Invitation to The Liberty Gala

[The Liberty Gala]

Greetings all!

I am pleased to announce the opening of The Liberty Gala: A Soirée in Celebration of Regional Sovereignty. The Liberty Gala is a social event for defenders and defending, focused on the principles of regional sovereignty and self-determination. Foundationally, it's a chance for liberty loving nations to come together and celebrate our shared beliefs and socialize.

As part of the Gala, we will have a variety of events including a Nation Creation Contest, several Card Collecting Contests and a Pull Event, a series of fun games hosted on Discord, Defender History celebrations including a defender tapestry and family tree, a Defender Games and more!

The Discord Invite can be found here
The Main Event Schedule can be found here

More event information will become available throughout the event.

We're looking forward to having everyone, meeting new friends, and celebrating the cause of regional sovereignty! All defending aligned and interested folks are welcome!

Signed,
The Liberty Gala Event Organizers

HumanSanity
Grea Kriopia
Paffnia
Kuriko
Ananke II
of 10000 Islands

Numero Capitan
of Founderless

Benevolent Thomas (Server Owner)
Merlins Clone Merlinda from Universe 63
of The Order of the Grey Wardens

Sweeze
of Lily

and Chimes, Nakarisaune, FiHami

And thank you to Aumeltopia for graphics!

[Tinhampton]

1. Is this supposed to be a smarter, defender-ier version of RaiderCon? Or does this more closely resemble a traditional inter-regional cultural event organised along general defender lines?
2. Will you lot get to enjoy more Liberty Galas in future or is this more of a one-off "I was at Woodstock '69" kind of thing?

[HumanSanity]

1. Is this supposed to be a smarter, defender-ier version of RaiderCon? Or does this more closely resemble a traditional inter-regional cultural event organised along general defender lines?

It's a party for defenders, doesn't really need to be defined beyond that. Some regions are invited as regions and have agreed to promote the event to their members. But any folks with an eye towards regional sovereignty who wish to attend are welcome

2. Will you lot get to enjoy more Liberty Galas in future or is this more of a one-off "I was at Woodstock '69" kind of thing?

Future me will get back to you once future all of us have future decided if we future want to do this again.

[Jakker]

You should clarify that raiders are not allowed since I got kicked

I would consider myself an interested folk that would like to check out the festivities

[HumanSanity]

You should clarify that raiders are not allowed since I got kicked

I would consider myself an interested folk that would like to check out the festivities

I felt my language was pretty clear But banning you was fun, so no regrets

[Jakker]

You should clarify that raiders are not allowed since I got kicked

I would consider myself an interested folk that would like to check out the festivities

I felt my language was pretty clear But banning you was fun, so no regrets

Glad to offer that to you

Can't remember the last time an NS event actively excluded raiders like that. I attended that Defender Expo a few years ago and enjoyed getting to see what was there. But hey, you do you.

[Varanius]

I felt my language was pretty clear But banning you was fun, so no regrets

Glad to offer that to you

Can't remember the last time an NS event actively excluded raiders like that. I attended that Defender Expo a few years ago and enjoyed getting to see what was there. But hey, you do you.

Ah well, it is XKI. Civility and inclusivity might be asking for a bit much.

[Lord Dominator]

Interesting - I can't tell, is this hosted by defenders in general (given BT owns the server and the branding) or by XKI specifically (given every other indication)?

[Daytime to Night]

Interesting - I can't tell, is this hosted by defenders in general (given BT owns the server and the branding) or by XKI specifically (given every other indication)?

Defenders in general

There are some aspects that will be open to all, and we are trying to keep most of those things onsite (including the Defender Awards and some of the defender history events), but the majority of activities exclusively on the event discord are either for those who defend (such as the Defender games) or simply won't be accessible to those who don't (such as the defender family tree etc).

[WayNeacTia]

I felt my language was pretty clear But banning you was fun, so no regrets

Glad to offer that to you

Can't remember the last time an NS event actively excluded raiders like that. I attended that Defender Expo a few years ago and enjoyed getting to see what was there. But hey, you do you.

