TSP and the "Independent" Ideology

[Vibrant Coconuts]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Vibrant Coconuts" data-cid="109137" data-time="1385491925">
<div>
 

<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.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Because I'm not a Gameplayer, I tend to use a very restricted definition of Gameplay, as being all about the Invasion game. I'm aware Gameplayers probably see things in more nuanced terms.

 

Not trying to drag things off topic, sorry.

[Sandaoguo]

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.

I really should be pushing the sunshine law right now... You accuse me of revisionism, but the posts in the Cabinet forum exist the same way for me as they do for you. Two Cabinet members explicitly supported renewed relations with the UDL. You, DM, and Rebel-topia were wholly opposed to a treaty, no matter what the terms were. But DM supported recognition and working with the UDL. However, the very first post you wrote in the discussion was, and I quote:
 

TNI is at war with UDL as part of the UIAF. As such, a TSP-UDL treaty is not feasible whilst we are allied with TNI; being allied with both sides in a war would be simply absurd.

You otherwise supported renewed relations. Nobody supported entering into a new treaty (which I also didn't say we did), but there was almost universal acceptance of renewed relations. Myself, you, Kris, and DM all supported it. Escade never said anything, and I don't know what SB would have said if they were in the Cabinet then. That's 4-1 in support, of those who participated in he discussion. So why was nothing ever done? The only thing standing in the way was our relationship with TNI.

But, please, Bel, feel free to ignore an important discussion. There's no reason why the delegate should be involved in having a frank discussion about the position of TSP in gameplay.

[Belschaft]

Glen, the next time you leak from the Cabinet Office expect to lose the ability to see that area.

[Unibot]

 

<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've argued against this in the past -- you can see Paradise Found (Book II -- I believe), for more details. 

 

The context is different with Nazis than Invaders. Most invaders don't invade to compete with defenders -- their actions speak completely against said premise. Invaderism is systematized in NS -- it's not going anywhere: it's in our guides, our FAQ, our regional tags. Even if every Defender stopped (less possible to coordinate than ending the Nazi Hunts), Invasions would continue and the next generations of Invaders wouldn't even care at all whether Defenders did anything or not (a sort of political evolution for ideological survival and persistence). The growth of Invaderism is totally independent of the actions of Defenders, with perhaps the exception of invasions of Invader-Regions -- I think, like with Nazis, the invasions of Invader-Regions fuels the growth of Invaderism. The Empire of Power, for example, has been a recruitment and propaganda point for years by Invaders against Defenders. ^1.

 

Case in point: Defenders aren't doing a helluva lot recently, most of us busy with exams. Invaders are incredibly active and bigger than ever. 

 

Nazism however is not in our guides or our FAQ or our regional tags. It's not systematized in the same way that Invaderism is... when left alone from direct attack (which usually fuels a response) and simply prevented from attacking others, Nazism gets fairly quiet and decentralized. It's only during the heat of the Nazi Hunts do we see guys like Woodhouse and Hesse before him crop up. 

 

_{1. Sometimes people get confused by this argument because they think most defenders defend with the hope of ending invading. Most defenders don't defend to "end" invading -- not because many of them wouldn't want to end invading, but because they know it isn't possible to moderate the activity of people who do what they do for kicks. Defenders defend to help out individual cases of natives in need -- region to region, trying to help where they can without necessarily a (impossible) system-wide goal in mind. Nazis =/= Invaders. Nazis don't just do what they do for kicks (for the most part). A systemic goal of ending or mitigating Nazism is the goal of many Independents and I believe that that goal is by and large possible to implement but not through the use of force -- I think the use of force is counter-productive to that wider systematic goal.Â}

[Sandaoguo]

Glen, the next time you leak from the Cabinet Office expect to lose the ability to see that area.

 

I am a Cabinet member. That is not a security matter, and it is something everybody already knows anyways. You may not like your name attached to it, but it's public knowledge anyways. The Assembly reserves the right to know how the Cabinet is guiding the region, especially when it is making decisions without the Assembly's advice and consent. As the subject matter poses no reasonable threat to the security of the region -- indeed, the only threat at this point, given that everybody already knows the substance of the discussion, is to the reputations of Cabinet members -- and that this information serves the public good, I am exercising my power not only as a Cabinet member, but as the constitutional liaison between the executive and the Assembly. I've unhidden the post.

