The False Independence - Principles for a New Lazarus

[Unibot III]

Yes, it does mix things up, Unibot. It conflates minimal military activity as a regional proposition with neutrality and with Independence. You are indeed guilty of vague-ifying it as well. Independence is a coherent set of beliefs about the pursuit of regional interests and isn't merely a proposition of staking some sort of R/D middle ground, nor is it not engaging in military activity at all. Military activity is one part of Independence, and hardly the core.

Not at all, since the very day that "Independence" has been uttered, it's been primarily associated with a boatload of ideological baggage -- a reflection of older player's beliefs on the state of R/D. Players from The Meritocracy, United Kingdom of Britain and Equilism among many others, saw what R/D was becoming and it informed a lot of what "Independence" is...

There's Independence and there is Neutrality, they are different. Independence proscribes that a region may need to use force arbitrarily, Neutrality proscribes that a region never needs to use force arbitrarily (in doing so, neutrality argues we ought to only defend allies and attack enemies).

These are two ways of thinking that extend from Realism in general: the idea that a region should pursue its own interests. When a group of realists got thinking about what their militaries should do (what was in their region's interests?) they split into two groups: Independents and Neutralists. Neutralism largely died out over 2012. Independence is starting to see signs of slowing down now.

(In all actuality, I think the creation of Independence and Neutrality kind of developed at the same time, parallel to one another -- and the greater political construct of realism came afterwards to more fully justify Independence and Neutrality. The development I've hypothesized is more or less to show how the hierarchy works; the actual development was likely a lot more fuzzy and involved a lot of retconning and repairing by subsequent theorists -- bearing in mind that the idea of Independence and Neutrality was converged upon by many different Gameplay Communities at the same time).

Thus, I would disagree that Independence and Neutrality are not primarily related to discussion on Military Philosophy. In fact, Independence and Neutrality are literally both schools of realism differing on exactly one issue: the value of arbitrary invasions or defenses.

[Silver Seas]

You use the term arbitrary as if it actually applies to what Independant regions do with their militaries. It doesn't

[Vampirates of the Blood Cave]

You use the term arbitrary as if it actually applies to what Independant regions do with their militaries. It doesn't

You use the term as if it didn't exist and have a meaning before you joined the game. It did.

[Unibot III]

You use the term arbitrary as if it actually applies to what Independant regions do with their militaries. It doesn't

I can see what you're getting at: that the use of "arbitrary" presupposes that the attack or defense of said regions cannot serve a greater interest to the subject.

I simply am using the term out of convenience to mean any case where the region you're invading or defending isn't an ally or an enemy. The Neutral sees the "arbitrary" as outside of the rational scope of the use of force, The Independent sees the "arbitrary" as inside the rational scope of the use of force -- but both are trying to determine what behavior is most rational (beneficial to them).

[Cerian Quilor]

Most regions that profess a neutrality as you define it rarely if ever use their military, whatever paper strength it may or may not have. That's why Independence exists, to use the terminology your way.

[Unibot III]

Most regions that profess a neutrality as you define it rarely if ever use their military, whatever paper strength it may or may not have. That's why Independence exists, to use the terminology your way.

I agree Neutrality becomes largely a paper tiger, that's why I would discard it as irrational.

[Cerian Quilor]

But you (and indeed This whole essay) conflate Neutrality with Independence, and then discard both all too often. Even though you don't always conflate the two, you certainly dismiss Independence for the same reasons.

The real issue is this essay, which misses the real point in favor of pseudo-Unibotian and communism-laced rhetoric that contains no real meaning.

[North East Somerset]

have received had they dared to elect

Before Lazarus "dares elect" anyone properly they would have to reinstate the members of the Emerald Council (the Constitutional Lawmaking body) which were illegally purged for no proper reason other than "they are imperialists" by a pro-NPO/Defender faction that controlled the Delegacy within Lazarus, ie. Feux.

And Harmoneia wasn't elected.

[Unibot III]

Even though you don't always conflate the two, you certainly dismiss Independence for the same reasons.

I don't conflate the two, but they do fail for similar reasons.

Neutrality fails for the first and foremost reason that there aren't enough opportunities to be active if you avoid conducting missions in arbitrary reasons.

