The Wolfist Tribune

[The Wolfist Tribune]

The Wolfist Tribune is a raider-leaning paper aiming to document and summarise news-worthy events in Gameplay through its articles, as well as providing a platform for voicing opinion articles on matters of gameplay. As a publication, the Wolfist Tribune strives to provide commentary primarily on interregional events and matters relevant to the wider world, as opposed to regional news outlets.

While the Wolfist Tribune's staff is responsible for determining what is published under its name, anyone wishing to write for it is encouraged to reach out by telegram, or by reaching out on discord (joWhatup#7411). If you do not wish to write yourself but believe something is worth documenting, you are also encouraged to reach out.

Published articles:
The Right To Sovereignty: Terms and Conditions Apply
What is a Raider? / Moralism and Frontiers / The Defender Depression
The Raider and Politics
The Wolfist Tribune's War Counter
Raiderism: A Progressive Force

[The Wolfist Tribune]

Opinion | The Right to Sovereignty: Terms and Conditions Apply

On the 2nd of October, a young nation by the name of New Dargen moved to the small, 8 nation region of Moon. Not long after, a second newly-founded nation followed. The two new arrivals talked with one another on the Regional Message Board, receiving no response or input from any other residents. New Dargen proceeded to join the World Assembly, becoming Moon's World Assembly Delegate on the 23rd of October. A little over two weeks later, just after the minor update, 10 invader nations moved into Moon, endorsing New Dargen. Within the hour, raider banners flew over the region and orders had been issued. New Dargen, revealed to be Miravana, Colonel of the Black Hawks, swiftly appointed 12 Regional Officers with Border Control as endorsements came pouring in. By major update the invading coalition had assembled 129 endorsements from the Black Hawks, Lily, the Brotherhood of Malice, Lone Wolves United, the Communist Bloc, Osiris and Islamic States. By all indications, the stage was set for another clash with defenders, as all major occupations (with the exception of raids against out-of-character problematic regions for the obvious reasons) this year have been. And yet, when the major update arrived, not a single defender moved to save Moon. The updates that followed, too, saw no defender movement.

So what is the reason for this? Are there no longer any defenders active? No, there have been some that have attempted (and after days of failure, succeeded on) a detag in Equestria. In fact, last month defenders and several independent allies unsuccessfully attempted to liberate that same region from the Brotherhood of Malice. So defenders are not extinct, then. Are they occupied elsewhere? There are no other major occupations ongoing at the time of writing, and there are no major crises in the GCRs. It is not that either. Perhaps Moon had a previously unknown history that lost its favour with defenders? This, too, does not appear to be the case.

If it is none of the aforementioned reasons, then why has the occupation been allowed to continue unchallenged? Do defenders lack the strength to challenge it? While it is hard to gauge from the outside, the defender faction seems to have proven unable to produce the numbers capable of liberating the occupation in Equestria and has throughout the year failed to defeat raiders and independents on any serious occupation. While military gameplay does not result in tangible losses for the losing party, a series of defeats as bad as the ones suffered by defenders this year can seriously damage an organisation's morale. Such an admission, while perhaps slightly humiliating, would have been an honest one. Modern defending, however, apparently cannot cope with such an open admission of defeat.

Instead, defending as a faction has decided to loudly reveal its own hypocrisy, dishonesty and cowardice. Rather than admitting their inability to come to the aid of those in need, defender leadership has chosen to betray the natives of Moon outright: in an attempt to save face, defenders spread the narrative that Moon's native residents were not natives at all in places like the IRC and NSGP servers.

This claim is, to put it kindly, absurd. In fact, the reason the raider coalition came to Moon in the first place was its oldest native Ignignokt, a nation that has resided within the region for a continuous 18 years. For reference, the current longest residency streak in the world is held by NewTexas, with a value of 6,848.66 days and counting - Ignignokt, the native in question, has a residency stat of precisely the same, meaning that they have been present in the region since before the residency stat started counting. Bloatnikov and Moonlight Shadow, the second and third oldest residents, have been in the region since 2010, if not longer, as shown by a Wayback Machine snapshot of that time. Wow wow wow, Moon's former delegate that revived upon the raid's initiation to demand its cessation and the restoration of the region, has also been around Moon since at least 2010.

Moon has existed continuously since 2003, and clearly has natives remaining from this time. As evidenced by one native's words, they are not necessarily fine with the occupation either. By all accounts, defenders should care to defend it. A Liberal Haven, for example, was not a particularly more sizable community, and it warranted a Security Council Liberation and the deployment of 140 defenders on the first night alone. Defenders are well aware of this, too. Their attempt at denying reality is comical, and yet it reveals a cold truth: that beneath all the bluster, the inflated egos of its leadership and its pretentious speeches, the defender faction is afraid of suffering yet another defeat, afraid enough that they will betray their "principles" so blatantly for all to see.

The arbitrary activity standard defenders have imposed upon Moon to be "worth defending" has never occurred before. Quebecshire, founder of the League and a prominent figure in defending, has outright stated the opposite before:

A region that struggles to govern is objectively weakened but has not lost its inherent right to sovereignty, which is something lost by invader regions.

(The source of this quote may be found here)

Moon will not be saved. Defenders cannot and will not abandon their false narrative, no matter how obviously dishonest it is. The region has been thrown to the wolves (or rather, the hawks) and the natives have not only been abandoned but also have had to endure defenders publicly accusing them of being alts and pretenders, told that they do not deserve their own home region. Moon will burn, and defending will not lift a finger to prevent it so that they can avoid facing raiding on the field.

For all the world to see, the carefully constructed mask of false heroism modern defending has been wearing has slipped when it came to Moon. Its self-righteous bluster, false principles and pretense of heroism have all proven to be hollow. Now, at last, defending has shown its true colours of opportunism, cowardice and deceit. Crashers have always known this, but now the natives, neutrals and independents of the world can see it for themselves, plain as day. Perhaps now, after all these years, they will learn their lesson.

