Military Alignment Results

​

The Europeian Broadcasting Corporation conducted a groundbreaking study of the attitudes of the Europeian public towards their military. With more responses than any other recent EBC survey at 22, this certainly was an interesting topic, and it showed in the responses. Without much further ado, here are the results.

---

PART ONE: IDENTITY
The first section dealt with the identity of the Europeians surveyed, rather than their attitudes.

Question 1: How satisfied are you with Europeia's current stance on military issues?

I believe that the Europeian Inquirer is better than the EBCredacted for dishonesty

We should be more assertive with our military

It seems that Europeians are overall very satisfied with how we currently conduct our affairs. Out of the 22 surveyed, 3 said they were either somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied, with none responding that they were very dissatisfied. So people by and large approve very heavily of what our Grand Admiral, Common-Sense Politics, does.

Question 2: How do you identify yourself, in terms of the raider-defender scale?

Imperialist

Swakistek is the biggest jerk ever.

i'm a Europeian, I raid for Europeia, but would not call myself a raider.

Independent

What's the difference?

Interesting here is that there's no majority. Moderate raiders compose the plurality of our population apparently, which brings approval of our military stance into context. We practice what some would term moderate raiding, and so this stance fits the mainstream. Slight point to notice, the number who would identify themselves as moderate defenders is only one less than the number who would identify fully as raiders. Also, this is polarizing, with relatively few choosing to be neutral.

Question 3: Do you or have you participated in raiding/defending activities?

McEntire and the EBC suck.

In the ERN...dont know what we do

This was a pretty obvious conclusion, but it is interesting to note that although we only have 5 who identify as some sort of defender, 9 respondents admit to engaging in defending activities at some point. So the lines may not be as clear-cut as previously thought. It is tough to believe that only about 10% of the Europeian population hasn't raided or defended. That number may be skewed low by the fact of who was taking this survey.

PART TWO: ATTITUDES
The second section looks at what people want for the future, and how they see us in the world.

Question 4: In basic terms, the group Europeia should align itself closest with is...


This very much speaks for itself. People realize that while we are independent and accepting of all, we lie on a specific side of the axis. Only three respondents said we should be closer to defenders than raiders, which is somewhat surprising given that 5 identified as defenders.

Question 5: In more detailed terms, Europeia's military stance should be...

Sparking and maintaining activity within the game. That means battling as often as possible, without causing damage.

I believe that we should raid until the need for us to defend arises. Be it defending one of our allies' regions or defending a colony if we ever have one.

determined by its interests.

Willing to project power, be it through military force, or otherwise.

Moderately Raider

Moderate raider.

Neutral, but defend more often than it does now.

In order to maintain a sovereign military and be successful in game play, Europeia must use tag raids and the occasional long term raid without griefing, but still preform defensive actions in cases of coups, endangerment of allied regions, or simply to count act the more loathsome groups like nazis.

Independent but solely defending. Similar to how the military is run now, but simply with a defender military rather than a predominantly raiding one.

Tag raiding, i.e. raiding that is not destroying a region and has only temporary impact.

Some defending.

Gangnam

If Europeia is to be truly neutral, surely it should make efforts to actively defend as well as raid?

Being able to operate as it needs to, not to be limited to just defender and raider. If Europeia needs to help liberate an ally then they should be able to.

An independent and self-sufficient military organization which pursues our own interests above any one mainstream ideology.

...

For as much as Europeians argue about this, the responses were remarkably similar. People generally support what we're currently doing, although some would like to see us assert our power through whatever form it takes. People want raiding without damage, and it seems largely want some sort of defender force.


Question 6: How close should we be to the following groups?

Nazis are relevant to this military alignment survey....how?

Non-aligned gameplay regions, Allies

Imperialist Regions - depends on the region

I didn't like this question because each specific potential ally should be looked at. Not judged as a group.

You're leaving out my awesomeness.

Imperialists/Independants/Political Raiders (TNI, LKE, etc)

Roleplaying Regions - We should reach out to involve ourselves more with RP.

