TSP and the "Independent" Ideology

[Unibot]

So that everyone can find something they like.

 

The harsh reality is: lot's of people will agree to some sort of Independentism when it's a political compromise, but very few people actually like Independentism. Independent armies are essentially boring paper tigers, very few players invest a lot into independent armies -- defender and invader armies have more appeal because they provide a moral direction and can also do more too.

 

I think you're re-framing philosophy and regional identity narrowly as "R/D" to discredit it as an issue. Where a region stands on the issues of power and military force, the existential questions of self-determination are extremely important to TSP's identity and how it is perceived by others as well as the activity of the region's army which bleeds over into the activity of the region as whole and its presence interregionally. Most neutralists just like to call it the "R/D" issue because it re-frames the issue as something small and trivial like a mini-game that can be ignored or that TSP can remain completely "neutral" on. 

 

 

 

And simply because there are more raider based regions than defender ones, it`s not excuse to be allied only with raider ones. Like B&N said; ``If not picking a side means that some other regions won`t like to ally with us, that`s their decision. That doesn`t mean that TSP should change for their sake.``. 

 

This glosses over what Sandaoguo is saying: The Cabinet (well it sounds like more just Belschaft) vetoed the idea of allying with UDL because of how it would affect TSP's relationship with imperialists and invaders. How "Independent" is TSP really then? Or should B&N's snarky quote only apply to defenders and not imperialists and invaders? 

[DICTATORSHIP OF SURVIVORS]

 

The harsh reality is: lot's of people will agree to some sort of Independentism when it's a political compromise, but very few people actually like Independentism. Independent armies are essentially boring paper tigers, very few players invest a lot into independent armies -- defender and invader armies have more appeal because they provide a moral direction and can also do more too.

 

To this I would say that maybe u are merging feeder regions and player based regions in one boat. Which is mistake if that is the case. Player based regions are often made by following one specific ideology and all members follow it. This is not the case in feeder regions. And thus as a feeder region we should have as much variety as possible and precisely because of being feeder region we can manage that where other regions can`t.

 

I think you're re-framing philosophy and regional identity narrowly as "R/D" to discredit it as an issue. Where a region stands on the issues of power and military force, the existential questions of self-determination are extremely important to TSP's identity and how it is perceived by others as well as the activity of the region's army which bleeds over into the activity of the region as whole and its presence interregionally. Most neutralists just like to call it the "R/D" issue because it re-frames the issue as something small and trivial like a mini-game that can be ignored or that TSP can remain completely "neutral" on. 

 

I don`t quite understand your point here. Especially that first <b><i>sentence. But i will say that this is probably simply matter of point of view. Whereas u see R/D important aspect of the game play I on the other hand don`t see it as important and want to give other areas of game play more role. )</i></b>

 

This glosses over what Sandaoguo is saying: The Cabinet (well it sounds like more just Belschaft) vetoed the idea of allying with UDL because of how it would affect TSP's relationship with imperialists and invaders. How "Independent" is TSP really then? Or should B&N's snarky quote only apply to defenders and not imperialists and invaders? 

 

I really have no idea how independent TSP really is, but it should go towards it. Other than that I really don`t know what to answer. Regarding B&N quote, I don`t see any reason why it can`t apply to both sides.

 

[QuietDad]

Still don;t understand why we can't have the NSA as a Raider group and for a SPG (South Pacific Guard) as a defender group, Staunch defenders of either ideology can be the generals and the people can be soldiers in either. Just like real life soldiers can chose the army they want to belong to, even switch between them just as in real life. It may turn out that we don't get enough support for a particular ideology,at which point we can dissolve or merge it. but if you guess wrong as to what the region wants you'll never know. You may fined more than enough people to support both. I can gauarentee you that you've already lost people's intrest with this discussion as people have decided even if you do pick a method, there will be one or two people whining that "This will never work."

