TSP and the "Independent" Ideology

[Letoilenoir]

I apologise if what I am about to say detracts from the core of this discussion but I think it has some bearing on the issue.

 

Aside from the internal jostling, who in NS would seek to coup TSP?

Who threatens our security?

Can we dissuade them from holding hostile intent towards the region by peaceable means?

Can we persuade them that it would be advantageous to count TSP amongst their friends in NS?

Or do we have no option but to take pre-emptive action to neutralise the threat they pose?

 

Are there elements in NS that it would benefit TSP to publicly oppose, or to actively seek to alleviate their effect(s) on the wider game?

Are there developments in the game that we should seek to support, or initiatives that we should undertake unilaterally?

 

In short are we prepared to lead, or do we prefer to be led when it comes to the destiny of this unique region?

 

This is not a question of whether we go raider defender or independant, it is deciding what a future TSP becomes without constraining it to adopt and repeat the patterns and traditions of the past. Change can be daunting, but opportunity rarely emerges from doing what we have always done.

 

If something no longer works we can chose to fix it or replace it, but we cannot afford to ignore it. This is the challenge that faces us.

[HEM]

There are ways of being an active gameplay region without engaging heavily in the R / D game. The problem is that those ways are far less straight forward, and often take a longer time to develop.

 

I think what is happening here is that The South Pacific has been semi-active for some time. We are all frustrated by it. We've all tried different things and put quite a bit of activity into making this place rock, but we haven't seen the results we want. It's easy -- under these circumstances -- to try to find another reason we've failed in making the region active, and our policy of "independence" has become that scapegoat.

 

I do not believe our policy of independence has any association with our health as a region, and if we try to join the R / D game with the expectations that our region will be transformed into a beaming light of activity we will be disappointed.

 

If we decide not to go down the militarization path, however, we need to find something we want to devout time and effort into. We need to create a grand regional project. There is quite a bit of energy around these forums, and I think we can build a better region. Slapping a title on us though, simply won't suffice.

[Belschaft]

NS isn't a capture the flag game - R/D is, at most, marginal to how most people play the game. Certainly it is marginal to TSP's own interests. Nevertheless it takes up an inordinate amount of attention both game wide and within the region. I honestly cannot conceive of how raiding random regions is in our interest, or is something we should care about. The same is true about defending random regions. The R/D dichotomy is not something I care about. It is not something even remotely in TSP's interests. The logic behind Independence is that the daily tag raids of the likes of TBR or TBH, and the futile efforts of UDL and the FRA to clean up the mess they leave, are irrelevant to us here. Those who reject independence do so because they cannot conceive of an NS Gameplay not based around the random, non-political squabbling of the R/Ders. I give not a a single damn for whatever TBR or UDL is up to this week; to me they are no more than a potential source of manpower in the next GCR coup, and a potential aid or enemy in a military operation we may choose to conduct. If we can come to mutually beneficial relations which see us both benefit, then good for us all. TNI enjoys the prestige and promotion that comes from GCR alliances, and the ability they gain to present themselves as 'power brokers' in the game. We enjoy a reliable and large pool of manpower during an attack upon us, as well as an ally willing to lend a hand when and if we put together a military operation. We are both happy with that relationship, thus it prospers.

 

Independence is about defending those who defend us in return, and attacking those who we deem hostile to our interests. Independence is political realism. Independence is recognizing that the R/D dichotomy is meaningless to us. Independence is putting TSP first.

 

There are no raiders here. There are no defenders here. There are only TSPers, and it is our duty to put the regions interests ahead of any external ideology that we may have brought with us when we first arrived.

[Sandaoguo]

I'm sorry, but saying that R/D is basically an insignificant aspect of gameplay is nonsense. It is the heart of gameplay and has been for a very, very long time. If R/D were to stop, so would the entire inter-regional gameplay community.

 

In general, I don't really see any redeeming quality about that manifesto. Again, it's a block of sophisticated language bereft of any substance. Independence has made those GCRs who follow it completely irrelevant, including TSP. The only thing keeping GCRs propped up are the individuals within them who are also involved (or have been significantly involved) in R/D. Denying reality won't make it go away.

