The Land of Kings and Emperors Embassy

[Consular]

How many times have you told us that whenever Solorni posts something ill considered, which is relatively often, she doesn't necessarily officially represent Balder's views, despite being the Queen of Balder?

Perhaps I will one day learn to be a good Queen. I will read 1950s housewife guides to improve myself to your standards so that I can perform to your satisfaction.

You'll notice I never said you weren't a good Queen.

Just that you have personal opinions, and that means Onder isn't allowed to complain when other people are allowed them as well.

[The North Polish Union]

Neither the LKE as a region, nor l as an individual, have any further time for addressing the incoherent ramblings of Ikania, the petty vendetta of The North Polish Union or the unreasoned discourtesy of Consular. We have set out our position on the substantive issues raised and we're happy with our case as we have presented it. If they or any other enemies of the LKE are less content with the situation, then that is tough for them. We have nothing further to add.

"Our failure to challenge [opposing] positions would be interpreted as a sign of weakness by (already-aligned) gameplayers" - Onder Kelkia - 19 September, 2017

[Wolfram and Hart Founder]

Altmoras is a senior officer of the Grey Wardens and I don't think it is unreasonable to take his reaction as representative of their organisation. The quote has to be placed in context alongside the differing scale of the actual military response to TIK and Japan, and the rhetoric used in TGW's update. Viewed in isolation, each piece of evidence might seem a little meagre, cumulatively they offer clear and convincing insights into TGW's attitudes.

How many times have you told us that whenever Solorni posts something ill considered, which is relatively often, she doesn't necessarily officially represent Balder's views, despite being the Queen of Balder?

It must be nice to live in a world where standards only apply to other people.

Neither the LKE as a region, nor l as an individual, have any further time for addressing the incoherent ramblings of Ikania, the petty vendetta of The North Polish Union or the unreasoned discourtesy of Consular. We have set out our position on the substantive issues raised and we're happy with our case as we have presented it. If they or any other enemies of the LKE are less content with the situation, then that is tough for them. We have nothing further to add.

Oh my god are you actually giving up? That would be the day.

also "unreasoned discourtesy" should be the name of my autobiography

Pretty sure that has to do with the fact that the power of the Queen in directing the actions of Balder as a region are very small. It would be like saying Lethen runs Europeia rather than the President - no one holds Lethen's comments against Europeia the way people have tried to hold Rach's against Balder.

EDIT: What the bloody heck? I switched nations!

-This is Kylia

[USS Monitor]

I didn't respond to your post because I was completely and utterly unimpressed as I am now. You're going to have to try a bit harder. Or will you start comparing your achievements in your region to my own in Balder's again? That surely demonstrates your knowledge of this game.

Not that I ever tried to compare those things. I was skeptical at first, but maybe you really have forgotten what happened just six pages ago...

FWIW, a lot can happen in 6 pages the way some people in this thread post. The text walls are incredible.

[Ikania]

I would suggest the Queen of Balder kindly refrain from mocking my and my community's efforts to liberate our region that she had a hand in helping to oppress and instead pick up substantive debate instead of making tasteless jeers.

I helped form early Independentism and quite often debated it with people like Unibot at the height of the UDL. But yeah, I do think you should focus on region building. You're arguing against an ideology that has helped build some of the most successful regions in the game. Also, I do not think I should refrain from critiquing your actions. On multiple occasions I told you that you should do what is best for your community and on each occasion you decided against it. Just look at all the other regions split asunder and all those members who never came back to the game because of it. But alas, it's all about personal glory rather than the benefit of the community.

I am not arguing against Independence, which you would know if you had read what I had to say. I am outlining the false premises of claiming a monopoly on the concept of gameplay independence by the founders of Independentist doctrine. And you have no right to tell me what I should and should not have done for my community. I had the spine to stand up to reactionary tyranny and fight for the rights of our people to govern themselves in our home region. I will not retreat into a shell when my views are challenged. The region was split asunder by power-hungry autocrats and I will have none of this nonsense in a thread that simply does not pertain to the issue.

