The Rejected Times - Issue XVII

[Unibot]

Issue XVII, March 22, 2014

 
Editor's Note

 

Some great stuff here; Starrie's statistical analysis is a treat, plus this edition also has the first foreign interview with a sitting 10XI delegate, Koth's thoughts on Raiderism and a pretty provocative new editorial series on power in NationStates from moi. I think you're going to enjoy it!

 

 
>>> OPINION

 
Meet 10000 Islands's New Delegate!
An Interview with Benevolent Thomas

INTERVIEW | UNIBOT

 
Unibot sits down with Benevolent Thomas, 10000 Islands's newly elected delegate, for a rare interview conducted well past Uni's bed-time...

 
Congratulations on your election, Benevolent Thomas! How excited are you to be delegate of 10000 Islands? What’s the thing you’re looking forward the most to being delegate?

 

I’m very excited to be the Delegate of the 10000 Islands. I first ran for the position back in September, but back then I don’t think I wanted it as truly as I do now.  Having been far more involved with the region than I had been previously, I think I’m far better equipped to face the responsibilities that come along with being delegate of one of the largest regions in NationStates. I’m really looking forward to interacting with those that I would not normally be in contact with if I wasn't the delegate. I plan to engage more with XKI’s more casual members and those that do not frequent the forums as often. I’m also hoping to get to know those outside of the Islands a lot better as well. I think that  I think that is what I’m looking forward to, the communication.

 
For the casual outsider like myself: what are elections and politics for that matter, like, in 10000 Islands?

 

Well our elections are not really any different from any other election in any democracy. It’s a bit of a popularity contest, but unlike the real world, there is a real emphasis on one’s record of service.It’s a bit meritocratic in that you gain popularity via your actions and the more accolades you have, the more likely you are to be elected. This election seemed to favor those with a more robust agenda, but that is not always the case. The Ten Thousand Islands does have several political parties which I imagine most regions have, except we do not follow traditional political practices. Our parties are more like actual parties with all sorts of fun and shenanigans. 

 

 In the end we’re all Islanders and we’ll elect who we think is best to perform civic duty. Political alignment means just about next to nothing in XKI. 

 
I’ve had the pleasure to get know you a bit and I’ve always found you to be a great player and really approachable and practical leader.  But for the readers who may not be so acquainted with you, how would you describe yourself?

 

I did not know that we were so close. *grins* To those that do not know me, I’d say that I’m very ambitious. I set a goal and I work until I achieve it. I also walk a thin line between being casual and serious. I’m very laid back in real life and it flows through me even when I’m on NS, but I can get harshly serious at the drop of a hat. I guess that is a general characteristic of XKI though. We are a very laid back community, but can be very serious when the moment calls for it. I have a bit of an ego as well. My record speaks for itself, but I’m not so shy as to not boast when given the opportunity.

 
As delegate, what new policies are you intending to pursue and bring forth? Where is 10000 Islands heading under your stewardship? 

 

I’m not sure as to what “new policies” my term will bring. I’m actually hoping to bring back some of the older Ten Thousand Islands that we all loved so much (well some of us anyways). We’ve kind of retreated into our shell this past year or so and I’m looking to get us back out there in the world. XKI was such a hustling and bustling place once and I’d like to see it be that way once more. I’m hoping for more of a renaissance of Islander culture while at the same time extending our foreign affairs. The process has already begun and it has yielded some results such as the reestablishing of embassies with TRR and our opening of embassies with Lazarus.  Now if we can get some cultural events rolling, we’d be in great shape.

 
What do you believe is the biggest challenge that you will face as delegate?

 

I’d have to say that resistance will be my greatest challenge to overcome. It sounds so simplistic, but really it is only resistance that can prevent wonderful things from happening.  And this resistance may spring up in a number of forms: resistance to the outside world, resistance of others to give us a chance, resistance of participation in regional activities and resistance to change. 

 

Distrust and apathy are the two things I fear most in NS and in RL. Wow… I’ve kind of surprised myself with that answer, but it’s the truth. 