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Still don;t understand why we can't have the NSA as a Raider group and for a SPG (South Pacific Guard) as a defender group, Staunch defenders of either ideology can be the generals and the people can be soldiers in either. Just like real life soldiers can chose the army they want to belong to, even switch between them just as in real life. It may turn out that we don't get enough support for a particular ideology,at which point we can dissolve or merge it. but if you guess wrong as to what the region wants you'll never know. You may fined more than enough people to support both. I can gauarentee you that you've already lost people's intrest with this discussion as people have decided even if you do pick a method, there will be one or two people whining that "This will never work."

Well, at the risk of whining that "This will never work."...

 

For all the fuss about R&D, my understanding is that a fairly small number of players actually participate directly in such actions. Don't most of the "raids" have only 3-4 participants? Don't even the biggest Feeder/big UCR militaries have, absolute tops, 10-20 members?

 

[If this impression is wrong, and there are in fact 100s-strong military operations, then I'm obviously mistaken and this can be ignored.]

 

With that said, I assume at least one reason why people are opposed to having both raider and defender groups is that there wouldn't be enough players to go around. One group would inevitably end up siphoning support from another. Pulling numbers out of thin air, you end up with a compromise that satisfies nobody: raiders want an 8-person army, defenders want an 8-person army, and instead they each get a 4-person army.

 

Edit: of course, none of this touches on the various diplomatic, constitutional, and intelligence issues that would be related to having such a division.

[Sandaoguo]

I will take pretty much opposite view to that of Sandaoguo. While I agree that R/D is part of the game play but I don`t know how important or big it is (Based on readings of this topic I`m inclining to the side that it`s not that big as someone might think so). It`s not the only thing we can do in TSP. There are many other things people can do. Participate in World Fair or help run it, be a reporter, apply as an ambassador etc. Like Southern Bellz said ``There is a lot going on in this region that is genuinely exciting in TSP.``. Same idea was pointed out by HEM also.

 

For the last time, nobody in this thread is saying that there aren't other things in TSP to do. Gameplay is not in TSP, however. Gameplay is how TSP interacts with other regions, and the largest part of that is our position when it comes to raiding and defending. Choosing a side doesn't mean the World Fair ceases to exist, or that everybody stops roleplaying, or that SPINN goes out of business. Gameplay is but one part of the region, but it's a very important part that's being handled poorly. It shouldn't even be the largest part of the region. However, it plays such a large role outside of the region (and this is <i>undeniable</i>), that if we're going to be involved, then we have to reckon with the choices (including the choice of the independence ideology) and the consequences that come with them.

 

What QD is suggesting would basically require two separate, small-i independent military forces. It's an attractive idea, especially if we could build up the numbers. But the only way it could really work is if TSP politicians aren't involved, because the leanings of the current regime would undoubtedly spill over. There are a few regions out there where the army is separate from the government, but I don't know how well we could pull it off. Additionally, it wouldn't add much to our culture anyways ---- I don't see why both groups would stick under the TSP banner, instead of just becoming their own thing or joining with another, larger group.

 

 

<div>
This glosses over what Sandaoguo is saying: The Cabinet (well it sounds like more just Belschaft) vetoed the idea of allying with UDL because of how it would affect TSP's relationship with imperialists and invaders. How "Independent" is TSP really then? Or should B&N's snarky quote only apply to defenders and not imperialists and invaders? 

 

Just a correction: Every Cabinet member (including myself) thought it was too early for a treaty. Most of the Cabinet supported repealing the executive policy banning TSP from working with the UDL, aka "renewing relations." There was only one person against anything to do with the UDL, no matter what the terms. Belschaft was the only one who brought up the competing interests as a veto point, however.

</div>

[Unibot]

What QD is suggesting would basically require two separate, small-i independent military forces. It's an attractive idea, especially if we could build up the numbers. But the only way it could really work is if TSP politicians aren't involved, because the leanings of the current regime would undoubtedly spill over. There are a few regions out there where the army is separate from the government, but I don't know how well we could pull it off. Additionally, it wouldn't add much to our culture anyways ---- I don't see why both groups would stick under the TSP banner, instead of just becoming their own thing or joining with another, larger group.