As to Onder- I am not in a position to guess the motives of the West Pacific, however it would seem to me that the contention stems from the events in Lazarus, where my opinion on such motivations for cutting ties is immediately clear. Osiris does not surprise me, although I was unaware, it is unfortunate that they would continue to buy into the hype, but I guess it is what it is. Europeia is another matter entirely. It seems to me like the treaty cutting was rather amicable, and the two regions do not suffer mutually hostile relations or prohibitions on citizenship, though you're free to correct me. And don't even bother to mention Lazarus- it is nothing but a hollow puppet state at the moment.

I don't think we can make any assumption either way regarding TNP's view of TSP's actions over the invasion of Japan. If they had such concerns, I doubt that they would make them public in the first instance, as they are a highly professional region. Roavin was silent on this subject.

Then I welcome input if either side has a correction to make, however it appears to me that TSP and TNP enjoy a rather healthy relationship at the moment unless there's something I'm missing.

Apropos Writinglegend:

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

And I quote, from your quote. This is nothing disagreeable. Roavin's tenure as a leader within TSP has resulted in close cooperation with the Wardens. No one is going to deny that. This does not, however, get to the core of the real argument that you attempt to make that there is some kind of malignant defender subversion in TSP. In other news, the sun is hot, the sky is blue, it's beautiful, and so are you. Each of your 'relevant posts' have already been addressed by either me or some other friendly fellows.

Furthermore, I don't ever expect you to stop opposing the Grey Wardens and the supposed subversive agenda we have against independence- what would surprise me is if you put up meaningful opposition instead of being content to watch as we dominate R/D without lifting a finger to contest it. At least raiders can muster active updating forces on the regular.

there is a dictionary word 'independent', but it is distinct from the NS gameplay concept of Independence/independence, which is associated with a foreign policy framework based around rejection of the Raider/Defender spectrum in favour of an approach on regional interests. When the word 'independent' is used in the context of NationStates gameplay, it is nearly always a reference to rejection of the Raider/Defender dichotomy and not to the dictionary definition. I don't think gameplayers are in any danger of mistaking the two. If you are using the word 'independent' with just its dictionary definition, it is not any basis for addressing the kind of policy issues that independence addresses in rejecting the Raider/Defender dichotomy. The dictionary word 'independent' is not an alternative mode of thinking to Independence. It is reasonable to define independence as a gameplay term according to how it has been practised by the leading regions which have historically identified as independent. The Independent Manifesto does that.

Then we are in agreement on the practical definition of Independence. It would seem pointless to argue for or against the merits of codifying Independence, although I would be happy to discuss it more, it seems to be irrelevant to the contextual application of the term concerning this argument. The Independent Manifesto is a fine document with well written draws and flaws. But at the end of the day, the term 'independent' is what we make of it. Applied to NS, independence seems to have a simple meaning in everyone's eyes. Attempting to control it and monopolize the use of the word, as you have so enthusiastically argued for on false premises, is simply wrong.

Rather, our argument is that TSP is under the controlling influence of the Defender sphere and in particular the Grey Wardens, rather than following their region's own self-interest.

You lose me here. Dual loyalties exist all across NS. Roavin occupies his positions as Prime Minister of TSP and as First Warden. Likewise coming from the Emperor of LKE and the Statsminster of Balder. The people of the South Pacific are largely still what they were before this supposed defender subversion. The defender-leaning politicians were elected on their own merits with their own ideas of how to serve the region. Under this period of close defender cooperation, while still maintaining, to their benefit, official non-alignment, the South Pacific seems to be enjoying a golden age of activity and GP influence, not to mention vitesse on the R/D field. If the Grey Wardens were a parasitic sap on South Pacifican activity, utilizing the GCR solely to advance its political aims, then there would be an actual problem. However, the foreign policy of TSP is quite clearly outlined and separate from the military policy of the Grey Wardens.