[Chef Big Dog]

Excellent article. I hope the response or rather the lack thereof from organized defending to the invasion of moon has been eye opening to any who truly believe in the cause of regional sovereignty.

[Reventus Koth]

This claim is, to put it kindly, absurd. In fact, the reason the raider coalition came to Moon in the first place was its oldest native Ignignokt, a nation that has resided within the region for a continuous 18 years. For reference, the current longest residency streak in the world is held by NewTexas, with a value of 6,848.66 days and counting - Ignignokt, the native in question, has a residency stat of precisely the same, meaning that they have been present in the region since before the residency stat started counting. Bloatnikov and Moonlight Shadow, the second and third oldest residents, have been in the region since 2010, if not longer, as shown by a Wayback Machine snapshot of that time. Wow wow wow, Moon's former delegate that revived upon the raid's initiation to demand its cessation and the restoration of the region, has also been around Moon since at least 2010.

For shits and grins, I tried to pinpoint exactly how far back each of these nations go in relation to Moon:

The oldest record I can find for Ignignokt is February 28, 2004 on the Wayback Machine. In this snapshot, Ignignokt is residing in Moon.

The oldest record I can find for Moon is April 8th, 2004 on the Wayback Machine, where Ignignokt is present on the UN Report.

The oldest record I can find for Moonlight Shadow indicates that they were not in Moon at the time, and in fact resided in Antarctica as of June 7th, 2004. The earliest record of their existence in Moon that I could find is August 7th, 2004, meaning they moved to Moon sometime within that brief 2 month window.

The oldest record I can find for Bloatnikov indicates that they were also not in Moon at the time, and resided in The Pacific as of February 6th, 2009. The earliest record of their existence in Moon that I could find is February 10th, 2011, so I'd be interested to know how you identified it as 2010!

The oldest record I can find for Wow wow wow is likely the same record you referenced for the article, an RMB post in Moon on August 7th, 2010.

tl;dr The only major difference between what you said and what I found is that Moonlight Shadow has been a resident of Moon for substantially longer than 2010. Which will make it even more satisfying when we banject them in the process of refounding the region.

[The Wolfist Tribune]

What is a Raider?

In 2003, the Farkers arrived on NationStates. Widely cited as among the first “raiders” and the prototype of what would go on to become the raider faction, the Farkers were notorious for invading and griefing regions in their day. But while they are widely seen as the first real “raiders”, they and modern day raiding organizations do not have that much in common. The Farkers saw it as a goal to invade other invaders, contrasting with the ideal of Raider Unity that has dominated invader ideology since 2004. The Farkers also differed from modern raiders in the sense that they barely had infrastructure, insofar as that exists on NS. Now, with the game undergoing significant changes that should alter the political, mechanical and military landscape, it might be worth asking a question that perhaps might seem obvious on the surface but isn’t all that self-explanatory: what is a raider?

There are many regions that raid but wouldn’t identify themselves as or be considered a pure raider region. So what’s the difference between a region that raids and a raider region? A raider region will only conduct offensive military operations, unless it’s in support of an allied or fellow raider region. In the past some fringe ideological sects in raiding had focused on mechanical purity above all else, meaning they outright refused to come to the aid of fellow invaders or non-raider allies if it meant they would be “defending”, but that’s generally foolish and only serves to alienate other raiders and lead to a cycle of purity spiraling - it was usually relegated to the fringes of the raider world and is next to non-existent in contemporary times. As such, most raiders agree that defending allied regions is justified and do not place a heavy focus on mechanical purity.

However, one could argue that historically, raider-leaning independents took a very similar approach to this definition, primarily invading to strengthen ties with allies unless otherwise obligated to defend an allied region. As such, it’s important to distinguish a raider military by its purpose rather than purely by its operations - a raider region’s stated goal is to invade, and to enable a raider region to invade more effectively it seeks allies. In contrast, an independent military will seek allies and thus raid to strengthen ties to these allies. This is a large part of why the historical Defender narrative that independents that primarily raided were raiders is fundamentally a misunderstanding of both terms.

One of the core beliefs that all raider regions have adhered to is the concept of Raider Unity - that invaders should never raid another raider or interfere in their operations. While historically there have been attempts, both from within raiding and those outside of it, to expand this concept to refer to all raiders working together as one, these interpretations have never really caught on. Contrary to defender propaganda, raider regions are still independent and autonomous regions with their own goals, aspirations, and culture rather than a singular hive mind - unlike defenders, raider cooperation is coordinated by organizations themselves and their approach to foreign policy, ideological views and their operational choices are entirely their own. Arguments against this in contemporary times have mainly pointed to the fact that the “big 3” raider organizations generally won’t do an operation without each other, trying to argue that this must mean that their shared belief in Raider Unity is the cause of this increased cooperation. However, this is simply due to operational requirements of modern times and due to the fact that raiders cooperating is simply in their interests - at the end of the day all raider regions exist to invade. It also showcases a final point that raider regions adhere to: operational flexibility.

Throughout history, there have been various views on what raiders should and should not undertake to pursue operations, ranging from the coalitions of friendly regions involved in the organization and execution of occupations to the topic of griefing. Some regions have held the opinion that passwording regions is a step too far; indeed, this argument has in the past been furthered by both founders of Lone Wolves United, although this mostly was done for pragmatic rather than moral reasons. Some regions went a step further - they refused to ban native nations entirely. However, as a key requirement for a region to be classified as a true raider region, we argue that flexibility on the operational level is a core tenet of what makes an invader. If the primary purpose of a raider region is to raid, then it stands to reason that it will be willing to use a variety of tactics, including the ejection of natives. As such, a raider cannot be held back by moral concerns regarding griefing, as it would signify a greater commitment to other values than raiding for its own sake. This is not to say they should always pursue griefing - a raider may choose to refrain from ejecting natives or passwording regions due to operational limits such as time constraints or because it is seeking non-raider military partners opposed to the practice - in fact, a raider choosing to forego assistance on a raid where the operational goal is not to grief from a non-griefing military arguably harms flexibility. But a raider region itself must never impose formal bans on griefing.