Independence fails for a number of reasons,

1. The lack of a moral direction has a downward effect on recruitment and actual interest from players. Many raiders and defenders have fun with what they do, but in all actuality, few would do it if the only reason was purely fun (this goes for invaders too -- contrary to common belief). If R/D was just about taking a multitude of Warzone Regions, R/D would die on both sides -- that's a kind of omni-effect of Same-Coin Syndrome.
2. The lack of consistency. How can allies trust you?
3. Strips down a region's individual culture and principles in favor of sheer realism -- this has a negative effect on the regional identity-building process and activity which is ironically generated from the motivation of idealism better than realism.
4. Lack of immediate gratification. Independents, ironically enough, for being realists, seem to think that people will act in the interest of their regions and not be concerned with their own gratification. Independence is more or less in the interests of high-level politicians, not the low-level soldier. The "service to the region's interests" way of promoting an Independent army provides a fairly distant gratification for having done a mission -- compared to the moral gratification for defenders and the personal gratification that comes after a successful invasion.
5. The reputation of (actively invading) Independent regions among the general public outside of the elite of Gameplay is no more better than Invaders. Which is not surprising -- what does it matter if someone invading you calls themselves an "invader" or "independent"?

Since both Independent and Neutral armies fail to generate troops and otherwise participate actively ... the problems that stem from this activity (dependence on foreign military aid and general regional activity) are the same for both Independent and Neutral armies.

[Cerian Quilor]

1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A moral dimension is and always will be unnessesary.
2. See Europeia
3. See Europeia as one example. There are others. Regional identity does not have to be tied to military activity.
4. What instant gratification are the rank-and-file Defenders or Raiders getting that Independent soldiers don't get. I would suggest you take a look at the internal cultures of these regions and militaries before making false generalizations. I always got gratification even as a rank-and-file soldier in such militaries.
5. In Gameplay, the view of Gameplayers is what really matters. The UDL has managed to garner people from outside Gameplay, fine, but they don't know the actual details of Gameplay or its politics. What reason does a Gameplayer have to care about what a bunch of Generalites or Roleplayers think about him/her. For that matter, what reason does a Roleplayer have to care about what a Gameplayer thinks about him/her? Some people who straddle the line or walk in both worlds have a reason to, but if you're just in one world, what the rest of the world thinks is rather...well, irrelevant.

[Unibot III]

1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A moral dimension is and always will be unnessesary.

Bullshit. Makes a huge difference. The most successful Independent armies are not "Independent" in the GCR sense, they're imperialist -- and they have they're own moral dimension that you don't want to talk about.

2. See Europeia

Europeia has built up trust from its invader allies that it will, for the most part, never ever act as anything else than an invader army. That comes from doing literally nothing defenderish since like.. Macedon.

3. See Europeia as one example. There are others. Regional identity does not have to be tied to military activity.

Ah, but Europeia's army is easily the most up-and-down army for activity in the "Eurosphere". It's external identity is most definitely affected by military activity and it can and has had a spillover effect to Europeia's internal activity. I can say without a doubt, the most active periods of Europeia's existence that I have been able to witness is when it has been as close to embracing raiderism.

4. What instant gratification are the rank-and-file Defenders or Raiders getting that Independent soldiers don't get. I would suggest you take a look at the internal cultures of these regions and militaries before making false generalizations. I always got gratification even as a rank-and-file soldier in such militaries.

These so-called "Independent" armies you've been a rank-and-file member of are more or less Imperialist armies. GCR "Independent" armies are nothing like those culturally.

5. In Gameplay, the view of Gameplayers is what really matters. The UDL has managed to garner people from outside Gameplay, fine, but they don't know the actual details of Gameplay or its politics. What reason does a Gameplayer have to care about what a bunch of Generalites or Roleplayers think about him/her. For that matter, what reason does a Roleplayer have to care about what a Gameplayer thinks about him/her? Some people who straddle the line or walk in both worlds have a reason to, but if you're just in one world, what the rest of the world thinks is rather...well, irrelevant.

Opinion of the masses is power that elites will never understand.

[Drop Your Pants]

Before Lazarus "dares elect" anyone properly they would have to reinstate the members of the Emerald Council (the Constitutional Lawmaking body) which were illegally purged for no proper reason other than "they are imperialists" by a pro-NPO/Defender faction that controlled the Delegacy within Lazarus, ie. Feux.

And Harmoneia wasn't elected.

Weirdly it was legal. Lazarus seems to have a trend with really stupid loop holes.

Your correct that officially Harmie wasn't elected. Our Mandate at the time allowed the delegate to name a successor should s/he feel the need to step down. Feux's choice was then voted on by the council.

[Afforess]

1
5. In Gameplay, the view of Gameplayers is what really matters. The UDL has managed to garner people from outside Gameplay, fine, but they don't know the actual details of Gameplay or its politics. What reason does a Gameplayer have to care about what a bunch of Generalites or Roleplayers think about him/her. For that matter, what reason does a Roleplayer have to care about what a Gameplayer thinks about him/her? Some people who straddle the line or walk in both worlds have a reason to, but if you're just in one world, what the rest of the world thinks is rather...well, irrelevant.