 
What’s one aspect of 10000 Islands’ culture that you’d like to bring back? More tacos?

 

Well the tacos are back *smiles widely*. We lost our entire economy with the Proboards upgrade during the summer and we’ve been slowly rebuilding. Actually, we just recently got the donation system back so tacos should soon be flying everywhere. 

 

We also plan to bring back more of our taco centric programs such as our highly interactive regional map and our immigration stocks. Tacos made XKI go round and we’ve been a bit sore since these programs faded. I also want to bring more people to our community.  One of the things I would like to bring back, and it was part of my platform, is to bring back the Mad Islander. The Mad Islander was a regional magazine which mostly interviewed Islanders both famous and unknown on a regular basis. I would like to revamp the Mad Islander as a more robust source of news and entertainment for the Ten Thousand Islands.  I also want to bring more people to our community. Islanders should be renowned for their near-worship of Werewolves/Mafia games and I’d like to see more people join us when we play these games. 

 

In fact, I’ll be hosting the next game (Werewolves 35) and I’m pretty sure it will be themed after Monty Python’s Flying Circus. I have no idea how I will make it work, but everyone should feel free to join us.  I also intend to hold cultural contests such as best flags and maybe even a FRAvision entry selection competition. I think small activities like these are a lot of fun and will keep people active. 

 
How will 10000 Islands face the “new” system of recruitment?  Has it been a challenge so far? Would you like to see changes in regards to the recruitment system?

 

Anyone who has seen our population rates ever since the recruiting rules were changed knows how we’ve handled it so far. Poorly. We finally started having the right conversations, but it was far too late seeing as we lost two thirds of our population. 

 

Having said that, we’re on the rebound due to recent reforms in the recruiting system including the smiting of Afforess’ abomination. I’m content where it is at currently. The different methods of recruiting have an equal chance of being the first to reach a new nation which has really been a life savor for us proud manual recruiters. Honestly I’d like to see recruiting return to how it was prior to the 2013 changes, but I’m not foolish enough to believe that will ever happen. 

 
10000 Islands often is a powerhouse in the World Assembly – will 10000 Islands, under your tenure, return to voting early and playing a decisive role there?

 

I do indeed plan on voting early when the opportunity arises and stacking for proposals that I feel strongly about. I think I will be more aggressive in trying to get WA authors to argue their positions on the XKI forums because that is where citizens will be influencing my official final vote on these matters. I want everyone to know that they should not bother lobbying me, because my vote will be determined via polling on XKI’s forums. 

 

I’m willing to swing my stick around more when it comes to the Security Council because I know a thing or two about gameplay matters and that is what the SC is primarily concerned with most of the time. I do have a slight apathy when it comes to the General Assembly because most of it is just idealist garbage whether you are pro GA or NatSov. There is also a culture of passing, repealing and then repeating which I absolutely loathe. I’m sure I can work on that though as a delegate. And as I’ve said before, the citizens will determine my final vote. 

 
Does “Defender Unity” exist? And if so, what should it entail?

 

I think it does exist. It involves a certain level of mutual respect between organizations and the ability to work together when the time arises. Do I think we should all work together all the time and use the same methods and launch points? No.  I think that is why I don’t like the term “Defender Unity” all that much. We are not one, we are many. We all have different ideals and methods of defending, that is why there are separate orgs. I think we as a group however should have the solidarity to respect one another despite our differences. 

 
“Commend Anime Daisuki” will be voted on (again) sooner or later, I imagine you’re a proponent, yes? How has Anime Daisuki affected you as a player? If you’ve got a good story to tell, please share.

 

I will be supporting a Commendation of the legend that is Anime Daisuki. Although we have not spent a great amount of time together, it is AD’s doctrine of defending that I’ve been trained under and it is the same doctrine I’ve practiced during my time as Tactical Officer.  Everything I’ve done as a defender has been influenced by his magnificent example. He truly is one of the greatest of all time, commendation or no. 

