TSP and the "Independent" Ideology

[tsunamy]

 

<div>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? 
 

</div>

 

Again no. It's not that raider or defenders don't care about the region's interests, but rather that they care about the ideology above the region's interests. This is what is happening over and over again, by people who can't accept the "Independent" or isolationist ideology.

 

Anyone who is pushing to choose a side should be seen as an absolutist since they are the people forcing this discussion. Again, this seems to have been decided and decided and decided and yet ... here we are.

[Unibot]

Again no. It's not that raider or defenders don't care about the region's interests, but rather that they care about the ideology above the region's interests. This is what is happening over and over again, by people who can't accept the "Independent" or isolationist ideology.

 

No, not all. Most defenders would believe that pursuing a humanitarian agenda is good for a region -- most invaders would believe that invading other regions would be good for TSP. They're not "caring about their ideology above the region". 

 

That's a misunderstanding which is used over and over again to call R/Ders out as "ideologues" versus "independents" who are some how more patriotic -- they're not. They have beliefs in regards to what is better for The South Pacific like anyone else. 

 

What is in the interests of The South Pacific is not as clear and black and white as Independents like to pretend.

 

Defenders and Raiders have different beliefs than Independents in regards to what is good for The South Pacific. We need to debate those beliefs, not turn away from that debate and simply belittle most of the population as "putting their beliefs above the region" and praising another quadrant of the population as "putting their beliefs before the region"; they're not.

 

It's sort of like neoliberalism in Real Life. It's a dominant ideology and for many casual folk it's difficult for them to identify. They know a socialist or a conservative when they hear them. But give them an example of a neoliberal speaking their mind -- it just sounds like "common sense" or "sticking to the facts, instead of bothering with ideology" or "putting the budget before ideology". But neoliberalism is full of beliefs and assumptions -- it's just its dominance clouds its presence as an ideology.   

 

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

[Letoilenoir]

So as ex-chief of the merrymen an organisation which would oppose any invasion against a GGR territory, an invasion,that NSA would be  justified in undertaking by the present state of war, what would a defender organisations do but take the field against the army of TSP?  Your own ideology would be in conflict with the stated aims of the region so what would you present as your argument to adopt your chosen stance? Would you be selective in applying  your values or would you stick to them?

[Unibot]

So as ex-chief of the merrymen an organisation which would oppose any invasion against a GGR territory, an invasion,that NSA would be  justified in undertaking by the present state of war, what would a defender organisations do but take the field against the army of TSP?  Your own ideology would be in conflict with the stated aims of the region so what would you present as your argument to adopt your chosen stance? Would you be selective in applying  your values or would you stick to them?

 

But since I don't believe the region's interests lie in attacking GGR, there isn't a conflict of interests depending on whose perspective is the frame of reference. The "stated aims of the region" are just the beliefs of a few people which could be right or wrong. 

 

Your interpretation relies on the unproven belief that attacking GGR is always in The South Pacific's interests.  In this interpretation, Defenders are just treasonous pigs getting in the way of The South Pacific's interests. But that's just one possibility; the other possibility is The South Pacific's army could be making a major mistake and attacking a community wrongfully -- a Defender would then both be stopping his own region from making a mistake and helping another region. Killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. 

 

Interestingly, it's you, not I who has a black and white interpretation on Interests. You see them as being exactly what Independents say they are and exactly what regions pursue all of the time. I think there's a pretty big open question regarding what is in fact in our region's interests. 

 

---

 

It should be clarified:

 

1. UDLers don't defend Nazis. That's an admittedly inexplicable meta-retcon of our Defender Stance because I didn't want to order someone who is Jewish or Gay etc. to defend a Nazi region. That just seemed cold and kind of heartless. 

 

2. I do think the Nazi Hunts are counter-productive and irrational. In the summer of 2012, Nazism grew in military numbers and organization after the Nazi Hunts. Why? Partly because fighting people elicits a motivation to respond and partly because destroying people's regions centralizes them into newer, more active regions. Everytime a small little dead Nazi region was destroyed or under attack, Captain Woodhouse had another couple of recruits. 

