Curious Observations | Funkadelia sold Lazarus to... Adytus?

[Tinhampton]

Man, why can't Funkadelia just eject and ban the rebels?

He has been doing that, with the aid of colleagues Killer Kitty and Scum (Evil Wolf and Lamb Stone), but he's losing influence whenever he banjects one of the high-influence rebels.

[Gracius Maximus]

This has always been something that confuses me. Nations moan on and on about community and yet focus unnecessarily upon a specific region. If the 'resistance' feels that they are best served in a community where Funkadelia is not the Delegate then they are free to establish their own region and offsite community where that is the case. Why even expend the energy on a region from which they have definitively been removed?

Playing devil's advocate a bit here though, since I'm not on the side of the "resistance" -- how boring would gameplay be if everyone just gave up and moved on to found their own user-created region in situations like this? We do need conflict in gameplay.

Oh, I agree, but that isn't the reasoning that the 'resistance' is utilizing.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This has always been something that confuses me. Nations moan on and on about community and yet focus unnecessarily upon a specific region. If the 'resistance' feels that they are best served in a community where Funkadelia is not the Delegate then they are free to establish their own region and offsite community where that is the case. Why even expend the energy on a region from which they have definitively been removed?

Playing devil's advocate a bit here though, since I'm not on the side of the "resistance" -- how boring would gameplay be if everyone just gave up and moved on to found their own user-created region in situations like this? We do need conflict in gameplay.

How "fun" is it, on the other hand, to be banned from the community you helped build, just because somebody you trusted to be Delegate decided to burn everything to the ground?

[Kylia Quilor]

Playing devil's advocate a bit here though, since I'm not on the side of the "resistance" -- how boring would gameplay be if everyone just gave up and moved on to found their own user-created region in situations like this? We do need conflict in gameplay.

Oh, I agree, but that isn't the reasoning that the 'resistance' is utilizing.

Yes, but the game wouldn't be fun if we all admitted that that's what we're doing. The rhetoric we all use is half the fun.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Playing devil's advocate a bit here though, since I'm not on the side of the "resistance" -- how boring would gameplay be if everyone just gave up and moved on to found their own user-created region in situations like this? We do need conflict in gameplay.

How "fun" is it, on the other hand, to be banned from the community you helped build, just because somebody you trusted to be Delegate decided to burn everything to the ground?

If you can't roll with these possibilities, you should build a community in a user-created region with a Founder instead. Feeder and Sinker coups have been part of gameplay for pretty much the entire fifteen years NationStates has existed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be opposed; that's an IC political thing, and I welcome it, because gameplay would be just as boring if no one opposed coups as it would be if no one perpetrated them. I'm saying if you can't have fun with them, Feeders and Sinkers aren't for you; but the rest of us shouldn't be asked to stop enjoying that aspect of gameplay.

[Amerion]

How "fun" is it, on the other hand, to be banned from the community you helped build, just because somebody you trusted to be Delegate decided to burn everything to the ground?

If you can't roll with these possibilities, you should build a community in a user-created region with a Founder instead. Feeder and Sinker coups have been part of gameplay for pretty much the entire fifteen years NationStates has existed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be opposed; that's an IC political thing, and I welcome it, because gameplay would be just as boring if no one opposed coups as it would be if no one perpetrated them. I'm saying if you can't have fun with them, Feeders and Sinkers aren't for you; but the rest of us shouldn't be asked to stop enjoying that aspect of gameplay.

Yeah I agree. However convenient it would be to merely move on, to do so would take all the joy out of GP. Fighting like children brings a certain joy to our IC lives.

[Gracius Maximus]

Oh, I agree, but that isn't the reasoning that the 'resistance' is utilizing.

Yes, but the game wouldn't be fun if we all admitted that that's what we're doing. The rhetoric we all use is half the fun.

I have always respected the truth more than the fantasy. The 'resistance' would be better served, in my opinion, by gearing their rhetoric towards the reality: Funkadelia took their toy away and they want it back. The community is not the region, that's all I'm saying.

[Kylia Quilor]

Yes, but the game wouldn't be fun if we all admitted that that's what we're doing. The rhetoric we all use is half the fun.

I have always respected the truth more than the fantasy. The 'resistance' would be better served, in my opinion, by gearing their rhetoric towards the reality: Funkadelia took their toy away and they want it back. The community is not the region, that's all I'm saying.

