TSP and the "Independent" Ideology

[Hileville]

One thing that is starting to come apparent throughout NationStates is the driving away from being independent or neutral in the raider/defender ideological sphere.  I know we have had these discussions in the past and I may regret starting it now but where do we stand?

 

Our Code of Laws says pretty clearly that we should be viewed as independent however are we truly independent?  The overall view of TSP in the international community has us aligned more with the imperialist regions such as TNI (UIAF), Osiris, Balder (although they deny it), and Albion.  We have moved away from defender allies over the past year or so.  We are very distant with 10KI now and even after the UDL aide during the coup we still like keeping our distance.  I recall us being labeled as a UDL puppet back in 2012 when we were discussing the TNI treaty.  I seem to remember discussions in which we wanted to break that view point.  Current international opinion would lead me to  believe we have done just that.  Was the ultimate goal though to be seen as independent?  If it was I don't believe we have accomplished that.

 

I have actually been writing a piece for SPINN which discusses these issues and where TSP stands.  I stopped writing it because I'm not really sure where we stand on this anymore.  We aren't getting a whole lot of direction from our elected officials on it.  Bel has mentioned repeatedly the GCR Cold War.  Have our actions aligned us already in this war?  Now I am very skeptical of this whole concept and have been since first hearing about it but does it have merit?  Is this Cold War dying down?  Was there ever one to begin with?

 

Now let me shift gears for a minute and look at our Army.  This year we haven't been very active but the operations we have done have all been raids.  With the exception of Estado Novo which was "liberated" but tagged with a line saying we liberated it.  Now the operations that were raids were all fascist regions and of note the Greater German Reich (which we should do again - that was fun).    Are these operations really raids?  The trend that we had going in the Army before the coup of antifa ops is continuing under SB's tenure as MoA but should we go further?

 

Is it time for us to break the independent stance and chose a side?  Would this bring more activity to our region?  Would we lose members if we did so?  Personally I feel we need to seriously consider where we stand as a region and what we want the future to hold.  We need to evaluate who we are allied with and what those alliance have actually done for us.  As for losing members I would be inclined to say we wouldn't if we keep the open arms approach we have now to all members.  Now I am sure a few hard stance nations would be turned away for their own personal feelings but is that so bad?  If we chose a side would we be flooded with citizens from whichever ideology we pick?

 

Let me take a moment to list who we have treaties with:  LWU, TNI, Europeia, Balder, and TNP.  We had very close relations to Osiris before the Asta coup and I expect we will begin rebuilding those ties in the near future.  Our relations were so strong that the final straw in us declaring war against Gatesville was their occupation of Osiris.  Here is something to think about was our repeal of the Osiris treaty an action to fuel the so called GCR Cold War?  Does the same apply to Lazarus?

 

I will admit that this thread is designed to make you think.  I also expect that it will become an intense debate among certain members.  I am not so much interested in the opinions of the vocal members here.  Part of the reason for that is we have heard the stances of our vocal members time and time again.  I expect and look forward to reading them again but don't want this to turn into a thread that our less vocal members won't go into.  

 

---

DISCLAIMER:  I posted this thread in the Private Halls to allow for the honest opinions of our members to come out without seeing them posted in Gameplay.  Lets keep this discussion on our own forums where it belongs.  Discussions like this will get some media coverage in NS and that usually leads to it being highly unproductive.

[StGeorgie]

I do find it interesting that you think relations with Osiris will get stronger again. It would require some kind of acknowledgement and recognition from TSP that the current Osirian regime, which would include the period Asta was in power, is and was legitimate.

[Unibot]

I do think that TSP should choose a side, but I think NPA was much stronger as a defender-leaning army than a raider-leaning army. TNI are terrible allies -- we're more like their colony ... they only care about us if we're doing something they don't like.. then they and their friends appear. Otherwise, TNI barely does things with us and if they do something (like help with us during the Liberation), their help is overstated by Belschaft and others who seem to be under some charm of how amazing they are.

 

I stand by my position on TNI-TSP's treaty -- I think it was the worst decision the region has made in several years and has affected how we developed. 

