Founderless Dispatch IV: 20% of Our Board are Raiders

[RiderSyl]

So you sent them a telegram to undermine their delegate, after your fellow defenders overthrew his delegacy?

sick of this shit


important announcement for NSGP: LILY's alignment is independent. LILY's alignment is not whatever side of R/D you need to demonize in your comment


thank you for your time

[The Church of Satan]

Only when that sovereignty aligns with your moralist, defender high horse.

I'm not defending them but such a statement from you of all people is self-defeating.

[Velvet Elvis]

Because our mission is to look after the sovereignty of NationStates.

Only when that sovereignty aligns with your moralist, defender high horse.

Since when did you take such an interest in sovereignty, Lamb? I don't remember you caring too much about it in LWU, or when you were involved in multiple GCR coups.

To be clear: Founderless has zero intention of interfering in the ability of NationStates natives to choose their own destiny. We don't care what they do with the information. But they had a right to have it and I will defend that for as long as I need to. They've been deceived and spoon-fed a false narrative by a hypocritical raider sympathizer. They were understandably upset that their region was raided; as were we. But with the unrest in the region and discontent toward invasions, their leader was still being dishonest about his history and complicity with the destruction of other communities. And that is unfair to the natives of NationStates.

[Karputsk]

Sorry, 2nd edit - we've said this before,

but for the record had we been aware of this occurring, we certainly would have deployed to defend against it, despite how we feel about Mikeswill.

Out of curiosity, was the large force staging to overthrow Mike spotted by other defenders?

I can only speak for the Rangers, and confirm that it was not spotted as I was very much asleep (given it happened at around 0500 GMT my time).

Maybe if LWU had leaked to myself instead of Mikeswill I might have been around.

[Velvet Elvis]

I knew the wardens were up to *something* since they had been pinging for days, but I am not on active duty with them, do not have access to any ops info, and was never aware that this was the target region. Major update is also at 6am for me. Had I known I could have been awake, but I am likewise to Karp in an awkward time zone.

[Guy]

Engage with the natives without resorting to military intervention, and take Mikeswill to task in GP and through dispatch. If natives become informed about his hypocritical past and continue to support him, sobeit. If Mikeswill imposes his will (no pun intended) through force, then military invention would be the last resort.

the FRA might as well be the Fun Removed Alliance. I, like pretty much everyone else in LILY and lot of folks across R/D, play this game because it is entertaining. When reading a reply like the above, it's not a surprise at all that the moralist movement took a hefty backseat to TGW in recent years. Who wants to do all that stuff Falc just laid out? Who wants to meet all these arbitrary requirements before they can go after the prize? Defenders had to indoctrinate their own folks into the "raiders are IRL bad people and griefers that must be stopped for the greater good" nonsense in order to push people to actually update, and it's because nobody wants to play the game like that of their own accord. Defending was better off without this 'only one right way to play' garbage, and while it's nice to see the names involved active again, I don't welcome the return of what they'll be peddling. Play this game however you want, as long as it's within the rules of the site. That's how it should be.

You're the one bitching about people playing the game as they see fit. I play this game to the absolute truth that invading is some stupid ass shit. I'm sorry it's not fun for you to face that

[Northern Chittowa]

Engage with the natives without resorting to military intervention, and take Mikeswill to task in GP and through dispatch. If natives become informed about his hypocritical past and continue to support him, sobeit. If Mikeswill imposes his will (no pun intended) through force, then military invention would be the last resort.

the FRA might as well be the Fun Removed Alliance. I, like pretty much everyone else in LILY and lot of folks across R/D, play this game because it is entertaining. When reading a reply like the above, it's not a surprise at all that the moralist movement took a hefty backseat to TGW in recent years. Who wants to do all that stuff Falc just laid out? Who wants to meet all these arbitrary requirements before they can go after the prize? Defenders had to indoctrinate their own folks into the "raiders are IRL bad people and griefers that must be stopped for the greater good" nonsense in order to push people to actually update, and it's because nobody wants to play the game like that of their own accord. Defending was better off without this 'only one right way to play' garbage, and while it's nice to see the names involved active again, I don't welcome the return of what they'll be peddling. Play this game however you want, as long as it's within the rules of the site. That's how it should be.

I don't agree with this viewpoint - This game, at its core, is a political game first and foremost. The R/D aspect came as a consequence of mechanics within the game and is now, of course, a huge part of why people play. But the political aspect is what drives a lot of passion on both sides of the fence.