One of the most important aspects of Raider identity is history and heritage. Modern raiders generally consider regions like the Farkers and (to a much lesser extent) the older incarnations of DEN as their forefathers and carry on the legacy they created in the form of invading and raising hell. Similarly, all modern raiders recognize that the great enemy of invading is the Defender world and the entropic status quo that they foolishly seek to defend. While, as stated before, every raider region has their own history and culture, raiders also recognize other past heroes of invading and their influence on both raider ideological thought and invader tactics. Shared endeavors like the Raider Hall of Fame or RaiderCon symbolize this history and the camaraderie that exists among raider organizations - while a raider region can exist without participating in these shared endeavors, there is no denying that they, too, were inspired in their exploits, tactics and alliances by those that came before them.

To summarize, this article identifies a given organization as a raider region if they adhere to five major points: firstly, their primary participation in military gameplay is to invade. Secondly, these offensive operations are undertaken as an end unto itself rather than a means to some other end. Third, a raider region will not attack another raider region, and thus adhere to Raider Unity. Fourth, a raider region will not sacrifice operational flexibility on matters such as griefing and foreign policy for moral reasons. Lastly, a raider region will recognize the invader tradition and respect those greats that preceded them, while forging an identity of their own. These points, we argue, are what make a raider in the age of Frontiers.

---

Moralism and Frontiers

Back when Frontiers were first announced, the concept was not particularly popular with a lot of Gameplayers - specifically from defenders and (at the time this separation was important) Europeia. Strange as that may seem now, considering almost every major defender region has built Frontiers and Europeia has transformed their main region into one, at the time the backlash was so great they signed some sort of petition. While a lot of things can change in the two or so years since, this pushback is notable for this memorable quote:

It legitimizes raiding and punished (sic) region-builders who don't want to put their communities at risk.

Ridiculous as this quote sounds, since complaining about legitimizing raiding after approximately 19 years at the time, there’s an unintentional element of truth to it in that the Frontier update does incentivize people to invade. By the nature of this change, Frontiers and those that have Frontier colonies are encouraged to fight over a small pool of recruits. Theoretically, it’s a little like economics, but much like economics the basic theory is largely a model and leaves out considerations like morals and irrational behavior. And truly, there is nothing less rational than defenders’ precious moralism.

There is not one singular definition of the term “moralism”, so for the purposes of this piece we’ll define it as the belief that all regions have an inherent right to sovereignty. There’s various currents of thought on where this right ends, but the point is that moralists believe that natives have a right to their home region and that to destroy such a region or to occupy it is to commit a great moral evil. This has always been archaic and naive thinking in a political field mostly dominated by realpolitik, and most Defender leaders only occasionally pay lip service to it. Nevertheless, it is their favored rhetoric when trying to call upon the endless hordes of 13-year olds that Libcord appeals to. In the age of Frontiers, however, this rhetoric is outright self-defeating and falls apart in the face of Admin’s desired outcome for the changes the update brings with it.

As it currently stands, defenders and defender adjacents currently have the largest frontiers and a near-monopoly on frontier spawns. When the ever noble white knights of defending rush to the aid of a frontier that’s in peril they will find themselves actively using their military resources against their own natural interests. Other smaller raidable frontiers directly compete with the more established ones for spawns, and when defenders pile in with all their endorsements (theoretically of course, on recent occasions they have largely failed miserably) they will be boosting the spawn rates of competing frontiers due to both losing endorsements on their own delegate as they’re redeployed to fight the “griefers” and boosting up these smaller frontiers to even higher endorsement counts, which will naturally boost their spawn rate - a state of affairs that came about following their own complaints to admin. Since spawns are a limited resource, and directly assisting your competitors diminishes your share of the pie, moralist thinking is inherently self-defeating.

The Frontier update changes the way all pre-existing ideologies interact in reality. For independents, this change is an excellent validation of their approach to the game, something that’s been remarkably under-utilized so far - in anticipation of the change Europeia actively turned away from Independent thought. Likewise, the Imperialist tradition has largely died off in recent years but has a great deal of potential under the current system. For raiders, very little changes - beyond the fact that small holds and large occupations now represent excellent recruitment opportunities, and the greater emphasis on military resources imply great potential for alliances and future cooperation with those interested in the Frontiers. Francoists, if there were any, would probably have an identity crisis. But for Defenders, the change represents a pretty unambiguous rebuttal of their ideology. This is pretty much highlighted in the initial proposal of Frontiers, which outright states that the intention is to create and encourage conflict over these spawns, which simply does not square with the idea that invasions are a moral wrong.

In conclusion, Defending has been rendered effectively obsolete by the Frontier update. Whether Defenders will recognise this basic reality is something else entirely - they are very stubborn, and culture does not change overnight. It will be interesting to see whether the Defender powers will drift away from their self-defeating nonsense to a Defender-leaning form of independence.

---

The Defender Depression

Turning away from ideological musings, if you’ve been paying attention to Gameplay in recent months you have probably understood by now that the Defender movement is not doing so well at the moment. While they’ve been suffering defeat after defeat every single time they’ve been faced with a significant raider strength since the start of 2022, with only a singular exception to this trend in December, Defenders were still militarily powerful and in the diplomatic- and World Assembly arenas reached a degree of influence they haven’t held since the days of the ADN. Yet in recent months, Defender influence and resources seem to be in a freefall following a series of diplomatic incidents and underwhelming military operations. So why is this the case?

