Deceit of Defenderism

[OnderKelkia]

Frick your objective response, I wanted some irrational nonsense 

On the contrary, your response was civil minded, and I think we agree on a bit. I just don't like getting lectured on drug dealing by the dealer, is the main point.

You're entitled to your view. I just think it's a bit of a misconception.

Hell, considering I'd view most of the examples you gave as mistaken deployments, maybe you're making us out to be too competent.

Ed: Lexus- the reasonable CC is one of our super secret evil FRA plots. :evil:

The deployment to UKB was certainly not explained to me as a mistake when I contacted the FRA lead for the operation. Rather it was justified, as I showed above, as opposition to imperialism in all its forms (or really, opposition to the LKE wherever it is).

 

[Oliver]

I find it hard that the FRA would 'invade' a LKE region as a mistake...and certainly, new policy from the FRA reflects aggressive behavior. "Preemptive" Defending a strong example

Before you ask HEM what the hell he's talking about, I'm going to jump in here with a quote from TRR's forums.

However, we have recently passed a Rogue Delegacy policy which will allow the FRA cabinet to deploy rangers in regions like TRR if there is a threat of a rogue delegate getting into power. A rogue delegate is defined as "one whose domestic regional policies and actions are characterized by a self-destructive intent in regards to a region, unless these actions or policies are sanctioned by a legitimate authority". "These policies include, but are not limited to; reduction of government, loss of political enfranchisement, denial of freedom of assembly or speech and admin masking on the forums."

So. What do you think about that?

 

[Chin-Chillas]

Frick your objective response, I wanted some irrational nonsense 

On the contrary, your response was civil minded, and I think we agree on a bit. I just don't like getting lectured on drug dealing by the dealer, is the main point.

You're entitled to your view. I just think it's a bit of a misconception.

Hell, considering I'd view most of the examples you gave as mistaken deployments, maybe you're making us out to be too competent.

The Suffolk incident went on for...over a week. I don't think that was a mistaken deployment.

I find it hard that the FRA would 'invade' a LKE region as a mistake...and certainly, new policy from the FRA reflects aggressive behavior. "Preemptive" Defending a strong example.

Whatever you want to blow off as 'accidents' or whatever spin is coming from the war-room, after the concessions you personally have made today, please go back and tell Unibot to shut the fuck up.

I don't know anything about the Suffolk incident myself, so before I can comment I'll have to go and look over the threads.

As for the LKE incident, if it's the instance I think you're talking about I specifically remember it being a mistaken deployment. As far as I remember the region's founder had CTEd, and it appeared a legitimate detag. Once it was clear that the founder belonged to an LKE nation and was a legitimate colony we withdrew.

As for the 'pre-emptive defending' policy, that's yours and TAO's buzzword, not the FRAs. There is no new policy, and the Anatolia incident was some time ago during my term as AC. You're right in asserting that deployment wasn't a mistake. TAO was not a native. He deemed the region 'deadwood' and entered it with the specific intent of griefing it. He used outside WA support to try and accumulate enough influence to ban the remaining natives and kill the region. As far as I'm concerned that represents legitimate grounds for a deployment.

What I have said here isn't some spin from the FRA. I hold no office, have no influence over it's current administration and am these days relatively uninvolved beyond administrating the forum. I'm just a long time FRA member who thinks this latest attack is misinformed.

 

[Oliver]

There is no new policy

What about the Rogue Delegate policy? That's new, isn't it? ^_^

 

[OnderKelkia]

As for the LKE incident, if it's the instance I think you're talking about I specifically remember it being a mistaken deployment. As far as I remember the region's founder had CTEd, and it appeared a legitimate detag. Once it was clear that the founder belonged to an LKE nation and was a legitimate colony we withdrew.

You were ejected, you did not withdraw, and when subsequently contacted, you maintained the validity of the operation.