What Falc laid out above isn't necessarily moralistic in tone, more political - the engagement of diplomacy either with leadership of regions, the behind the scenes back and forth to iron out details and agree future partnerships or alliances and of course the grandstanding on a soap box. All of this is political in nature and can be as enticing and adrenaline pumping as actually being on the 'front line'.

The TG in question is no different from real life examples of other nations or leaders releasing a statement on the news, in papers or at a conference. It was meant to inform and encourage people to consider the implications of Mikeswills actions and to ask the question 'are you comfortable with this?' If the answer is no, it begins the process of individuals deciding for themselves how they want to proceed - as Falc points out, if that means he has their continued support then fair enough.

As to your comments about the FRA being the 'Fun Removed Alliance' (very droll by the way...if I were wearing a hat I would doff it to you), again its missing the point...Founderless (the FRA doesn't exist any more, FYI) is a political entity and this is a political play. To use your own comment against you 'Play this game however you want, as long as it's within the rules of the site. That's how it should be' - this is the way we are playing the game.

[RiderSyl]

You're the one bitching about people playing the game as they see fit. I play this game to the absolute truth that invading is some stupid ass shit. I'm sorry it's not fun for you to face that

That's a stretch. "Your way of playing the game is stupid and wrong" isn't itself a way to play the game. It's an attitude, and a poor one at that.

To use your own comment against you 'Play this game however you want, as long as it's within the rules of the site. That's how it should be' - this is the way we are playing the game.

This is a way better use of my own words again me, I have to admit. The "it's political, not purely moralist" argument is a good point. The thing is, it's a good point that I have heard for the better part of a decade, always made in defense of statements with a dose of moralism. What political advantage is there to moralism, exactly? How has the defender faction suffered without it being at the forefront? I mean, TGW has been one of the most active defender groups in a long time, and that's largely in part due to its willingness to leave the politics of moralism behind. Basically... the moralism is crap and the politics are unnecessary, is what I'm saying.

the FRA doesn't exist any more, FYI

My dreams, crushed!

I'm not even kidding, as contradictory as it is, I'd like to see a moralist group rise again, purely for the competition. Do it!

[A Bloodred Moon]

I can only speak for the Rangers, and confirm that it was not spotted as I was very much asleep (given it happened at around 0500 GMT my time).

Thank you, Karp, but if I am not mistaken NCE, who participated in the operation, is also something in Founderless, correct?

Maybe if LWU had leaked to myself instead of Mikeswill I might have been around.

The mighty defender intelligence branch now requires raiders to leak operations for them?

Amusingly enough, you are criticising LWU for a) an action we did not perform and b) an action that would’ve helped Mikeswill had we done so, after 6ixDaze claimed Founderless would’ve aided Mikeswill?

important announcement for NSGP: LILY's alignment is independent. LILY's alignment is not whatever side of R/D you need to demonize in your comment

I don’t consider Lily defender - I was talking about TGW.

Since when did you take such an interest in sovereignty, Lamb? I don't remember you caring too much about it in LWU, or when you were involved in multiple GCR coups.

I do not speak for Lamb, of course, but, shocking as it may be, the black-and-white defender view of the world is not shared by all - it is perfectly reasonable to point out hypocrisy while not personally subscribing to the belief in question.

They've been deceived and spoon-fed a false narrative by a hypocritical raider sympathizer.

For someone who has zero intention to interfere, you are awfully quick to tell the precious natives how they should think of their delegate - and labelling them as deceived in the process, simply for opposing your beliefs.

They were understandably upset that their region was raided; as were we.

So upset you immediately decided to undermine the delegate in question.

But with the unrest in the region and discontent toward invasions, their leader was still being dishonest about his history and complicity with the destruction of other communities. And that is unfair to the natives of NationStates.

How nice of you to decide so for them. Self-rule is a curse, after all.

[Karputsk]

Maybe if LWU had leaked to myself instead of Mikeswill I might have been around.

The mighty defender intelligence branch now requires raiders to leak operations for them?

Certainly not, but a little help wouldn't have gone amiss!

Amusingly enough, you are criticising LWU for a) an action we did not perform and b) an action that would’ve helped Mikeswill had we done so, after 6ixDaze claimed Founderless would’ve aided Mikeswill?

Ahaha, ok buddy. In regards to the latter I think the statement is clear, had the Rangers known of the operation in advance we would have deployed to defend the region.

