NationStates

Honeydewistania wrote:

Comfed wrote:You forgot the part where they’re a democratic region that guarantees freedom of expression and conscience.

Have your opinion on this and whatever, but this is in no way violating one's freedom of expression or conscience.

Of course it doesn't. Banning raiders, however, does, and this looks a lot like that.

A Bloodred Moon wrote:It is fruitless to defend your own statements?

Defend against your arguments, presumably? The proscription is not dependent on your approval of it. There is no universe in which you would ever agree that TSP is right in its belief that TBH is a threat and why we believe that. Even if we were to take Evil Wolf and Souls up on their advice to just ban all raiders because they're raiders (which is never going to happen, much to your chagrin!), the response here wouldn't be, "Oh that totally makes sense. Good on you for being so straight-forward TSP!" No, the response would predictably be that we're anti-democratic, corrupt defenders, spreading toxic hate of raiders. (Those internally contradicting arguments I talked about: TSP is being anti-democratic but should just ban raiders because they're raiders.)

Thus, what is the point? This announcement was posted in the GP forums for posterity, because that's tradition. If people are going to get back to olden days of roleplaying inter-regional politics, where we can have a decent substantive debate about threats to sovereignty and proper security policy, instead of this kind of "throw at the wall and see what sticks" meta-game arguments... shoot me a DM

Sandaoguo wrote: Even if we were to take Evil Wolf and Souls up on their advice to just ban all raiders because they're raiders (which is never going to happen, much to your chagrin!), the response here wouldn't be, "Oh that totally makes sense. Good on you for being so straight-forward TSP!" No, the response would predictably be that we're anti-democratic, corrupt defenders, spreading toxic hate of raiders. (Those internally contradicting arguments I talked about: TSP is being anti-democratic but should just ban raiders because they're raiders.)

Funny, TSP raised many of the same points explaining why they would never pick sides and officially declare themselves defender. We all saw out that lie played out.

At this point, the declaration would just a formality anyway. In their wisdom, TSP has banned not just The Black Hawks, but also the current delegate of Osiris, so really the political fallout is just starting. Plus you forget, Glen, that these days crossover between TSP and TBH might be nonexistent, but TBH has a lot of crossover in many of the non-aligned regions that TSP loves to do joint ops with, such as TNP.

How are those regions going to respond when you tell them their citizens are banned from Joint Ops?

Sandaoguo wrote:Even if we were to take Evil Wolf and Souls up on their advice to just ban all raiders because they're raiders (which is never going to happen, much to your chagrin!), the response here wouldn't be, "Oh that totally makes sense. Good on you for being so straight-forward TSP!" No, the response would predictably be that we're anti-democratic, corrupt defenders, spreading toxic hate of raiders. (Those internally contradicting arguments I talked about: TSP is being anti-democratic but should just ban raiders because they're raiders.)

Why not? XKI closed their doors to raiders like, what, 16 years ago? Heck, didn't Balder close their doors to defenders a long time ago? Go ahead, you guys wouldn't be the first.

Lord Dominator wrote:

Numero Capitan wrote: Anyone is welcome in TSP should they want to be a part of that great community, but current TBH members would have to choose to end their ties with TBH to do so - which is an unfortunate consequence of the actions of Black Hawks and no-one else.

I'm sure our members will be just lining up to join

Perhaps not, but if any of them felt they would enjoy the game more in TSP, they could still do so in those circumstances.

I don't really care for the proscription, and definitely don't support banning raiders from TSP (I'm not sure a single person in TSP would - only the defender imperialist in this thread who is more unwelcome in TSP than anyone else). It only really harms the civilian areas of the region by excluding some good people from things, but I guess it gives the Cabinet the legal justification for quick action against any future CCD-level attempts at subterfuge TBH's members decide to undertake without consequence.

The Church of Satan wrote:

Sandaoguo wrote:Even if we were to take Evil Wolf and Souls up on their advice to just ban all raiders because they're raiders (which is never going to happen, much to your chagrin!), the response here wouldn't be, "Oh that totally makes sense. Good on you for being so straight-forward TSP!" No, the response would predictably be that we're anti-democratic, corrupt defenders, spreading toxic hate of raiders. (Those internally contradicting arguments I talked about: TSP is being anti-democratic but should just ban raiders because they're raiders.)

