Originally Posted on the NS Forums.
Link: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=162737
Most of it has to do with how things play out on the NS forums and in private discussions between the sides.
Upon reading Abbey’s thread and Sedge’s comment to keep the mudslinging to a minimum, I was struck by how much more enjoyable it was to be able to be able discuss raiding and defending without all those emotions. Most conversations on that topic are destructive and turn into “He said that? I’ll show you some of this!” and turn into a verbal boxing match. Personally, I have been guilty of this… getting caught up in the emotions caused by tight competition. This is not even just a raider vs. defender phenomenon but also one that occurs between groups within those.
It becomes tiring and it is not enjoyable. Case in point, the recent strategy of piling was never discussed much, in fact the response was to throw rhetoric at it. People on both sides took it very personally, defenders are taking the new strategies that they are unable to combat personally and raiders are taking the rhetoric personally as well. It’s a vicious cycle with both sides hoping the other will not endure.
Crushing our Enemies brought up a very good point in the other thread. It leads to people being hard-line and more willing to do things like kick natives. A raider exemplified this when they said they kicked out members in Iran to provoke the UDL. Surely defenders, even if you don’t like us, you can see that the rhetoric and anger is not only harmful to each other but also harmful to members in regions. The very people that you swear (at least in the UDL, like actually swear) to protect. It makes things, as a defender from TITO said “crueler”. So at the very least, even at that level, there is a reason for you to turn it down.
Like CoE said as well, it is not something we enjoy either. So from the raider side, most of us I believe would like to see less of that mudslinging.The discussions end up all being about "not losing", which has been much of the same perspective on the battlefield. Neither side wishes to concede any ground and must win every single time. The reason? Because if you fail a raid or if you fail a liberation, the other side will be on you for that and use it to fuel more mudslinging.
At the end of the day, this is a game. I’d like to ask that this not turn into a bashing, insulting thread but one where we can discuss how we talk to each-other, our qualms with the other side with as little rhetoric as you can muster. A RL equivalent that stands out to me is the Peace of Westphalia. It set the stage for having discussions following conflicts to resolve issues. If we do more of that, with less loathing and being more objective rather than emotional in our discussions, then I feel that we can play this game of ours (raiding and defending) in a way that both sides feel is better.
Link: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=162737
Most of it has to do with how things play out on the NS forums and in private discussions between the sides.
Upon reading Abbey’s thread and Sedge’s comment to keep the mudslinging to a minimum, I was struck by how much more enjoyable it was to be able to be able discuss raiding and defending without all those emotions. Most conversations on that topic are destructive and turn into “He said that? I’ll show you some of this!” and turn into a verbal boxing match. Personally, I have been guilty of this… getting caught up in the emotions caused by tight competition. This is not even just a raider vs. defender phenomenon but also one that occurs between groups within those.
It becomes tiring and it is not enjoyable. Case in point, the recent strategy of piling was never discussed much, in fact the response was to throw rhetoric at it. People on both sides took it very personally, defenders are taking the new strategies that they are unable to combat personally and raiders are taking the rhetoric personally as well. It’s a vicious cycle with both sides hoping the other will not endure.
Crushing our Enemies brought up a very good point in the other thread. It leads to people being hard-line and more willing to do things like kick natives. A raider exemplified this when they said they kicked out members in Iran to provoke the UDL. Surely defenders, even if you don’t like us, you can see that the rhetoric and anger is not only harmful to each other but also harmful to members in regions. The very people that you swear (at least in the UDL, like actually swear) to protect. It makes things, as a defender from TITO said “crueler”. So at the very least, even at that level, there is a reason for you to turn it down.
Like CoE said as well, it is not something we enjoy either. So from the raider side, most of us I believe would like to see less of that mudslinging.The discussions end up all being about "not losing", which has been much of the same perspective on the battlefield. Neither side wishes to concede any ground and must win every single time. The reason? Because if you fail a raid or if you fail a liberation, the other side will be on you for that and use it to fuel more mudslinging.
At the end of the day, this is a game. I’d like to ask that this not turn into a bashing, insulting thread but one where we can discuss how we talk to each-other, our qualms with the other side with as little rhetoric as you can muster. A RL equivalent that stands out to me is the Peace of Westphalia. It set the stage for having discussions following conflicts to resolve issues. If we do more of that, with less loathing and being more objective rather than emotional in our discussions, then I feel that we can play this game of ours (raiding and defending) in a way that both sides feel is better.