It would seem to me that any argument from you about ideological influence on TSP is an entirely moot point- the entire government of Balder is dominated by political figures from LKE and aligned regions/ideologies. TSP may in your eyes serve as a vehicle for Warden interests, but if it were, it wouldn't be any more than Balder is. So who would you be to argue that you have the best interests of your GCR at heart while they do not? Balder's actions regarding Albion and Lazarus certainly reflect an ideological bend inconsistent with real independence, instead opting to slant for what benefits the ruling clique and makes them the most allies.

The LKE has worked with raider regions, but they have never had any kind of controlling influence over our activities.

And don't even give me any of this. The LKE is the controlling influence and it would be a fool who would meaningfully take up this poorly constructed strawman.

Given the anti-independent agenda of the Grey Wardens - who are determined to undermine independent regions and attack the entire concept of independence as it is incompatible with ideological Defenderism - TSP's subjugation to TGW also constitutes a threat to other independent regions.

There exists no anti-independent agenda. Members of our ranks, to cite par exemple myself or Roavin, have various qualms about Independentism as an ideology and the doctrine behind it. But that does not in any way indicate a stance that is, a. against the independence of regions and their right to reject the traditional R/D paradigm or b. against any GCR's community and their right to identify as they wish. Our desire is not to undermine independent regions because they are independent- we defend for defending and if that serves the purpose of undermining in the process of defending, then so be it. We liberate occupied regions from raiders, we lib from imperialists (well, we would if you bothered to take over something), we lib from independents, as with the case in Japan. Hell, if other defenders wanted to be edgy like us and take over random regions, we'd probably lib them too for the fun of it. Not that I'm an authority on TGW policy in that particular area.

The Grey Wardens have consistently proved to pose no threat to the sovereignty or community of any GCR, or active UCR aside from "for the lols" trampling of random, inactive trophy colonies. I would argue their greatest crime against sovereignty would be staying neutral in the Lazarus conflict instead of coming to the aid of the community. And even that is on a basis of principle- no interfering in GCR business. Would you look at that, the Wardens did exactly what you would want them to do in this situation, but that doesn't change a thing, does it?

I expect, if there is to be a response, the usual whining- they smashed a dead trophy colony of Osiris once (which, as we all know, is the responsibility of the tyrant you are backing in Lazarus), or whatever other supposed argument there is like Benevolent Thomas yelling about destroying raider regions. No one buys that anyway, and you'd see nothing less done to us even without that being a de jure policy. The same old tripe.

Your 'no comment' is a simple lack of will to continue reasoned debate over important issues. When the propaganda runs out and your flawed logic is pointedly dismantled, there is nothing left to fall back on but excuses. The firm independence of TSP has been established in principle as is their right to work with whatever military partners may benefit their region- and that's exactly what they have done. You can't have your cake and eat it too- either this is perfectly in line with your own stances and actions as the simultaneous chieftan of LKE and Balder, or you yourself are in flagrant violations of the principles of Independence, as is the South Pacific, which doesn't even ascribe to a document which holds little sway with people who didn't sign onto it.

[Consular]

How many times have you told us that whenever Solorni posts something ill considered, which is relatively often, she doesn't necessarily officially represent Balder's views, despite being the Queen of Balder?

It must be nice to live in a world where standards only apply to other people.


Oh my god are you actually giving up? That would be the day.

also "unreasoned discourtesy" should be the name of my autobiography

Pretty sure that has to do with the fact that the power of the Queen in directing the actions of Balder as a region are very small. It would be like saying Lethen runs Europeia rather than the President - no one holds Lethen's comments against Europeia the way people have tried to hold Rach's against Balder.

EDIT: What the bloody heck? I switched nations!

-This is Kylia

Yes that is the empty excuse Onder usually cites.

The title Queen is inherently representative.

[Roavin]

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.