 

If you want to have this fight, I will have it.

[Southern Bellz]

Unibot, the right of free speech doesn't mean the right to say what you want without criticism. If you say something, everyone has the right to respond to it.

Its pretty amazing that you even argue that you don't have the right to critique the government, when that's all you've been doing in this thread.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Unibot]

Unibot, the right of free speech doesn't mean the right to say what you want without criticism. If you say something, everyone has the right to respond to it. Its pretty amazing that you even argue that you don't have the right to critique the government, when that's all you've been doing in this thread. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

I'd like to say what I want to say without people accusing me of not being a TSPer just because I've been angry at TSP. That's not an attack against our Rights, but our Political Culture of patriotism. 

[Belschaft]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="109146" data-time="1385494846">
<div>
Glen, the next time you leak from the Cabinet Office expect to lose the ability to see that area.

 

I am a Cabinet member. That is not a security matter, and it is something everybody already knows anyways. You may not like your name attached to it, but it's public knowledge anyways. The Assembly reserves the right to know how the Cabinet is guiding the region, especially when it is making decisions without the Assembly's advice and consent. As the subject matter poses no reasonable threat to the security of the region -- indeed, the only threat at this point, given that everybody already knows the substance of the discussion, is to the reputations of Cabinet members -- and that this information serves the public good, I am exercising my power not only as a Cabinet member, but as the constitutional liaison between the executive and the Assembly. I've unhidden the post.

 

If you want to have this fight, I will have it.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Regardless of whether or not the matter is a threat to regional security or not, I cannot and will not tolerate members of the Cabinet leaking information from either the Cabinet Office or the Situation Room. Cabinet discussions are confidential and remain so until such time as they are declassified and moved to a public archive. It is not your place to unilaterally release selected sections of cabinet discussions for your own political purposes - not is this behavior I will allow to occur. I cannot unilaterally remove you from the Cabinet as your position is an elected one, but I can and have removed your ability to access the Cabinet Office; considering your declared intent to continue leaking anything you feel like, I have no other choice.

 

Elections are in five days time. Hopefully this situation will be resolved at that point in time.

[Unibot]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="109148" data-time="1385495821">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="109146" data-time="1385494846">
<div>
Glen, the next time you leak from the Cabinet Office expect to lose the ability to see that area.

 

I am a Cabinet member. That is not a security matter, and it is something everybody already knows anyways. You may not like your name attached to it, but it's public knowledge anyways. The Assembly reserves the right to know how the Cabinet is guiding the region, especially when it is making decisions without the Assembly's advice and consent. As the subject matter poses no reasonable threat to the security of the region -- indeed, the only threat at this point, given that everybody already knows the substance of the discussion, is to the reputations of Cabinet members -- and that this information serves the public good, I am exercising my power not only as a Cabinet member, but as the constitutional liaison between the executive and the Assembly. I've unhidden the post.

 

If you want to have this fight, I will have it.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Regardless of whether or not the matter is a threat to regional security or not, I cannot and will not tolerate members of the Cabinet leaking information from either the Cabinet Office or the Situation Room. Cabinet discussions are confidential and remain so until such time as they are declassified and moved to a public archive. It is not your place to unilaterally release selected sections of cabinet discussions for your own political purposes - not is this behavior I will allow to occur. I cannot unilaterally remove you from the Cabinet as your position is an elected one, but I can and have removed your ability to access the Cabinet Office; considering your declared intent to continue leaking anything you feel like, I have no other choice.

 

Elections are in five days time. Hopefully this situation will be resolved at that point in time.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Nice to see you punishing a whistleblower. >_<

[Belschaft]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="109155" data-time="1385504524">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Sandaoguo" data-cid="109148" data-time="1385495821">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Belschaft" data-cid="109146" data-time="1385494846">
<div>
Glen, the next time you leak from the Cabinet Office expect to lose the ability to see that area.

 

I am a Cabinet member. That is not a security matter, and it is something everybody already knows anyways. You may not like your name attached to it, but it's public knowledge anyways. The Assembly reserves the right to know how the Cabinet is guiding the region, especially when it is making decisions without the Assembly's advice and consent. As the subject matter poses no reasonable threat to the security of the region -- indeed, the only threat at this point, given that everybody already knows the substance of the discussion, is to the reputations of Cabinet members -- and that this information serves the public good, I am exercising my power not only as a Cabinet member, but as the constitutional liaison between the executive and the Assembly. I've unhidden the post.

