Too Raider? Let's get real.

Foreword:

I apologize in advance if this is a bit too rant-like, it is likely huge rant. Anyway, I've decided to post my own views on Moderatism and the UDL, with the perspective being my own. Personally, I found it interesting to think about moderatism more in depth and hope you find it interesting as well.

Moderatism

In recent weeks, this idea of moderate has emerged. According its proponent, it’s light raiding and this idea that the removal of embassies and tags are too much let alone regional destruction. Abbey harkens back to the days when Euro did multiple raids in an update that it did raid. However, this view is inconsistent considering that one of the groups she criticizes is The Black Hawks.

The whole raiding system that Europeia had in late 2010 to mid 2011 was based on The Black Hawks raiding system. This was Halcones system, this was the way The Black Hawks raided and many of the things Abbey criticizes are in fact staples of The Black Hawks. When she states that she wouldn’t likely build ties with new groups, I highly suspect that she means The Black Hawks, a group whose members have been critical of the idea of the moderatism advanced by herself.

The strangest part for me about moderatism, is that Abbey states she has no issue with any Europeian raids and most of the raids Europeia supports. Her qualm was that she was being ordered to support those few raids. The Europeian response led by myself and then-President North East Somerset was to include Abbey within the current structure and deal with her concerns as a whole by allowing her to create her own group within the Navy. This however was rejected and subsequent offers of teamwork were also rejected. I think the trouble with Abbeys moderate movement is that it has established itself as being distinct from the current Navy and from it’s roots with The Black Hawks.

The Issue with the UDL

Our foreign policy should be based on more than simply raiding and defending. This has been consistent both in Foreign Affairs and on the military side of things. After all, our Navy was used to build ties with The South Pacific and other game created regions and the treaties we signed were with non-raider regions. This whole idea of increased militarism and move into raiderdom is not supported by the facts. In fact, it is difficult to say where this view even came into being. After all, we moved away from Halcone (The Black Hawks) flash raiding and into a more independent focus. What were our proudest achievements last term?

Military

Working with The South Pacific.

Re-Founding A United Kingdom, the descendent of a former FRA region.

Foreign Affairs

A treaty with Lazarus

Advancing our ties with independent and neutral regions

Yet, somehow it has been stated by some that opposing the UDL in foreign affairs is an example of extreme-raiderism. This is despite the fact that the reasons for advancing this view never touches upon the fact that it’s due to they’re raider. It’s due to the fact that they hold anti-Europeian policies.

Their leader, Unibot, has been willing to oppose Europeia in any spectrum due to the fact that we raid. Our values do not matter and the fact that we’re a democracy is taken a slap in the face to them. After all, how can those who impose tyranny on natives (Note: UDL rhetoric) be non-tyrannical? According to Unibot, our system is built for those tyrants and not a true democracy. Hence, according to the UDL, Europeia must be opposed and punished for its crimes. Any acceptance of Europeia on the world stage is a legitimization of its “bullying” and “intolerance”. The lengths he will go to oppose anyone associated with raiding are long and bizarre.

Recently in The South Pacific (he’s a judge there), he lobbied all the UDLers (many of them inactive) in the region to vote against the upcoming TNI treaty due to the fact that it raids. Another UDLer joined TSP simply to vote against that treaty, although the UDL claims that he did this on his own accord and wasn’t ordered to influence the regions vote. He accused former Delegate Southern Bellz (the Delegate disposed in Sedge’s coup of the region) of working for DEN. Another long time citizen, Antarial, with no ties to The New Inquisition was secretly a TNIer according to Unibot.

In Balder, similar election dirty tricks were employed to try to prevent anyone with raider ties from gaining a position. As well, his brazen recruiting of members from other regions and organizations is also a cause for concern. But my biggest qualm with Unibot is the abuse he levels at those who oppose him. It is here, that I’m likely biased towards the organization, perhaps too much so. But the stuff he says to people at times is extremely hateful. It is here that I call hypocrisy on this idea that the group was created to prevent bullying. Unibot has commented that he says what he says because “people get in the way”.

