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.

 

[Anumia]

We liberated Feudal Japan from the Catlandatopian griefing...

 

[PhDre]

Do we protect natives from grieving in the WA? How long ago was Feudal Japan? And do we have any current foreign policy goal targeting griefers? Seems we're more interested in opposing UDL in GCR's (for better or worse)

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

Do we protect natives from grieving in the WA? How long ago was Feudal Japan? And do we have any current foreign policy goal targeting griefers? Seems we're more interested in opposing UDL in GCR's (for better or worse)

To address this, we need to answer this.

 

[Anumia]

Do we protect natives from grieving in the WA? How long ago was Feudal Japan? And do we have any current foreign policy goal targeting griefers? Seems we're more interested in opposing UDL in GCR's (for better or worse)

With Liberations? I haven't seen Europeia show reluctance to liberate any region under a long-term occupation...just a reluctance to support Liberations for week-ago invasions.

Is that relevant? There have not been many regions that have suffered as FJ did, so they will not be seen often...

Targeting them...how? For what?

Oh no, because we don't monopolise our focus on griefers and nothing else, clearly we're okay with it

 

[PhDre]

Do we protect natives from grieving in the WA? How long ago was Feudal Japan? And do we have any current foreign policy goal targeting griefers? Seems we're more interested in opposing UDL in GCR's (for better or worse)

To address this, we need to answer this.

Depends who you ask. Is it a grief when there are no natives? Is it a grief if there are obly acres natives? Is there a requirement of an active community prior to invasion in order for it to be considered a grief? Locking the region w an invisible password? I think there's room for interpretation in the definition of grief but we should pick a definition which clearly differentiates griefers and non griefers and consider whether we'd support treaties allies grieving etc. At a minimum I don't see how WA participation / pushing in the SC would be a nonstarter though.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

We should accept that griefing is a false term left over from the pre-influence 'griefing rules' that Defenders made up in an effort to make legitamite military action look bad.

But, if we're going to pick a definition, regional community has to be a requirement. If there is no community, there's nothing there anyone cares about.

 

[Anumia]

Are you on your phone, PhDre? So little made sense.

Once, kicking out one inactive nation from their one-nation region was considered griefing, even though that nation never found out because they had already stopped logging in. (they were the Founder, so if they had logged in even once they could have easily come back)

Obviously we need to agree on what constitutes griefing before anything else.

 

[PhDre]

Do we protect natives from grieving in the WA? How long ago was Feudal Japan? And do we have any current foreign policy goal targeting griefers? Seems we're more interested in opposing UDL in GCR's (for better or worse)

With Liberations? I haven't seen Europeia show reluctance to liberate any region under a long-term occupation...just a reluctance to support Liberations for week-ago invasions.

Is that relevant? There have not been many regions that have suffered as FJ did, so they will not be seen often...

Targeting them...how? For what?

Oh no, because we don't monopolise our focus on griefers and nothing else, clearly we're okay with it

Long term griefs are only one form of griefing. I do feel that consistent and recent actions against griefing allow us to reaffirm our own stance against griefing- as soneone stated regarding raiding what's the point of having a military/pro-tag stance if we're not actively involved- I think the same standard exists here. I'm not calling for a monopolization at all. It shouldn't be beyond the ability of Europeia's FA to have stances and pursue its interests on a number of gameplay related issues, and moving forward it's good to have in mind for the President and Presidential candidates that Europeians support active fighting and an antagonistic relationship with griefers.

edit: Yes I'm mobile- didn't realize how bad spell check is on this p.o.s. I'll clean up my comments when I have better access.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

It is a counterproductive use of the MoFA's time.

 

[Anumia]

You guys whine when a native who endorses their old Delegate/a defender is kicked without ban by the invading force, though.

Then whine when we don't immediately terminate all relations with the invading organisation.

Then again when we don't support Liberations for raids so recent that it's clear it is just an attempt to make up for failure to adequately defend the region in the first place, rather than any genuine threat of griefing or long-term occupation.

 

[PhDre]

We should accept that griefing is a false term left over from the pre-influence 'griefing rules' that Defenders made up in an effort to make legitamite military action look bad.

But, if we're going to pick a definition, regional community has to be a requirement. If there is no community, there's nothing there anyone cares about.

We should also accept that a majority of Europeians oppose actions that the umbrella of 'griefing occurs' (whether the term is false or not). Can an RMB be a community? Even a group of similar themed nations? I'd argue there's more community than you give many regions credit for.