This isn't about fantasy, this is about the game - the game is the construction of people living in regions engaging in political action, played as if the regions are nations and the players are politicial elites and such in the regions. It isn't conducive to a game under that framework if people talk like that.

[Glen-Rhodes]

How "fun" is it, on the other hand, to be banned from the community you helped build, just because somebody you trusted to be Delegate decided to burn everything to the ground?

If you can't roll with these possibilities, you should build a community in a user-created region with a Founder instead. Feeder and Sinker coups have been part of gameplay for pretty much the entire fifteen years NationStates has existed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be opposed; that's an IC political thing, and I welcome it, because gameplay would be just as boring if no one opposed coups as it would be if no one perpetrated them. I'm saying if you can't have fun with them, Feeders and Sinkers aren't for you; but the rest of us shouldn't be asked to stop enjoying that aspect of gameplay.

Said by somebody who cried foul when his region was couped from underneath him, and complained about how Douria, JAL, etc were ruining the community you helped build.

The notion that coups are just another way the game is played is a real problem, not just some bland statement of fact. Why spend countless night awake trying to retake your community from a usurper, if you're just going to think this is what happens in the game and you shouldn't get so upset about it?

The real fact is that coups tear regions apart. They're great fun for the handful of people pulling them off. But in the end, all we're left with is high animosity between players who feel betrayed and homeless. At some point, why even bother building these communities if it's socially acceptable and encouraged to destroy them?

[Gracius Maximus]

I have always respected the truth more than the fantasy. The 'resistance' would be better served, in my opinion, by gearing their rhetoric towards the reality: Funkadelia took their toy away and they want it back. The community is not the region, that's all I'm saying.

This isn't about fantasy, this is about the game - the game is the construction of people living in regions engaging in political action, played as if the regions are nations and the players are politicial elites and such in the regions. It isn't conducive to a game under that framework if people talk like that.

Are you attempting to educate me on the dynamics of Nation States as a nation simulator? My comments are about the 'game'. I'm speaking as someone who likely (just a guess here) has a bit more experience at this sort of thing than you have.

We, as leaders of nations in the realm of Nation States have the choice to establish our communities as we see fit. If we value the community as the paramount point of reference for how we choose to interact then the locale of that interaction should be secondary. If the entire motivation for a community to exist is to control a specific region, or oppose someone else's control of a specific region, then perhaps it is doing it wrong.

If, however, we wish to see our role as a leader of a nation as the means by which we influence the world around us then participating in political struggles towards gaining a victory or securing power is perfectly reasonable and logical. In this context the battle for Lazarus makes the most sense to me. The moaning about community is disingenuous.

[RiderSyl]

This isn't about fantasy, this is about the game - the game is the construction of people living in regions engaging in political action, played as if the regions are nations and the players are politicial elites and such in the regions. It isn't conducive to a game under that framework if people talk like that.

Are you attempting to educate me on the dynamics of Nation States as a nation simulator? My comments are about the 'game'. I'm speaking as someone who likely (just a guess here) has a bit more experience at this sort of thing than you have.

Sometimes, more experience just makes you more wrong.

[Gracius Maximus]

Are you attempting to educate me on the dynamics of Nation States as a nation simulator? My comments are about the 'game'. I'm speaking as someone who likely (just a guess here) has a bit more experience at this sort of thing than you have.

Sometimes, more experience just makes you more wrong.

Do you have any examples of that from Gameplay?

Regardless, seeing as you are playing again, should I expect that you will take up your previous past time of stalking my posts in order to make baseless asides without substantive support? No worries if that is the plan, just want to be aware.

[RiderSyl]

Do you have any examples of that from Gameplay?

I don't feel like digging for examples of experienced people being wrong about a subject, just to back up my common-sense wisdom on your behalf.

Regardless, seeing as you are playing again, should I expect that you will take up your previous past time of stalking my posts in order to make baseless asides without substantive support? No worries if that is the plan, just want to be aware.

What the heck are you talking about?

[Gracius Maximus]

Do you have any examples of that from Gameplay?

I don't feel like digging for examples of experienced people being wrong about a subject, just to back up my common-sense wisdom on your behalf.

I see. So your self-styled 'common-sense wisdom' doesn't need justification but my opinion does? Makes sense.