The answer seems pretty simple. Boot them form joining the next Raidercon.

[HumanSanity]

Interesting - I can't tell, is this hosted by defenders in general (given BT owns the server and the branding) or by XKI specifically (given every other indication)?

It's an event organized by a variety of defenders, who I have conveniently listed for you. BT is the server owner, I own the nation The Liberty Gala. Lots of people have contributed in some way. We're a team, not a hierarchy.

XKI provided a good number of the event organizers, and our government is behind the event. However, it is not XKI's event that XKI owns.

The decision to ban raiders was made because the event is designed to promote a certain set of values related to compassion, regional sovereignty, and self-determination and including players who actively eschew those values didn't further the event's purpose. In many ways, it's a fun event with games and hanging out, but ultimately it has goals which are not served by raider presence.

All of the information about events is in public Dispatches for those who just wish to browse. The Why We Defend panel will also be published in Dispatch form after the event.

Ah well, it is XKI. Civility and inclusivity might be asking for a bit much.

No one has been uncivil to anyone at the event, or about the event, or anything. Of course, parroting XKI bad in every situation is easy, but it's not constructive or applicable.

[WayNeacTia]

The decision to ban raiders was made because the event is designed to promote a certain set of values related to compassion, regional sovereignty, and self-determination and including players who actively eschew those values didn't further the event's purpose. In many ways, it's a fun event with games and hanging out, but ultimately it has goals which are not served by raider presence.

tldr: Moralism.

[Varanius]

Ah well, it is XKI. Civility and inclusivity might be asking for a bit much.

No one has been uncivil to anyone at the event, or about the event, or anything. Of course, parroting XKI bad in every situation is easy, but it's not constructive or applicable.

You know, I think, formatting-wise, that segment would be better placed right before you insinuated raiders lacked compassion.

[Lord Dominator]

Interesting - I can't tell, is this hosted by defenders in general (given BT owns the server and the branding) or by XKI specifically (given every other indication)?

Defenders in general

There are some aspects that will be open to all, and we are trying to keep most of those things onsite (including the Defender Awards and some of the defender history events), but the majority of activities exclusively on the event discord are either for those who defend (such as the Defender games) or simply won't be accessible to those who don't (such as the defender family tree etc).

For clarity then, the various essays will be eventually hosted onsite then, yes?

Interesting - I can't tell, is this hosted by defenders in general (given BT owns the server and the branding) or by XKI specifically (given every other indication)?

It's an event organized by a variety of defenders, who I have conveniently listed for you. BT is the server owner, I own the nation The Liberty Gala. Lots of people have contributed in some way. We're a team, not a hierarchy.

XKI provided a good number of the event organizers, and our government is behind the event. However, it is not XKI's event that XKI owns.

Ah, then some of your communication to others is confusing or the like, because the announcement in TEP's server seems to say that it's an XKI event rather than a defender one (which is where my confusion came from here).

The decision to ban raiders was made because the event is designed to promote a certain set of values related to compassion, regional sovereignty, and self-determination and including players who actively eschew those values didn't further the event's purpose. In many ways, it's a fun event with games and hanging out, but ultimately it has goals which are not served by raider presence.

This I could have guessed if I tried

[Jakker]

The decision to ban raiders was made because the event is designed to promote a certain set of values related to compassion, regional sovereignty, and self-determination and including players who actively eschew those values didn't further the event's purpose. In many ways, it's a fun event with games and hanging out, but ultimately it has goals which are not served by raider presence.

tldr: Moralism.

I don't think there is any issue with moralism in of itself, but this is a bit different than that. I would argue though that the mere presence of raiders does not do anything to reduce the goals of the event. If behavior happened during the event that was combative or distracted from things at large, I would think there would be a more valid argument to ban someone.

[Lord Dominator]

Glad to offer that to you

Can't remember the last time an NS event actively excluded raiders like that. I attended that Defender Expo a few years ago and enjoyed getting to see what was there. But hey, you do you.

