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.

 

[hyanygo]

The issue is more clear cut with the LKE treaty imo. However, this isn't my determination to make.

If it is decided that griefing is taking place then a decision needs to be made about how Europeia wants to see itself. Does it abhor griefing more than a possible violation of a treaty? This is a useful discussion for the EAAC and wider public to have: what is the ranking of our priorties? For me I think dealing with Nazis and unsavoury characters, then griefing, then maintaining treaties.

 

[Anumia]

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.

Currently-signed treaties, probably not. If the Republic decides to take a stronger official stance on griefing/etc where we'll work with Defenders to prevent it, some existing treaties could always be re-written, assuming our allies can be brought to understand the importance of it to us.

 

[hyanygo]

Yes that is the reason I specified currently signed.

 

[North East Somerset]

If we take part in liberations of occupied regions, then we lose the potential to work with TBH/TBR for sure. We lose the ability to work with raiders. That may be a price worth paying.

However, if we work with defenders, whom we are well aware our allies TNI/LKE are at war with, then we lose the ability to work with the independent sphere too. Let's bear in mind the greatest force in Dharma, given as an example of something we would like to liberate, is TNI itself.

Losing the ability to bring raiders in to help Europeian military operations is regretful and a shame, but if we want to take an active stance against raiding which doesn't meet our ethical standards, then we have no choice.

Losing the ability to work with our imperialist allies and enjoy joint operations with them would be even more regretful. We would only do that if we actively worked with their enemies UDL/FRA against raiders.

I think if we are adamant that we want to work against raids which don't meet our ethical standards, we absolutely should do so independently and not by working with the UDL/FRA.

You cannot be (properly) in both sides. That's what we would like perhaps, but it's not possible. Never will be. You can only work properly with one side or the other. If we want to work against raiders, and with defenders. Then we become a defender orientated region.

We would ultimately have to drop all relations with anti-defender regions, including our historic ally TNI, and we then may as well make Treaties with the UDL/FRA to replace them. The polls show a majority of people are against that.

I think the proponents of this scheme are trying to sell the anti-griefing stance as viable whilst we remain on good terms with raiders. It's not. There is much more at stake for us to lose than some people have been making out. We'd be sleepwalking into a total shift to defenderism unless we very clearly drew our boundaries that we won't work with FRA/UDL, and we won't liberate occupations which our allies are involved with.

Some people have mentioned above there is a possibility of bringing TNI/LKE with us in our new crusade against raiding. Possibly not impossible. But I'd consider this a quite remote possibility to be honest though.

 

[PhDre]

our new crusade against raiding

I have to run to class, but quickly - is that really what this is about? Not to my knowledge.

 

[North East Somerset]

our new crusade against raiding

I have to run to class, but quickly - is that really what this is about? Not to my knowledge.

To nearly every raider or raiding orientated region, "griefing" as defined by defenders, is an integral part of their activities. They simply don't acknowledge that "griefing" is wrong. I think a lot of Europeians will have voted against griefing because of the word, it sounds bad. They don't actually know what it is, and indeed there is no clear definition.

Some people here are trying to use an anti-griefing stance to justify a wholesale shift towards working with defenders, and against raiders. When historically our commitments have been to avoid griefing in our own operations. The reality is, under the defender definition of "griefing", all our traditional allies, and all raider military partners we have, would become our enemies if we chose to police their activities.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

I think the poll results reflect a disconnect from practical reality on the part of some respondents.

Implicitly, I think most of us agree that maintaining a strong military should be a priority for the region. The poll shows that most of us wish to see Europeia remain true to its historic "moderate raider" stance. (I dislike that terminology, but leave that aside.)

The poll also shows that we should actively oppose "griefing," whatever that means. And that, my friends, is where the rubber hits the road.

I think the proponents of this scheme are trying to sell the anti-griefing stance as viable whilst we remain on good terms with raiders. It's not.

I expect there will soon be a myriad of responses saying that NES doesn't know what he's talking about. Respectfully, those people are full of s--t. NES is undoubtedly speaking here as a citizen of Europeia, but he's also the acting commander of the TNIAF. He knows of what he speaks.

You can't organize your foreign or military policy around a defender concept like "griefing," and expect that people who are at war with defenders will continue to work with you. And you absolutely cannot maintain an effective, independent military without support from regions/orgs that are at war with defenders.

