On the Revitalization of Raiderdom and Europeia's Place in the Modern Gameplay Polychotomy

[upc]

On the Revitalization of Raiderdom and Europeia's Place in the Modern Gameplay Polychotomy​

Editor's Note: This was written on Monday, February 7th, and I have not updated it for the events of the last two days, sorry! The point still stands.

We are coming up quickly on the one year anniversary of my first major operation as a participant in R/D gameplay and as a member of the ERN. I am, of course, referring to the raid of The Embassy. While I do not intend to spend a lot of time rehashing that debacle, I will say that I was shocked at the fervor that opposed the ERN’s participation in the raid. In retrospect, I am more amenable to the argument that because The Embassy’s community was (and is) centered around the creation of gameside embassies, closing all of those embassies constituted significant damage to the region in a way that was not in line with the ERN’s other policies on griefing, and obviously the ERN’s policy guidelines have since been updated to prevent the closing of embassies other than those of fascists or other military organizations.

The ERN participated in a number of other holds in 2021, some led by us and some led by friends or allies. Every action in these subsequent holds was conducted in such a way as to be in keeping with the ERN’s updated Guidelines for Operational Procedure and Ethics. Regardless of whether the lead was a pure raider organization such as The Black Hawks, or fellow Independents such as The North Pacific, no one stepped over “the line” as defined by Europeia and our close ideological allies. As the year progressed, this fact was often repeated in gameplay discussion areas, with Europeia being called moderates, and insinuations being made by prominent raiders that we would be less regularly invited to operations due to the restrictions that our participation brought with it. It is worth noting that at this point in the year most of these words rang rather hollow, and anyone who was even remotely aware of the state of R/D in the latter half of 2021 can attest to the fact that there was unlikely to be any remotely successful attempt at a hold without the participation of one Independent/unaligned region or another.

Things have changed this year, though. As has already been covered in an excellent EBC article, raiders seized control of A Liberal Haven (ALH) on January 2nd, and several liberation attempts (which included a number of ERN sailors) were unable to unseat their pile, which eventually numbered over 200 World Assembly nations. After the decision was made not to pursue further liberation attempts, Europeia and most other regions stopped paying attention to ALH. Raiders didn’t, however. Their coalition stayed in ALH for a month, harassing and provoking natives on the Regional Message Board and via regional polls.

Spoiler: Poll and RMB Messages

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=181872
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=46426701
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=46348634
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=46348090

Through all this, their Regional Officers continued to rapidly gain influence. On February 1st, ‘Got the munchies real bad man’/Vandoosa ejected native Maineiacs from the region, ending a residency streak of over 5 years. To put that in context, there are less than 40 nations in Europeia that have a residency streak greater than or equal to that. This was the most damage that the raiders could feasibly inflict on ALH, given that the former native delegate Garchyland had more than double Maineiacs’ influence, and because an active Security Council Liberation meant that a refounding was impossible. Once Maineiacs was banjected, the raiders put out their op reports and left. Things were mostly quiet until minor today, February 7th, when raiders seized control of The Mystical Council (TMC). When I started writing this, roughly 3 hours after update, the World Factbook Entry proudly displayed “Natives Thrown Out: 1”.

These raids are the most prominent examples of this shift in raiderdom, but by no means are they isolated. In the last month (or so…), raiders have used Stargate, a prominent founderless region under the protection of The North Pacific, as a thorn, and have also tagged both TNP and TEP’s former/current jump points. When viewed together, these actions seem to suggest that raiders believe that they no longer need Independents. When we (meaning Europeia and regions ideologically similar) participate in a hold, the actions taken against the target region are limited to what is allowed per our guidelines. In that way, regardless of who selected the target or took point, we are in control. When raiders don’t need us, as they seem to be demonstrating with these moves, we’ve lost control.

“The ultimate objective of an Independent region’s diplomacy is to maximize utility for the region, as defined by the regional interests.”