 

If you want to talk about political realism, then here's the stark reality: TSP must and has already chosen a side. We've aligned ourselves with imperialists and raiders, and in doing so, we've made it impossible to defend and work with defenders. That is the plain realism of it all, and everybody in the Cabinet already knows this. We cannot be independent while we place so much importance on maintaining relations with non-independent groups. We can't work with the UDL because it would piss the UIAF off. We can't work with the UIAF if want relations with defenders, because that would piss defenders off. Independence and isolationism are one in the same, because gameplay is R/D oriented. There is a dichotomy, and you can't simply abandon it and expect to be able to work within the system.

 

We either get involved in the R/D game, or we abandon the NSA. The in-between has not and will not work. If we get rid of militarization, as HEM said, then we're going to be limited in our position in gameplay. That's fine if it's what we want (I don't). But at some point you guys will need to admit that independence isn't workable.

[HEM]

I'm sorry, but saying that R/D is basically an insignificant aspect of gameplay is nonsense. It is the heart of gameplay and has been for a very, very long time. If R/D were to stop, so would the entire inter-regional gameplay community.

 

In general, I don't really see any redeeming quality about that manifesto. Again, it's a block of sophisticated language bereft of any substance. Independence has made those GCRs who follow it completely irrelevant, including TSP. The only thing keeping GCRs propped up are the individuals within them who are also involved (or have been significantly involved) in R/D. Denying reality won't make it go away.

 

If you want to talk about political realism, then here's the stark reality: TSP must and has already chosen a side. We've aligned ourselves with imperialists and raiders, and in doing so, we've made it impossible to defend and work with defenders. That is the plain realism of it all, and everybody in the Cabinet already knows this. We cannot be independent while we place so much importance on maintaining relations with non-independent groups. We can't work with the UDL because it would piss the UIAF off. We can't work with the UIAF if want relations with defenders, because that would piss defenders off. Independence and isolationism are one in the same, because gameplay is R/D oriented. There is a dichotomy, and you can't simply abandon it and expect to be able to work within the system.

 

We either get involved in the R/D game, or we abandon the NSA. The in-between has not and will not work. If we get rid of militarization, as HEM said, then we're going to be limited in our position in gameplay. That's fine if it's what we want (I don't). But at some point you guys will need to admit that independence isn't workable.

 

I think you only read the first paragraph of what I said

 

Finding other ways to channel gameplay are harder, but that doesn't mean they are the wrong paths or less beneficial in the longrun. Like I said before, I feel like independence is a scapegoat of our troubles, when really they are much more structural than that. We will not become any more active or relevant by suddenly adopting a position.

[Sandaoguo]

I think you only read the first paragraph of what I said

 

Finding other ways to channel gameplay are harder, but that doesn't mean they are the wrong paths or less beneficial in the longrun. Like I said before, I feel like independence is a scapegoat of our troubles, when really they are much more structural than that. We will not become any more active or relevant by suddenly adopting a position.

 

 

No, I definitely read your entire post! I don't agree that independence is being used a scapegoat for our activity frustrations. I genuinely believe that the ideology is it not compatible with an active military. Certainly an active army would help our overall problem, but it's not a panacea. I don't think anybody in this discussion believes adopting raiding or defending is going to create a new TSP Golden Age. Those of us who believe the independence experiment has failed do believe, though, that maintaining the position is a net cost to activity.

 

We could just squash this whole debate by demilitarizing altogether. We would still be aligned towards imperialists and raiders, relying on them for our defense, but at least we wouldn't be engaging in any military operations. I don't think (and I'm assuming many others don't, either) that's a good route to take. It would <i>diminish</i> our status in NS Gameplay, and it would close off a route of activity. You say that there are other ways to engage in NS Gameplay than R/D, but I don't see how that's true. We'd be banking on cultural influence, and that only goes so far. Like I've been saying, when a group is influential within NS Gameplay, but isn't involved in R/D, it's only because the <i>individuals</i> within that group are already influential because of their outside involvement in R/D.

 

The problem I see with people not wanting to choose a side is that they're approaching the question from the assumption that the rest of NS doesn't want to choose a side, either. The thing is, there are more raiders and defenders than there are independents. And to the extent that either group is tolerant of independence, it's because they want to gain bases of influence. I'm not aware of any independent region that participates equally with defenders and raiders, and there is a very obvious reason for that.

[Escade]

It seems impossible but can we work with both the raiders and defenders?