This is the big one. While it was a controversial question, the results were just as clear as they were interesting. There are a few conclusions we can draw from this:

1. People don't like Nazis. Universally, people agree we should be actively fighting them.

2. The only categories that people think we should be allies with are Raiders and GCRs.

3. 45.5% of respondents think that we should be actively fighting those who grief other regions. This seems to be in conflict with a lot of the debates that we've had recently, and points to a somewhat silent majority on this issue especially.

4. The distribution of answers about defenders is actually relatively even, which indicates that people have disparate opinions on defending regions.

5. The amount who think we should be friendly to raiders is only 2 more than those who think we should be friendly to defenders.

This all points to some interesting possible changes in Europeian foreign policy. While the results are often what you'd expect, there are a few surprises that indicate the public at odds with the government.

Question 7: Who is our most important ally?

TNI (9/14 who answered this question said TNI)

Me.

No ally is particularly more important than another.

Feeders/Sinkers

None really.

The WA

Just an interesting question to see what people would say. TNI is certainly our most high profile ally and that which springs to mind very first.

Question 8: What role does morality play in NationStates?

6 people don't care. Here are the others:

One must always be honourable. As people and as a region.

It is an essential part of the game.

I don't think it plays one.

Morality plays no role in NationStates Gameplay, on the interregional Stage. International Politics IRL should be about amoral Pragmatic State Interest, and Interregional politics are a simulation of international politics, in a game, so doubly so, morality doesn't apply.

Treat other people with decent human respect. This includes while debating them in the NS forum (Unibot and co)

See my article.Don't, it's overrated

Morality is irrelevant because gameplay isn't about who is right or wrong it is a competition between the two sides, no one is evil or good.

It's a game. Not a matter where you threaten to commit suicide if your organization is condemned

It exists, obviously. But, I think we could choose to embrace our role as bad-guy raiders with no issue. We'd just have to stop pretending we care about freedom, equality, or peace.

Basically don't be a dick by destroying regions and you'll be fine.

It is ingrained, whether we like it or not.

It plays a way as governing ones actions and how they perceive. So for example, I greatly dislike porn spammers and would never align myself with such ilk.

I do happen to agree with Unibot when he says that in a politic there is an element of morality. But I do not see myself as anywhere near as idealistic as Unibot and I believe raiding is a necessary evil to maintain and grow the game's activity.

There is none. It's a social contract type ethical game, much like real-life morality.

A fascinating set of responses. This is a legitimate ideological difference in Europeia today, and it seems like the region is split almost down the middle on it. I guess it's just one of those things that we're always going to be debating.

FINAL SUMMATION

Many detractors of Europeia say that it's not independent enough to call itself independent. These results back that up somewhat, although they don't exactly call out for anything to change. Europeians generally seem to be okay with defenders, very much fans of our currrent stance, and disdainful of griefers. While this is very much in line with the policy of the region, it may not be in line with the rhetoric. This survey speaks to a Europeia much less divided than that in the many debates we've had over this topic. We firmly believe there is a middle ground, and even if it's hard to find we are committed to it. That's Europeia for you.

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

Nothing surprising to me here, except that Swak's a piece.

Wait, that's not surprising either. :lol:

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I bet you Cormac took this survey.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus Rex]

I bet you Cormac took this survey.

Ten times.

Nah just kidding, but it was definitely worth it to hear your in-depth analysis even if Emily leaked it yesterday. :lol:

 

[Swakistek]

Nothing surprising to me here, except that Swak's a piece.

Wait, that's not surprising either. :lol:

A piece of what?

We should be independent and able to act as we are needed; beyond this, our operations should be kept where they are - moderate raider, predominantly tag raids, with no griefing. We should always, however, be open to working with defenders and those with contrary military alignments (within reason) - we define our military alignment, it does not define us.