Is this really a raider/defender phenomenon as those moderates label it as?

Defender stalwarts, TITO will not work with them and refuse to have relations.

The defender org and alliance, the FRA, according to Unibot and other UDL higher-ups are utterly corrupt. (Unibot resigned from the FRA as Arch-Chancellor). The FRA is not kind to the UDL in turn.

The Rejected Realms is infamous for it’s rivalry with Unibot, stemming from Unibots accusation that they have always had it in for him and had forced him from the FRA. The issue of harassment by Unibot in TRR for example, is denounced as politics by those within the UDL.

Clearly, it is not a raider perspective to oppose Unibot and the UDL. There is a reason why people have such fervent dislike of the organization and why its members often have to state they are only with it to defend and are willing to put aside their qualm with the actions of Unibot and its leadership. Yet, there are those within the region who are willing to degrade the conversation to say that to oppose the UDL is an example of how raider we are. Does that make TRR really raider as well? It’s an untrue argument.

I realize that, I have obsession with the organization and leader stemming from my own personal dispute with Unibot. I don’t think my thought process is that of an extreme raider and in fact, never touch upon that issue. For me, I have no issues with defenders or those who defend. My issues with the UDL as an organization stem from the actions of Unibot and the UDL beyond the R/D game as well as my own personal dispute with Unibot.

It is extremely annoying to see these dismissed as simply raider and this is a large reason why I loved being a neutral, because people couldn’t bring that word in to dismiss your arguments. I’d also like to point out that the rhetoric from the UDL has been damaging to the R/D game itself and have in fact galvanized more people to fight it.

Back in the Moderatism

I disagree with many of the premises to the moderate movement, namely the fact that those in it seek to degrade our relationship and interaction with the UDL to simply raiding and defending. It is more than that. What is the line?

The idea of moderatism shouldn’t be one of opposition. It is not new; it is not special; it is not even deep. Similar movements have always been in Europeia, but have always been held by those who are able to look at the NS world as more than simply raiding and defending. The premise is simple: We don’t let raiding get out of hand. That is moderatism. How in the world does that deal with what I’ve stated about the world of Foreign Affairs? It is too limited. You need more. You simply can’t use it to try to advance ideas.

The Rejected Realms was brought up. So, according to moderatism, we should sign a treaty with them right and if we don’t we’re extreme raiders?

But what about the fact that long time TRR stalwart Sedge couped Southern Bellz of The South Pacific and that TRR didn’t support aiding the region? This was directly in conflict with our own support of The South Pacific.

Whoops, sorry moderatism… didn’t mean to demonstrate how limited you are.

Anyway, my main issue with how it is that it has been used. It’s not a foreign policy and it’s not effective at looking at our region whose actions are based on a complex combination of values and how we look at the world. It’s an idea for how we should raid and that’s what it should remain. Ever heard of “Honourable Raiding” moderatism? It’s the same idea, but one that didn’t decide to make itself more than it was and decided to work within our Foreign Policy. Making decisions based on our values rather than for raiding, moderate or not. This is what is happening.

It can be useful and beneficial for the region, but not in the way that it has been presented. Why not work with Honourable Raiding and push for a set of new raiding standards for Europeia? Boom! That’s how you get the changes you want by bringing those ideas to the Presidential candidates, it’s not that hard.

Next up: Part II

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Obvious the mods didn't agree either.

 

[Rach]

The revisionism of Unibot never ceases to amaze me. Delusional or an intentional liar? Since, I have hashed this out before and Unibot never responded to the second post. I'm just going to post a couple of my posts on the matter with the UDL:

For me, what bothered me and many others most about the UDL was the attitude and actions of some of it's members. In particular the prominent ones in the leadership. It's a group that says it's about helping the natives yet:

- When challenged to start a democratic convention in Balder, Unibot personally attacks me.
- When Europeia withdrew from North Carolina, the UDL attempted to liberate it for publicity rather than working on regions where longer occupation was the goal.
- Came up with faux reasons to attack the FRA in Balder (which were later changed to a "moral" argument, which was only to gain press).
- Tons of examples of hypocrisy

I think it's wrong to say that "well, these people have concerns because they were always anti-UDL". That hasn't been the case for many people who see what the UDL does and says "wow, what is this... I don't even...". I think that people in the UDL have deceived themselves into thinking that "oh, everyone has a grudge against us and is against defending and wants to steal our members...". But, that's not how it works and I think it's clear to many people that things don't change.

