Defenders: At Least They’re Trying

[HEM]

Defenders: Far From Perfect (But At Least They’re Trying)
Written by Oliver Marlowe

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.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

Frankly, morality doesn't enter into it for me because this is a game. If I'm not being overtly destructive, I really don't give a damn about the ten minute mourning period observed by natives and defenders following a successful operation because if I've done my job the way it's fun for me to do it, that's really all the mourning that's appropriate.

I don't decry defenders for failing to reach their own standards of morality. I frown upon some of them for instituting those standards as a means to preserve their personal influence and putting others down for the very same reason. A megalomaniac is a megalomaniac, even if he says pretty stuff. I would have it so the rest of us weren't so blind to it.

 

[Rach]

This was posted in the other thread too flail.gif

 

[North East Somerset]

My response copied over:

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.

 

[Anumia]

Glorious, NES.

 

[HEM]

This was posted in the other thread too flail.gif

Yes, but I told everyone that I would publish any rebuttal as a formal edition of ENN.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Glorious, NES.

Actually, I don't think it was "glorious" at all. Ollie used NES's post to shift attention away from his vacuous arguments and portray our position as mere pettiness.

I mean, come on -- he is lionizing defenders for "trying" to be moral and suggesting they were right to attack someone IRL in retaliation for aggressive gameplay. Having a prominent defender admit the weakness of their "moral" position so starkly is a rare opportunity, which should not be wasted by dwelling on how Oliver felt differently a year ago, when he has already conceded as much.

Of course, I don't know how many persuadables read the NS forums anyway.

 

[Anumia]

The quality of NES' post is not determined by the respondent. Ollie is tricky. It was still an excellent post.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

The quality of NES' post is not determined by the respondent. Ollie is tricky. It was still an excellent post.

If the point was to land a few jabs on Ollie, it was great. If the point was to refute his arguments and make our case to any persuadable people who might be reading, it was a missed opportunity.

Perhaps Ollie is a talented debater, but he stepped in it here. NES gave him a pass on that. Too bad.

 

[Henry]

I think this is just going over the same tried and denied lines of conversation that we've always had about the Invader/Defender split in NS. I believe that Defenders will always say they have the moral high ground and maybe they do even though they foul it up as much as I do when I have it.

But that isn't to say that Invaders are completely without morality, though it would be safe to assume that many are without morality. I have only heard of Invader forum destroyers, for one. For two, they straight up attack regions. No matter how well they paint a beautiful picture on it; Invaders are attacking regions merely for the sake of doing so.

Which isn't always a bad thing. As pointed out by Hopeful Europeian Meerkats, some Invasions cause regions to go into a state of regrowth where they wake up and wish to change things. However, Invaders hardly have this in mind when attacking and is more in response to them than anything else. You can't morally say that you're playing the part of the bad guy to push people further because you're still being the bad guy.

But people will never stop invading just the same as Defenders will not stop defending and many regions will die because of it. Oh; no big deal, right? Just a game? Wrong. Games are a part of life and some times they can be the few things keeping people's sanity intact and if they love a game; it comes to hold special meaning for them.

I made the mistake once of letting a region I loved go out of my hands and I have tried many times over to get it back only to be denied. The final time was when the peeps in IGD had a hold of it and they offered to let me be king in name to prove that I was sincere in getting it back. What was the point?

I built the region with my own hands; gave it to the best possible person to keep it going, or so I thought, and instead of keeping that trust for when I felt safe to return after a stupid break up, I get denied time and again. The final time I just couldn't muster up the enthusiasm to go to work as if I was truly working on my own and not under someones elses shadow.

I will always regret the chain of decisions that lead to where my region sits now: dead. My point in this story is that these things do come to have meaning for us. We fall in love with our regions the same as we fall in love with anything else and if they were to vanish, we would be distraught. Game or not; this is all part of life and for anyone to minimize it, only serves to prove Oliver right that Invaders are lacking in morality.

Why don't we talk about the necessity of Invader and Defenders. There really is none, but it's a part of the game and a part of life, so we allow people to go through and destroy what people love so that we may have our fun. So that we may continue to be flawed human beings. The one upside of all of this is that it isn't real war; people can learn from all of it without being killed or destroyed completely and that is our saving grace in allowing all of it to continue on.

While we continue to tear apart peoples homes online; we're learning how to be better people, or so it's hoped. The fact is that most Invaders will never learn that what they do is wrong, or just not care; most Defenders will never learn that what they do can be just as harmful as doing nothing.

I tried, in Osiris, to keep people from leaving their constitution open for someone further down the line to choose to go to war. I stated that the only time force was necessary was in the defense of ourselves and our allies, insofar as it could be determined that our allies did not cause their war and it was, in fact, brought to them. I tried really hard and brought my best arguments to the table, but not many people care about doing what is right; they care about doing what is fun and what makes them laugh at the time.

Most people distance themselves from their feelings so they don't put themselves into the shoes of others to try to understand. Most people don't even want to understand, because understanding usually means they're in the wrong and they don't like having it pointed out that they're wrong.

The real question is, Where does this road end. How long do people continue carrying the same sorry charade of Invader/Defender when they know it's all worthless and they know the harm that it does? How long do people continue to play the parts of the people that pretend not to understand why people would be so upset about shit just so they can continue having fun without guilt?