[HEM]

I do think that TSP should choose a side, but I think NPA was much stronger as a defender-leaning army than a raider-leaning army. TNI are terrible allies -- we're more like their colony ... they only care about us if we're doing something they don't like.. then they and their friends appear. Otherwise, TNI barely does things with us and if they do something (like help with us during the Liberation), their help is overstated by Belschaft and others who seem to be under some charm of how amazing they are.

 

I stand by my position on TNI-TSP's treaty -- I think it was the worst decision the region has made in several years and has affected how we developed. 

 

Please explain to us mere mortals when TNI has actively interfered in our politics. I'm not being passive aggressive (okay, maybe a little ) but I honestly don't know the examples.

[tsunamy]

As someone from outside of this debate, can someone explain what it would mean to choose a side?

 

Frankly, I think TSP needs to be able to act in it's own accord regardless of any ideology. In some cases that might require raiding and in some cases that might require defending. I'm confused on any implication to anything different.

[Brutland and Norden]

My view is that gameplay and the R/D game shouldn't be the focus of a feeder region such as the South Pacific. The gameplay, the R/D aspect, and its accompanying politics are being so overblown in this region that I am actually unhappy about what is going on.

 

We should not pick a side, we are not required to pick a side, and anyone that says so probably has ulterior motives. The primary goal that we should have, gameplay-wise, is maintaining the security and stability of the region. Make a lot of friends that'll help us (and we will help). That's what we should do. Being ideological and picking a side will gain us instant enemies (those on the opposite camp), and this will not augur well for regional security and stability.

 

The goal for feeder regions such as ours, being the place where new nations are being born, should help newbies in this game. We should be building a community, which includes opportunities for everyone to embark on the game they want to play. To do so, having a stable and secure region is important - and picking a side will needlessly endanger the region and threaten any gain we make on community-building.

[Sandaoguo]

Sorry for the tome.

 

I'm pretty surprised to see this discussion happening, to be completely honest. I figured bringing up the notion that TSP isn't really "independent" would be politically toxic. But it's a discussion a lot of people in NS gameplay are having right now. We should have it, too. Raiding and defending are completely inseparable from gameplay. To provide a counter-point to B&N, if TSP wants to be involved in gameplay (we don't have to be, but there are consequences to that), then we have to involved in gameplay politics, and gameplay politics is a fancy term for R/D. It's the lifeblood of gameplay. We can't really avoid getting involved.

 

What TSP has been doing for years is trying to craft a middle-ground for GCRs to occupy. It's been an interesting experiment, but anybody who thinks the results are anything but dismal is in denial. Independence is a failed experiment. The idea that regions can "act in [their] own accord regardless of any ideology" sounds really good on paper, but like "independent" in real-world politics, people tend towards raiding or defending, or they're simply not involved at all. TSP has occupied the latter, although there's no denying that it has tended towards raiding. That is manifest in our foreign policy. We have linked ourselves to raiders and imperialists, and despite what people want to believe, that has heavily constrained us. To respond to HEM, the TNI alliance most definitely has affected our politics. The only real thing preventing TSP-UDL relations from normalizing is that TNI and the UDL are at war. You can read the Cabinet discussions to see how important a factor that is. Problems the Cabinet had with Unibot and UDL leadership could have been settled, but almost everybody in the Cabinet felt that it would harm TSP-TNI relations if we ever extended an olive branch to the UDL. That is the epitome of political constraint.

 

But this isn't a debate about TSP-TNI relations. It's about TSP's future in gameplay. Belschaft defined the Cold War as GCRs forming into two blocs: those allied with TNI and those against them. The notion that two blocs have been evolving is right, but it's not limited to GCRs, and TNI isn't the focal point. Over the past few months, we've been seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift. Independence was once revered, but now quite a few people (especially influential people) have spoken out against it. It's not insignificant that Lazarus repudiated the ideology and chose defending.

 

Also, it's important to recognize that independence itself <i>is</i> an ideology. A lot of people like to think that they're abandoning rigid ideologies by adopted independence, but they're simply adopting an ideology of revisionism. Independents have adopted sophisticated language to describe their ideology -- e.g. regions acting in their own interests -- but beneath the veneer is an ideology bereft of any real meaning. No, really, I challenge any self-identified independent to explain what it means to act in the interests of a region. Independence is defined by a rejection of the R/D dichotomy, rather than the adoption of another system. Independents have simply taken the tactics of raiding and defending, leaving behind the moralism of defending and the realpolitik of raiding.