The answer seems pretty simple. Boot them form joining the next Raidercon.

Also, since I missed this, I'll just point out that banning defenders from Raidercon would be both rather petty and rather undermine Jakker's kind of point there

[Miss Bad Life Choices]

The decision to ban raiders was made because the event is designed to promote a certain set of values related to compassion, regional sovereignty, and self-determination and including players who actively eschew those values didn't further the event's purpose. In many ways, it's a fun event with games and hanging out, but ultimately it has goals which are not served by raider presence.

>Compassion/eschew

There's ways you could have phrased this that doesn't mean raiders lack of compassion, and aside from that I lack the belief that compassion is a trait of defenderdom. You have a field commander who cannot play nice with raiders and says some of the meanest shit about raiders that I've seen come out of defenderdom, which honestly I think is a failure on behalf of all of XKI for not telling him that moralism belongs in 2009. Tim talks about not giving a shit about natives feelings often enough where I found several examples in just the GP server. Lily, who you have on your event, raided Japan without even talking to the natives to fix a problem that. There is no way compassion is a trait of defenderdom when you have leaders like that.

And then as for raiders lacking compassion, that's such a BS take and honestly shocking coming from you, but at the same time idk why I'm surprised when you are XKI's delegate. Should have expected a subscription to moralism. In the future would be appreciated though if you could keep moralism to raiding the action and not raiders as in the people.

Have fun at your event.

[Daytime to Night]

The decision to ban raiders was made because the event is designed to promote a certain set of values related to compassion, regional sovereignty, and self-determination and including players who actively eschew those values didn't further the event's purpose. In many ways, it's a fun event with games and hanging out, but ultimately it has goals which are not served by raider presence.

>Compassion/eschew

There's ways you could have phrased this that doesn't mean raiders lack of compassion, and aside from that I lack the belief that compassion is a trait of defenderdom. You have a field commander who cannot play nice with raiders and says some of the meanest shit about raiders that I've seen come out of defenderdom, which honestly I think is a failure on behalf of all of XKI for not telling him that moralism belongs in 2009. Tim talks about not giving a shit about natives feelings often enough where I found several examples in just the GP server. Lily, who you have on your event, raided Japan without even talking to the natives to fix a problem that. There is no way compassion is a trait of defenderdom when you have leaders like that.

And then as for raiders lacking compassion, that's such a BS take and honestly shocking coming from you, but at the same time idk why I'm surprised when you are XKI's delegate. Should have expected a subscription to moralism.

Have fun at your event.

This antagonism would make such a nice addition to the event

[Varanius]

>Compassion/eschew

There's ways you could have phrased this that doesn't mean raiders lack of compassion, and aside from that I lack the belief that compassion is a trait of defenderdom. You have a field commander who cannot play nice with raiders and says some of the meanest shit about raiders that I've seen come out of defenderdom, which honestly I think is a failure on behalf of all of XKI for not telling him that moralism belongs in 2009. Tim talks about not giving a shit about natives feelings often enough where I found several examples in just the GP server. Lily, who you have on your event, raided Japan without even talking to the natives to fix a problem that. There is no way compassion is a trait of defenderdom when you have leaders like that.

And then as for raiders lacking compassion, that's such a BS take and honestly shocking coming from you, but at the same time idk why I'm surprised when you are XKI's delegate. Should have expected a subscription to moralism.

Have fun at your event.

This antagonism would make such a nice addition to the event

Please. You can’t complain that people are offended by something that’s rather offensive.

[Miss Bad Life Choices]

This antagonism would make such a nice addition to the event

Yeah my bad for not liking being told that raiders lack compassion. If he kept it to raiding lacks compassion I could at least understand where that argument could come from (though I disagree), and I wouldn't have said anything. That wasn't the case though x)

[HumanSanity]

And then as for raiders lacking compassion, that's such a BS take and honestly shocking coming from you, but at the same time idk why I'm surprised when you are XKI's delegate. Should have expected a subscription to moralism.

