The Case for Multilateral Treaties

[Belgica Prima (Ancient)]

I hate treaty webs...

[Roavin]

Sitting where I'm at in the old Independent-Imperialist sphere, I don't think the old battle lines are quite the same. Withe FRA-UDL axis (fractious as it was) absent from gameplay or dead, while its constituent members are still around and many still defend, there isn't really a major 'face' for the opposition between the defendersphere and the Independent-Imperialist sphere, especially since TNI is not an active factor, anymore. In time there might be, and the basic tensions are still at play to a degree, but the conflict isn't what it used to be, or really 'there' at the moment (though it could be brought back at some point).

On "many still defend": If I completely ignore TITO, which as I understand was never part of that axis anyway — Not Really. Most oldtimer defenders have either retreated to the armchair or left the game entirely, and while this has been good for some people to quickly climb the defender-career-ladder (I'm the perfect example), obviously it hasn't been good for defending. Most non-TITO defenders active started in 2016.

On the conflict: Let me note first for full disclosure that I wasn't around for any of this, I'm just a NS history nerd. It appears to me that the FRA-UDL axis conflicted with the Indy-Imp-Sphere precisely because both were also actively battling for a foothold in the feeders and sinkers. This isn't really the case anymore, as nearly all of them are or are approaching some variant of de facto generic-flavor independent/unaligned alignment. TGW or RIASF don't have a UDLesque "Director of Feeder Affairs" position or anybody with that sort of responsibility. It's just not a thing.

[Cerian Quilor]

I meant more the regions - Lazarus still defends, or at least still identifies as defender, same with the RRA. Spiritus and Spear Danes are still around, etc. But I'll take you're word for it.

And actually, you're wrong, on the history.. TNI and the FRA had been at war since 2006, and the LKE at war with them from 2006-2007 and 2010-end of the FRA. LKE declared war on UDL at some point, and I think TNI did eventually as well. The involvement of everyone in GCR politics happened after things like the Devionitas coup and the UDL's formation. Europeia, allied with TNI and the LKE (and also having numerous legal, social and personal ties between the regions) was partially along for the ride in fighting FRA/UDL (also the FRA did a whole thing where they tried to bring us down from within/turn us defender/use us as a springboard to go after TNI directly), but also got involved because Europeians (myself included) believe that Independence worthy of promoting and we wanted to help people that wanted to foster independence in their own regions (Europeia never inserted Independence into the regional conversation, unlike the UDL)

[Unibot III]

I meant more the regions - Lazarus still defends, or at least still identifies as defender, same with the RRA. Spiritus and Spear Danes are still around, etc. But I'll take you're word for it.

And actually, you're wrong, on the history.. TNI and the FRA had been at war since 2006, and the LKE at war with them from 2006-2007 and 2010-end of the FRA. LKE declared war on UDL at some point, and I think TNI did eventually as well. The involvement of everyone in GCR politics happened after things like the Devionitas coup and the UDL's formation. Europeia, allied with TNI and the LKE (and also having numerous legal, social and personal ties between the regions) was partially along for the ride in fighting FRA/UDL (also the FRA did a whole thing where they tried to bring us down from within/turn us defender/use us as a springboard to go after TNI directly), but also got involved because Europeians (myself included) believe that Independence worthy of promoting and we wanted to help people that wanted to foster independence in their own regions (Europeia never inserted Independence into the regional conversation, unlike the UDL)

It's interesting you saw it as such a 'motivator' from an imperialist perspective; the TNI-FRA war predates me, I inherited it in my role as FRA Arch-Chancellor and I just found the war... annoying. Like a dog biting at my ankles. It didn't really motivate me. I saw independentism as a far greater threat to defenderism than imperialism. I spent an inordinate amount of my time arguing that independentism was not what it claimed to be: (1) that is wasn't rational, that is wasn't in a state's interests to sit on a fence, (2) that there was nothing 'independent' or 'freeing' about entanglements with Europeia and the imperialist sphere, (3) that it was a stepping stone to invading rather than a distinct, neutral position in practice, (4) that it was only a IR perspective, whereas liberalism harmonizes a region's domestic affairs with its foreign policy - TRR is TRR inside and outside, Europeia has a Europeia for Europeia, a Europeia for allies and a Europeia for non-allies. etc. etc. etc. You've heard my arguments before.