The ironic part is that the way the UDL has dealt with deflections is that it's proving people right about the nature of the organization and certainly not helping it.

But, Eluvatar must be right. If you don't like the UDL, you're not a legitimate member. You have always harboured dislike over the idea of defending and cannot have your own opinions.

I even said that we'd support your efforts [In Balder] should you win. Instead, you railed at me. For what? Because we felt we had as much of a right to be there as you? You were upset because we challenged you and it's been the same thing throughout your career. When you were challenged by people in TRR, you reacted the exact same way. It's why you call the FRA corrupt, why you created the UDL to spite them and you even told me that you are so rude to people because they get in the way and I got in the way. If anyone disagrees with you, it's the same story.

Everything else, like these delusions that people have always had it in for you or that I was dishonest are wrong. It's simply ways for you to justify to yourself, your inability to deal with competition. You say it's disingenuous to bring this up, yet you have been the one who has repeatedly portrayed this issue far differently than reality.

Here are the facts:

1. Prior to this, I had been good friends with you and you had been on good terms with Europeia
2. Balder is formed, UDL moves in
3. I get grasp of the situation, due to pressure in Euro as well as my own wanting to do something big I decide to move in after conferring with people in the region
4. Despite telling you quite clearly our intentions should we win or lose, you flip out. This is something that you'd apologize for later.

Now, you have repeatedly changed the story to number 1 to that we have always been against you. This is simply untrue and it's really funny that you repeatedly accuse me of "half-truths" yet here you are lying and trying to paint the same picture you have painted elsewhere. This picture that the people in TRR have always had it in for you, that the people of Europeia have always had it in for you, that Mall has always had it in for you, that Tramiar always had it in for you, that I always had it in for you. This belief that people can't disagree with you on the merit of their points...

It was your own actions against any form of competition that led to this. Then you ask, well why do I bring it up? It's because this is the heart of the matter, all the lies that you have said with regards to this are simply that. This is due to your actions. Then you wonder why things have been so difficult for the UDL and this is a large part of it.

Since then, Unibot has come up with even an even more bizarre way to revise history. He stated in The South Pacific, that he was attacked in Balder for his defender beliefs. This is utterly incorrect, as it was due to his making similar posts that he has been warned for on the NS forums. No other defenders felt that way! He attacked CD and other members with a huge array of swear words and abuse like what you have already seen.

Unwarranted and the worst part is that he claims to be against bullying when he has to be the worst perpetrator of that crap and then pretending to be the victim. The things he says sometimes are totally out of this world.

For example, one time I was in Balder and I have this guy come to me (who hadn’t met me) and tell me that Unibot has been telling others privately that I’m evil and manipulative. This was before we had started really fighting, and my response to his actions had been more defensive in nature. So I ask Unibot what he is doing. What does he say? Unibot says that I’m part of a conspiracy to make Balder a dictatorship and that to stop me; he is trashing me behind my back to everyone.

Another time, he made a comment to another NSer comparing his chances of liberating a region to degrading me. This gets spread around and I’m upset, so when I confront him about it he tells me that I’m only faking being upset because I’m a raider and that I am pretending in order to attack defenders. It is only when someone brings it up in a channel full of people and the reaction is really negative that he apologizes to me.

I feel I have every right to be angry with Unibot because it was like this vicious cycle. Random attacks and then an apology after a huge fight about what he had said. Of course, that would only last so long until another attack. So I said enough. His whole thing about how he had been bullied in the FRA when we were friends was a lie. How he’s really not an ass, another lie. Once you oppose him, it’s all over and he’ll go into that same frenzy that you’ve already seen multiple times.