[Letoilenoir]

Actually a better response would have been if you encouraged the NSA to instead assist in thwarting a GGR sponsored invasion on a third region, thus avoiding a raid and instead defending a region. That is flexibility. However I suspect that would be unacceptable to you as you would rather deploy NSA units in your perpetual struggle against TBR etc

[Unibot]

Why would I not want NSA to liberate and defend against GGR? I've done that many times in my career -- and I've found most liberations against GGR are done by defenders alone. Independents are often more interested in raiding GGR (which I believe is counter-productive). 

 

I was assuming in your statement that I had a choice either to defend against NSA or not defend against NSA. I would defend against NSA (assuming UDL didn't have rules contrary to them) in the situation as provided. I would also encourage NSA to help natives -- like defending and liberating against GGR.

 

You seem to want to make this into a false dichotomy, where I either always agree with what NSA does, or I always disagree with what NSA does. 

 

Likewise, you're operating on a bad generalization: Defenders aren't Pro-Nazis and Defenders don't just fight TBR. Both GGR and TBR (and many other people) threaten regions and I fight all of them to try to help the natives. 

[Rebel-topia]

Im sorry if this has been stated already... Ive only made it thru the first half of a page...

 

But I have to make a point to say that, the reason we've made more alliances with the R side of the R/D is that, outside of UDL & 10KI, there arent really any prominent, active Defender regions/Orgs to align ourselves with. And with that being said, I do remember a year and a half or two years ago, trying to get a working alliance with 10KI, and they kinda went limp on anything formal. I wont get into what problems we've had with the UDL, as thats probably been stated 10-fold in this thread.

The fact of the matter is, there are more regions that are Raider-leaning than there are Defender-leaning. That makes it hard to align ourselves with Defenders.

[Hileville]

Anyone who is pushing to choose a side should be seen as an absolutist since they are the people forcing this discussion. Again, this seems to have been decided and decided and decided and yet ... here we are.

 

Im sorry if this has been stated already... Ive only made it thru the first half of a page...

 

But I have to make a point to say that, the reason we've made more alliances with the R side of the R/D is that, outside of UDL & 10KI, there arent really any prominent, active Defender regions/Orgs to align ourselves with. And with that being said, I do remember a year and a half or two years ago, trying to get a working alliance with 10KI, and they kinda went limp on anything formal. I wont get into what problems we've had with the UDL, as thats probably been stated 10-fold in this thread.

The fact of the matter is, there are more regions that are Raider-leaning than there are Defender-leaning. That makes it hard to align ourselves with Defenders.

I think I touched on that exact thing somewhere in this thread.

 

Some history here:

 

TSP started to really get involved in GP after Sedge's coup and during Topid's time as Delegate.  This was IMO because of who came into the region at the time.  This was the last real time we had a big influx of new people not considering how we are developing now.  At one time I remember only having 1 Cabinet member that was not involved with the UDL.  This is where our initial classification as a "UDL puppet" came from.  We had also entered the Modern Pacific Alliance which was a political GP organization.  In 2012 as a Cabinet we rejected that belief and distanced ourselves from the UDL (bearing in mind the issues we had at that time).  We did attempt to align with 10KI and a formal Treaty was rejected for difference of opinions.  The FRA wasn't an option for us and never will be, IMO.  We then started hammering out Treaties with other regions.  This started with Lazarus, Balder, Osiris, and TNI in March.  We then passed a Treaty with TNP in May and Europeia in June.

 

At the time that tilted us more towards raiders.  It is again what was in our best interest.  This also solidified our solid relationships with TNP and Osiris who were both neutral.  This is when our alignment started to change.  We weighed very heavily towards raider/imperialist regions and even had discussions in Cabinet about how to counter that.  Our attempts failed because of who we had already aligned ourselves with.  We have had an army that has been active under both Sheepa and DM which heavily leaned towards raiding with only 1 or two real defense ops.

 

This all has led us to where we are today.  In reality we have not been true independents since 2011 and even then a call into question this classification.  Before the Sedge coup as a region TSP was very inactive and irrelevant in the international community.  After the Sedge coup those involved in the region wanted this to change.  There was an overall feeling that changes needed to be made and we needed to start an Army and change how we were viewed.  The decisions that the different Cabinets have made have led us to where we are today.