Why not? XKI closed their doors to raiders like, what, 16 years ago? Heck, didn't Balder close their doors to defenders a long time ago? Go ahead, you guys wouldn't be the first.

Yes, but they would be the first democratic GCR

Numero Capitan wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:I'm sure our members will be just lining up to join

Perhaps not, but if any of them felt they would enjoy the game more in TSP, they could still do so in those circumstances.

It's rather that those circumstances are a bit theoretical, since I'm not actually aware of any recent or current crossover to begin with - our members don't exactly feel like joining TSP anyways if they're choosing to join other regions.

Edit: Or, in other words TBH and TSP don't appear to have natural crossover, and this only forecloses the possibility of any being created (other than some TSPers being on our server, since we police the people in public somewhat less in terms of membership elsewhere).

but I guess it gives the Cabinet the legal justification for quick action against any future CCD-level attempts at subterfuge TBH's members decide to undertake without consequence.

This is actually confusing to me - other than war, having us all banned don't exactly leave anymore room for retaliation against TBH or members thereof, unless you completely lack laws about lying on citizenship applications.

Drop Your Pants wrote:

Varanius wrote:Oooo, can we kill the SC next?

But then Syl wouldn't have anywhere to be "cool". Lets keep SC.

i have plenty of places to be cool

Evil Wolf wrote:Funny, TSP raised many of the same points explaining why they would never pick sides and officially declare themselves defender. We all saw out that lie played out.

(Do I see an actually substantive debate forming here!? In any case, I love discussing history )

I don't remember making any arguments about how TSP would "never pick sides," let alone making the argument that TSP wouldn't ever do so because GPers would call us corrupt/anti-democratic and spreading toxic raider hate. And I'm the one primarily responsible for us finally declaring ourselves defender!

6-7 years ago, when the dominant foreign policy paradigm in TSP was alignment with the Independent-imperialist bloc, the proponents of that alliance were arguing that it was only natural that an Independent region raided more than defending. Not only was raiding a more effective display of power, but diplomatic relations required being friendly with raiders and to defend would cause issues there. Pro-defender politicians used the rhetorical devices and logic of Independence against itself-- showing that it was a farce because we were effectively barred from defending and having strong relations with defenders. The goal during 2014-2015 (during which I served as MoFA for 15 out of 24 months) was to move TSP to a more "defender-leaning" center and discredit the idea of Independence. That was a success! And in no small part due to imperialists in TNI and Europeia overplaying their hand.

The goal was never a fully defender TSP, because that was viewed as unobtainable even if ideal. You'll probably call that splitting hairs, but you really give me and others too much credit. Why would we have waited 4 more years after detangling TSP from its imperialist/raider alliances to propose officially going defender? If that was the goal all along, seems like if we could accomplish discrediting Independence in just 2 years, we would accelerate a "full defenderization" plan, not slow down. In reality, after it was clear we had defeated Independent-imperialism in TSP, I took a break from running for Cabinet and didn't run for any elected office until early 2018. Strange strategy for someone who hadn't accomplished their real goal!

I imagine you have invented a memory here, taking reassurances at the time that TSP wasn't about to imminently declare itself defender (we weren't) in 2015, and deciding that meant pro-defender proponents in TSP said TSP would never, ever go defender. At the time, the attacks against the anti-imperialist and anti-Independence policies I was pursuing was that, say, the alliances with TRR and Lazarus were a prelude to an imminent purge of non-defenders and a defender takeover of TSP. Which, again, was laughable at the time

So, I'm not sure who was giving the argument you're talking about here. But it wasn't the people responsible for TSP's shift towards defenderism Because if we believed a fully defender TSP was unobtainable, the idea of banning all raiders would never have even been on our minds. I doubt you'll believe me, but it is what it is.

Evil Wolf wrote:How are those regions going to respond when you tell them their citizens are banned from Joint Ops?

The proscription of TBH does not impact the SPSF's ability to participate in joint defender ops with regions that have a third-level nexus with TBH. It prevents TBH members from accessing TSP property and territory.

The Church of Satan wrote:Why not? XKI closed their doors to raiders like, what, 16 years ago? Heck, didn't Balder close their doors to defenders a long time ago? Go ahead, you guys wouldn't be the first.