Regardless, seeing as you are playing again, should I expect that you will take up your previous past time of stalking my posts in order to make baseless asides without substantive support? No worries if that is the plan, just want to be aware.

What the heck are you talking about?

No worries. Glad I don't need to be bothered about it.

[RiderSyl]

I see. So your self-styled 'common-sense wisdom' doesn't need justification but my opinion does? Makes sense.

I never went after your opinions. I just honestly don't think the "I have more experience than you!" part of your post lends credence to your opinions when expressing them.

No worries. Glad I don't need to be bothered about it.

O...kay.

[Gracius Maximus]

I see. So your self-styled 'common-sense wisdom' doesn't need justification but my opinion does? Makes sense.

I never went after your opinions. I just honestly don't think the "I have more experience than you!" part of your post lends credence to your opinions when expressing them.

Interesting. So why, in your 'common-sense wisdom' wouldn't 14 years of Gameplay experience in Nation States give me a firm perspective on the way Gameplay works? Since that is the part of the post in which that statement is relevant. I wasn't utilising my experience as a justification of why my opinion is valid, I was pointing it out to someone that seemed to be defining what Gameplay was to me, which is a situation that directly relates to my experience.

Regardless, and back on topic, I still believe that the locale of the community shouldn't be paramount absent a realisation of the need to play power politics in the fight for control of the specific region.

[Kylia Quilor]

How is it hard to get that it's *both*?

[Gracius Maximus]

How is it hard to get that it's *both*?

It isn't difficult at all, and I just stated that I see it as necessitating both. My position is that the pontificating absent the realpolitik equivalent of 'you pissed in my sandbox' is disingenuous.

[Cormactopia Prime]

If you can't roll with these possibilities, you should build a community in a user-created region with a Founder instead. Feeder and Sinker coups have been part of gameplay for pretty much the entire fifteen years NationStates has existed. I'm not saying they shouldn't be opposed; that's an IC political thing, and I welcome it, because gameplay would be just as boring if no one opposed coups as it would be if no one perpetrated them. I'm saying if you can't have fun with them, Feeders and Sinkers aren't for you; but the rest of us shouldn't be asked to stop enjoying that aspect of gameplay.

Said by somebody who cried foul when his region was couped from underneath him, and complained about how Douria, JAL, etc were ruining the community you helped build.

I fought Douria's coup, which is completely consistent with what I just said about the game being less fun if no one resists coups. That did not lead to me engaging in meta denunciation of coups as part of gameplay, which is what you're doing. There's a difference between resisting coups as part of the game and calling for them not to be part of the game. I encourage the former, but I think the latter would be bad for gameplay.

The notion that coups are just another way the game is played is a real problem, not just some bland statement of fact. Why spend countless night awake trying to retake your community from a usurper, if you're just going to think this is what happens in the game and you shouldn't get so upset about it?

The real fact is that coups tear regions apart. They're great fun for the handful of people pulling them off. But in the end, all we're left with is high animosity between players who feel betrayed and homeless. At some point, why even bother building these communities if it's socially acceptable and encouraged to destroy them?

There's one thing I don't understand about defenders like yourself who oppose invasions and coups at a meta level, which is to say those who insist that such things are OOC bad and should be excluded from gameplay altogether, not those who take political positions against invasions and coups and defend against them. What exactly do you, and others like you, want to happen in gameplay? You claim to like the interregional politics aspect of gameplay, yet if there were no invasions and no coups, there would be very little reason for regions to interact with each other beyond spam festivals and other such "cultural" initiatives. There wouldn't be any reason for treaties, multiregional organizations, etc. There would be no conflict. What do you imagine gameplay would be without conflict? I imagine it would be incredibly boring, and that most regions would be isolated islands with no interaction with any other regions.

[Swarshengaggen]

I think, Cormac, that your problem is simply that you switch sides too much and you're a renown couper. With you probably already knowing that, I suggest that you finally put aside fun as your main priority and try to renew your trustworthiness rating.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I think, Cormac, that your problem is simply that you switch sides too much and you're a renown couper. With you probably already knowing that, I suggest that you finally put aside fun as your main priority and try to renew your trustworthiness rating.

What does this have to do with anything being discussed? There are multiple criticisms I could level against you, as well, but I'm not going to because it has nothing to do with the discussion. We're discussing coups and what gameplay would look like without conflict, not me and my trustworthiness.