 

The reality is that we have already chosen or at least are heavily leaning towards one side of the GP ideological spectrum.  While the greater region may not have wanted this there was no opposition to it as these decisions were being made.  Every Cabinet has had the full support of the Assembly.  During the Great Council when we decided to actually really define what our Army is and should be doing this debate creeped up again.  It wasn't taken seriously because the same hard stance citizens bantered back and forth.  This is sort of what is happening now.  However a lot of half-truths are being thrown around by all the different sides.

 

When I decided to bring this discussion up I figured this is where we would be at.  I didn't expect for the region to come to a consensus or even partially agree on where we are in this whole picture.  For anyone to say that if we pick a side it puts us in danger is crazy.  If we would pick a side we wouldn't be in any more danger than we are today.  I strongly believe that we can build a diverse community while being more aligned to one of the two major sides in this debate.

 

Quite a few of you have stated we need to act "in our own best interests".  What are these?  The only one we are all going to agree on is the defense of our region.  Besides that every single citizen has different interests in mind for the region.  We lack a direction to actually take in GP.  While raiding or defending against the GGR brings a few ops here and there it gets very boring very quickly for nations that want to be involved in the GP community.  IMO, it is not in our interest to train soldiers for them to leave and go to a more active region which aligns with their beliefs.  While the game created this region to be a feeder us knowingly acting as such and just giving nations basic knowledge to succeed in the game and pushing them out of the nest is not sustainable.  It does not allow us to build a true community.  We have to come together and figure out what our regional ideals are.  While some of you may think that is clear it really isn't.

[QuietDad]

Silly question. As a former Staff Sergeant in the United States Marine Corp, I am very aware of testosterone, chest thumping, we're better then you military attitudes. Since most regional armies are relatively small and we seem to have interest in GP, Why can't the region have two branches of military service? In real life the US has the Army/Navy(the Marine Corps is a part of the Navy),Air force to fight wars in foreign countries and The National Guard, Coast Guard, and Air National Guard to defend the country both from foreign threat and internal conflict.

We already have the NSA, which by definition leans towards raider beliefs, because it moves INTO a region. I propose the creation of the SPG or South Pacific Guard which will be tasked of defending TSP. Guidelines could be that the Vice Delegate would need to be no further apart in endorsements to the Delegate than the size and strength of the SPG and the SPG will un-endorse the Vice delegate (and maybe even the delegate) during his term. In case of an invasion, the SPG would quickly endorse the Vice delegate (and the Delegate)  in an attempt to retain control of the region. The endocap would be MUCH greater than the size of the SPG.

We would then have two separate entities and nations could get involved based on their own philosophies and with in each group (NSA/SPG) conversations would steer more towards strategy instead of philosophy flame wars. A potential benefit would also be that instead of 15 people in the NSA because they are raiders and that's the way the NSA is leaning at the moment and 15 defenders not participating because they don't believe in raiding , we would have 30 people in regional military roles, where if a true regional emergency ever really existed could temporarily combine forces in the regions best interest.

This is just a thought ....

[Southern Bellz]

What, specifically, are you advocating?  This debate is becoming impossible without specifics.  I honestly don't even understand your point anymore.  One second you are saying the lack of 'picking a side' is causing us to trouble, then you are saying we already 'picked a side'.  Which is it?  What does 'picking a side' even entail? What do you want to do?  What are we not able to do that you want to do?

 

The reason why people are saying picking a 'side' is dangerous because it seems what people are advocating is throwing a dart at a wall and if it hits defender, we cut off all ties with raiders, and declare ourselves a defender region.  And vise versa, there is not one fully formed idea on how to implement this or what the suggestion even to implement is.

 

How do you know that running Antifa Ops (a mandate that actually has been supported via election), and defending allies isn't enough to keep our army active?  We have successfully aided the TRF with the shutting down of one racist region in a short term, and have two operations in the wings.  Also, our GC is broken.  There is the political nature of our army leader which is a whole slew of issues.  We haven't isolated the variable enough to confidently proclaim that the issue is we do not raid or defend all the time.  

 

I am trying my best as MoA, and if people want a more active army and believe it is the number one goal of the region, how about you free up your WA and enlist in the NSA?  Notice how EVERY person who has complained about NSA activity can't or doesn't participate in operations?  I am sick of the bitching about NSA being inactive by the people who are part of the problem.  The NSA doesn't need more Chiefs, it needs more Indians.  Our issue isn't the lack of targets or opportunities at all.  We just had a successful deployment and have been developing ties with The Red Fleet (which opens up gameplay opportunities for our MoFA).  We have two more operations being planned in the wing, and then I was going to approach the UDL to work on something.  You want an army that makes a splash, it takes more than a week to pull off what I am trying to pull.  You want to sit and bitch about how shitty the army is under me?  Don't expect me to run for re-election if this is the thanks I get for the effort I am putting in.

