ENN: Debunking Defenderism

[E-News Network]

Debunking Defenderism
Written by HEM Tiberius

Almost a year ago, I penned an op-ed piece entitled the "Deceit of Defenderism" which was primarily aimed toward exposing the hypocrisy and doublespeak of the Founderless Regions Alliance. While the FRA is still a resistant force in Nationstates, their tyranny of absurdity has found a new rival. The United Defenders League, which has avoided the blunders and inconsistent coherency of the FRA.

However, things are still not well in Nationstates defenderism. For what the UDL lacks in stupid ultimatums and contradictory words v. actions, they make up for with moralistic dogma. The world has seen this before, but the extent and level of such sanctimonious talk is rising.

How true are defender claims of invader "bullyism" and "evil"? When looked at analytically, does the moral mandate of defenderism hold water?

Extremes/Differing types of wrong

The first part of this exploration has to be establishing that both sides of the military spectrum have extremes. Some may contest this from the get-go, but there are certainly regions and individuals that are more gung-ho about their policy than others on their "side".

From the defender's point of view, these would be the invaders who actively seek to "destroy" the region. The invaders who make it their goal to purge, password, and refound the region in their image. Invaders who actively do this would be more extreme than those who go, chill, and leave (sometimes even with the WFE set back). An example of this would be Savaer from Unknown, who once asked me if I "had it in me" to destroy an entire region to prevent it from falling into the hands of the defender organizations.

From the invader's point of view, these would be the defenders who actively pursue an agenda with little regard for consistency in their declared "ideals". In addition, there are also the defenders who actively try to tear down the invader community by calling them petty names, or trying to force inaccurate dogma about the morals of invaders onto the Nationstates world. An example of the former would be the Founderless Regions Alliance (cira 2008-2010 for sure), and an example of the latter would be Unibot and many elements of the UDL.

The first thing one may notice is the differing amount of influence that the extremes have on their respective side. While the bulk of mainstream invaders have conceded ground to avoid ejecting natives, acting civilly, and showing something resembling respect -- the defender side is dominated by those who could be characterized as radical. There are certainly invaders who are extreme -- of that there can be no doubt -- but the defender entities that dare lecture the world community about the evil of invaderism see no existent room to act reasoned themselves.

The First Extreme: Defenders can still invade

Nextly, let's ask, what does invading a region mean? What power is lost by the natives to the invader?

(1) Control over WFE/flag
(2) Control over regional embassies
(3) Control of residency (who can be in the region)

Keenly notice that none of these powers can permanently alter a nation's ability to chose and to take action. Nations and the players behind them are not killed. The residents of Poland could easily found "Poland 2" with no ability to interfere from invaders. Invading -- as a general rule -- does not "destroy communities", it destroys the billboard outside of town that says what name the region had.

Invading is not like forum destroying that wipes out an entire history of a people. 99 times out of 100, it makes an appearance and ends. Just like that.

Indeed, invading can oftentimes revive and restore regions. A key example is in the region SPACE, which was invaded in 2008. The region rallied against Europeia and became a hub of activity -- for a time.

That is not to say invading is motivated by the desire to help regions. The few who make that argument are...not being completely truthful. Invading is motivated either by a general cause of war, or by the self interest of the invading region. Defenders are motivated for the exact same reason, but they do not do us the favor of being as open about their intentions.

Riddle me this: Name a region that was an active bustling center of activity before an invasion, and was then subsequently destroyed by such an invasion. Can you? I cannot. I am sure a handful of such examples exist, just as I am sure that some will provide them.

But what about all the regions destroyed by defending? In 2006, the reviving and active colony of Valhalla was a jewel in the New Inquistion Empire. The Empress Griffin had taken a dead inactive region and restored it to a place of glory. The kind of tale we wish every story ended with in Nationstates. Unfortunately, success leads to envy -- and to hate -- and to invasion.

After their victory at the battle of Iraq, defender forces lead by the Red Liberty Alliance and the Founderless Region Alliance attacked the colony and claimed it for the "natives". This destroyed the growing region, and now it sits as a dead trophy to Yggdrasil and the Goddess Relief Office.

Standing alone, this could be the tragic exception to a longstanding tradition of defender nobility. But destroying the Europeian colony at Old Europe, the Empires of Earth colony at Sufflok (this is detailed in "The Deceit of Defenderism"), which had all shown incredible promise draft a far more sinister line -- defenders care far more about winning than "doing the right thing".

Even when defenders merely intervene they only exacerbate the conflict. They aren't there offering to "moderate" or "find a solution". They come into the conflict, uninvited, and begin doing and saying anything that strikes their fancy. Usually they aren't invaded by the native government, and they are held accountable to such natives as much as invaders are. You often see defenders sidestepping native WA Nations (perhaps even the former delegate) to install one of their own agents. Despite their claims to be working for the region's "best interests" they are intrinsically doing the exact same thing invaders are. Full stop.

Truly, what is the difference between a defense and a raid?