 

Now, does TSP have a side? Yes, obviously. If you consider Belschaft's definition of the Cold War, we are allied with TNI, and it's completely unthinkable to the current ruling class that this alliance will ever fail. Even though we have very little actual relations with TNI, the alliance is symbolic of independence. Abandoning the alliance may have direct material affects (losing a group that will defend us during a coup), but more importantly it would mark the downfall of independence in TSP. That at least is how I think you guys really view it, beneath the pretense of the alliance being key to TSP's long-term strategy. In my broader definition, TSP chose a side a long time ago, and now it has to choose again. Either TSP sticks with the independence ideology, or it abandons it. There's no way TSP can be neutral in the Cold War.

 

The only way to truly remain independent is to institute very strict guidelines for the NSA's military operations. The NSA would have to actually split its operations equally between defense and raiding. Otherwise, the NSA would have a clear tendency, which is indicative of its leaders tending towards one side or the other. True independence is very difficult to achieve, because people tend to either prefer raiding or defending, and you can't separate the people from the armies. The likelihood of TSP adopting this is very low, because it flies in the face of independence. The independence ideology relies on the notion that regions will act in their own interests, raiding and defending when their interests are served by one of the two. By instituting strict balance requirements, we'd be abandoning the notion that "interests" dictate missions.

 

I do think TSP needs to choose, and I strongly believe we will choose sooner or later. Years down the road, independence will be considered an influential, but short-lived experiment.

 

The concern that choosing a side would be costly for the region is a valid concern. I've said before that I would be forced to leave the region if it ever went raider. I suspect there are more of me out there, and I suspect that other people would leave if TSP went defender. But ultimately, adopting one system over the other would be better for the region. It would provide a clear mission, clear allies, and it would (assuming a competent NSA) attract people to the region.

[Escade]

For the otherwise unaware: What or who is TNI?

 

I'm going to agree with B&N that one major (and defining) role that TSP has is to be a welcoming GCR and that whatever we do we cannot forget that as integral to our identity.

 

That doesn't of course mean that we don't have any other roles or that our players don't have multiple interests but first and foremost TSP is about the players who are new, who don't want to be shoe-horned into a particular side, and also don't want to feel pressured into doing things.

 

R\D do keep coming up in multiple discussions. I've stated my inclination to prefer defending to raiding although there may be room for both especially if TSPers like SB are already involved in raiding and could take new players under their wings.  This could be tied in to our role has a haven for new players who are interested in these aspects of game play.  For example, we have lost nations because there wasn't military GP and we don't want to lose otherwise active members.

 

For me the most important thing for TSP is its own security and keeping a number of safety measures in place to guard us from coups within and without the ranks. That is how we achieve independence.

 

One direction I would like to see TSP move towards is friendlier relations with other GCRs. Not just in terms of treaties (which are easily broken and all) but in terms of actual inter-regional events and activities.

[Kris Kringle]

For the otherwise unaware: What or who is TNI?

 

The New Inquisition (TNI) is a region, also member of the UIAF (United Imperial Armed Forces). It's also a region that still baffles me. They are supposed to be one of our closes allies but nonetheless our bilateral relationship (unless I'm missing something here) is zero. We don't seem to have any actual contact with them.

[StGeorgie]

Frankly, I think TSP needs to be able to act in it's own accord regardless of any ideology. In some cases that might require raiding and in some cases that might require defending.

This is entirely what TSP should be doing.

 

And further to that, debates as to whether we should pick are side are very much pre-mature. SB has barely been in the job all that long. Let here build up the NSA. Let her build up working relationships with allies. Support her as and when is needed, and leave alignment at the door (kinda the last person who should be saying this but meh).

[Letoilenoir]

A GCR really should choose its own path defined by what is good for the region

 

Attaching a label benefits nobody other than those who identify with that label

 

If an alliance with TNI is beneficial to the region then we retain it  - if it ceases to be of value either diplomatically or militarily then we allow it to lapse.