[Escade]

I like QD's idea.  I think the general TSPer has no idea that TSP is affiliated more with Raiders\Imperialist or Defenders. I've been here for eight months and am just learning about and it and I have little intention to join either group since that particular aspect of GP doesn't interest me.  I'd like to promote other things like regional activities (RP based on the gorgeous map we now have, etc.) and inter-regional activities.  Every player has their own set of interests and expectations.

 

That said, having NSA and another group that represents the defenders would work well for us as region since for the residents it would give them a chance to learn about and be involved with one of two army groups and maybe even at some point try the other sides. 

 

As this is a game, I would hope that at the end of the day it is meant to be enjoyed and also we are not meant to control or order other players but give them the space and opportunity to make their own decisions.

 

My own grievance with the cabinet or other involved players has been in relation to how well we work together and support each other and perhaps instead of worrying about what regions outside of TSP think we could sometimes hang out together

[Hileville]

What, specifically, are you advocating?  This debate is becoming impossible without specifics.  I honestly don't even understand your point anymore.  One second you are saying the lack of 'picking a side' is causing us to trouble, then you are saying we already 'picked a side'.  Which is it?  What does 'picking a side' even entail? What do you want to do?  What are we not able to do that you want to do?

 

The reason why people are saying picking a 'side' is dangerous because it seems what people are advocating is throwing a dart at a wall and if it hits defender, we cut off all ties with raiders, and declare ourselves a defender region.  And vise versa, there is not one fully formed idea on how to implement this or what the suggestion even to implement is.

 

How do you know that running Antifa Ops (a mandate that actually has been supported via election), and defending allies isn't enough to keep our army active?  We have successfully aided the TRF with the shutting down of one racist region in a short term, and have two operations in the wings.  Also, our GC is broken.  There is the political nature of our army leader which is a whole slew of issues.  We haven't isolated the variable enough to confidently proclaim that the issue is we do not raid or defend all the time.  

 

I am trying my best as MoA, and if people want a more active army and believe it is the number one goal of the region, how about you free up your WA and enlist in the NSA?  Notice how EVERY person who has complained about NSA activity can't or doesn't participate in operations?  I am sick of the bitching about NSA being inactive by the people who are part of the problem.  The NSA doesn't need more Chiefs, it needs more Indians.  Our issue isn't the lack of targets or opportunities at all.  We just had a successful deployment and have been developing ties with The Red Fleet (which opens up gameplay opportunities for our MoFA).  We have two more operations being planned in the wing, and then I was going to approach the UDL to work on something.  You want an army that makes a splash, it takes more than a week to pull off what I am trying to pull.  You want to sit and bitch about how shitty the army is under me?  Don't expect me to run for re-election if this is the thanks I get for the effort I am putting in.

The only thing I am trying to point out is we aren't truly independent.  I'm not advocating for us to pick a side as I don't truly align with either side anymore.  We have ran Antifa Ops since the Army was created.  The nations of our Army have gotten bored with it time and time again.  I have stated several times that I'm not really counting your time as MoA as we haven't truly seen enough yet.  Based on past experiences with our Army and these types of ops I am inclined to believe the same thing will happen.  That is completely unfair to you and I get that and apologize for that.  To see the NSA have even a little life in it again is nice.  I also offered in the check in thread my help with planning and triggering ops for the Army I did this before Milo's coup as well with Sheepa when he was MoS.  When I joined the CSS I was very limited in time that I had for NS and said as much.  Now that you have left to be MoA I don't really see me leaving the CSS as an option.  I would love to be WA mobile again.

 

As to QD's idea that is basically what the CSS is.  I don't see having a raider army and a defender army as a viable option with the numbers we currently have.