 
I know as a newbie, Anime Daisuki once gave me a bit of a lecture on detagging because me and my buddies (this was way before UDL) had detagged a region wrong and put up a flag for it. I got his old “leave no footprint” spiel and it’s stuck with me ever since. 

 

Thank you so much for the interview, Benevolent Thomas. I believe this is the first time someone has interviewed a sitting delegate in 10000 Islands, so I’m quite honoured to have gotten the privilege. If you have any final comments for our readers, you have the floor!

 

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to get my voice out there. Being more open with the world is one of my goals this term and to be featured in such a quality news source is quite the accomplishment for day one. 

 

I’d like to thank those of you who have believed in me since the start and have encouraged me to run for delegate:  Land, Eist, Naba,  Aerso, Ater, Ananke and Shizensky. I’d also like to give a special shout out to Sir 69 aka Controlitia. By the way, do you like my nation’s pretitle Uni?  

 
"The Taco Autocracy of Benevolent Thomas". Very nice, Thomas. Well played.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 
Defining "Raiderism"

OPINION | KOTH

 
Koth explores what Raiderism means...

 

Hey folks, Koth here. A couple days ago I was prompted by a discussion in the Neutral Ground thread to start a debate thread in Gameplay, titled simply "Raiderism". The idea of the thread was that we'd all share our own personal definition of a word that is often tossed around but always left vague. I was surprised by the sheer volume of responses I got (eight pages of content), and I was even more surprised at the replies themselves. A condensed list of actual definitions that people made within the thread has been compiled for your convenience here.

 

You will notice that despite opening discussion, I did not share my own definition of raiderism. In order to satiate your undeniable thirst for this information, I'll lay it down for you right here, right now. Before we open up that bag of worms though, let's start by looking at some of the replies within the thread. Many of the replies I received made no distinction between raiding and raiderism, which was one of the main reasons I found it necessary to bring this to debate. To me, it is obvious that raiderism must be separate from raiding, or else why would the word exist? It disappointed me to see that mod intervention was required at multiple points in the thread to keep people from just going back and forth about their opinions on raiding in yet another Gameplay topic, but the discussion helped me refine my own definition of raiderism.

 

There was one post in particular that stood out to me, written by Kyuji: "...the view that people have of raiders is that they're all raiderists , however because raiding can also be done out of revenge or because you morally object to the way a region behaves , or the morals they have, the act of raiding is seperate [sic] from the belief in the morals of raiderism." This brings me to my first part of my definition of raiderism: The belief in raiding for the sake of the enjoyment of raiding. To a pure raiderist, a raid is not executed as a means to an end, but rather as a way of enjoying one's self. A raiderist's motivation is wholly separate from other groups who raid to further a different goal. For instance, imperialist regions may field a raiding force, but their motivation for utilizing it is to advance their region's foreign agenda. Groups like The Eternal Knights merely raid because it is the only game mechanism that allows for conflict; if it were up to them they would have the system eliminated. Pure raiderists can exist in a non-raiderist environment (example: yours truly in regions like Asgard, where each operation had political motivation but it didn't matter to me, I just wanted to raid something), and are often employed by the armed forces of imperialist regions. However, the presence of raiderists in a non-raiderist environment does not cause a region to become raiderist.

 
But Kothles, what about bigameplayers? They raid for fun too, but you can't possibly say they're raiderists! Excellent point, italicized text version of myself. Indeed, it is true that there exist other groups of NationStates players that DO engage in raiding for fun…but they have no qualms with working against their fellow raiders just as easily. This brings me to the second part of my definition of raiderism: raiding with the purpose of antagonizing one or more group(s) of players. Let's be real here, raiderists do love raiding for the sake of raiding, but they also do it for the conflict. They seek to illicit reactions from the people affected by their operations, and possibly the defenders who oppose them as well. Compare this to bigameplayers, who prefer to clean up after themselves so that they do not start a conflict with either the natives or defenders. Raiderists will actively advertise their victories over the parties they wish to antagonize.

