platform to stand on than the average raider would, should they choose to make these claims (and they don't; they get gameplay for what it is). Imperialists have seldom been a speck on the radar for defenders to have to deal with in recent times. You're comfortable sitting in your chair and rambling on about the defender threat while taking no action aside from subverting actual sovereignty in regions that are not yours in order to combat this imaginary threat. Perhaps there'd be more of a leg to stand on if Imperialists could actually get out and put up a fight every update.

The Grey Wardens used the existence of such an application process as a metaphor for their stamp of approval.

I think you overestimate how much effort TGW puts into their shitposts.

Precisely. Writing my update was a huge waste of time. I lost precious hours of sleep, hindering my attitude and energy in my daily life, where I deal with important RL things, just to hit a keyboard at random intervals every few minutes and pull stupid images off of the internet just to cobble together a low-quality shitpost that like thirty max strangers on the internet will chuckle at before going on with their daily business and forgetting all about it.

But hey, maybe it was worth it. Because the levels of salt that it seems to have generated by means of the most unintentionally lazy stupidity I've ever put into my NS career continues to prove that some people just don't get this game.

[Consular]

Do any of you even know how to trigger these days?

Yes, we know how to trigger. I actually teach a seminar on it in my capacity as Adjutant-General of the Imperial Army.

Well mark me down as impressed. Because from what I recall the LKE was terrible at anything but mindlessly piling.

[Onderkelkia]

Satire can be an effective political weapon. Saying that your posts are satire hardly nullifies discussion about your underlying message. It seems that the Grey Wardens want to have it both ways. They want to be able to make whatever threats they like - with all the benefits which come from that - while disowning responsibility for their message. The fact that your arguments are made in satirical form hardly invalidates discussion arising from them.

The arguments are not made because there is no argument to be made. The update in question was pure humor with no underlying ideological agenda whatsoever, and you will not, and are not being taken seriously when you try and dissect it as intricately written propaganda. It was an artfully trashy shitpost I wrote at 3 in the morning after a night of doing nothing and in advance of having to wake up at 6:30. If I wanted to insert a subversive message and make threats towards other regions, sabre rattling about destroying them and conquering their lands to my satisfaction... well, first, I'd be an Imperialist, but second, I would've done it in a much more clever way than pasting a Wardens logo onto the cover for a Scorpions single.

Who said anything about your propaganda being "intricately written"? It was quite unsubtle.

Satire has an underlying message that is revealing about the world view of its creators. That you were excitable with TGW-TSP's success in defeating TNP's invasion of Japan - and apparently not in the right frame of mind being up so late - means that you likely went further than you wish you had in retrospect.

No one has suggested that the application process referenced in TGW's update exists. Rather, it was a rhetorical device which reflected the long-held presumption of the Defender sphere

No, it isn't.

that they have the exclusive right to determine which military operations are legitimate or not.

No, we don't.

You presume this every time that you perform your own (counter-)invasions as a way of countering the invasions of others. Defenders conclude that that their purposes as more legitimate than those of the other parties involved, even though you were previously not a party to the conflict concerned.

The raison d'etre of the Grey Wardens is to liberate conquered regions and defend other regions from being conquered in the first place.

No, the raison d'etre of the Grey Wardens is defeating all those they deem "Raider" - a label which their members casually use for all those who perform invasions without their implicit consent. TGW has been about defeating "Raiders" from the start, hence the willingness to attack Raider regions.

The contrast between the handling of Japan and The International Kingdom confirms that.

Imperialists have seldom been a speck on the radar for defenders to have to deal with in recent times.

On the contrary, Defenders spend rather a lot of their time loudly complaining about Imperialists. They have done so since the LKE and TNI first emerged. The last few months have been no exception; if anything, only more intense. If our activities and words are so irrelevant, why are you so bothered?

The fact is you despise us far more than you do raider groups. You don't understand us because we defy your sectarian world view. We are Independent.