 

[Chin-Chillas]

The deployment to UKB was certainly not explained to me as a mistake when I contacted the FRA lead for the operation. Rather it was justified, as I showed above, as opposition to imperialism in all its forms (or really, opposition to the LKE wherever it is).

Collatica is my puppet. I haven't denied that the FRA seeks to protect regions from imperialism. At the time of receiving your telegram we were still operating under the assumption that LKE did not legitimately control the founder nation. As I highlighted earlier, considering tactics being employed by raiders we can't exactly rely on them in the field to tell the truth.

 

[HEM]

The deployment to UKB was certainly not explained to me as a mistake when I contacted the FRA lead for the operation. Rather it was justified, as I showed above, as opposition to imperialism in all its forms (or really, opposition to the LKE wherever it is).

Collatica is my puppet. I haven't denied that the FRA seeks to protect regions from imperialism. At the time of receiving your telegram we were still operating under the assumption that LKE did not legitimately control the founder nation. As I highlighted earlier, considering tactics being employed by raiders we can't exactly rely on them in the field to tell the truth.

So you determine the truth without talking to people involved. Under the circumstances that you do hear from the people involved, you discredit it as untrue because you can't trust them?

So how does determining an invasion work? Magic eight ball and a sock puppet?

 

[OnderKelkia]

The deployment to UKB was certainly not explained to me as a mistake when I contacted the FRA lead for the operation. Rather it was justified, as I showed above, as opposition to imperialism in all its forms (or really, opposition to the LKE wherever it is).

Collatica is my puppet. I haven't denied that the FRA seeks to protect regions from imperialism. At the time of receiving your telegram we were still operating under the assumption that LKE did not legitimately control the founder nation. As I highlighted earlier, considering tactics being employed by raiders we can't exactly rely on them in the field to tell the truth.

What do you mean you were operating under the assumption we did not legitimately control the founder nation? You thought we hacked it? Whatever you mean, this could only have been pure speculation and without any evidence to justify it.

What to a reasonable person would have seemed more likely was that you had just violated LKE sovereignty. There was no equivocation in your message, merely a blank refusal to accept the point made, and when you claim to have realised the truth, no apology was made for violating another region's sovereign territory (something which is really inevitable if you go round invading, which is what defending is, plus intellectual dishonesty) when the FRA claims to abhor such methods.

Who are the FRA to judge 'raider' tactics anyway?

 

[Fortana]

Oh s**t. . . The gloves are coming off.

 

[Chin-Chillas]

However, we have recently passed a Rogue Delegacy policy which will allow the FRA cabinet to deploy rangers in regions like TRR if there is a threat of a rogue delegate getting into power. A rogue delegate is defined as "one whose domestic regional policies and actions are characterized by a self-destructive intent in regards to a region, unless these actions or policies are sanctioned by a legitimate authority". "These policies include, but are not limited to; reduction of government, loss of political enfranchisement, denial of freedom of assembly or speech and admin masking on the forums."

So. What do you think about that?

To be fair he's only really given you half the story, or at least hasn't phrased it too well. There are extremely strict rules that follow in that policy in regards to the necessary conditions for FRA Ranger deployment to be possible. There's no mention of a 'threat' of a rogue delegate getting into power. It's for use when a rogue delegate is in power. Then in order for a deployment to take place a request from the legitimate government for intervention must be made, or majority native consent received. Even with either of those conditions being met it requires the cabinet to issue the order itself, which can be revoked by the Regional Assembly at any time.

 

[PASD]

Oh s**t. . . The gloves are coming off.

opkorn:

 

[Chin-Chillas]

So you determine the truth without talking to people involved. Under the circumstances that you do hear from the people involved, you discredit it as untrue because you can't trust them?

LKE has acquired a number colonies through raiding, so yes, we can't rely on them to tell us which are legitimate and which are not.

What do you mean you were operating under the assumption we did not legitimately control the founder nation? You thought we hacked it? Whatever you mean, this could only have been pure speculation and without any evidence to justify it.