 

These two simple definitions are the crux of what I define as raiderism. The application of raiderism can cause a variety of effects as well, which some may confuse with raiderism itself. The most popular of these effects is "raider unity", the ideal that all raiders should put aside their differences for the sake of mutual success on the battlefield. Raiderists feel uneasy about conflicting with each other, because they are by definition all engaging in conflict against other parties and would feel the need to stick together to avoid more needless antagonization. Another effect of raiderism is the great fun that stems from bonding with fellow raiderists and fighting alongside them, which is a thrill that many players seek. I hope you all enjoyed my opinion on this definition and I invite you to post your comments/concerns/threats below!

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 
Are WA Liberation Nominees More Likely to Be Invaded?

FEATURE | STARRIE

 
NationStates's resident statistical guru answers this empirical question with an in depth analysis, his conclusions may surprise you...

 

Data from http://nsarchive.net was used. Invasions were defined as all occurrences where the delegate, flag, and factbook changed within 48 hours. No distinction was made between a invasion by invaders and a detag mission by defenders.

 


This chart appears to show that the frequency of invasions (as a fraction of total invasions) increases soon after liberation. Do not interpret the sharp spike as a reliable measure of more invasions since it is likely that the spike is caused by detag missions from defending forces. However, there remains a plateau of invader activity even afterwards which indicates either a continuous struggle over the 100 day period or a heightened amount of military activity.

 


This chart shows the number of invasions in the same period for non-liberated regions. In contrast to the rising frequency of invasions over time (which may be due to an actual increase in activity or just better bookkeeping), the number of invasions seems to fall slightly over the period. This is most likely not statistically significant.

 


This chart shows the frequency of invasions when the liberated nations have their liberation repealed. Beyond -40 days (each bar is 20 days), there appears to be a lack of invader activity. Either the peak before the repeal is the spike shown in the first graph, or the region has gone through a long activity of peace after the liberation, and the peak shows more invasions before the repeal. Comparing the magnitude of this and the first graph, it appears the second scenario is more likely. After the repeal, invasion frequency slowly drops.

 


This chart shows the number of invasions in non-liberated regions around the time of the repeals. There is a conspicuous rise and then sudden drop just a few days before most liberations are repealed. Interpretation will be left as an exercise for the reader.

 


As a control group, a few hundred regions are selected and a simulated liberation on the day of a randomly selected invasion is plotted. In contrast with the histogram for the liberated regions, there is a uniform amount of invading before and after the event.

 


As for the rest of the regions, a hump in invasion frequencies is observed, suggesting that invasions come in waves. This hump is not observed in the corresponding histogram for liberated regions, possibly because the liberation and invasions for many regions was not close to simultaneous.

 


 

A logarithmic plot of invaded regions at the time they were invaded. Green spots show the liberation of regions (not necessarily raided) and black the repeal of liberation of regions. Note that the size of liberated region in both axes is much higher that the mean region (In a logarithmic scale, the values to the right and top are weighed far more heavily). This shows that liberated regions are not representative of the general population.

 

It appears that both liberations and liberation repeals seem to cause a spike in invasion frequency which fades out over time. These effects are not apparent in non-liberated regions suggesting that some aspect of the liberations is probably the cause. However, since liberated regions are not typical of all regions, this interpretation should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 
Using Polls For Referendums?

OPINION | THE CHURCH OF SATAN

 
Church of Satan, one of our Senior Journalists, discusses using polls for referendums...

 

Polls are still new, and therefore still being tested by us users to determine what purposes they can have. 

 

The South Pacific for example, is discussing the possibility of using them for referendums. This is still a flawed feature for such a thing though. With all the factors that go into determining who can vote in the polls that means foreign governments, hostile organizations and all matter of riffraff are free to influence the votes and the government would be none the wiser. Despite our best efforts, the poll feature just isn't suited for this particular thing. Try and weed out all the new, suspicious nations if you want, but we all know it isn't just the new nations that we have to watch. It isn't a matter of tradition. Using regional forums and/or sites such as surveymonkey allow us to get an accurate number of votes from citizens who actually take part in things such as referendums.