I feel Roavin has inherited my fight against my independentism rather than TNI-FRA war (since he's mentioned it.) I also felt as though it was a swarm, a mushy colourless swarm rushing over regions.

Even I, the Great Satan, forget things, so do please remind me what I've done now.

Sadly I think my list was incomplete...

[Unibot III]

Unlike in other conflicts, like imperialist regions vs. the FRA or UDL, there is actual potential for loss of regions and destruction of communities. There must be healthier alternatives to that.

You mean there's an actual potential for loss of regions and destruction of communities in your region. There were regions that were lost and communities destroyed in the FRA-TNI/LKE war.

I would argue that the diplomatic landscape has changed, albeit not dramatically. Sure, some of the Feeders and Sinkers are still not best friends and are probably never going to be, but hostility has declined. The Pacific has successfully restored relations with several Feeders and Sinkers that terminated relations due to the New Lazarene Order, including Lazarus itself, leaving only The North Pacific and The Rejected Realms without relations with the Pacific. Osiris has recently restored relations with Lazarus, The North Pacific, and the South Pacific, which means it once again maintains relations with all of the Feeders and Sinkers. Balder and Lazarus have restored relations. The West Pacific hasn't been on poor terms with any of the other Feeders and Sinkers for years. I've seen nothing to indicate that these regions are interested in conflict, the occasional Gameplay sniping between Balder and the South Pacific aside. That is very different from where we were a couple years ago.

In regard to Osiris, I'm not sure how you can say it isn't seen any differently with new leadership. Again, it has restored relations with three Feeders and Sinkers -- as well as some user-created regions -- since Neo Kervoskia's reign as Pharaoh began, once again maintaining relations with the full slate of Feeders and Sinkers. Clearly, someone in those regions does see Osiris in a different light, or relations that were elusive during my reign would not be restored now. That you don't see Osiris any differently doesn't mean no one does. I'm sure most people don't have a dramatically different view of Osiris yet, but clearly some believe peaceful coexistence and communication with Osiris is worthwhile.

The Pacific's peaceful approach to its fellow feeders and sinkers will last an NS fortnight; assuming "this time they mean it" is just naivete at this point. Same goes for the Empire. The Empire's charm offensive is a political necessity to play the long game. Balder will enable and humour any conflict in pretty much any of the other game-created regions.

That's exactly why a multilateral pact between the remaining democratic GCRs to complement the GCR Sovereignty Accords is advisable.

The difference between you and Glen-Rhodes and I is you guys think you have a choice about what the next big conflict is, I think that much has already been decided. You're not pharaoh anymore, Cormac. I don't think you guys have a bloody choice to be honest - the machinations are already at play for a full scale confrontation between GCRs. That's my observation.

What I'm advising democratic GCRs to do is simply to prepare themselves for what's coming - to set themselves up better for a crisis amongst themselves. The Empire, NPO, NES - these guys are going make this choice for you. It's their hands on the red button, not you. It's the wolves, not the lambs, that choose who and when supper is.

[Belschaft]

I feel Roavin has inherited my fight against my independentism

I feel that you know very little of Roavin or what he thinks.

[Onderkelkia]

I spent an inordinate amount of my time arguing that independentism was not what it claimed to be: (1) that is wasn't rational, that is wasn't in a state's interests to sit on a fence,

Independence does not involve sitting on a fence - nor have advocates of Independence ever claimed that it does. Independence is not about attempting to remain equidistant between raider and defender regions. Rather, an Independent region rejects defining its foreign policy by the proportion of offensive and defensive operations. Raiding and defending are instruments to be used to promote an Independent region's self-interest rather than ends in their own right.