How long until the defenders learn, in unison, that the way they act 90% of the time causes more harm than good? How long until we all know enough collectively and have learned the lessons from all of this and we can move on toward peace? How long must people repeat the mistakes of those that came before them before it just becomes inherent knowledge passed on?

As a rule of thumb; those in politics rarely ride the middle line and when they do; they get called fools or worse. Extremists want to be extremists; people want to do wrong even though deep down they know better; and haters will always hate regardless of what they do themselves. And that is the bottom line.

 

[North East Somerset]

I was just about to say to Skizzy, well if you think you can do better, then go for it. But then I just read the thread on the NS forums, and you rather has done so. So good show.

To be honest I just went ad hominem because my opinion, and call me a skeptic if you will, is that we'll never really win such an open ended argument about "morality".

Also Ollie sent me a telegram saying he was impressed with my post. :lol: I dunno, maybe it played into his hands. I have no idea. I just wanted to point out he made completely the opposite argument less than a year ago with equal or more passion and conviction.

In fact, I think the argument I made in the post part of my post, is similar to what Skizzy is saying now. Essentially that "misguided morality" is no better than no morality. I'm fairly sure, and of course I have thought about it, that in the context of this game, the defender case does not resonate with me at all. I think it's just common sense to appreciate that whilst raiding can "hurt" people, it is both extremely low in intensity and not that high in prevalence. And there is a great positive effect from the gameplay and fun from it. Other activities we undertake on a daily basis, such as IRC chats, Forum Politics, etc - have much higher risk levels. And locating your nation in a founderless region is no different to participating in these. And you don't see defenders clamping down on them because God forbid someone might take something in the game wrongly and get offended. In fact, you quite often see defenders on the giving end of the trolling in these respects, and thats why I find their morality argument impossible to believe.

 

[Anumia]

Onder can tell you about defender forum destroyers, Henry.

 

[North East Somerset]

Oliver is still pushing the defender are moral police and trying to do good is commendable argument in the thread, quoting Skizzy's last response. See, I'm really not sure whether it is possible to win this argument at all considering how open ended it is.

 

[Lethen]

It isn't. The debates between defenders and invaders is like a debate between two political parties. Unless one of those parties is comunists, it's impossible for one side to win.

 

[Henry]

When both sides are both right and wrong; neither side is right or wrong.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

When both sides are both right and wrong; neither side is right or wrong.

No. When both sides are right and wrong, both sides are right and wrong.

 

[Henry]

no, because neither side takes either side seriously and will completely ignore the good points the other one has in lieu of the bad points their actions bring to the table. The few among the people able to look past such things and be objective find a mixture of bad and good ideals; excuses for the way they act which undermine the good values they try to stand upon. They will pull out the good from the bad, but it takes time to sort through all the bullshit; as time and debate has proven; and in the end we continue to go around and around the same bush, beating it to death until we finally come to the full realization that it's pointless.

At which point, we have an era of peace until people forget these things again and repeat history. Neither side is right or wrong because we're all human we all make similar mistakes and we're all prone to the fallacies of those who came before us, even though knowledge dictates we should know better. Emotion will have its way 9 times out of 10 and will take us too far past where we know we should have stopped. It's the same for everybody.

Who can really say what is right or wrong when the cycle continues regardless?

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Oliver is still pushing the defender are moral police and trying to do good is commendable argument in the thread, quoting Skizzy's last response. See, I'm really not sure whether it is possible to win this argument at all considering how open ended it is.

And I used Ollie's post against him (again), pointing out how he is conflating RP morals with RL morals.

I share NES's belief that this discussion on the NS forum is unlikely to be fruitful, but I would like to see us articulate this distinction more often as part of our foreign policy. The termination of our close relationship with Unknown provides an opportunity in this regard, as we can speak with more credibility on these issues now than before.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

no, because neither side takes either side seriously and will completely ignore the good points the other one has in lieu of the bad points their actions bring to the table. The few among the people able to look past such things and be objective find a mixture of bad and good ideals; excuses for the way they act which undermine the good values they try to stand upon. They will pull out the good from the bad, but it takes time to sort through all the bullshit; as time and debate has proven; and in the end we continue to go around and around the same bush, beating it to death until we finally come to the full realization that it's pointless.

At which point, we have an era of peace until people forget these things again and repeat history. Neither side is right or wrong because we're all human we all make similar mistakes and we're all prone to the fallacies of those who came before us, even though knowledge dictates we should know better. Emotion will have its way 9 times out of 10 and will take us too far past where we know we should have stopped. It's the same for everybody.

Who can really say what is right or wrong when the cycle continues regardless?

No. First of all, simple logic.
if A = B then A always = B
In this case 'A' being 'Both Sides' and 'B' being 'right and wrong'.
Thus, if Both Sides are ('are' being '=') right and wrong, then then they always right and wrong.

You ca'n say that cecause A = B, then ~A = B
~A = 'Not A' = Neither Side.

Either A = B, or ~A = B. You can't have both.

Furthermore, it won't 'stop'. Its not pointless - its fun, for both parties. Some people on both sides take it too far, or get caught up in moral imperatives, but at the end of the day, its fun for these people. Individual raiders and defenders might leave the contest, or switch sides, regions and organizations might expire, dissipate or leave the contest, but the whole system is self-perpetuating. Older players might leave the contest after deciding its not fun anymore, but before they do that, odds are they recruited and trained a whole new 'generation' of raiders and defenders.

It happens because there are people on both sides who enjoy doing it, Henry. And that is that.