TSP and the "Independent" Ideology

[Southern Bellz]

If RPers didn't want to be involved in GP, how come they were so happy and invade TSP?

[Brutland and Norden]

If RPers didn't want to be involved in GP, how come they were so happy and invade TSP?

 

Disclaimer: I'm mostly an RPer, involved in multiple RPing regions since what, 2008?

 

Many of the RPers don't care about gameplay, many of them even hate gameplay and the gameplayers. There are a lot of factors why many RPers dislike gameplay and gameplayers: off the top of my head, this includes the gameplayers' raids on RPing regions (the raid on Haven particularly comes to mind), and the perceived bias and too much attention that the game administrators had been lavishing on gameplay. It's not enough that the gameplayers are extremely loud people; many RPers also chafe at the 'biases' that the admins/mods seem to have towards gameplay (probably because some gameplayers think that their kind of game is the gist of NS) especially when it comes to game improvements. Sedge (yes, the one who couped TSP in 2011) is one of the mods that draws a lot of ire from RPers. Many of them are so much discontented with NS that they set up their own website with a separate game.

 

It is this angst and discontent against gameplay that Milograd tapped last April in order to bolster his invasion. He framed it as "give gameplayers the finger: join me in TSP (and also for the lols)". He posted messages in the old RPing regions, in the RP-related boards, and in the other game set up by the RPers - and those places was where he got that huge number of invaders to prop him up despite TSPers deserting him. It didn't really help that people were pointing out that TSP actually dislikes Sedge; it didn't help to point out that they are actually opposing the people (defenders) who assisted them in liberating Haven; it didn't help to point out that I'm an RPer too. (Yes, it is a bit hard when you're on the opposite side of the fence - probably half of the members in one of the RP regions I'm in were actually siding with Milograd) It was like this: "we hate gameplay, so let's give 'em the finger", not to mention that Milograd was a popular and cosmopolitan RPer.

 

But that doesn't mean people should throw blanket statements against RPers. You know, I'm an RPer too. StGeorgie was at our side, and he was one of the few people talking to the RP world (even to the point of arguing with them). I pulled in some of my RPer friends in too, a few of them are still in TSP. *waves at them*

 

The point is, many of them won't be involved in gameplay if not asked to. Many of them did it because somebody asked them to, and/or they wanted to make the statement. RPers may have their own individual opinions about gameplay (most probably, "dislike"), but that doesn't mean they're going to play gameplay or label their regions with gameplay ideologies.

 

 

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.

This just isn't true. I come from RP and most RPers just want to be left out of the R/D. They think the entire thing is pointless and should be banned.

As an NSNS/II RPer, I am inclined to believe StGeorgie more than Unibot. StGeorgie knows a lot of them more than I do, but the general vibe I get from them is closer to StGeorgie's statement rather than Unibot's claim. And even the area where Unibot came from - the WA RP - a lot of the people there have negative opinions about gameplay... especially towards loud gameplayers. I should know, I started out my NS career in the UN/WA.

 

Having individual opinions on gameplay (not 'beliefs' or 'ideologies') doesn't mean you can stick a label on me and the region. If you know me well, you will know that I hold a keep-me-out-of-gameplay-but-I-will-defend-my-region-and-I-dislike-raiders-too opinion and my reasons for it (I assume you have lumped that under "defenderist" in your ideology map/scale). But that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and defend other regions; gameplay is not my thing and I am not a defender. I only defended a region once, back in 2007, not because of any 'belief' or 'ideology' that I hold, but because that was a region of a fellow Generalite. Other than that, I desire to be left alone by gameplayers. My opinions on R/D doesn't mean that I'm going to turn my RP regions into "defenderist" regions, even if everyone in there all have "defenderist" sympathies (not likely, as many of them dislike gameplay). The RP region was made for that - RPing - and not gameplay. That's why you don't see Pardes, Maredoratica or Sondria turn defender; that's why you don't see Ashazeth (a former RP region founded by Milograd), Haven, or Greater Dienstad turn raider despite them 'annexing' TSP during the coup; that's why you don't see Astyria, Esportiva, or Rostil stick some dumb "gameplay ideology" upon themselves. If some members of an RP region want to do gameplay, they will join the UDL or TBR or the group they like. Others, like many of them, would rather stick to RPing, and will continue to dislike or be indifferent to gameplay. You can't divide the entirety of NS according to your "gameplay ideologies", it will be artificial and contrived at best, and false and misleading at worst.