If it benefits the region to defend an ally then we should honour any commitment we enter into with that region, and similarly if it is advantageous for us to invade another region then we do that. It is the nature of regional politics that directions chance and allegiances shift, and to succeed a region has to be agile and flexible.

 

If you reject independence, then you surrender the regions sovereignty. If you surrender your own soverignity then how can you place value on any other regions, either to justify protecting it as a Defender or to violate it as a Raider?

 

No external organisation or ideology should be allowed primacy over TSPs own policies, be they Raider, Defender, Imperialist, Right Wing, Left Wing, Centrist.

 

We do not have to define ourselves by others definitions, we are free to choose our own path, we are TSP - that is the only label we need

[Sandaoguo]

If you reject independence, then you surrender the regions sovereignty.

Oh, come on, that's ridiculous. There's nothing inherent in raiding, defending, or being "independent" that threatens regional sovereignty. All three groups are equally prone to supra-regional organization. If anything, raiders and imperialists are historically more likely to form united military organizations.

 

With all due respect, this post is an example of exactly what I talked about. Independents have developed a sophisticated language that makes the ideology sound perfect. But it's completely bereft of substance. What "benefits" a region? What are TSP's "interests"? What is the diplomatic or military "value" of an alliance, and how does one judge if there's enough of that "value"? Independence doesn't provide answers to these questions. Rather, the answers are found in the root raider or defender bias almost all independents have.

[Kris Kringle]

I don't usually have an opinion about R/D, because it just isn't what I enjoy most about NationSates, nor has it even caught that much of my attention. However, the times I have though about it, I will admit that I have had difficulties in determining what our regional interests should be.

 

I still don't like the kind of focus that is being given to R/D and am not even remotely sure about how comfortable I would feel in a TSP that is either raider or defender (regardless of my own personal leanings), but I will concede that there is some unresolved ambiguity in independence about what our interests are in the first place.

[Brutland and Norden]

To provide a counter-point to B&N, if TSP wants to be involved in gameplay (we don't have to be, but there are consequences to that), then we have to involved in gameplay politics, and gameplay politics is a fancy term for R/D. It's the lifeblood of gameplay. We can't really avoid getting involved.

From my observation, a lot of people and regions involved in gameplay do not see the need to pick a side in order to play that aspect of the game. The ones who keep nagging TSP and other regions to pick a side are mostly people whose lifeblood is gameplay and who have solid, unquestioning ideology. There is no need to pick a side, it's not black-and-white. TSP has been pursuing such a course for more than a decade and I believe that it had suited the region well.

[tsunamy]

 

There is no need to pick a side, it's not black-and-white. TSP has been pursuing such a course for more than a decade and I believe that it had suited the region well.
 

 

I was writing a post very similar to this sentiment, when B&N posted this. And I fully agree.

 

I get that people have different feelings and different ideologies based on whatever else they are doing in the game. Frankly, as someone who has never lived outside of the region, I still think TSP should be the focus of TSP. Again, that means allying ourselves with raiders and defenders based on who is open to working with us and what seems like a worth while cause for our region.

 

If others outside of TSP don't get that we're watching out for ourselves, screw them.

[Hileville]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="108886" data-time="1385244086">
<div>
To provide a counter-point to B&N, if TSP wants to be involved in gameplay (we don't have to be, but there are consequences to that), then we have to involved in gameplay politics, and gameplay politics is a fancy term for R/D. It's the lifeblood of gameplay. We can't really avoid getting involved.

From my observation, a lot of people and regions involved in gameplay do not see the need to pick a side in order to play that aspect of the game. The ones who keep nagging TSP and other regions to pick a side are mostly people whose lifeblood is gameplay and who have solid, unquestioning ideology. There is no need to pick a side, it's not black-and-white. TSP has been pursuing such a course for more than a decade and I believe that it had suited the region well.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
In all honest my opinion is the path TSP has taken ha led to inactivity.  While we are beginning to grow other base groups in the region such as RP group we have severely lacked in the Army area.  I know SB has only been MoA for a short while but the current term is almost over.  We have not been able to establish any more prominent of a military than we have ever had before.  We were very close before the coup this year to having something special in that aspect.  The coup ruined that, IMO.