 

If TNI or UIAF go nuts because we want to work with UDL or whichever other group, that indicates to me that they are dictating TSP policy in way that we are a vassal rather than an independent GCR. And I don't like that at all since that means we aren't independent in the first place.

 

Why can't we have treaties with all 3 or (however many which are reasonable) and say that we are making treaties only for the sake of inclusion of all our players who are interested in R or D and not because we as a region lean one way or another.

 

TSP is a democracy, if we replace Raiders with Republicans and Defenders with Democrats - would it make sense to (as a GCR) choose one over the other? We wouldn't be choosing, our residents (when they vote during election time) would be choosing but that still wouldn't preclude the possibility that the delegate is an R or the CoA is a D, etc.

 

Therefore, perhaps its time to do something that all the other regions aren't doing (I'm assuming that they either pick a side or stay out of it) and say this is a two party system, show us what you're good for and let the voters decide in elections and even in that there may not be any unilateral decision.

 

On the other hand, if any group or region attempts us to pin us into one group that raised up red flags for me.

[Brutland and Norden]

 

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.

NS does not really exist for gameplay. In fact, Max did not even intend to have an R/D aspect in the game. However, the game has diversified so much that there are many other ways of playing it, with several aspects one can choose from.

 

I believe that by helping new players, we will build a more solid, diverse, active community that will even go beyond the player subsidy the game gives us. We might even be able to attract new players from other regions. That's what I think TSP should improve and build on. That's what should we focus in and not gameplay alone. I understand that gameplay is your game, the aspect you'd like to play; just like I prefer character RPs. But you don't see me arguing, "NationStates is best served by having several distinct roleplaying groups - character roleplayers and nation roleplayers - and those groups are best served by the highest quality of players." The fact is that there is more to NS besides gameplay, and the R/D game is not the be-all, end-all of NS and TSP. What I am advocating is inclusive regional-building and community development based on all aspects of the game so that new players can choose where they want to specialize and focus in.

 

 

The problem I see with people not wanting to choose a side is that they're approaching the question from the assumption that the rest of NS doesn't want to choose a side, either.

 

Which is, most probably, true. It's just that the gameplay group is very loud and vocal in the main forum. This "rest of NS" is probably the majority of the game - the RPers, the chatters, the issue-answerers, the nation-builders, the World Assembly people, the RMBers, the silent ones - being uninterested in gameplay and the R/D game. Most of the TSPers don't really care about gameplay and are outsiders to this aspect of the game, and that's where we're coming from.

[QuietDad]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="108978" data-time="1385312490">
<div>
 

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.

That attitude is what kept TSP stale for as long as it was. We Are the tutorial of NS in that 3 out of 4 of our regions are BRAND NEW to the game. We have just started to come alive as the old timers have opened up, allowed new people to find a role to play with, let them run with it and support them in the process.. We have just learn that advertising on our own RMB has brought new people in looking for citizenship and jobs/roles. Every time SB moves the NSA one more nation joins in the process, We cannot deny that we are a feeder region and ignoring the "noob" generates the old "inner circle" feelings and has folks moving onward. If  you want a region of "season veterans, this ain't the place.

.

 

The problem I see with people not wanting to choose a side is that they're approaching the question from the assumption that the rest of NS doesn't want to choose a side, either.

 

I don't think we need to "choose sides". What we need to do at this point is working on our alliances and getting our foreign affairs in order. We have a semi active, albeit small, NSA that we can make available to allies as necessary.  Someone wants to raid a region, we can join them. Someone getting raided and needs help? We can help them. The NSA is no where big or experienced enough to decide to go picking on regions and at this point it will just further enforce the thought of must regions that we're trying to shove our ideals down their throats. We are aso not nearly big enough in NSA capabilities to get stretched to thin either,

</div>
</blockquote>

[Unibot]

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.

 

I disagree with the idea that new nations are "neutral".

 

I disagree that TSP should not have values that other new nations may or may not adopt for themselves. We already do have values in regards to liberal democracy and (to a lesser extent) cosmopolitanism -- why not defenderism too? 

 

I also disagree with splitting an army into two factions -- that splits our resources to the point where neither can do much of anything.

 

I also disagree that "TSP's interests" can be defined non-ideologically -- they are always framed and defined in terms of ideology. What interests I see TSP having are different than the interests that you see TSP having.