It is clearly not in Europeia’s best interests for raiders to be so self-sufficient as to not need us at all. Their recent treatment of our allies has been dismissive at best and openly aggressive at worst. Beyond their dismal attitude towards Europeia and our allies, these raiders have conducted themselves incredibly poorly, and I do not believe that we or anyone else should stand for that behavior. Raiders have issued a challenge, and I sincerely hope that we will answer.

 

[SkyGreen]

Is defender imperialism the solution here?

Great article UPC, it's given me a lot to think about

 

[Icarus]

What would your idea for going forward be? Do you think the ERN should purely fend for a while or do you find self-organised tag raids/ raids with allies should still be something the ERN entertains?

 

[upc]

What would your idea for going forward be? Do you think the ERN should purely fend for a while or do you find self-organised tag raids/ raids with allies should still be something the ERN entertains?

I don’t think there’s any reason for us to stop running our own tag raids/holds with friends and allies. We’ve previously done those things as a way to keep our skills up and to develop better relations with other regions, and those are things we should continue to do. Raiding is not the problem here, the problem is who is raiding and what they’re doing on those raids.

 

[Vor]

I think I would largely agree with your overall message here, but there are some things that also makes me question by exactly which motives you condemn the most recent coordinated raider operations. I think that generally speaking, the most convincing arguments that changed the majority of pro-TE (The Embassy) opinions was not so much a "omg region destruction oh no" argument, and way more of a "this represents Europeia badly". So in other words, a way more diplomatic and optics based argument than a moral one. It seems weird to on one hand say that we (Europeia) separate ourselves from notions of us being on a raider to defender spectrum, while at the same time grouping all raiders together and essentially implying that we should (more or less) join the 'defender' side for the time being and coordinate a response against raiders generally. I think that we have shown in the past and are showing today that Europeia, perhaps even contrary to popular foreign belief, is very capable in maintaining various diplomatic relations across multiple influential regions in NS. If we are truly "[maximizing] utility for the region, as defined by the regional interests", I think it makes sense to continue tackling this from an optics angle (which I think right now we are doing pretty well by tackling aggression against our allies and attempting to thwart wildly unpopular operations (again, among our allies)), rather than moralizing the actions like most of our non-Independent peers do, and letting those ideals fuel our agenda. To be charitable, maybe that's what you are implying all along, but to me it read more like you think of us as necessitating a temporary shift towards defenderdom caused by how morally unacceptable the actions on the other side are, more like an unaligned region than an Independent one.

 

[upc]

Perhaps I did not elucidate my point clearly enough, I apologize. You have raised a number of interesting and important points, which I will break down and respond to below.

I think that generally speaking, the most convincing arguments that changed the majority of pro-TE (The Embassy) opinions was not so much a "omg region destruction oh no" argument, and way more of a "this represents Europeia badly". So in other words, a way more diplomatic and optics based argument than a moral one.”

I am not entirely sure that this is the case. While you are undoubtedly correct that a significant portion of the opposition was based on optics, a number of people were also opposed on the grounds that destroying embassies poses the risk of causing longer lasting damage than our other practices. The Venerable Darcness said it far more eloquently than I:

Most of our rules are built upon a foundation of 'not doing lasting damage'... Removing existing embassies, on the other hand, is more difficult (perhaps impossible) to fix, and should be avoided.

It is clear while reading through our Guidelines for Operational Procedures and Ethics that Europeia has extremely high standards for the conduct of its sailors during operations. Do we maintain these standards purely for optics, or is there a “moral” aspect to them, or are they completely arbitrary? I am not sure, and honestly I am inclined to say that that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The important takeaway here is that we have guidelines, and raider organizations are currently spurning us and our ideological neighbors because of these standards.

It seems weird to on one hand say that we (Europeia) separate ourselves from notions of us being on a raider to defender spectrum, while at the same time grouping all raiders together and essentially implying that we should (more or less) join the 'defender' side for the time being and coordinate a response against raiders generally. I think that we have shown in the past and are showing today that Europeia, perhaps even contrary to popular foreign belief, is very capable in maintaining various diplomatic relations across multiple influential regions in NS.