Considering how XKI is vilified by GP today the exact way I just described, this isn't the stinging response you imagine it is!

Anyways, TSP actually does value its democracy. GP is a den of cynics and nihilists, so I know it's hard to imagine that anybody can be sincere about that. But we are. *shrugs*

Also, this idea that proscribing TBH has effectively banned all raiders from TSP is... cocky, to say the least. TBH isn’t the whole raider community, and whatever time it may or may not be enjoying as the preeminent raider org of today, it’s influence and membership will wax and wane the same as any other org. TSP, however, will always be here as a democratic GCR.

Sandaoguo wrote:The goal was never a fully defender TSP, because that was viewed as unobtainable even if ideal. You'll probably call that splitting hairs, but you really give me and others too much credit. Why would we have waited 4 more years after detangling TSP from its imperialist/raider alliances to propose officially going defender? If that was the goal all along, seems like if we could accomplish discrediting Independence in just 2 years, we would accelerate a "full defenderization" plan, not slow down. In reality, after it was clear we had defeated Independent-imperialism in TSP, I took a break from running for Cabinet and didn't run for any elected office until early 2018. Strange strategy for someone who hadn't accomplished their real goal!

At the time, the attacks against the anti-imperialist and anti-Independence policies I was pursuing was that, say, the alliances with TRR and Lazarus were a prelude to an imminent purge of non-defenders and a defender takeover of TSP. Which, again, was laughable at the time

Because if we believed a fully defender TSP was unobtainable, the idea of banning all raiders would never have even been on our minds. I doubt you'll believe me, but it is what it is.

I mean aren't you just proving that there have been specific people in TSP, including yourself, that have actively tried to pursue agendas that benefitted them? You even are saying that you and others only did not push TSP towards being totally defender at the time because you regarded it as unobtainable. It also sounds like you would be for following in XKI's footsteps but are just worried how others would view TSP. Didn't you push to isolate TSP's FA from gameplay because of your negative views of the community? Sounds like there is a lot of value in others holding a region accountable.

I have always viewed extreme ideologies and perspectives as dangerous to the game on all sides. And I would say TSP has moved more and more towards an extreme ideology. It is not because you all are defender. That is what it is. But going against SC proposals of raiders because they are raiders even if people believe the players have earned it. Or formally requesting that any information about HEM's time in TSP in their commendation be removed because of events that happened after the fact. Wasn't Tim and Escade removed from their positions right before an election largely because of disagreements with people within the government rather than just letting citizens have their voice heard in the election?

It just seems like we have very different views of what true democracy is if that all seems to affirm democracy in your eyes. These moves to make TSP hold more extreme views has not happened in a vacuum. You and others have pushed agendas to make this happen. I hope there are still people in TSP who recognize what is happening and will do something about it.

Jakker wrote:I mean aren't you just proving that there have been specific people in TSP, including yourself, that have actively tried to pursue agendas that benefitted them? You even are saying that you and others only did not push TSP towards being totally defender at the time because you regarded it as unobtainable.

GPers have this weird tendency to ascribe individual selfish benefit to defenders when they pursue pro-defender policy, rather than just thinking that people are advocating for positions they believe in. Personally my time as MoFA overseeing the dismantling of our Independent-imperialist alignment nearly destroyed my ability to play NationStates altogether. Constantly being called corrupt, toxic, a horrible person, etc. (and that was not just IC politicking!) takes its mental toll, and of course all of that was the impetus to 2 attempts to purge me from TSP. So I'd say that I didn't personally "benefit from" pursuing a pro-defender agenda. Defenderism as an ideological movement benefited from my work, which is well... the point of a political simulator.

Jakker wrote:It also sounds like you would be for following in XKI's footsteps but are just worried how others would view TSP. Didn't you push to isolate TSP's FA from gameplay because of your negative views of the community? Sounds like there is a lot of value in others holding a region accountable.

My private opinion on raiders in TSP is that the best thing for TSP is to continue being a great defender region. That naturally leads to less raiders in the region, because I imagine they'd rather actually go raid and be around other raiders. Outright banning raiders just because they're raiders would violate democratic principles, which is why I've never proposed a bill in the Assembly to do so. Banning specific groups that have directly attempted to infiltrate and overturn TSP democracy is not violating any democratic principles-- it's actually protecting and defending them. And that's good security policy no matter what R/D alignment that group might have.