We fight our enemies on whatever plane is most appropriate. That includes the full spectrum of politics and is not limited to military operations.

[Roavin]

In building that relationship with the pre-eminent Defender military, as opposed to an equivalent Raider organisation like TBH, you made an ideological choice with inevitable consequences for the sphere within which TSP military members' social interactions takes place and the region's long-term external position. Your reward for your efforts in TSP was gaining leadership of TGW which distinguishes you from Imki or Vietnam. As you have confirmed previously, it was your "work in The South Pacific which [...] laid the groundwork for [you] even getting offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens".

It should be clear that in no way was me becoming First Warden a reward for work in SPSF. Rather, a new First Warden was needed and Benevolent Thomas did not see a fitting candidate amongst Warden-Commanders at the time, and therefore reached out to me - not as a reward, but based on merit.

Once again, you reveal your ideological crusade against Independence and illustrate that this is shaping the external behaviour of The South Pacific.

We know you hate Independence and The Independent Manifesto (or 'the seminal text of so-called "Independence"' as you put it). However, if The South Pacific was serious about its relationships with Independent regions, it would respect their ideological position, even where it is not technically obliged to do so. The North Pacific is not only a signatory of The Independent Manifesto; the primary author of the document was the then Delegate of TNP. If you were genuinely prioritising your relationship with TNP as much as with defender partners, then surely you would go out of your way to respect their beliefs in matters directly pertaining to their interests. Instead, TSP opted to prove a point based around the Defender sphere's hatred of Independence.

My dislike for the Independence Manifesto is separate of the opinion of others, defender or not; rather, I disagree with several facets on both a theoretical and practical level. Furthermore, I have had several cordial conversations with raiders who have also expressed agreement with my view, though they understandably are less vocal about it since they often are beneficiaries.

With regards to TNP, they certainly don't always follow the Manifesto party line. That's okay, though - TNP is a non-aligned entity in the truest sense, doing things in the way they find it to be in their best interest. That's the way it's supposed to be.

It's also what TSP is doing, by the way. It would be nice if somebody finally recognized that.

It is common place for treaties to include provisions specifying that engaging on opposites sides of a conflict in a third region shall not constitute aggression for the purposes of the treaty. That does not mean that it is welcome or helpful for one partner to use its military force to defeat another and claim a propaganda victory over them; it just means that such an action does not rise to the level of a treaty violation. Normally, allies try and help each other out beyond what they are required to do in the exact text of a treaty. That is how all the successful alliances my regions have been involved in have worked.

If you were prioritising your relationship with The North Pacific over relations with defender partners, you would not have opted to 'liberate' a TNP-led occupation in conjunction with the Grey Wardens, allowing TGW to boast about defeating TNP. That detracts directly from the welfare of TNP. A significant military defeat can undermine impressions of military strength crucial to foreign policy success and TGW's update did all it could to highlight it.

TSP didn't claim a propaganda victory. The Grey Wardens did their usual report, which included (as usual) those present for the operation, just like (say) The Roman Empire or The Black Hawks do, who also always credit those who participated (even if they are not, strictly, from their sphere).

Normally, allies try and help each other out beyond what they are required to do in the exact text of a treaty. That is how all the successful alliances my regions have been involved in have worked.

... obviously. I didn't realize this is something that needed to be said.

TGW updates are routinely satirical. Obviously there isn't an application process to request permission to occupy a region with the Wardens. And you know all of this, so your use of that as a pretext is pure sophistry and renders your entire argument moot.

Satire can be an effective political weapon. Saying that your posts are satire hardly nullifies discussion about your underlying message. It seems that the Grey Wardens want to have it both ways. They want to be able to make whatever threats they like - with all the benefits which come from that - while disowning responsibility for their message. The fact that your arguments are made in satirical form hardly invalidates discussion arising from them.

The satire of the Grey Wardens gives us insight into their mentality.