(1) Foreign WAs enter region
(2) Elect a new delegate
(3) Secure region, eject WAs of the other side
(4) Leave after a fashion.

Practically, what is different here? A temporary change in the World Factbook Entry? So the text of a header and a flag is the "moral cause" defenders fight for, and that invaders are evil people for changing? Give me a break.

In addition, if the power of the native delegate is sovereign, then why do many defender organizations remain neutral during conflicts inside the feeder? Wouldn't it likewise be an ideological imperative to intervene on behalf of the native government. Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge have found it worthwhile to invade feeders (The South Pacific) to advance their attempts at power. A blind eye can be turned to ideological purity on such occasions.

And while they tout their horn at sovereignty, defenders are more than eager to violate such sovereignty by invading region's forums and attempting to sabotage the government from within. These assaults are far more grievous than "invading" a Nationstates region that will 99 times out of 100 be left in fair shape, or even having to merely move to a new region. Indeed, many defender agents boast about their work in "taking down" regions as an inside agent. Indeed, former FRA Arch-Chancellor Falconias frequently regarded the destruction of the Blades of Conquest --at his hand-- as an inside agent his best work.

At the end of his career, plots involving the internal collapse of The New Inquisition and Gatesville as an intelligence agent were also confessed to (after years of denial). Defenders did not rush to condemn this, to preach about regional sovereignty here. Why? Because they don't five a fly. It doesn't affect their bottom line -- beat invaders. Indeed, it helps it.

As established in the extremes sections, regions that are willing to break with tenants of defenderism to pursue their own agendas are the mainstream. While invaders willing to completely destroy regions to victory are the obnoxious minority, those who are willing to infiltrate, invade, and overthrow are most defenders of note.

The Other Extreme: The moralistic condemnations

Falconias once stated, "I truly believe that everytime a region is invaded, a player leaves Nationstates. I want to stop that."

An admiral sentiment, (ignoring the fact that most Blades of Conquest members left NS after he brought that region to their knees *cough*), but what else drives players from Nationstates?

Perhaps directing a mindless drivel of negative commentary and vile remarks toward fellow players will drive members from the game? How many players have left over WFE entry changes and embassy closures? Compare that to how many players have left because of asshattary and unkind things being said. The "moral mandate" drives defenders to not just prevent invasions, but also to try to attack invaders at any soft spot possible. How many times have I been told I belong in "real life" jail? About how I am a lousy person because I invade? How are those remarks acceptable while changing a flag is heinous and evil?

As Ballo pointed out, raiding and crashing, what you do is unjustifiable; you might be able to explain why you do something but it'll always be unjust. - Unibot

This personal assaults -- these attacks against invaders -- are unjust.

You have, what? A hundred people in Belgium endorsing your raider delegate? But for defenders we need every line of rhetoric available to persuade the masses to help liberate. - Unibot

Even if you can explain why you do it...

Conclusion

To conclude, it is obviously clear that the moral mandate of the defender cause is a load of bollocks. Invading is more vandalism and nuisance than a military action. But defenders respond as radically, as militarily, and as aggressively as they can. For all high and mighty they consider themselves, defenders are operating in a radical position of self entitlement.

They believe they can talk about sovereignty, and then infiltrate another region's forums.

They believe they can talk about morality, and then spread nefarious comments and dialogue against invaders.

They believe they can talk about purity, and then usurp delegacies, invade feeders, remove native delegates, destroy invader built communities.

I do not believe defenders are bad people. Generally not in NS, and defending certainly doesn't make them a bad person in real life. I do believe that pronouncements of moral superiority come with a bar however, and over the last five years -- and still today -- I find the achievement of that bar sorely lacking on the part of mainstream (and increasingly extreme) defenders.*

This op-ed was written by HEM Tiberius, the author of "Short Title: Bring in the Clowns" and "The Deceit of Defenderism". HEM is a retired Europeian Admiral and a predominate invader advocate.

Understanding the content of this op-ed is controversial, any rebuttals to this opinion may be either sent to HEM via PM in Europeia, or telegramed to the nation "E-News Network". All rebuttals will be published if appropriate

*Last paragraph added for NS forum edition

[Sedgistan]

Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge

heh

[Crazy girl]

Or...they could just post their rebuttals here, in this thread?

[The Blaatschapen]

Understanding the content of this op-ed is controversial, any rebuttals to this opinion may be either sent to HEM via PM in Europeia, or telegramed to the nation "E-News Network". All rebuttals will be published if appropriate[/i]

*Last paragraph added for NS forum edition

When you post here, rebuttals can be posted here too, no?

[Cromarty]

This article would be funny if I didn't know Europeia was serious.

Keenly notice that none of these powers can permanently alter a nation's ability to chose and to take action. Nations and the players behind them are not killed. The residents of Poland could easily found "Poland 2" with no ability to interfere from invaders. Invading -- as a general rule -- does not "destroy communities", it destroys the billboard outside of town that says what name the region had.

Or Invaders can leave regions the fuck alone? Or go raid in the warzones... that is what they are there for.