So, so wrong. The Gameplay forum is mostly an echo chamber for the elite to preach to the choir. GP types tend to think themselves the center of NS action, but most are really just fringe and periphery groups. No one cares about Lazarus. Not even the Lazarians.

[Drop Your Pants]

No one cares about Lazarus. Not even the Lazarians.

Amazing that you can talk for a whole region you've never been a part of. Well done you

[Cerian Quilor]

1
5. In Gameplay, the view of Gameplayers is what really matters. The UDL has managed to garner people from outside Gameplay, fine, but they don't know the actual details of Gameplay or its politics. What reason does a Gameplayer have to care about what a bunch of Generalites or Roleplayers think about him/her. For that matter, what reason does a Roleplayer have to care about what a Gameplayer thinks about him/her? Some people who straddle the line or walk in both worlds have a reason to, but if you're just in one world, what the rest of the world thinks is rather...well, irrelevant.

So, so wrong. The Gameplay forum is mostly an echo chamber for the elite to preach to the choir. GP types tend to think themselves the center of NS action, but most are really just fringe and periphery groups. No one cares about Lazarus. Not even the Lazarians.

Gameplay is the center of its own world. That's what I said. I didn't say it was the center of the world, Afforess. I said that it was its own world, and that other worlds views are largely irrelevant.

As a gameplayer, the opinion a bunch of Roleplayers have of me has no bearing on me. They are not my peers and have no bearing in the circles I move. By contrast, the opinion even my opponents in GP have of me is relevant in its own way. And I really doubt that...<insert random Roleplayer Here> cares what I, or NES or whoever actually thinks about them.

[The North Polish Union]

1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A moral dimension is and always will be unnessesary.

Bullshit. Makes a huge difference. The most successful Independent armies are not "Independent" in the GCR sense, they're imperialist -- and they have they're own moral dimension that you don't want to talk about.

Its hard for most people to talk about things that don't exist, Unibot.

[Cerian Quilor]

Bullshit. Makes a huge difference. The most successful Independent armies are not "Independent" in the GCR sense, they're imperialist -- and they have they're own moral dimension that you don't want to talk about.

Its hard for most people to talk about things that don't exist, Unibot.

You're talking about GCRs. Unfortunately for their god-complex, the GCRs don't define everything, and they're not the center of the game.

What's the 'moral dimension' of Imperialism. Tell me all about my moral dimension as an Imperialist.

[The North Polish Union]

Its hard for most people to talk about things that don't exist, Unibot.

You're talking about GCRs. Unfortunately for their god-complex, the GCRs don't define everything, and they're not the center of the game.

What's the 'moral dimension' of Imperialism. Tell me all about my moral dimension as an Imperialist.

I'm not sure who you're replying to in this...but I was saying that no moral dimension to imperialism exists. I doubt that there really is a moral dimension to the R/D game at all.

[Weed]

BY OUR BELOVED CHAIRWOMAN

Oh, really?

Good to see you found a more constructive outlet for this at least, Carta.

[Silver Seas]

You're talking about GCRs. Unfortunately for their god-complex, the GCRs don't define everything, and they're not the center of the game.

What's the 'moral dimension' of Imperialism. Tell me all about my moral dimension as an Imperialist.

I'm not sure who you're replying to in this...but I was saying that no moral dimension to imperialism exists. I doubt that there really is a moral dimension to the R/D game at all.

I was referring to Unibot.

I agree with you that Imperialism lacks Moral dimension. I was hoping he'd explain where he sees one.

There is a moral dimension for those that wish to insert one, but there isn't one naturally.

[Kazmr]

BY OUR BELOVED CHAIRWOMAN

Oh, really?

Good to see you found a more constructive outlet for this at least, Carta.

What gives you the impression that that account is Carta, given that I'm currently Lazarus' Information Commissioner and Editor in Chief of The Gazette?

[Weed]

Oh, really?

Good to see you found a more constructive outlet for this at least, Carta.

What gives you the impression that that account is Carta, given that I'm currently Lazarus' Information Commissioner and Editor in Chief of The Gazette?

I make no claim that the account belongs to Carta, merely that the writing sounds far more like Carta than the credited author.

[Solorni]

So basically people are obsessed with the idea of morality in R/D.... this is a silly idea.

[Feux]

So basically people are obsessed with the idea of morality in R/D.... this is a silly idea.

No.

[Christopher Bishop]

So basically people are obsessed with the idea of morality in R/D.... this is a silly idea.

No.

Yes.