They've been deceived and spoon-fed a false narrative by a hypocritical raider sympathizer.

For someone who has zero intention to interfere, you are awfully quick to tell the precious natives how they should think of their delegate - and labelling them as deceived in the process, simply for opposing your beliefs.

But with the unrest in the region and discontent toward invasions, their leader was still being dishonest about his history and complicity with the destruction of other communities. And that is unfair to the natives of NationStates.

How nice of you to decide so for them. Self-rule is a curse, after all.

We didn't decide anything for them, the entire purpose of this telegram was to inform the natives to make their own decision, whatever that may be. As evidenced by Mikeswill's responses to the matter, he is deliberately misrepresenting his history and the facts within the telegram and that has been the case throughout his tenure as Delegate. It's about time someone set the record straight.

[Northern Chittowa]

To use your own comment against you 'Play this game however you want, as long as it's within the rules of the site. That's how it should be' - this is the way we are playing the game.

This is a way better use of my own words again me, I have to admit. The "it's political, not purely moralist" argument is a good point. The thing is, it's a good point that I have heard for the better part of a decade, always made in defense of statements with a dose of moralism. What political advantage is there to moralism, exactly? How has the defender faction suffered without it being at the forefront? I mean, TGW has been one of the most active defender groups in a long time, and that's largely in part due to its willingness to leave the politics of moralism behind. Basically... the moralism is crap and the politics are unnecessary, is what I'm saying.

Political statements put out by defenders can always be accused of having a moral background just because of the stance - there isn't a way, in the majority of cases, for a defender group to participate in politics without having an element of moral agenda.

Take this event as an example - we in Founderless believe it to be right, morally speaking, for the natives to be informed on the actions of their delegate (both overt and covert). We do not believe it was morally right for an external force to take it upon themselves to force the issue at hand. This does generalise the issue slightly, but you get the point.

As to how the defender faction suffered, you will have to bear with me here - I've not been active for the best part of a decade myself. Indeed the last time i was actively involved was pre TGW so, apart from knowing what the acronym stands for I've little else to go on!

Equally though, above that, I can see that TGW are somewhat active in the politics side of defending. If they weren't, why would TGW have a thread in gameplay to boast about its achievements, if not to partake in some form of propaganda and therefore by default engage politically with NS gameplay at large? I've just had a cursory glance at the thread in question and there is a debate going on as to what constitutes an 'invasion' and what constitutes 'delegate tipping'...surely one of the same in my eyes, but equally a political question none the less that needs defining.

Without the political nature of the R/D world, it almost becomes a very simple back and forth game of follow the leader...and if that is the case, what is the point of defending? Defending is, by nature, a reactionary past time (outside of the intel sphere) - you have to wait for someone to make a move before you can defend so if i was a newbie just starting out, and politics was taken away from this altogether, i would have to ask myself why would i be a defender?

This then comes into moralism. If you are a defender but profess to not even slightly believe that raiding a region and a community is wrong...again, what is the draw of defenderdom? while i could participate in the game of moving to a certain region at a certain time and endorse a certain individual, or even perhaps undertake spotting missions to see where invasions are happening...without an element of moralism, where i do i get my motivation from? Surely if i was in this just for the shits and giggles, then i would be an invader due to its proactive nature.

By exploiting politics and using moralism, defenders can welcome a huge number of people from a range of different backgrounds - take me for example. I've never participated in front line defences. I have never been online at update. Why? Well, firstly I'm British and update times were always horribly early for me while secondly i've never been as interested in moving my nation from Region A to Region B at a certain time to prevent a certain delegate from being toppled. I've always been more interested in the debates, the diplomatic discussions and the backroom dealings. Without the political side of defenderdom, would i still be here 15 or so years later? As for the moral side, I'm not as strong on that as others who defend, but i do believe that regions should be free to - again to use your words - play the game as they wish outside of the R/D sphere if they want to without the fear that someone would come in and ruin their enjoyment.

This brings me neatly into the always ongoing debate about those who class themselves as independents, or those who wish to have their cake and eat it, of which you yourself subscribe. I won't go into the details as it has been discussed ad nauseam (especially by NES who i believe is quite adamant he coined the phrase) but i will say that every single region or organisation that i have seen profess that they are independent and they invade or defend based on their own political or required needs, often fall towards the side of raiders more often than not - why, because the politics of activity and interest in NS is naturally skewed towards that end.

