[NEWS] Erudite Observer

[Consular]

This news agency wonders if perhaps The United Defender League should be retitled "The United Janitor League", as it seems today's defenders are only capable of mopping up after the invasion forces have abandoned the region.

This commentator wonders if perhaps the "Erudite Observer" should be re-titled the "Ex-parte Observer".

This commentator wonders if "Unibot III" enjoyed his total defeat.

[Erudite Observer]

Interview with Mallorea and Riva, The DENHawk Extraordinaire!
"Therefore, in order not to have to rob his subjects, to be able to defend himself, not to become poor and contemptible, and not to be forced to become rapacious, a prince must consider it of little importance if he incurs the reputation of being a miser, for this is one of the vices that permits him to rule." -Machiavelli

In my time and many discussions on NationStates, I've become accustomed to the frequent and contrarian viewpoints that Mallorea and Riva so often provides. A raider of no small note, and recently condemned in a rather hasty World Assembly Security Council Condemnation, Mallorea and Riva frequently provides the views and opinions that make up "the other side of the coin", for raiding and defending. Mallorea and Riva's frequent involvement in invasions often make him the most easy target to attack, but I've found that his concerns and comments show a thoughtfulness often lacking from many other members in NationStates. In the future, nations would be prudent to heed and acknowledge the arguments Mallorea and Riva makes, despite, or even because of his position and reputation. I was quite unhappy when I noted that the Security Council condemnation passed, and it does Mallorea and Riva a great disservice, containing many half-truths and grand assumptions. It's too late to turn back the clock now, but consider this at least a partial defense of Mallorea and Riva's past and actions, or at least, an explanation for them. Without further interruption, the contents of the interview:

Erudite Observer: I noticed your nation is named after places and characters from David Edding's fantasy works. Is this intentional? What books would you recommend to a first-time reader of his?

Mallorea and Riva: When I first joined NS I remember attempting to find a nation name that was not already taken. Needless to say, the struggle was real. My mind jumped from books to movies, and I believe I had just reread one of David Eddings' books. I could not get any of the nations from the Belgariad, so out of frustration I combined two of them. My recommendation would depend upon the age of the reader. Younger fantasy readers would enjoy the Belgariad and Mallorean sets, slightly older readers would probably prefer The Elenium and The Tamuli, while the oldest group may prefer a standalone novel such as the Redemption of Althalus. I haven't gotten around to reading his other works yet.

Erudite Observer: What initially got you involved in NationStates gameplay?

Mallorea and Riva: Ironically enough, Unibot. I originally started NS with a few college friends, hanging out in our own region and answering issues. Unibot contacted me as the WAD and asked if we would like to join the Eastern Islands of Dharma as a merge, offering an increased share in the regional vote or something along those lines. It was probably highly illegal as far as recruitment goes but hey it got me to move their once my friends stopped playing so I guess it was effective. Later Unibot would invite me to join the UDL, which is how it all started. That was July 22nd 2011.

Erudite Observer: Who originally recruited you into The Black Hawks? How long ago was that?

Mallorea and Riva: Now this is a tricky one. I wasn't really recruited into The Black Hawks. During tag raiding sessions I made it a habit to telegram the raiders just for the hell of it. I would carry on conversations with them over the course of several tags, and that is how I first met Rawr and Tramiar. I became friends with them and decided to give raiding a try on January 16th. By the next day I was an official member of TBH.

Erudite Observer: The recent security council condemnation against you cites you as using "the military tactics...which rank as some the most uniquely destructive and violent in the modern military world". What tactics is this referring to, and is the assertion true?

Mallorea and Riva: The Condemnation is referring to what is referred to as "griefing", the act of targeting and causing as much damage as possible to random healthy communities that exist in founderless regions. There is an underlying assumption that griefing is morally wrong, but then again there is an even more fundamental assumption that morality is right. The Condemnation is absolutely true in describing my actions. Personally I believe that a commendation would have been more appropriate.

Erudite Observer: I also noticed the security council condemns you for targeting long-standing delegates, but fails to explain why the length of delegacy is an inherently "good" thing, worth protecting. What is your stance on delegacy length? Are long-serving delegates good or bad for Gameplay, and NationStates in general?

