NationStates

Interesting article, good work.

Cool read

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Will TL;DR News be making a reappearance at any time? Along with Miniluv it was one of my favourite reads.

- TL;DR News will be back in 2016.

Oh hey, I was involved in some of those things

Klaus Devestatorie wrote:Oh hey, I was involved in some of those things

Me too!
I remember #1 very well.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:Also, the thawing of the "Cold War" pretty much coincided with the dissolution of the UIAF. The whole thing revolved around the rise and spread of imperialism, so when the root cause of that no longer existed, there wasn't any reason for the Cold War to go on.

But I wouldn't say GCRs have reverted to "non-ideological mutual respect and cooperation." If imperialism rises again, we'll see more diplomatic conflict. Ideology still plays a significant role in GCR relations. It's just that the ideological gap between GCRs isn't as wide anymore.

I think this is partially accurate, but only partially. I was committed to giving each item in the list only one paragraph, so there wasn't time to go in-depth on what caused the (somewhat abrupt) conclusion to the cold war, but I do have thoughts on that.

To make a long story short, I think the "thaw" can be attributed to the collapse of powerful and entrenched, competing blocs. The dissolution of the UIAF is only part of the story; there is also the political moderation of Osiris, which began before the UIAF dissolution, and the shift to a domestic reform agenda in Balder. That The North Pacific and The East Pacific never got heavily involved in the cold war also contributed to the thaw; the cold war ran out of major military power players and diplomatic heavyweights. On the defender-leaning side, the NPO's defender-leaning charade came to an end with the coup of Lazarus; Lazarus moderated, becoming more diplomatically cautious, after implementing democratic reform; TSP's politics have also once again moderated and taken on a more internal focus; and The Rejected Realms, and particularly The Rejected Times, have grown quiet following leadership changes.

To say that UIAF dissolution has played a role in the thaw is accurate, but to call that the major factor is an inaccurate oversimplification. Changes within and between the Feeders and Sinkers, and the dissolution of both competing blocs, have led to the thaw. You can't deny that a once powerful defender-leaning bloc of four GCRs has largely ceased to exist, leaving Lazarus and The Rejected Realms as, once again, the only two defender GCRs and the only two even remotely leaning in that direction. That's the other side of the coin, which you failed to note, and the collapse of the defender-leaning GCR bloc has been at least as important as dissolution of the UIAF in thawing the cold war.

Consular wrote:I'd probably rank the death of TBR a bit lower, since all they really did was change name, but I can understand its placement.

In a span of 6 months, The Black Riders went from having a combined 120+ pilers in two occupations at the same time (Anarchy, The Silver Isles) while still update raiding, to having its top command shattered by Delete-on-Sight orders and controversy, resulting in the remaining community having to ask retired DENizens if they could revive DEN to have a home.

The ultimate "how the mighty hath fallen". What defenders and angry natives dreamed about but never expected or predicted. I definitely think it's worthy of #1.

I would have to agree with Syl, but The whole Lazarus schmozfest and the four Security Council resolutions *flex* that went along with it are a close second.

A good read.

Must be special to be reminded of the disaster you inherited as NPO's Emperor.

Ridersyl wrote:Must be special to be reminded of the disaster you inherited as NPO's Emperor.

One can hardly consider taking the helm of the most stable feeder in the game a disaster, regardless of possible errors made by departed members of our government in other regions.

Regardless of what may or may not have resulted diplomatically from the blunders in Lazarus, the Pacific and the NPO remained stalwart throughout.

Pierconium wrote:

Ridersyl wrote:Must be special to be reminded of the disaster you inherited as NPO's Emperor.

One can hardly consider taking the helm of the most stable feeder in the game a disaster, regardless of possible errors made by departed members of our government in other regions.

Regardless of what may or may not have resulted diplomatically from the blunders in Lazarus, the Pacific and the NPO remained stalwart throughout.

Is there a switch to turn your "NPO Emperor" mode off, so I can get an actual response?