[Unibot]

 

 

TSP started to really get involved in GP after Sedge's coup and during Topid's time as Delegate.  This was IMO because of who came into the region at the time.  This was the last real time we had a big influx of new people not considering how we are developing now.  At one time I remember only having 1 Cabinet member that was not involved with the UDL.  This is where our initial classification as a "UDL puppet" came from.  We had also entered the Modern Pacific Alliance which was a political GP organization.  In 2012 as a Cabinet we rejected that belief and distanced ourselves from the UDL (bearing in mind the issues we had at that time).  We did attempt to align with 10KI and a formal Treaty was rejected for difference of opinions.  The FRA wasn't an option for us and never will be, IMO.  We then started hammering out Treaties with other regions.  This started with Lazarus, Balder, Osiris, and TNI in March.  We then passed a Treaty with TNP in May and Europeia in June.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px;"> 

At the time that tilted us more towards raiders.  It is again what was in our best interest.  This also solidified our solid relationships with TNP and Osiris who were both neutral.  This is when our alignment started to change.  We weighed very heavily towards raider/imperialist regions and even had discussions in Cabinet about how to counter that.  Our attempts failed because of who we had already aligned ourselves with.  We have had an army that has been active under both Sheepa and DM which heavily leaned towards raiding with only 1 or two real defense ops.

 

This all has led us to where we are today.  In reality we have not been true independents since 2011 and even then a call into question this classification.  Before the Sedge coup as a region TSP was very inactive and irrelevant in the international community.  After the Sedge coup those involved in the region wanted this to change.  There was an overall feeling that changes needed to be made and we needed to start an Army and change how we were viewed.  The decisions that the different Cabinets have made have led us to where we are today.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px;">The reality is that we have already chosen or at least are heavily leaning towards one side of the GP ideological spectrum.  While the greater region may not have wanted this there was no opposition to it as these decisions were being made.  Every Cabinet has had the full support of the Assembly.  During the Great Council when we decided to actually really define what our Army is and should be doing this debate creeped up again.  It wasn't taken seriously because the same hard stance citizens bantered back and forth.  This is sort of what is happening now.  However a lot of half-truths are being thrown around by all the different sides.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px;">When I decided to bring this discussion up I figured this is where we would be at.  I didn't expect for the region to come to a consensus or even partially agree on where we are in this whole picture.  For anyone to say that if we pick a side it puts us in danger is crazy.  If we would pick a side we wouldn't be in any more danger than we are today.  I strongly believe that we can build a diverse community while being more aligned to one of the two major sides in this debate.

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px;"> 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14.44444465637207px;">Quite a few of you have stated we need to act "in our own best interests".  What are these?  The only one we are all going to agree on is the defense of our region.  Besides that every single citizen has different interests in mind for the region.  We lack a direction to actually take in GP.  While raiding or defending against the GGR brings a few ops here and there it gets very boring very quickly for nations that want to be involved in the GP community.  IMO, it is not in our interest to train soldiers for them to leave and go to a more active region which aligns with their beliefs.  While the game created this region to be a feeder us knowingly acting as such and just giving nations basic knowledge to succeed in the game and pushing them out of the nest is not sustainable.  It does not allow us to build a true community.  We have to come together and figure out what our regional ideals are.  While some of you may think that is clear it really isn't.

 

We never agreed to a treaty with UDL -- just a security provision where UDL helped secure TSP during the MoS's unfortunate absence in the Fall of 2011. Relations have been stressed with UDL whenever TSP did something that pitted UDL against TSP ... that's just an obvious problem with a defender org and an actively invading region trying to maintain a diplomatic relationship -- it's also why invader members of TSP encouraged more and more Nazi raids and Communist raids with the hope of causing some diplomatic fireworks between us eventually.

 

10ki was cold to you for one reason: you actively invaded. They're cold to UDL to because they argued UDL had invaders in the organization. 

 

Raider-regions came out of the woodwork to accept TSP and get treaties because they love to tie feeders down with treaties. But are they particularly good allies? They're just there .. in the background. They don't conflict with TSP because TSP doesn't defend. But they don't do very much with TSP. TSP won't ever be a full ally with raider-regions until it throws off the "independent" label.

 

Independence and Neutrality just ensures TSP has troubled relations with Defenders and cold relations with Raiders. It's a brilliant way to keep the region uninvolved with the majority of the affairs in Military Gameplay. 