Mallorea and Riva: Long standing delegates have something very unique that I treasure in a target: history. Once you destroy a piece of history it will never come back. The delegacy in Smallballia of 6 or 7 years will never be what it could have been, and will almost certainly never reach that length again. That is why I enjoy targeting them. Longstanding delegates *could* be either good or bad for Gameplay. It depends on the context. In your average founderless region it doesn't make much of a difference who the delegate is, they are largely irrelevant in the broader NS context. For feeders and sinkers though, I think that there is a very legitimate debate to be had on that topic. Essentially the question boils down to whether the NPO has been good or bad for NS, and I'm not interested in that debate right now.

Erudite Observer: The security council condemnation also notes your membership in DEN. What is the current status of DEN, and is your membership active?

Mallorea and Riva: Ah DEN... the current status of DEN is that it exists. It is obviously not currently active. Losing our Field Marshal really through us for a loop when it came to our activity. DEN is seemingly immortal however, so I wouldn't count it out anytime soon.

Erudite Observer: Out of all of the coups and invasions you have been involved in, which were the most fun, and why? Which do you regret, if any?

Mallorea and Riva: I regret nothing, except that I did not cause more destruction in some of my raids. The Eastern Islands of Dharma holds a special place in my heart due to the significance of the raid. Atheist Empire was my first ever operation as point, and I successfully rejected my first Lib attempt. The South Pacific was the most epic operation I have ever been a part of, and although it drove me temporarily insane everything worked out just fine.

Erudite Observer: What part of your career do you think is most misunderstood?

Mallorea and Riva: That is an interesting question. I really don't know, because I'm not overly familiar with peoples' opinions of me (although we just had something of a referendum on me). I try to be very straightforward with everything I do, I do not believe that there are any questions or thoughts about hidden agendas. My motivations have been clear from the moment I join TBH.

Erudite Observer: What question did I forget to ask?

Mallorea and Riva: You didn't ask the "why", but since that question is both the most pertinent and the most irrelevant, I will not fault you for that.

---

I would like to thank Mallorea and Riva for taking the time to answer all my questions, putting up with my slowness in response due to a small matter of zombies, and being a part of this interview.

[Venico]

Very good I'd also like to note that I enjoy your interview style. It allows the interviewee (who is the focus of the interview) to talk more freely and go where they feel it should go. I look forward to more.

[DWAsnia]

Firstly, an excellent interview. I've always wanted to see more interviews with raiders. Secondly, whoever Erudite Observer is, he/she must be crazy. After all, there are Machiavelli quotes for each article. (I remember one time in English class, my teacher saw me reading The Prince and jokingly called me a "slimy bastard")

Erudite Observer: I noticed your nation is named after places and characters from David Edding's fantasy works. Is this intentional? What books would you recommend to a first-time reader of his?

Mallorea and Riva: When I first joined NS I remember attempting to find a nation name that was not already taken. Needless to say, the struggle was real. My mind jumped from books to movies, and I believe I had just reread one of David Eddings' books. I could not get any of the nations from the Belgariad, so out of frustration I combined two of them. My recommendation would depend upon the age of the reader. Younger fantasy readers would enjoy the Belgariad and Mallorean sets, slightly older readers would probably prefer The Elenium and The Tamuli, while the oldest group may prefer a standalone novel such as the Redemption of Althalus. I haven't gotten around to reading his other works yet.

My main is named after a country from the Belgariad/Mallorean, and I was always curious why M&R would name himself after those two countries in particular. (The only way I could get it to make sense is if it had come from a fanfic.) The Belgariad/Mallorean are great. But I still like The Elenium/Tamuli even better. The Redemption is all that great, still a better than average book, but not as good as the other two. The Dreamers isn't as good either.

Mallorea and Riva: The Condemnation is referring to what is referred to as "griefing", the act of targeting and causing as much damage as possible to random healthy communities that exist in founderless regions. There is an underlying assumption that griefing is morally wrong, but then again there is an even more fundamental assumption that morality is right.

A very good point. As Delegate of a neutral region, I've always been interested in how raiders are construed as evil and defenders as righteous. I've found that a lot of raiders are actually pretty fun to be around and I can't get along all that well with defenders. Although this is interesting, it really has no bearing on whether or not which is the "right" thing, if there even is one.

