SPINN Insights: Is this the Sign of Independence's End?

[Unibot]

Lazarus: Is this the Sign of Independence's End?

 

Greetings! What a fascinating month it’s been in NationStates as Lazarus becomes the first Game-Created Region in, somewhere around, five years to hold the official title as a “defender region” – ascribing to the ideology of defending native communities from invasions.

 

As an extension of Lazarus’s change of political theme and cultural to socialism, Chairwoman Harmoneia announced that Lazarus’s new army, The People’s Militia would be defending other regions against invaders – a serious departure from Lazarus’s previous fixation on military neutrality. The People’s Republic also published a document called “The False Independence”, which outlined how the ideology has tied regions down and kept Game-Created Regions inactive and dependent on foreign military aid. This decision has been highly controversial in The South Pacific obviously do to the resemblance of Lazarus's regime to the SPSR and the involvement of Milograd. 

 

SPINN, in its everlasting quest to promote discussion and share other’s opinions, asked major players in The South Pacific their thoughts on Lazarus’s decision to go “Defender” and whether they thought the Independent “brand” was losing steam in NationStates?

 

Belschaft, Delegate:

 

I wish Lazarus the best with their new direction. The Rejected Realms long ago proved that an active choice to go either defender or raider could be effective for a GCR region, and whilst Lazarus currently lacks a military it has a core group of competent players with the relevant experience to build one.

 

I do not consider 'Independence' to be a 'brand'. It can essentially be reduced to three statements; Some regions should be raided; Some regions should be defended; Military actions should have political objectives. I don't think any of these statements is less correct or relevant now than they were a year ago; I can think of some regions that should not be defended, though plenty more that should. Likewise, whilst there are regions that I would like to see raided - in some cases destroyed - there are more where that is not the case. And, finally, I continue to view military action without political objectives as being pointless and unconstructive.

 

It is true that two GCR regions, Osiris and Lazarus, have both recently adopted raider and defender military ideologies. I do not think that this reflects upon the concept of Independence at large; the decisions were both made by small elites without popular consultation or consent; within Osiris, for example, a large number of citizens first found out they were now a raider region when the army started raiding. There are always going to be small R/D elites within the GCR's, and they will be seeking to push the region in their own direction. The question remains whether or not the resultant military activity truly serves the region’s best interests, or is simply an extension of random, non-political R/D - only time will tell.

 

 

Glen-Rhodes, Chair of the Assembly:

 

Lazarus made the bold choice to deviate from the status quo regarding GCR involvement in the R/D game. I congratulate those who made the decision, and of course I'm glad they chose to become a defending region. I'm not sure if this is simply revisionism or if we're truly seeing the beginning of a paradigm shift. We saw Osiris' military go raider, for example, but the region itself maintains a patina of independence. I think if somebody like myself were to suggest that TSP adopt an explicit position in R/D, it would not go over well. So while I think it's good that we're seeing independence lose some of its grip on GCR military politics, there's clearly a lot of evolution that needs to occur in GCR political debate to really see a new paradigm.

 

 

Letoilenoir,  Citizen:

 

To be honest I don't really care for the whole R/D pigeon-holing. The NS milieu is so large, diverse and disparate that one of the GCRs going defender is largely meaningless. If it means that the RD conflict is played out in the GCRs rather than the UCR's then I'm all for it - the GCRs are very much a closed shop anyway, so if fighting is restricted to this arena it means there is a greater chance of the UCR's being left to develop their own paths without the interference of the Ancien Regime.

 

 

Kringalia, Minister of Foreign Affairs:

 

 

I prefer to be cautious and wait to see what Lazarus does with this new stance. Its one thing to read their statements, but the real test I think will be their actual defending and how that improves or worsens their participation levels and, most important, whether it affects other Game Created Regions and their independence policies.

 

What we have seen instead is all but the deactivation of [these independent] militaries, with those independent regions falling into inactivity. We have seen that happen here in TSP, but I think the solution isn’t choosing a side as much as just refocusing our understanding of “independence”. I read “The False Independence” a few hours ago, and while I agree that going either raider or defender can do wonders to increase participation levels, I don’t believe that independence in itself is a death sentence. We need to take advantage of our independence to appeal to both sides and have allies in both. Large regions will sometimes need to raid and other times to defend, and focusing on one or the other prevents us from acquiring valuable skills that we might need in the future.

 

So no, I don’t think that independence is losing stream as a brand. I rather think that we have lost sight of what its true intention should be, and using that to our advantage. It has been often said that GCRs have moved to the sidelines, using their independence to remain out of the R/D game. I agree, but the solution is not, again, to dispose independence, but rather to refocus its meaning.

 

 

Hileville, Former Delegate:

 

I am very skeptical that Lazarus will be able to sustain their new stance.  I do wish them the best of luck and truly hope they can pull it off.  If they can stay active and relevant as a defender army it will be an interesting case study.  I believe over the next several months we are going to see GCR's start shifting more towards a single side of the raider/defender ideology.  An independent stance has most always ended up leading to an inactive army.  I do believe that most are growing tired of not being able to consistently have their region participate in such a major part of the game.

 

 

Escade, Minister of Regional Affairs:

 

I have not been involved with raider\defender aspects of NS gameplay and TSP's "independence" strategy has helped give me a choice in that regard. There should be regions, like TSP, that give residents a choice in the matter instead of lumping them into simplistic binaries of: raider or defender when the two can easily resemble each other from a different perspective.

 

 

It’s very fascinating to see the range of opinions on “Independence” especially in The South Pacific where the issue is so relevant to our own activity; some are claiming “independence” is a failed project, while others are suggesting it simply hasn’t been pursued correctly.  Thank you to all those who responded to SPINN’s questions (due to space, some answers had to be cut or edited down) – we really appreciate your participation!

 

Thanks for reading.