 

I would argue against a dual-army: the invader army would be set-up in such a system to grow faster -- similar to how Bigameplay institutions always slip into mere Invaderism. 

 

Why?

 

Because the main reason why people get involved in defending is to help people -- which implies invading wrongfully sets others back (something most invaders don't like to acknowledge). 

 

However if TSP has both a defender army and invader army, this sends the signal that both are completely and utterly permissible -- removing all thoughts of a moral argument from the equation. In a completely deideologized form of defending, there's not much attraction to defending. This is exactly why as people have started to frame raiding and defending as a simple mini-game ("R/D"), the moral argument has eroded and so has support for defenderism over the past five-six years. 

 

Bigameplayism shifts the balance of power to Invaderism because it undermines the crucial belief of Defenderism: that defending is good.  Newbies would be exposed to defending in The South Pacific in terms of a contrived sense, like choosing between Coca Cola or Pepsi, both sponsored by the region. This is a window into that world that just makes defending look like petty and purposeless "counter-raiding", which is exactly the image that defenders have been trying to fight for years. 

 

Nonetheless, while an invader army would have no problem framing itself as the "fun" option, the defender army would have its arms tied and any attempts to frame itself as the "right" option would look pretty fake (given the dual structure is already contrived and artificial). 

[Unibot]

 

 

Just a correction: Every Cabinet member (including myself) thought it was too early for a treaty. Most of the Cabinet supported repealing the executive policy banning TSP from working with the UDL, aka "renewing relations." There was only one person against anything to do with the UDL, no matter what the terms. Belschaft was the only one who brought up the competing interests as a veto point, however.

 

Well, when I was running things, UDL always felt that the relationship had been asymmetrical when it worked with TSP in the past (without a treaty).

 

Also, UDL is at this point, no longer militarily intervening in GCRs without legal obligations except for "extraordinary circumstances". Our new policy, established after the Osirian coup, explicitly states:

 

For these reasons, the United Defenders League will no longer militarily intervene in a Game Created Region without legal obligation to do so, unless the Chief of the Band, given extraordinary circumstances, makes an exemption.
 

[...] Any Game Created Region that wishes to ensure they will receive military support from the league in times of trouble are encouraged to discuss a security treaty to that effect. Special exemptions of this new policy will not be given lightly. 

[QuietDad]

We have 12-15 people arguing over choices. The last NSA mission had 4 people show up (maybe 5, but SB can correct me.) Post a pole on the forum "We need to know what philosophy we should direct the NSA to follow Which philosophy should we pick to get you active and give the Options of 1: Raider (We attack regions we have issues with), 2: Defender (We aid allies being raided) 3: Independent (We do what we need to do either way as needed) and advertise it on the WFE and lets see what the reponses are. This discussions have two or three people firmly entrenched in their beliefs saying if we go the other way no one will play. Time to put up or shut up and a pole of real numbers will tell the story. If the total vote is onlly the 12 people arguing here, the discussion changes to "Ok, gang, what do we want to do next. If it jumps to 50 we just get a better idea.

[Unibot]

Well, I would do the test as such,

 

How more or less likely would you be to get involved with the NSA, if it were to do any of the following? (-5 -> 0 -> +5):

 

1. Invade founderless regions.

2. Defend against invasions.

3. Work with invader groups.

4. Work with defender groups. 

5. Defend only our treatied allies.

6. Invade only our region's enemies. 

 

My prediction is #2 is way more of selling point than people let on in these debates. I've done polling independently already to confirm this as such. 

[Sandaoguo]

To be fair, those of us who oppose independence have a reason for not being involved in the NSA -- we either don't want to raid or we don't want to defend. We can't exactly join and say we'll only do one or the other. To be a member of the NSA, you have to be independent yourself.

 

Either way, I think it's wrong to start dismissing the ideas of people who aren't active in the NSA. Nobody is active in the NSA, partly because it's a fledgling organization and partly because of the constraints placed upon it. Arguments are to be judged on their merits, not on the characters of the people making them.