What to a reasonable person would have seemed more likely was that you had just violated LKE sovereignty. There was no equivocation in your message, merely a blank refusal to accept the point made, and when you claim to have realised the truth, no apology was made for violating another region's sovereign territory (something which is really inevitable if you go round invading, which is what defending is, plus intellectual dishonesty) when the FRA claims to abhor such methods.

Who are the FRA to judge 'raider' tactics anyway?

As I said, the founder had CTEd and LKE WAs had moved in and taken the delegacy. Until the founder was revived it was not clear it was controlled by LKE. If we had known the founder nation was an LKE puppet do you really think we would have made such an ineffective deployment? To us it appeared you had made the region look vulnerable, like any other LKE raid, precisely so we would deploy and you could take some satisfaction in banning us (making us look like fools, basically), rather than it being considered a violation of LKE sovereignty.

I'm not judging raider tactics. I'm just trying to point out why we can't rely on them to be honest with us in the field.

 

[OnderKelkia]

As I said, the founder had CTEd and LKE WAs had moved in to take the delegacy. Until the founder was revived it was not clear it was controlled by LKE. If we had known the founder nation was an LKE puppet do you really think we would have made such an ineffective deployment? To us it appeared you had made the region look vulnerable precisely so we would deploy and you could take some satisfaction in banning us (making us look like fools, basically), rather than it being considered a violation of LKE sovereignty.

Equally likely, more so in my assessment, is that you believed that the LKE founder nation was dead and was not going to return, especially as UKB, an established region, had a long standing LKE connection beforehand, so decided to seize one of our colonies in order to take action against an enemy and claim it was a legitimate (not that such a thing exists) 'liberation'.

LKE WAs moved in because the person who founded UKB, Lucius (then the LKE Emperor), was away, hence why I was acting as Regent of the LKE. We deployed WA units to our colony when the founder died until Lucius was back and he could revive the founder. Of course, Falconio also had a password to the founder, but it was for use in emergencies, hence why it was not used in the first place to secure the region. Now you are aware of the truth of the matter and that it was in fact a violation of LKE sovereignty, I presume an apology from the FRA will be forthcoming then?

I'm not judging raider tactics. I'm just trying to point out why we can't rely on them to be honest with us in the field.

The FRA should not have, after the event itself had occurred, rejected the LKE's explanation without making any enquiries. In any case, you said:

considering tactics being employed by raiders

Right or wrong, the above is a judgement of 'raider' tactics.

 

[Chin-Chillas]

Equally likely, more so in my assessment, is that you believed that the LKE founder nation was dead and was not going to return, especially as UKB, an established region, had a long standing LKE connection beforehand, so decided to seize one of our colonies in order to take action against an enemy and claim it was a legitimate (not that such a thing exists) 'liberation'.

Now who's spinning.

Now you are aware of the truth of the matter and that it was in fact a violation of LKE sovereignty, I presume an apology from the FRA will be forthcoming then?

As I said, I don't represent the FRA. I hold no office, nor any influence over it's current administration. I am just a long time member who feels this latest attack is misinformed. If you want to try and clear the matter up with the current administration you are absolutely free to do so. However as I've said, I find the belief that the FRA has an overarching ideology based around morality and 'ethical duty' which it uses to justify it's actions as a misconception. As far as my own involvement in the FRA goes, we simply exist to protect our members and founderless regions from griefing, region crashing and imperialism. LKE are notorious region crashers and imperialists, so I wouldn't expect too much.

 

[Mekhet]

Who are the FRA to judge 'raider' tactics anyway?