The Independent Manifesto specifies the position actually put forward by Independent regions::

V. An Independent region has a vested interest in pursuing an active and prolific foreign policy, staying at the forefront of the interregional diplomatic scene. An Independent region does not a priori or universally favor neutral or moderate positions, and does not shy away from engaging in interregional events.

"Independent" does not mean necessarily mean "moderate" or "neutral". The Imperialist regions were practising the principles of what later became known as Independence before even Europeia adopted the ideology and gave the tradition its label - and there was and is nothing remotely moderate about us.

Balder will enable and humour any conflict in pretty much any of the other game-created regions.

This comment is made without any credible foundation. It completely misunderstands the way in which Balder approaches other powers (game-created regions and user-created regions alike). We seek positive relationships. We support our allies and oppose our enemies. We form policies about specific regions and specific groups of regions, rather than treating the game-created regions as a homogeneous bloc. There have been tensions recently with The South Pacific (of their making) and in the past with Lazarus. Occasional spats are an inevitable part of diplomatic relations, but there is not the slightest basis for inferring that Balder is inherently inclined towards supporting intervention against the governments of all the eight other game-created regions.

[Cerian Quilor]

I feel Roavin has inherited my fight against my independentism

I feel that you know very little of Roavin or what he thinks.

The very fact that Unibot wants to wage war against Independence as an ideology is why we never liked him. I don't have an issue with defender individuals because they're defender. They make the contest interesting. But Unibot's approach was so morally absolutist he had to force everyone into either/or camps.

@Unibot: I didn't say it was a motivating conflict for you. You were doing your own thing in the GCRs, and that's what brought Europeia and her allies into the GCRs, to a great degree.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Unlike in other conflicts, like imperialist regions vs. the FRA or UDL, there is actual potential for loss of regions and destruction of communities. There must be healthier alternatives to that.

You mean there's an actual potential for loss of regions and destruction of communities in your region. There were regions that were lost and communities destroyed in the FRA-TNI/LKE war.

The latter point partially conceded. What I meant was that there was no risk of the actual combatant regions and organizations in those wars being destroyed, but you are correct that proxy founderless regions may have been damaged. Destroyed is a stretch; The New Inquisition rarely engaged in griefing, and The Land of Kings and Emperors never does so.

The former point, not so much. Believe it or not, it isn't just -- nor even primarily -- my region I'm worried about, if by "my region" I can safely assume you mean Osiris even though I'm in two Feeders as well and I'm arguably more active in the South Pacific, or at least the SPSF, right now. Osiris is quite possibly invulnerable to infiltration of its Delegacy; at least it would take two years or more to accomplish it. It is primarily some of the Feeders and Sinkers you would see intentionally start a conflict with the Feeders and Sinkers you dislike that I'm worried about. They are far more vulnerable than their would-be opponents, and would thus begin such a conflict at an automatic disadvantage.

I'm not just looking out for Osiris here. I don't think the conflict you're trying to provoke will be good for any of the Feeders or Sinkers. And yes, the regions I'm involved in are my first concern, above concerns about other regions or gameplay more broadly, and I'm not sorry about that.

The Pacific's peaceful approach to its fellow feeders and sinkers will last an NS fortnight; assuming "this time they mean it" is just naivete at this point. Same goes for the Empire. The Empire's charm offensive is a political necessity to play the long game. Balder will enable and humour any conflict in pretty much any of the other game-created regions.

That's exactly why a multilateral pact between the remaining democratic GCRs to complement the GCR Sovereignty Accords is advisable.

The difference between you and Glen-Rhodes and I is you guys think you have a choice about what the next big conflict is, I think that much has already been decided. You're not pharaoh anymore, Cormac. I don't think you guys have a bloody choice to be honest - the machinations are already at play for a full scale confrontation between GCRs. That's my observation.

