- Pronouns
- he / him / his
Debunking Defenderism
Written by HEM Tiberius
Almost a year ago, I penned an op-ed piece entitled the "Deceit of Defenderism" which was primarily aimed toward exposing the hypocrisy and doublespeak of the Founderless Regions Alliance. While the FRA is still a resistant force in Nationstates, their tyranny of absurdity has found a new rival, the United Defenders League, which has avoided the blunders and inconsistent coherency of the FRA.
However, things are still not well in Nationstates defenderism. For what the UDL lacks in stupid ultimatums and contradictory words v. actions, they make up for with moralistic dogma. The world has seen this before, but the extent and level of such sanctimonious talk is rising.
How true are defender claims of invader "bullyism" and "evil"? When looked at analytically, does the moral mandate of defenderism hold water?
Extremes
The first part of this exploration has to be establishing that both sides of the military spectrum have extremes. Some may contest this from the get-go, but there are certainly regions and individuals that are more gung-ho about their policy than others on their "side".
From the defender's point of view, these would be the invaders who actively seek to "destroy" the region. The invaders who make it their goal to purge, password, and refound the region in their image. Invaders who actively do this would be more extreme than those who go, chill, and leave (sometimes even with the WFE set back). An example of this would be Savaer from Unknown, who once asked me if I "had it in me" to destroy an entire region to prevent it from falling into the hands of the defender organizations.
From the invader's point of view, these would be the defenders who actively pursue an agenda with little regard for consistency in their declared "ideals". In addition, there are also the defenders who actively try to tear down the invader community by calling them petty names, or trying to force inaccurate dogma about the morals of invaders onto the Nationstates world. An example of the former would be the Founderless Regions Alliance (cira 2008-2010 for sure), and an example of the latter would be Unibot and many elements of the UDL.
The first thing one may notice is the differing amount of influence that the extremes have on their respective side. While the bulk of mainstream invaders have conceded ground to avoid ejecting natives, acting civilly, and showing something resembling respect -- the defender side is dominated by those who could be characterized as radical. There are certainly invaders who are extreme -- of that there can be no doubt -- but the defender entities that dare lecture the world community about the evil of invaderism see no existent room to act reasoned themselves.
The First Extreme: Defenders can still invade
Nextly, let's ask, what does invading a region mean? What power is lost by the natives to the invader?
(1) Control over WFE/flag
(2) Control over regional embassies
(3) Control of residency (who can be in the region)
Keenly notice that none of these powers can permanently alter a nation's ability to choose and to take action. Nations and the players behind them are not killed. The residents of Poland could easily found "Poland 2" with no ability to interfere from invaders. Invading -- as a general rule -- does not "destroy communities", it destroys the billboard outside of town that says what name the region had.
Invading is not like forum destroying that wipes out an entire history of a people. 99 times out of 100, it makes an appearance and ends. Just like that.
Indeed, invading can oftentimes revive and restore regions. A key example is in the region SPACE, which was invaded in 2008. The region rallied against Europeia and became a hub of activity -- for a time.
That is not to say invading is motivated by the desire to help regions. The few who make that argument are...not being completely truthful. Invading is motivated either by a general cause of war, or by the self interest of the invading region. Defenders are motivated for the exact same reason, but they do not do us the favor of being as open about their intentions.
Riddle me this: Name a region that was an active bustling center of activity before an invasion, and was then subsequently destroyed by such an invasion. Can you? I cannot. I am sure a handful of such examples exist, just as I am sure that some will provide them.
But what about all the regions destroyed by defending? In 2006, the reviving and active colony of Valhalla was a jewel in the New Inquistion Empire. The Empress Griffin had taken a dead inactive region and restored it to a place of glory. The kind of tale we wish every story ended with in Nationstates. Unfortunately, success leads to envy -- and to hate -- and to invasion.
After their victory at the battle of Iraq, defender forces lead by the Red Liberty Alliance and the Founderless Region Alliance attacked the colony and claimed it for the "natives". This destroyed the growing region, and now it sits as a dead trophy to Yggdrasil and the Goddess Relief Office.
Standing alone, this could be the tragic exception to a longstanding tradition of defender nobility. But destroying the Europeian colony at Old Europe and the Empires of Earth colony at Sufflok (detailed in "The Deceit of Defenderism"), both of which had all shown incredible promise, drew a far more sinister line -- defenders care far more about winning than "doing the right thing".