The irony!

opkorn:

 

[OnderKelkia]

Now who's spinning. tongue.gif

It is an equally viable explanation, from our perspective, for events when compared to the account you have proposed without factual evidence, from your perspective, casting the LKE in a negative light. As for spinning, it is you (I notice at the exact same time as DYP) that has come here to spin the FRA's way out of HEM's damning indictment of the way the FRA conducts itself. You have timed your intervention at the right moment following the argument over the LKE-Cingeta question, having previously been observing this and Rachel Anumia's thread on the FRA, along with other senior FRA members (really controlling eminence grises) that apparently hold no significant office, namely DYP, NC and Cocodian, for a number of days.

As I said, I don't represent the FRA. I hold no office, nor any influence over it's current administration. I am just a long time member who feels this latest attack is misinformed. If you want to try and clear the matter up with the current administration you are absolutely free to do so. However as I've said, I find the belief that the FRA has an overarching ideology based around morality and 'ethical duty' which it uses to justify it's actions as a misconception. As far as my own involvement in the FRA goes, we simply exist to protect our members and founderless regions from griefing, region crashing and imperialism. LKE are notorious region crashers and imperialists, so I wouldn't expect too much.

You are a long time FRA member that has, in an organised fashion, decided to come here and refute HEM's speech. You were also the FRA point for the operation in question and, as you have demonstrated by argument on their behalf here, represent their interests in this matter.

You claim the FRA do not use 'morality' to justify their actions, yet yourself have just cast doubt on the ethics of the LKE, describing it is 'notorious' and saying you 'wouldn't expect too much' simply because it is a region of 'region crashers' and imperialists. The FRA has on numerous occasions sought to portray invaders as immoral and presented themselves as moral guardians coming to the rescue, when they in fact perpetrate violations of regional sovereignty themselves, as this incident demonstrates. They are in fact a politically motivated inter-regional organisation ruled by an elite clique intent upon gathering power for themselves relative to external powers, at the expense of their member-regions, for which defending is mostly a past time, hence why the FRA is so bad at it compared to TITO.

 

[Northern Chittowa]

You have timed your intervention at the right moment following the argument over the LKE-Cingeta question, having previously been observing this and Rachel Anumia's thread on the FRA, along with other senior FRA members (really controlling eminence grises) that apparently hold no significant office, namely DYP, NC and Cocodian, for a number of days.

Hey leave me out of this one. I've purposely stayed out of it because I don't have the time to get into another debate over the validity of your theories, or indeed over the accuracies of this article.

I'm just reading this thread as its an interesting topic.

 

[Chin-Chillas]

I can see this descending into another of your mad conspiracy rant threads. I haven't taken part in these threads until now because I haven't had the chance. My RL commitments have meant I've been working 50+ hour weeks over the last month, which is only easing off now. Who knows why other FRA members have been viewing a thread that directly relates to the FRA, but I'm sure they don't need to justify it to you.

Also, if you think DYP holds any significant position, the joke is all on you.

Ed-

It is an equally viable explanation, from our perspective, for events when compared to the account you have proposed without factual evidence, from your perspective, casting the LKE in a negative light.

As for explanations, it seems equally viable, from my perspective, that the UKB incident was nothing more than an orchestrated attempt by LKE to lure the FRA Rangers into deploying to what appeared to be a founderless region under raider occupation precisely in order to provide them with ammunition in their irrational, unending and ineffective campaign to discredit and fracture the FRA.

 

[HEM]

As for explanations, it seems equally viable, from my perspective, that the UKB incident was nothing more than an orchestrated attempt by LKE to lure the FRA Rangers into deploying to what appeared to be a founderless region under raider occupation precisely in order to provide them with ammunition in their irrational, unending and ineffective campaign to discredit and fracture the FRA.

Perhaps if the FRA avoided the policy of installing their own troops as delegates when active natives were around, this could all be...avoided.

 

[HEM]

I can see this descending into another of your mad conspiracy rant threads.

You mean like Onder's conspiracy that Falconias was a spy?

I give Onder a lot of crap, but he's generally right. Europeians remember all the spies that have come from your organization, and we also remember who caught them.