Of course it was because the work was good and pro-defender (in the sense of defending, not in the sense of some "Defender agenda"). Why would TGW approach somebody who did good work in TSP espousing a raider ideology? Furthermore, I've always worn my preference for defensive operations and outreach on my sleeve.

I ran for election as Minister of Military Affairs on a platform of fostering cooperation with defender militaries (as opposed to raider organisations), and won on that platform. Cooperation with, among others, the Grey Wardens expanded to levels well above TSP's previous relationships with the FRA and the UDL (obviously). I was then approached to become the First Warden of the Grey Wardens on the basis of my work in TSP. Where is that, in any way, corrupt?

(In fact, I refused to enter active duty as First Warden until late February when my term in TSP ended)

You're grasping at straws, and trying to paint something as nefarious that is obvious.

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.

Oh look, the Unibot card!

My criticisms aren't unique, sure (even my specific critique of the Manifesto's glorification of gameplay regions has been said many times before I was even founded) but that doesn't mean it comes from an ideological party line. It's just an inherently manipulative document that's given more credence than it deserves, that's all.

You're claiming the Order is dedicated to the destruction of Independence - a laughable claim. You have not, and cannot, substantiate that claim. You have not, and can not, substantiate your claim that my service to TSP is anything other than benign and for its interests either (and I resent that statement).

You are, once again, grasping at straws. Out of substantive arguments, you revert to drawing the Unibot card and making wild accusations.

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.

Operation: Hypernova House comes to mind.

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.

The South Pacific wants to be seen as what it is, and not as the caricature that Imperialists and Manifesto-Thumping Independents keep painting. This is why I keep arguing.

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.

We're a bit more realistic about our possibilities now. Invade on a Sunday minor and pile to 40+ without a suitable native lead means there is no chance for a quick liberation, unless it's maybe Christmas holidays. That should be obvious to anybody with remote gameplay involvement. With regards to Altmoras' statement, I also have told natives it's best to sit and wait it out before in such cases (ones that did not have TSP involvement, even). It's not a matter of choosing what's important or not, it's being realistic and honest, and not giving a false sense of hope, to natives in distress.

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.

And would LKE not be delighted to torch TGW? Be honest.

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.

Wonderful. Then let's put it this way: TSP also rejects the traditional dichotomy, but also rejects that foreign policy framework and several other nuances present in the Manifesto (such as, as I stated earlier, the glorification of gameplay regions).

The rest (that I have left unquoted) is just the same straw-grasping as earlier.

My point being, make all the shitposts you want, but you know full well Onder will take them seriously, so stop pretending to be surprised or shocked by him doing that. I don't get shocked or surprised when you or any of the other leaders of TGW make a tasteless shitpost (apart from Roavin. Haven't seen many true shitposts from him. Might be why he's the on TGW person I'd actually ever want to have a conversation with)

Erm ... I've done a bit of shitposting. Like here, or here (makin fun of KGB in the text and KAISERREICH in the dispatch, a double whammy), or maybe here, and I guess this post counts as well, and ... well, if I mention that, I also have to mention this bit of fun >_>!

I'll leave it up to you to decide if they are tasteless or not

The distinction between between capital I and lower case i Independent/independent is an entirely bogus one that has been manufactured by Defender enemies of Independence/independence in order to discredit the ideology.

There is a demonstrable distinction, which I will get to in a moment.

There is no real separation between Independence as outlined in the Manifesto and any genuine rejection of the Raider-Defender dichotomy in favour of a foreign and military policy based on material self-interest.

Yes there is, for several reasons, but I'll name one specific one: Manifesto-Independents are required by creed to glorify gameplay regions over non-gameplay regions, while a regular unaligned/"lower-case i independent" region may or may not do so. This isn't just a hypothetical, but a practical issue. Europeia, the archetype and model of a Manifesto-loyal Independent region, had no issue attempting at least one raid on the formerly founderless European Union while sharing foreign embassies with them (in fact, that embassy was renewed a mere 2 months prior). Would this have happened if EU had been a gameplay region?