No one has suggested that the application process referenced in TGW's update exists. Rather, it was a rhetorical device which reflected the long-held presumption of the Defender sphere that they have the exclusive right to determine which military operations are legitimate or not. It is ironic that you accuse me of "pure sophistry" while at the same time disingenuously pretending that my argument comes down to whether such an application process actually exists. The Grey Wardens used the existence of such an application process as a metaphor for their stamp of approval. Look at the contrast between natives being told to wait out the invasion of TIK and the proactive effort to liberate Japan. Both operations were co-led by TNP, but one with TSP and the other with Europeia. The differing treatment in these cases shows how TGW's rhetoric reflects their thinking and has shaped their practice.

The real explanation regarding the "differing treatment" is much simpler, and requires no tinfoil hats or other conspiratorial thinking:

• Japan was invaded on a Saturday minor, and liberated 12 hours later on the Saturday night/Sunday morning major update, an update for which a call had been put out a week prior due to an LWU invasion (that LWU withdrew from the day before).
• TIK was invaded on a Sunday minor and quickly piled to 40+ endorsements on the point. Getting that many individual updaters together on a weekday (or leading into a weekday, for that following major update), especially without prior notice, is simply not feasible.

That's all it is.

The raison d'etre of the Grey Wardens is to liberate conquered regions and defend other regions from being conquered in the first place.

No, the raison d'etre of the Grey Wardens is defeating all those they deem "Raider" - a label which their members casually use for all those who perform invasions without their implicit consent. TGW has been about defeating "Raiders" from the start, hence the willingness to attack Raider regions.

(I should be posting this from Warden Roavin but I can't be bothered to switch nations right now - y'all know it's me anyway)

Tha raidon d'etre is indeed the defeat of the Darkspawn, but you are misrepresenting how the label is used. Individuals who are invading during a particular update may get labeled as Darkspawn for that particular update report; in that specific case it's used as a rhetorical device. Otherwise, the Darkspawn label applies only to proper raiders, such as members of TBH or TRE. TNP, TEP, TWP, The AA Alliance regions, etc. are all not considered Darkspawn, for example, and history can confirm that.

The contrast between the handling of Japan and The International Kingdom confirms that.

See above - it confirms nothing.

The fact is you despise us far more than you do raider groups. You don't understand us because we defy your sectarian world view. We are Independent.

Ironically, this is the same accusation I can levy at you with regards to the South Pacific. You don't understand us because we defy your sectarian world view. We reject any ideology, and therefore reject the ideology of "Independence", a supposed rejection of ideology (yet an ideology in and of itself, by virtue of having a seminal text). By not accepting the word of The Independent Manifesto or its commandments, we are heathens in your view — claiming to be all the good things that you claim only the good faithful "Independent" regions can be, and yet doing so without heeding the holy text, like having our cake and eating it too. Your only recourse is to throw the words "DEFENDER! DEFENDER! DEFENDER!" at us with all veracity that this medium allows you, because it's the one thing that currently sticks.

We are unaligned.

[Tim-Opolis]

Yes, we know how to trigger. I actually teach a seminar on it in my capacity as Adjutant-General of the Imperial Army.

Well mark me down as impressed. Because from what I recall the LKE was terrible at anything but mindlessly piling.

Given that I can't recall the last time the LKE led an occupation, and therefore would demonstrate their triggering ability, I'm marking myself as waiting to see the evidence.

Guys, this is fucking legendary.

Onder just took a TGW Shitpost seriously

This might be the event of the year, lads.

Nearly all TGW posts are of that low quality. That does not give TGW a pass to say anything they like without consequence.

I'm not sure if it's because you're out of touch, because you actually don't know what a shitpost is, or because you really feel motivated to continue this tantrum, but the fact that you are still taking our shitpost seriously only gets funnier with every post you're providing about it. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine our ability to shitpost would ascend to such a level that Big Daddy Imperialism is writing essays about it.