Riddle me this: Name a region that was an active bustling center of activity before an invasion, and was then subsequently destroyed by such an invasion. Can you? I cannot. I am sure a handful of such examples exist, just as I am sure that some will provide them.

North Atlantic. Completely destroyed. Iran. Almost entirely now dead. And those two are in the last 6 months and off the top of my head.

But what about all the regions destroyed by defending? In 2006, the reviving and active colony of Valhalla was a jewel in the New Inquistion Empire. The Empress Griffin had taken a dead inactive region and restored it to a place of glory. The kind of tale we wish every story ended with in Nationstates. Unfortunately, success leads to envy -- and to hate -- and to invasion.

TNI invades Valhalla. FRA liberates it. How is this a bad thing?

You often see defenders sidestepping native WA Nations (perhaps even the former delegate) to install one of their own agents. Despite their claims to be working for the region's "best interests" they are intrinsically doing the exact same thing invaders are. Full stop.

For reasons of pragmatism and practicality. What's going to get a region detagged/protected quicker, a 13 day inactive native or an active defender?

Truly, what is the difference between a defense and a raid?

Intent. You intend to damage and destroy regions. Defenders, by and large, do not.

Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge have found it worthwhile to invade feeders (The South Pacific) to advance their attempts at power. A blind eye can be turned to ideological purity on such occasions.

The same "defender" Sedge who had spent months saying he wasn't a defender any more?

While invaders willing to completely destroy regions to victory are the obnoxious minority, those who are willing to infiltrate, invade, and overthrow are most defenders of note.

This just in: Prominent Europeian HEM regards Europeian allies TNI as 'obnoxious'.

Understanding the content of this op-ed is controversial, any rebuttals to this opinion may be either sent to HEM via PM in Europeia, or telegramed to the nation "E-News Network". All rebuttals will be published if appropriate[/i]

*Last paragraph added for NS forum edition

When you post here, rebuttals can be posted here too, no?

No they just want patting on the back for their pointless bullshit propaganda. Typical Europeia.

~St George, Europeian Citizen.

[Mahaj]

Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge

heh

Is that, like, your favorite post on all of NationStates ever?

[Andacantra]

The first thing one may notice is the differing amount of influence that the extremes have on their respective side. While the bulk of mainstream invaders have conceded ground to avoid ejecting natives, acting civilly, and showing something resembling respect -- the defender side is dominated by those who could be characterized as radical. There are certainly invaders who are extreme -- of that there can be no doubt -- but the defender entities that dare lecture the world community about the evil of invaderism see no existent room to act reasoned themselves.

I would definitely argue this. While it may seem that "moral" defenders influence more/are more numerous, in my own personal contact, that's not entirely true. You might also find, given a chance, that even those that do lecture on the morality of things are more inclined to be reasonable when you are. It goes both ways, and I don't think that the balance is quite as weighted as you suggest it is.

Keenly notice that none of these powers can permanently alter a nation's ability to chose and to take action. Nations and the players behind them are not killed. The residents of Poland could easily found "Poland 2" with no ability to interfere from invaders. Invading -- as a general rule -- does not "destroy communities", it destroys the billboard outside of town that says what name the region had.

I can largely agree with the sentiment here. However, a region shouldn't have to go through the upheaval that moving regions would mean, just to guarantee that when they wake up the next day, their nation is where they left it. The first action I can happily run with, the second annoys me a little, and the third I'm not a fan of at all.

Even when defenders merely intervene they only exacerbate the conflict. They aren't there offering to "moderate" or "find a solution". They come into the conflict, uninvited, and begin doing and saying anything that strikes their fancy. Usually they aren't invaded by the native government, and they are held accountable to such natives as much as invaders are. You often see defenders sidestepping native WA Nations (perhaps even the former delegate) to install one of their own agents. Despite their claims to be working for the region's "best interests" they are intrinsically doing the exact same thing invaders are. Full stop.

There's a slight difference. When a defender moves into a region, they're not doing it with the intent of taking it -for their region/organisation- (in the sense that they'd then advertise then). They're also somewhat invited - I'd certainly find things exceedingly boring without them.

In addition, if the power of the native delegate is sovereign, then why do many defender organizations remain neutral during conflicts inside the feeder? Wouldn't it likewise be an ideological imperative to intervene on behalf of the native government. Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge have found it worthwhile to invade feeders (The South Pacific) to advance their attempts at power. A blind eye can be turned to ideological purity on such occasions.

Feeders are an entirely different kettle of fish to standard invasions - coups are rarely about regional interest but purely self-interest, and have a marginally more genuine claim about increasing activity, and those above me have made the point about sedge.

Perhaps directing a mindless drivel of negative commentary and vile remarks toward fellow players will drive members from the game? How many players have left over WFE entry changes and embassy closures? Compare that to how many players have left because of asshattary and unkind things being said. The "moral mandate" drives defenders to not just prevent invasions, but also to try to attack invaders at any soft spot possible. How many times have I been told I belong in "real life" jail? About how I am a lousy person because I invade? How are those remarks acceptable while changing a flag is heinous and evil?