Even when defenders merely intervene they only exacerbate the conflict. They aren't there offering to "moderate" or "find a solution". They come into the conflict, uninvited, and begin saying and doing anything that strikes their fancy. Usually they aren't invited by the native government, and they are held accountable to such natives as much as invaders are. You often see defenders sidestepping native WA Nations (perhaps even the former delegate) to install one of their own agents. Despite their claims to be working for the region's "best interests" they are intrinsically doing the exact same thing invaders are. Full stop.
Truly, what is the difference between a defense and a raid?
(1) Foreign WAs enter region
(2) Elect a new delegate
(3) Secure region, eject WAs of the other side
(4) Leave after a fashion.
Practically, what is different here? A temporary change in the World Factbook Entry? So the text of a header and a flag is the "moral cause" defenders fight for, and that invaders are evil people for changing? Give me a break.
In addition, if the power of the native delegate is sovereign, then why do many defender organizations remain neutral during conflicts inside the feeder? Wouldn't it likewise be an ideological imperative to intervene on behalf of the native government? Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge have found it worthwhile to invade feeders (The South Pacific) to advance their attempts at power. A blind eye can be turned to ideological purity on such occasions.
And while they tout their horn at sovereignty, defenders are more than eager to violate such sovereignty by surreptitiously invading regions' forums and attempting to sabotage the government from within. These assaults are far more grievous than "invading" a Nationstates region that will 99 times out of 100 be left in fair shape, or even having to merely move to a new region. Indeed, many defender agents boast about their work in "taking down" regions as an inside agent. Indeed, former FRA Arch-Chancellor Falconias frequently regarded the destruction of the Blades of Conquest -- as an inside agent -- his best work.
At the end of his career, plots involving the internal collapse of The New Inquisition and Gatesville as an intelligence agent also came to light (after years of denial). Defenders did not rush to condemn this, to preach about regional sovereignty here. Why? Because they don't give a fly. It doesn't affect their bottom line -- beat invaders. Indeed, it helps it.
As established in the 'Extremes' section, regions that are willing to break with tenets of defenderism to pursue their own agendas are the mainstream. While invaders willing to completely destroy regions to attain victory are the obnoxious minority, those who are willing to infiltrate, invade, and overthrow are most commonly defenders of note.
The Other Extreme: The moralistic condemnations
Falconias once stated, "I truly believe that everytime a region is invaded, a player leaves Nationstates. I want to stop that."
An admirable sentiment, (ignoring the fact that most Blades of Conquest members left NS after he brought that region to their knees *cough*), but what else drives players from Nationstates?
Perhaps directing a mindless drivel of negative commentary and vile remarks toward fellow players will drive members from the game? How many players have left over WFE entry changes and embassy closures? Compare that to how many players have left because of asshattery and unkind things being said. The "moral mandate" drives defenders to not just prevent invasions, but also to try to attack invaders at any soft spot possible. How many times have I been told I belong in "real life" jail? About how I am a lousy person because I invade? How are those remarks acceptable while changing a flag is heinous and evil?
This personal assaults -- these attacks against invaders -- are unjust.
Even if you can explain why you do it...
Conclusion
To conclude, it is obviously clear that the moral mandate of the defender cause is a load of bollocks. Invading is more vandalism and nuisance than a military action. But defenders respond as radically, as militarily, and as aggressively as they can. For all high and mighty they consider themselves, defenders are operating in a radical position of self entitlement.
They believe they can talk about sovereignty, and then infiltrate another region's forums.
They believe they can talk about morality, and then spread nefarious comments and dialogue against invaders.
They believe they can talk about purity, and then usurp delegacies, invade feeders, remove native delegates, destroy invader-built communities.
Yes defenders, you believe you can...But guess what..?
You can't.
This op-ed was written by HEM Tiberius, the author of "Short Title: Bring in the Clowns" and "The Deceit of Defenderism". HEM is a retired Europeian Admiral and a predominate invader advocate.