Pierconium wrote:

Ridersyl wrote:Must be special to be reminded of the disaster you inherited as NPO's Emperor.

One can hardly consider taking the helm of the most stable feeder in the game a disaster, regardless of possible errors made by departed members of our government in other regions.

Regardless of what may or may not have resulted diplomatically from the blunders in Lazarus, the Pacific and the NPO remained stalwart throughout.

Stable feeder? Can I have some of that kool-aid as well? The Pacifc has been in decline for years. The only people that stick around are the loyalists or the ones who don't know how to join a new region. I would hardly consider that "stable".

The Silver Sentinel wrote:

Pierconium wrote:One can hardly consider taking the helm of the most stable feeder in the game a disaster, regardless of possible errors made by departed members of our government in other regions.

Regardless of what may or may not have resulted diplomatically from the blunders in Lazarus, the Pacific and the NPO remained stalwart throughout.

Stable feeder? Can I have some of that kool-aid as well? The Pacifc has been in decline for years. The only people that stick around are the loyalists or the ones who don't know how to join a new region. I would hardly consider that "stable".

Indeed.

First, to address your 'point', Oxford defines the word stable (in relation to this scenario) as '[n]ot likely to change or fail; firmly established'. I'm not sure about you, but I don't need any sort of kool-aid to know that a continuous form of governance in a feeder that has lasted over 12 years is stable. So, you are wrong.

Second, to address the rest of your trifle, the activity levels in The Pacific have been steadily increasing for months and there are a multitude of new and active nations taking part within the region, so again, you are wrong.

Cormac Stark wrote:To say that UIAF dissolution has played a role in the thaw is accurate, but to call that the major factor is an inaccurate oversimplification. Changes within and between the Feeders and Sinkers, and the dissolution of both competing blocs, have led to the thaw. You can't deny that a once powerful defender-leaning bloc of four GCRs has largely ceased to exist, leaving Lazarus and The Rejected Realms as, once again, the only two defender GCRs and the only two even remotely leaning in that direction. That's the other side of the coin, which you failed to note, and the collapse of the defender-leaning GCR bloc has been at least as important as dissolution of the UIAF in thawing the cold war.

It's true that there's many factors into the thaw, but I think the latter half of your analysis is really mixing up cause and effect. The Cold War, from my perspective (which is that of an anti-imperialist who played a large role in this era), was really instigated and continued by anti-imperialist defenders and independents. Until the collapse of the UIAF, we were in a pattern of tit-for-tat diplomacy, culminating in the "war" previously mentioned. If the UIAF had continued to exist, and imperialism continue to remain entrenched, I don't think we would have seen regions like TRR and TSP go quiet. Aside from my declining political popularity in TSP after the sketchy election between Wolf and me, the downfall of Onder was a big reason why I stopped trying to hold onto TSP's foreign affairs. (In addition to Hileville's promise that the direction of our FA wouldn't really change, which he kept, to his credit.)

When the UIAF disbanded, I think that provided a lot of room for anti-imperialists to focus on regional issues. The only thing holding the "defender-leaning bloc" together was opposing what we saw as the creeping tentacles of imperialism. TSP's relations with Lazarus and TRR were really premised upon that goal, if anybody was paying attention. Imperialism is no longer a threat, so there's nothing keeping the bloc active. But those diplomatic ties still exist, and will definitely be utilized again if imperialism (or some new boogeyman) rises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is completely incorrect. A lot of the cold war started with the Defender & Pacific coup of Lazarus which led to the ejection of citizens of Balder. Despite Balder's original neutrality in that coup, Lazarus' members who supported the coup such as Milograd and Harmoneia took great issue with our light criticism of the purging of Lazarus. For Balder, it is this event that in particular led to a strong deterioration in relations between us, Lazarus & the Pacific. It was also this coup of Lazarus that led to the Osiris-Lazarus war. Furthermore it was the post-coup Lazarus that provided difficult questions for the GCR world as a whole particularly on defender and Pacifican wars. It was Imperialism by defenders and the NPO at the time that led to the GCR Cold War.