And this -entire article- is sinking to that level. I regularly have perfectly friendly conversations with defenders who defend on the moral mandate (as you put it), and not all will always attack raiders on soft spots. Some will, but you'll always get someone, and you're making such sweeping generalisations and they're unfair. Yes, I don't like it when I'm called evil for invading - but fighting back with some common sense, not sinking to their level, and actually remotely listening to what they're saying insofar as certain actions go, and you'll instantly find that people are a heck of a lot more friendly towards you. If you do act like a lousy person in some respects, don't be surprised when you get treated like one later.

I do believe that pronouncements of moral superiority come with a bar however, and over the last five years -- and still today -- I find the achievement of that bar sorely lacking on the part of mainstream (and increasingly extreme) defenders.*

This whole article reeks of saying that basically, raiding isn't playing the "bad guy", when ultimately, it is. And there will be insults and stuff flying from both sides - there always will be. But sometimes, it's actually worth looking past the immediate sheen of the argument and paying more attention to it, however much you might find certain parts of it objectionable. Ultimately, we're playing a game though. No side should throw hugely personal insults at the other, and I'm not advocating that. I'm saying that both sides should ultimately be sensible about how they act towards the other. I think raiding and defending should be a friendly rivalry rather than a hate, but in many ways this article leans towards encouraging the latter rather than the former.

[Whiskum]

North Atlantic. Completely destroyed.

North Atlantic was hardly a 'bustling center of activity' prior to the invasion, which was the criterion laid down by HEM in this personal article.

Intent. You intend to damage and destroy regions. Defenders, by and large, do not.

In general, there are many invaders whose purpose is not to damage or destroy regions. No meaningful distinction between invaders as a group and defenders as a group can be made from the crude presumption that all raids are performed with the intention to damage and destroy the region concerned. For instance, in Valhalla, TNI did intend to refound the region, but this was not with the purpose of destroying it but of reviving it in a securer state which would allow for the region to be sustainably developed by TNI. You can of course argue that the effect of TNI's actions was to damage Valhalla (an argument I would dispute) but this is a separate matter to assuming TNI intended to damage and destroy Valhalla. The same can be said in relation to many raids.

[Cromarty]

North Atlantic. Completely destroyed.

North Atlantic was hardly a 'bustling center of activity' prior to the invasion, which was the criterion laid down by HEM in this personal article.

Did you destroy it? Yes you did.

Intent. You intend to damage and destroy regions. Defenders, by and large, do not.

In general, there are many invaders whose purpose is not to damage or destroy regions. No meaningful distinction between invaders as a group and defenders as a group can be made from the crude presumption that all raids are performed with the intention to damage and destroy the region concerned. For instance, in Valhalla, TNI did intend to refound the region, but this was not with the purpose of destroying it but of reviving it in a securer state which would allow for the region to be sustainably developed by TNI. You can of course argue that the effect of TNI's actions was to damage Valhalla (an argument I would dispute) but this is a separate matter to assuming TNI intended to damage and destroy Valhalla. The same can be said in relation to many raids.

Correction: You claim TNI's intention was to revive in a securer state (i.e. secure from liberations to return it to it's legitimate natives) which would allow it to be 'sustainably developed by TNI.'

It's just as likely that you'd have kept it as one of your many trophy regions.

[Whiskum]

North Atlantic was hardly a 'bustling center of activity' prior to the invasion, which was the criterion laid down by HEM in this personal article.

Did you destroy it? Yes you did.

I have not offered any argument on that question. HEM stated:

Riddle me this: Name a region that was an active bustling center of activity before an invasion, and was then subsequently destroyed by such an invasion. Can you? I cannot. I am sure a handful of such examples exist, just as I am sure that some will provide them.

Responding to HEM's article, you then gave North Atlantic as an example of meeting these criteria. That you claim the region has been destroyed is insufficient to answer HEM's so called 'Riddle' because HEM's argument concerns the destruction of a 'bustling center of activity', not just any region. You can argue about whether or not this distinction matters, of course, but North Atlantic does not meet HEM's specification.

Correction: You claim TNI's intention was to revive in a securer state (i.e. secure from liberations to return it to it's legitimate natives) which would allow it to be 'sustainably developed by TNI.'

It's just as likely that you'd have kept it as one of your many trophy regions.

TNI has two trophy regions and neither were maintained in November 2006 when it invaded Valhalla. The first is Concosia, which was invaded because of its history with Gatesville, an ally of TNI. The second currently is North Atlantic, as we have discussed. In November 2006, rather than taking trophy regions, TNI was still pursuing the variant of imperialism (not the sole form of imperialism, which is merely term for seeking to unequally influence another state) of conquering regions and then developing them, in way The LKE had done with many regions (like The Land of Dragonia). TNI's point throughout was to make Valhalla a functioning colony, an issue which was highlighted many times to the FRA leadership during their month-long occupation of the region.