Firstly, it’s useful to establish what the political and military landscape looked like leading up to the last few months, and how that situation came to be. In January of 2022, following months of near-unprecedented Defender dominance, Defenders suffered a major defeat against a record-shattering raider force in A Liberal Haven, and the months that followed would only worsen the situation - the complete destruction of the Mystical Council and the successful simultaneous occupations of England and EmbassyRegionia, combined with a long investigation into the legality of a Defender script, took its toll on Defender officers by all accounts. A brief revival in December, culminating in the liberation of New Westphalia, and a strong showing in England in early 2023 (although not a Defender success, it was still a notable revival) became exceptions, rather than the trend.

But even while they were suffering on the battlefield, their political influence grew greatly. As it stands, our best attempt at mapping out the current web of formal treaties looks something like this:

Note Europeia’s status as blue, the sheer number of internal treaties among defenders and the treaties between independents and defenders, as these are all notable developments that occurred between January 2022 and now. On paper, Defenders should be dominating politically, both through the influence gained from all these treaties as well as the WA - the Wardens, 10000 Islands, the South Pacific and the League have something like 1600 delegate endorsements between them, representing both the pool of recruits they can draw on as well as the votes they can cast on SC proposals. Add in Europeia and the Rejected Realms (admittedly TRR tends to vote as it sees fit, rather than adhering to the over-the-top dogma other defenders are so fond of, but they still count as Defender) and the various smaller Defender regions and you have a faction with the voting power to outmatch WALL (which, given Europeia’s realignment, is probably paralyzed to oppose them on most issues anyway). By all indicators, even if their military successes were non-existent, they held the power to pass whatever they liked and crush whatever they didn’t in the World Assembly, put pressure on remaining raider-independent ties and increase military cooperation with independents even further.

And in spectacular fashion, they fucked it up.

First, they attempted to force the North Pacific to vote against the condemnations of two prominent members of Lone Wolves United by threatening to vote against any TNP-authored proposal they could find. The monumental stupidity required for this can’t really be overstated: had they simply offered to vote for the Commendations of MadJack and Former English Colony, TNP would probably have accepted that offer and the targeted proposals would have been dead in the water. Secondly, the whole affair was an ego trip - everything Defenders could possibly care for otherwise, such as Liberations, Injunctions, Defender Commendations, etc. were essentially already passed before they were even written. Two raider condemnations really would not have made any difference to Defenders.

In isolation, the attempted extortion was a blunder of epic proportions, but Defenders could still have salvaged the situation. But instead of doing the logical thing and apologizing, they doubled down first. This kicked off approximately a month’s worth of Defenders doing something extremely stupid, posting a disingenuous apology for it, and immediately thereafter undermining their own apology by doing something extremely stupid. This was the first of two shitshows Defending managed to blunder into. The second, ironically, was the result of what Defender leaders no doubt saw as a monumental success, and to be fair to them, I don’t think anyone could have predicted the depths of Europeia’s own stupidity. Nevertheless, it did happen and remains as-of-yet unresolved.

In the past decade or so, Europeia was largely aligned with raiders. They worked together on occupations, there was significant cross-membership with the Black Hawks at points, and it helped that Defenders pretty consistently tried to infiltrate and subvert Europeia and its allies. Yet over the course of 2022, Europeia began signing a series of treaties with large Defender regions, such as the League, the Grey Wardens and 10000 Islands, while at the same time taking a hostile stance against raiders. This was the lead-up to this month’s drama: Europeia entered the Aegis Accords, thus declaring itself Defender. If that was all that happened, it would have been a win for Defenders, represented a fracture of the traditional Independent sphere, and probably more. But it wasn’t, and that’s not a good thing for Defenders.

It turned out Europeia had access to information from the Rejected Realms’ private citizens’ forum. President Rand of Europeia received a leak from said forum of a post by Madjack which apparently was vaguely not positive towards Europeia. Like any normal and stable leader, Rand took this information and went to complain to the Delegate of The North Pacific and clarify if Madjack’s opinions were the opinions of the TNP government (you know the opinion, that was posted in TRR in Madjack’s capacity as a TRR citizen and thus had no bearing on TNP) due to Madjack’s position as an advisor to the TNP Delegate. This naturally led to problems. TNP is a treatied ally of TRR and thus is obligated to inform TRR or any espionage or threats towards the region, Europeia also has similar obligations towards TRR due to joining the Aegis alliance, but instead Europeia opted to ignore all of that in favor of forcing Madjack out of the MGC server. Even when called out on it, Europeia mind-bogglingly decided to instead PNG Madjack, ignore TRR’s concerns and instead drag the discussion into Aegis, probably expecting Aegis to throw TRR under the bus. Whatever Aegis at large decided is currently unknown, but Europeia clearly felt confident enough to tell TRR they considered the matter “closed”, which really wasn’t their place to decide.

These two public trainwrecks, combined with a lackluster military performance in the Perfect Utopian Region and a surprisingly awful show in the World Assembly, have significantly damaged Defender credibility and standing, and it’s anyone’s guess how things will play out from here. To some extent, this isn’t surprising - Defenders have spent the vast majority of the past 18 years becoming connoisseurs of dirt, and even longer alienating potential independent allies through dogmatic inflexibility, subversion attempts and ill-advised attempts at strong-arming those that did give them a chance. If the past few months indicate anything, it’s that the Defender faction still holds strongly to these traditions. One wonders for how much longer independent allies will accept the uneasy partnerships they have forged with Libcord.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Hey, give them some credit - defenders did manage to kick out the Malice-only occupation of Greater Sahara, amd have - eventually - taken out a few LWU-only holds. They've got a decent track record of collectively being able to organize thousands of available WA's into a force capable of taking on a single raider region halfassing an operation by themselves with like 30e!

[Improper Classifications]

it impresses me how TNP was able to sign a treaty with itself, they really are independent

[Aenglaland]

TNP is a treatied ally of TNP

Can confirm TNP is indeed a treatied ally of TNP.