 

Personally I object to using polls for referendums due to the inaccuracy. Doing so could have disastrous results on a region. It could very well become a weapon in R/D circles. The poll feature is okay, just not used in this way. Don't get me wrong. It's nice to see what the nations that don't bother with forums think, but they still can't vote in referendums in any official capacity. So what is the point? I just don't see it. I mean, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Right? The system regions use now works. What more do we want? What more could we want? Should we really wreck what we already have going well for us? 

 

In my humble opinion I say nay.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 
Why are there no “How to Coup” Guides?
Part One of a Four Part Series, “Rethinking Power in NationStates”.

EDITORIAL | UNIBOT

 

It occurred to me today, during class, there are no “How to Coup” Guides. On the official forums, NationStates presents readers with access to information regarding how to invade and defend or how to build a region, but no information specifically on how to overthrow regimes in Game-Created Regions. 

 

There are many techniques involved in overthrowing these regimes which are not used in the regular invasion of User-Created Regions. Coup d'états usually rely on the deception, enticement or otherwise, shepherding of residents into passive supporters, while avoiding the detection of authorities.  To be an effective “couper”, you need to know how to tart, how to “surf update”, when to strike, who to strike and how to maintain power and manage one’s Regional Influence.  The mechanics of these techniques are not available for public consumption or easily accessible. 

 

There is no such thing as a “grassroots” coup d'état– every regime likes to claim it has the will of the people behind them, but all coup d'états are conducted by knowledgeable gameplayers, meanwhile their endorsers are passive participants who show little judgement over who to endorse and who not to endorse (e.g., Sedgistan rose to the delegacy of The South Pacific just as quickly as its elected officials do). These knowledgeable gameplayers include regular coupers (e.g., JAL,  The Empire, The Crimson Order), military professionals and disgruntled elites – the average player, by no means, just “decides” to overthrow a Game-Created Region. If someone is tarting in a region, you are guaranteed that someone is not a “nobody”, but a “somebody”, hiding behind an anonymous account.

 

 â€œGrassroots” coup d'états do not happen, because average players are not encourage to coup Game-Created Regions – they are often encouraged to get involved with their region or endorse someone, but they are not encouraged to take matters into their own means to overthrow Game-Created Regions. Thus, it can be said that the numbers of those who have attempted to overthrow Game-Created Regions has been limited to those who have had the prior ambition and the skill necessary to commit a coup d'état – and as we have established, these skills are also restricted to a select few, since access to information regarding how to commit a coup d'état is limited.

 

While access to information regarding coup d'état strategies and tactics is limited, the act of overthrowing a Game-Created Region is also, of course, incredibly more taboo than say, overthrowing a regular User-Created Region. Those involved with overthrowing Game-Created Regions face severe interregional and international diplomatic sanctions – this goes beyond simply the diplomatic superstructure and the connections that these regions possess, it manifests from a political culture that demonizes “coupers” – from WA Condemnations to exclusive interviews to essays, propaganda and literature. 

 

Critical theorists should understand that this distinction between Game-Created Regions and User-Created Regions is a false conception – all Game-Created Regions are User-Created Regions, their governments have been created by players, their differences lie in the “feeder” and “sinker” aspects of their regions, but these differences are then swelled and multiplied by the moderation regime, the recruitment regime and userites, who all interact (and indeed exploit) Game-Created Regions in very different ways than they would with User-Created Regions. The greatest concern of the state apparatus in Game-Created Regions is security and the state’s political survival – therefore it is important to note how these states have adopted this distinction between Game-Created and User-Created Regions for their own purposes. If one encourages the distinction between their regions with other regions, it becomes much easier to justify a clear double-standard. 