[Onderkelkia]

In building that relationship with the pre-eminent Defender military, as opposed to an equivalent Raider organisation like TBH, you made an ideological choice with inevitable consequences for the sphere within which TSP military members' social interactions takes place and the region's long-term external position. Your reward for your efforts in TSP was gaining leadership of TGW which distinguishes you from Imki or Vietnam. As you have confirmed previously, it was your "work in The South Pacific which [...] laid the groundwork for [you] even getting offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens".

It should be clear that in no way was me becoming First Warden a reward for work in SPSF. Rather, a new First Warden was needed and Benevolent Thomas did not see a fitting candidate amongst Warden-Commanders at the time, and therefore reached out to me - not as a reward, but based on merit.

If your work in The South Pacific had nothing to do with you becoming First Warden, why did you say that it was your "work in The South Pacific which [...] laid the groundwork for [you] even getting offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens"? If you are now claiming that there was no link of any kind between your selection as First Warden and your prior work in The South Pacific, then there is a contradiction between your past and present position. It is hardly credible for you distance yourself from your previous admission now you are desperately trying to deflect attention from links between TGW and TSP.

Perhaps you are arguing that your work in The South Pacific contributed to a merit-based assessment leading to your appointment as First Warden. However, even in a region as thoroughly disappointing as TSP, there are surely a number of people who undertake meritorious work of some kind. They don't get all offered the chance to lead the Grey Wardens as a result of their efforts. You therefore weren't chosen because your work in TSP was good. You were chosen because your work in TSP was good and pro-defender. There is no inconsistency between you being chosen on merit and it being a reward for your work.

You ran for election as Minister of Military Affairs on a platform of fostering cooperation with the premier defender military (as opposed to an equivalent Raider organisation). Cooperation with the Grey Wardens expanded to levels well above TSP's previous relationships with the FRA and the UDL. You were then selected as the First Warden of the Grey Wardens on the basis of your work in TSP. In real life, that would be regarded as unequivocally corrupt.

My dislike for the Independence Manifesto is separate of the opinion of others, defender or not; rather, I disagree with several facets on both a theoretical and practical level.

Your arguments against The Independent Manifesto stem entirely from long-standing ideological Defender critiques developed by Unibot. They aren't something uniquely created by you as an individual. Much like previous Defender organisations, the Grey Wardens has dedicated itself to the destruction of Independence. You are using The South Pacific as a tool for that by making foreign policy decisions based on Unibot's critique of Independence.

Furthermore, I have had several cordial conversations with raiders who have also expressed agreement with my view, though they understandably are less vocal about it since they often are beneficiaries.

I am sure you have spoken with Raiders who dislike Independence. It hardly sits well with their own world view anymore than it does with your world view. Independence is about rejecting the Raider tradition as well as the Defender tradition. Most sensible Raiders - such as the leadership of The Black Hawks - understand and respect our choices. Other Raiders, for example Coraxion in TBR, have been vocally critical of our Independence. We ignore them.

With regards to TNP, they certainly don't always follow the Manifesto party line. That's okay, though - TNP is a non-aligned entity in the truest sense, doing things in the way they find it to be in their best interest. That's the way it's supposed to be.

It's also what TSP is doing, by the way. It would be nice if somebody finally recognized that.

As far as I can see, the decisions of The North Pacific as an Independent region have always been entirely consistent with Independence.

It is notable that you wished to be seen as similar to The North Pacific, but that is hardly reflected by the facts. TNP has never participated in a defender 'liberation' of an occupation led by their allies such as Europeia or Balder (i.e. the equivalent of TSP's actions in Japan). The South Pacific doesn't follow their own foreign policy interests (which would mean respecting their allies). They follow an anti-Independent position which serves the aims of the Defender political project. The result has been that relations between TSP and several major non-Defender regions have broken down over the last year.

If The South Pacific wants to be seen differently, then it goes back to the point Akillian made to you earlier. You must change your behaviour.