[The Wolfist Tribune]

Rumours of typos are the result of Defender propaganda, we’d never mess that up.

[Hulldom]

I think it’s been much more than a month. Bleeding into two, maybe two-and-a-half now. But what do I know? I’m just the peanut gallery at this point.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It would be objectively more bystander-friendly, fwiw, to ID regions not just by their flags in your chart =P

[Libertanny]

If I could be pain in the ass, TEP and Thaecia are unaligned (which does not equal independent) Not sure about TCB.

[Refuge Isle]

If I could be pain in the ass, TEP and Thaecia are unaligned (which does not equal independent) Not sure about TCB.

"It works the same as independent, but it's vanilla-scented"

[The Ambis]

If I could be pain in the ass, TEP and Thaecia are unaligned (which does not equal independent) Not sure about TCB.

"It works the same as independent, but it's vanilla-scented"

Lmao

[Libertanny]

If I could be pain in the ass, TEP and Thaecia are unaligned (which does not equal independent) Not sure about TCB.

"It works the same as independent, but it's vanilla-scented"

《Insert a funny reply that I cannot post, because FA dramas》

[Brototh]

If I could be pain in the ass, TEP and Thaecia are unaligned (which does not equal independent).

Is this just another coverup for our secret plan to conquer Nationstates through sheer raider force

[Castenor]

I think the ideas here are important in understanding why MGC and Europeia especially has been pushed towards the Defendersphere. “Raider Unity” defined here is essentially the belief that raiders do have the right to act independently as long as they don’t go against the established status quo or oppose the raider powerhouses. The rejection of griefing prohibitions under the name of “flexible,” unrestricted warfare alienates independents who wish to partake in raiding for the betterment of their region but do not wish to fall into the strict and extremist binary that this essay (and the Raidersphere as a whole) pushes onto regions. Defining “moralism” as a belief that all regions have an inherent right to sovereignty (which is in reality the definition of Defenderism as I perceive it, although I’m sure many other defender regions don’t see a difference) doesn’t help the Raider case any more than those strict delineations of ideology, although immediately following it up with a description of moralism which is common to the Raider propaganda machine is a nice touch. But then in another tragic rise and fall of effective rhetoric and sad grumbling, you take the moment to call defenders IRL children. The trip down memory lane of defender failures in recent history was fun, but note that TNP is still largely siding with the Defendersphere and TRR has not withdrawn from AEGIS. Though the violation of their sovereignty is anti-defender and has been met with much stink already, the Raidersphere is giving them no choice but to go fenda with its own wild extremism and attacks on the sovereignty of its allies and its allies’ allies. The difference here is that where this exists in the Defendersphere, it is a result of being blinded by our agenda. In the Raidersphere, that IS the agenda. Not caring about anyone, not restricting yourself based on FA. As discussed here, really. It's hypocritical for Defenders to do it but hypocritical for Raiders to give those fendas flak for it, because it's the name of the game according to this essay. And the ad hominem doesn't make your argument any better either. Ad hominem which will be ever more present with the “Who are you, again?” and “What’s an FNR” and other comments about my region and I being irrelevant that are sure to follow (and have in the past). Overall, I prefer Mlakhavia’s essay. Much more poignant, IMO. 0/10. You can do better (and have in the past).

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

The rejection of griefing prohibitions under the name of “flexible,” unrestricted warfare alienates independents who wish to partake in raiding for the betterment of their region but do not wish to fall into the strict and extremist binary

Most raiders have always been willing to accept some restrictions on sone ops. That didn't change. What independents defined as acceptable is what changed. As an example, Euro historically had the terms of "by default, you can only eject nations that are a security risk to the op. More requires aporoval/reasoning." i.e. we could eject WAs or matye the odd RMB rabble-rouser. That was an era of taking Euro along on a lot of non-refound operations (but never abandoning destructive ops entirely) and helping them with whatever they wanted in return. Eventually, Euro began to further restrict things - ejects, *embassies*, so forth - to the point that a venn diagram of our interests never really overlapped. It wasn't raiding that moved.

Other parts of distance growing, with multiple regions, can be attributed to what I'll sum up as "independent regions never really wanting to raid, actual." It grew feelings of one-sidedness. They'd help us on some ops, and we were more than happy to help them on any projects of theirs, but....they rarely or never asked. They didn't do their own offensive ops. Attribute that to what you will, whether leadership or "there wasn't much to hit before Frontiers," but there was definitely a measure of feeling like only raiding was benefitting, despite raiding being entirely willing to return the favor if anyone would just fuckin ask =P

[A Bloodred Moon]

I think the ideas here are important in understanding why MGC and Europeia especially has been pushed towards the Defendersphere. “Raider Unity” defined here is essentially the belief that raiders do have the right to act independently as long as they don’t go against the established status quo or oppose the raider powerhouses.

That is not what we define it as - in fact, we explicitly reject that statement and flat-out state Raider Unity is nothing more than non-aggression between raider regions. Raider regions are independent and autonomous actors, and it is raiders' nature to oppose the status quo. I'm genuinely not certain how you could gain this interpretation from the piece, where we explicitly stress that attempts to expand the concept beyond its basic meaning of non-aggression and co-existence between raider organisations have failed, and that propagandists attempting to turn it into a signal of a raider "hivemind" is absurd and transparent nonsense.

The rejection of griefing prohibitions under the name of “flexible,” unrestricted warfare alienates independents who wish to partake in raiding for the betterment of their region but do not wish to fall into the strict and extremist binary that this essay (and the Raidersphere as a whole) pushes onto regions.

