Debunking Defenderism

[North East Somerset]

Not to get distracted by the FRA-TNI issue, I think this article makes a fine argument. But not a complex one, not an astonishing revelation, to me at least. In fact, if we really tried, I believe we could whittle it down to an even more concise and powerful argument. Because the principle is quite simple: defending is based on a moral fantasy, not reality. The notion that raiding causes communities material damage is rubbish. And it will always be rubbish. No substantive community has ever been destroyed by raiding. Ever.

And then all around us we have the true evils of things like forum destruction and defenders take no leadership on these issues. They barely raise an eyebrow when a raider forum gets deleted. It's okay, cause it's not 'one of them'. And then you see the massive difference in the reaction when one of their friends gets raided, and some random region. All hands to deck for the former, and the latter oft gets totally ignored even when it would be easy to liberate. And so the true hypocrisy of defenderism becomes all very apparent. Very few of them really genuinely care about regions being invaded and find this so offensive that they morally feel obliged to take action. Otherwise they would be shouting their heads off about forum destruction, and acting equally with regards to all raids. Maybe some of the lackeys at the bottom that have bought the moral arguments, but the actions show few of the people actually making the decisions do.

And so the moral argument has no substance because there is no consistency to it's application. And even today we have defenders, particularly those involved in this new UDL, making public accusations that raiders are bullies. Yes, thats the language they use, its on the record in the NS forums. HEM could have chosen much more powerful quotes from the Leader of the UDL, Unibot, than he actually did. (And more modern and relevant ones than Falconias). In essence though what we have is defenders telling us, and by us I mean anyone that raids - whether that is raiding orgs like TBH, or fully fledged political regions like Europeia - that we are bullies. Frankly, how insulting is that? Fairly so. And there isn't an ounce of truth to it.

How can they be whiter than white, when they themselves are effectively being bullies by making these kind of absurd allegations. On top of the issue of the uneven application of their "moral" feelings. We now have the revelation of their hatred towards raiders overwhelming their apparent "good will towards all men". It shows how deep that good will truly runs, eh - skin deep.

And yet the moral argument is repeated again and again. These people go around lecturing the rest of Nationstates on democracy, whilst residing in organisations that have barely a hint of democratic values. Lecturing people on how allegedly changing tags is bullying, whilst actually offending people causing much more serious personal 'injury'.

The whole defender ethos to build a moral case has over the past year been pushed harder and harder by a group of people absolutely desperate to use it to recruit more members. And the harder they push it, the more they erode it through this hypocrisy. It's falling apart now, as the harder they push the more the truth is exposed about how their priority is to "beat" raiders, not to help people.

So it turns out the truth nowadays is there is nothing particularly honourable about defending - if anything you are siding with an increasingly Cult like military focussed faction who are primarily interested in centralising power for themselves personally, with a made up moral agenda, and thus are eroding the independence and sovereignty of regions who are the true building blocks of the democratic regional forum based Nationstates community.

Where does it end? Will moderate defenders continue to make excuses for their Leadership to have free reign at hypocrisy? Or is the defender world going to get it's act together and clamp down on this? You can make the "we are helpful" argument without being asses about it like what we've seen in recent months. It will just drive more regions and communities, to side with raiders. And whilst you may continue to get some individuals flocking to your ranks to personally profit from the way you do business - any kind of moralistically based argument will look increasingly absurd. And annoying. And that means people leaving defenderism, or possibly the whole game. Which is a great shame.

 

[Jahka]

But wouldn't you say TNI being annoyed about a disputed raid on Valhalla is also hypocritical?

TNI is within their rights to be upset about an attack on them, just alike anyone would be within their rights if a Raiding force, rather than a 'defending' one would.

If we attacked a 'colony' (as it were) of some large, neutral region (not that those really exist, as far as I can tell) or an active, smaller one, they would be within their rights to be upset about it and prosecute a war against us. Even if the attack was a single-update long raid that followed all the rules for ethical raiding.

Vahalla was a colony of TNI like the Congo was Belgium's colony in Africa. They didn't create Vahalla, it was an imperial holding.


