RiderSyl wrote:Northern Chittowa wrote: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?