 

One of the reasons for this thread is to determine what we as a region want.  I can't answer this question anymore as the actions we have taken since I have been here have contradicted themselves more than once.  I don't think we can truly deny that being independent has benefited the region.  TSP should absolutely be our ultimate focus.  Picking a side doesn't mean that we lose this focus.  It puts the reality at the forefront that independence really doesn't exist.  We have dabbled in both sides of the spectrum which has bit us in the rear on several occasions.

During the end of my Delegacy as well as Milo's 1st run, we tried to distance ourselves from this argument only coming across it a couple of times.  When we were accused of being a UDL puppet we distanced ourselves from the UDL.  We really haven't been following <i>independence</i>  but more isolationism.  I'm not advocating for any one side here and that wasn't the intent of me starting the topic.  I fall somewhere in the middle of the whole ideological spectrum.

 

NS is changing as a whole.  More and more regions are realizing that being <i>independent</i> doesn't really work.  I agree with a lot of what Sandaoguo has stated.  f we pick a side (which I don't think we will) the utmost importance is to act in our interest.  Continuing to deny that we currently lead more towards the raider side of the spectrum is counter productive.  We have had bad experiences with the UDL, FRA, and 10KI told us as long as we are allied to TNI they don't want any formal alliance between us.  I could never see TSP us joining the FRA or really have a working relationship with them after the Sedge coup.  No matter what organizational makeup they have that will never be a legitimate option for us.  I don't believe we should throw out our relationship that was built with TNI (there was a constant dialogue the last time I was in Cabinet with them).  I don't know what happened for that to drop off.

 

The UDL would be our closest chance at coming closer to the defender side unless we completely break off and do something ourselves.  As GR mentioned there are concerns with our relationship with TNI if we were to sign a treaty with the UDL.  Our closest allies over the past several years have been Europeia, The North Pacific, and Osiris.  TNP is like us trying not to get too into this type of discussion.  Osiris has pretty much gone raider and Europeia certainly isn't defender.

[Sandaoguo]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="108886" data-time="1385244086">
<div>
To provide a counter-point to B&N, if TSP wants to be involved in gameplay (we don't have to be, but there are consequences to that), then we have to involved in gameplay politics, and gameplay politics is a fancy term for R/D. It's the lifeblood of gameplay. We can't really avoid getting involved.

From my observation, a lot of people and regions involved in gameplay do not see the need to pick a side in order to play that aspect of the game. The ones who keep nagging TSP and other regions to pick a side are mostly people whose lifeblood is gameplay and who have solid, unquestioning ideology. There is no need to pick a side, it's not black-and-white. TSP has been pursuing such a course for more than a decade and I believe that it had suited the region well.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

I'm not sure how true this is. What you define as "gameplay" must be different from what I define it as. Every major event in NS gameplay, for as long as I've been paying attention, has been tied to R/D. The central figures of gameplay are R/D groups. There may be regions that ostensibly don't have a "side," but the <i>individual players</i> within those regions, who are influential and significant in gameplay, do have a side and tend to join groups outside of their regions to raid or defend. There are a small number of influential independents, but to any reasonable observer, they have a bias. To the extent that they're influential, it's usually because they're delegates or they've risen up the ladder of GCRs. I don't know anybody outside of GCRs who is both independent and active in gameplay and its politics.

[Unibot]

To respond to HEM, the TNI alliance most definitely has affected our politics. The only real thing preventing TSP-UDL relations from normalizing is that TNI and the UDL are at war. You can read the Cabinet discussions to see how important a factor that is. Problems the Cabinet had with Unibot and UDL leadership could have been settled, but almost everybody in the Cabinet felt that it would harm TSP-TNI relations if we ever extended an olive branch to the UDL. That is the epitome of political constraint.

 
Confirmation of something I suspected. :/

[Vibrant Coconuts]

I support absolutely anything that insulates TSP from gameplay. I guess that makes me an "independentist".