Against this backdrop, it is highly unlikely (even from an informed outsider's perspective) TNI merely wanted Valhalla as a trophy region, even if that is with your hindsight the arguable effect of TNI's intended actions had they all been carried through on. In any case, what is 'just as likley' in the matter of Valhalla is hardly a basis for assuming that all raids are intended to damage the region concerned: that is a very bold claim and should be supported by more than merely being 'just as likely' as an alternative state of affairs. You appear to be acknowledging that it is 'just as likely' that not all raids are made with the intent to damage and destroy the regions invaded. If that is so, an assumption should not be made that the difference between a raid and a defence is intent because raids are done with the intention of damaging and destroying regions, which is what you were claiming.

[North East Somerset]

I think this article makes a fine argument. But not a complex one, not an astonishing revelation, to me at least. In fact, if we really tried, I believe we could whittle it down to an even more concise and powerful argument. Because the principle is quite simple: defending is based on a moral fantasy, not reality. The notion that raiding causes communities material damage is rubbish. And it will always be rubbish. No substantive community has ever been destroyed by raiding. Ever.

And then all around us we have the true evils of things like forum destruction and defenders take no leadership on these issues. They barely raise an eyebrow when a raider forum gets deleted. It's okay, cause it's not 'one of them'. And then you see the massive difference in the reaction when one of their friends gets raided, and some random region. All hands to deck for the former, and the latter oft gets totally ignored even when it would be easy to liberate. And so the true hypocrisy of defenderism becomes all very apparent. Very few of them really genuinely care about regions being invaded and find this so offensive that they morally feel obliged to take action. Otherwise they would be shouting their heads off about forum destruction, and acting equally with regards to all raids. Maybe some of the lackeys at the bottom that have bought the moral arguments, but the actions show few of the people actually making the decisions do.

And so the moral argument has no substance because there is no consistency to it's application. And even today we have defenders, particularly those involved in this new UDL, making public accusations that raiders are bullies. Yes, thats the language they use, its on the record in the NS forums. HEM could have chosen much more powerful quotes from the Leader of the UDL, Unibot, than he actually did. (And more modern and relevant ones than Falconias). In essence though what we have is defenders telling us, and by us I mean anyone that raids - whether that is raiding orgs like TBH, or fully fledged political regions like Europeia - that we are bullies. Frankly, how insulting is that? Fairly so. And there isn't an ounce of truth to it.

How can they be whiter than white, when they themselves are effectively being bullies by making these kind of absurd allegations. On top of the issue of the uneven application of their "moral" feelings. We now have the revelation of their hatred towards raiders overwhelming their apparent "good will towards all men". It shows how deep that good will truly runs, eh - skin deep.

And yet the moral argument is repeated again and again. These people go around lecturing the rest of Nationstates on democracy, whilst residing in organisations that have barely a hint of democratic values. Lecturing people on how allegedly changing tags is bullying, whilst actually offending people causing much more serious personal 'injury'.

The whole defender ethos to build a moral case has over the past year been pushed harder and harder by a group of people absolutely desperate to use it to recruit more members. And the harder they push it, the more they erode it through this hypocrisy. It's falling apart now, as the harder they push the more the truth is exposed about how their priority is to "beat" raiders, not to help people.

So it turns out the truth nowadays is there is nothing particularly honourable about defending - if anything you are siding with an increasingly Cult like military focussed faction who are primarily interested in centralising power for themselves personally, with a made up moral agenda, and thus are eroding the independence and sovereignty of regions who are the true building blocks of the democratic regional forum based Nationstates community.

Where does it end? Will moderate defenders continue to make excuses for their Leadership to have free reign at hypocrisy? Or is the defender world going to get it's act together and clamp down on this? You can make the "we are helpful" argument without being asses about it like what we've seen in recent months. It will just drive more regions and communities, to side with raiders. And whilst you may continue to get some individuals flocking to your ranks to personally profit from the way you do business - any kind of moralistically based argument will look increasingly absurd. And annoying. And that means people leaving defenderism, or possibly the whole game. Which is a great shame.

(I say all this excepting TITO, which has basically been the same throughout this time, and been fairly successful about what it does. I'm not implying there has been any great change there, nor that they are innocent of all issues raised in the article.)

[King HEM]

North Atlantic. Completely destroyed. Iran. Almost entirely now dead. And those two are in the last 6 months and off the top of my head.

I conceded in the article that there were examples. The stunning revelation (or not) is that defenders have done their fair share of region killing.

TNI invades Valhalla. FRA liberates it. How is this a bad thing?

The region was growing. It was becoming active. It had gone from dead to alive. You brought it back to dead to sit on GRO's trophy shelf. Good on the FRA. Which by the way, seems almost...like the SAME colonialism TNI did. Except not active. hmm..

For reasons of pragmatism and practicality. What's going to get a region detagged/protected quicker, a 13 day inactive native or an active defender?

So "defending" a region by installing your own delegate is okay, but installing your own delegate to make the region grow and be active is heinous invader activity?