[QuietDad]

     It's hard to judge what could be, based on what is. As much as I don't see a real increase in the NSA, I see a bunch of people getting involved with the SPG in that all they really have to do is unendorse/endorse swap every coupe of months. It starts the process of getting people off the bench and into the game. I, for one, have fought the temptation to leave the NSA as my WA influence plummets having to leave the region for missions that I have a hard time feeling "Why are we here?" but as a soldier I wil do what is asked without question.

    It is VERY obvious there are three camps involved with this discussion and the only way to resolve it, the way it's going, is for two of those camps to say "Oh, All right, I give up" because your never going to get ANYONE in this region or under the age of 35 to utter the sentence "I see you point" and mean it.

    Once again, it's just an idea that on the surface pleases everyone. Everyone gets there own sandbox to play in and doesn't have to share. As for the "too many chiefs" part of it. Both groups are lead by a general and report to the MoA or General of the Army and as such, all three generals become The Department Of Defense, which is no more or less then the 3 general idea that's floating around.

[Sandaoguo]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="109052" data-time="1385396128">
<div>
 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.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Yes, it definitely affects everybody in the region, even if they don't care one bit about gameplay. But it's not only choosing raiding or defending that "would earn the ire of the other side." It's really quite obvious that even being independent has earned (or has the potential to earn) the ire of both sides. As said before, we go to every length -- even refraining from pursuing diplomatic relations that the Cabinet almost unanimously wants to pursue -- to avoid angering the UIAF. We've pissed off the UDL for raiding. We'd piss off raiders for defending. Independence is a choice that has consequences, despite many peoples' belief that independence is the choice you make when you want to avoid them.

 

In your posts, you seem to conflate not being involved in gameplay with choosing independence. The two are not the same thing, and TSP has chosen independence. That choice is an ideological position that puts TSP well within the realm of gameplay politics. It's possible for a person to not care about gameplay, but when they're making a decision about TSP's stance within gameplay, then that choice is guided by an ideological position, even if you don't consider yourself ideological. They may not be ideologues and partisans, but the belief that TSP should raid or defend when it is in the regional interests is an ideological position. It is a set of beliefs and values that have guided a policy decision, therefore it is an ideology.

 

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

[Unibot]

 

We've pissed off the UDL for raiding

 
I'll point out that UDL always wanted to try to find as professional of a solution to TSP and UDL disagreeing on a few issues and cases here or there. Funny thing is the Europeia-TSP treaty explictly allows TSP and Europeia to conflict militarily (and encourages both sides to let bygones be bygones) ... but when the UDL conflicted with TSP militarily, oftentimes TSP came to the UDL looking for an explanation because we interferred in a TSP raid (I'm recalling a few incidents like "Communist Beach"). Why TSP held UDL to a tougher standard of relations than its own treatied allies is beyond me -- I remember calling TSP an ally once and Bel and Hileville snapped back and said we were a "friend" or something without a treaty... then when the Ravania thing hit, TSP called us out as an "ally who betrayed the trust of another ally" and stuff. We were just allies when TSP-UDL conflicted and "friends" when UDL wanted to work with TSP. 
 
If UDL were ever to work more with TSP, I would hope it would be done on more equal footing. Because I think UDL always wanted to be allies, not TSP's defender "friends". I can't speak for the Chiefs in the UDL, however; I know they're keen to work with TSP again (and TSP's cabinet has held back because it wants to keep UIAF relations friendly). Given bad experiences, I'd probably tell them to get ink signed before they started keenly getting into a relationship with TSP again because I found it to be a bite in the ass when Bel or whoever did the math and found that they could screw so and so for a few extra political points before breakfast. UDL was not treated like any other "ally" with TSP; UDL was TSP's whipping boy. 
 
And as an extra-disclaimer: no, I'm not UDL. I'm more like the crazy senior defender they wheel out for autographs -- my opinions do not reflect the governing council of defenders. Hell, my opinion differed from the rest of the UDL's chiefs even when I was Chief. I wanted to tell TSP to go f**k itself many times over again. Getting told by Hileville that "UDL should have just not defended a region -- because TSP was an ally" was a showing of how far out of depth TSP was as a diplomatic partner -- you guys regularly refused to call us allies and thought we'd turn a blind eye to our own Scarlet Pledges for you. I've only turned a blind eye to the Pledge once and I've regret it ever since. I certainly wouldn't have done so because Hileville fluttered his eyes at me and told me were "allies" now (when a few days before we were "friends"). That was just plain insulting. 