I did not group all raiders together, they made that decision themselves. I believe the most recent proclamation of “Raider Unity, Maintain Your Founder, Sign a Treaty” was by Venico in the aftermath of the Brotherhood of Malice’s raid on Frozen Circle. I am not aware of any of the Brotherhood’s partners protesting their actions against our allies, but if I have missed something I welcome correction.

I also disagree with the idea that I am suggesting that we become de facto defenders. Opposition to the behavior of the current slate of raider leadership does not preclude us from conducting any operation which is in our interests, as I said in my response to Icarus.

I do agree with you that we have a diverse and highly influential array of diplomatic partners, and I do not envision that changing. I honestly do not have any idea what prompted this, as I made no suggestion that Europeia do anything to buck this trend.

If we are truly "[maximizing] utility for the region, as defined by the regional interests", I think it makes sense to continue tackling this from an optics angle (which I think right now we are doing pretty well by tackling aggression against our allies and attempting to thwart wildly unpopular operations (again, among our allies)), rather than moralizing the actions like most of our non-Independent peers do, and letting those ideals fuel our agenda. To be charitable, maybe that's what you are implying all along, but to me it read more like you think of us as necessitating a temporary shift towards defenderdom caused by how morally unacceptable the actions on the other side are, more like an unaligned region than an Independent one.

I am going to take some time to push back against your argument about optics for a moment. Optics should not be the sole justification behind any of our actions. If the majority of gameplay decided that fascism was a legitimate ideology, would we refrain from antifascist operations because the optics would be bad? I certainly hope not. Europeia is a region that proudly stands by its principles. In my (admittedly extreme) example, that was antifascism. In the current discussion, they are a commitment to our allies and to preventing lasting damage to regions that we do not deem legitimate targets. Any “moralism” in my argument (and I reject that notion regardless) is derived from the standards that we have created for ourselves in the Guidelines for Operational Procedures and Ethics.

 

[SkyGreen]

Do we maintain these standards purely for optics, or is there a “moral” aspect to them, or are they completely arbitrary?

I guess it'd be maximizing utility? Or perhaps optimizing it would be more appropriate. There's really no reason to grief or eject natives, unless you have a very specific goal (like refounding a fascist region). I mean, raiders obviously do it for fun so I guess that's a reason, but that's not compelling enough for us.

It is clearly not in Europeia’s best interests for raiders to be so self-sufficient as to not need us at all

I guess this is part of your conclusion, and it's an interesting point. It reminds me of that Kissinger quote, "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests", something like that atleast.

And with the soonisherino F/S update we will probably have our ideology tested, but until that happens... I guess we will be adapting to whatever the current environment is. Our increase in defensive operations coincided with the rise of defender dominance. Does this mean that as raiders begin dominating we should (re)align our interests? Maybe... I don't know.

---

I think another thing we should take note of is how Independence is being viewed. Our allies in TNP have publicly announced that they will lean more towards defending, in NST's Power20 we can see Andy being described as the face of "little i independence"/unaligned movement, Balder has signed a treaty with TSP.
These are all factors that affect the flexibility of Independent regions, Europeia included.

Perhaps if we want long-term success, we should aim for the (re)popularization of Independence. The more Independents there are, the harder it is for both raiders and defenders to be self-sufficient, as you've put it.

 

[upc]

Our increase in defensive operations coincided with the rise of defender dominance.

This is not really true. Someone with a better memory (or more willingness to go through gameplay reports) could be more specific, but the trend of Defenders winning every liberation began in the earlier half of 2021, whereas we have only been regularly participating in Liberations since perhaps September.

Perhaps if we want long-term success, we should aim for the (re)popularization of Independence. The more Independents there are, the harder it is for both raiders and defenders to be self-sufficient, as you've put it.

