by Nasania » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:59 pm
by Shizensky » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:16 pm
7. Citizens who are inactive often but active elsewhere in NationStates (except they participate in the important votes) are not really �true- citizens and should be viewed with suspicion.
by Valrifell » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:35 pm
2. Morality (e.g., right and wrong) in NationStates exists beyond simply just what is legal or illegal.
by Shizensky » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:48 pm
Valrifell wrote:2. Morality (e.g., right and wrong) in NationStates exists beyond simply just what is legal or illegal.
To be frank, I don't see why morality needs to be brought into this. The implication here is that raiding is immoral, but I mean really, morality technically exists everywhere. And there is no objective morale code.
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:49 pm
Rather than ask if raiding is right, ask if it is right to take a region without the consent of those already residing in said region. TITO is known as a defender group, but they've never hesitated to move in and take a founderless raider region. They may not be "raiding" in the accepted sense of the word, but they're certainly taking a region without native consent to do so.
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by Communist Eraser » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:53 pm
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 3:58 pm
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by United Great Britian » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:06 pm
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:08 pm
United Great Britian wrote:I think that it should also ask about where people stand on regional governance.
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by United Great Britian » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:40 pm
KaelThas Quilor wrote:United Great Britian wrote:I think that it should also ask about where people stand on regional governance.
What do you mean? As in a whole new axis, or trying to wedge those kinds of questions into the other two axis? Because only some questions on the issue of regional governance could fall into either set, while there are many that would be independent of the raider/defender regionalist/cosmopolitan dichotomies. Plus, making general statements about ones opinion of regional governance is difficult, given how different regions work differently.
Not a bad idea, but could you clarify what exactly you mean by 'regional governance' in this case?
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:45 pm
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:19 pm
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:46 pm
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by Ratateague » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:52 pm
by Communist Eraser » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:57 pm
KaelThas Quilor wrote:That's not an ideological set though. That's just personality traits. Plus, I think it would be nice to jack*ss, with snarky being in the middle
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:01 pm
Ratateague wrote:The third axis could be apathetic vs involved, or inclusivity vs exclusivity. The latter, when applied regionally, would mean that organizations range from accepting all indiscriminately, to distinguishing a collective identity through limited ideals. Individually might imply one operates in closed social circles, or tries to make acquaintances/allegiances with all.
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by Ratateague » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:03 pm
KaelThas Quilor wrote:That's a lot like regionalist and cosmopolitian though.
by Valrifell » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:12 pm
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:14 pm
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by Communist Eraser » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:18 pm
by KaelThas Quilor » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:19 pm
The Bruce wrote:I sometimes suspect that Cerian Quilor is here to harvest the tears of young, ambitious nations.
Cormac Stark wrote:my opinion of me, as usual, is the only one that matters. :p
by Valrifell » Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:20 pm
KaelThas Quilor wrote:Maybe.
I think Moralist versus non-moralist, maybe? Measuring the degree one things morality (whatever said morality is) exists in the context of the game?
Defender and Imperialist are incompatible. Imperialism is a political proposition that exists beyond the R/D dichotomy.
One could defend while being an Imperialist, but one cannot be an Imperialist and a Defender.
Now, if you mean one could score high as on the defenderist side of the Raideist/Defenderist scale and score high as an imperialist, that's different.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Legada 3
Advertisement