 

@Unibot, I'd be interested to see a poll like this done (with raw data available to access, of course). Belschaft should be able to advertise it through the mass TG function, given that it's a pretty decent idea no matter where you stand. If people are more likely to get involved in the NSA when it defends, it doesn't make sense to focus so much on antifa ops, and vice-versa.

[Belschaft]

Elections are in two days time; I imagine that military policy in terms of stance on Raider/Independent/Defender will be a major issue, like usual.

 

Let the voters decide. If we get an Independent dominated Cabinet, we stay Independent. If we have a Defender majority (like in 2011) we presumably will end up leaning towards that direction.

[QuietDad]

I can live with Unibot's poll. The idea here is to get a feel of what the region's pulse is and not the 5 or six firmly placed actors in regional politics whose ideology will never change as witnessed by the last dozen or so 500  posts thread. If I were a betting man, the next election will place a cabinet with the same 30 or less votes elections tend to garner and the council, while Belschaft is stepping down might have one or two new players but will be repeat members wearing different hats, placed where the group decides this round. I can only think the hesitancy to take this poll is that all sides will find that their views, regardless of how strong they individually feel about it, will be proven unpopular by he masses. Let's seat a new cabinet AND, at least in the area of the NSA set a mandate of the people and see what happens,

[Sandaoguo]

Elections are in two days time; I imagine that military policy in terms of stance on Raider/Independent/Defender will be a major issue, like usual.

 

Let the voters decide. If we get an Independent dominated Cabinet, we stay Independent. If we have a Defender majority (like in 2011) we presumably will end up leaning towards that direction.

 

Yeah, let's not pin down this whole discussion on the elections, either. They won't be a referendum on independence. Even if an entire defender and defender-leaning slate gets voted in, TSP won't suddenly become a defender haven. The current Cabinet is nominally defender-leaning, after all. It is possible to just have a long-term discussion about this and let the region organically reach a consensus. What's important is that people stop seeing these types of discussions as attacks on independents, and stop labeling people who don't support independence as not caring about the region, or having some ulterior motive. Independence is not the natural order of things. It is a choice that people in TSP made a while ago. It's good for the region to regularly revisit that choice.

[Belschaft]

I can live with Unibot's poll. The idea here is to get a feel of what the region's pulse is and not the 5 or six firmly placed actors in regional politics whose ideology will never change as witnessed by the last dozen or so 500  posts thread. If I were a betting man, the next election will place a cabinet with the same 30 or less votes elections tend to garner and the council, while Belschaft is stepping down might have one or two new players but will be repeat members wearing different hats, placed where the group decides this round. I can only think the hesitancy to take this poll is that all sides will find that their views, regardless of how strong they individually feel about it, will be proven unpopular by he masses. Let's seat a new cabinet AND, at least in the area of the NSA set a mandate of the people and see what happens,

To the contrary, I expect a Cabinet dominated and possibly entirely made up of the 2013 intake. The new Delegate will have the chance to set out a new foreign policy direction if they so wish, and I have no desire to compromise that by running a referendum/poll at the same time as an election.

[Arbiter08]

Why not do both? We raid who needs to be raided, and defend TSP when we need it. We have an army for a reason right?

[Unibot]

Why not do both? We raid who needs to be raided, and defend TSP when we need it. We have an army for a reason right?

 

You're suggesting that the only reason for the NSA is to defend TSP and invade people who "need" to be invaded? That's quite limiting, that means the army would only ever deploy outside of TSP to invade people. 

 

For anyone who has no interest in destroying other people's homes, that kind of makes NSA a boring institution to join. 

[StGeorgie]

Are there any of those people left?


There is one active defender, unibot, in all of ns.

[Brutland and Norden]

Quite a few of you have stated we need to act "in our own best interests".  What are these?  The only one we are all going to agree on is the defense of our region.