The below is mostly off-topic, I think, but they're interesting things to debate:

Jakker wrote:But going against SC proposals of raiders because they are raiders even if people believe the players have earned it.

I'm curious-- did you vote for my commendation? The Security Council is an IC political body, and people's votes are going to be politically motivated. If you make a name for yourself as a raider, defenders aren't going to find much reason to celebrate that. A commendation (or condemnation) isn't an OOC lifetime achievement award. Isn't that what we created the Gameplay Awards for?

Jakker wrote:Or formally requesting that any information about HEM's time in TSP in their commendation be removed because of events that happened after the fact.

Why wouldn't we? HEM is the founder of a region that attempted to coerce TSP into dropping our then-brand new alliances with Lazarus and TRR with blackmail and literal threats of military retaliation. Again, SC commendations aren't personal lifetime achievement awards.

HEM also tried to coup TSP pre-Devonitians, but no-one remembers that as apparently no-one else in the region was active enough to notice it back then.

Sandaoguo wrote:Isn't that what we created the Gameplay Awards for?

No

Lord Dominator wrote:

Sandaoguo wrote:Isn't that what we created the Gameplay Awards for?

No

lol what? There's literally a "Gameplayer of the Year" category You're also saying that the Gameplay Awards are political (and so people's ballots and votes should be based on their R/D alignment!), by the way

Sandaoguo wrote:and whatever time it may or may not be enjoying as the preeminent raider org of today, it’s influence and membership will wax and wane the same as any other org. TSP, however, will always be here as a democratic GCR.

TBH turns 16 this year. TSP is what, turning 18 this year? Based on a dispatch saying it was turning 13 almost five years ago. Half our claim to fame is being more actively persistent than anyone else in our sphere. Pretty bold to claim you're measurably more resilient over a 12% difference

Sandaoguo wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:No

lol what? There's literally a "Gameplayer of the Year" category You're also saying that the Gameplay Awards are political (and so people's ballots and votes should be based on their R/D alignment!), by the way

The opposite, my Gameplay Awards isn't in any way designed to be a particularly serious representation of Gameplay stuff. You can see this in the 2019 awards having a defender (spy) win a raider award and a (soon-to-be) raider win a defender award. On the other end of awards, there's also the helpfully named 'most popular' award. The full intent is roughly a light-hearted wrapping up of the year. Also, none of the awards are in anyway lifetime achievement ones.

No, the more appropriate comparison would have been the Raider Hall of Fame, though at that point we should be asking why the existence of somewhat OOC bodies giving out alignment awards negates the use of the SC, given both raiders and defenders have such.

Edit: of course, a discussion of the precise nature of various awards groups in Gameplay compared to the SC is perhaps not a topic for the TSP thread. I'd be happy to move elsewhere if you are.

Sandaoguo wrote:Considering how XKI is vilified by GP today the exact way I just described, this isn't the stinging response you imagine it is!

It wasn't meant to be a stinging response, nor was it intended to vilify XKI. It was a statement of fact. If anything I'd argue that XKI is doing the best it ever has since Grub's absence allowed the region to break out of its shell.

TSP could easily purge all raiders from itself and still be democratic. All it takes is a bill and enough voters to push it through. That's as democratic as it gets.

The Church of Satan wrote:

Sandaoguo wrote:Considering how XKI is vilified by GP today the exact way I just described, this isn't the stinging response you imagine it is!

It wasn't meant to be a stinging response, nor was it intended to vilify XKI. It was a statement of fact. If anything I'd argue that XKI is doing the best it ever has since Grub's absence allowed the region to break out of its shell.

TSP could easily purge all raiders from itself and still be democratic. All it takes is a bill and enough voters to push it through. That's as democratic as it gets.

It could be democratic in name, but banning an ideology doesn't sound like democracy, it sounds like authoritarianism.

Comfed wrote:It could be democratic in name, but banning an ideology doesn't sound like democracy, it sounds like authoritarianism.

Let's not pretend that R/D is anything more than military stances. Calling it (or any R/D alignment for that matter) an ideology seems like an overstatement.