Why would independents be alienated from working together because raiders do not instate policies against griefing? That is the opposite of what you're describing - that's independents forcing raiders to change their policies to suit their preferences if cooperation is to be on the table, a situation that is utterly unacceptable to any region, regardless of ideology, with the barest shred of self-respect. So long as raids that involve independents opposed to griefing do not involve griefing, then I fail to see what is hindering anti-griefing independents and raider regions from working together - that has been the understanding under which raiders and independents such as the East Pacific have pursued military cooperation for years. Raiders should not push independents to change their policies on griefing - and all this essay says is that to be a raider, one must accept griefing as a legitimate tactic. That should be utterly irrelevant to independents, because they are not raiders. I fail to see how this essay pushes any "extremist" views onto regions.

Defining “moralism” as a belief that all regions have an inherent right to sovereignty (which is in reality the definition of Defenderism as I perceive it, although I’m sure many other defender regions don’t see a difference) doesn’t help the Raider case any more than those strict delineations of ideology, although immediately following it up with a description of moralism which is common to the Raider propaganda machine is a nice touch.

Genuinely, how would you define the distinction between Defenderism and Moralism instead?

The trip down memory lane of defender failures in recent history was fun, but note that TNP is still largely siding with the Defendersphere and TRR has not withdrawn from AEGIS. Though the violation of their sovereignty is anti-defender and has been met with much stink already, the Raidersphere is giving them no choice but to go fenda with its own wild extremism and attacks on the sovereignty of its allies and its allies’ allies.

Who is "the Raidersphere"? You'll have to be more specific - Lone Wolves United has repeatedly signaled its willingness to cooperate with independents, and frequently does. Grouping all raider regions together as a single entity (an absurdity, especially when compared to Defending, which is all just a single org) might be fun for propaganda purposes, but it does not make for an effective point. Not to mention that saying TNP is forced to "go fenda" is silly - independents can cooperate with defenders without turning defenders if they so choose, not to mention that defenders are hardly the most appealing of friends - Defenders ran the math and decided not to defend Stargate to keep TNP on their side, and the moment they were in a position to do so tried to extort TNP to follow the defender agenda to the letter. That hardly strikes me as a message that independents are forced to become defenders - they are ultimately their own actors, and thus my word as a raider is largely meaningless, but to me that strikes me instead as an incentive to build up the military resources of the independent sphere internally to avoid becoming dependent, so to speak, on either raiders or defenders.

In the Raidersphere, that IS the agenda. Not caring about anyone, not restricting yourself based on FA. As discussed here, really. It's hypocritical for Defenders to do it but hypocritical for Raiders to give those fendas flak for it, because it's the name of the game according to this essay. And the ad hominem doesn't make your argument any better either.

You are taking the essay in a way entirely different from what it actually says. Raiders can and should compromise on individual ops with independents if they believe it in their interests - the essay outright states so - but should not compromise on general policies. If a raider chooses not to eject natives in favour of cooperating with a non-griefer military, they are a raider doing what they think is in their best interests. If a raider does not eject natives out of some moral believe it is wrong, they are not a raider. This is the only distinction the essay draws.

Ad hominem which will be ever more present with the “Who are you, again?” and “What’s an FNR” and other comments about my region and I being irrelevant that are sure to follow (and have in the past). Overall, I prefer Mlakhavia’s essay. Much more poignant, IMO. 0/10. You can do better (and have in the past).

What are you referring to?

[Castenor]

Most raiders have always been willing to accept some restrictions on sone ops. That didn't change. What independents defined as acceptable is what changed. As an example, Euro historically had the terms of "by default, you can only eject nations that are a security risk to the op. More requires aporoval/reasoning." i.e. we could eject WAs or matye the odd RMB rabble-rouser. That was an era of taking Euro along on a lot of non-refound operations (but never abandoning destructive ops entirely) and helping them with whatever they wanted in return. Eventually, Euro began to further restrict things - ejects, *embassies*, so forth - to the point that a venn diagram of our interests never really overlapped. It wasn't raiding that moved.

Other parts of distance growing, with multiple regions, can be attributed to what I'll sum up as "independent regions never really wanting to raid, actual." It grew feelings of one-sidedness. They'd help us on some ops, and we were more than happy to help them on any projects of theirs, but....they rarely or never asked. They didn't do their own offensive ops. Attribute that to what you will, whether leadership or "there wasn't much to hit before Frontiers," but there was definitely a measure of feeling like only raiding was benefitting, despite raiding being entirely willing to return the favor if anyone would just fuckin ask =P

So what you're saying is that the interests of independent regions don't truly align with the raidersphere and so it makes perfect sense for them to prioritize FA with regions that better align with their interests (as is the main tenet of unalignment)?

“Raider Unity” defined here is essentially the belief that raiders do have the right to act independently as long as they don’t go against the established status quo or oppose the raider powerhouses.

That is not what we define it as - in fact, we explicitly reject that statement and flat-out state Raider Unity is nothing more than non-aggression between raider regions. Raider regions are independent and autonomous actors, and it is raiders' nature to oppose the status quo. I'm genuinely not certain how you could gain this interpretation from the piece, where we explicitly stress that attempts to expand the concept beyond its basic meaning of non-aggression and co-existence between raider organisations have failed, and that propagandists attempting to turn it into a signal of a raider "hivemind" is absurd and transparent nonsense.

Yeah I'm not making it out to be a Hivemind, I just mean the idea of "Raider Unity" you defined was not interfering in other raiders' business. So not challenging the Raider status quo. Maybe continuing to challenge the GP status quo is important, but when the raider status quo is challenged, as you said, the attempts fail. Because the sphere as a whole is largely resistant to change.

The rejection of griefing prohibitions under the name of “flexible,” unrestricted warfare alienates independents who wish to partake in raiding for the betterment of their region but do not wish to fall into the strict and extremist binary that this essay (and the Raidersphere as a whole) pushes onto regions.

Why would independents be alienated from working together because raiders do not instate policies against griefing? That is the opposite of what you're describing - that's independents forcing raiders to change their policies to suit their preferences if cooperation is to be on the table, a situation that is utterly unacceptable to any region, regardless of ideology, with the barest shred of self-respect. So long as raids that involve independents opposed to griefing do not involve griefing, then I fail to see what is hindering anti-griefing independents and raider regions from working together - that has been the understanding under which raiders and independents such as the East Pacific have pursued military cooperation for years.