We have always eschewed behavior that goes by the name "griefing," and we should continue to do so. We should continue to be wary of cooperating with regions/orgs that make a habit of engaging in such behavior. But no one wants a holier-than-thou "friend" -- frankly, that would be the very sort of faux moralism that gets us so exercised about the UDL and its affiliates.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus Rex]

Then I feel that we need to come up with a definition of griefing that better fits our own stance and defines what we should not engage in. Since griefing seems, to me, to encompass, well, the essence of a raiding policy, because natives can feel griefed just by you being there, we should define policies we would never wish to engage in, such as ejecting and banning all natives and destroying the forum, as scorched earth so that we can create our own separate definition and not get caught up in griefing accusations. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I separate minor griefing from scorched earth...I made my own defender organization, served in the GB&I military during the Battle of Lazarus, and overthrew a region (in my younger days).

 

[Kylia Quilor]

It should come as no surprise that I completely agree with NES's comments, and Skizzy's as well.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Then I feel that we need to come up with a definition of griefing that better fits our own stance and defines what we should not engage in. Since griefing seems, to me, to encompass, well, the essence of a raiding policy, because natives can feel griefed just by you being there, we should define policies we would never wish to engage in, such as ejecting and banning all natives and destroying the forum, as scorched earth so that we can create our own separate definition and not get caught up in griefing accusations. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I separate minor griefing from scorched earth...I made my own defender organization, served in the GB&I military during the Battle of Lazarus, and overthrew a region (in my younger days).

As I said, we have always had our own internal standards for what is acceptable behavior on the battlefield. Those standards have occasionally caused friction with other raiders. That's a price we have willingly paid, and will continue to pay, for standing on principle.

It's when you talk about converting those principles into some sort of manifesto, or start chiding others for not sharing those principles, that you are going to have trouble maintaining working relationships with other raiders. We feel strongly enough about not working with Nazis that we're willing to shun regions/orgs that do work with them, but I would hope we wouldn't conflate our opposition to in-game bigotry with, say, banjecting "natives," imposing passwords, or other gameplay stuff.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Moreover, and here's a question:

GGR Goes founderless. (Say Leather-clad germany is deleted by the Mods).

Do we raid it? Do we 'grief' it? Do we support others 'griefing' in this particular case?

 

[Gustavus Adolphus Rex]

Then I feel that we need to come up with a definition of griefing that better fits our own stance and defines what we should not engage in. Since griefing seems, to me, to encompass, well, the essence of a raiding policy, because natives can feel griefed just by you being there, we should define policies we would never wish to engage in, such as ejecting and banning all natives and destroying the forum, as scorched earth so that we can create our own separate definition and not get caught up in griefing accusations. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I separate minor griefing from scorched earth...I made my own defender organization, served in the GB&I military during the Battle of Lazarus, and overthrew a region (in my younger days).

As I said, we have always had our own internal standards for what is acceptable behavior on the battlefield. Those standards have occasionally caused friction with other raiders. That's a price we have willingly paid, and will continue to pay, for standing on principle.

It's when you talk about converting those principles into some sort of manifesto, or start chiding others for not sharing those principles, that you are going to have trouble maintaining working relationships with other raiders. We feel strongly enough about working with Nazis that we're willing to shun regions/orgs that do so, but I would hope we wouldn't conflate that with, say, banjecting "natives," imposing passwords, or other gameplay stuff.

Yeah, basically, just to clarify my position, I feel strongly against banjecting, passwording, and forum destruction and feel they should not be used ever by the ERN. We already don't do that stuff, so it's not a problem, but we should redefine it as scorched earth or total war or something like that to separate it from griefing caused by simply taking over the region, which we already call tag raiding.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

There's also occupations where natives that are actively trying to overthrow the raider delegate (by amassing endos, etc) are banjected, but natives that don't bother aren't.

 

[unibot]

I may reference this survey in an upcoming essay; fascinating but subtle results.

Erm, to intrude:

I'll note that any sort of calls of "UDL Dominance" are insulting to political institutions in feeders and sinkers. Ultimately, some people in official positions =/= domination; ambiguous and disorganized influence at best. We have no current treaties with any of the feeders or sinkers, due to our political controversiality in feeders and sinkers. We do not engage in "containment" or infiltration of feeder or sinker communities, which was a method of The Alliance Defense Network. We do not engage in disguising Cocodian to look like a harmless newbie promoting The Founderless Regions Alliance (who used to brag to me about doing this *grumble*). We have no self-interest in regions going "defender" -- we have no mechanisms that regions could "join" us. Defenderism at a regional level would ultimately help our competitor, The FRA, or create a new defender army as a competitor or both (as is the case with The RRA). This does not mean I wouldn't welcome a new defender region or army, but we don't have an organizational interest in infiltrating regions or containing the spread of oppositional values except at the individual level. Likewise, the former methods would all run contrary to my own values of respecting sovereignty.