Sandaoguo wrote: Personally my time as MoFA overseeing the dismantling of our Independent-imperialist alignment nearly destroyed my ability to play NationStates altogether.

Nice to see you finally admit to what you so fiercely denied at the time, that your actions were purely to push your personal defender ideals rather than for the real benefit of the region. The truth weasels its way out, just takes years sometimes.

Sandaoguo wrote:Outright banning raiders just because they're raiders would violate democratic principles, which is why I've never proposed a bill in the Assembly to do so. Banning specific groups that have directly attempted to infiltrate and overturn TSP democracy is not violating any democratic principles-- it's actually protecting and defending them. And that's good security policy no matter what R/D alignment that group might have.

By worrying about violating democratic principles when dealing with an ideology that seeks to destroy you, you are making your region less secure.

Your commitment to NS Democracy may be a strength in GCR politics, Glen, but it's a weakness in NSGP and it always will be.

RiderSyl wrote:By worrying about violating democratic principles when dealing with an ideology that seeks to destroy you, you are making your region less secure.

Your commitment to NS Democracy may be a strength in GCR politics, Glen, but it's a weakness in NSGP and it always will be.

It is quite the stretch to say that the ideology of raiders is seeking to destroy TSP or any GCR. I am sure there are raiders out there who would want to see TSP reform in various ways and I am sure there are just as many non-raiders who also would like the same. Just like there have been many coups by non-raiders as there has been involving/supported by raiders. For years, OC was part of TSP and did not want to see TSP raided. My point is people love to always point fingers at raiders as the bad people who have bad intentions. Not only is that a terrible generalization, I would argue that there are often just as many, if not more, people who are non-raiders with just as bad, if not worse, intentions.

I'm going to go point-for-point here.

Jakker wrote:It is quite the stretch to say that the ideology of raiders is seeking to destroy TSP or any GCR.

Well, that's not exactly what I said. The ideology of raiders is to raid targets. TSP, as the defender GCR of NS, is naturally the biggest target of any GCR. That's why lower members of TBH thought that infiltrating TSP during Commend Twobagger would go over well with the Council of Hawks, even unauthorized.

Jakker wrote:I am sure there are raiders out there who would want to see TSP reform in various ways

If it's not reforms that would make them more raider, or easier to raid, then those raiders aren't approaching things from the raider mindset.

Jakker wrote:For years, OC was part of TSP and did not want to see TSP raided.

Didn't approach things from the raider mindset.

Jakker wrote:and I am sure there are just as many non-raiders who also would like the same.

Jakker wrote:Just like there have been many coups by non-raiders as there has been involving/supported by raiders.

Jakker wrote:My point is people love to always point fingers at raiders as the bad people who have bad intentions. Not only is that a terrible generalization, I would argue that there are often just as many, if not more, people who are non-raiders with just as bad, if not worse, intentions.

Here, it's not a terrible generalization, it's just pointing at the villain and saying "Hey, they're evil". Raiders are the villains of NSGP, and more often than not harmful to regional security if the region qualifies as a target. As for there being non-raiders with bad or worse intentions... sure, but that's not what this discussion is about, is it?

Evil Wolf wrote:

Sandaoguo wrote: Personally my time as MoFA overseeing the dismantling of our Independent-imperialist alignment nearly destroyed my ability to play NationStates altogether.

Nice to see you finally admit to what you so fiercely denied at the time, that your actions were purely to push your personal defender ideals rather than for the real benefit of the region. The truth weasels its way out, just takes years sometimes.

This really does prove that you make of your own memories, Wolf

I wrote constantly about how Independent-imperialism was horrible for TSP, that our imperialist "allies" were bullies and treated us as junior partners to be directed around, and that TSP's allegiance to imperialists was being done out of a misguided fear of retaliation. None of that was secret!

What I didn't do is bring up motions in the Assembly to repeal our treaties with TNI or Europeia. I pursued alliances with defender regions, told the imperialists I wasn't going to challenge our treaties with them but they certainly wouldn't be a focus of my FA. It's the imperialists who tried hard as they could to bait us into dissolving the alliances, because that would "prove" TSP was being taken over by defenders. The reality is that early on in my tenure, it was not feasible to propose repealing those alliances-- Delegates like Tsunamy and players like Belschaft stood in the way of that. (Even after Europeia threatened invasion and infiltration if we didn't drop Lazarus and TRR as allies.) But imperialists did the job for me! Genuinely felt like Christmas day when they did! All it took was ignoring their threats and just going forward with actually valuable and fruitful defender alliances. (A lesson I hope TSP remembers in the years to come!)