What I'm advising democratic GCRs to do is simply to prepare themselves for what's coming - to set themselves up better for a crisis amongst themselves. The Empire, NPO, NES - these guys are going make this choice for you. It's their hands on the red button, not you. It's the wolves, not the lambs, that choose who and when supper is.

So the reason the five Feeders and Sinkers you refer to as the "democratic GCRs" should create a multilateral pact for the purpose of intentionally reigniting a cold war with the other four Feeders and Sinkers, which all sides have been working to thaw, the reason you advise these Feeders and Sinkers to put their communities and the communities of the other four Feeders and Sinkers in jeopardy, is because... you have paranoid conspiracy theories backed up with no hard evidence that any of your predictions will come true?

Sorry, Nostradamus, but you would need a lot more credibility for anyone to take these predictions seriously. Lest we forget, you are the one who most bought into the Pacific's lies during their "anti-imperialist" charade under Krulltopia and Feux. You tried then to form a bloc, with the Pacific and the West Pacific included, against Balder and Osiris, except that time your song and dance was "regional sovereignty" rather than "democracy." You have consistently been wrong about any number of matters, great and small, and have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no regard for any Feeder or Sinker community and have no problem with using our communities to your own ends, to our detriment, and then casting our communities aside. This isn't about "democracy" anymore than your last attempt was about "regional sovereignty," this is about pitting five Feeders and Sinkers as your own personal pawns versus the four against whom you are seeking revenge, and hoping the regions you would turn into your pawns will prevail and vanquish your enemies. And hey, if they don't, no skin off your nose, because you have no skin in the game, because you are not permitted in any of our regions.

Why should anyone act based on your dire predictions and advice? Why should anyone do anything you say?

[Drop Your Pants]

The Empire, NPO, NES - these guys are going make this choice for you. It's their hands on the red button, not you. It's the wolves, not the lambs, that choose who and when supper is.

I'd trust NES with a big red button over you or Cormac, he wouldn't push it to see what happens then post a wall of excuses blaming someone else

[Cerian Quilor]

The Empire, NPO, NES - these guys are going make this choice for you. It's their hands on the red button, not you. It's the wolves, not the lambs, that choose who and when supper is.

I'd trust NES with a big red button over you or Cormac, he wouldn't push it to see what happens then post a wall of excuses blaming someone else

Though I'd trust Cormac with such a button over Uni or a great many others.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'd trust NES with a big red button over you or Cormac, he wouldn't push it to see what happens then post a wall of excuses blaming someone else

Hey, I'll be the first to admit I have a tendency to set the world on fire, but I do usually take responsibility for my own actions.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not really "advocating" anything-- just pointing out that the game dies when there isn't conflict. Either Gameplay stagnates, or people generate conflict. Gotta be one or the other. Stability is great for domestic communities, but unlike in the real world where global stability helps everybody and creates prosperity, a stable peace among Gameplay will ultimately harm everybody. There's only so much activity generated by holding elections and posting spam.

That's fair enough. I actually agree with your broader point regarding conflict and stagnation, and have made similar points in the past -- in fact, that was one of the unstated reasons Osiris declared war against Lazarus during my second term as Pharaoh under OFO 1.0 -- but I don't think a cold war between the Feeders and Sinkers is the way to go. Unlike in other conflicts, like imperialist regions vs. the FRA or UDL, there is actual potential for loss of regions and destruction of communities. There must be healthier alternatives to that.

Worth pointing out that the anti-imperialist bloc of Gameplay very much believed that there was a high potential that our regions could be lost and communities destroyed. That's why we were rabidly anti-imperialist. It wasn't just that we wanted a bipolar conflict.

I think it's more than a lull. The imperialist sphere has largely collapsed, the survival of The Land of Kings and Emperors as an imperialist region notwithstanding, and imperialists were the drivers of conflict with some independent regions tagging along.