[RiderSyl]

I think, Cormac, that your problem is simply that you switch sides too much and you're a renown couper. With you probably already knowing that, I suggest that you finally put aside fun as your main priority and try to renew your trustworthiness rating.

What does this have to do with anything being discussed? There are multiple criticisms I could level against you, as well, but I'm not going to because it has nothing to do with the discussion. We're discussing coups and what gameplay would look like without conflict, not me and my trustworthiness.

Montresor's Law: "As a discussion involving Cormac grows longer, the probability of criticism of Cormac's character approaches 1."

[Kylia Quilor]

What does this have to do with anything being discussed? There are multiple criticisms I could level against you, as well, but I'm not going to because it has nothing to do with the discussion. We're discussing coups and what gameplay would look like without conflict, not me and my trustworthiness.

Montresor's Law: "As a discussion involving Cormac grows longer, the probability of criticism of Cormac's character approaches 1."

Is that yours or did someone else make that jIke first bc I love it.

[RiderSyl]

Montresor's Law: "As a discussion involving Cormac grows longer, the probability of criticism of Cormac's character approaches 1."

Is that yours or did someone else make that jIke first bc I love it.

It's all mine.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

The notion that coups are just another way the game is played is a real problem, not just some bland statement of fact. Why spend countless night awake trying to retake your community from a usurper, if you're just going to think this is what happens in the game and you shouldn't get so upset about it?

The real fact is that coups tear regions apart. They're great fun for the handful of people pulling them off. But in the end, all we're left with is high animosity between players who feel betrayed and homeless. At some point, why even bother building these communities if it's socially acceptable and encouraged to destroy them?

There's one thing I don't understand about defenders like yourself who oppose invasions and coups at a meta level, which is to say those who insist that such things are OOC bad and should be excluded from gameplay altogether, not those who take political positions against invasions and coups and defend against them. What exactly do you, and others like you, want to happen in gameplay? You claim to like the interregional politics aspect of gameplay, yet if there were no invasions and no coups, there would be very little reason for regions to interact with each other beyond spam festivals and other such "cultural" initiatives. There wouldn't be any reason for treaties, multiregional organizations, etc. There would be no conflict. What do you imagine gameplay would be without conflict? I imagine it would be incredibly boring, and that most regions would be isolated islands with no interaction with any other regions.

I can't speak for Glen-Rhodes because I don't know his exact sentiments on this issue, but I'll respond to your question because I'd consider myself to be someone who does oppose invasions and coups at a meta level except in extremely limited circumstances (e.g, anti-fascist action) and because I have very strong personal sentiments on this issue that I want to express: The communities in this game and the good generated by having strong, stable, and prosperous communities, in my opinion, far outstrips any abstract good that conflict or interregional politics in GP generates. Having communities be torn apart and the immense negative impacts that can have on players is something that I cannot abide for the sake of conflict and interregional politics. The current social system of coups and invasions only benefits a small minority of Gameplayers who thrive in conflict (because, let's be clear, it's that minority of players that love participating in conflict and warfare that are the ones who benefit from this current social order) at the expense of the vast majority of nations; natives, GCR citizens who just want to enjoy the unique communities of their regions and GCRs, etc., which leads me to oppose coups, invasions and whatnot except in extremely limited circumstances.

To be clear, I'm not calling for the complete abolition of military Gameplay and coups, but I am calling for such conflict to be limited to areas where it is an accepted part of a community's way of life and doesn't negatively impact communities that are just that; communities of people that just want to enjoy themselves and do whatever it is that they do, either in GCRs or UCRs. I don't object to political conflict (probably not coups per se because of the impact that such things have on communities, but just political conflict in general that can sometimes get dirty) in regions like Euro or possibly TNP (I can't say that I'm familiar with TNP's community, so please do correct me here if I'm repeating a falsehood) that accept political conflict as a part of their community and way of life, or R/D in Warzones, other designated military Gameplay regions or regions that accept R/D in their region, but I what I do object to is such conflict in regions whose communities and citizens don't accept such conflict. Would this potentially have a deleterious impact on certain segments of GP? Probably, but this is in my opinion a necessary sacrifice so that other communities and individuals don't have conflict imposed upon them that they don't want. This ideal NS of mine is obviously a pipe dream and I have no illusions about that reality, but as a defender I consider it my duty to fight for the sovereignty, freedom and survival of NS communities, even if that battle and war will never truly end.