I think this is the best middle ground that anyone can hope for, I think it reflects more or less our current military alignment, and this is the stance that maintains a sovereign, capable military force that is able to act to both raid and defend as required by our foreign policy. Beyond this, we should be able to keep our raids going to keep our military active and engaged, but never griefing, to minimise impact on natives.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I think McEntire overstated the support Defenders in some places in his analysis than the data suggests.

 

[PhDre]

I think McEntire overstated the support Defenders in some places in his analysis than the data suggests.

I disagree. A minority (approximately 35-35% ?) of those who took the poll indicated that Europeia should be actively fighting or adversarial towards defenders, whereas a majority (almost 70%) felt the same way towards griefers and an even greater majority (~ 95%) felt that way towards nazi's. Europeia would rather us go after Mall for example (who said that griefing is "fun" on the NS forums) than oppose defender organizations - at least in principle.

Though I personally agree with whomever stated that "each specific potential ally should be looked at. Not judged as a group."

 

[McEntire]

I think McEntire overstated the support Defenders in some places in his analysis than the data suggests.

I was afraid someone would say this. I mean, the only reason why a lot of my analysis skewed that way is that it's not a story that we're predominantly a moderate raiding region. There are some things that are obvious. A lot of the things that surprised me happened to be data points on views of defenders. So that's what I reported on.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

A well done piece, Mac.

 

[Lethen]

Wow, I don't think I responded to this. How did I miss it? flail.gif

 

[Notolecta]

Though I personally agree with whomever stated that "each specific potential ally should be looked at. Not judged as a group."

As do I. I very much had a hard time places the different groups into how we should treat them. Ultimately, I couldn't put ally for any of them for the reason that we should not be allying wit regions solely because they a raiders, defenders, gcrs, or what not.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

Very interesting and as expected results - good to see what was presumed has been confirmed here. I find the morality and stance write-ins the most interesting responses as it allows people to further explain their position in a more private environment.

 

[Anumia]

"5. The amount who think we should be friendly to raiders is only 2 more than those who think we should be friendly to defenders."

This one is wrong, because you're forgetting the allies option, which is obviously above friendly. Combine the two and you see double the interest in raiders as in defenders.

 

[PhDre]

Regarding 'Part Two: Attitudes' :

This very much speaks for itself. People realize that while we are independent and accepting of all, we lie on a specific side of the axis.

This would have been a more accurate statement if the option were given for respondents to identify with neither 'raider' or 'defender' regions. I'm not surprised at all by the results because the necessary 'independent/neither' option was not provided., but that reduces the significance of the data.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Specifically, I meant

and it seems largely want some sort of defender force.

Here, where I feel, from what I read in those comments, you overstate the support for a defender force.

And I don't think the data supports the theory that there will be a change in Europeian Military policy any time soon.

 

[PhDre]

Seeing as there were about three people who disagreed to any extent with Europeia's current stance on military issues, I'd agree. Though there is a disconnect because a very significancy minority said that EUropeia should be aggressively fighting griefers, and a significant majority said that Europeia should either be aggressively fighting griefers or adversarial towards them. That's not particularly reflected in Europeian foreign policy atm as far as I understand.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Aggressively fighting griefers isn't that viable when they all jave founders, and fighting them causes foreign policy problems.

 

[PhDre]

Aggressively fighting griefers isn't that viable when they all jave founders, and fighting them causes foreign policy problems.

Fighting griefers can be done in the World Assembly by authoring liberations, working to help liberate / refound / aid victims of griefed regions, and by not working with regions that have a recent history of participating in / leading griefs. Those aren't foreign policy problems those are foreign policy convictions. They certainly would cause friction with our current foreign policy / military action which is as I understand it more or less grief-blind. There's obviously widespread support for taking griefing into account when buddying up to regions and military organizations however.

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

Aggressively fighting griefers isn't that viable when they all jave founders, and fighting them causes foreign policy problems.

Who would even be considered a strict griefer nowadays? TBH is currently griefing Dharma, understandably from their point of view. LWU, the famous griefers, have been relatively (completely?) inactive since EW moved out to TNP.