 

If you want to have this fight, I will have it.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Regardless of whether or not the matter is a threat to regional security or not, I cannot and will not tolerate members of the Cabinet leaking information from either the Cabinet Office or the Situation Room. Cabinet discussions are confidential and remain so until such time as they are declassified and moved to a public archive. It is not your place to unilaterally release selected sections of cabinet discussions for your own political purposes - not is this behavior I will allow to occur. I cannot unilaterally remove you from the Cabinet as your position is an elected one, but I can and have removed your ability to access the Cabinet Office; considering your declared intent to continue leaking anything you feel like, I have no other choice.

 

Elections are in five days time. Hopefully this situation will be resolved at that point in time.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Nice to see you punishing a whistleblower. >_<

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Glen can hardly be called a whistleblower. He chose to breach the confidentiality of Cabinet discussions to further his own political cause; it is his express declaration that he is willing to do so again that forces me to take action to maintain information security and protect the ability of the Cabinet to discuss matters in secret.

[Unibot]

You've been saying for quite some time that TNI-TSP relations don't affect TSP's business, then behind closed doors you made a political decision solely based on what you think TNI would have liked. You've been lying to the public about the influence of TNI on TSP's decision-making -- G-R should have whistleblowed. 

[Belschaft]

You've been saying for quite some time that TNI-TSP relations don't affect TSP's business, then behind closed doors you made a political decision solely based on what you think TNI would have liked. You've been lying to the public about the influence of TNI on TSP's decision-making -- G-R should have whistleblowed. 

Actually, we didn't. The post of mine Glen 'shared' was neither the first or last word on the subject. The proposed UDL-TSP treaty was rejected on a number of different grounds and was most firmly opposed by the Minister of the Army.

[StGeorgie]

A treaty we (the wider region) wouldn't have known about without me.

 

A TSP-UDL treaty would've been worthless anyway. What benefit to TSP would it be beyond potentially lessening the UDL's interest in the fledging Lazarene defender state?

[Belschaft]

A treaty we (the wider region) wouldn't have known about without me.

That was an interesting conversation with Mahaj; "So, apparently there is a TSP-UDL treaty in the works....? Care to tell us about it?"

[Southern Bellz]

Leaking cabinet information shows little respect for the rest of the government. There are things that must be discussed and people often spitball crazier solutions because they believe they are in confidence.

To lose the governments ability to talk together with confidence and in privacy equates a loss of our government's ability to govern.

The fact is, the cabinet doesn't have the ability to pass a treaty. Anything discussed about it its preliminary.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Southern Bellz]

[quote name="Unibot" post="109153" timestamp="1385501515"]
[quote name="Southern Bellz" post="109149" timestamp="1385497949"]
Unibot, the right of free speech doesn't mean the right to say what you want without criticism. If you say something, everyone has the right to respond to it. Its pretty amazing that you even argue that you don't have the right to critique the government, when that's all you've been doing in this thread. Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk[/quote]
I'd like to say what I want to say without people accusing me of not being a TSPer just because I've been angry at TSP. That's not an attack against our Rights, but our Political Culture of patriotism. [/quote]
So you think you should be able to continue to accuse other people of all sorts of hidden agendas but all bets are off if someone accuses you of having one? Give me a break.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Rebel-topia]

How about this...

If you think you can do the job of the MoA/General, and went to take the army in a different direction, then sign on up!! Elections start on Sunday. Let's see where the region stands, and whoever's platform they think it's in the best interest of the region with their vote.

[Sandaoguo]

Leaking cabinet information shows little respect for the rest of the government. There are things that must be discussed and people often spitball crazier solutions because they believe they are in confidence.

And if I had leaked anything that was secret, I would agree. However, the details of that discussion are already public knowledge, and when Belschaft attempts to discredit a fellow Cabinet member by misrepresenting a Cabinet discussion, and that discussion serves the public interest to be disclosed, then it's hardly malicious leaking to let the Assembly know what the Cabinet has been up to. The Cabinet authority arises from the Assembly, as Belschaft is so keen in saying. The Assembly is discussing TSP's independence, and how that position in gameplay has affected our region. It is prudent for the Assembly to know the entire picture, that the Cabinet has been constrained by the ideology to the point where we let the UIAF prevent us from pursuing diplomatic relations with the UDL.