[Belschaft]

This argument is getting exceedingly tedious, even more so than normal due to the sheer amount of revisionism Unibot and Glen are engaging in.

 

To start with, I am going to literally slap the next person who conflates Imperialists with Raiders. Describing any of the UIAF member regions as raiders is inaccurate politicized nonsense, as anyone who pays even a small amount of attention to GP should be aware of. Next, Unibot's representations of UDL-TSP relations are more than a little fanciful, and continues to display the baseless argument that successive TSP governments merely pretend to be annoyed at the UDL for political purposes - this being particularly absurd if we remember that during most of 2012 (the period primarily in question) TSP's governments were led by high ranking UDL members. Considering his own actions over the years the idea that the UDL sought 'professional' solutions to disputes is also an amusing one.

 

I have to say I'm particularly impressed by the mathematical skills of Glen, who has come up with a way to convert a 4-1 majority against pursuing a course of action in cabinet - in this case looking further into a proposed treaty from UDL - into 'almost unanimous' support for the idea. If you didn't have access to the Cabinet Office, and were going simply by his extremely inaccurate and select leaks of information from it, you'd almost think most members of it liked the idea of a UDL treaty, rather than it being rejected by all Cabinet members involved in the discussion aside from Glen. His declaration that being Independent has/is earning us the ire of both raiders and defenders is also an interesting one, given that I am unaware of any objections whatsoever from raider or imperialist factions - in fact, the only ire I've ever seen on this issue comes from a small group of UDL members. The FRA doesn't really care, and TITO is too self absorbed to comment.

 

I haven't even bothered to read even the entire last page of this dispute, and from what I have read I have no intention of doing so. This thread is so full of bullshit - most of it coming from two people - that I find myself looking round for a matador. Someone poke me when people stop making stuff up around here.

[Escade]

OMG Bel is here!  Hi Bel, we miss you on IRC

[Kris Kringle]

I honestly don't have the slightest intention of participating in this increasingly heated discussion. I will say though that let's not give the impression that the Cabinet either supported or rejected that UDL treaty, when the conversation just never actually finished and some members of the Cabinet didn't even have the chance to post or state their positions. Saying that most of the Cabinet except for Glen rejected the proposed treaty is just as false as saying that it supported it.

[tsunamy]

<div> 
And as an extra-disclaimer: no, I'm not UDL. I'm more like the crazy senior defender they wheel out for autographs -- my opinions do not reflect the governing council of defenders. Hell, my opinion differed from the rest of the UDL's chiefs even when I was Chief. I wanted to tell TSP to go f**k itself many times over again. Getting told by Hileville that "UDL should have just not defended a region -- because TSP was an ally" was a showing of how far out of depth TSP was as a diplomatic partner -- you guys regularly refused to call us allies and thought we'd turn a blind eye to our own Scarlet Pledges for you. I've only turned a blind eye to the Pledge once and I've regret it ever since. I certainly wouldn't have done so because Hileville fluttered his eyes at me and told me were "allies" now (when a few days before we were "friends"). That was just plain insulting. 
 

</div>

 

Excuse me if this is blunt, but then why the hell are you still here?  If you wanted to tell us to go eff ourselves, then how do you have the balls to come tell us what we should be doing?

 

This is what I'm talking about putting ideology over the region. You, Unibot, don't give a damn about the region and just posted as much. Why, now, should we listen to a word you say?

[Unibot]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unibot" data-cid="109096" data-time="1385438198">
<div>
<div> 
And as an extra-disclaimer: no, I'm not UDL. I'm more like the crazy senior defender they wheel out for autographs -- my opinions do not reflect the governing council of defenders. Hell, my opinion differed from the rest of the UDL's chiefs even when I was Chief. I wanted to tell TSP to go f**k itself many times over again. Getting told by Hileville that "UDL should have just not defended a region -- because TSP was an ally" was a showing of how far out of depth TSP was as a diplomatic partner -- you guys regularly refused to call us allies and thought we'd turn a blind eye to our own Scarlet Pledges for you. I've only turned a blind eye to the Pledge once and I've regret it ever since. I certainly wouldn't have done so because Hileville fluttered his eyes at me and told me were "allies" now (when a few days before we were "friends"). That was just plain insulting. 
 