[Ambroscus Koth]

The discussion of "the right thing to do" in NationStates is moot anyway. It's a game, there is no right or wrong. There are those on both sides who are deluded into thinking there are, unfortunately. Should people who play Counter-Strike strive to only play as the counter-terrorists? Do competitive Minesweeper players wonder to themselves if they're intruding on the bombs' personal space when they place flags?

[Mahaj]

The discussion of "the right thing to do" in NationStates is moot anyway. It's a game, there is no right or wrong.

In a game where people have freedom, that includes the freedom to create the notion of a right or wrong.

Why is your notion somehow superior to that of someone who believes there is a right or wrong? It's not.

[SkyDip]

I'm miffed I wasn't consulted on this piece covering...my piece.

EDIT: Also, what is this "rather hasty World Assembly Security Council Condemnation" business?

[Ambroscus Koth]

The discussion of "the right thing to do" in NationStates is moot anyway. It's a game, there is no right or wrong.

In a game where people have freedom, that includes the freedom to create the notion of a right or wrong.

Why is your notion somehow superior to that of someone who believes there is a right or wrong? It's not.

To create a notion of right and wrong and use that idea to lambaste an entire base of people and put another on a pedestal. Somehow, I can't see how your concept of morality is less offensive.

[Erudite Observer]

I'm miffed I wasn't consulted on this piece covering...my piece.

EDIT: Also, what is this "rather hasty World Assembly Security Council Condemnation" business?

There was no need to consult you. Your Condemnation was ratified by the body of the World Assembly, so it represents the views of the majority of the Security Council, not just you.

[SkyDip]

I'm miffed I wasn't consulted on this piece covering...my piece.

EDIT: Also, what is this "rather hasty World Assembly Security Council Condemnation" business?

There was no need to consult you. Your Condemnation was ratified by the body of the World Assembly, so it represents the views of the majority of the Security Council, not just you.

Hence the

But seriously - by all accounts, that was one of the slower moving pieces I've had in the SC. Easily the slowest since Repeal Commend TQOTD.

[Erudite Observer]

But seriously - by all accounts, that was one of the slower moving pieces I've had in the SC. Easily the slowest since Repeal Commend TQOTD.

Haste is not an absolute empirical measure, it is also the tone and nature of the condemnation and how it was presented. Regardless, I'll allow my readers to come to their own conclusions.

[The North Polish Union]

The discussion of "the right thing to do" in NationStates is moot anyway. It's a game, there is no right or wrong.

In a game where people have freedom, that includes the freedom to create the notion of a right or wrong.

Why is your notion somehow superior to that of someone who believes there is a right or wrong? It's not.

The real question is: Is this a game where we have freedom?

And who gives defenders a monopoly on the ability to create right or wrong anyway? If we're really given the freedom to create our own right or wrong, I can insist that defenderism is inherently immoral and a blight upon NS.

And why is your notion somehow superior to that of someone who believes there isn't a right or wrong in this game? It's not.

EDIT: Spelling

[Venico]

As discussed earlier in several IRC channels, there are two rules to every single game. Obey the rules that the game sets for you, but most importantly have fun. If the game allows it and it is fun, then you are right. If you're breaking the rules, or not having fun, then you are wrong. Those are the morals that should be set on every single game. If you're not having fun, find a way. That's what the game is about and that is the only "right" when it comes to this.

[Silver Seas]

As discussed earlier in several IRC channels, there are two rules to every single game. Obey the rules that the game sets for you, but most importantly have fun. If the game allows it and it is fun, then you are right. If you're breaking the rules, or not having fun, then you are wrong. Those are the morals that should be set on every single game. If you're not having fun, find a way. That's what the game is about and that is the only "right" when it comes to this.

[Unibot III]

No one is an absolute moral authority -- not even [violet], not for questions of what you ought to and ought not to do beyond what the rules say.

It was a failure of Ancient Defenderism to ignore this; when the griefing rules were dissolved (and replaced with a morally-neutral "Regional Influence"), a lot of popular Defenderists were quick to declare their own ethics bunk because God wasn't confirming they were right anymore.