Also, I agree with NES in the fact that some of your quotes HEM could have been more powerful by people actually well-liked in the defender community. Falconias is no more a symbol of defenderism than he is of Europeia. (just switch his label from former-Chancellor to former-President)

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I'm not sure I agree 100% with your final paragraph, but the whole speech/thing I agree with in sentiment and for the most part.

 

[HEM]

But wouldn't you say TNI being annoyed about a disputed raid on Valhalla is also hypocritical?

TNI is within their rights to be upset about an attack on them, just alike anyone would be within their rights if a Raiding force, rather than a 'defending' one would.

If we attacked a 'colony' (as it were) of some large, neutral region (not that those really exist, as far as I can tell) or an active, smaller one, they would be within their rights to be upset about it and prosecute a war against us. Even if the attack was a single-update long raid that followed all the rules for ethical raiding.

Vahalla was a colony of TNI like the Congo was Belgium's colony in Africa. They didn't create Vahalla, it was an imperial holding.


Also, I agree with NES in the fact that some of your quotes HEM could have been more powerful by people actually well-liked in the defender community. Falconias is no more a symbol of defenderism than he is of Europeia. (just switch his label from former-Chancellor to former-President)

I could have provided "evidence" of these moralistic attacks, but I figured everyone was already well familiar with them.

 

[HEM]

So, although it's not exactly the same, you would agree it would be within the FRA's rights to attack TNI if TNI attacks an FRA Member Region? Not saying they would, but it would be within their rights?

If there is a declared war. But if not, the FRA is breaking their creed and becoming their enemy in order to beat them.

 

[Lethen]

An interesting and illuminating read. If only we could spread this word to the NS community at large. Shame that it would be buried under a wave of defender rhetoric.

 

[HEM]

An interesting and illuminating read. If only we could spread this word to the NS community at large. Shame that it would be buried under a wave of defender rhetoric.

It is on the NS forum.

 

[Jahka]

I could have provided "evidence" of these moralistic attacks, but I figured everyone was already well familiar with them.

I never claimed I supported attacking Vahalla or anything like that. Overall, I agree with you. I am not a moralistic defender. :hai:

However, the rhetoric coming from TNI about Vahalla is often misleading.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Raiders get to tag WFEs and wreak a little havoc, and defenders get to ... wait, what do they get? Oh yes, a feeling of moral superiority, that they're fighting for some greater good.

Is that feeling of moral superiority objectively ridiculous? Of course it is. But so is us getting bent about it. It's a game. The extremists (on both sides) are the folks who forget it's a game and destroy or vandalize others' property (i.e., forum destruction, spamming, etc.). People who are willing to associate with Nazis to win a game are extremists too in my book.

 

[George Cromartie]

The following is a formal rebuttal from Oliver the Mediocre, who requested it being posted here.

Defenders: Far From Perfect (But At Least They’re Trying)

Alright, some folks might know me as a former invader, former-ish Defender (not actively defending but still one at heart), current fixture in Osiris, and general all-around reasonable dude.

Some of you might know me as the boogeyman. It’s okay, these things happen, and I don’t hold it against you.

HEM posted an interesting article which claims to debunk defenderism; a lofty goal, but certainly not one I haven’t seen attempted before (or even attempted myself). I won’t summarize the article at length (I assume you can read.. if not.. you won’t know what I’m saying..), but it suggests on the tired old line that Defenders are not as morally upright as they claim, and that they fail to uphold their own high standards of morality.

This is the truth.

It shouldn’t be a shocking truth, though; everybody fails to meet their own lofty standards from time to time. Human beings are imperfect (last I checked), overzealous, far too convinced of their own righteousness, and willing to skirt the truth in order to win.

Please note that I said “human beings,” and not “Defenders”. It’s not as though the Defenders have a monopoly on fallibility. Moderators in the game have a rather extensive system of review if somebody believes the moderators have done wrong. Governments have checks and balances, societies have laws.. you get the picture. We cannot assume that someone will be perfect all the time.

It gets a lot easier, mind you, to stay within the realm of your personal moral standards when they aren’t precisely stringent. If the main argument against Defenders is that they set very high moral standards for themselves and fail.. what exactly does that say about Invaders?