You are absolutely correct here and I see no reason why this couldn’t and shouldn’t dovetail with my original thesis.

 

[SkyGreen]

This is not really true. Someone with a better memory (or more willingness to go through gameplay reports) could be more specific, but the trend of Defenders winning every liberation began in the earlier half of 2021, whereas we have only been regularly participating in Liberations since perhaps September.

That's a fair point, but I think even back then we were having discussion about how to train our sailors for defensive ops. In fact I think it was Kazaman's nomination as GA under President Pichtonia back in Dec 2020 that brought into focus the discussion about defensive operations and maximizing our abilities to help achieve our Independent goals. It did however, as you say, take us some time to get from talking about it in the Swakistek Conference Hall to actually implementing it.

You are absolutely correct here and I see now reason why this couldn’t and shouldn’t dovetail with my original thesis.

Fair
Though I couldn't give you any idea on how to actually effectively spread Independent ideology. That's gonna be a big challenge

 

[McEntire]

“The ultimate objective of an Independent region’s diplomacy is to maximize utility for the region, as defined by the regional interests.”

It is clearly not in Europeia’s best interests for raiders to be so self-sufficient as to not need us at all. Their recent treatment of our allies has been dismissive at best and openly aggressive at worst. Beyond their dismal attitude towards Europeia and our allies, these raiders have conducted themselves incredibly poorly, and I do not believe that we or anyone else should stand for that behavior. Raiders have issued a challenge, and I sincerely hope that we will answer.

This is a very insightful piece, and I like that it doesn't presuppose anything, but measures our own success based on the criteria of Independence that we ourselves set out, based on shifts in the actions of others. It's been encouraging to see, over the last several years, Europeia shift to a more independent Independence. I think that longer term shift gives us flexibility in the reassessment you describe here.

I don't know that much about the broader contemporary picture, mostly just wanted to say that this is a great article that sparks a lot of questions.

 

[upc]

Though I couldn't give you any idea on how to actually effectively spread Independent ideology. That's gonna be a big challenge

It will always be an uphill battle to preach and practice Independence. Raiders or defenders (or both) will regularly inveigh against Independents depending on whether or not our goals align with theirs at any given moment, and clearly will not always stop even if our goals are aligned.

The (very small) part of me that is an optimist hopes that as we and other Independent regions step forward and use our ideology flexibly — as it ought to be — some people will develop a newfound appreciation for us. We’ll see if that actually happens though

 

[Vor]

I am not entirely sure that this is the case. While you are undoubtedly correct that a significant portion of the opposition was based on optics, a number of people were also opposed on the grounds that destroying embassies poses the risk of causing longer lasting damage than our other practices. The Venerable Darcness said it far more eloquently than I:

Indeed, there were at first 2 sides to the argument after LL opened the thread: those who thought the regional destruction was immoral, and those who didn't. Of those who didn't view the regional destruction as immoral, the vast majority of them changed their opinion after people like NES spoke up, talking about the broader picture in the political, diplomatic, and optical sense. If we disagree on that we should probably take a look at the thread together sometime and see if one of us is missing the mark on that, but I'm pretty sure that what I'm saying is a fair characterization of the development of popular opinion surrounding The Embassy.

It is clear while reading through our Guidelines for Operational Procedures and Ethics that Europeia has extremely high standards for the conduct of its sailors during operations. Do we maintain these standards purely for optics, or is there a “moral” aspect to them, or are they completely arbitrary? I am not sure, and honestly I am inclined to say that that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The important takeaway here is that we have guidelines, and raider organizations are currently spurning us and our ideological neighbors because of these standards.

I agree 100% here; it doesn't matter if our guidelines are based on (IC) morality or not, the point is indeed based on furthering our regional interests, and strengthening the ties towards our allies. I don't think we disagree here.

I did not group all raiders together, they made that decision themselves. I believe the most recent proclamation of “Raider Unity, Maintain Your Founder, Sign a Treaty” was by Venico in the aftermath of the Brotherhood of Malice’s raid on Frozen Circle. I am not aware of any of the Brotherhood’s partners protesting their actions against our allies, but if I have missed something I welcome correction.