And we are saying that aligning ourselves with the already warring R/D factions in the game is not going to bode well for the region's defenses. If TSP is really concerned with its security, dabbling and drowning ourselves in an already decade-long ideological war (with many regions destroyed and with no end in sight) is obviously not a bright idea.

 

While raiding or defending against the GGR brings a few ops here and there it gets very boring very quickly for nations that want to be involved in the GP community.  IMO, it is not in our interest to train soldiers for them to leave and go to a more active region which aligns with their beliefs.  While the game created this region to be a feeder us knowingly acting as such and just giving nations basic knowledge to succeed in the game and pushing them out of the nest is not sustainable.  It does not allow us to build a true community.  We have to come together and figure out what our regional ideals are.  While some of you may think that is clear it really isn't.

(emphasis mine)

 

We do not need to be focused on gameplay in order to have a thriving community. We are not a gameplay community. We are a feeder, and we should act knowingly so. We are not going "to push new people of the nest", we are going to help them and develop this region so that they won't even need to look for other regions to join. How is developing RPers in TSP "pushing them out of the nest"? How is developing them to become good World Assembly members and writers "pushing them out of the nest"?

 

Ever since I came here, TSP has been welcoming and diverse. Our ideals should not be too narrow as "raider" or "defender" that only a few people share them. Having an ideal as narrow as that will be the one that will "push people out of the nest".

 

I think a few of you are attaching greatest importance to gameplay, to the point that arguing that focusing on gameplay will allow us to build a true community. Gameplay, as I have been saying, is only one aspect of the game. Not focusing on gameplay doesn't mean you can't have a community. A lot of other regions have active communities but aren't involved in gameplay: <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nationstates.net/region=greater_dienstad">Greater Dienstad</a> and <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nationstates.net/region=sondria">Sondria</a>, roleplaying regions; <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nationstates.net/region=esportiva">Esportiva</a> and Rushmore, regions with a strong Sports RP focus; <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nationstates.net/region=occitania">Occitania</a>, a region that is (partly) governed through the RMB; <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nationstates.net/region=deutschland">Deutschland</a> and <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.nationstates.net/region=portugal">Portugal</a>, regions catering to non-English speakers. These communities and regions are made with more focused ideals, because the players that built them and joined them shared that ideal. TSP does not have that 'luxury' - the game built the region, and chance determines who will be part of it. Imagine if we started labeling ourselves as "Non-English" and started speaking Portuguese for regional governance. Or if we started becoming a hardcore RPing region and allowed only people who RP. Having a narrow focus will alienate the wider segment of the population.

 

The South Pacific is a feeder region, inhabited by people of diverse proclivities, and hence should have a wide focus. We are not founded by gameplayers. We are not a gameplay region. And this region's focus should not be dictated by only a few gameplayers.

 

This debate should be re-framed in terms of different, diverging opinions on what is best for TSP... not the Simplistic "TSP vs. R/Ders" view. R/Ders believe that the region would be better off as Raider or Defender -- The Independents believe differently, but what they believe are still beliefs and they are just differing beliefs ... not the word of god. 

I don't know why it doesn't sink into the minds of gameplay ideologists that a large bulk of NSers don't have a gameplay ideology. We don't even have beliefs in gameplay, and it is so quaint that a few people continue to attempt to stick labels to it. I have only heard that silly "Independent" label a few months ago. Not in 2006, when I started; not in 2011, when TSP was first couped.

 

The bottom line being that you are not separated from gameplay and its politics by adopting the independence position. You are very much a part of it. It is paying close attention to you, even if you are not paying any attention to it. This is not an absolutist position. It's merely acknowledging the reality that making a choice about TSP's place in gameplay, when that choice is anything other than "don't get involved," is in fact getting involved in gameplay and choosing sides.

Funny that that side was just being defined recently, for the purposes of attacking their long-held stances and pulling them into the R/D war. We have no interest in joining that war or "taking sides". Like I said, it should not be Gameplay that should decide what it wants out of TSP, but it should be TSP that should decide what it wants out of Gameplay.