I’m not saying that Defenders aren’t preachy and moralistic; hell, even I wish Unibot would shut up sometimes (and I used to be in the UDL).. but they’re attempting to be moral, and contrary to the popular invader belief, they really do actually care about the regions they’re trying, in the best way they know how, to protect.

Some of them just want to win, sure, and I’m not a fan of any of them, but the vast majority of them, when they do something ridiculously, foolishly flawed, are doing it because they think it’s the best thing they can do under the circumstances. They are attempting to do what they believe is right, even when the conception of justice they are guided by is sometimes flawed. How many Invaders can claim that they are doing what they think is morally right? Morality rarely, if ever, even enters the question.

In Monkey Island, years and years ago, there was a raid, and the raid was bad enough that one of the natives feared for the safety of his region. He feared so much that he created I think roughly twenty puppets (Mousebumples can correct me as to the numbers), and joined them all into the World Assembly near update time to restore the native delegate to power. He was subsequently ejected and banned from the World Assembly for life (as is correct, under the rules). If the control over the WFE and Flag, the control over Embassies, and the control over Residency is so very meaningless, why on earth would a rational person do such a thing?

When I invaded and attempted to grief Land of the Muse, roughly a year ago now, natives were deleted for posting personal information about the real life identity of Heras Savaer on the regional message board, and for posting hateful messages there. Ironically enough, this was what eventually broke my spirit for raiding. I kept asking myself why they would do something like that over some lines of computer code.

The reason is that the natives, when they are present, actually do care. And while the Defenders may not be perfect paragons of morality, when they attempt to defend those natives, they are doing it in no small part because they care.

What do the invaders care about? What morality guides invaders? I’d honestly love to know, because I can’t find much evidence of it myself. So whatever I failed to learn as an invader, please teach me, so I can learn.

 

[Rach]

Responses to Oliver:

Durk/Montana Max

The striking difference between invaders and defenders I believe is that invaders recognize a hard IC/OOC line while defenders do not. As in the cases of Monkey Island and Land of the Muse the players behind the native nations often become agitated and indeed outraged in an out of character, real life sense. That is their prerogative but frankly it won't stop me from playing the game of Nationstates as I please.

I suppose an analogous situation would be the Stanley Cup finals last year. The Canucks played the Bruins in the game of hockey and lost. Vancouver fans took to the streets and rioted. Surely however this should not stop the Bruins from playing hockey well.

I play the game to have fun and not for some bizarre out of character moral crusade; I for one do not get OOC emotional over in-game actions. I am not going to change the way I play because some whiny, less skilled players get butthurt over a game

My own Response

It's no use crying over spilled milk...

I think one of the big differences between most raiders and defenders is their perspective on natives. No one is denying that people can care about their region, but the belief that because they can care so much, that it makes it morally right to defend them is not one that I hold. I once started out in a region where all I did was answer issues and there was no gameplay perspective, if someone had destroyed that region I would have looked upon it as a new opportunity to start anew. People care way too much about things that they really shouldn't, for example, this game itself.

We all get too attached to things we shouldn't, in Europeia for example there was this NSer who quit the region because we wouldn't change our forums to ZB. The moralistic arguments by defenders, make it seems like we should care about things that happen in a game (not something we should care -that- much to begin with) like we do about RL issues and tragedies. Your argument boils down to (with my perspective) that because people care too much about something that really is trivial, that it makes it ones moral duty to defend them. It's an easy trap to fall into.

Sure, it's a nice thing to believe in and I'm sure it makes defenders feel warm and fuzzy inside. But the fact is that we're playing a game and to care -that- much, is not really... real.

Wow, Durk was faster than me with an even better post (since it highlighted IC/OOC)

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I agree with Durk and Rachel there.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Oliver's anecdote about Land of the Muse is a terrific illustration of my definition of "extremism" -- an extremist is someone who forgets that this is only a game.

Ironically, Oliver draws the exact opposite conclusion from that story as I do. For me, the story proves that extremists reside on all sides, and should be resisted by all decent people. It is striking how ill-developed the defenders' thinking is on this issue.