I agree that we should condemn the invading forces in the relevant operations, and if by raiders you just mean the people that raided in those specific operations and nobody beyond that, then obviously I would agree. The issue with the broader statement is that raiders in general are not necessarily okay with even the raid on Frozen Circle (e.g. https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=39335034#p39335034), which is more or less what it sounds like when your message overwhelmingly talks about raiders as one big collective. Not a huge deal to be honest, but I think making this distinction helps when we're trying to be diplomatically flexible.

I also disagree with the idea that I am suggesting that we become de facto defenders. Opposition to the behavior of the current slate of raider leadership does not preclude us from conducting any operation which is in our interests, as I said in my response to Icarus.

I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting we become defenders, but the overall message from your article, which is heavily tied in with the collective raider thingy I mention above, seem to imply a dichotomy that we can participate in, where in this case, we should lean (not become) defender to combat the collective raiders for the time being. You can't tell me that we have a moral prerogative to 'respond to the challenge of raiders' and at the same time tell me we're detached from that spectrum and are acting solely to fight for our allies, you kind of have to pick one there, not for the resulting effectual action (because in this case, they are one and the same), but the underlying justification in ideology that separates an Independent region from one on the spectrum.

I do agree with you that we have a diverse and highly influential array of diplomatic partners, and I do not envision that changing. I honestly do not have any idea what prompted this, as I made no suggestion that Europeia do anything to buck this trend.

We were dealing with circa 200 pilers in recent lib attempts. Do you think that all those pilers came out of nowhere, or did they come out of existing organisations that found a initiative to participate in? If we stand there proclaiming that our main reason to liberate and defend is mostly to combat a rise in raiderdom, we are departing from what is just our regional and ally interests, and focusing more on taking our place in the raider/defender spectrum. That will affect our relations with more than just a bunch of IC-extremists who do nothing but grief regions. We should take action, but for the protection of our allies and the strengthening of ties with our friends as the primary and foremost goal. If we agree on that, then I think we more or less follow the same path.

If the majority of gameplay decided that fascism was a legitimate ideology, would we refrain from antifascist operations because the optics would be bad?

The whole point of remaining outside of the raider defender spectrum is that we are not typically aggressively moralising IC military action on the collective ideals of other organizations alone. Things like fascism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are not just IC problematic, they are OOC problematic, as I'm sure you'd agree. Fascism and similar extremist ideals have (and to some extent still do) effectuate actual harm IRL. But anyways, I don't mean to virtue signal. To answer your (yes, rhetorical, but I do not care :GigaChad: ) question, I would advocate that we not conduct antifascist operations if these ideologies weren't OOC harmful and NSers universally reject the ideology. I would advocate for that 100%.

In the current discussion, they are a commitment to our allies and to preventing lasting damage to regions that we do not deem legitimate targets. Any “moralism” in my argument (and I reject that notion regardless) is derived from the standards that we have created for ourselves in the Guidelines for Operational Procedures and Ethics.

My whole point is that we indeed don't need moralism to condemn these actions and act contrary to the BoM's operations. As you say, it's a commitment to our allies, and whether the overall actions are IC moral or immoral are really not (and I would also argue, should not be) relevant to our considerations outside the exceptions to moralization that include the OOC issues I mentioned above. I would also add that the guidelines for operational procedures and ethics were by vast majority already a part of ERN protocol, just more as unwritten rules than written ones (although even those existed to some extent, I believe), and with the exception of course of The Embassy additions. The guidelines just updated and formalised that content. But I digress.
You kind of lose me in your line of argumentation at the end. On the one hand, we operate for more reasons than just optics, which I would indeed say, in operations like this, diplomatic and political concerns are among the chief concern that optics entails (and of course intertwined with each other heavily). But then you give the example of antifascist operations, which is undoubtedly a moral endeavor, to then afterwards say you reject notions of moralism while also implying that we do them specifically because of IC moral reasons?? Maybe I'm missing something here, but all I piece together is contradiction, even minus the above part about OOC vs IC.