 

Or should B&N's snarky quote only apply to defenders and not imperialists and invaders?

My friend, if that is already snarky to you, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The Generalite in me already wants to rear its ugly head, and you don't want that.

---

I disliked raiders because their actions (raiding my region) will force my region to play their game. Now I have found out that defenders are the same - they, too, are forcing TSP to play their game. We should not and must not be forced; TSP should decide what it wants to do on the gameplay aspect in the interest of developing the region as a whole.

 

I am probably not alone in being tired of this discussion. My request to the 2-3 defenders who had been incessantly nagging TSP to "take a side" (which is presumably their (defender) side, given that there is no raider here that is telling us to take a side): stop pushing TSP to "take a side". It is time to let the matter rest.

[Unibot]

1. TSP has taken a side. You've once again missed the point.

 

2.

 

 

 

I don't know why it doesn't sink into the minds of gameplay ideologists that a large bulk of NSers don't have a gameplay ideology. We don't even have beliefs in gameplay, and it is so quaint that a few people continue to attempt to stick labels to it. I have only heard that silly "Independent" label a few months ago. Not in 2006, when I started; not in 2011, when TSP was first couped.

 

This is not statistically true. Most players completely uninvolved in Gameplay still have beliefs about invasions of regions. Many of the "pure" RP regions that you spoke of, are actually full of defenders and people who have joined the defender cause.

 

That's because the belief over whether its right or wrong to invade random regions and the initiative sense to want to help them or not is ... natural. It's not something contrived by Gameplay. Players who know very little about NS at all have opinions at it and the "Neutral" standpoint is actually very unusual and really only present in Gameplay's more elite crowd. 

[tsunamy]

 

This is not statistically true. Most players completely uninvolved in Gameplay still have beliefs about invasions of regions. Many of the "pure" RP regions that you spoke of, are actually full of defenders and people who have joined the defender cause.

 

That's because the belief over whether its right or wrong to invade random regions and the initiative sense to want to help them or not is ... natural. It's not something contrived by Gameplay. Players who know very little about NS at all have opinions at it and the "Neutral" standpoint is actually very unusual and really only present in Gameplay's more elite crowd. 

 

You can't ask a player -- at random -- "What do you believe about R/D gameplay?" and then be shocked when they give a response. It's an epistemological fallacy since you're implying that everyone has a position on R/D gameplay.

[Sandaoguo]

Tsunamy --- you can either choose independence or you can choose to not get involved. Being independent is not synonymous with not being involved in gameplay. You seem to be advocating for the latter, but choosing the former.

 

For the record, we all chose independence -- meaning, we all chose to get involved in gameplay and the R/D "war" -- when we voted for the new Charter during the last Great Council. We made a statement about how we were going to align ourselves in gameplay politics. You may not care for gameplay, but TSP is involved, and if you voted for the Charter during the Great Council, you made the decision to get involved.

[tsunamy]

Tsunamy --- you can either choose independence or you can choose to not get involved. Being independent is not synonymous with not being involved in gameplay. You seem to be advocating for the latter, but choosing the former.

 

For the record, we all chose independence -- meaning, we all chose to get involved in gameplay and the R/D "war" -- when we voted for the new Charter during the last Great Council. We made a statement about how we were going to align ourselves in gameplay politics. You may not care for gameplay, but TSP is involved, and if you voted for the Charter during the Great Council, you made the decision to get involved.

 

First, my last comment was just a research critique as Uni has constructed his project. Once you frame the question as "What do you feel about R/D?" as a researcher you're already coloring the outcome.

 

But second, that's a fair assessment. Despite our linguistic arguments, I don't think there is a real difference between "choosing independence" or "choosing to not get involved." As B&N pointed out, we're automatically involved in this aspect of the game, whether we really like it or not. Therefore, the option to "not get involved" is a false choice.

 

To bring this back around, we need to weigh decisions on how they will work for TSP. Frankly, I tend to agree with the defender ethos, unless we're going to go full fledged imperialistic here. But, I don't like the idea that we need to adhere to a finite ethos and, despite arguments to the contrary, that is what this thread is predominantly about.