So with that and to answer you question;

How has the defender faction suffered without politics/moralism being at the front? - politics is always there, even if you don;t want to admit it. I will flip the question back to you with a slight amendment...How is politics unnecessary when the discussion we are having is political by nature?

What political advantage is there to moralism - if you are a defender you are, by nature, moralistic. The question therefore becomes, what political advantage is there to either soft moralism or hard moralism?

[Aleister]

Since when did you take such an interest in sovereignty, Lamb? I don't remember you caring too much about it in LWU, or when you were involved in multiple GCR coups.

The difference is I'm not here preaching the gospel of my organization and using it to justify actions that actually infringe on sovereignty. I genuinely don't care about sovereignty, see your last bit there about raiding and coups for reference. I think I'm pretty honest about that. That doesn't make the FRA any less hypocritical. Maybe the FRA should be more honest about it too. On one hand you claim to protect founderless communities and their native nations and on the other you attempt to manipulate them to encourage an overthrow of their sitting government.

Amusingly enough, you are criticising LWU for a) an action we did not perform and b) an action that would’ve helped Mikeswill had we done so, after 6ixDaze claimed Founderless would’ve aided Mikeswill?

LWU is better at defending than defenders 8-)

[Northern Chittowa]

Since when did you take such an interest in sovereignty, Lamb? I don't remember you caring too much about it in LWU, or when you were involved in multiple GCR coups.

The difference is I'm not here preaching the gospel of my organization and using it to justify actions that actually infringe on sovereignty. I genuinely don't care about sovereignty, see your last bit there about raiding and coups for reference. I think I'm pretty honest about that. That doesn't make the FRA any less hypocritical. Maybe the FRA should be more honest about it too. On one hand you claim to protect founderless communities and their native nations and on the other you attempt to manipulate them to encourage an overthrow of their sitting government.

The FRA doesn't exist...It ceased to be in 2016, though you could argue it died a little bit before that.

Sending a TG to natives of a region containing information they may not know (or do know, if we take your view that as the delegate had been in place for 17 years they knew him well) isn't infringing on sovereignty but is instead a region taking a political stance on a current gameplay issue.

Now, the current gameplay issue in question - the taking of a delegacy by an outside force - is an infringement on sovereignty as it removes from those natives their choice of choosing Mikeswill as their delegate. a TG doesn't do that.

[Makdon]

The difference is I'm not here preaching the gospel of my organization and using it to justify actions that actually infringe on sovereignty. I genuinely don't care about sovereignty, see your last bit there about raiding and coups for reference. I think I'm pretty honest about that. That doesn't make the FRA any less hypocritical. Maybe the FRA should be more honest about it too. On one hand you claim to protect founderless communities and their native nations and on the other you attempt to manipulate them to encourage an overthrow of their sitting government.

Kind of funny to see raiders of all people expanding the definition of regional sovereignty. I really wasn't aware that sending a region wide tg infringed, but it's a good thing we have you here to enlighten us. If I didn't know better I would think this was a cynical attempt to define Founderless's moralism in your own terms so you can act like they're hypocrites, but that couldn't be it, right?

[The New Cordian Empire]

I can only speak for the Rangers, and confirm that it was not spotted as I was very much asleep (given it happened at around 0500 GMT my time).

Thank you, Karp, but if I am not mistaken NCE, who participated in the operation, is also something in Founderless, correct?

An action which I seriously regret. I had not thought about the consequences of partaking in that operation, and the natives getting pissed at "invaders" made me realize that that was a mistake on my part, as in doing so I'd pretty much thrown the values I hold as a defender to the side. Additionally, I was not in the Rangers at that time, so Karp's statement stands.

I normally try to avoid GP arguments, so let's not turn this statement into some massive fuckery.

[Falconias]

There's a number of posts I'd like to reply to, but I'll just make this a carte blanche statement and more or less repeat what I said over Discord yesterday...

Raiders, and their sympathizers, continually move the goalposts for morally acceptable conduct closer and closer to their "side", to the point where it seems to be acceptable now to declare yourself an "independent" and still expect affirmation from the general NSGP community when you make morally questionable choices.

I am a defender because I personally find invading a community morally unacceptable. Someone cared enough about an objective or personal belief to create a community, and regardless of how old or inactive that community is, if there are active natives, then someone still cares about that community. Declaring yourself "independent" and participating in defences here and there as it suits the independents does not forgive them for their moral turpitude accumulated from raids. "Independent" has, and always has been, a very thinly veiled smokescreen for "raider sympathist".