All in all I think we largely agree on what action has to take place, but I don't see how you can say what you're saying while also maintaining our separation from the raider/fender spectrum and moralizing IC military concerns.

 

[McEntire]

You can't tell me that we have a moral prerogative to 'respond to the challenge of raiders' and at the same time tell me we're detached from that spectrum and are acting solely to fight for our allies, you kind of have to pick one there, not for the resulting effectual action (because in this case, they are one and the same), but the underlying justification in ideology that separates an Independent region from one on the spectrum.

I don't think that Independence means that we are detached from the R/D spectrum. Unless I'm mistaken, countering Defender influence has been an ERN objective in the past, and that was still in line with Independence. I think that conflating the two (i.e. saying that we couldn't be opposed to a certain faction or certain tactics of "raiderism" writ large) is unnecessarily limiting. It's a well established principle that Independence does not mean ideological neutrality. We're not off the spectrum, we're willing to move along the spectrum based on our own interests, capabilities, and alliances. The contradiction you're noting here does not exist.

The whole point of remaining outside of the raider defender spectrum is that we are not typically aggressively moralising IC military action on the collective ideals of other organizations alone.

I have never understood the raider obsession with not "moralizing" IC issues. So strange, the idea that it's somehow unrealistic to apply any standard of morality to NS military gameplay. In any situation, of course we would weigh a variety of concerns, including moral, practical, operational etc. In any case, the issue here is less "moralizing" and more alignment with our own ERN Guidelines for Operational Procedures and Ethics. Morality does come into play when the Europeian government and public have established clear guidelines and precedent of our own conduct over years. It's been an issue in Presidential elections, Senate confirmations, and just generally in discussions.

So the issue at hand is really that among the ERN's considerations is domestic political will and standards set into place by democratic governments. We have been very fortunate that many leaders over the last several years have made great effort to increase transparency and public input in foreign affairs, and I think those changes certainly have increased our collective awareness of such issues.

 

[Seva]

I honestly think there will always be a moralist part of all military operations. When the ERN raids, I don't think you can say we only care about optics. Clearly, we draw the line somewhere - at no griefing, for example. These current raiders don't draw any lines.

I think when we say "we reject the dichotomy", it only means we don't let *others'* morals define us. Doesn't mean we don't have our own.

That's just my quick remarks. Great article, UPC, certainly much to discuss!

 

[Comfed]

Edit: So, first I quoted some messages and accidentally hit the post button before writing by replies. I had some replies, but then I accidentally hit the goddamn cancel button.

Sigh.

 

[Andusre]

I am putting literally everything pertinent to morality in R/D aside in this reply because that is irrelevant to the core of the matter & serves only to muddy the waters; what this conversation centres around is regional sovereignty.

So let's dive into that!

In 2021, very few occupations succeeded without the assistance of independent support. In an era of defender domination, raiders like Lone Wolves United & The Black Hawks - who were the only active raider militaries at the time - had no choice but to comply with independent policies on griefing, as UPC aptly pointed out. It was necessary for raiders to use their sovereignty to 'pander' to indies, who were the kingmakers in the fates of occupations & liberations.

In the post-A Liberal Haven R/D scene, many raider militaries are reviving such as the Brotherhood of Malice & Osiris, along side TBH & LWU gaining enormous amounts of new strength. The most recent pile in The Mystical Council purportedly has nearly 50 pilers from LWU alone and the occupation of A Liberation Haven saw TBH bring upwards of 100 pilers to the table. Raiders evidently no longer need independent regions to pursue their goals in this environment, and they have made that abundantly clear by acts of invasion against The East & North Pacific.