It is common place for treaties to include provisions specifying that engaging on opposites sides of a conflict in a third region shall not constitute aggression for the purposes of the treaty. That does not mean that it is welcome or helpful for one partner to use its military force to defeat another and claim a propaganda victory over them; it just means that such an action does not rise to the level of a treaty violation. Normally, allies try and help each other out beyond what they are required to do in the exact text of a treaty. That is how all the successful alliances my regions have been involved in have worked.

If you were prioritising your relationship with The North Pacific over relations with defender partners, you would not have opted to 'liberate' a TNP-led occupation in conjunction with the Grey Wardens, allowing TGW to boast about defeating TNP. That detracts directly from the welfare of TNP. A significant military defeat can undermine impressions of military strength crucial to foreign policy success and TGW's update did all it could to highlight it.

TSP didn't claim a propaganda victory. The Grey Wardens did their usual report, which included (as usual) those present for the operation, just like (say) The Roman Empire or The Black Hawks do, who also always credit those who participated (even if they are not, strictly, from their sphere).

The South Pacific enabled the Grey Wardens to claim their propaganda victory over TNP with those 11 updaters. You cannot disclaim responsibility for it.

If TSP is unhappy with how TGW reported their operation, then they should take action against it. If not, then we know that TSP is content for TGW to use their military resources as a foundation for propaganda which TSP itself is uncomfortable with. That is hardly following your own foreign policy interests.

Normally, allies try and help each other out beyond what they are required to do in the exact text of a treaty. That is how all the successful alliances my regions have been involved in have worked.

... obviously. I didn't realize this is something that needed to be said.

Apparently it does need saying to you or else you would have acted differently in Japan.

Satire can be an effective political weapon. Saying that your posts are satire hardly nullifies discussion about your underlying message. It seems that the Grey Wardens want to have it both ways. They want to be able to make whatever threats they like - with all the benefits which come from that - while disowning responsibility for their message. The fact that your arguments are made in satirical form hardly invalidates discussion arising from them.

The satire of the Grey Wardens gives us insight into their mentality.

No one has suggested that the application process referenced in TGW's update exists. Rather, it was a rhetorical device which reflected the long-held presumption of the Defender sphere that they have the exclusive right to determine which military operations are legitimate or not. It is ironic that you accuse me of "pure sophistry" while at the same time disingenuously pretending that my argument comes down to whether such an application process actually exists. The Grey Wardens used the existence of such an application process as a metaphor for their stamp of approval. Look at the contrast between natives being told to wait out the invasion of TIK and the proactive effort to liberate Japan. Both operations were co-led by TNP, but one with TSP and the other with Europeia. The differing treatment in these cases shows how TGW's rhetoric reflects their thinking and has shaped their practice.

The real explanation regarding the "differing treatment" is much simpler, and requires no tinfoil hats or other conspiratorial thinking:

• Japan was invaded on a Saturday minor, and liberated 12 hours later on the Saturday night/Sunday morning major update, an update for which a call had been put out a week prior due to an LWU invasion (that LWU withdrew from the day before).
• TIK was invaded on a Sunday minor and quickly piled to 40+ endorsements on the point. Getting that many individual updaters together on a weekday (or leading into a weekday, for that following major update), especially without prior notice, is simply not feasible.

That's all it is.

Over the years, I have organised numerous occupations which have started on weekdays or leading into a weekday. Regardless of the time that an occupation begins, strangely enough, the moment that the TNI/LKE/UIAF flag went up, Defenders would stop like nothing to rally forces. Of course, they would never succeed - not since a lone instance in November 2009 has any occupation under my command ever been 'liberated' - but they would make every effort. Defenders would seek to rally native opposition even where both the natives and the defenders themselves thought the cause was hopeless.

Defenders don't normally tell natives in ongoing occupations that "All you can do right now is sit, wait, and make sure you are polite" or that "Luckily for you, the force occupying your region isn't interested in griefing it." Telling natives that they are lucky is not normally defenders' first reaction to a raid.

