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
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