 

I also disagree TSP will make much of a legacy at all by being neutral. There's nothing particularly unusual about being "neutral". There's a lot more players doing nothing in the game than there are players doing something in the game and standing up for what they believe -- those people are few and far between and define the game for what they want to see it as. 

[Unibot]

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.

 

 

Someone tell me right now how TSP can prevent choosing a side without alienating the people you've already alienated. That's the real question: the neverweres. The question of who isn't in the army already. Because a great deal of us aren't in the NSA. That's an important question. Independentism is as much of an alienating force as Defenderism and Invaderism. You can't avoid alienation. Independents like to frame their ideology as the "non-ideology" -- the one that everyone agrees upon. That's not correct. It leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. 

 

I think the reason why the NSA is so inactive is essentially because most people want to help other people or they have no interest in helping other people and want to invade people. NSA tries to capture the tiny slice of people that aren't either...

 

... so that means you're trying to exclude everyone who wants to stand for good or bad in the game to find that squeezed middle and approach them with a pretty boring shopping list of items that they could do. It's a recipe for inactivity and general disaster. 

 

I became a defender, for example, because I thought it was the right to do -- because I wanted to help people. I found it was quite a bit fun after that initial discussion. From the statistics I have regarding TSP -- as soon as you make the decision to define NSA in terms of not being altruistic ... you lose a great deal of the population's interest in the army, but the smaller population of invaders in TSP don't get what they want either, so defenders are happier with that than seeing TSP go "invader".

 

Which means Independentism is really just a product of a bad compromise -- it creates a vision for an army that not a lot of people are interested in ... most people are either altruistic at heart or want to have fun and see the game differently (meaning they want to invade)... there's only a much smaller niche who would actually want to be sort of cold and political and rather shrewd in regards to what they can and can't do militarily. That means independent armies are basically designed to fail. 

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Southern Bellz" data-cid="108985" data-time="1385316735">
<div>
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.

 

 

Someone tell me right now how TSP can prevent choosing a side without alienating the people you've already alienated.

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Then who gives a damn? If we already alienated everyone why are we still having this conversation?

 

I take issue that this is an "important" conversation or something that needs to be discussed ad nauseam. For the most part, I think everyone is aware of where TSP stands.

 

I mean, again, I'm shocked that TSP managed to last 10 years in such a mangled state of being, but apparently it worked.

[Unibot]

Then who gives a damn? If we already alienated everyone why are we still having this conversation?
 

 

Because we'd like to avoid alienating people? And also, there will be people similar to them that we will continue to alienate. I think it's hilarious that we're only concerned about the here and now and dividing who we have now ... when who we have now is a product of what we have been. Independentism has already acted as an alienating force -- that was my point. 


I find SB assumes Independentism helps us get along under one roof. But it more just thins the community out and perpetuates itself through recursive alienation. 

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Then who gives a damn? If we already alienated everyone why are we still having this conversation?
 

 

Because we'd like to avoid alienating people? And also, there will be people similar to them that we will continue to alienate. I think it's hilarious that we're only concerned about the here and now and dividing who we have now ... when who we have now is a product of what we have been. Independentism has already acted as an alienating force -- that was my point. 


I find SB assumes Independentism helps us get along under one roof. But it more just thins the community out and perpetuates itself through recursive alienation. 

 


</blockquote>
 

So ... we're going to take a stance and people are just going to come rushing back? That was my point.

 

And again, if this is such a problem, why hasn't TSP crashed and burned in the past decade?

[Southern Bellz]

As far as I see it raiding and defending simply are not a 'side' they are actions.

 

There are Spartan-esq military regions and organizations that choose to only engage in one side, but it is an extreme stance to take.  The only people I see advocating for this change are people who already are involved in these Spartan-esq regions and would see a benefit if TSP choose their side.  StGeorge advocated we go raider when Osiris 'choose' to go raider and Unibot is advocating we go defender.

 

An active military isn't an end game for a region.  I'd rather have no military then any of these 'great leap forward' suggestions.

 

We don't look at any other part of the game with this idiotic polar end-caps.  If we choose a capitalist side or a communist side, we can be a more passionate region because all the nations with one side will be more active.  Should we be roleplay or non-roleplay?  WA or non-WA?  