[Jared Howell]

Since I'm still a new player, I'd like to point out that the fact that the region is independent makes it a friendly place for people to find their way in the game. I'm still not clear on the finer points of raiding/defending but new players are like that. Once we've figured things out, we can go join a region that raids if that's what we want.

[StGeorgie]

If RPers didn't want to be involved in GP, how come they were so happy and invade TSP?

A chance to say fuck you to gameplay as a whole? That'd be my reckoning. Gameplay has used RP regions as a battleground for years (most notably Haven) and the chance to hit back - at anything - is one that many took.

 

It doesn't matter than TSP hasn't hit out at RP regions, TSP is gameplay, and gameplay is bad.

[HEM]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Southern Bellz" data-cid="110597" data-time="1386533390">
<div>
If RPers didn't want to be involved in GP, how come they were so happy and invade TSP?

A chance to say fuck you to gameplay as a whole? That'd be my reckoning. Gameplay has used RP regions as a battleground for years (most notably Haven) and the chance to hit back - at anything - is one that many took.

 

It doesn't matter than TSP hasn't hit out at RP regions, TSP is gameplay, and gameplay is bad.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

It's that mentality that does often cause me to overlook / look down on the RP community. I know it's not fair per say, but I'm just not crazy about their single mindedness. 

[QuietDad]

In a region of 4000+ nations where, when a given ideology is in play, we get no more than 15-20 nations involved (on a good day) and being a feeder region with new nations coming in nervous they're gonna hit a wrong button or running away when seasoned veterans jump down their throats with "Why would you want to do that?" or "We tried that 8 years ago and the 4 nations involved didn't like it", I still don;t know why we can't have, support and actually promote all aspects of the game. Defending armies for the defenders, raiding armies for the raiders, gameplay on the RMB, role playing in the forums, etc. etc. etc. The fact that RON is getting votes for MoRA and MoFA  with the races pinned on one ideology or one candidate shows there are nations that don't agree with the current climate of the region. There is NO right answer to this discussion as we all get involved in internet games and Nation States for individual reasons and as a teaching region we should work at supporting all of them. The forum arguments would change to people bragging that their branch or office has more participants than an other, but this would be better than arguments on what to do with no participation in anything.

[Kris Kringle]

The fact that RON is getting votes for MoRA and MoFA

 

I just want to point out that (not counting votes sent to Vote Collector) the race for MoRA only has one RON vote and the race for MoFA has no RON votes. Let's make that clear.

[QuietDad]

While I stand corrected, the issue is still the same, the same thought process still remains. The three votes against Awe for MORA are brand new players and even if they are "just trying to get involved", it's not a clean sweep. As for MoFA, that happens to be the more contested then people thought it was going to be, almost evenly split against the factions that is further evidence that the REGION is evenly split among "disciplines". The point is that there are plenty of players (nations) for ALL of the ideologies and I think the argument about where the region lies will never win. I still think it's a much more productive region of 100 nations involved in everything than 20 involved with the ideology of the day. It's all god. The focus should e on getting everyone involved with what they want to do. If you have strong feelings on a specific ideology, that's what Player Created Regions are for. As a GCR, TRP will ALWAYS be fed random people with diverse wants from the game.