Many in this thread have accused us of being hypocrites by allegedly infringing on NationStates's sovereignty by messaging their membership and giving them the truth that is continually being glossed over by Mikeswill. Quite frankly, we don't care what you think. Our mission is to protect those who cannot protect themselves and further the autonomous goals of players in this game; and our priority is the natives of our game's communities, not necessarily just the delegate. Occasionally, that stance may require controversial involvement or military action. In this case, in the majority - albeit not unanimous, for the record - opinion of our Board, we felt that NationStates's natives, based on our readings of the RMB and our understanding of their community, were getting fed bologna from Mikeswill when they were concerned about the raid on their region. It was time that someone stepped in and opened their eyes a bit. If you disagree with that course of action, that is your opinion but quite frankly we do not care. Anyone who knows the historic FRA should not be overly surprised, either. We are historically founded on "moralist politics," as has been said - which, by the way, is somehow being construed as a GP playstyle. Since when was being a "moralist" a matter of opinion? Smh. Keep the discourse coming, it only fuels us and validates our mission.

[King HEM]

There's a number of posts I'd like to reply to, but I'll just make this a carte blanche statement and more or less repeat what I said over Discord yesterday...

Raiders, and their sympathizers, continually move the goalposts for morally acceptable conduct closer and closer to their "side", to the point where it seems to be acceptable now to declare yourself an "independent" and still expect affirmation from the general NSGP community when you make morally questionable choices.

I am a defender because I personally find invading a community morally unacceptable. Someone cared enough about an objective or personal belief to create a community, and regardless of how old or inactive that community is, if there are active natives, then someone still cares about that community. Declaring yourself "independent" and participating in defences here and there as it suits the independents does not forgive them for their moral turpitude accumulated from raids. "Independent" has, and always has been, a very thinly veiled smokescreen for "raider sympathist".

Many in this thread have accused us of being hypocrites by allegedly infringing on NationStates's sovereignty by messaging their membership and giving them the truth that is continually being glossed over by Mikeswill. Quite frankly, we don't care what you think. Our mission is to protect those who cannot protect themselves and further the autonomous goals of players in this game; and our priority is the natives of our game's communities, not necessarily just the delegate. Occasionally, that stance may require controversial involvement or military action. In this case, in the majority - albeit not unanimous, for the record - opinion of our Board, we felt that NationStates's natives, based on our readings of the RMB and our understanding of their community, were getting fed bologna from Mikeswill when they were concerned about the raid on their region. It was time that someone stepped in and opened their eyes a bit. If you disagree with that course of action, that is your opinion but quite frankly we do not care. Anyone who knows the historic FRA should not be overly surprised, either. We are historically founded on "moralist politics," as has been said - which, by the way, is somehow being construed as a GP playstyle. Since when was being a "moralist" a matter of opinion? Smh. Keep the discourse coming, it only fuels us and validates our mission.

Okay, well, there seems to be some back-and-forth about the motivation of this telegram propo campaign.

On one hand, if the argument is: "Mikeswill has constantly been a thorn in our side, he's a political rival and this perceived re-writing of history to make himself the blameless victim is the straw that broke the camel's back, so we're going to retaliate because there's a non-zero chance in a founderless region this could impact the power structure of the region"...that's politics and fair enough.

But then there's an argument that's been primarily coming from Falconias and Velvet Elvis that there's some moral obligation to keep natives "educated" about "the truth" so they can make the best decisions for the region. Which is an interesting extension to the moral argument of defending in general. It seems like a very short journey to a new party line that presupposes that any region which "knew the truth" wouldn't want an invader-sympathizer as Delegate, so it's the duty of Founderless to "educate" regions about their Delegate so they can make the "right choice".

I mean, it's interesting, but also a really messy moral standard to set. For instance, it would take me about 30 seconds to write a telegram to the nations of Founderless about the years of moral hypocrisy of the ideological predecessor of the region: Invading regions, destroying emerging communities founded by rivals, "preemptively defending" regions where no raids have taken place, deposing native delegates in favor of FRA agents — the list goes on, and on! And by golly, the nations of Founderless have a moral right to know!

And I'm sure it would take Falconias about 30 seconds to write one about any region I'm in. But the moral argument kinda breaks down, because none of us are actually going to waste time writing telegram campaigns to regions with founders in the name of "sovereignty."