I see Europeia's insistence of The United Defenders League as a domineering institution more as a "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" moment. There's no need to be fabricate some narrative: if you want to justify a greater feeders and sinkers' role in Europeia's foreign affairs do it on the basis of overwhelming public support in opinion polling for feeders and sinkers. I'm sure some feeders and sinkers will be responsive to a genuine, "we would like to get to know you and work with you".

Likewise, I see some growing logic behind a larger stance against griefing for Europeia; in the next year or so, juggling feeders and griefers as a foreign affairs priority is only going to get more difficult as raider groups like The Black Hawks and The Black Riders are starting to set their sights on The Pacifics. Ultimately, raiders are mad dogs chasing cars and your political realist approach demands them to be on a leash that you don't have the luxury of.

On the subject of TNI/LKE-FRA/UDL relations. I cannot speak for the FRA, but if ending the war with TNI would mean Europeia would be more likely to work with the UDL to stop instances of griefing, I would be willing to discuss propositions on how the hostilities could be resolved. Otherwise, I more or less have no incentive to motion for some sort of conclusion other than optics.

Lastly, I agree with Cerian Quilor in saying that griefing (as well as "natives" for that matter) is an abstraction -- there's no concrete thing in the game we can say without a doubt and knock on wood is "griefing", whereas, one could easily identify what is the "Regional Message Board", for example. But not all abstractions are false -- to argue otherwise is to suggest ideas like equality or liberty aren't "real" concepts. It would be wise to compose your own definition of "griefing" though, it has a lot of different meanings.

- Uni

 

[Kylia Quilor]

The raiders aren't going to set their eyes on the Pacifics. The Pacifics are far too stable for any such effort to work.

 

[Rach]

Ultimately, some people in official positions =/= domination; ambiguous and disorganized influence at best.

And at worst?

I see Europeia's insistence of The United Defenders League as a domineering institution more as a "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" moment. There's no need to be fabricate some narrative: if you want to justify a greater feeders and sinkers' role in Europeia's foreign affairs do it on the basis of overwhelming public support in opinion polling for feeders and sinkers. I'm sure some feeders and sinkers will be responsive to a genuine, "we would like to get to know you and work with you".

Europeia has treaties with both The South Pacific, Balder and with The Pacific. We've frequently gone on military missions with TSP and have had summits with The Pacific. So the narrative you spin that Europeia should go out and tell GCRs that "we would like to get to know you" is insulting given the already large role that GCRs play in Europeia's FA.

In fact, it is likely that Europeia has more/nearly as many/equal treaties with Game Created Regions as it does with User Created Regions.

 

[unibot]

I see Europeia's insistence of The United Defenders League as a domineering institution more as a "Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction" moment. There's no need to be fabricate some narrative: if you want to justify a greater feeders and sinkers' role in Europeia's foreign affairs do it on the basis of overwhelming public support in opinion polling for feeders and sinkers. I'm sure some feeders and sinkers will be responsive to a genuine, "we would like to get to know you and work with you".

Europeia has treaties with both The South Pacific, Balder and with The Pacific. We've frequently gone on military missions with TSP and have had summits with The Pacific. So the narrative you spin that Europeia should go out and tell GCRs that "we would like to get to know you" is insulting given the already large role that GCRs play in Europeia's FA.

In fact, it is likely that Europeia has more/nearly as many/equal treaties with Game Created Regions as it does with User Created Regions.

And yet your Grand Admiral is discussing some great narrative about how Europeia needs to extend a foreign olive branch to feeder and sinker communities to replace Feeder Dominance. It seems to me that there is a greater political association between Europeia and the feeder and sinker communities than there is between The United Defenders League and feeder and sinker communities -- which you rightfully point out. All I was saying was that making The United Defenders League out to be ebil feeder monsters to justify a greater role in feeder and sinker communities is unnecessary and unjustified. If you want to do, do it. No need to bring us into the political equation.

- Uni

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

 

[Cocodian]

We do not engage in disguising Cocodian to look like a harmless newbie promoting The Founderless Regions Alliance (who used to brag to me about doing this *grumble*).

:wub: you too Uni


*Sorry if I'm not meant to post here


*Goes back to sleep.

 

[unibot]

We do not engage in disguising Cocodian to look like a harmless newbie promoting The Founderless Regions Alliance (who used to brag to me about doing this *grumble*).

:wub: you too Uni


*Sorry if I'm not meant to post here


*Goes back to sleep.

*waves* Long time no see.