I wish to pay particular attention to the raid of Frozen Circle. The reason I focus on this in particular over the raid on Birb is because (a) Birb is no longer an actively used JP (b) TNP had very recently put out their On Alignment statement which was inevitably going to draw raider ire (c) the delegate of TNP, MadJack, has fairly openly said TNP does not care about the raid. The East Pacific, a treaty-bound ally of Europeia (and many of Europeia's allies/friends like Balder, The North Pacific, Thaecia and the NPO), is an unaligned region which thus far has done nothing to draw particular anger from raiders. They attended the liberations of A Liberal Haven, sure, but EPSA has maintained working relationships with raiders for years despite occasionally turning up for liberations. No statements saying they'd be leaning more towards defenders, no public feuds with raiders, nothing. The Brotherhood of Malice still decided it was an apt judgement to raid the Jump Point of a region which has shown nothing but respect & decency to the raider faction. Now, it may be tempting to then retort "But the Brotherhood of Malice is only one organisation in the raider faction - why should their actions tar all of raiderdom?" and the answer to that is fairly simple: the Brotherhood of Malice has significant cross membership with The Black Hawks. Indeed, Souls & Koth - who made their entire IC names by being TBH Council Members - are in BoM command and personally participated in the raid of Frozen Circle. There are countless more examples of cross membership, but those two in particular serve as good examples to the broader point that raiderdom often isn't as diverse as it may initially seem, and that the lack of respect for regional property from raiders' ideological leaders should be concerning. Further exacerbating an already irritating situation is the comments made by Miravana - who is currently serving in TBH's Council & is largely viewed as responsible for TBH's revival - in the NSGP server saying something to the effect of "They are just jump points, no one cares". He is wrong that no one cares. As if I needed to add any more, Atlae, our beloved friend from the East, took to the GP forums to note that he approached Koth to discuss the raid. Atlae was met with disinterest from Koth, who "understood that raiding Frozen Circle is an affront to TEP's sovereignty but [Koth] didn't care because [EPSA is] 'not raiders'".

Moving away from TEP, there is yet more on display that raiders have given up caring for independent support now that it is no longer necessary for them. Up until only a few weeks ago, the Sekhmet Legion of Osiris was completely dead: no operations, no unique updaters that weren't cosmopolitans, no joint ops with other regions, et cetera. Not long ago, a member of TBH revisited the region and, credit where credit is due, has started generating some meaningful activity within Sekhmet. Osiris was invited to the raid of A Liberal Haven & is currently supporting the occupation of The Mystical Council. Osiris is a region with a sour history in modern gameplay: they have led very public, hurtful & dangerous OOC campaigns to get their IC opponents blacklisted - a trend which only semi-recently died off due to the disappearance and eventual DoS of Cormac - and ICly has been aggressive to Europeia and its allies. As recently as March 2021, they had a public spat with Balder over something which I'm not going to bother getting into at the moment - read the forum post & NST article if you're interested. A bit further back in September 2020, Osiris dissolved its treaty with The East Pacific & burned its bridges in a very messy, unprofessional public fallout. In my opinion, Osiris' values in recent years do not come anywhere close to alignment with independent regions. Until Sekhmet revived, Osiris was rightfully shunned by raider organisations who prioritised independents - that circumstance has done a full 180 flip since the occupation of A Liberal Haven, and I find myself very strongly questioning the sincerity of raider outreach to independents at the hour they needed them, when they so quickly turned their backs to align with an enemy as soon as it became politically expedient.

It seems raider leaders have made it abundantly clear that they are no longer interested in independent militaries. Their actions over the course of the past 2-3 weeks has laid bare the ideological & diplomatic rifts between two groups who once considered themselves working partners. If raiders continue to flip the middle finger to independents, it is well within reason that independent regions respond to that by working against raider goals - which means that a re-evaluation of priorities, or indeed of alignment should it come to that point, may become necessary.

I want to put a short break here because this is where I am going to move more OOC.

