Europeian Embassy - In Solidarity

[Drop Your Pants]

Wow something sensible finally appears in this part of the thread.

I'm more shocked that BT is the one being sensible.

[Roavin]

BT, I would agree with you, except that one detail that you assert isn't actually the case and therefore changes everything:

the blame gets punted to TBH and they'll also truthfully claim ignorance (why would you expect TBH to know TEP's policies and treaties?)

This is wrong. TBH Council is very, very much aware of this.

Lady Dominator, there known as Yuga, has been a TEP citizen multiple times, and while I can't confirm that they were a citizen when the Treaty was passed, they were a citizen both before and after. Lady Dominator has commented in public about it, for example here in the NSGP Discord. I could probably find more instances if I went digging, but consider also that the embassy clause in that treaty did cause discussion in multiple places, particularly as it affects raids and the kind of targets that TEP is able to deploy to when they work with TBH. There's no chance in hell that TBH council wasn't in some fashion aware of it.

Now, with that knowledge, that changes things. Why did TBH do this? I don't know, but I can posit three explanations.

• It was a benign mistake. Certainly possible and I wouldn't rule it out, though a bit of a tough sell from such a self-professed p r o f e s s i o n a l military.
• They didn't care. I don't find this unlikely, given TBH's history, though given their current state, you'd think they'd care a bit more about the peeps they ask to pile.
• They did it on purpose, because the XKI-TEP treaty's embassy clause is a thorn in their side, and they were thus hoping to make TEP available as pilers for more potential raid targets.

I find all of these explanations to be plausible. Assuming it's one of the latter two, my fellow GCRs, I fucking told y'all.

If anybody from TBH council wants to demonstrate which of those three it is using tasty council logs, I'm sure this individual will be happy to receive them and report back to GP.

[The Python]

-snip-

Agree with all of what Roavin said.
*noms popcorn*

[Comfed]

What on TBH's end made this happen? I don't know. I can't know. I strongly doubt that they deliberately did this to end the TEP-XKI treaty. I feel like TEP deserves at least some of the blame for not informing XKI, because surely TBH told them of the plan, or at least the point beforehand. What kind of military agrees to go on a raid without knowing anything about the point or the nature of the raid? I feel like this was probably an oversight on both sides.

[Sandaoguo]

I strongly doubt that they deliberately did this to end the TEP-XKI treaty.

What about TBH's history, its entire purpose, and the players leading it would lead someone to ever doubt, strongly even, that TBH would love to blow up a defender treaty if they could? lol

[The Python]

I strongly doubt that they deliberately did this to end the TEP-XKI treaty.

What about TBH's history, its entire purpose, and the players leading it would lead someone to ever doubt, strongly even, that TBH would love to blow up a defender treaty if they could? lol

This There's absolutely no downside, except maybe FA condemnation, into ending a treaty that limits joint ops, especially with TBH having been historically irresponsible with this sort of things, and then repeatedly mocking criticism. I'd bet a solid 50% it was on purpose to end that treaty

[Pterodaxtyl]

I strongly doubt that they deliberately did this to end the TEP-XKI treaty.

What about TBH's history, its entire purpose, and the players leading it would lead someone to ever doubt, strongly even, that TBH would love to blow up a defender treaty if they could? lol

Yes, because if that was the intent, now is the absolute perfect time for TBH to potentially piss off orgs that are friendly with them.

[Wascoitan]

What about TBH's history, its entire purpose, and the players leading it would lead someone to ever doubt, strongly even, that TBH would love to blow up a defender treaty if they could? lol

This There's absolutely no downside, except maybe FA condemnation, into ending a treaty that limits joint ops, especially with TBH having been historically irresponsible with this sort of things, and then repeatedly mocking criticism. I'd bet a solid 50% it was on purpose to end that treaty

ah yes, because we totally thought that the treaty would just end and that TEP would have absolutely no problem with us for this. my main problem with the theory you all are trying to pose is that it supposes that we are so incompetent as to believe that intentionally doing this wouldn't completely blow up in our face. have we made mistakes that could have been avoided? absolutely. have there been times when it could be accurate to describe something that we did as incompetent? sure, I'd even be willing to accept that, everyone is incompetent from time to time. but even the biggest of fools in the world would have realized that a plan like this would've failed immediately and actively harmed them. even assuming we are doing things solely to benefit us and nothing else you need to actually think through what would go through our heads, the cost benefit analysis just doesn't hold up, this would be far more costly to us than it would benefit us.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

If TBH were intending to try and force a break between TEP and XKI, I'd like to think they'd come with a better plan than one where even a two-minute conversation between TEP and XKI would reveal this was a mistake rather than intentional and push back all the attention onto TBH. XKI are reactionary and dodgy as all hell to deal with sometimes, but they're not stupid.