This is why people are really gung-ho about “beating” the UDL. The most fervent people against Unibot know what I’m talking about. Now people will say, wow Rachel, Unibot did things but you’re not all innocent. No I’m not. I reacted poorly to being called a “fucking lying manipulative bitch” when I went into Balder. This is someone you consider a friend and then the moment you oppose them… that’s what you get.

How would you react if someone you consider a close friend told you that? It was just more of the same from that point on. I often reacted angrily to events like that, to then being trashed behind my back etc etc

Eventually, you start to realize that this is ridiculous and that if he wants to play that game, that I’m not going to put up with it anymore.

 

[unibot]

Obvious the mods didn't agree either.

Not necessarily, it's possible for flamebaiting to be funny. Mature? Probably not, but I wouldn't describe Eduard's character as mature.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Eventually, you start to realize that this is ridiculous and that if he wants to play that game, that I’m not going to put up with it anymore.

Which is Probably Unitbot's goal. Actually, its not, whatever he says, because if raiders quit, people would be able to ignore Unibot and throw him into the pile of irrelevancy where he belongs.

Not necessarily, it's possible for flamebaiting to be funny. Mature? Probably not, but I wouldn't describe Eduard's character as mature.

The mods banned you. They didn't agree with your logic. That's indisputable.

 

[the Graz]

Way back when, diplomats had better manners than to go challenging the foreign policy or to engage in the political discourse of the regions to which they were dispatched.

 

[Rach]

Way back when, diplomats had better manners than to go challenging the foreign policy or to engage in the political discourse of the regions to which they were dispatched.

You should see him as a citizen

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Way back when, diplomats had better manners than to go challenging the foreign policy or to engage in the political discourse of the regions to which they were dispatched.

I have no problem with him getting involved in the discussion.

 

[Jahka]

Way back when, diplomats had better manners than to go challenging the foreign policy or to engage in the political discourse of the regions to which they were dispatched.

He has an diplomat mask. He's not a diplomat, and this is the public news discussion area. It's not like this is a grandly important matter.

 

[George Cromartie]

-snip-

Those two quoted posts have been answered multiple times.

 

[Skizzy Grey]

Way back when, diplomats had better manners than to go challenging the foreign policy or to engage in the political discourse of the regions to which they were dispatched.

He has an diplomat mask. He's not a diplomat, and this is the public news discussion area. It's not like this is a grandly important matter.

Foreign Minister CSP has made it abundantly clear that Unibot is here as a diplomat.

Of course, consistent with our steadfast belief in freedom, we in Europeia have long tolerated (and even welcomed) participation in debates such as this one by diplomats who are here on official business. It's not as though he is interfering in our internal politics.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

Reading that thread...
Yea, CSP handled it perfectly. I have no problem with Unibot being here, discussing this. Its always fun to see him articulating his (amazingly wrong) position, and he has every right to defend himself and his organization in the court of public opinion, which is essentially what he's doing here.

I have no issues with his presence here.

 

[hyanygo]

Upon a very, very quick and brief period of research, he also seems to be a citizen (see the GH's latest citizen's list).

 

[Rach]

Upon a very, very quick and brief period of research, he also seems to be a citizen (see the GH's latest citizen's list).

The nation he registered with is no longer in Euro, so his citizenship was likely removed for that reason.

 

[hyanygo]

*dropped*

 

[hyanygo]

*dropped*

 

[hyanygo]

nvm

 

[Kylia Quilor]

So unsurprising, Hy

 

[hyanygo]

I had noticed something about a particular Act, at the time of posting it rendered me unfit to rule on that something. So, I contacted the other branch and was told to drop the issue.

If I had kept the issue, it would not have been in the interests of good adminstration. The posts have been suppressed on the interpretation of a request to do so.

So Cerian, kindly take your insinutations elsewhere. I can quite well repeat what I said, but I defer to the other branch in terms of disclosure.

As an aside : it's wonderful that I can predict your cheap and lame attempts at a political dig. And even more wonderdul predicting you running in without possession of the full facts.