There is nothing problematic about independent regions working with defender regions when it is in their interests to do so and nowhere have I sought to maintain otherwise.

Maybe it's in the South Pacific's interest to work with defender regions? Afterall, they elected somebody who campaigned on that with good reasons and predictions that turned out to be true. The SPSF isn't the biggest force, amongst GCRs, but certainly the most active and the most competent. TSP is also one of the least "Manifesto-Thumping" GCRs.

Our contention is not merely that TSP works with defender regions. Rather, our argument is that TSP is under the controlling influence of the Defender sphere and in particular the Grey Wardens, rather than following their region's own self-interest.

Then show it! Prove it! Demonstrate it! Make a case for it!

All the rhetoric, be it from you, from other LKE people, from Writinglegend or CSP, or anybody else, is directly reducible to "they work with defenders" or "they do defender stuff", and cite that as proof. Common-Sense Politics even went so far as to say anybody that doesn't "see" it lacks the skill. It's not just immensely pretentious, it's also a perfect non-argument: "If you don't see it, you don't get it. Trust me. I know, I'm smart, unlike you." Of course, not a single shred of actual proof that holds up to any reasonable standard of evidence has been provided by you, by CSP, by Writinglegend, by Solorni, or anybody else ever.

All you keep doing is yell "Defender" and "Unibot" and what have you. And of course, your sphere of Manifesto-Independents all believe that and equally yell at anybody you're yelling at.

Going back a few pages, since we have slightly drifted off-topic:

There are plenty of regions other than TGW who would be fitting villains if we wanted an enemy for cultural reasons. But the LKE isn't parochial. We're interested in the wider world. So we warned the free world of the TGW threat. Events in TSP and Lazarus have proven us right.

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.

I'm starting to understand. You don't need the Grey Wardens to actually have an agenda to be able to successfully oppose it. Your definition of successful opposition is, as far as I can tell, making your entire subgroup yell loudly about it, and hoping one or two other subgroups yell about it too. In that case, I wish you the greatest luck in that particular emergent metagame you've developed that neither I, nor TSP, nor the Order, have any interest in participating in.

[Kylia Quilor]

What the heck does 'glorification of gameplay regions even mean?'

[Alabaster Isles]

A little late to the party I am, I know.

Nonetheless, I couldn't help but raise my eyebrow on one small assumption that has been made.

In September 2017, I have no doubt that Albion's animosity towards me was heightened by the fact that the LKE and TNI had just terminated our alliances with Albion.

I would like to kindly point out to readers that this is entirely untrue. In fact, it is so far from the truth I am almost convinced I heard John Wilkins roll over in his grave.

[Solorni]

One of the points that Roavin tends to forget when debating people about the intentions of The Grey Wardens is that the FRA also was in this position before. FRA denied & denied that it had ill intentions and called people like Onder paranoid, misguided and mistaken. This was despite the fact that people like Onder were actually well aware of what actually was going on because they had a deep spy who had served as intelligence minister and Arch-Chancellor among other positions as part of Operation Biscuit. It would not surprise me if they similarly have already infiltrated The Grey Wardens and are actually truly aware of what TGW is really up to.

They used this intel to gently warn regions about clandestine FRA operations against them, while seeking to maintain their spy's position for as long as possible. Of course, it's a longer game but it wouldn't surprise me if TGW was already compromised in such a manner.

[Roavin]

One of the points that Roavin tends to forget when debating people about the intentions of The Grey Wardens is that the FRA also was in this position before. FRA denied & denied that it had ill intentions and called people like Onder paranoid, misguided and mistaken. This was despite the fact that people like Onder were actually well aware of what actually was going on because they had a deep spy who had served as intelligence minister and Arch-Chancellor among other positions as part of Operation Biscuit. It would not surprise me if they similarly have already infiltrated The Grey Wardens and are actually truly aware of what TGW is really up to.