I really wish I didn't have to write this, but alas, I feel I do. I skimmed over "OOC campaigns to get their IC opponents blacklisted" for a reason - most notably because I don't particularly want to rehash the events of the past, but also because I feel it is important to raise the recent conduct of raiders in OOC settings.

Spoiler: If you care to know, here is a summary of recent events

In the NSGP server, where caustic & snarky IC conversations regularly happen, there have been many instances in the past few days of raider-aligned people throwing OOC sludge at their IC opponents. Quebecshire, founder of The League & arguably the public face of the defender LDF military, was arguing with Zeo, who recently returned to NS & is currently a member of the Brotherhood of Malice. In their conversation, Quebecshire called a point that was raised "delusional", to which Zeo accused Quebecshire of being ableist. The setting of this is important, as this conversation took place in a strictly in-character channel. Zeo did not move to the #moderation channel, which would have been the appropriate place to raise such OOC concerns, but instead levied the accusation in the in-character channel. Later that day, I was admittedly unnecessarily/overzealously IC antagonistic towards Varanius, upon which Zeo based the accusation that I was OOC questionable because I was being IC antagonistic towards a child & that Vara deserves special protection from having his IC feelings hurt because he's OOC under 18. Zeo was confronted on the blatant use OOC to slander IC opponents in #moderation, and met that confrontation with a quip about Quebecshire being an IC moralist defender. Souls joined in on the bandwagon.

I recognise that when reading this, this is not particularly concerning & the details are difficult to visualise in text without context. I left the GP server, so unfortunately I cannot go to pull logs. The important takeaway from these interactions over the past few days is that raider individuals with years-long histories of throwing OOC sludge at IC opponents have returned to the R/D game and are beginning to use the same antics now as they did years ago. As I said in the GP server, the behaviour starts with small instances like those highlighted above which quietly & passively collect over time, and playing the waiting game until rumours sufficiently spread & OOC moderation teams across the NS world catch wind of "This person is kind of questionable". Eventually something minor comes along which triggers a cascade of OOC blacklisting, built upon a foundation of months or years of silently spreading slanderous OOC rumours.

It's incredibly troubling both because it makes players IC afraid of opposing certain people who willingly weaponise OOC moderation, and it undermines trust between OOC communities, leaders & moderation bodies. OOC is not a weapon for IC politics, and pitting OOC moderation teams against one another in that way is dangerous, irresponsible & unsafe.

I don't know where the next few months in GP will go, but either way I would be lying if I said I was not deeply concerned. Independent regions, by virtue of being regions who prioritise sovereignty at heart, are well-positioned to respond & adapt to GP's rapidly changing conditions and this thread reflects that.

Spoiler: Boring disclaimer

"I'm saying these thoughts on my own & am not speaking as representative of any organisation, region, government, et cetera."

 

[Sincluda]

Atlae was met with disinterest from Koth, who "understood that raiding Frozen Circle is an affront to TEP's sovereignty but [Koth] didn't care because [EPSA is] 'not raiders'".

This quote alone is a good summary of how raiders have moved away from dependence on Independents.

 

[Comfed]

Atlae was met with disinterest from Koth, who "understood that raiding Frozen Circle is an affront to TEP's sovereignty but [Koth] didn't care because [EPSA is] 'not raiders'".

This quote alone is a good summary of how raiders have moved away from dependence on Independents.

Another good summary is this:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=39335069#p39335069

Raider Unity, Maintain Your Founder, Sign a Treaty

Note also the assumption that it is perfectly acceptable to raid independent turf if the independent region doesn’t ask them to stop. Edit: though, that doesn’t matter too much either, because apparently independents don’t matter.

 

[Turbiatop]

It feels like there is a divide forming in the R/D sphere between Raiders and Independent/unaligned regions! Just my take on things.

 

[Sopo]

All I can think about reading this is that Independents are sort of like the Avatar - bringing balance to the world. Now that raiderdom has picked up again and has made it clear they're no longer playing ball with us, we pivot to counter them. Because it's in our interests, broadly speaking, that there is no one dominant side and a robust "third way."