St Abbaddon

[Elegarth]

It has always been the case that any founderless region that gets themselves involved with groups that are against raiders will become targeted far more. We have seen this over and over again. If a founderless region wants to avoid the spotlight more, don't get too close/assistance from defenders or groups that are aggressively against raiders. Because eventually those groups will stop caring about the region, but raiders will not forget that connection.

Will founderless regions get raided at some point regardless? Most likely, but the chances become significantly greater when they do things like what St. Abbaddon has done.

This is Wisdom. This has ALWAYS been the case, and has been my main point AGAINST defenderism: they care for the glory, not for the actual defended...

[Kuriko]

It has always been the case that any founderless region that gets themselves involved with groups that are against raiders will become targeted far more. We have seen this over and over again. If a founderless region wants to avoid the spotlight more, don't get too close/assistance from defenders or groups that are aggressively against raiders. Because eventually those groups will stop caring about the region, but raiders will not forget that connection.

Will founderless regions get raided at some point regardless? Most likely, but the chances become significantly greater when they do things like what St. Abbaddon has done.

This is Wisdom. This has ALWAYS been the case, and has been my main point AGAINST defenderism: they care for the glory, not for the actual defended...

Not all defenders are the same, Elegarth. You're forgetting that TITO and the RRA do not care for glory, we care about defending communities from destructive raids and raiding in general. Lumping all defenders into the same group is wrong, not all of us care for glory.

[Roavin]

Some Defenders are in it for the glory, some are in it for moralist reasons, some are in it because they like chasing, and some just don't like raiders. For many, it's some combination of those. There's no one archetypal "Defender".

[Frattastan IV]

This is Wisdom. This has ALWAYS been the case, and has been my main point AGAINST defenderism: they care for the glory, not for the actual defended...

The last time defenders got "glory" for anything must have been sometime before you joined the game. A player pursuing defending for the sake of glory would be pretty foolish.

[Elegarth]

This is Wisdom. This has ALWAYS been the case, and has been my main point AGAINST defenderism: they care for the glory, not for the actual defended...

Not all defenders are the same, Elegarth. You're forgetting that TITO and the RRA do not care for glory, we care about defending communities from destructive raids and raiding in general. Lumping all defenders into the same group is wrong, not all of us care for glory.

I'm willing to accept TITO and the RRA as the exceptions that confirm the rule.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Makes me wonder why others (Yorkshire) haven't seen the same level of activity.

It has always been the case that any founderless region that gets themselves involved with groups that are against raiders will become targeted far more. We have seen this over and over again. If a founderless region wants to avoid the spotlight more, don't get too close/assistance from defenders or groups that are aggressively against raiders. Because eventually those groups will stop caring about the region, but raiders will not forget that connection.

Will founderless regions get raided at some point regardless? Most likely, but the chances become significantly greater when they do things like what St. Abbaddon has done.

Yorkshire was an XKI protectorate in 2012.

[Consular]

What a disgusting debacle. Nothing more than a continuation of the tragedy surrounding the region known as St Abbaddon. There's nothing beautiful about it.

This is my feeling too, St Abbaddon has seen a lot of conflict mostly because of the nature of it being one of the original founderless regions.

The North Pacific's treatied arrangement with Stargate helped to stabilize and secure Stargate; I think the New Pacific Order's "arrangement" here is a perversion of that security model.

Aside from Topid there is no difference. You're allowing your feelings towards the NPO to cloud reality.

It has always been the case that any founderless region that gets themselves involved with groups that are against raiders will become targeted far more. We have seen this over and over again. If a founderless region wants to avoid the spotlight more, don't get too close/assistance from defenders or groups that are aggressively against raiders. Because eventually those groups will stop caring about the region, but raiders will not forget that connection.

Will founderless regions get raided at some point regardless? Most likely, but the chances become significantly greater when they do things like what St. Abbaddon has done.

This is Wisdom. This has ALWAYS been the case, and has been my main point AGAINST defenderism: they care for the glory, not for the actual defended...

That's just plainly wrong Ele. Defenders have done their fair share of bad shit but glory seeking? Nah

[Kavagrad]

Don't you have to be on join the winning side to be glory-seeking?

[Unibot III]

This is my feeling too, St Abbaddon has seen a lot of conflict mostly because of the nature of it being one of the original founderless regions.

The North Pacific's treatied arrangement with Stargate helped to stabilize and secure Stargate; I think the New Pacific Order's "arrangement" here is a perversion of that security model.

Aside from Topid there is no difference. You're allowing your feelings towards the NPO to cloud reality.

"Aside from Topid" is a big aside, this all began with under a state of duress.

[Killer Kitty]

The last time defenders got "glory" for anything must have been sometime before you joined the game. A player pursuing defending for the sake of glory would be pretty foolish.