For an organisation that I, as a leader in a GCR, am supposed to be wary of, TBH's supposed subversive activities are more incompetent and scatter-brained than effectual.

[Les Claypool]

If TBH were intending to try and force a break between TEP and XKI, I'd like to think they'd come with a better plan than one where even a two-minute conversation between TEP and XKI would reveal this was a mistake rather than intentional and push back all the attention onto TBH. XKI are reactionary and dodgy as all hell to deal with sometimes, but they're not stupid.

For an organisation that I, as a leader in a GCR, am supposed to be wary of, TBH's supposed subversive activities are more incompetent and scatter-brained than effectual.

Idk, like maybe spying on XKI and leaking all the nasty things they say about TEP and whatnot that would cause major diplomatic repercussions? (I mean assuming there was a scenario this was valid). At least at that point, TEP would probably welcome that intel.

My verdict, TBH wasted time with an unnecessary infiltration and the idea that TBH did this intentionally to break up a treaty is dumb.

[Sandaoguo]

In that case, y’all are rubes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Being bad at what they do doesn’t mean TBH doesn’t do things for nefarious reasons. Any ounce of trust or benefit of the doubt extended towards them doesn’t speak well of those extending it. Just recognize TBH for the untrustworthy infiltrators they are, who consistently lie when they backpedal, and you’ll be far happier not having to suss out if maybe *this* time TBH didn’t really mean to…

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

Plenty of TBH members have come to TNP and operated in good faith and made fantastic contributions to the region. Your portrayal of the organisation doesn't track with our experiences.

[Evil Wolf]

Plenty of TBH members have come to TNP and operated in good faith and made fantastic contributions to the region. Your portrayal of the organisation doesn't track with our experiences.

A Defender GCR agendaposting against TBH in order to get their members kicked out of other GCRs or, at the very least, viewed with suspicion? I am shocked! Shocked!



Okay, I'm not that shocked.

[Drop Your Pants]

A Defender GCR agendaposting against TBH in order to get their members kicked out of other GCRs or, at the very least, viewed with suspicion? I am shocked! Shocked!



Okay, I'm not that shocked.

EW going after players instead of the discussion. I am shocked! Shocked!



Okay, I'm not that shocked either.

[Evil Wolf]

EW going after players instead of the discussion. I am shocked! Shocked!



Okay, I'm not that shocked either.

Is the "discussion" not being forced by players from TSP, who, bafflingly, released a Joint Statement with XKI when TSP had nothing at all to do with XKI-TEP relations?

It's almost like TSP is trying to pressure TEP into doing things that TSP wants them to do and that all of this is strong armed set up to shame TEP and take advantage of a situation that, by all rights, TSP really doesn't and shouldn't have any say in. All for the glory of advancing the righteous Defender Cause, TEP natives be damned.

But I am sure that TSP wouldn't try to pressure TEP into doing anything, right? ...Right?

[Honeydewistania]

Just recognize TBH for the untrustworthy infiltrators they are, who consistently lie when they backpedal, and you’ll be far happier not having to suss out if maybe *this* time TBH didn’t really mean to…

The Black Hawks are sus! They are impostors in our GCRs!! Raiders are among us sabotaging comms

[Twobagger]

What on TBH's end made this happen? I don't know. I can't know. I strongly doubt that they deliberately did this to end the TEP-XKI treaty. I feel like TEP deserves at least some of the blame for not informing XKI, because surely TBH told them of the plan, or at least the point beforehand. What kind of military agrees to go on a raid without knowing anything about the point or the nature of the raid? I feel like this was probably an oversight on both sides.

Emphasis mine. I wasn't involved in planning for this raid, and of course we won't know for sure unless we're told, but any of the following are possible:
1) TEP and others were told only that the point would be someone they'd move and endorse. The idea of moving and endorsing defenders in these occupations isn't very common, so they'd have assumed that TBH had a sleeper nation in the region to endorse.
2) TEP and others were told that the point would be cross-endorsing in the defender jump point. For large defenses, defenders typically draw nations from all over, many of whom don't regularly defend. In theory, it wouldn't be too difficult to put a nation in there and start trading endorsements with defenders. But then you wouldn't assume it would be a TITO nation: most of them would move from their passworded jump point.

Seems like the most plausible chain of events is that TEP had no reason to think that this was need-to-know intelligence, and thus didn't inform XKI. XKI figures out pretty quickly that the point nation was one of theirs, and that TEP is involved in the raid. Defenders figure they can get concessions by having XKI put the screws to TEP, blaming them for not knowing something they had no reason to know.

[The Random Thief]

Wow something sensible finally appears in this part of the thread.