Furthermore, it was the Pacific betrayal of their Defenders co-conspirators in the NPO coup of Lazarus that led to co-operation among many GCRs. With the NPO apology, this has meant that nearly all sources of strong discontent no longer exist in the GCRs as the NPO coup won sympathy for Lazarus. Even Lazarus and Balder relations have warmed significantly.

Rach, the players targeted in the Lazarus revolution were imperialists or their allies, as viewed by the defender and anti-imperialist bloc. The whole point of the coup was to get rid of that influence. The support Harmie and Milograd got was from defenders and anti-imperialists. In TSP, we symbolically overrode Belschaft's nullification of the TSP-Lazarus treaty, for example.

As for the NPO developments, for TSP at least, it had no impact whatsoever on our general disposition towards our non-allied GCRs. Imperialists were the source of political tensions, with the NPO rising only near the tail end. I'm not sure I would even group the NPO events in with the Cold War.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The idea of Imperialists being the source of tension in the GCRs is a ridiculous one. With the exception of Balder briefly being labelled "Imperialist" during the reign of NES, there have been no "Imperial" GCRs during the Cold War although Osiris was nominally Imperialist. Your idea that you can have such differences without many Imperialistic regions is silly. There is no cold war without Communistic & Capitalistic nations. Defenders on the other hand couped Lazarus with the aid of the same people who couped TSP. These were not capital I, Imperialists. Although the actions of defenders and people like Milograd were imperialistic.

Perhaps it was more about individuals disliking each other rather than any actions by the defenders in Lazarus... but the idea of there being an Imperialistic threat is ridiculous. It was defenders and other elements responsible for political tensions.

Rach, I think you're being a bit outclassed here...

Obviously there weren't many imperialist GCRs. Nominal imperialism wasn't the threat defenders and anti-imperialists were fighting against. It was the influence of imperialists in GCRs and imperialism in Gameplay in general. Every major fight by anti-imperialists was waged in middle regions that we believed were going to fall to the imperialist camp completely: Lazarus before the PRL, TSP-TNI, TSP-Euro... Of course, that makes it sound far more organized than it actually was.

Your last two posts are colored entirely by your rather isolated experience in Balder, and read more like political arguments than objective ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, -I'm- being outclassed here. I was having a fine time debating you before you started to insult me but let's avoid the personal arguments.

You say that -I'm- simply making political points rather than objective ones. Yet, there you are bringing in TSP and your defender lens. The fact is, and your statements here show it is that you know your arguments are ridiculous. You claim that Imperialistic influence was to blame, yet wholly show all these battlegrounds where you believe defenders had the upper hand and could co-ordinate. You claim that all these regions could have fallen to capital I Imperialists. Yet... Lazarus was couped by defenders and members of the Pacific at the time. The head of the UDL threatened to coup Balder. Members of the NPO was working with defenders. TSP was couped by a member of that NPO group.

Yet, you have the audacity to claim that Imperialism was the greater threat. You have the audacity to claim that the defenders acting in reaction to this threat. Reacted by conquering GCRs? It sounds more to me that you, the defender Glen-Rhodes are far more biased. Sadly, your blame of a weaker political minority in order to accomplish political aims is not a new one in history. It's amazing that you cling to this bizarre history but I think you are smarter than you are pretending to be here. You are far more likely only advancing this narrative to support -your- political actions.

As a regionalist and someone who loves my region dearly, your belief in defender adventuring is worrisome. It is your posts that read as disjointed and nonsensical political ranting. Besides, we all know personal insults are not a part of objective commenting. Although I am sorry if I insulted your schooling there.

Solorni wrote:Yet, you have the audacity to claim that Imperialism was the greater threat.