Yes, it's collapsed, but its remnants are still there in, say, Balder. Add Empire to the mix, which is currently found in Osiris & TWP, and you have an underlying conflict there, too. That all these regions + NPO have entered into a symbolic diplomatic alliance, and you can see a pretty clear outline of what the diplomatic environment looks like. We don't even have to advocate purposefully creating a conflict. The prerequisites are already there, and the ill feelings between regions still exist, too. Conflict will probably happen all on its own, and it'll organize along the pre-existing diplomatic arrangement. Path of least resistance, we can call it.

I think it's more than a lull. The imperialist sphere has largely collapsed, the survival of The Land of Kings and Emperors as an imperialist region notwithstanding, and imperialists were the drivers of conflict with some independent regions tagging along.

Yes, it's collapsed, but its remnants are still there in, say, Balder. Add Empire to the mix, which is currently found in Osiris & TWP, and you have an underlying conflict there, too. That all these regions + NPO have entered into a symbolic diplomatic alliance, and you can see a pretty clear outline of what the diplomatic environment looks like. We don't even have to advocate purposefully creating a conflict. The prerequisites are already there, and the ill feelings between regions still exist, too. Conflict will probably happen all on its own, and it'll organize along the pre-existing diplomatic arrangement. Path of least resistance, we can call it.

I would argue that the diplomatic landscape has changed, albeit not dramatically. Sure, some of the Feeders and Sinkers are still not best friends and are probably never going to be, but hostility has declined. The Pacific has successfully restored relations with several Feeders and Sinkers that terminated relations due to the New Lazarene Order, including Lazarus itself, leaving only The North Pacific and The Rejected Realms without relations with the Pacific. Osiris has recently restored relations with Lazarus, The North Pacific, and the South Pacific, which means it once again maintains relations with all of the Feeders and Sinkers. Balder and Lazarus have restored relations. The West Pacific hasn't been on poor terms with any of the other Feeders and Sinkers for years. I've seen nothing to indicate that these regions are interested in conflict, the occasional Gameplay sniping between Balder and the South Pacific aside. That is very different from where we were a couple years ago.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any actual relationship between TSP and either the NPO or Osiris. I don't have much else to comment on, but I wanted to correct that.

In regard to Osiris, I'm not sure how you can say it isn't seen any differently with new leadership. Again, it has restored relations with three Feeders and Sinkers -- as well as some user-created regions -- since Neo Kervoskia's reign as Pharaoh began, once again maintaining relations with the full slate of Feeders and Sinkers.

Like I said before, "hey, we coo?" isn't really "restored relations." I would not say that TSP and Osiris have "restored relations" by any means. Many people still see Osiris as an undemocratic and unstable region, and having an Empire member at its helm only increases the suspicions people have. Nothing beyond NK's two-sentence statement on TSP (which the government didn't even respond to) points to restored relations between the two.

[Pergamon]

If I was to push an agenda, it would be to dethrone NPO from the Pacific.

Try.

Compared to the other feeders, NPO may seem invulnerable, but in reality it is likely the least secure.

It's not like we are still here after 13+ years. We are the least secure, I agree.

The same cannot be said of the NPO: if a sleeper were to overpower Aleisyr, the invading army would only need to hold the region for between one and two months to seal its fate, and that would probably not be too terribly hard.

I agree again, this is a viable tactic and absolutely easy. Why did nobody else thought of something like that before? It seems all odds are against us, we should surrender and dismantle the NPO now.

In the long run I think the Pacific could benefit from democracy, as it is more engaging for regional members at large.

I agree yet again: nepotism, the lack of professionalism, the lack of loyalty and dedication - as well the chance to have basically anyone influence your region and ultimately to re-create it into a whorehouse for the advanced Nationstates politician is something to cherish and to strive for. The Pacific is in desperate need of an elected government.

Of course, I am not in a position to initiate anything like this.

Don't worry. It's just you and the entirety of this game.