Intent. You intend to damage and destroy regions. Defenders, by and large, do not.

You dare to read my intentions God? If my intention were to destroy regions, why are all the regions Europeia has raided not dead? Indeed, defenders seem more adapt at destroying regions in pursuit of victory than many moderate invaders.

This just in: Prominent Europeian HEM regards Europeian allies TNI as 'obnoxious'.

Some of their actions, maybe at scant times. But on the large TNI does not go out of its way to cause native harm or discomfort. Especially when they used to devout so much time to restoring regions. It is a shame that defenders have limited that as an option to them.

No they just want patting on the back for their pointless bullshit propaganda. Typical Europeia.

Bullshit propoganda? Cute, but considering you didn't respond to any of the points about moralistic hate words, defender extremism, or defender infiltration I assume that my case was more solid than mere bullshit.

And this -entire article- is sinking to that level. I regularly have perfectly friendly conversations with defenders who defend on the moral mandate (as you put it), and not all will always attack raiders on soft spots. Some will, but you'll always get someone, and you're making such sweeping generalisations and they're unfair. Yes, I don't like it when I'm called evil for invading - but fighting back with some common sense, not sinking to their level, and actually remotely listening to what they're saying insofar as certain actions go, and you'll instantly find that people are a heck of a lot more friendly towards you. If you do act like a lousy person in some respects, don't be surprised when you get treated like one later.

I disagree. I called a spade a spade. I didn't get personal, I didn't make broad insinuations. I used real events, real quotes, and told the truth. I even made a special disclaimer noting I have nothing *personally* against any defender. A brand of respect never extended to invaders by the ole boys at the UDL.

[King HEM]

Or...they could just post their rebuttals here, in this thread?

That's 100% fine. I made the offer so that another argument could be heard in Europeia were this was originally posted.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

OH GOD. Somebody PLEASE put this thread down before it mutates and infects us all with it's stupidity.

[Cromarty]

North Atlantic. Completely destroyed. Iran. Almost entirely now dead. And those two are in the last 6 months and off the top of my head.

I conceded in the article that there were examples. The stunning revelation (or not) is that defenders have done their fair share of region killing.

Emphasis on the 'or not', Empire of Power has been banged on about for years, and it's a prime example of region destroying.

TNI invades Valhalla. FRA liberates it. How is this a bad thing?

The region was growing. It was becoming active. It had gone from dead to alive. You brought it back to dead to sit on GRO's trophy shelf. Good on the FRA. Which by the way, seems almost...like the SAME colonialism TNI did. Except not active. hmm..

Did someone write FRA on my forehead when I was asleep again?

For reasons of pragmatism and practicality. What's going to get a region detagged/protected quicker, a 13 day inactive native or an active defender?

So "defending" a region by installing your own delegate is okay, but installing your own delegate to make the region grow and be active is heinous invader activity?

Yep this is clearly the case with every invasion, right? Invaders installing their own delegate to make the region grow.

Intent. You intend to damage and destroy regions. Defenders, by and large, do not.

You dare to read my intentions God? If my intention were to destroy regions, why are all the regions Europeia has raided not dead? Indeed, defenders seem more adapt at destroying regions in pursuit of victory than many moderate invaders.

North Atlantic. You, you being Europeia, were there. Is it destroyed? Yes, yes it is.

This just in: Prominent Europeian HEM regards Europeian allies TNI as 'obnoxious'.

Some of their actions, maybe at scant times. But on the large TNI does not go out of its way to cause native harm or discomfort. Especially when they used to devout so much time to restoring regions. It is a shame that defenders have limited that as an option to them.

Yeah for a region that bangs on about the FRA 'violating their sovereignty' TNI does a lot of that themselves.

Protip: If you come into my house and point a gun at my face and threaten me, it doesn't matter if your friends fix my leaking roof while you do so.

No they just want patting on the back for their pointless bullshit propaganda. Typical Europeia.

Bullshit propoganda? Cute, but considering you didn't respond to any of the points about moralistic hate words, defender extremism, or defender infiltration I assume that my case was more solid than mere bullshit.

You mistake not caring for not having an argument.

And this -entire article- is sinking to that level. I regularly have perfectly friendly conversations with defenders who defend on the moral mandate (as you put it), and not all will always attack raiders on soft spots. Some will, but you'll always get someone, and you're making such sweeping generalisations and they're unfair. Yes, I don't like it when I'm called evil for invading - but fighting back with some common sense, not sinking to their level, and actually remotely listening to what they're saying insofar as certain actions go, and you'll instantly find that people are a heck of a lot more friendly towards you. If you do act like a lousy person in some respects, don't be surprised when you get treated like one later.

I disagree. I called a spade a spade. I didn't get personal, I didn't make broad insinuations. I used real events, real quotes, and told the truth. I even made a special disclaimer noting I have nothing *personally* against any defender. A brand of respect never extended to invaders by the ole boys at the UDL.