 

[Henry]

So, those standing on a moral high ground are often times as bad as the people they condemn? -whistles innocently-

Really good and thoughtful piece, HEM.

I have to disagree with Ollie, because this does kind of debunk the myths of defenderism that many defenders have taken to heart. I say 'kind-of' because there will always be those people who believe with blind-faith intensity that what they do is right; and perhaps on some part they are right; if everything happens for a reason.

I agree with Skizzy that extremists rest on all sides and this is something we all need to remember in real life as well. Extremists make it hard on everyone else to be taken for what they are instead of the actions of the few, or of the majority tyrant. (Grub)

I think the biggest difference between raiders and defenders is simply that raiders have less to worry about. They go in, attack a region and take over. All they have to worry about is if the defenders are on their tails. If not, they have a full twelve hours to do with the region as they please; what they please usually entails changing the WFE to something they view to be witty (I have always tried to preserve the original WFE and give it back to the natives in a telegram or on their RMB); and then they're gone as quickly as they came.

Defenders, on the other hand; have to catch up with raiders; think outside of the parameters that they would normally think in. They don't bother to try to get the entire raider viewpoint; just enough to think of when or where they will attack next. When they do find a region being targeted and decide to move in; they have to be certain that it is the correct day; region; etc. or they look like fools. They don't like looking like fools and who can blame them? If they're successful, they will have to stay in said region for a long as suspicion is cast toward the return of invaders to that region. (this has been reduced to merely watching due to raider habits as well as defender conservatism.)

Defenders also have to justify everything they do to remain the good guys, because they just can't possibly be on the same level as the raiders. If they mess up at all; say that their actions did directly cause the death of a region; they have to have some way of blaming it on the raiders because they just can't accept the fact that their moral high ground is flawed. Invaders don't have to worry about that. They have no moral high ground when it comes to invasion.

What I like to believe; the right answer lays somewhere between the two as a subtle mixture of both defender and invader values. I think that would sound suspiciously like..... nope, not gonna say it.

 

[North East Somerset]

Oliver is a commendable debater. Trying to take the moral argument away from someone who essentially creates it as they go along, is like trying to pull a limpet off a rock. Maybe eventually it will let go, but probably you'll get bored a long time before then. So I could point out the whole premise of his argument that defenders are better than raiders because at least they "try" to be moral, is bunkum. Misguided application of "morals" can cause a great deal of damage in virtually any circumstance, indeed, they have been used as the excuse for some of the most truly immoral things we have seen. Like for instance the way key defender figures denigrate raiders and paint them all with one brush. It is surely therefore within the rights of those non-defenders who do not ascribe to these morals to point out the hypocrisy and lack of validity in them, and thus to protect themselves from the false allegations.

The notion that defenders are "trying" to be moral is no defense. If the actual results of their "trying" is not moral, but actually results in persecution, intimidation and exclusion - then their actions are not moral at all. And indeed the actions of those that thus profess to have no moral take on a situation, because such a stance wouldn't actually achieve anything, are not by any means inherently less moral. Alas, such an argument is probably too broad to gain traction.

In fact, I can think of few people who make more eloquent arguments than the Ollie of today. But I think I have one, whom is equally as good: the Ollie of yesteryear. Because, the Ollie of yesteryear - well, not even a year ago, was a more effective, vocal and passionate campaigner for what I believe in - for the right of independent sovereign regions to invade, than I will ever be! Honestly, read this stuff. There is some great stuff here that I found in just the past few minutes. Without further ado let us hear from this wise sage/ghost from the past:

I can appreciate your desire to keep it in the proposal, but I do want to be very clear. The idea that defending is inherently good and raiding is inherently bad is just a matter of point of view. I won't entirely rehash the debate, but defending clamps down on the legitimate activities of sovereign nations and regions, and stifles that activity. Defenders claim to stand up for the little guy, but their intervention is rarely noticed, let alone requested. Defenders are defined by their opposition to raiding, not the language they choose to dress it in.