[Brutland and Norden]

 

The central figures of gameplay are R/D groups. There may be regions that ostensibly don't have a "side," but the <i>individual players</i> within those regions, who are influential and significant in gameplay, do have a side and tend to join groups outside of their regions to raid or defend.

That leads us to what I believe is the case. The individual players are those have those "sides", R/D groups have them based on the individual players that created them, but regions are not required to have them. The South Pacific is not an R/D group. It is a game-created region where new nations are being spawned and new players should be welcomed into the game.

 

You yourself had said this:

 

I've said before that I would be forced to leave the region if it ever went raider. I suspect there are more of me out there, and I suspect that other people would leave if TSP went defender.

For a region that prides itself in its openness and welcoming attitude, picking a side will definitely send a bad signal. We have here raiders, defenders, and neutral people who work together in building a community. We all have our own contributions to give to the region and alienating one group of people based on their individual beliefs and proclivities is a bad idea.


In keeping to the idea about the role that TSP should have in the game, it is vital that we offer them or show them the opportunities that the game has. For RP that includes opportunities for nation-building and the various varieties of role-play. For gameplay, that is raiding and defending. If we pick a side, we lose the opportunities for them to learn and be involved in what aspect of the game they want. To me, picking a side is similar to saying, "Nope, we don't allow character RPs in TSP. We only allow sports RPs."

 

 

In all honest my opinion is the path TSP has taken ha led to inactivity.  While we are beginning to grow other base groups in the region such as RP group we have severely lacked in the Army area.  I know SB has only been MoA for a short while but the current term is almost over.  We have not been able to establish any more prominent of a military than we have ever had before.  We were very close before the coup this year to having something special in that aspect.  The coup ruined that, IMO.

Like I said, the primary goal of TSP, gameplay-wise, is to ensure regional security and stability. Doing so will entail us having friends regardless of their ideology. The secondary goal is to provide opportunities for new players to experience both facets of gameplay so that they will discover what do they really want in this game (do they want to R/D? do they want to RP? do they want to just chat?).


I think TSP's goal should not be to accumulate a a treasure trove of regions raided or regions saved. TSP's goal should not be having a large army to boast around to wave at the rest of NS. Gameplay should not dictate what TSP should do; rather, it is TSP that should decide what it wants out of Gameplay. For me, that is securing and working with allies that would be willing to help defend our region; and to provide newcomers with the opportunity to experience and eventually choose what do they want.


Inactivity is not the fault of not choosing a side. I have seen the SPA being more active even though it did not choose a side. The NSA's inactivity is brought forth by a combination of factors, and not choosing a side is not one of them. If this region wants to revitalize its Army, there are other ways to do so, instead of pigeonholing the region into some ideology that would have no guarantee of activity.

 

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. True friends will accept you for who you are and what you believe in.

[Sierra Lobo]

We are a feeder. By the power vested on this region by game mechanics TSP is a region where new nations comes to be. They are neutral, we are not a founded region who can impose our select dogma of being a raider or a defender. What we can do is nourish their interest. Why not make a raider faction and a defender faction within the military. If this is too inconvenient, why not declare ourselves mercenaries loyal only to one principle - TSP's interests - and not to any ideologies in gameplay. Let our member nations make their decisions.

 

TWP is making inroads in their staunch belief that the delegate should be recognized in game and not just an extension of the forums. I believe we should make our mark in NS - and by continually supporting a neutral ground in GP - we can make a legacy out of it. We should nourish our resolve in being independent and not join the bandwagon just because most of the regions in NS are declaring their allegiance to one camp or another. There is always another option and that is what TSP should strive. It is was she is. It is her identity.

[Sandaoguo]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="108945" data-time="1385269679">The central figures of gameplay are R/D groups. There may be regions that ostensibly don't have a "side," but the individual players within those regions, who are influential and significant in gameplay, do have a side and tend to join groups outside of their regions to raid or defend.