[Falconias]

But then there's an argument that's been primarily coming from Falconias and Velvet Elvis that there's some moral obligation to keep natives "educated" about "the truth" so they can make the best decisions for the region. Which is an interesting extension to the moral argument of defending in general. It seems like a very short journey to a new party line that presupposes that any region which "knew the truth" wouldn't want an invader-sympathizer as Delegate, so it's the duty of Founderless to "educate" regions about their Delegate so they can make the "right choice".

It's not about whether or not the natives want an invader-sympathizer as a delegate - if that's their will, more than happy to support that. It's more the case that the natives of NationStates have expressed disdain for the state of affairs - that is, the military flex by TGW, LIly et al - and Mikeswill has responded with several untruths and continued to drag defenders through the mud carte blanche. Mikeswill has continually talked out of two sides of his mouth; one side to invaders, and the other to his natives. The wool has been pulled over their eyes. If they can make an informed decision to continue to support Mikeswill, then sobeit, that is the democratic will of the region; but in our opinion, democracy does not have free reign in NationStates while Mikeswill continues to propogate what cannot be described as anything other than complete BS.

And I'm sure it would take Falconias about 30 seconds to write one about any region I'm in. But the moral argument kinda breaks down, because none of us are actually going to waste time writing telegram campaigns to regions with founders in the name of "sovereignty."

I feel like we got past this sentiment that I somehow don't like or don't respect you, or Europeia for that matter. You hold yourself to a pretty high standard of politics and transparency. I respect you for that. The same cannot be said about Mikeswill.

[Devi]

I am a defender because I personally find invading a community morally unacceptable.

Not morally unacceptable enough to stop regularly cooperating with orgs like TGW though, I imagine. I do admire the strong convictions shown in expressing discontent.

[Falconias]

I am a defender because I personally find invading a community morally unacceptable.

Not morally unacceptable enough to stop regularly cooperating with orgs like TGW though, I imagine. I do admire the strong convictions shown in expressing discontent.

Our objectives do not always align with groups like TGW and Lily, clearly, which is why there's room for many groups of different ideologies. I don't think it would shock anyone to hear the Founderless does not condone actions that do not align with our objectives; with that said, it also does not align with our objectives to refuse to work with or embargo groups that go offside. We have common goals. A real-life parallel would be when militaries between countries that have political conflict cooperate for the sake of the common good.

[Aleister]

I don't think it would shock anyone to hear the Founderless does not condone actions that do not align with our objectives; with that said, it also does not align with our objectives to refuse to work with or embargo groups that go offside. We have common goals. A real-life parallel would be when militaries between countries that have political conflict cooperate for the sake of the common good.

Okay, so you can raid, but just not all the time. Is there a specific ratio of raiding to defending that a region can do and still work with your organization? Does Founderless only stand against raiding when it is convenient for them or do they stand against it entirely?

[Falconias]

Okay, so you can raid, but just not all the time. Is there a specific ratio of raiding to defending that a region can do and still work with your organization? Does Founderless only stand against raiding when it is convenient for them or do they stand against it entirely?

I'm just going to repeat myself: it also does not align with our objectives to refuse to work with or embargo groups that go offside. Cooperation for the greater good is in the best interests of defenders as a whole. Example: FRA co-operating with Europeia for the liberation of Feudal Japan in 2009. It would not serve our interests, nor the interests of innocent regions, to close the door on relations with groups whose actions we do not always condone.

[Velvet Elvis]

I would really love it if raiders stopped trying to drive a wedge between us and TGW/Lily. It ain't happening. Feels like an attempt to break up defenders and independent groups that work with us, and make us hate each other. This ain't 2010/11. I like to think we've learned from past internal conflicts.

Sure we might not agree on everything. That doesn't mean we're gonna stop working together to beat raiders in our own ways. We might go separately occasionally, but where we find common ground we will build.

[Funkadelia]

It would not serve our interests, nor the interests of innocent regions, to close the door on relations with groups whose actions we do not always condone.

Innocent regions like NationStates that was just raided by your friends, with your support (now made material by the ridiculous telegram you sent to that region), whose residents have consecutively elected Mikeswill twice daily for the last 17 years. I don't know what's funnier, the pretzels you guys have to tie yourselves into to justify this, or the sad CYA telegram you sent to the region of NationStates to make the justification super official.

[Topid]

The Highlander 1 is not innocent by any stretch. Cool to see.

If y’all ever want a shit ton of stamps thrown around halfway reliably by this corpse let me know. I’m around every third month or so.