Your fallacy here is conflating what I thought would be ideal and what I actually pursued, something Independent, raider, and imperialist GPers have always had a problem with understanding. That's the way democracy works: a single person can't stream-roll over the region, forcibly implementing their own desires. I know that's hard for you to understand, given your history couping and destroying regions whenever you please. But in democratic communities, what people want is not always what they can do, because they're accountable to the rest of the community in regular elections.

Jakker wrote:

RiderSyl wrote:By worrying about violating democratic principles when dealing with an ideology that seeks to destroy you, you are making your region less secure.

Your commitment to NS Democracy may be a strength in GCR politics, Glen, but it's a weakness in NSGP and it always will be.

It is quite the stretch to say that the ideology of raiders is seeking to destroy TSP or any GCR. I am sure there are raiders out there who would want to see TSP reform in various ways and I am sure there are just as many non-raiders who also would like the same. Just like there have been many coups by non-raiders as there has been involving/supported by raiders. For years, OC was part of TSP and did not want to see TSP raided. My point is people love to always point fingers at raiders as the bad people who have bad intentions. Not only is that a terrible generalization, I would argue that there are often just as many, if not more, people who are non-raiders with just as bad, if not worse, intentions.

This is mostly right-- raiding is not by nature a threat to TSP's sovereignty and security, in my opinion. TBH is a threat because of the repeated attempts to subvert and infiltrate TSP, and a top-down culture of hatred of TSP and a desire to see it burn to the group seems to be pervasive. Because of this, the smartest move is to not trust any member of TBH.

I think some are thinking I'm a defender of the variety that believes raiders are IRL bad people, or that raiding should be banned, or whatever. I'm not and never have been! As long as R/D is a big part of NationStates, then raiders are a vital part of the game. (As is defending.) My feelings on raiders are that I oppose them politically ("IC") and because of that I'm unlikely to be OOC friends with them. I'm a big advocate of a "good vs evil" narrative in NS, from a game design perspective, so in-character rhetorically I'm definitely "raiders are evil!" But...

I'm playing a political simulation game, and part of that game is that TSP is a democracy and we agree to abide by the laws we write and the democratic principles we agreed to uphold. The most secure thing we could do is become a defender dictatorship, lower our endocap to nothing, and ban any and all raiders or raider sympathizers on sight. But that would destroy the whole reason TSPers play the game-- to simulate a democratic government as much as possible, even if there are certain things we have to do because the rest of GP has kind of lost the plot on this being a poli-sim where you're supposed to roleplay.

RiderSyl wrote:

Jakker wrote:My point is people love to always point fingers at raiders as the bad people who have bad intentions. Not only is that a terrible generalization, I would argue that there are often just as many, if not more, people who are non-raiders with just as bad, if not worse, intentions.

Here, it's not a terrible generalization, it's just pointing at the villain and saying "Hey, they're evil". Raiders are the villains of NSGP, and more often than not harmful to regional security if the region qualifies as a target. As for there being non-raiders with bad or worse intentions... sure, but that's not what this discussion is about, is it?

I disagree with the notion that anyone who identifies as a raider should not be allowed in TSP or that would be benefitical to TSP. I also think it is important to note that there have been and will continue to be non-raiders whose presence actually do make regions less secure including TSP so creating this narrative that raiders are the problem is narrow.

I also disagree with your argument of the "raider mindset." Plenty of raiders are not looking to make a region like TSP more raider or easier to raid. I cannot speak for everyone because I don't know everyone, but I can speak for a lot of people. Rather, many raiders are simply trying to reduce anti-raider views. It should not be controversial for raiding to exist in the game. Raiders should not be scrutinized when they are in other communities or try to attend events just because they raid. Raiders should not be dismissed from being recognized for their impact in the game just because they are raiders. Being a raider should not be controversial and generalizing this notion to all those who identify as such is harmful.