Belschaft is upset because I quoted him, rather than sticking with the vague "The Cabinet thought UIAF relations were more important than UDL relations." The fact is, the region already knew that TSP-UDL relations are on hold because of our alliance with TNI. The Cabinet discussion had nothing to do with the region's security, so the least the Cabinet could do is provide the Assembly with full information. I am a Cabinet member. I am also the Chair of the Assembly. I have the authority and responsibility to do that.

Furthermore, I do not believe Belschaft has the authority to lock Cabinet members out of Cabinet discussions. I'm not going to contest it, because I doubt it would resolved by the time the next Cabinet takes its seat. Fortunately enough, little productive discussion has been or will happen in the Cabinet forums. No matter how unproductive, though, the Assembly does have the right to know what the Cabinet is doing and saying on its behalf, especially when there is no threat to regional security by letting us know.

[Letoilenoir]

This discussion seems to have descended into a squabble about government confidentiality rather than regional policy.

 

Whilst I am sure the details are riveting they seem to be diverting the course of the discussion. Is this what we really want to show to the rest of the world that our own inner disputes will take prevalence over reaching an accord in any decision? 

[Unibot]

This discussion seems to have descended into a squabble about government confidentiality rather than regional policy.

 

Whilst I am sure the details are riveting they seem to be diverting the course of the discussion. Is this what we really want to show to the rest of the world that our own inner disputes will take prevalence over reaching an accord in any decision? 

 

But what if an accord would actually have less value than any of the other options -- what if the problem occurs specifically because Independentism tries to be an accord, but in fact is the option with the least amount of benefit for anyone except a handful of politicians trying to concilidate power? 

 

I believe that's the main question asked in this thread's OP.

[Sandaoguo]

Whilst I am sure the details are riveting they seem to be diverting the course of the discussion. Is this what we really want to show to the rest of the world that our own inner disputes will take prevalence over reaching an accord in any decision? 

 

One of the issues brought up was that, although TSP is nominally independent, our treaties and alliances have constrained our government in such a way that puts us mostly within the raider and imperialist sphere. However, it's difficult for the Assembly to see this, because most discussions about our treaties and alliances have been happening within "classified" Cabinet forums. When the Cabinet discussed a leaked draft of a treaty the UDL was going to propose, the constraints were as stark as they good be, epitomized in Belschaft's first post (which is what I published) that TSP essentially can't be on both sides, because the UIAF was at war with the UDL. Broadly speaking, our alliance with the UIAF (through our treaty with TNI) effectively dictates if and how we interact with defenders.

 

Even though the Cabinet was almost universally in favor of renewed relations, nothing happened in large part because the interests of TNI and the UIAF are valued more than the interests of TSP. Or, perhaps this is the truth of the matter, TSP is not really independent and doesn't want to bring in defenders. Perhaps the long-time leaders within the region are just fine with TSP being allied exclusively with raiders and imperialists, even while nominally proclaiming to be independent.

 

Either way, this is the discussion the Assembly is currently having. It is an existential discussion and the Assembly has the right to know all relevant information. That's why the details of the conversation were released (although they were no secret beforehand). And that's why, when Belschaft misrepresented the secret Cabinet discussion, I exercised my duty and right as a Cabinet member, and the only branch between the Cabinet and the Assembly, to reveal what the Cabinet was doing. Really, the entire discussion should be published, because it poses no security threat to the region, and the Cabinet doesn't get to unilaterally set TSP foreign policy anyways. The Assembly should have been involved in the discussion from the start, and I regret not saying anything about it during the Cabinet discussion. While there was a minor discussion about the leaked treaty, it too suffered from a lack of full information. The Assembly was not told by our delegate that UIAF's war with the UDL precluded us from doing anything with the UDL.

 

That's a serious policy position that the Cabinet shouldn't have been making by itself. It's an important detail we should all know, now that we're discussing TSP's place in gameplay. There are people who erroneously believe that TSP is independent, because they don't know all the details about our foreign policy, because it's being conducting behind closed door for no good reason.

[Letoilenoir]

Whilst I appreciate that there is an issue over the existing ties to other regions, and the subsequent effect that has on our policies. the discussion of how those came about is probably not one to be had in this thread.