 

I'm sorry, this is a political simulator and its nuanced.  Reducing things to black and white will not benefit TSP.

[Unibot]

 

 

I'm sorry, this is a political simulator and its nuanced.  Reducing things to black and white will not benefit TSP.

 

You're the only one reverting to a fairly absolutist stance on the issue. >_> Everyone else is discussing pros and cons, actually.  It's funny when Independentists think they're the ones with the "grey" position yet their's is as sharply defined and absolute as any other ideology. 

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 

 

I'm sorry, this is a political simulator and its nuanced.  Reducing things to black and white will not benefit TSP.

 

You're the only one reverting to a fairly absolutist stance on the issue. >_> Everyone else is discussing pros and cons, actually.  It's funny when Independentists think they're the ones with the "grey" position yet their's is as sharply defined and absolute as any other ideology. 

 


</blockquote>
 

Nope. That's patently not true. Everyone is attacking TSP's "independent" ideology suggesting that we've done everything but officially chosen a side. The "grey" position is the status quo and that is what this thread is arguing against.

 

I'm not about to get in a meta-discussion about this thread. But let's not frame it to blame the people that actual care about TSP.

[Letoilenoir]

Raiders and Defender are merely two tribes in the black and white world that the raiders and defenders would have you believe constitutes Gameplay.

I find it laughable to see a thread asking which side is the better politician when their continued behaviour shows them both as uncompromising and dogmatic - you can't negotiate with either of them as there is no flexibility in their mindset - you are either for them or against them, so there is no bargaining, you accept their terms, they are not prepared to accept, or even recognise that any other viewpoint is valid. 

 

To negotiate you have to have something you are prepared to give in order to receive something in return. Defenders and raiders do not give

[Sandaoguo]

I believe that by helping new players, we will build a more solid, diverse, active community that will even go beyond the player subsidy the game gives us. We might even be able to attract new players from other regions. That's what I think TSP should improve and build on. That's what should we focus in and not gameplay alone. I understand that gameplay is your game, the aspect you'd like to play; just like I prefer character RPs. But you don't see me arguing, "NationStates is best served by having several distinct roleplaying groups - character roleplayers and nation roleplayers - and those groups are best served by the highest quality of players."

That analogy isn't really reflective of what's going on in gameplay. A more relevant analogy would be if there was already ditinct roleplay groups, and TSP made the decision that our roleplays have to involve both when it serves "regional interests." For example, our official regional roleplays would have to switch off between past and future tech, and combine them when the regional leadership thinks it's in our interests.

However, no roleplay analogy will capture the dynamic of gameplay, because people can roleplay past and future tech simultaneously in different threads, without causing any kind of fuss. You can't ignore the fact that gameplay is R/D centered. It doesn't matter that R/D isn't ALL that gameplay is. It's the most important part, and it almost always determines who sides with whom. There are not only those political aspects to manage, but if you are going to make the argument that TSP must be independent because we have to nurture new players, then you have to contend with the requirements of the R/D game. The game is best served by people who are highly skilled at raiding or defending, and has a particularly identity with one, and I don't think you'd find any leader of a group who doesn't believe that. There's a reason why no major R/D group is lead by somebody proclaiming to be independent.
 

Which is, most probably, true. It's just that the gameplay group is very loud and vocal in the main forum. This "rest of NS" is probably the majority of the game - the RPers, the chatters, the issue-answerers, the nation-builders, the World Assembly people, the RMBers, the silent ones - being uninterested in gameplay and the R/D game. Most of the TSPers don't really care about gameplay and are outsiders to this aspect of the game, and that's where we're coming from.

You know that I was talking about the rest of gameplay. This is a discussion about TSP's stance in gameplay.

@QuietDad: Nobody is denying that we should bring in new players and show them what NationStates is about. I think you guys keep assuming that those of us arguing in favor of change are assuming that gameplay is what this game is all about. We're arguing for a change in TSP's approach to gameplay, not for abandoning everything else we're doing to attract new players. Some of us believe that being independent is actually a disservice to new players -- because it doesn't teach them about the realities of NS gameplay -- and to the region because it is an ideology that keeps the NSA inactive and limits our participating in inter-regional small-g gameplay.

[Southern Bellz]

You guys are being really unfair about the NSA. We just had a term with an inactive MoA, and that magically has nothing to do with it?

