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?

Other Responses said:
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?

Other Responses said:
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?



Other Responses said:
McEntire and the EBC suck. :p

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...
Responses said:
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?

Other Responses said:
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?

Responses said:
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:
Responses said:
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.
 
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.
At this point an FA update seems low on the list too... Your priorities are influenced by your opinion that Europeia has drunk Defender kool-aid.
 
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.
If you grief we will oppose you is not a sufficient overarching policy?
 
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.
If you grief we will oppose you is not a sufficient overarching policy?
*Citizen Hat remains on*

I don't believe so. Do we oppose TBH's occupation (grief, if you will) of Dharma?
 
I'm not the FA Minister.. do we? As a region it's simple as determining a definition we agree to and actively prevent that sort of action from occurring.
 
I'm not the FA Minister.. do we? As a region it's simple as determining a definition we agree to and actively prevent that sort of action from occurring.
it's simple as determining a definition we agree to

it's simple as determining a definition

it's simple

:lol: I'd let you know my personal opinion on the matter, but I'm afraid that may be harbored away and used against me sometime in the future. ^_^

The region doesn't have a stance on the issue (long-term occupations) as of now. Perhaps we should get to developing one , though, as I said, I think these type of occupations are becoming more and more infrequent.
 
Refer to the Technical forum where Mall said that griefing is fun and he will continue to do it / oppose any changes to r/d that limit griefing.
 
Refer to the Technical forum where Mall said that griefing is fun and he will continue to do it / oppose any changes to r/d that limit griefing.
Links plz, if you have them. I don't want to dig through Technical if at all possible.

Mall is a very strict outlier in his views and cannot be used as an accurate representative example of the raiding community at large.
 
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.
Cerian, you got a poll result you didn't like so you dismissed it as propaganda. I mean, I tried to tell you that you're out of the mainstream on these issues a while ago, but you refused to listen. The fact is, we're a land of freedom, peace, and equality, and that means a modicum of respect for those that we raid.

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
Out of the detailed responses on our military alignment, nine stated that they wanted or were open to Europeia engaging in some sort of defending activity. Not overstated.

"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.
I'm sorry, I phrased this badly. What I was trying to say was that I think it's significant that almost equal amounts of people think that we should be friendly, but not close, with both of these groups. Of course people think we should lean towards raiders. That's apparent elsewhere in the survey. That's how I voted!

Speaking of, why do I always have to argue on the defender side? :p
 
Refer to the Technical forum where Mall said that griefing is fun and he will continue to do it / oppose any changes to r/d that limit griefing.
Links plz, if you have them. I don't want to dig through Technical if at all possible.

Mall is a very strict outlier in his views and cannot be used as an accurate representative example of the raiding community at large.
When I get to a pc I will. And I'm not saying that Europeia should actively oppose all raids but clearly a majority of Europeians support active opposition in some way towards those who grief. There are not tons of Nazi regions but that doesn't mean that our policy of opposing Nazi regions should be should be tossed.

Edit: Link
we should be searching for ways to make regional destruction easier on raiders
 
There's also a technical side to this that everyone is overlooking-if any outfit is engrained enough with the necessary WA support, the ERN simply doesn't have the numbers to dislodge such a force. Not that we couldn't assist with such an operation, but our 3-6 regularly active members can't stop an occupation by our lonesome.
 
There's also a technical side to this that everyone is overlooking-if any outfit is engrained enough with the necessary WA support, the ERN simply doesn't have the numbers to dislodge such a force. Not that we couldn't assist with such an operation, but our 3-6 regularly active members can't stop an occupation by our lonesome.
I think that can be overcome if the FA and ERN make a commitment to opposing griefs. Individuals who don't have the interest or energy in participating in tag raids might be willing to support ERN in a reserve capacity (specifically for grief scenarios).
 
There's also a technical side to this that everyone is overlooking-if any outfit is engrained enough with the necessary WA support, the ERN simply doesn't have the numbers to dislodge such a force. Not that we couldn't assist with such an operation, but our 3-6 regularly active members can't stop an occupation by our lonesome.
I think that can be overcome if the FA and ERN make a commitment to opposing griefs. Individuals who don't have the interest or energy in participating in tag raids might be willing to support ERN in a reserve capacity (specifically for grief scenarios).
I don't think the Navy would be keen on offering specific types of enlistment like that (i.e. only would participate in anti-occupation ops), but that's not my purview. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it, but that sounds like something that would easily lead to inactivity in the ERN and coordination issues since that type of op wouldn't happen often.

EDIT: On the other hand, this type of thing might be something the volunteer corps. of the ERN could handle, much like they do now with supporting WAD transitions, etc.
 
McEntire, I acknowledged then that I was out of the Mainstream. I know full well that I am not in the mainstream of Europeian Opinion. I diverge quite to the 'right' (to use Unibots spectrum) on the Raider issue, compared to most Europeians.

But greifing is a false construct. The term is in reality meaingless in the context of R/D gameplay, but it is used by Defenders, and propagated by people who fall for their arguements that it exists.
 
There's also a technical side to this that everyone is overlooking-if any outfit is engrained enough with the necessary WA support, the ERN simply doesn't have the numbers to dislodge such a force. Not that we couldn't assist with such an operation, but our 3-6 regularly active members can't stop an occupation by our lonesome.
I think that can be overcome if the FA and ERN make a commitment to opposing griefs. Individuals who don't have the interest or energy in participating in tag raids might be willing to support ERN in a reserve capacity (specifically for grief scenarios).
But liberations function, mechanically, exactly like raids - which means the people participating in the libs need to have some idea how a raid works, and have some experience with it to be fully effective - which is again, why Tags are used. But if they're not regular navyites who can be called on regularly during updates for tag ops, then we have a problem, now don't we? We have soldiers who have no idea what they're doing.
 
<snip>

Speaking of, why do I always have to argue on the defender side? :p
Cause Cerian and I are the (outspoken) evul, baby-eating raiders. You, George, and to a lesser extent, PhDre, have to show us the errors of our ways! :p
I don't like being caricatured any more than you do, Herr Greyjoy ;)
If it's a mischaracterization, I apologize. I, on the other hand, fully accept the mantle of evul and baby-eating. :p
 
<snip>

Speaking of, why do I always have to argue on the defender side? :p
Cause Cerian and I are the (outspoken) evul, baby-eating raiders. You, George, and to a lesser extent, PhDre, have to show us the errors of our ways! :p
I don't like being caricatured any more than you do, Herr Greyjoy ;)
If it's a mischaracterization, I apologize. I, on the other hand, fully accept the mantle of evul and baby-eating. :p
I knew it!!!1!
 
But liberations function, mechanically, exactly like raids - which means the people participating in the libs need to have some idea how a raid works, and have some experience with it to be fully effective - which is again, why Tags are used. But if they're not regular navyites who can be called on regularly during updates for tag ops, then we have a problem, now don't we? We have soldiers who have no idea what they're doing.
At this point I think we're just treading into the discretion of the GA though I think you overestimate the skill needed to follow directions. Just because a citizen doesn't want to be called on regularly to tag op doesn't mean he has no idea what he's doing in a liberation type scenario. Again, at this point we're firmly in GA territory.




McEntire said:
I don't like being caricatured any more than you do, Herr Greyjoy

Three Eyes: Insert something clever here. ;)
 
Back
Top