You didn't tell the truth at all. You put your spin on it, as a so-called 'moderate' invader in an attempt to discredit defenders.

[The Blaatschapen]

OH GOD. Somebody PLEASE put this thread down before it mutates and infects us all with it's stupidity.

Too late!

*drools and mumbles incoherently*

[E-News Network]

Did someone write FRA on my forehead when I was asleep again?

So invaders can be painted with the same brush -- destructive, poisonous, Europeia responsible for what everyone else does etc etc, but defenders are totally separate organizations that aren't responsible for what their counter parts do?

Yep this is clearly the case with every invasion, right? Invaders installing their own delegate to make the region grow.

No, but defenders have made that possibility impossible through their actions. Which is not a positive development for anyone.

North Atlantic. You, you being Europeia, were there. Is it destroyed? Yes, yes it is.

That has nothing to do with my intentions though. I conceded in the original post that I'm sure there are examples, but the fact you are citing one region rather than an enormous list demonstrates to me that defender destroyed regions and invader destroyed regions are probably about the same number.

Protip: If you come into my house and point a gun at my face and threaten me, it doesn't matter if your friends fix my leaking roof while you do so.

You mean if I come into your house with a bucket of paint and a flag to replace the one hanging outside your window?

You mistake not caring for not having an argument.

I'd be delighted to hear it.

You didn't tell the truth at all. You put your spin on it, as a so-called 'moderate' invader in an attempt to discredit defenders.

The defender cause didn't need me, or anyone else, to discredit it. While defenders are capable of doing good, and being good people, their actions do not always meet up with their idealism. Which is fine. But when they villianize others for being far cast from the same idealism, I believe it needs to be pointed out.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge

heh

Ooh, a shout out for me.

I might write some sort of rebuttal, if I cared. If I thought it would be read and considered by anybody who didn't already agree with me (well, there is Abbey, so maybe..). I'm far more interested in the fact that I invaders honestly believe these things. I hope my fellow defenders understand that when they respond, because you can't read posts like this and defeat them with "no, you're wrong" posts.

Invaders and Defenders both live in similar but alternate universes, with different ideas of reality, and until both camps live in the same universe, they won't really be able to talk to each other in a meaningful way. Instead you get stuff like this, and whatever Unibot's response is going to be.

[Argo Rhos]

heh

Ooh, a shout out for me.

I might write some sort of rebuttal, if I cared. If I thought it would be read and considered by anybody who didn't already agree with me (well, there is Abbey, so maybe..). I'm far more interested in the fact that I invaders honestly believe these things. I hope my fellow defenders understand that when they respond, because you can't read posts like this and defeat them with "no, you're wrong" posts.

Invaders and Defenders both live in similar but alternate universes, with different ideas of reality, and until both camps live in the same universe, they won't really be able to talk to each other in a meaningful way. Instead you get stuff like this, and whatever Unibot's response is going to be.

Not true. IIRC many defenders and raiders are friends outside NS, but, staunch enemies in game. I figured it was some sort of RP.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

Ooh, a shout out for me.

I might write some sort of rebuttal, if I cared. If I thought it would be read and considered by anybody who didn't already agree with me (well, there is Abbey, so maybe..). I'm far more interested in the fact that I invaders honestly believe these things. I hope my fellow defenders understand that when they respond, because you can't read posts like this and defeat them with "no, you're wrong" posts.

Invaders and Defenders both live in similar but alternate universes, with different ideas of reality, and until both camps live in the same universe, they won't really be able to talk to each other in a meaningful way. Instead you get stuff like this, and whatever Unibot's response is going to be.

Not true. IIRC many defenders and raiders are friends outside NS, but, staunch enemies in game. I figured it was some sort of RP.

Slight misunderstanding. All of the "talking" I'm talking about is of the in-game sort. Don't mean to comment on whatever people can do outside NS, 'cause that's not entirely relevant to this particular discussion. Sorry about the lack of clarity!

[Oliver the Mediocre]

The following is a formal rebuttal, and I request that it be published in Europeia's forum.

Defenders: Far From Perfect (But At Least They’re Trying)

Alright, some folks might know me as a former invader, former-ish Defender (not actively defending but still one at heart), current fixture in Osiris, and general all-around reasonable dude.

Some of you might know me as the boogeyman. It’s okay, these things happen, and I don’t hold it against you.

HEM posted an interesting article which claims to debunk defenderism; a lofty goal, but certainly not one I haven’t seen attempted before (or even attempted myself). I won’t summarize the article at length (I assume you can read.. if not.. you won’t know what I’m saying..), but it suggests on the tired old line that Defenders are not as morally upright as they claim, and that they fail to uphold their own high standards of morality.

This is the truth.

It shouldn’t be a shocking truth, though; everybody fails to meet their own lofty standards from time to time. Human beings are imperfect (last I checked), overzealous, far too convinced of their own righteousness, and willing to skirt the truth in order to win.