They used this intel to gently warn regions about clandestine FRA operations against them, while seeking to maintain their spy's position for as long as possible. Of course, it's a longer game but it wouldn't surprise me if TGW was already compromised in such a manner.

Let's see some logs then. If Imperialists are truly aware of sinister intentions, I'm sure that can be proven.

But until that point, all you have is hot air, nothing more.

[Tim-Opolis]

It would not surprise me if they similarly have already infiltrated The Grey Wardens and are actually truly aware of what TGW is really up to.

Okay, let's play this hypothetical. So if TGW really did have its Deepest Darkest Secrets ®, it's going to be at a very secure level. While it's without a doubt that both Lieutenants and Constables are pretty involved within the leadership structure, the running of the organization is still ultimately in the hands of the General Staff. So, Rachel, feel free to inform us which of our Commanders might be an OnderKelkian spy?

Would it be Benevolent Thomas, Deadeye Jack, and Vincent Drake, long-time natives of European Union which Onder's sphere tried to raid? Roavin or Altmoras, with extensive trackable history, clearly non-Imperialist goals and actions, and far too little tolerance for bullshit to ever have to work in a department with Onder and NES? Myself, which I obviously couldn't be working for OnderKelkia because I am OnderKelkia?

If Onder and Pals are "truly aware of what TGW is really up to", let's see it. I don't know what we're up to, so it'd be real informative. Unless, like usual, the whole crew is full of hot air, no evidence, and clear insecurity and fragility built off of the fact that Imperialism's relevance relies on clinging to defender organizations that provide them with something to rally against.

What the heck does 'glorification of gameplay regions even mean?'

Regions actively involved in R/D Gameplay being perceived as superior and more viable partners than regions not actively involved in R/D Gameplay, I assume.

They used this intel to gently warn regions about clandestine FRA operations against them, while seeking to maintain their spy's position for as long as possible. Of course, it's a longer game but it wouldn't surprise me if TGW was already compromised in such a manner.

"clandestine FRA Operations against them"

Which ones were those? FRA didn't exactly have the capabilities and activity for "clandestine operations", unless you guys are about to pull some 2010 shit out of your ass as supposedly damning evidence or something.

[Belschaft]

I can't speak for Roavin, but I'd define the differences between an Independent and independent region as such;

1. A lack of interest in tedious ideological BS
2. A focus on NS as a game
3. No desire to create an "enemy" to establish a purpose for FA and mil GP

[Solorni]

I can't speak for Roavin, but I'd define the differences between an Independent and independent region as such;

1. A lack of interest in tedious ideological BS
2. A focus on NS as a game
3. No desire to create an "enemy" to establish a purpose for FA and mil GP

Going to have to say no. When you look at a region like Balder for example, it is probably one of least political regions and focused far less on NS as a game than most other main gameplay regions. Balder's general discord and discussions about OOC topics are infinitely more active than that of The South Pacific. The region is much more close on a personal level. BUT, The South Pacific government channels and discussions about NS are much more active and involved than Balder's. So the idea that Independent regions focus more on NS in a serious manner; is quite simply incorrect. I think it is fair to say that.

As Independence discusses; it's about expressing internal culture and values and that culture and values for Balder at least does not mesh with what you have just said at all.

[Catalyse]

BUT, The South Pacific government channels and discussions about NS are much more active and involved than Balder's.

To be fair, TSP's discord #foreign-affairs channel seems to have it's fair share of OOC chatter, as you can attest to.

[Belschaft]

I can't speak for Roavin, but I'd define the differences between an Independent and independent region as such;

1. A lack of interest in tedious ideological BS
2. A focus on NS as a game
3. No desire to create an "enemy" to establish a purpose for FA and mil GP

Going to have to say no. When you look at a region like Balder for example, it is probably one of least political regions and focused far less on NS as a game than most other main gameplay regions. Balder's general discord and discussions about OOC topics are infinitely more active than that of The South Pacific. The region is much more close on a personal level. BUT, The South Pacific government channels and discussions about NS are much more active and involved than Balder's. So the idea that Independent regions focus more on NS in a serious manner; is quite simply incorrect. I think it is fair to say that.