Defenders are only correct about what is right and wrong as far as they can prove these Moral Truths. Moral truths are no longer etched into the sky, forever fixed -- they are discovered. Moral truth evolves from a well structured argument -- a constant social dialogue of what the NationStates player ought and, more commonly, ought not to do.

I disagree that the normative scope of NationStates stops at the Game's rules. A large part of the game is the philosophical question of what is right and wrong beyond the rules. Being a Nazi/Fascist? Not illegal. Being a forum destroyer? Not illegal in NationStates. Being an invader? Not illegal. Macedon? Not illegal. Being an Adspammer? Not illegal in the GCRs. Being a region poacher? Not illegal. Refounding Greece and holding it to poke quasi-racist statements against the natives for half a decade? Not illegal. Puppet stacking "super regions"? Not illegal. We all have a breaking-point where we just say.... a line has been crossed: "you've done something that is wrong, it's legal, but it's still.. wrong".

NationStates would look radically different if we all regularly did what is legal, but not "morally acceptable" among players. It would not be a pleasant place, by any means.

[Weed]

Please elaborate on what makes raiding fun, Ven. I mean all you are really doing is pressing a button and waiting to see if your trigger was accurate. What aspect of that makes it fun?

[Venico]

Please elaborate on what makes raiding fun, Ven. I mean all you are really doing is pressing a button and waiting to see if your trigger was accurate. What aspect of that makes it fun?

Personally? I love the power trip. I like deciding who stays in the region and who goes. I like seeing weeks of planning and preparation pay off. I love being on the edge of my seat every update, biting my lip to see if defenders come in and try to steal the region back. I also enjoy the camaraderie that is had during raids. Suddenly everyone is your brother and you're all just there...enjoying yourselves. People enjoy things differently mate, and I will never contest that. If someone likes to defend, go defend! If someone likes to raid, go raid! If someone likes the politics, go politicking! You a roleplay man? Well you guessed it, go roleplay! My point is that in a game of recreation, the only right thing is to have fun within the parameters set for you. Just enjoy, that's what recreation is for

EDIT: Oh we also came up with (in IRC) that if you can somehow manipulate this game and put food on the table and shelter above your head with it, then you can stop having fun. But if you're doing this for recreation, enjoy yourself.

[Weed]

My own personal opinion is that there is very little that is enjoyable in raiding, that is not just as present in defending. I think both sides have equal or comparable levels of "camaraderie" with maybe a slight difference now in that defender orgs are less capable than ever of cooperating. About the only reason I have ever been able to come up with for why invading is considered more fun than defending is that there are a group of people in every game that find it fun to thwart other players and interfere in what they were finding fun. I think your fun should end when it ruins the fun for someone else.

And I would agree with you, those who just came to this game for a nation simulation or roleplay site should be able to do just that, not have to constantly be on the lookout for someone to come in and start ejecting nations from their region.

[Venico]

My own personal opinion is that there is very little that is enjoyable in raiding, that is not just as present in defending. I think both sides have equal or comparable levels of "camaraderie" with maybe a slight difference now in that defender orgs are less capable than ever of cooperating. About the only reason I have ever been able to come up with for why invading is considered more fun than defending is that there are a group of people in every game that find it fun to thwart other players and interfere in what they were finding fun. I think your fun should end when it ruins the fun for someone else.

And I would agree with you, those who just came to this game for a nation simulation or roleplay site should be able to do just that, not have to constantly be on the lookout for someone to come in and start ejecting nations from their region.

If someone enjoys raiding, more power to them. You don't have to enjoy it, just as long as they do. It's your responsibility to find your own fun and work around that. And by your definition defenders could be seen as ruining the fun of raiders for people who came here for a nation raiding game. =P

My point is just to find a way to have fun, and if someone else's fun gets in your way...well go out there and find something just as enjoyable.

[Weed]

No, because raiders enter the game knowing about defenders and choose to play the R/D game. The raiders are aware and willing to play against defenders, as that is part of the fun. Natives do not share that willingness (usually, anyway) and do not get the enjoyment out of being the soccer ball in the game the rest of you are playing. And game or not, if a significant part of the enjoyment of something comes from frustrating someone, ruining their day, or in general be irritating just for the sake of it; then I am relatively disappointed when people choose to do it. That also isn't why any defender I know defends (though I would argue in some cases that is the net result of some things they do) so I would say that defending is preferable in that department, also.