[Unibot]

While I stand corrected, the issue is still the same, the same thought process still remains. The three votes against Awe for MORA are brand new players and even if they are "just trying to get involved", it's not a clean sweep. As for MoFA, that happens to be the more contested then people thought it was going to be, almost evenly split against the factions that is further evidence that the REGION is evenly split among "disciplines". The point is that there are plenty of players (nations) for ALL of the ideologies and I think the argument about where the region lies will never win. I still think it's a much more productive region of 100 nations involved in everything than 20 involved with the ideology of the day. It's all god. The focus should e on getting everyone involved with what they want to do. If you have strong feelings on a specific ideology, that's what Player Created Regions are for. As a GCR, TRP will ALWAYS be fed random people with diverse wants from the game.

 

Lots of GCRs have taken an ideological position on things; even TSP. For example, TSP's NPA assumes that the Anti-Nazi raids are accepted by all TSPers -- under your logic. But they're not. 

[Unibot]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="StGeorgie" data-cid="110693" data-time="1386619291">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Southern Bellz" data-cid="110597" data-time="1386533390">
<div>
If RPers didn't want to be involved in GP, how come they were so happy and invade TSP?

A chance to say fuck you to gameplay as a whole? That'd be my reckoning. Gameplay has used RP regions as a battleground for years (most notably Haven) and the chance to hit back - at anything - is one that many took.

 

It doesn't matter than TSP hasn't hit out at RP regions, TSP is gameplay, and gameplay is bad.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

It's that mentality that does often cause me to overlook / look down on the RP community. I know it's not fair per say, but I'm just not crazy about their single mindedness. 

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

It's not single-minded and George is only talking about one community of NS RP. 

[Sandaoguo]

@QuietDad: The issue is simply that we can't have one TSP and multiple armies. I mean, it's possible, but it's very difficult to do. They would have to be completely independent from TSP's government, which means they're basically their own organizations. TSP can't feasibly have two different sets of foreign policies. Thus you have "independence," which attempts to combine two foreign policies into one military force, only appealing to those who want to raid and defend, not appealing to people who want to raid or defend. That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that through all of this game's history, the vast, vast majority of people fall under the "or" category instead of the "and" one.

[Hileville]

I'm confused. QD, what do you mean by more contested than people thought it would be?

[Southern Bellz]

Since I'm still a new player, I'd like to point out that the fact that the region is independent makes it a friendly place for people to find their way in the game. I'm still not clear on the finer points of raiding/defending but new players are like that. Once we've figured things out, we can go join a region that raids if that's what we want.

 

Glad new folks are speaking up, but I disagree with your point.  This region does serve as an introduction to the game for a lot of people, but our goal is to get people to stay, not to leave.

[QuietDad]

I'm obviously not being understood and I'm not going to start another thread of pointlessness. The ONLY thing I'm saying is that there is no reason we cant't "explore" all the aspects of the game.

@Sandaoguo: The only thing that makes it difficult is that one player wont be in control and have his way. I proposed it before, the NPA and a National Guard, Each with their own General and soldiers that can pick a disciple. A cabinet level Chairman of the Military that both report to and can coordinate jint operations when necessary. Only "difficult" because it really hasn't been done before and there is no template to follow and heaven forbid we should try something new.

@Hile: The feel I had when the election started was that it was going to be the usual landslide for a ticket hand picked ahead of time. I'm just surprised that certain races (even yours) weren't unanimous.

You are all redirecting this from the point I was trying to make. It is oblivious in ANY debate we have, there is NEVER a unanimous consensus on haw we should travel. We have nations PASSIONATE about their ideology and I really don't see why we can't let them ALL run with it. They may find out things won't work, but then at least we'll know. As it stand now, some things aren't even tried because "He says it won't work" or "It's never been don that wa before.  

[Sandaoguo]

@Sandaoguo: The only thing that makes it difficult is that one player wont be in control and have his way. I proposed it before, the NPA and a National Guard, Each with their own General and soldiers that can pick a disciple. A cabinet level Chairman of the Military that both report to and can coordinate jint operations when necessary. Only "difficult" because it really hasn't been done before and there is no template to follow and heaven forbid we should try something new.