Any rebuttals to this opinion may be either sent to HEM via PM in Europeia, or telegramed to the nation "E-News Network". All rebuttals will be published if appropriate
Written by HEM Tiberius
Almost a year ago, I penned an op-ed piece entitled the "Deceit of Defenderism" which was primarily aimed toward exposing the hypocrisy and doublespeak of the Founderless Regions Alliance. While the FRA is still a resistant force in Nationstates, their tyranny of absurdity has found a new rival, the United Defenders League, which has avoided the blunders and inconsistent coherency of the FRA.
However, things are still not well in Nationstates defenderism. For what the UDL lacks in stupid ultimatums and contradictory words v. actions, they make up for with moralistic dogma. The world has seen this before, but the extent and level of such sanctimonious talk is rising.
How true are defender claims of invader "bullyism" and "evil"? When looked at analytically, does the moral mandate of defenderism hold water?
Extremes
The first part of this exploration has to be establishing that both sides of the military spectrum have extremes. Some may contest this from the get-go, but there are certainly regions and individuals that are more gung-ho about their policy than others on their "side".
From the defender's point of view, these would be the invaders who actively seek to "destroy" the region. The invaders who make it their goal to purge, password, and refound the region in their image. Invaders who actively do this would be more extreme than those who go, chill, and leave (sometimes even with the WFE set back). An example of this would be Savaer from Unknown, who once asked me if I "had it in me" to destroy an entire region to prevent it from falling into the hands of the defender organizations.
From the invader's point of view, these would be the defenders who actively pursue an agenda with little regard for consistency in their declared "ideals". In addition, there are also the defenders who actively try to tear down the invader community by calling them petty names, or trying to force inaccurate dogma about the morals of invaders onto the Nationstates world. An example of the former would be the Founderless Regions Alliance (cira 2008-2010 for sure), and an example of the latter would be Unibot and many elements of the UDL.
The first thing one may notice is the differing amount of influence that the extremes have on their respective side. While the bulk of mainstream invaders have conceded ground to avoid ejecting natives, acting civilly, and showing something resembling respect -- the defender side is dominated by those who could be characterized as radical. There are certainly invaders who are extreme -- of that there can be no doubt -- but the defender entities that dare lecture the world community about the evil of invaderism see no existent room to act reasoned themselves.
The First Extreme: Defenders can still invade
Nextly, let's ask, what does invading a region mean? What power is lost by the natives to the invader?
(1) Control over WFE/flag
(2) Control over regional embassies
(3) Control of residency (who can be in the region)
Keenly notice that none of these powers can permanently alter a nation's ability to choose and to take action. Nations and the players behind them are not killed. The residents of Poland could easily found "Poland 2" with no ability to interfere from invaders. Invading -- as a general rule -- does not "destroy communities", it destroys the billboard outside of town that says what name the region had.
Invading is not like forum destroying that wipes out an entire history of a people. 99 times out of 100, it makes an appearance and ends. Just like that.
Indeed, invading can oftentimes revive and restore regions. A key example is in the region SPACE, which was invaded in 2008. The region rallied against Europeia and became a hub of activity -- for a time.
That is not to say invading is motivated by the desire to help regions. The few who make that argument are...not being completely truthful. Invading is motivated either by a general cause of war, or by the self interest of the invading region. Defenders are motivated for the exact same reason, but they do not do us the favor of being as open about their intentions.
Riddle me this: Name a region that was an active bustling center of activity before an invasion, and was then subsequently destroyed by such an invasion. Can you? I cannot. I am sure a handful of such examples exist, just as I am sure that some will provide them.
But what about all the regions destroyed by defending? In 2006, the reviving and active colony of Valhalla was a jewel in the New Inquistion Empire. The Empress Griffin had taken a dead inactive region and restored it to a place of glory. The kind of tale we wish every story ended with in Nationstates. Unfortunately, success leads to envy -- and to hate -- and to invasion.
After their victory at the battle of Iraq, defender forces lead by the Red Liberty Alliance and the Founderless Region Alliance attacked the colony and claimed it for the "natives". This destroyed the growing region, and now it sits as a dead trophy to Yggdrasil and the Goddess Relief Office.
Standing alone, this could be the tragic exception to a longstanding tradition of defender nobility. But destroying the Europeian colony at Old Europe and the Empires of Earth colony at Sufflok (detailed in "The Deceit of Defenderism"), both of which had all shown incredible promise, drew a far more sinister line -- defenders care far more about winning than "doing the right thing".