I'm more shocked that BT is the one being sensible.

EW going after players instead of the discussion. I am shocked! Shocked!

[The Python]

A Defender GCR agendaposting against TBH in order to get their members kicked out of other GCRs or, at the very least, viewed with suspicion? I am shocked! Shocked!

"TSP has no right to be upset over TBH vote stacking in OWL, and then repeatedly mocking criticism, and instead promoting one of the people engaging in the vote stacking to Council, as well as having their leadership participate in this." /s

[Drop Your Pants]

All for the glory of advancing the righteous Defender Cause, TEP 'Everyone else and maybe' natives be damned.

Had to fix that for you, because i'm a different sort of fenda

[Twobagger]

"TSP has no right to be upset over TBH vote stacking in OWL, and then repeatedly mocking criticism, and instead promoting one of the people engaging in the vote stacking to Council, as well as having their leadership participate in this." /s

Well, let's not forget the context behind this: I was up for a commendation, and the text of that commendation reflected negatively on one of their close allies, XKI. Indeed, during the run-up to the vote, Hakketomat (recently promoted to XKI's Chief Executive) had apologized for calling me "by definition a piece of shit," and I'd also received an apology from the Council of Nine (edit: the government of XKI) over their spreading misinformation about my RL circumstances for their own IC gain, which was repeated by a few other defenders in that thread.

It shouldn't be a surprise that TSP were eager to distract from this using any means they could. Their statement on the issue is clear, and uses more space to talk about me and the commendation than it does to talk about the members who were actually involved, or to talk about TBH as a whole.

It's a pretty transparent bad-faith maneuver: they played up this in-character slight that their enemies took against them so that their allies wouldn't have to face the consequences of their bad out-of-character actions.

[Les Claypool]

I'm more shocked that BT is the one being sensible.

EW going after players instead of the discussion. I am shocked! Shocked!

Lmao, I noticed the same thing. Haha.

[Terra Inferiori Reliquere]

Ah, I see; a region was invaded, a region was liberated. And now the entirity of GP is going nuts about it.

[Evil Wolf]

Ah, I see; a region was invaded, a region was liberated. And now the entirity of GP is going nuts about it.

Mostly just TSP and XKI. TEP has apparently not taken the bait, as in their latest news release, they said absolutely nothing about it. Not a word.

[Europeian Embassy]

Recently, a proposal, tentatively called "Democracy / Autocracy", has sparked discussion in the technical forums of Nation States. The premise of the idea is that players in user created regions would be able to choose between having an executive founder, and thus regional security, or to receive a boost to recruitment by allowing newly created nations to spawn in their regions. While there has been some scattered pushback to this idea, as yet, the major concerns surrounding the changes have not been adequately addressed. Europeia acknowledges that there is a serious imbalance in the game right now that does need fixing, but this change does not come close to addressing those issues and instead appears to shoehorn R/D into the game, and to penalize anyone who doesn't wish to participate. In contrast, those who prefer to keep their governmental systems in place in this political game, will, to their detriment, be required to do even more work manually recruiting nations, with the end result being keeping up will likely be impossible. Many UCRs have noted recently that manual recruitment has been less effective than normal, and to propose a change that does nothing to address this issue, but forces regions to choose either this broken method of recruitment or to forego the security of their founder, seems like a move in the wrong direction.

Thus far, concerns have been waved aside, with no thought towards or even acknowledgement of the discrepancies laid out above. With Sedge acknowledging that one of the goals of the new system is the ability to permanently destroy communities, cultures, and decades worth of history, it is further alarming that this drastic change, is being advertised as a "relatively simple concept that doesn't make fundamental changes to the game's principles". We feel that this is not only false, but incredibly misleading. Despite protests that this change is radical and doesn't address, but instead relies on, a broken system to create balance in the game, the only questions being pushed are about the system itself. No attempt is being made to reach a middle ground with these concerns. Indeed, concerns about recruitment, even though it is an important part of the successful implementation of this new system, are being shunted off to other threads with no visible support from NationStates moderators.

Refuge Isle states in the technical thread that "directly assessing the problem of recruitment is a far more useful strategy for admin to make changes in to improve UCR health and break up power accumulation in feeders." In this, Europeia agrees and supports Refuge Isle, alongside other comments they have made in that thread. Despite their thought-provoking rejoinders, the lead is consistently buried, the point missed, and ultimately the way we enjoy NationStates currently, as sovereign political regions, roleplayers, card farmers, World Assembly loyalists, and issues-focused communities, among others, is being endangered. Europeia is taking a stance against the changes proposed, and encourages other, like-minded nations and regions to join us in expressing our opposition to these changes, as we've been told that these options only remain on the table so long as they do remain well-received.