This is where the political vs objective comment comes into play. I'm giving an historical viewpoint of 2013-2015 through my own lens. You are trying to make a political statement about how defenders orchestrated coups, and they're the real imperialists. I'm just giving you my honest recollection of events, rather than propagandizing. I don't actually have a political position to advance, here: I'm not in power anywhere, won't be any time soon, and feel like my goals were largely accomplished in the latter half of 2015.

As far as I recall, you weren't that involved in the diplomacy and politics of this period, but rather were kind of a side player. Some of us worried that you'd be ousted, and we kept Balder in our sights. But overall, Balder was already an imperialist bastion, and we weren't focusing very much of our effort into it at all. From our own conversations, I do know that you're aware of the defender/anti-imperialist sentiment over the past few years, and you know what motivated a lot of the events that happened.

The reality is that the defender world, lead mostly by Unibot, became more and more obsessed about the political rise of imperialism and particularly the UIAF in 2013-14. Defenders utilized their influence in some GCRs to lean them towards defending, or to promote anti-imperialist sentiment in neutral or Independent regions. In 2014-15, Unibot and myself made a concerted push for the argument that Independence was within the imperialist sphere and merely a more palatable cover for imperialist gameplay in neutral regions. That culminated in the dissolution of the TSP-TNI alliance, which was a significant event in the "Cold War."

In Lazarus, several members were ousted that had strong ties with Balder and imperialists. Thus was born the PRL. The growing defender/anti-imperialist bloc supported the PRL exactly because anti-imperialism was one of its tenants. TSP allied with the PRL and with The Rejected Realms because of defender and anti-imperialist politics. The TSP-Euro crisis was all about Independent-imperialists wanting to pick a fight with me, because I pretty much led the charge in removing their influence from TSP.

Yes, my view of history is through the lens of TSP, because that's where I've been since 2013. But I was also a part of the defender/anti-imperialist bloc, and a lot of significant political developments during the latter half of the "Cold War" have my fingerprints on them. I think it's fair to say I have an authoritative opinion on what the defender/anti-imperialist bloc was thinking. But you don't even have to take my word for it: Feux was pretty transparent about the Lazarus purge being targeted at TNI.

I think it's interesting that you're openly acknowledging that you and Unibot were driving TSP's foreign affairs to meet defender goals. I really don't have much to say other than that, because that pretty much says it all. Who are the imperialists, again?

Cormac Stark wrote:I think it's interesting that you're openly acknowledging that you and Unibot were driving TSP's foreign affairs to meet defender goals. I really don't have much to say other than that, because that pretty much says it all. Who are the imperialists, again?

Really no different from Misley driving The Internationales foreign affairs to meet leftist goals, and The Internationale claims to fight against imperialism.

The Silver Sentinel wrote:

Cormac Stark wrote:I think it's interesting that you're openly acknowledging that you and Unibot were driving TSP's foreign affairs to meet defender goals. I really don't have much to say other than that, because that pretty much says it all. Who are the imperialists, again?

Really no different from Misley driving The Internationales foreign affairs to meet leftist goals, and The Internationale claims to fight against imperialism.

The Internationale was created as a leftist region, and has been a leftist region since before Misley took leadership of it. By contrast, The South Pacific was an independent region that, under the influence of Glen-Rhodes and Unibot (which he has now openly acknowledged), became a defender-leaning, anti-imperialist region.

Infiltrating a region to shift it toward the interests of an external region or organization, as Unibot and Glen-Rhodes did in TSP, is imperialism. They had to drive TSP toward defender anti-imperialism by constantly attacking and demonizing long-time TSP citizens, and in Lazarus it took an NPO-backed purge and implementation of the authoritarian PRL to force it into defender anti-imperiarlism. Meanwhile, the Feeders and Sinkers that have embraced independence or, in TEP's case, non-alignment, have done so democratically, of their own free will, and with broad popular support.

So, again, who are the real imperialists here?

The Pacific is independent by my own statement, no democracy required.