 

For the Defenderist, this privileged place that Game-Created Regions hold, perpetuates systemic violence against User-Created Regions. Take for example, The East Pacific: currently it has a guide hosted in its World Factbook Entry called “Hobbes' Handy Guide to Military (R/D) Gameplay” – it teaches the mechanics of update to readers, but focuses on how to invade or defend founderless User-Created Regions. I doubt that there were malicious intentions with the addition of this guide – but can you imagine the uproar if a User-Created Region began linking its citizens to “How to Coup or Defend a GCR!”? It sounds like something nutty and taboo that, I dunno, Afforess might do in Capitalist Paradise. Most Game-Created Regions completely encourage invading User-Created Regions (especially small User-Created Regions):  citizens are given literature on how to invade, the regional army orders them to invade, it tells them invading is “fun”, gives them badges when they invade and above all else, tells them their region, as a Game-Created Region, is exempt from the same behavior they are inflicting on any given, small-time User-Created Region.  

 

In a recent and controversial case, when The South Pacific helped invade St Abbaddon, Topid reacted emotionally by sending telegrams to citizens of The South Pacific, informing them of what was happening in St Abbaddon and encouraging them to unendorse the government as a sign of protest for their region’s own aggressive foreign policy. The South Pacific and many other commentators then argued that what Topid did was much worse than what The South Pacific did in St Abbaddon, despite St Abbaddon being more vulnerable and despite the fact that Topid was simply encouraging natives to protest their government (whereas The South Pacific imposed itself oppressively on St Abbaddon). This is a major consequence of Game-Created Regions considering themselves as more privileged than User-Created Regions, especially smaller User-Created Regions (that lack foreign connections): we’re supposed to care more about acts of violence or resistance against Game-Created Regions, than we are for your regular run-of-the-mill region. 

 

One friend of mine, McMasterdonia, who is currently delegate of The North Pacific and whose ideas have had a lot of influence on the North Pacific Army, has repeated over and over again, his belief that these User-Created Regions that The North Pacific strikes, like (as of late) Transylvania, St Abbaddon and East Pacific, do not matter. In his view, they are small and they're inactive, backwater regions. Therefore, he would argue that we should not care about their security or their sovereignty.  I would respond to this (popular) belief by noting that it is important to bear in mind not only what one says, but what one does not say: McMasterdonia (and many others) say you shouldn’t care about not invading small, inactive regions, but when he says this, he implicitly means only small, inactive regions that do not have the means to retaliate. History has well established that one player alone can overthrow a Game-Created Region’s government, therefore attacking any region, without provocation, is a poor Foreign Affairs policy if one of its members may effectively be able to retaliate. Reducing the access to information in regards to how to overthrow a Game-Created Region, means native residents cannot effectively retaliate – it keeps them weak, it keeps them helpless and it keeps them trying to hide away from the bad wolf, instead of fighting them.  

 

This is the ugly face of power.  First, it teaches you that they are special and they are privileged, it makes you feel that you deserve and you are responsible for the harm you will receive in the system that it creates and perpetuates. Then, it makes you more vulnerable, it reduces your capacity to retaliate, to challenge or even recognize your oppression and then finally, it encourages violence against you when you are weakest.  People do not perpetuate this system knowingly, this is a system that is difficult to observe and we have all played a role in its perpetuation. 

 

At the beginning of this article, I asked, “Why are there no “How to Coup” Guides?”. By now, I hope you understand that there are no “How to Coup” Guides, because it does not serve the interests of those in power.  Not everyone reading this piece will care about the harms posed by invasions to natives, but I do hope every reader walks away from this article with the notion that our access to information and our social and political norms and mores are shaped by the interests of the centre of power in NationStates. 

 

For the invader reading this piece, here is a tidbit to think about: newbies are taught from Day One how to invade founderless regions – in small, even experienced bands, their targets will have to be small without cooperating with larger, more established invading organizations (another institutional form of power). Perhaps these players would have more fun overthrowing Game-Created Regions? They do not need a large band of people to overthrow a Game-Created Region; what they need is information and experience. Just because the interests of those in power reflect our standards, does not mean these interests also reflect what is fun for you. Perhaps the funniest joke of it all is that invaders are convinced early on that their fun lies in attacking the smallest, backwater regions… far, far, far away from anyone actually powerful or influential, despite the fact that these powerful and influential regions are fundamentally vulnerable without severely restricting their citizen’s endorsement counts.    

 

__________________________________________________________________________