That leads us to what I believe is the case. The individual players are those have those "sides", R/D groups have them based on the individual players that created them, but regions are not required to have them. The South Pacific is not an R/D group. It is a game-created region where new nations are being spawned and new players should be welcomed into the game.
</blockquote>
No, regions don't have to choose a side, but that comes with consequences. The point I made was that those regions who don't choose a side aren't actually part of NS gameplay. The only big-name independents in gameplay are connected to GCRs -- they're either delegates, former delegates, or high-level officials, who gain influence for simply being a member of that elite class, and not for their achievements under independence (because there are none). And they almost universally have been involved in R/D groups, or have clear biases towards one side or the other. There are no true independents, and not a single influential group or region in gameplay is independent. The consequence of not choosing a side is marginalization, because the powerful and the power-brokers in gamplay do have a side.
 
I also disagree with the idea that TSP must be "independent" because we're a GCR, and we have to give new players choices. That's not really true. Players are able to move regions and explore things. Regardless of that, TSP hasn't before and doesn't now serve that function in any capacity. We have no military to speak of and haven't for a long time. We don't engage with new players to show them what gameplay's about. We barely engage with new players on anything.

However, let's just assume we do. That doesn't necessitate "independence." Choosing raiding doesn't mean new players will not know about defending, and vice versa. TSP is not and should not be the tutorial of NationStates, otherwise our region is never going to succeed beyond the player subsidy the game gives us. NationStates is best served by having a two distinct enemy groups -- raiders and defenders -- and those groups are best served by the highest quality of players. TSP doesn't help either of those two objectives when we sit on the sidelines, telling new players that there aren't really two sides to the game, that the best way to go about the game is to act through regional "interests."

We don't have a moral higher calling to present an unbiased view of R/D to new players. We do them a disservice by not introducing them to the natural dichotomy that will always exist. R/D is a capture-the-flag game. Could you imagine if the tutorial to a CTF said, "You should capture either flag, based on your interests."

[Caligula]

What about developing an universal guideline on such cases for our region?

So in the most probable cases one would know how to act. This would enable us to act independently without prohibiting certain actions.

[Southern Bellz]

Someone tell me right now how TSP chooses a side without alienating half of the active participants in our region.  I have yet hear a reasonable answer how we do this without loosing people who are active and have helped define our great democracy.

 

In fact, did we forget that we just had someone run for MoA on the platform of picking a side and the region went into a mild uproar?

 

This is a democracy filled with people from all backgrounds.  Almost every person who is a part of this region admits that they were attracted to this region because it welcomed them despite their background.  'Picking a side' actively throws away what attracts people to this region in favor of a half-assed attempt at just being more active.

 

You want something to do?  Help Escade run the NS World Fair.  Join the NSA and help me defend TSP and allies and take out GGR and GV and allies to regions we declared war on democratically.  Join the awesome new map and use it to engage in a new era in TSP roleplay.  Report for SPINN and maybe we can become the best NS news outlet.  Write a WA resolution.  Become a diplomat. 

 

There is a lot going on in this region that is genuinely exciting in TSP.  Our goal should be to be the best feeder, and that honestly is by allowing any member of this region to pursue their passion projects IN TSP, not limit what people can do in this region.

[Sandaoguo]

Someone tell me right now how TSP chooses a side without alienating half of the active participants in our region.  I have yet hear a reasonable answer how we do this without loosing people who are active and have helped define our great democracy.

Well, I don't think there are many people who actually will be alienated. There are some, but overall, the number of people who strongly identify with either group isn't very high. Of those people who do, more tend towards the raiding spectrum. That scares me a bit, because I don't want TSP to go raider, but I think that still would be preferable over the status quo. Instead, we should be asking how TSP maintains our current position, while having an active military that does more than just bit jobs like antifa ops, without alienating other gameplay groups and existing players.

That's one big whole in the idea that independence serves to build a "bi-gameplay" community: conducting a huge raid will piss off defenders in the community, and blocking one will piss of raiders. People have banked on the TSP community being independent itself, but I think history shows that's not going to happen. People in TSP either aren't involved in gameplay, aren't involved but have a leaning, or are involved and have chosen a side already. No matter what, seriously playing both sides of the game will bother everybody who's involved, because (like in real-world politics) there are few people who are actually in the middle.

Also, SB, this is an important discussion. Let's not make people feel bad by wanting to have it, or imply that they're not helping out because they're focusing on TSP's position in gameplay. Roleplaying and the NS World Fair are important, but so is this.