Even when defenders merely intervene they only exacerbate the conflict. They aren't there offering to "moderate" or "find a solution". They come into the conflict, uninvited, and begin saying and doing anything that strikes their fancy. Usually they aren't invited by the native government, and they are held accountable to such natives as much as invaders are. You often see defenders sidestepping native WA Nations (perhaps even the former delegate) to install one of their own agents. Despite their claims to be working for the region's "best interests" they are intrinsically doing the exact same thing invaders are. Full stop.
Truly, what is the difference between a defense and a raid?
(1) Foreign WAs enter region
(2) Elect a new delegate
(3) Secure region, eject WAs of the other side
(4) Leave after a fashion.
Practically, what is different here? A temporary change in the World Factbook Entry? So the text of a header and a flag is the "moral cause" defenders fight for, and that invaders are evil people for changing? Give me a break.
In addition, if the power of the native delegate is sovereign, then why do many defender organizations remain neutral during conflicts inside the feeder? Wouldn't it likewise be an ideological imperative to intervene on behalf of the native government? Even "staunch" defenders such as Sedge have found it worthwhile to invade feeders (The South Pacific) to advance their attempts at power. A blind eye can be turned to ideological purity on such occasions.
And while they tout their horn at sovereignty, defenders are more than eager to violate such sovereignty by surreptitiously invading regions' forums and attempting to sabotage the government from within. These assaults are far more grievous than "invading" a Nationstates region that will 99 times out of 100 be left in fair shape, or even having to merely move to a new region. Indeed, many defender agents boast about their work in "taking down" regions as an inside agent. Indeed, former FRA Arch-Chancellor Falconias frequently regarded the destruction of the Blades of Conquest -- as an inside agent -- his best work.
At the end of his career, plots involving the internal collapse of The New Inquisition and Gatesville as an intelligence agent also came to light (after years of denial). Defenders did not rush to condemn this, to preach about regional sovereignty here. Why? Because they don't give a fly. It doesn't affect their bottom line -- beat invaders. Indeed, it helps it.
As established in the 'Extremes' section, regions that are willing to break with tenets of defenderism to pursue their own agendas are the mainstream. While invaders willing to completely destroy regions to attain victory are the obnoxious minority, those who are willing to infiltrate, invade, and overthrow are most commonly defenders of note.
The Other Extreme: The moralistic condemnations
Falconias once stated, "I truly believe that everytime a region is invaded, a player leaves Nationstates. I want to stop that."
An admirable sentiment, (ignoring the fact that most Blades of Conquest members left NS after he brought that region to their knees *cough*), but what else drives players from Nationstates?
Perhaps directing a mindless drivel of negative commentary and vile remarks toward fellow players will drive members from the game? How many players have left over WFE entry changes and embassy closures? Compare that to how many players have left because of asshattery and unkind things being said. The "moral mandate" drives defenders to not just prevent invasions, but also to try to attack invaders at any soft spot possible. How many times have I been told I belong in "real life" jail? About how I am a lousy person because I invade? How are those remarks acceptable while changing a flag is heinous and evil?
Unibot said:
This personal assaults -- these attacks against invaders -- are unjust.
Unibot said:
Even if you can explain why you do it...
Conclusion
To conclude, it is obviously clear that the moral mandate of the defender cause is a load of bollocks. Invading is more vandalism and nuisance than a military action. But defenders respond as radically, as militarily, and as aggressively as they can. For all high and mighty they consider themselves, defenders are operating in a radical position of self entitlement.
They believe they can talk about sovereignty, and then infiltrate another region's forums.
They believe they can talk about morality, and then spread nefarious comments and dialogue against invaders.
They believe they can talk about purity, and then usurp delegacies, invade feeders, remove native delegates, destroy invader-built communities.
Yes defenders, you believe you can...But guess what..?
You can't.
This op-ed was written by HEM Tiberius, the author of "Short Title: Bring in the Clowns" and "The Deceit of Defenderism". HEM is a retired Europeian Admiral and a predominate invader advocate.
Any rebuttals to this opinion may be either sent to HEM via PM in Europeia, or telegramed to the nation "E-News Network". All rebuttals will be published if appropriate