</div>

 

Excuse me if this is blunt, but then why the hell are you still here?  If you wanted to tell us to go eff ourselves, then how do you have the balls to come tell us what we should be doing?

 

This is what I'm talking about putting ideology over the region. You, Unibot, don't give a damn about the region and just posted as much. Why, now, should we listen to a word you say?

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

I like the region quite a bit. I've been frustrated by its actions and its political culture for a long time. 

 

I certainly don't like how we are all of the time. I have the balls to come tell you what you should be doing because I've never been much of a coward. I believe TSP should be a free, fair and democratic region that lends itself to a humanitarian spirit, I think that's how we all kind of want TSP to be.

 

But I think TSP also is the exact opposite of how it wants to be sometimes. I've found it to be unfriendly, extremely calculative, very very bad diplomatically, hypocritical, petty, corrupt, warmongering, downright careless and irresponsible .. all depending on who is calling the shots. I want TSP to be a better region, that's why I'm here now and speaking my mind -- I've spoken before here as a citizen and said before that I think TSP isn't the good neighbor interregionally that we want it to be... I've also said before that I think TSP isn't the land of free speech that we want it to be. Why? I think it's the community's commitment to patriotism that tries to deny criticism of the actions of the government and the political culture.  

[Letoilenoir]

 

 

 I think that's how we all kind of want TSP to be.

 

 

 

And therein lies the problem - what YOU think is a product of your own ideology and belief system.

It is not a view that is necessarily shared by the rest of the region.

That is not to say it is wrong, just that your view is not the only one.

Other people have opinions that may be just as valid as yours, hence the reason for this debate

[HEM]

 

 

2. I do think the Nazi Hunts are counter-productive and irrational. In the summer of 2012, Nazism grew in military numbers and organization after the Nazi Hunts. Why? Partly because fighting people elicits a motivation to respond and partly because destroying people's regions centralizes them into newer, more active regions. Everytime a small little dead Nazi region was destroyed or under attack, Captain Woodhouse had another couple of recruits. 

 

Okay, then why not use that logic in regards to invaderism? People get more excited to raid when you react and try to defend. Just...do nothing, and eventually raiders will get bored and leave NS.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 

 

2. I do think the Nazi Hunts are counter-productive and irrational. In the summer of 2012, Nazism grew in military numbers and organization after the Nazi Hunts. Why? Partly because fighting people elicits a motivation to respond and partly because destroying people's regions centralizes them into newer, more active regions. Everytime a small little dead Nazi region was destroyed or under attack, Captain Woodhouse had another couple of recruits. 

 

Okay, then why not use that logic in regards to invaderism? People get more excited to raid when you react and try to defend. Just...do nothing, and eventually raiders will get bored and leave NS.

 


</blockquote>
I tend to agree...

 

I know mine is one small, new voice, but I will say that when choosing a Feeder to hang out in, I specifically chose TSP because I thought (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) it was the least involved in Gameplay. As I said, I didn't realize this constituted an "Independentist ideology", but from my perspective at least it would be a shame if this were abandoned, especially when things like B&N's new map promise so much for activity in other areas.

[HEM]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="109135" data-time="1385488563">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 

 

2. I do think the Nazi Hunts are counter-productive and irrational. In the summer of 2012, Nazism grew in military numbers and organization after the Nazi Hunts. Why? Partly because fighting people elicits a motivation to respond and partly because destroying people's regions centralizes them into newer, more active regions. Everytime a small little dead Nazi region was destroyed or under attack, Captain Woodhouse had another couple of recruits. 

 

Okay, then why not use that logic in regards to invaderism? People get more excited to raid when you react and try to defend. Just...do nothing, and eventually raiders will get bored and leave NS.

 


</blockquote>
I tend to agree...

 

I know mine is one small, new voice, but I will say that when choosing a Feeder to hang out in, I specifically chose TSP because I thought (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) it was the least involved in Gameplay. As I said, I didn't realize this constituted an "Independentist ideology", but from my perspective at least it would be a shame if this were abandoned, especially when things like B&N's new map promise so much for activity in other areas.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

I'm curious as to how you would define gameplay, just to make sure we are both on the same page.

 

It's doubtful any Game created region would ever be disengaged from gameplay, because of the important role GCRs play in inter regional politics. I think the ideal region, however, would have RP elements and gameplay elements with people being able to participate in each as little or as much as they like.