Once we put the differing treatment together with the rhetoric in your update, it is clear what TGW's underlying feeling is. TGW's position is that defender-sanctioned raiding is fine; rather, it is only when Independent regions have the temerity to raid without their consent that TGW and TSP get really angry. If the Grey Wardens don't want to be associated with such offensive thoughts, then they should keep such language out of their updates in future.

No, the raison d'etre of the Grey Wardens is defeating all those they deem "Raider" - a label which their members casually use for all those who perform invasions without their implicit consent. TGW has been about defeating "Raiders" from the start, hence the willingness to attack Raider regions.

(I should be posting this from Warden Roavin but I can't be bothered to switch nations right now - y'all know it's me anyway)

Tha raidon d'etre is indeed the defeat of the Darkspawn, but you are misrepresenting how the label is used. Individuals who are invading during a particular update may get labeled as Darkspawn for that particular update report; in that specific case it's used as a rhetorical device. Otherwise, the Darkspawn label applies only to proper raiders, such as members of TBH or TRE. TNP, TEP, TWP, The AA Alliance regions, etc. are all not considered Darkspawn, for example, and history can confirm that.

All that history shows is that (1) TGW is flexible in how it applies the "Darkspawn" label in different contexts and (2) senior members of TGW are on the record saying that any region that raids without cause (as they see it) is Raider. The Grey Wardens believe that Independence is a sham. Given that is your position, how can Independent regions be asked to accept that TGW will view them as Independent, not Raider, if and when an opportunity to strike arises?

Tim-Opolis, for example, is on the record saying that he is just waiting for the LKE to go founderless to torch us - a remark he made while serving as High Constable of the Grey Wardens. It is crystal clear that TGW will exploit the military opportunities available to it and that it reserves itself the right to clasify regions as "Darkspawn" or not to suit its political agenda. The Grey Wardens assure Independent regions that you mean no ill will now, in the hope of gaining tolerance and acceptance from the trusting and those who are willing to bend themselves to your will, but it is likely that you would turn on Independent regions if a suitable opportunity arose and they had displeased you. We would be very foolish indeed to tolerate TGW given that risk.

The fact is you despise us far more than you do raider groups. You don't understand us because we defy your sectarian world view. We are Independent.

Ironically, this is the same accusation I can levy at you with regards to the South Pacific. You don't understand us because we defy your sectarian world view. We reject any ideology, and therefore reject the ideology of "Independence", a supposed rejection of ideology (yet an ideology in and of itself, by virtue of having a seminal text). By not accepting the word of The Independent Manifesto or its commandments, we are heathens in your view — claiming to be all the good things that you claim only the good faithful "Independent" regions can be, and yet doing so without heeding the holy text, like having our cake and eating it too. Your only recourse is to throw the words "DEFENDER! DEFENDER! DEFENDER!" at us with all veracity that this medium allows you, because it's the one thing that currently sticks.

We are unaligned.

Independence is a rejection of the traditional Raider/Defender dichotomy in favour of following a region's material self-interest. It's not a rejection of having any kind of foreign policy framework; it does not not deny being a foreign policy framework, albeit one which emphasises each region's self-interest. When representatives came together from regions such as Europeia, TNP, Balder and the LKE to draft the Manifesto, they were merely codifying their existing practice. Your own objections to The Independent Manifesto are ultimately grounded in the long-standing critiques of Defender ideologues.

The South Pacific is not unaligned. Rather, it is in the pockets of the Defender political establishment to a much greater extent than the LKE, Europeia or Balder have ever been linked with Raider regions at any point in our history. In opposing Independence, TSP is dutifully doing TGW's bidding.

[Tim Stark]

In opposing Independence, TSP is dutifully doing TGW's bidding.

Sounds to me like TSP is just avoiding having to do your bidding. Believe it or not, not everyone is interested in subscribing to your backwards ideology.

Some of us see actual ways to be independent, rather than "Independent within the range of Daddy Onder's leash"