I am also no military genius.

I agree.

However, if I hear any feeder/sinker is trying to orchestrate something like this, I am willing to help in any way possible.

Sign me in.

So far as I know, the actual connection between the two NPOs these days is minimal, at best.

Minimal? You really must be an insider!!! Congratulations, I respect your in-depth knowledge.

[Cerian Quilor]

That's why I said 'so far as I know'. I never claimed insider knowledge.

[Unibot III]

Sorry, Nostradamus, but you would need a lot more credibility for anyone to take these predictions seriously.

You do not have to be Nostradamus to know the NPO, the Empire and imperalists are up to no good. That's a given. It's not a 'conspiracy' - it's a reasonable extrapolation of everything they've ever done.

Why should anyone act based on your dire predictions and advice? Why should anyone do anything you say?

You don't have to do anything I say! I've posited a theory based on experience, game theory and general knowledge of the terrain. You can ignore me and get f'ked, or not ignore me, and get less f'ked. That's basically how this works. I've written these observations down because I see trouble on the horizon and deep down still kind of care what happens to the regions involved. But I'm not going to submit myself to being badgered by you of all people about credibility. Your dismal of quite literally everything that the Empire, NPO and imperialists has done since 2017 suggests you're either politically compromised or stuck in a deep-sated, reality-bending self-denial of what a monstrously foolish mistake you made in choosing NK as your replacement. (I suspect the former.)

[Cormactopia Prime]

I would argue that the diplomatic landscape has changed, albeit not dramatically. Sure, some of the Feeders and Sinkers are still not best friends and are probably never going to be, but hostility has declined. The Pacific has successfully restored relations with several Feeders and Sinkers that terminated relations due to the New Lazarene Order, including Lazarus itself, leaving only The North Pacific and The Rejected Realms without relations with the Pacific. Osiris has recently restored relations with Lazarus, The North Pacific, and the South Pacific, which means it once again maintains relations with all of the Feeders and Sinkers. Balder and Lazarus have restored relations. The West Pacific hasn't been on poor terms with any of the other Feeders and Sinkers for years. I've seen nothing to indicate that these regions are interested in conflict, the occasional Gameplay sniping between Balder and the South Pacific aside. That is very different from where we were a couple years ago.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any actual relationship between TSP and either the NPO or Osiris. I don't have much else to comment on, but I wanted to correct that.

In regard to Osiris, I'm not sure how you can say it isn't seen any differently with new leadership. Again, it has restored relations with three Feeders and Sinkers -- as well as some user-created regions -- since Neo Kervoskia's reign as Pharaoh began, once again maintaining relations with the full slate of Feeders and Sinkers.

Like I said before, "hey, we coo?" isn't really "restored relations." I would not say that TSP and Osiris have "restored relations" by any means. Many people still see Osiris as an undemocratic and unstable region, and having an Empire member at its helm only increases the suspicions people have. Nothing beyond NK's two-sentence statement on TSP (which the government didn't even respond to) points to restored relations between the two.

The South Pacific reopened its embassy on Osiris' regional forum. Surely you did notice the in-game embassy?

You don't have to do anything I say! I've posited a theory based on experience, game theory and general knowledge of the terrain. You can ignore me and get f'ked, or not ignore me, and get less f'ked. That's basically how this works. I've written these observations down because I see trouble on the horizon and deep down still kind of care what happens to the regions involved. But I'm not going to submit myself to being badgered by you of all people about credibility. Your dismal of quite literally everything that the Empire, NPO and imperialists has done since 2017 suggests you're either politically compromised or stuck in a deep-sated, reality-bending self-denial of what a monstrously foolish mistake you made in choosing NK as your replacement. (I suspect the former.)

I would love to hear how exactly you think I've been politically compromised.