Sovereignty, by which I mean sovereign authority over a given territory, is not in and of itself a right: It is a state of being which must be asserted. Nations, in real life, and arguably regions in NationStates (as a national analogue), either accept and respect the sovereignty of other nations and regions, or they don't. It usually depends on a number of circumstances, one of which involves being able to portray oneself as the sole legitimate authority in the territory.

The reason for this is that with the rights of sovereignty come responsibilities, including but not limited to protecting your citizens from harm. Any foundered region must, therefore, by default, be a sovereign region.. but what of regions with no founder, and no delegate (or no founder and a weak delegate)? From time to time they are called upon to assert their sovereignty, when raiders come knocking. Those who fail are, at least in my opinion, failed states. If you cannot muster the resources to fend off five raiders, as most raids involve five invaders or less, you can hardly claim sovereignty by relying on the actions of others.

So there. I await your angry, principled, but ultimately unrealistic replies.

Interesting logic there. I think that raiders don't force the natives to do anything; the majority of us raid and are gone in under a week, usually 2-3 days, and sometimes even less. This brief experience of a lack of control may make natives feel that they want to refound their region, which fits wonderfully back into point one: It's the natives choice. Defenders, to my understanding, have begun to actively encourage natives to refound their regions, which is interesting, but ultimately up to the natives, and not the Defenders.

I think the "encouragement" of the Defenders can be a pressure on natives, even unintentionally, because most people who get invaded have never been invaded before, and who are you going to listen to, the little voice in your gut that says "we maybe don't want this, there are risks involved," or the people who do this kind of thing all the time?

It's not for my entertainment, it's a duty. Defending is sort of fun, I prefer other areas of the game in regards to entertainment, but that's besides the point of why I defend.

NationStates is a game, dude. Why would you do it if not for your own enjoy---

Nevermind. Forget I asked. Two different wavelengths.

It takes a certain kind of arrogance to respond to us that way, you know. It must be an illegitimate campaign suffused with secrets and lies and schemes if we decided we'd had enough with the way you act and the way you lead. Anyone who opposes Unibot must be a liar, a schemer, self-interested, spiteful, or worst of all, an invader. It's this bloody self-righteousness that turns me off it, you know that? You want to be more than right, you want to be righteous, and you never back down off the attitude (except when you want an interview), and you dare, you dare to suggest that because I'm an invader, any negative opinion of you I might have is a good thing, because invaders cannot be insightful; we're just scheming, self-interested, spiteful people, aren't we.

I'm sick to death of it. There were times I may have wanted to become a defender, in my past. Then I met you. It's not irrelevant, because I'm sure there are others who felt the same way, and I'm sure the polarizing nature of your leadership was part of the reason your impeachment was so hotly contested.

I don't know why I bother with these posts. You won't listen. But I'm tired of this. Maybe you'll wake up someday and see that maybe our reasons for wanting you impeached weren't a self-interested, spiteful scheme. Maybe someday you'll realize that just being an invader doesn't mean I'm wrong, and just because I'm an invader and I don't like the way you do things doesn't make them right. Maybe. If I'm lucky.

I know there are some Defenders who would tell you that because I'm an Invader, none of the rest of this matters. It does. [...] Invaders are people too.

Of course there's a human being behind each and every invader nation. Invading through automated means would be a violation of the scripting rules (endorsing another nation via scripting is illegal, as is ejecting/banning).

But in the context of the invasion/defense game, sorry to break it to you... all the other stuff does indeed not matter at all. You've chosen a side. The wrong one. The immoral one. The side which tortures nations in innocent regions, for their own amusement. The side which destroys communities. The side which takes pleasure in the misfortune of others.

That makes your nation the natural enemy of all that is good in the Nationstates world. That the player behind that nation also likes a "wide range of music" (hey, me too! We've got SO much in common. Do you also like food? And to breath air? ) is actually and genuinely irrelevant to the invader/defender conflict.

Ballotonia

In the quotes, p=##### refers to NS post references.

Finally, I'd point you http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?a...177738&sr=posts there to see some excellent articles on the independent region ideology, part of Oliver's foray into fighting against the raider-defender dichotonomy. And very much what I believe in as a member of a number of independent regions. Some good stuff there again on defenderism.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

Oh, Ballotonia. I never get tired of him.