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.

 

[Rach]

Three Eyes used to be PhDres paper when he was more active, so the name has become part of a running joke.

 

[Drexlore Greyjoy]

Very good article Mac.

And yay graphs!

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

Three Eyes used to be PhDres paper when he was more active, so the name has become part of a running joke.

Gotcha. Now I just need someone to tell me how to do that *redtext name thing and I'll be a real boy! :lol: Thank you, miss. ^_^

 

[Drexlore Greyjoy]

Three Eyes used to be PhDres paper when he was more active, so the name has become part of a running joke.

Gotcha. Now I just need someone to tell me how to do that *redtext name thing and I'll be a real boy! :lol: Thank you, miss. ^_^

Type / me without the space.

*Drexlore Greyjoy tells Elias how to do this.

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

*Elias Greyjoy thinks Drex is the best brother EVAR.

 

[PhDre]

Technically the paper was Aftermath, Three Eyes was a letter to the editor / editorial piece. But close enough!

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I've been thinking about the issue of actively combatting "greifers" for quite some time now. What this argument comes back to is our independent foreign policy. It's holy, it's sacrosanct, it has to be the major determination in all our foreign policy decisions. So we determine what is in our interest to do or not do, say or not say.

The concensus is and has been that exhibiting restraint and respect in our military practices is in our interests so we do it. The concensus is that being on friendly, cooperative terms with GCRs and offering them an alternative to UDL domination in our interes so we've...atleast talked about it. Is it in our interest to stand by and allow Whitereach to be refounded by TBR and Dharma to be terrorized by TBH? I just can't see how it is.

If we're going to maintain an independent military institution and claim that defending and/or liberating is never in our interest, I think we're kidding ourselves and failing to fool anybody.

It is my suggestion that the Europeian foreign policy team start work on a legitimate term for greifing and its definition that identifies exactly what we're opposed to. That way our purpose is clearly defined and we're not bowing to defender propogandists. With that new term and definition we broaden, enhance, and further define our foreign policy mission. We don't need to be preachy and we don't need to claim to be the great moral force in the world but when someone steps over the line, we should be there to kick them in the ass whether that's through diplomacy or on the battlefield.

Now as was stated earlier, we can't launch a full-scale liberation on our own. That makes our job harder. If we work with the FRA or UDL, we risk violating our treaty obligations with TNI and LKE. An alternative is to convince our allies of the worth of our mission and get them to join us. Another is to bring GCRs into the fold, something I see as being more likely.

We still raid, be it tag raiding or short-term holds, as we always have. We still support our allies. We're just prepared to act in our foreign policy interest in a more diverse way. I think it's only common sense.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus Rex]

I've been thinking about the issue of actively combatting "greifers" for quite some time now. What this argument comes back to is our independent foreign policy. It's holy, it's sacrosanct, it has to be the major determination in all our foreign policy decisions. So we determine what is in our interest to do or not do, say or not say.

The concensus is and has been that exhibiting restraint and respect in our military practices is in our interests so we do it. The concensus is that being on friendly, cooperative terms with GCRs and offering them an alternative to UDL domination in our interes so we've...atleast talked about it. Is it in our interest to stand by and allow Whitereach to be refounded by TBR and Dharma to be terrorized by TBH? I just can't see how it is.

If we're going to maintain an independent military institution and claim that defending and/or liberating is never in our interest, I think we're kidding ourselves and failing to fool anybody.

It is my suggestion that the Europeian foreign policy team start work on a legitimate term for greifing and its definition that identifies exactly what we're opposed to. That way our purpose is clearly defined and we're not bowing to defender propogandists. With that new term and definition we broaden, enhance, and further define our foreign policy mission. We don't need to be preachy and we don't need to claim to be the great moral force in the world but when someone steps over the line, we should be there to kick them in the ass whether that's through diplomacy or on the battlefield.

Now as was stated earlier, we can't launch a full-scale liberation on our own. That makes our job harder. If we work with the FRA or UDL, we risk violating our treaty obligations with TNI and LKE. An alternative is to convince our allies of the worth of our mission and get them to join us. Another is to bring GCRs into the fold, something I see as being more likely.