I haven't been politically compromised and I'm not in deep-seated denial, I just have a hard time believing you could possibly have the best interests of any of the Feeders or Sinkers at heart given your history, and to be clear I'm talking here entirely about your in-character history and limiting it to that. I mean, although I know you are incredibly paranoid regarding Empire, even that paranoia seems a bit disingenuous. You're saying Osiris might be okay if I were still in charge, but unfortunately I handed it over to the dastardly Empire. But Empire wasn't in charge of Osiris the last time you tried to form a bloc against Balder and Osiris. What you're saying now doesn't mesh with your previous hostility toward Osiris, which occurred during my second term as Pharaoh, during which Osiris was "democratic" by your standards and Empire was still exiled from Osiris.

[Cerian Quilor]

Imperialists are only "Up to know good" if you think existing and not being defender is "up to no good", Unibot. Because Imperialists are not the ones who tried to vote stack and subvert the internal democractic processes of any GCR.

[Unibot III]

Imperialists are only "Up to know good" if you think existing and not being defender is "up to no good", Unibot.

I did not make a mistake in my sentence:

"You do not have to be Nostradamus to know the NPO, the Empire and imperalists are up to no good."

But you certainty made me check. So. Good on you.

I don't think defenders were up to "no good" in the game-created regions, they presumably feel their home regions should be defender regions because they think they ought to defend. I don't think it's a mass conspiracy: defenders join the same regions as their friends and want their regions to be defender like them.

But let's say for a second that defenders are evil entryists with a mass conspiracy to make every region, defender. The distinction is that most defenders are uncomfortable with taking unconstitutional measures and couping regions to achieve the shifts of power they want to achieve. That is a distinction. It's not imperceptible. It makes one a security threat and the other, a citizen. Invaders and imperialists and francoists have no issue with couping regions. Francoism is built on the August Revolution as a premise; invaders and imperialists invade regions all the time. They see nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. To them it's behaviour that is wholly normalized. To defenders, it's uncomfortable and uncharacteristic of who they are.

Because Imperialists are not the ones who tried to vote stack and subvert the internal democractic processes of any GCR.

But thanks for admitting that imperialists tried to vote stack and subvert the internal democractic processes of GCRs.

[Cormactopia Prime]

The distinction is that most defenders are uncomfortable with taking unconstitutional measures and couping regions to achieve the shifts of power they want to achieve.

I don't really have to go through the list of coups d'etat perpetrated by those whose R/D affiliation had been defender, do I? We've done this dance before. Spoiler: It's most of them.

[Cerian Quilor]

Imperialists are only "Up to know good" if you think existing and not being defender is "up to no good", Unibot.

I did not make a mistake in my sentence:

"You do not have to be Nostradamus to know the NPO, the Empire and imperalists are up to no good."

But you certainty made me check. So. Good on you.

I don't think defenders were up to "no good" in the game-created regions, they presumably feel their home regions should be defender regions because they think they ought to defend. I don't think it's a mass conspiracy: defenders join the same regions as their friends and want their regions to be defender like them.

But let's say for a second that defenders are evil entryists with a mass conspiracy to make every region, defender. The distinction is that most defenders are uncomfortable with taking unconstitutional measures and couping regions to achieve the shifts of power they want to achieve. That is a distinction. It's not imperceptible. It makes one a security threat and the other, a citizen. Invaders and imperialists and francoists have no issue with couping regions. Francoism is built on the August Revolution as a premise; invaders and imperialists invade regions all the time. They see nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. To them it's behaviour that is wholly normalized. To defenders, it's uncomfortable and uncharacteristic of who they are.

Invasion and coups are two very different things, Unibot, with completely different moral dimensions.

Because Imperialists are not the ones who tried to vote stack and subvert the internal democractic processes of any GCR.

But thanks for admitting that imperialists tried to vote stack and subvert the internal democractic processes of GCRs.

But I didn't. I said "Because Imperialists are not the ones who tried to vote stack and subvert the internal democractic processes of any GCR." (emphasis added).