I see how it was easy to read to twist what I said into saying raiders don't have compassion. I don't think that's what I said.

Lots of raiders are compassionate people, and people aren't monolithically compassionate or not, they are compassionate to some people more than others and in certain situations more than others. Raiding as a game play style is not particularly compassionate -- which forms a large part of the basis of my belief in defender moralism. It's not compassionate to enter other people's regions without their consent and alter parts of what they've built.

When I say "players who actively eschew those values" I chose the word players and not people for a reason. Insofar as being a raider is taking on a certain role in the game, that role is not particularly compassionate. Raiders, as players of a game and engaged in the practice of raiding, are not engaged in a particularly compassionate practice. Of course, how one plays a game is not a solely defining part of a person.

I don't think raiders, as people, have no compassion. I think raiding, as a role played by players, is not particularly compassionate.

[Jakker]

It's not compassionate to enter other people's regions without their consent and alter parts of what they've built.

Just for the record, you are essentially arguing that chasing is not compassionate either because unless defenders have actively received consent from a region, they are also often entering other people's region without their consent. And while defenders try to alter things either back to how they were (by detagging) or stopping raiding, electing oneself as an RO which many defenders do after the fact and do not dismiss, in theory, is still altering the region. The point is that assigning some objective definition of compassion onto game practices gets tricky because it does not work as black and white as you think. By your definition, defenders should only try to defend regions that have natives who have granted permission to them to do so or else not be compassionate. Defenders should not leave themselves as an RO or else not be compassionate.

Because I am a compassionate person, I will say that while this anti-raider policy for the event runs counter to the approach I have seen most of the organizers take in previous events and interactions, I would hope that they have some reason to do this other than yielding to XKI's views.

[Comfed]

If raiders are detrimental to the event, then why are so many Lily people there?

[Miss Bad Life Choices]

And then as for raiders lacking compassion, that's such a BS take and honestly shocking coming from you, but at the same time idk why I'm surprised when you are XKI's delegate. Should have expected a subscription to moralism.

I see how it was easy to read to twist what I said into saying raiders don't have compassion. I don't think that's what I said.

Lots of raiders are compassionate people, and people aren't monolithically compassionate or not, they are compassionate to some people more than others and in certain situations more than others. Raiding as a game play style is not particularly compassionate -- which forms a large part of the basis of my belief in defender moralism. It's not compassionate to enter other people's regions without their consent and alter parts of what they've built.

When I say "players who actively eschew those values" I chose the word players and not people for a reason. Insofar as being a raider is taking on a certain role in the game, that role is not particularly compassionate. Raiders, as players of a game and engaged in the practice of raiding, are not engaged in a particularly compassionate practice. Of course, how one plays a game is not a solely defining part of a person.

I don't think raiders, as people, have no compassion. I think raiding, as a role played by players, is not particularly compassionate.

You still said raiders had a lack of compassion by saying they eschew compassion either way, and again I only said anything because you went after raiders instead of raiding with the word compassion.

I'm glad to know you don't actually think that raiders lack compassion and I'm sorry for reading more into your post then was there (it really did read as that), but it's still a phrasing you used that contributes to the awful moralism pushed forward by others such as (but not limited to) -- "invaders are nothing more than a cancer within this game", that we can't have a fash bash together without some comment made about how we're assholes, how raiders are a group with "a group with no morals", and then finally with how XKI talked to their own region mates until very recently with "if you have any compassion towards others, please join our forums and apply for TITO." as if to be compassionate means to be a member of defending by default. I sincerely hope you don't agree with raiders being called cancer or that we're a group with no morals, but your phrasing definitely only serves to give validity to those statements and they're all a problematic type of moralism that needs leaving behind. So again would appreciate keeping it to raiding instead of raiders if you're gonna bring compassion in x)

[WayNeacTia]

If raiders are detrimental to the event, then why are so many Lily people there?

Check and Mate Sir.