We still raid, be it tag raiding or short-term holds, as we always have. We still support our allies. We're just prepared to act in our foreign policy interest in a more diverse way. I think it's only common sense.

This is why CSP wins at life.

 

[Elias Greyjoy]

This is why CSP wins at life.

Way to quote his entire post for that zinger of a one-liner. :angry:

 

[McEntire]

I've been thinking about the issue of actively combatting "greifers" for quite some time now. What this argument comes back to is our independent foreign policy. It's holy, it's sacrosanct, it has to be the major determination in all our foreign policy decisions. So we determine what is in our interest to do or not do, say or not say.

The concensus is and has been that exhibiting restraint and respect in our military practices is in our interests so we do it. The concensus is that being on friendly, cooperative terms with GCRs and offering them an alternative to UDL domination in our interes so we've...atleast talked about it. Is it in our interest to stand by and allow Whitereach to be refounded by TBR and Dharma to be terrorized by TBH? I just can't see how it is.

If we're going to maintain an independent military institution and claim that defending and/or liberating is never in our interest, I think we're kidding ourselves and failing to fool anybody.

It is my suggestion that the Europeian foreign policy team start work on a legitimate term for greifing and its definition that identifies exactly what we're opposed to. That way our purpose is clearly defined and we're not bowing to defender propogandists. With that new term and definition we broaden, enhance, and further define our foreign policy mission. We don't need to be preachy and we don't need to claim to be the great moral force in the world but when someone steps over the line, we should be there to kick them in the ass whether that's through diplomacy or on the battlefield.

Now as was stated earlier, we can't launch a full-scale liberation on our own. That makes our job harder. If we work with the FRA or UDL, we risk violating our treaty obligations with TNI and LKE. An alternative is to convince our allies of the worth of our mission and get them to join us. Another is to bring GCRs into the fold, something I see as being more likely.

We still raid, be it tag raiding or short-term holds, as we always have. We still support our allies. We're just prepared to act in our foreign policy interest in a more diverse way. I think it's only common sense.

This is so correct. We've been talking about what our independent stature means, and I think this is it. Up until now, we've just been tolerant of everyone, I think it's time for us to actually define what our collective worldview is and how we can best advocate for that.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

If an operation where, say, TNI is supporting a TBR op, and TBR does something that matches our definition of griefing, would we attembpt to liberate that, given that risks attacking our ally TNI? Or would we try to persuade TNI to leave? Or ignore that particular instance?

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

If an operation where, say, TNI is supporting a TBR op, and TBR does something that matches our definition of griefing, would we attembpt to liberate that, given that risks attacking our ally TNI? Or would we try to persuade TNI to leave? Or ignore that particular instance?

That's definitely where things can get sticky. My expectation is that a discussion will be held way ahead of time with allies to let them know exactly what our stance is and how we plan to approach certain situations. That way everyone's on the same page and can plan their actions and strategy accordingly.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Makes sense.

 

[Anumia]

Good. I'd like to be involved.

 

[PhDre]

I don't know how involved I can be for the next six months (abroad) but I'll do my best as well if there is some sort of Charlie Brown Brigade. ('Good Grief?' No? I'll show myself out.)

 

[Apollo]

*Apollo suggested we cut ties with griefers before CSP!

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

*Apollo suggested we cut ties with griefers before CSP!

Easy, Rachel.

 

[Lethen]

:wub: CSP.

 

[hyanygo]

It should be possible to assist the UDL and the FRA without violating currently signed treaties.

Our fight will be with TBR and TBH. As long as the AG determines that we're not entering as a force in the TNI/LKE wars we will be fine.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

It should be possible to assist the UDL and the FRA without violating currently signed treaties.

Our fight will be with TBR and TBH. As long as the AG determines that we're not entering as a force in the TNI/LKE wars we will be fine.

Would we not be aiding and abetting the enemy of a treatied ally?