Please note that I said “human beings,” and not “Defenders”. It’s not as though the Defenders have a monopoly on fallibility. Moderators in the game have a rather extensive system of review if somebody believes the moderators have done wrong. Governments have checks and balances, societies have laws.. you get the picture. We cannot assume that someone will be perfect all the time.

It gets a lot easier, mind you, to stay within the realm of your personal moral standards when they aren’t precisely stringent. If the main argument against Defenders is that they set very high moral standards for themselves and fail.. what exactly does that say about Invaders?

I’m not saying that Defenders aren’t preachy and moralistic; hell, even I wish Unibot would shut up sometimes (and I used to be in the UDL).. but they’re attempting to be moral, and contrary to the popular invader belief, they really do actually care about the regions they’re trying, in the best way they know how, to protect.

Some of them just want to win, sure, and I’m not a fan of any of them, but the vast majority of them, when they do something ridiculously, foolishly flawed, are doing it because they think it’s the best thing they can do under the circumstances. They are attempting to do what they believe is right, even when the conception of justice they are guided by is sometimes flawed. How many Invaders can claim that they are doing what they think is morally right? Morality rarely, if ever, even enters the question.

In Monkey Island, years and years ago, there was a raid, and the raid was bad enough that one of the natives feared for the safety of his region. He feared so much that he created I think roughly twenty puppets (Mousebumples can correct me as to the numbers), and joined them all into the World Assembly near update time to restore the native delegate to power. He was subsequently ejected and banned from the World Assembly for life (as is correct, under the rules). If the control over the WFE and Flag, the control over Embassies, and the control over Residency is so very meaningless, why on earth would a rational person do such a thing?

When I invaded and attempted to grief Land of the Muse, roughly a year ago now, natives were deleted for posting personal information about the real life identity of Heras Savaer on the regional message board, and for posting hateful messages there. Ironically enough, this was what eventually broke my spirit for raiding. I kept asking myself why they would do something like that over some lines of computer code.

The reason is that the natives, when they are present, actually do care. And while the Defenders may not be perfect paragons of morality, when they attempt to defend those natives, they are doing it in no small part because they care.

What do the invaders care about? What morality guides invaders? I’d honestly love to know, because I can’t find much evidence of it myself. So whatever I failed to learn as an invader, please teach me, so I can learn.

[Durkadurkiranistan II]

The striking difference between invaders and defenders I believe is that invaders recognize a hard IC/OOC line while defenders do not. As in the cases of Monkey Island and Land of the Muse the players behind the native nations often become agitated and indeed outraged in an out of character, real life sense. That is their prerogative but frankly it won't stop me from playing the game of Nationstates as I please.

I suppose an analogous situation would be the Stanley Cup finals last year. The Canucks played the Bruins in the game of hockey and lost. Vancouver fans took to the streets and rioted. Surely however this should not stop the Bruins from playing hockey well.

I play the game to have fun and not for some bizarre out of character moral crusade; I for one do not get OOC emotional over in-game actions. I am not going to change the way I play because some whiny, less skilled players get butthurt over a game.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

I suppose I've always found NS to be more analogous to a society than to a game. "Skill," in this game, is a lot more difficult to define than it is in hockey. Am I skilled if I invade lots of regions? What if I build lots? What if I make lots of flags for people? What if I write lots of WA resolutions? It's a lot harder to say what makes a good "player" in NS than it is in Hockey (traditionally goals, assists, defensive prowess, save percentage.. there are a few but it's not quite as open-ended as NS).

I know some people who would say that the rest of society shouldn't get butthurt when they make a lot of money and people are starving, but there's also a relatively large segment of society that thinks that's maybe not morally okay.

[Rachel Anumia]

It's no use crying over spilled milk...

I think one of the big differences between most raiders and defenders is their perspective on natives. No one is denying that people can care about their region, but the belief that because they can care so much, that it makes it morally right to defend them is not one that I hold. I once started out in a region where all I did was answer issues and there was no gameplay perspective, if someone had destroyed that region I would have looked upon it as a new opportunity to start anew. People care way too much about things that they really shouldn't, for example, this game itself.

We all get too attached to things we shouldn't, in Europeia for example there was this NSer who quit the region because we wouldn't change our forums to ZB. The moralistic arguments by defenders, make it seems like we should care about things that happen in a game (not something we should care -that- much to begin with) like we do about RL issues and tragedies. Your argument boils down to (with my perspective) that because people care too much about something that really is trivial, that it makes it ones moral duty to defend them. It's an easy trap to fall into.

Sure, it's a nice thing to believe in and I'm sure it makes defenders feel warm and fuzzy inside. But the fact is that we're playing a game and to care -that- much, is not really... real.

Wow, Durk was faster than me with an even better post (since it highlighted IC/OOC)

[Oliver the Mediocre]

Sure, it's a nice thing to believe in and I'm sure it makes defenders feel warm and fuzzy inside. But the fact is that we're playing a game and to care -that- much, is not really... real.

I guess I see the caring and assume it's real, rather than dismissing it because it doesn't fit in with my preconceived notion of what the "game" is about.