 

Call me independent, isolationist or simply inactive -- but as long as we can protect ourselves and our friends, I'm frankly uninterested in the rest.

[Letoilenoir]

IF (and its a big IF) TSP believes that it has to have a  Gameplay Military it will come down to this:
 
Those that are prepared to enter into this arena will have their own opinions as to whether a raid, or a defence, is something  that they wish to participate in.
 
it will be a case by case decision for each of those taking part, as they will be volunteers - citizenship/residency in TSP is not yet dependant on joining the NSA or serving in its campaigns.  Given our shared desire for democracy any other arrangement would be untenable.
 
It is these decisions, made by individuals and based on their own convictions, that cumulatively will drive the direction of the NSA. That direction may be guided by the MoAF, but be under no illusion it willl not be dictated by them. 
 
Leadership is not  having your subordinates blindly follow orders, but covincing them that what you are asking them to do is justified and needed, and will benefit them, their comrades in arms, their region etc etc - in other words that the actions requested of them suit their motivation. 
 
 In time part of that motivation may boil down to loyalty to their commanding officer, but it is an unwise leader that would  force his followers to undertake an action they object strongly to - at best they may perform inadequately, at worst they may defect to the opponents side.
 
Be under no illusions- the success of any military in NS, raider defender or independant  rests on co-operation and shared objectives. 
 
Leadership is harnessing the motivation of those that follow you and channeling it to achive your objectives
 
TSP is currently positioned to make a decision, not only on its own direction, but on the message that we project to NS.  Everyone that has posted on this thread has, whether we acknowledge their points or not, made valid arguments to support their own stance.
 
Co-operation is not neccesarily about compromising your principles, but rather subsuming your ultimate objectives to acheive the shared goals of the community you have chosen to be part of.  
 
Lets make TSP the community that people want to be part of.

[Sandaoguo]

But second, that's a fair assessment. Despite our linguistic arguments, I don't think there is a real difference between "choosing independence" or "choosing to not get involved." As B&N pointed out, we're automatically involved in this aspect of the game, whether we really like it or not. Therefore, the option to "not get involved" is a false choice.

Hm... I think we can simply remove ourselves from gameplay and not get involved. Gameplay politics isn't driven by regions, but by individuals. GCRs do give a platform for individuals to play the politics game, but it's not necessary for TSP to allow its delegate to play. The consequence of that, however, is isolationism, because all the other GCRs are involved and their relations with other GCRs are almost always related to the R/D game. We can disband the NSA, dissolve our alliances with R/D groups, and refrain from issuing press releases and the like about gameplay issues. That's how you choose to not get involved. But I don't think anybody here really wants to do that. It's a choice, but not one that anybody will choose.

 

I just don't understand how you or anybody can think that being independent is consequence-free, which is the sense I'm getting from this discussion. Choosing the independent ideology has had very real consequences for TSP, regardless of whether or not we're really independent nowadays. That's been my whole point with repeating that independence is a choice: choices have consequences. I assume we can agree on that. The value argument I'm making is that the choice of independence carries with it more costly consequences than choosing a distinct side.

[tsunamy]

I just don't understand how you or anybody can think that being independent is consequence-free, which is the sense I'm getting from this discussion. Choosing the independent ideology has had very real consequences for TSP, regardless of whether or not we're really independent nowadays. That's been my whole point with repeating that independence is a choice: choices have consequences. I assume we can agree on that. The value argument I'm making is that the choice of independence carries with it more costly consequences than choosing a distinct side.

 

I don't think being independent is consequence-free. I think the argument is that choosing to be independent is an attempt to bridge both sides.

 

As I said previously -- and freely will admit -- I'm not the most knowledgeable here. But, the way this has been framed is that if we choose to be raider, we're going to have a certain set of friendly regions. If we choose to be defender, we'll have a different set. What's missing is what if we want to have raider *and* defender friends? Is that really an impossibility?