There is a reason raiders don't go for Warzones. When a bully is at the beach it isn't fun to kick the sandcastles that were built with the so you could kick them down.

[Venico]

No, because raiders enter the game knowing about defenders and choose to play the R/D game. The raiders are aware and willing to play against defenders, as that is part of the fun. Natives do not share that willingness (usually, anyway) and do not get the enjoyment out of being the soccer ball in the game the rest of you are playing. And game or not, if a significant part of the enjoyment of something comes from frustrating someone, ruining their day, or in general be irritating just for the sake of it; then I am relatively disappointed when people choose to do it. That also isn't why any defender I know defends (though I would argue in some cases that is the net result of some things they do) so I would say that defending is preferable in that department, also.

There is a reason raiders don't go for Warzones. When a bully is at the beach it isn't fun to kick the sandcastles that were built with the so you could kick them down.

Listen mate, I'm not here to argue the morality of of raiding and defending. If you refer to my earlier post, you'll see that I advocate for a lack of such arguments. A game is a game is a game. If someone is having fun in the parameters of the game then they are fine. I'm not saying raiding is good, or defending is bad...in fact I'm saying the complete opposite! I'm glad you find defending preferable and you find some satisfaction in it. We can all have fun in this game and if someone is getting in the way of your fun like a defender stopping your raid, or a rogue delegate ejecting you, or being ganged up on in an RP...you need to find a way to have fun. It's your responsibility to find fun and have it.

I know I may sound repetitive but you seem to be missing my point. I understand that you think if someone blocks your fun that it is wrong. What I'm advocating for is saying that's not wrong. Nor is it right. It's a part of the game we play, and a part of every game people play. There are two universal "rights"when it comes to games. Staying in the rules and having fun. Those are when people are right. This isn't saying that defenders should stop defending because people are having fun. No, go out and have fun defending! This is something universal to everyone in NationStates, have fun. Enjoy your time here.

[Weed]

No one is here to argue the morality of raiding and defending. You can't argue the morality of raiding, or at least I've never seen an attempt of it that does even close to a good job. The argument of morality is and always has been if you choose to see morality or ethics in the game. You have taken the position that raiders always take, there is no morality. And I the position that the majority of non-raiders take, that morality does apply.

So essentially, you are indeed making the exact same moral defense of raiderism that has always been made.

[Mad Jack]

Most NSers don't take a moral issue on raiding at all.

[Venico]

I put forth an idea where everyone can enjoy the game. I point out the fact this is a game. I am not putting forth a reason why raiding is right, I'm saying that people should stop playing the game where they don't enjoy themselves. We're here to have fun. Try to. I don't care if that fun is RPing that you are a god of sex and wine. I don't care if it's spreading Nazi hate (which I will oppose but hey, they're having fun). I don't care if it's lounging about in a region and answering issues. My point is to HAVE FUN.

Now do you have the right to stop people's fun? Aye, as long as you follow game rules. Also I don't appreciate being lumped in with raiders as I've both raided and defended in my time here, and now sit rather neutrally playing politics and being WA immobile. Also I'd usually suggest moving on, because we're threadjacking...but we're not as this was argued in the interview, plus I'm having too much FUN! Haha, get it? See? I tied it in...? Never mind

[Weed]

Most NSers don't take a moral issue on raiding at all.

Well yes, that is true, I would guess most NSers only have a skin and bones idea of what raiding is, and in my experience say they don't know that much about it. What they don't know is there is not much more to know. What I meant is that most people get a feeling in their stomach that raiding is not good, that's why liberations always pass by a large margin.

And Ven, I do apologize for labeling you a raider, I have in my mind your name as a Black Hawk, but didn't realize you were not a raider anymore. Still, I have probably spent the equivalent of 2 days listening to Mall say exactly what you have just said, and have seem to recall Oliver and COE and other raiders saying similar things in the past, thus why I would consider the "it is legal, and it is fun, therefore I do" argument to be a "raider" one. And I have FUN by defending my own view of the game from such views. And so, in gameplay, I post on.