I know you like to run on alternative facts, but you can't tell me I wrote something I didn't when it is in the very thing uou quoted.

[Unibot III]

The distinction is that most defenders are uncomfortable with taking unconstitutional measures and couping regions to achieve the shifts of power they want to achieve.

I don't really have to go through the list of coups d'etat perpetrated by those whose R/D affiliation had been defender, do I? We've done this dance before. Spoiler: It's most of them.

Sedgistan / Crazygirl. (A coup that defenders fought - and I lost my job over.)
Milograd.
Technically, you. I think. If you were a defender during the "Winter is coming" coup?
Lux in Balder wasn't a defender but he was trying to warm up to defenders for votes in Balder.
Unistrut was involved with the Triumvirate. Again retired from defending at that point.
Hileville and Belschaft were former UDL members.
Mallorea was a former UDL lt.
I think Douria may have briefly been a member of the UDL, well before the Gatesville coup.
And of course, the Empire's core members, JAL, TAO and Westwind were ADN, RLA or UDL at various points in their careers.
Technically, Ivan Moldavi was in the ADN RA although I can't imagine he'd have identified as a defender.
I'm not sure if Astarial's rise to power in Osiris counts as a coup and if she identified as a defender at that time. Former ADN, UDL, E-Army (I think). I would consider Osiris stateless at the time of her accession - and it's for that reason, I also wouldn't consider myself and Improving Wordiness as coupers in Balder and Osiris respectively.

Milograd and Biyah are the only people I can think of who've clearly couped a region while identifying as defenders. But it's an interesting historical question to ask.

Certainly the major defending organizations have always attracted people in their political intrigue and of great ambition and talent, but it's a ludicrous fiction to suggest people who've dedicated their NS careers to defending other regions have been an inordinate source of regional insecurity in their home regions. A lot of the regular coupers were disillusioned, bored defenders who gave up on defending. But that's exactly my point: they gave up on defending. Couping and defending are typically contradictory in sentiment.

For every coup by an ex-defender, you can find a defender group that actively was working to stop them. Sedgistan got in hot trouble as Arch-Chancellor with Equilism for trying to stop Lewis and Clark, I got in massive shit as Arch-Chancellor for trying to stop Sedgistan, Solm got in trouble as Chief of the Band trying to stop my former second-in-command, Milograd. You can chase this cycle back to the ADN but the key is that if a defender goes dirty, defenders don't go along with them - they stick behind what they believe.

Invasion and coups are two very different things, Unibot, with completely different moral dimensions.

What flaming bullshit is that? Haha. They're both unlawful seizures of the delegacy position, the motivations are generally the same.

[Galiantus VII]

-snip-

Like Unibot said, there is a paradox to the security of NPO. While it would be extremely difficult to stage a liberation of the Pacific, if it were to happen NPO would suffer a mortal blow. Other feeder governments experience coups every once in while, but the large influence of the general populace gives them staying power - an invading force in the Pacific could remove NPO support from the region in a fraction of the time it would take them to do the same to almost any other Feeder or Sinker. Of course taking the region in the first place would be hard, but holding on to it afterwards? Considering all the piling that would happen, I am going to say probably not.

"Your region" - GCRs aren't owned, they are inhabited. Your organization (The New Pacific Order) is an entity separate from the region (The Pacific). It doesn't matter that you have been there for 13+ years, because the Pacific was not created to be a home for your specific organization. Democratic feeder and sinker governments are far more legitimate stewards of their respective regions than NPO has ever been of The Pacific.

[Elegarth]

To be fair... Uni has made you all spent SEVERAL hours discussing his paranoia. Great job.

[Galiantus VII]

To be fair... Uni has made you all spent SEVERAL hours discussing his paranoia. Great job.

This thread
Uni: "You guys really have a lot of reasons to be fighting each other!"
Everyone else: "No... we're fine. Right? We're friends, right?"
Uni: "Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit..."
Everyone else: "GET TO THE CHOPPA!!"