"Glory" is probably the wrong term. I'd go with "an unearned sense of moral smugness" instead.

[Alkasia]

It has always been the case that any founderless region that gets themselves involved with groups that are against raiders will become targeted far more. We have seen this over and over again. If a founderless region wants to avoid the spotlight more, don't get too close/assistance from defenders or groups that are aggressively against raiders. Because eventually those groups will stop caring about the region, but raiders will not forget that connection.

Will founderless regions get raided at some point regardless? Most likely, but the chances become significantly greater when they do things like what St. Abbaddon has done.

So what I'm getting out of this is "founderless regions shouldn't get close to regions that will protect them because raiders will target them more, even though raiders will also target them regardless."

There's nothing wrong with seeking assistance from defenders, especially when raiders have been known to target said regions. That's what we're here for.

Now getting assistance from the NPO is obviously something I can't recommend, especially for UCRs. But then again, they aren't looking to defend the region, only puppet it themselves.

[Cormactopia Prime]

It has always been the case that any founderless region that gets themselves involved with groups that are against raiders will become targeted far more. We have seen this over and over again. If a founderless region wants to avoid the spotlight more, don't get too close/assistance from defenders or groups that are aggressively against raiders. Because eventually those groups will stop caring about the region, but raiders will not forget that connection.

Will founderless regions get raided at some point regardless? Most likely, but the chances become significantly greater when they do things like what St. Abbaddon has done.

So what I'm getting out of this is "founderless regions shouldn't get close to regions that will protect them because raiders will target them more, even though raiders will also target them regardless."

There's nothing wrong with seeking assistance from defenders, especially when raiders have been known to target said regions. That's what we're here for.

Now getting assistance from the NPO is obviously something I can't recommend, especially for UCRs. But then again, they aren't looking to defend the region, only puppet it themselves.

Pretty much this.

It's silly to say "if founderless regions are close with defenders, they'll be targets of raiders." All founderless regions are targets of raiders. I reject the notion that association with defenders actually heightens the risk, at least anymore so than other things like having an active community or a native Delegate. Founderless regions shouldn't limit themselves based on what might get them raided, because simply being founderless is likely to get them raided at some point. They are actually less likely to be raided the more they build up their communities, their WA numbers, and their relations with defenders and others willing to come to their aid when needed. Founderless regions have to take defensive measures, not rely on raider benevolence.

But no founderless region should turn to the NPO for help. Imperialists like the NPO might come to a region's aid, but always with damaging strings attached.

[Milozoldyck]

This is Wisdom. This has ALWAYS been the case, and has been my main point AGAINST defenderism: they care for the glory, not for the actual defended...

A player pursuing defending for the sake of glory would be pretty foolish.

To the contrary, I think it's a logical place to look at the moment.

Don't you have to be on join the winning side to be glory-seeking?

No. Joining a losing side to turn them into a victor could be considered glory-seeking.

[New Rogernomics]

Some Defenders are in it for the glory, some are in it for moralist reasons, some are in it because they like chasing, and some just don't like raiders. For many, it's some combination of those. There's no one archetypal "Defender".

When I did defending, it was out of genuine moralistic reasons of giving back the region to it's native population. When I raided, it was for fun, or in the case of Osiris to fight for the future status of a newly born region. I don't really need to repeat things I have said in the past about R/D, so I'll just agree that raiding and defending means different things to different people. Eventually I just gave up defending when the ADN: DSA ended, and never transitioned to the FRA, as I didn't really care for how it was organized. Lazarus gave it's all for the defender cause. But when the FRA finally ended people lost direction as well as motivation, and we lost ourselves as a region and community, leading to a civil war. R/D alignment can make regions better in terms of activity and purpose, but it can also hide serious vulnerabilities and flaws of the community as a whole.

[Jakker]

So what I'm getting out of this is "founderless regions shouldn't get close to regions that will protect them because raiders will target them more, even though raiders will also target them regardless."

There's nothing wrong with seeking assistance from defenders, especially when raiders have been known to target said regions. That's what we're here for.

Now getting assistance from the NPO is obviously something I can't recommend, especially for UCRs. But then again, they aren't looking to defend the region, only puppet it themselves.

Pretty much this.

It's silly to say "if founderless regions are close with defenders, they'll be targets of raiders." All founderless regions are targets of raiders. I reject the notion that association with defenders actually heightens the risk, at least anymore so than other things like having an active community or a native Delegate. Founderless regions shouldn't limit themselves based on what might get them raided, because simply being founderless is likely to get them raided at some point. They are actually less likely to be raided the more they build up their communities, their WA numbers, and their relations with defenders and others willing to come to their aid when needed. Founderless regions have to take defensive measures, not rely on raider benevolence.