 

[Anumia]

Whew...dived into this one, found myself swimming through muck.

On the outset, Rachel, I'd like to say that this wasn't really an article, nor was it even a rant. The original post was a ramble, more than anything else. I don't think it was EBC material.

...and for the love of god, learn how to use "its" and "it's" properly.

Onward!

How Europeian.

A mostly decent post was ruined right about here. Here you were, arguing decently against some parts (I dispute one or two of them, but in general it was a fairly solid response), and then you were foolish enough to throw that out there. Oh well.

@Rachel - You say that Europeia doesn't blindly follow, yet Europeia engaged and took part in a raid that endorsed griefing.

I think I must have missed that one, so for the record, can someone tell me which raid that was?

Where is this road heading if we pursue it and what will the damage costs be to Europeia if we lose Abbey much the same as we lost Oliver and Earth; who similarly left when dissatisfied and disillusioned by the Europeian Government at the time they left? What hurt feelings between old friends would then be instilled? What divides and what depths?

Two things I'd like to point out:

-Oliver and Earth had been the Europeian Government either at the time, or immediately previous, to them leaving. If there were things they wanted to change, they were in the best position to do so. No, that doesn't fly.

-If Abbey leaves, and I sincerely hope she doesn't, even taking comments and arguments on the NS forum that have involved or invoked Europeia that she has been involved in into account, I'd say there's almost 0% chance that she would leave in, er, "much the same [way]" that Oliver and Earth did.

Well, I question how many people join Europeia as raider sympathizers versus how many people are merely "educated" by the social establishment of Europeia into thinking raiding is a good idea without questioning this dogma; I use the dogma as a negative word, one that it is criticizing the lack of internal dispute over the principles held true more so than to criticize the content of this so-called "dogma".

I question how many newbies join the UDL and don't receive this kind of education :lol:

In Europeia, the military isn't the prime focus. It is one of the significant features in the region, and one where a high level of performance can translate into success in the political field, but it is one that new members can ignore entirely (whether because they are not interested or because they are, say, unable to be online during either update), without being shunned or having a hard time finding advancement in society. On the contrary: I'd say the things Europeia values the most in a newcomer is brilliance, friendliness, and hard work. The majority of our rising stars as noted over time (Abbey being an excellent example, for reference) rose because of these reasons. Military interest and participation is a poor second to these characteristics.

Democracy without discussion and dialectics is a withering shadow of true, ideal democracy. That's the purpose of these sorts of threads and criticism by other Europeians: to change your opinion, to articulate their ideas and endeavor for the truth. One's conception of democracy, I dare say it, should not simply be every voter living in a bubble to protect their ideals and their thoughts from scrutiny since, as I've argued early, one's positions and one's ideals are rarely a priori in NationStates so to put this initial belief system of a person on a higher pedestal than the idealized belief system that is the formation of discussion and input from others is an illogical discrimination or preference in and of itself.

I love it when unibot plays intellectual. Highly entertaining ^_^

There's been a lot of talk, pages and pages of it, but actual raiding action is rather sparse on the ground... makes me wonder if the whole thing really is genuine, or just a propaganda ploy to please defenders (which incidentally seem to be the key supporters of this "group") - and steal or break up raiding regions with the "ethical" argument. Oh, guess what, she's here attempting that now, with UDL backup. *chuckles*

Seriously, seriously doubt it.

That's that kind of additude, that degree of moralizing hyperbole, that annoys and pretty much enrages me, and why I dislike the UDL to a much greater degree than I do TITO, or other unaffiliated Defenders.

UDL =/= Unibot.

The argument that the UDL = Unibot is considerably stronger than one that Rachel or anyone else here = Europeia. That's the fundamental difference between a democracy and...whatever's going on over there.

It's not unreasonable to take the opinion of an unelected, long-term leader of an organisation as generally representative of the organisation as a whole: OnderKelkia generally speaks for the LKE; Gryfynn TNI, etc. Slightly different situation as they also have a complementary elected Government to go with as well, but with a place like Europeia, the best someone could say is something along the lines of, "The current and popular President's opinion on Situation X is Opinion Y, therefore the currently holding opinion of Europeia on Situation X is Opinion Y."