I think we're arguing the same point here, which is that Raiders shouldn't mind griefing prohibitions if they respect independents as an ally. Which is to say, and this may belong in the reply to the next bit, but there is a perfectly valid way for independents and raiders to work together and yet independents still move towards the defendersphere. Maybe the reply that Souls made is an indication of why, a general frustration raiders have with independents changing the rules to their own militaries.

Raiders should not push independents to change their policies on griefing - and all this essay says is that to be a raider, one must accept griefing as a legitimate tactic. That should be utterly irrelevant to independents, because they are not raiders. I fail to see how this essay pushes any "extremist" views onto regions.

It describes the extremist views of the sphere. The essay itself doesn't push it. The actions of the sphere as a result of these views does. Not always, if raider regions play their cards right, but I'm just saying it looks like independent regions have been moving closer to the defender sphere and it's not because of anything the defender sphere is doing. So it must be because of the raider sphere.

Defining “moralism” as a belief that all regions have an inherent right to sovereignty (which is in reality the definition of Defenderism as I perceive it, although I’m sure many other defender regions don’t see a difference) doesn’t help the Raider case any more than those strict delineations of ideology, although immediately following it up with a description of moralism which is common to the Raider propaganda machine is a nice touch.

Genuinely, how would you define the distinction between Defenderism and Moralism instead?

In my humble opinion, Defenderism is the belief in sovereignty of non-problematic (OOCily) regions and the defense thereof from Raider aggression, whereas Moralism is the belief that there is some grand moral conflict at play (good vs. evil). Defender ideology is defending sovereignty. Moralist ideology is opposing raiders. To many defenders, Quebecshire among them, the two inherently overlap, but there are discrepancies, imo, which are represented in the actions of some defender regions that I don't agree with.

The trip down memory lane of defender failures in recent history was fun, but note that TNP is still largely siding with the Defendersphere and TRR has not withdrawn from AEGIS. Though the violation of their sovereignty is anti-defender and has been met with much stink already, the Raidersphere is giving them no choice but to go fenda with its own wild extremism and attacks on the sovereignty of its allies and its allies’ allies.

Who is "the Raidersphere"? You'll have to be more specific - Lone Wolves United has repeatedly signaled its willingness to cooperate with independents, and frequently does. Grouping all raider regions together as a single entity (an absurdity, especially when compared to Defending, which is all just a single org) might be fun for propaganda purposes, but it does not make for an effective point.

Jo, the essay itself defines what a raider region is and groups them together. That's what I mean. What you define as raider regions, in their shared ideology as you outline. But I also consider the defendersphere as one entity so pointing out that it is doesn't really disagree with me. Also ftr I do consider LWU one of the more moderate raiders.

Not to mention that saying TNP is forced to "go fenda" is silly - independents can cooperate with defenders without turning defenders if they so choose, not to mention that defenders are hardly the most appealing of friends - Defenders ran the math and decided not to defend Stargate to keep TNP on their side, and the moment they were in a position to do so tried to extort TNP to follow the defender agenda to the letter. That hardly strikes me as a message that independents are forced to become defenders - they are ultimately their own actors, and thus my word as a raider is largely meaningless, but to me that strikes me instead as an incentive to build up the military resources of the independent sphere internally to avoid becoming dependent, so to speak, on either raiders or defenders.

Yeah well this is getting too much into "What the independent sphere is doing / should do" atp. Whether or not they should define their own sphere (as Mlakhavia actually discusses in their essay) or keep being caught between raiders and defenders is interesting but not relevant to the matter at hand, which is that the independents have largely decided that closer relations with the defender sphere at the expense of the raider sphere is far more beneficial to their interests.

In the Raidersphere, that IS the agenda. Not caring about anyone, not restricting yourself based on FA. As discussed here, really. It's hypocritical for Defenders to do it but hypocritical for Raiders to give those fendas flak for it, because it's the name of the game according to this essay. And the ad hominem doesn't make your argument any better either.

You are taking the essay in a way entirely different from what it actually says. Raiders can and should compromise on individual ops with independents if they believe it in their interests - the essay outright states so - but should not compromise on general policies. If a raider chooses not to eject natives in favour of cooperating with a non-griefer military, they are a raider doing what they think is in their best interests. If a raider does not eject natives out of some moral believe it is wrong, they are not a raider. This is the only distinction the essay draws.

I'm mainly referring to "Fourth, a raider region will not sacrifice operational flexibility on matters such as griefing and foreign policy for moral reasons." Which is to say, "Don't feel bad about doing what your allies don't like."

Ad hominem which will be ever more present with the “Who are you, again?” and “What’s an FNR” and other comments about my region and I being irrelevant that are sure to follow (and have in the past). Overall, I prefer Mlakhavia’s essay. Much more poignant, IMO. 0/10. You can do better (and have in the past).

What are you referring to?

Last time I mentioned FNR on this forum, certain GP personalities were quick to insult us and call us irrelevant as a way to deflect from the actual points, so I was just anticipating that. Unless you mean Mlakhavia's essay, in which case, that was linked in FA-Watch too, scroll above the link to this.

[A Bloodred Moon]

Yeah I'm not making it out to be a Hivemind, I just mean the idea of "Raider Unity" you defined was not interfering in other raiders' business. So not challenging the Raider status quo. Maybe continuing to challenge the GP status quo is important, but when the raider status quo is challenged, as you said, the attempts fail. Because the sphere as a whole is largely resistant to change.