 

It's not that simple. You're asking for one government to have two opposing foreign policies. Raider and defender armies have completely different and opposing interests. How do we negotiate treaties, for example? Both armies will have their own positions, and the TSP government will have to settle a tug-o-war of competing visions and priorities. That's why the only way for it to work would be if the armies themselves were independent organizations, with the TSP government having no control over it, with the two organizations being related to TSP only in name. But then, what's the point? We already have independent raider and defender organizations for players to join, so why reinvent the wheel? Even if you try, how do you suppose we can prevent both armies from fighting against each other, becoming enemies, and sowing seeds of discontent that spread beyond their ranks and into other parts of TSP?

 

It's never been done before because it's simply not a feasible solution. That's why people created "independence" and attempted to convert old and new players into playing both sides of the R/D game. But they weren't successful, which is why you see large and successful raider and defender groups, but no comparable "independent" groups.

[QuietDad]

It is that simple. You can take the stance that as the 4th largest region in the game, it's not about making others happy, It's about others making us happy. Their will always be FA issues with a raiding army, but a defending army should look out after TSP's interest and not foreign interests. Scenario:  We successfully raid and liberate a region. After turning control over to natives and becoming allies, the region is once again attacked by the original invaders and we are called upon by treaty to help DEFEND them. Both sides are played here not one ideology.

It's only complicated because no one knows how to do it and I'm just saying no ONE needs to know. An avid raider will never run defenders right and vice versa. I'm just saying there is no reason not to try. It may NOT work. The we would know. As of now it's speculation by people with strong view points of how it WOULD go if we tried.

[tsunamy]

I totally see QDs point, but I agree it's difficult to have to different sets of foreign policies, even if we had the numbers to have to different armies. Ultimately, this comes down to what capacity the army acts in at various times.

 

To (perhaps) turn this discussion a bit ... I want to ask why TSP is viewed as a raider? Simply because of TNI?

 

I know this is digging back in the archives -- 8 years ago and the like  . But, historically, TSP has been pretty much independent as a "let's keep the status quo" kinda region, no? It's not like we've previously aimed to go out and overthrow other regions. Wouldn't that put us in more of a defender camp?

[Hileville]

I wouldn't say TSP is viewed as raider by the majority of NS.  We are viewed as a raider leaning region by most defender groups.

 

The issue I have with QD's original suggestion (which seems to be different than what you are suggesting now) is that we already have the CSS.  I believe in the original suggestion you wanted a group just to protect TSP.  That is what the CSS is for and we really need to start promoting that group and increasing its member base.  I know I have already asked the entire body to consider poking some potential members as I would like to work with the NSA and currently can't.

 

Having 2 armies in one region isn't ideal.  Until our member base grows to a point where both armies can be sustained and active without hurting the activity levels of the other one.  It would also be very weird to fight fellow TSP nations on the battlefield.

 

I will admit I didn't really read through your two military post today so if I am totally wrong just ignore this post.

[Belschaft]

As far as I am aware B&N no one taken seriously in NS GP considers TSP to be a raider region. We have always been very firmly in the Independent camp, even in those periods where we had a dominant raider or defender group in Cabinet, and most people are aware of and respect that fact.

[Sandaoguo]

As far as I am aware B&N no one taken seriously in NS GP considers TSP to be a raider region. We have always been very firmly in the Independent camp, even in those periods where we had a dominant raider or defender group in Cabinet, and most people are aware of and respect that fact.

 

Be careful of the No True Scotsman fallacy. TSP may not be viewed as a raider region, but as Hileville's comment implies, we aren't seen as truly independent either.

[QuietDad]

I wouldn't say TSP is viewed as raider by the majority of NS.  We are viewed as a raider leaning region by most defender groups.

 

The issue I have with QD's original suggestion (which seems to be different than what you are suggesting now) is that we already have the CSS.  I believe in the original suggestion you wanted a group just to protect TSP.  That is what the CSS is for and we really need to start promoting that group and increasing its member base.  I know I have already asked the entire body to consider poking some potential members as I would like to work with the NSA and currently can't.