 

We are dealing here with the future direction of TSP as an abstract, based on the apparent three competing ideologies dominant in Gameplay, and trying to decide whether any of them "fits" with a consensual opinion of the members of the region. The ability for us to have a civilised discussion with representatives of all three of those paths, along with input  from those of us not fully immersed in the lore of GCR relationships or gameplay itself without descending into a slanging match of who did what to whom  is, I understand, something that TSP should rightfully be proud of.

 

By all means all of us should avoid abdicating our responsibilities, but adopting a blame culture in this environment is not productive to getting a result we can all live with. Only then may it be appropriate to assess how we migrate from our current situation and alliances to the place where we would like to be and with the relationships we would like to have with the rest of NS 

[Sandaoguo]

I don't think it's possible to show how independence has worked out in TSP, while avoiding laying blame and generally sticking to "abstract" discussions. Leaders within TSP made choices that have affected the region's stance in gameplay. We can't ignore the past and not analyze why certain choices were made, and what the consequences of those choices are. There are people here who believe TSP has been independent for years, presumably because they don't know or haven't been paying attention to what's been going on.

[tsunamy]

 

But what if an accord would actually have less value than any of the other options -- what if the problem occurs specifically because Independentism tries to be an accord, but in fact is the option with the least amount of benefit for anyone except a handful of politicians trying to concilidate power?

 

Which politicians would this be directed toward? Because, as I'm seeing it now I see it now, only Bels and SB are arguing in favor of the status quo and G-R is arguing for movement. Otherwise, the discussion is among average citizens. But please, paint the whole discussion with a broad brush.

[DICTATORSHIP OF SURVIVORS]

   Should we break our independent stance and choose side (i.e. going either fully raider or defender?) No, we should not. Choosing a side won`t bring us anymore activity. In fact I believe it will even reduce it simply because people who were interested in it will move to other regions. Instead we should have both sides available like Tsunamy and Sierra Lobo have said. So that everyone can find something they like. Whereas Sandaoguo and Unibot see this as bad thing I see it as a possible strength. Emphasizing more on one side is fine as long as we don`t neglect other side completely. And as QuiteDad suggested maybe we could create sort of South Pacific Guard force that will concentrate on defending. But as I`m not member of NSA I don`t really know how that aspect of game play works in practice.


   As a feeder region we should use that more to our advantage. I agree totally with Brutland & Norden that as a feeder region we should put more efforts in to integrating new members to our community. Because they are future of TSP and resource to our activity. In other words we should make bonds with new players so that they are less likely to leave the region and more likely to be active and participate in community. In QiuetDad`s words; ```We cannot deny that we are a feeder region and ignoring the ``noob`` generates the old ``inner circle`` feelings and has folks moving onward.``.


   At the moment we are doing nothing of sort. New members are left to fend for themselves and only fraction of them will take up the challenge to proceed. I believe that from TSP officials at least Belschaft will disagree with this approach since his point of view is that members should demonstrate activity and show initiative by themselves and officials job is only to concentrate on areas where regular members can`t do anything. View, I don`t share.


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


   As for politics. Even if we politically have linked ourselves more to raider side doesn`t mean we must stick to that side forever and belong ideologically to that side. Hileville provided brief history and with that concept on why we have linked more to that side but still we must come firstly always from our own interest and not to those of others. And simply because there are more raider based regions than defender ones, it`s not excuse to be allied only with raider ones. Like B&N said; ``If not picking a side means that some other regions won`t like to ally with us, that`s their decision. That doesn`t mean that TSP should change for their sake.``. Escade expressed same idea in one of her posts; --``making treaties only for the sake of inclusion of all our players –and not because we as region lean one way or another.``.


   What comes for NSA inactivity. A lot of you have put some sort of blame on its inactivity as a reason why TSP has stayed independent and not switched to either defender or raider side (That is the general vibe I`m getting from reading the posts.). What`s worse that no one is referring to current position of NSA under Southern Bellz leadership. Because it is more active than some of from near past, as I understand to be the case. Thus it`s important to include that in everyone`s considerations talking about armies activity. And one more thing to consider, which SB mentioned, that pretty much all of you do not belong to NSA and thus not necessary are up to date of situation. Myself including.