I fail to see what this has to do with your misinterpretation of Raider Unity as being some sort of belief that it is impossible for raider regions to disagree with one another. The attempts to force a singular line of thought on raiding have failed, yes - and you misread that as meaning that beliefs that disagree with the "raider powerhouses" are smothered, whereas the essay explicitly says all raider regions can have their own sets of beliefs and approach to foreign policy so long as they fundamentally do not go out of their way to raid other raiders.

I think we're arguing the same point here, which is that Raiders shouldn't mind griefing prohibitions if they respect independents as an ally. Which is to say, and this may belong in the reply to the next bit, but there is a perfectly valid way for independents and raiders to work together and yet independents still move towards the defendersphere.

Right, but the initial point you appeared to be making was that it was somehow objectionable to state raiders are willing to grief, and that this willingness to grief would make cooperation impossible because it clashed with independents' own values.

It describes the extremist views of the sphere.

Firstly, what extremist views do you refer to?

The essay itself doesn't push it. The actions of the sphere as a result of these views does. Not always, if raider regions play their cards right, but I'm just saying it looks like independent regions have been moving closer to the defender sphere and it's not because of anything the defender sphere is doing. So it must be because of the raider sphere.

You're wrong on two counts here: firstly, you seem to argue that the essay describes extremist views but doesn't push them - but the only extremist views we've discussed are those that have clearly been relegated to the past for their self-destructive nature (mechanical purity), so if you refer to the belief that raiders should not rule out griefing on moral grounds, that is an idea the essay inherently does push - and it's entirely to separate raiders from "regions that raid", and not even a belief that raiders should always push to grief (again, I implore you to re-read the essay). Secondly, you're underestimating the façade defenders have put on to sway independents over to their side - the mask slipped as soon as they felt comfortable to do so, but nevertheless, saying that the defender sphere is not doing anything is wrong.

In my humble opinion, Defenderism is the belief in sovereignty of non-problematic (OOCily) regions and the defense thereof from Raider aggression, whereas Moralism is the belief that there is some grand moral conflict at play (good vs. evil). Defender ideology is defending sovereignty. Moralist ideology is opposing raiders. To many defenders, Quebecshire among them, the two inherently overlap, but there are discrepancies, imo, which are represented in the actions of some defender regions that I don't agree with.

To me, that always seemed the other way around. Point is, though, that the essay applies to both interpretations.

Yeah well this is getting too much into "What the independent sphere is doing / should do" atp. Whether or not they should define their own sphere (as Mlakhavia actually discusses in their essay) or keep being caught between raiders and defenders is interesting but not relevant to the matter at hand, which is that the independents have largely decided that closer relations with the defender sphere at the expense of the raider sphere is far more beneficial to their interests.

You're losing me here. You're arguing that independents have been drifting closer to defenders by blaming the "Raidersphere"'s attitudes and thus, implicitly, that this is the logical step for independents. So why is it "besides the point" to challenge the point you made that independents are forced to "go fenda"? I'm disagreeing both with the idea that they are (besides Europeia, for the obvious reasons) and that they should. That does not strike me as "not relevant to the matter at hand".

I'm mainly referring to "Fourth, a raider region will not sacrifice operational flexibility on matters such as griefing and foreign policy for moral reasons." Which is to say, "Don't feel bad about doing what your allies don't like."

What? Raiders can and should pursue their interests as regions, and we argue that this flexibility includes working with independents that might not be comfortable with griefing. They should not feel bad about being raiders either, no - but I fail to see how this is relevant? There is plenty of room for raiders and independents to work together so long as both accept and respect the boundaries of the other on the operations they cooperate on.

[East Chimore]

Genuinely, how would you define the distinction between Defenderism and Moralism instead?

Been lurking on this and Mlakhavia's essays (theirs is very well written, good read, had trouble formulating my thought to put to paper keys) and I'd like to throw my fenda two cents in:
Defenderism is that in character belief or desire for a region to chart its own course without unwarranted* outside military intervention. Those who are putting in effort to make their region a home should be allowed to continue to do so.
Moralism for me is when it crosses into out of character belief, as much as that line can be drawn in this forum. I guess in that sense I'm a bit of a moralist in that I don't want to see the destruction or ending of regions with active or storied communities (new regions or never-really-went-anywhere regions are ones I won't lose any sleep over irl), but I don't otherwise have an OOC issue - tag raiding is easily undone (lily even has guides on how to undo it), occupations or imperialism-esque invasions add what I call 'flavor to the life soup' or help generate stories, and that asterisk comes in here where fash bashing is fun & cathartic & a healthy thing for a reasonable/tolerant community to do.

[Mlakhavia]

Overall, I prefer Mlakhavia’s essay.

The point my essay makes about defenders in frontiers is almost precisely the same as the point this essay makes, with the notable caveat that I believe raiders will also have to adjust their modus operandi a bit.

Regardless, don't try and use what I write as a bludgeon against this (excellently-written) essay. Moralism will die and defenderdom will suffer. You live on borrowed time, and your unhinged moral crusade will be turned against itself again and again until you're either rendered irrelevant or move on and adapt.

[East Chimore]

Overall, I prefer Mlakhavia’s essay.

The point my essay makes about defenders in frontiers is almost precisely the same as the point this essay makes, with the notable caveat that I believe raiders will also have to adjust their modus operandi a bit.

Regardless, don't try and use what I write as a bludgeon against this (excellently-written) essay. Moralism will die and defenderdom will suffer. You live on borrowed time, and your unhinged moral crusade will be turned against itself again and again until you're either rendered irrelevant or move on and adapt.

OOC: Valid point on using one against the other - both have very clear love and effort put into them, and both gave me points to ponder.

IC: "Unhinged moral crusades to protect the innocent and meek of this world is what gets me outa bed and fired up. The righteous cause of liberty will always have new crusaders taking up her mantle!"

[Castenor]

Regardless, don't try and use what I write as a bludgeon against this (excellently-written) essay.

Oof I'm sorry I shouldn't have phrased it like that.

(I have nothing further to add to the conversation)