But no founderless region should turn to the NPO for help. Imperialists like the NPO might come to a region's aid, but always with damaging strings attached.

We can agree that getting help from The Pacific was foolish. And yes the best way for a founderless region to avoid being raided is strengthening their internal affairs. I never said that founderless regions are not targets of raiders eventually, but I can promise you that if you ask nearly any raider, they would prioritize raiding a founderless region associated with defenders or any groups hostile to raiders over founderless region that isn't. That's just obvious.

St. Abbaddon can get to a better place by natives trying to bring life back to the region. Increasing their numbers and putting in the effort to care for the region. There is no need for foreign influences to make that happen. They just need a delegate that actually cares.

[Blight-Bane]

What do defenders have to do with what's going on in St. Abaddon?

But no founderless region should turn to the NPO for help. Imperialists like the NPO might come to a region's aid, but always with damaging strings attached.

Well, it's marginally better than enlisting raider help. Topid made their choice. Own it. Y'all needn't pretend you care for the natives of St Abaddon.. you don't. You're turning this into a lame ideological battleground.

I can promise you that if you ask nearly any raider, they would prioritize raiding a founderless region associated with defenders or any groups hostile to raiders over founderless region that isn't. That's just obvious.

That's pretty much NPO's stance on TBH now. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[Flanderlion]

St Abby would've been a target without us. Like, a region run by an ex-defender is an obvious target, and our presence likely deterred other raids that would have occurred without us.

It's not like St Abby is our puppet. If it was we'd have obviously run it differently, either repealing the lib, and doing a protective password if the natives wanted to ignore the outside world, or doing some recruitment and boosting the native WA population. Plus we'd have the majority of the RO slots (which we've only just got).

St Abby as we've always stated is free to leave the agreement at any time. They're not our puppets/slaves/whatever. If you want us out of St Abby, just persuade the natives to end our agreement.

[Galiantus III]

It's not like St Abby is our puppet. If it was we'd have obviously run it differently[...]

That's odd. I just assumed we had the same definition of puppet.

St Abby[The United Kingdom] as we've always stated is free to leave the agreement at any time. They're not our puppets/slaves/whatever. If you want us out of St Abby[The United Kingdom], just persuade the natives to end our agreement.

The NPO[EU] is certainly "persuasive" with their "agreements", I'll give ya that.

[Minoa]

Someone needs to write a NSindex article about the tensions. There is no doubt that there is going to be a lot of bystanders asking how we got to this and why, and also how.

[Likar]

What's with defenders supporting the NPO's occupation in St Abbaddon? And invaders supporting Topid?

Doesn't this seem a little backwards? *scratches his head* Where are the chips falling on this flashpoint?

Tag

[Jutsa]

Any idea on who that might be, Minoa?

Seriously though I'd much rather someone more familiar with the history of this could do it,
but I'll gladly take over if there's no sign of anyone coming close to touching up on this.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

What's with defenders supporting the NPO's occupation in St Abbaddon? And invaders supporting Topid?

Doesn't this seem a little backwards? *scratches his head* Where are the chips falling on this flashpoint?

Tag

No tag spam plz

What do defenders have to do with what's going on in St. Abaddon?

But no founderless region should turn to the NPO for help. Imperialists like the NPO might come to a region's aid, but always with damaging strings attached.

Well, it's marginally better than enlisting raider help. Topid made their choice. Own it. Y'all needn't pretend you care for the natives of St Abaddon.. you don't. You're turning this into a lame ideological battleground.

I can promise you that if you ask nearly any raider, they would prioritize raiding a founderless region associated with defenders or any groups hostile to raiders over founderless region that isn't. That's just obvious.

That's pretty much NPO's stance on TBH now. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I don't know how many defenders were involved but it only looks like a few but the problem is that there is a proxy war going on and if you have defenders piling against black hawks, you're going against the native topid. Most defenders seem to be sitting the past proxy war out so I don't get why the blame comes. Vincent Drake however is a prominent defender and it can be seen how this complicates things seeing that there's a deal with trust with defenders between the public and natives and he's firrst warden.

[Minoa]

Any idea on who that might be, Minoa?

Seriously though I'd much rather someone more familiar with the history of this could do it,
but I'll gladly take over if there's no sign of anyone coming close to touching up on this.

Someone who has time and knows gameplay politics more than I do.

[Ransium]

What's with defenders supporting the NPO's occupation in St Abbaddon? And invaders supporting Topid?

Doesn't this seem a little backwards? *scratches his head* Where are the chips falling on this flashpoint?

Tag

Given your history with spam, *** Warned for tag spam ***

[Persia-Kebabistan]

I have noticed that some people, when discussing the Pacific in situations like this, say the Pacific follows an ideology called Francoism. Are they referring to the ideology of the former Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, or are they referring to a different person named Franco?