I just started this position and have already had a mission. Obviously other missions are in the works, we are in a war with two regions. There is plenty for the NSA to do.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Brutland and Norden]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Brutland and Norden" data-cid="109007" data-time="1385334188">
I believe that by helping new players, we will build a more solid, diverse, active community that will even go beyond the player subsidy the game gives us. We might even be able to attract new players from other regions. That's what I think TSP should improve and build on. That's what should we focus in and not gameplay alone. I understand that gameplay is your game, the aspect you'd like to play; just like I prefer character RPs. But you don't see me arguing, "NationStates is best served by having several distinct roleplaying groups - character roleplayers and nation roleplayers - and those groups are best served by the highest quality of players."

That analogy isn't really reflective of what's going on in gameplay. A more relevant analogy would be if there was already ditinct roleplay groups, and TSP made the decision that our roleplays have to involve both when it serves "regional interests." For example, our official regional roleplays would have to switch off between past and future tech, and combine them when the regional leadership thinks it's in our interests.
</blockquote>
There are already distinct roleplay groups, and there are regions that style themselves as Fantasy Tech regions, Past Tech Regions, Modern Tech/Strict Realist regions. Only people who are going to do those RPs are welcome. Similarly, there are raider regions, there are defender regions. Only people who will do those things will be admitted there, and some would have strict entrance requirements. They can style themselves as such because the people that built them have a common interest and a common ideology. TSP wasn't built and designed like that. TSP was created by the game; TSP counts among its members people of diverse interests.

 

 

You know that I was talking about the rest of gameplay. This is a discussion about TSP's stance in gameplay.

Nope, you didn't seem to be talking about people in gameplay only. We are the people wanting not to choose a side, which you referenced. We do not see ourselves as gameplayers. In a game-created, diverse region such as TSP, our opinions also count. We do not have a gameplay 'ideology' because we are simply not gameplayers. The thing we are arguing for in this thread is for the gameplayers of TSP to stop wanting to apply labels and 'ideologies' to TSP because we don't want them and we believe that it will be ultimately to detriment of TSP.

 

There is no need to take a stand or take a side in gameplay. There is the talk of a cold war with battle lines being drawn, with regions taking sides. I have heard people talking about a GCR/UCR great war. Raider vs defender vs imperialists, ABC vs XYZ and so on. TSP would be wise to stay out of that. By the mere fact of picking a side, we are going to let ourselves drawn into something which may endanger our region and destroy our community.

 

TSP does not need a stance in gameplay. Like tsunamy said, TSP's attitude has been like that for more than a decade; long before the gameplay ideologists had invented terms such as 'independentism' in order to attach a label to it and attack it for being against their own. As I see it, if raider regions don't like to ally with us, that's their decision. If defender regions don't like to ally with us, that's their decision. If their decision is motivated by their "ideology", that's their problem. TSP should not choose its friends based on "ideology". TSP chooses and should choose its friends based on proven loyalty and willingness to work with us. There are other regions besides gameplay regions to which we can be friends and allies.

 

The moment that TSP takes a side in gameplay will probably be the moment that I am going to move away from this region. It would then seem futile for me to contribute to building a community on this region, only to have a few people put my contributions and the community on the firing line in pursuit and defense of some vague "ideology" that only that minority shares. I will probably be also unhappy with the fact that a small group of vocal players from one side of one subcommunity of the game will get to label the entire region with an 'ideology' that the majority doesn't share. I will be discomfited by the fact that we will be held hostage by this "ideology" and all of our actions, our friendships, and our relationships, will be dictated by that one dogmatic "ideology". That is not the TSP I grew up in. That is not the TSP I want to be in. That is not the TSP I would want to work in. And that is not the TSP I would like to see in the future.

[Sandaoguo]

You guys are being really unfair about the NSA. We just had a term with an inactive MoA, and that magically has nothing to do with it?

I just started this position and have already had a mission. Obviously other missions are in the works, we are in a war with two regions. There is plenty for the NSA to do.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

It hasn't been just one inactive term.

B&N, the only thing I can say to you is that TSP can either be involved in gameplay, or it can retrench and stay out of it. If we want TSP to be involved, then we have to pay attention to the politics of it all. Despite your belief that TSP hasn't chosen an ideology, it has. Independence is as much as ideology as raiderism and defederism. Under the guise of independence, TSP has intertwined itself in gameplay treaties that have defined our station in gameplay. We are already drawn into gameplay and the politics and danger of this part of the game.