As Independence discusses; it's about expressing internal culture and values and that culture and values for Balder at least does not mesh with what you have just said at all.

I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or genuinely missed the point, but the amount of activity in government vs. general chans on Discord has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a region approaches NS and GP from the perspective of "this is a game".

[Kylia Quilor]

I can't speak for Roavin, but I'd define the differences between an Independent and independent region as such;

1. A lack of interest in tedious ideological BS
2. A focus on NS as a game
3. No desire to create an "enemy" to establish a purpose for FA and mil GP

Let's see... I'm an Independent-Imperialist and I (and Kantrias, which is also Imperialist) check every single box on your little list. So....

You're falling into the trap of letting Onder represent all of Independence.

[Ikania]

You're falling into the trap of letting Onder represent all of Independence.

It certainly seems that he's trying to. It's not a game I'm interested in playing.

[Ramaeus]

Just to get this straight: you guys are arguing over the difference between independent and Independent?

[Kyrusia]

The couper of peace: Considering your history of behavior across multiple accounts? We're escalating straight to a *** 3-day ban for spamming/baiting/flaming ***. You're lucky to not lose this account, as well.

This ban applies to you, the player, not simply this account. Any attempt to evade this ban will result in the deletion of this account as well as the evading account(s).

[Consular]

Just to get this straight: you guys are arguing over the difference between independent and Independent?

It's not quite as silly as it sounds. There are regions which are simply independent, as the word is traditionally understood, then there are regions which proscribe to an actual Independence dogma and ideology.

[Tim-Opolis]

I for one am curious to see which prominent GPer mysteriously stops posting for the next three days.

[Ramaeus]

It's not quite as silly as it sounds. There are regions which are simply independent, as the word is traditionally understood, then there are regions which proscribe to an actual Independence dogma and ideology.

Good explanation. But it's still silly. Extremist independents and independents might be more apt.

[Belschaft]

I can't speak for Roavin, but I'd define the differences between an Independent and independent region as such;

1. A lack of interest in tedious ideological BS
2. A focus on NS as a game
3. No desire to create an "enemy" to establish a purpose for FA and mil GP

Let's see... I'm an Independent-Imperialist and I (and Kantrias, which is also Imperialist) check every single box on your little list. So....

You're falling into the trap of letting Onder represent all of Independence.

I'm not suggesting that all Independent regions would reflect those distinctions, but I think it's a decent starting point; nothing more than that though.

In terms of how they operate I don't think there's much difference between Independent and independent regions, it seems largely a question of approach to Foreign Affairs and "stance" on R/D groups.

I'm sure if we listed all the big I and small i regions and compared them we could come up with a definitive list of differences, but that would be a correlation=/=causation fallacy.

The main problem I personally have with Independence these days is that it seems to require me to hate and fear Defenders and TGW in particular - I'm fairly sure this isn't mentioned anywhere in the Manifesto, but if the more moderate regions who signed it are going to stay quiet whilst Balder and LKE do all the talking/promotion then they're going to get attached to that kind of nonsense.

[Kylia Quilor]

TGW isn't exactly a friend to Independence or to regions that raid - it isn't as if there's any reason for Independent regions to be very friendly towards them. I don't consider them to be the "Capital E" enemy, but by their nature, they're kind of antithetical to the notion of using military action to advance regional interests, since they block basically all raids (except raids on "Darkspawn") whereas Raiders don't tend to be quite so absolutist.

I absolutely don't think you or TSP need to hate TGW or defenders as a whole (The FRA and UDL earned their hatred through their actions) and it isn't a required facet of Independence. It's just that most regions that are Independent have, for many reasons that have been debated to death, found themselves to have consistently unfriendly relations with most defender regions and orgs, so if you're going to ally with those other Independent regions...