 

Having 2 armies in one region isn't ideal.  Until our member base grows to a point where both armies can be sustained and active without hurting the activity levels of the other one.  It would also be very weird to fight fellow TSP nations on the battlefield.

 

I will admit I didn't really read through your two military post today so if I am totally wrong just ignore this post.

My original idea in another thread and carried over here was very simplistic. We create two armies. One invader (NSA and one defender. I called it the "National Guard" or SPNG. Each would have it's own general and those Generals would report to the CoA who would be a cabinet position, Both armies could act independently doing what they like to do. In the case I brought up before where we liberated a region with the invaders and now it was under siege again, the COA could order the defenders in to protect it or order a joint operation if the threat was real. The 3 generals could coordinate joint operations as seen fit also.

As for the member base growing, it will never grow as long as there is only one methodology. The other side s not going to join what they feel is the wrong side just in case their methodology happens, We may have one side inadequately staffed in the beginning, but as it grows, who knows. The NSA is going out with 4 or 5 nations. How many do you need?  

[QuietDad]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="110742" data-time="1386640746">
<div>
As far as I am aware B&N no one taken seriously in NS GP considers TSP to be a raider region. We have always been very firmly in the Independent camp, even in those periods where we had a dominant raider or defender group in Cabinet, and most people are aware of and respect that fact.

 

Be careful of the No True Scotsman fallacy. TSP may not be viewed as a raider region, but as Hileville's comment implies, we aren't seen as truly independent either.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Once again, as the 4th largest region in the game, who cares what others think? We need to develop out own swag and have other nations coming to us.

[StGeorgie]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="110708" data-time="1386626090">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="StGeorgie" data-cid="110693" data-time="1386619291">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Southern Bellz" data-cid="110597" data-time="1386533390">
<div>
If RPers didn't want to be involved in GP, how come they were so happy and invade TSP?

A chance to say fuck you to gameplay as a whole? That'd be my reckoning. Gameplay has used RP regions as a battleground for years (most notably Haven) and the chance to hit back - at anything - is one that many took.

 

It doesn't matter than TSP hasn't hit out at RP regions, TSP is gameplay, and gameplay is bad.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

It's that mentality that does often cause me to overlook / look down on the RP community. I know it's not fair per say, but I'm just not crazy about their single mindedness. 

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

It's not single-minded and George is only talking about one community of NS RP. 

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Members of Milo's army came from across the RP spectrum - from II to P2TM.

[Brutland and Norden]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unibot" data-cid="110728" data-time="1386633969">
<div>
 

It's not single-minded and George is only talking about one community of NS RP. 

 

Members of Milo's army came from across the RP spectrum - from II to P2TM.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
I am going to confirm StGeorgie's statement. My other RP region where half of them supported Milograd is mostly active in II; I saw some GEaTers putting puppets into TSP to support Milograd; the people who sent me hate mail came from P2TM; I also know of WA RPers who supported Milo through puppets.

 

It's that mentality that does often cause me to overlook / look down on the RP community. I know it's not fair per say, but I'm just not crazy about their single mindedness. 

I suppose it works both ways. Many people in the RP community believe that GPers are single-minded too.

[Tsrill]

I agree with the people who say that we shouldn't pick a side. We might be leaning one way or the other way (in my time we were heavily leaning towards defenders), whatever seems to work best. For me that is true independence. We can do what we like and can pick our course independent of other regions.

 

I think allies should be picked on three reasons only

- are they morally sound? (both RL ideology and InGame practice, e.g., no nazi scum or known grievers)

- will they help us in our time of need?

- are we willing and able to help them in their time of need?

 

Since our own needs are primarily defensive, to me a more defender-leaning stance seems more logical, but I can see how under circumstances raider alliances can work as well. As long as all three questions above can be answered with "yes", I see no issue either way.