The problem I see with your stance is that you believe adopting independence is the natural order for people who "don't care" about gameplay. You believe that adopting raiderism or defenderism is the only way TSP can choose a side, but that's just not true. People who don't care about gameplay shouldn't care what side we're on, unless it affects them. You're assuming that being independent is a good way to prevent non-gameplay people from being affected by TSP's gameplay activity. In reality, being independent has an affect on the entire region, just as much as being a defender or raider region does. Independence is not the lack of choosing a side.

[Brutland and Norden]

 

Despite your belief that TSP hasn't chosen an ideology, it has. Independence is as much as ideology as raiderism and defederism. Under the guise of independence, TSP has intertwined itself in gameplay treaties that have defined our station in gameplay. We are already drawn into gameplay and the politics and danger of this part of the game.

This is the problem I have with gameplay ideologists. They have a belief that everything, even those not part of the gameplay world, can be divided into camps, labeled with "ideologies", and opposed to because they don't adhere to their "ideological camp".

 

We are not consciously choosing an "ideology", we don't want to and we shouldn't have. It is only during the recent months that TSP's long-held attitude had been unfairly slapped with a contrived label and attacked with gusto. We are not gameplay ideologists, so please keep us out of your games. We are and should only be looking out for TSP, not dogmatically adhering to some "ideology". How many of the people here who opposed 'picking a side' does so because they adhere to 'independentism'? Most of them would probably tell you they are just looking out for TSP and they don't care about some faux ideology.

 

The treaties and friendships that we have helps secure our region. We didn't and shouldn't choose them because of some vague "ideology".

 

 People who don't care about gameplay shouldn't care what side we're on, unless it affects them.

 

It affects us because whichever side we choose would earn the ire of the other side, putting our region in danger. That doesn't just affect gameplayers. Similarly, putting a label or 'ideology' on the region means putting it on all of us, which we object to because we don't share them and we don't want them.

[Unibot]

Raiders and Defender are merely two tribes in the black and white world that the raiders and defenders would have you believe constitutes Gameplay.

I find it laughable to see a thread asking which side is the better politician when their continued behaviour shows them both as uncompromising and dogmatic - you can't negotiate with either of them as there is no flexibility in their mindset - you are either for them or against them, so there is no bargaining, you accept their terms, they are not prepared to accept, or even recognise that any other viewpoint is valid. 

 

To negotiate you have to have something you are prepared to give in order to receive something in return. Defenders and raiders do not give

 

This is an interesting argument because the phrasing of your argument is entirely absolutist and full of dogmatic generalizations with no flexibility given. 

 

Likewise, you aren't prepared to "negotiate" or come to understand defenderism and raiderism as anything more than a meaningless "black and white" dichotomy. That's quite an elitist position, but also fairly hypocritical. 

[Unibot]

 

We are not consciously choosing an "ideology", we don't want to and we shouldn't have. It is only during the recent months that TSP's long-held attitude had been unfairly slapped with a contrived label and attacked with gusto. We are not gameplay ideologists, so please keep us out of your games. We are and should only be looking out for TSP, not dogmatically adhering to some "ideology". How many of the people here who opposed 'picking a side' does so because they adhere to 'independentism'? Most of them would probably tell you they are just looking out for TSP and they don't care about some faux ideology.

 
The problem is with this thought process is that we all want to do what's best for TSP. The reality is what's best for TSP is interpreted through many different viewpoints. 
 
Saying "we shouldn't pick a side" and then picking another option is still making a decision informed by some ideological beliefs -- what informs us of what is in TSP's best interests is a pack of beliefs and perceptions that we don't all share with you. Therefore it's impossible to have a "non-ideological" position.
 
It's been a rather hilarious political spin to position "Independents" as, the ones who care about the region's interests in comparison to "Raiders" and "Defenders", who .. the implication is... don't care about the region's interests. The thing is they ALL, for the most part, are operating on the belief that X and Y and Z are good or bad for the region ... and they ALL hold these beliefs as the truth (but only Defenders are painted as "absolutists"), otherwise, what's the point of holding a belief at all?