In such a situation, these things are transient. Sure, we have some ingrained values and practices, but as a general rule, the careers and influence of most people in Europeia wax and wane on a far swifter scale than in somewhere like the UDL, thus the opinions held by those people has obviously a shorter period of dominance over the Republic.

Gates was Gatesville. Sav was Unknown. Unibot is UDL. Don't like it? Unfortunately, you're going to have to prove that it is not the case, before people will stop seeing it that way.

Ah, a common argument. My problem with this argument is: this is a political simulation; in political simulations, the ethics of one's behavior ought to be questioned in the political system or else it's hardly a good political simulator. Raiding is non-consensual, unjustified and these transgressions are repeated consistently -- you want to conduct this behavior to add depth to your political simulation, but then want to end the political simulation when ethical consequences or moral scrutiny within that simulation emerges. Convenient, yes, but not exactly how things work for real politicians. Truman couldn't call to launch a nuclear weapon then scream, "IT'S JUST A GAME" at the press; You cannot have a political simulation with depth AND no ethical consequences of one's actions, you must choose and frankly Max Barry has chosen for you:

"NationStates is a nation simulation game."​

The problem is your disregard for the lines between OOC and IC.

We have two kinds of IC:

-Nations, such as those who RP actual nations in the NS forums and such.

-Characters, such as the glorious *Anumia whose magnificence shines down upon you all...ahem, anyway.

Then there's the OOC, which is the player.

Now, raiding/defending has nothing to do with Nation RP, and exists wholly from a Character IC basis grown around the in-game movements of nations about and endorsing and such. You can say that practice is bad if you like - I and a great deal of other people disagree with you, but that's a matter for debate - but the problem a lot of people seem to have with you in particular (from what I see, anyway; I've never experienced it personally, and my main problem with you is that you come across as pretentious, unreasonably monolithic, faux-intellectual and plain annoying...but despite that number of unflattering descriptors, it's not really that bad compared to what I estimate are the issues others have: in short, I have little personal beef with you), is that you attack them as people and think it's okay.

You noted how it would be a poor simulation if you said something along the lines of,

"Um, yeah, please don't do that clicky thing and the pilely thing and stuff because I think it's relatively impermissible, eh, but you're still a really good person!"

and I agree on that point, but you're not doing that. No, instead of saying "that clicky thing and that piley thing and stuff is bad", you're saying "this person is bad", and attacking them in what is very clearly a manner not given to IC. Now, I think Falconias was a douche as a character, and he knows that I think that, but we still got along fine as people. There appears however to be little room in your universe for understanding that you can defeat someone without going after them personally.

I play my character pretty close to my heart. *Anumia is, more or less, myself. Yet, people don't come up to me and say, "Anumia, you're a really nasty, horrible person, who just bullies people into saying you're great all the time". 'cause it's just not on.

Unibot is just as human as anyone else. I don't doubt that he flamed a catholic person; got banned for it; and then later on got on someone elses case for doing much the same thing. That shows growth and the understanding that what he did was wrong. That's not hypocrisy.

1) No-one changes heart that quickly. Certainly it has to be close to impossible to be vehemently arguing one side, then almost immediately vehemently arguing the other. Sure, you can have someone prove you wrong on a matter, and say, "Huh, well, you know what? I think you're right." ...but I doubt it's possible to then launch -immediately- into the argument on that other side, guns blazing, if one's heart was truly in the original side to begin with. No, we can change our minds that swiftly, but not our hearts.

2) He has argued here that he still doesn't have a problem with how his character acted. Apparently it was all IC, etc. Soooooo there was no growth, nor understanding about being wrong anyway.

 

[George Cromartie]

How Europeian.

A mostly decent post was ruined right about here. Here you were, arguing decently against some parts (I dispute one or two of them, but in general it was a fairly solid response), and then you were foolish enough to throw that out there. Oh well.

I fear everyone has missed my point there.