 

[Anumia]

Also, as President, didn't you have the Most Honourable and Gallant Savaer as Grand Admiral? The man put in charge of our military and how it conducted itself was the same man who willingly took in admitted forum destroyer, Rougiers?

 

[Kylia Quilor]

We should accept that griefing is a false term left over from the pre-influence 'griefing rules' that Defenders made up in an effort to make legitamite military action look bad.

But, if we're going to pick a definition, regional community has to be a requirement. If there is no community, there's nothing there anyone cares about.

We should also accept that a majority of Europeians oppose actions that the umbrella of 'griefing occurs' (whether the term is false or not). Can an RMB be a community? Even a group of similar themed nations? I'd argue there's more community than you give many regions credit for.

There's also less regions that have community than you credit. And yes, active RMB activity can count as a community. Personally, I still don't care, since strong communities will stay together, but if we're going to pick an arbitrary definition to a false term, then let's use community. But I could rattle off, If I cared to go digging, plenty of founderless regions that lack any meaningful community of any kind.

That Europeians oppose Griefing merely shows that Defenders have been very good at spreading their line, which is regrettable.

 

[Anumia]

That Europeians oppose Griefing merely shows that Defenders have been very good at spreading their line, which is regrettable.

What?

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

There's also less regions that have community than you credit. And yes, active RMB activity can count as a community. Personally, I still don't care, since strong communities will stay together, but if we're going to pick an arbitrary definition to a false term, then let's use community. But I could rattle off, If I cared to go digging, plenty of founderless regions that lack any meaningful community of any kind.

That Europeians oppose Griefing merely shows that Defenders have been very good at spreading their line, which is regrettable.

I agree with Cerian here to a point. If a region is really a tightly-knit community, no amount of griefing, ejections, bannings, etc. will keep it apart.

I also dislike the term griefing as a whole, but I really can't think of any better way to put it. Occupation sounds much nicer. ^_^

 

[Kylia Quilor]

That Europeians oppose Griefing merely shows that Defenders have been very good at spreading their line, which is regrettable.

What?

Defenders argue that griefing exists. It doesn't. But it benefits Defenders to argue that it does. Defenders have clearly done well at making people believe its existence, at least here.

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

That Europeians oppose Griefing merely shows that Defenders have been very good at spreading their line, which is regrettable.

What?

Defenders argue that griefing exists. It doesn't. But it benefits Defenders to argue that it does. Defenders have clearly done well at making people believe its existence, at least here.

The defender gameplayers basically invented the term to express his dislike for long-term occupations that they couldn't break. Had to propagandize it somehow, I suppose.

 

[PhDre]

Also, as President, didn't you have the Most Honourable and Gallant Savaer as Grand Admiral? The man put in charge of our military and how it conducted itself was the same man who willingly took in admitted forum destroyer, Rougiers?

My views and opinions have changed since two years ago- appointing Sav as GA was a bad idea but not for the reasons you imply- nor is your comment relevant to the discussion at hand but I'll remind you that not all of us can be perfect Presidents.

As to whether this is a waste of the MoFA's time- I respectfully disagree. What is the FA's job? to represent Europeia abroad. If Europeia sees griefing as something to be discouraged and even actively fought then it seems to follow that representing that view isn't a waste of time ( when it advances Europeia's interests).

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Also, as President, didn't you have the Most Honourable and Gallant Savaer as Grand Admiral? The man put in charge of our military and how it conducted itself was the same man who willingly took in admitted forum destroyer, Rougiers?

My views and opinions have changed since two years ago- appointing Sav as GA was a bad idea but not for the reasons you imply- nor is your comment relevant to the discussion at hand but I'll remind you that not all of us can be perfect Presidents.

As to whether this is a waste of the MoFA's time- I respectfully disagree. What is the FA's job? to represent Europeia abroad. If Europeia sees griefing as something to be discouraged and even actively fought then it seems to follow that representing that view isn't a waste of time ( when it advances Europeia's interests).

In terms of advancing Europeia's interests, taking a stance against 'griefing' is low on the list of things we could do.

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

As to whether this is a waste of the MoFA's time- I respectfully disagree. What is the FA's job? to represent Europeia abroad. If Europeia sees griefing as something to be discouraged and even actively fought then it seems to follow that representing that view isn't a waste of time ( when it advances Europeia's interests).

Citizen Hat on, MoFA Hat Off

I'm just thinking that by making a strict policy, we're essentially fighting an unknown enemy. I really can't think of any active military groups that grief on a regular basis. It's more of a case-by-case basis, so I don't really see a pressing need to lay down an overarching policy on griefing.