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

 

[the Graz]

The revival of this idea that democracies cannot raid is the newest fad in a spew of meritless defender rhetoric.  A democratic region can do whatever a majority of its people damn well please.

The revival of this idea that defenders are reviving the idea that democracies cannot raid is the newest fad in a spew of meritless raider rhetoric.

How ... unoriginal. I'm surprised at you, Jahka

I'd be uncomfortable saying Europeia makes "raiding" a learned trait or anything, though, UB. I'd say Europeia makes "doing what makes Europeia better" is a learned trait, which makes it no different from any other region that has military activity.

In fact its more moderate status means that its making "raiding" a learned trait is hardly possible, unless it's raiding in order to further Europeia's interests.

Finally, nobody is questioning anybody's right to question the "plurality" reasoning. Disagreement is not censorship.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

I never said Abbey didn't have the right to criticize, Unibot. But I also have the right to criticize her views as well.

I'll admit, before I came to Europeia, I had no R/D sympathies either way, and if I had joined a Defender Region first, I'd probably be a defender. (though I'd like to think I'd not fall so far as to join the UDL) But Defender regions are just as guilty of the sin you propose Europeia commits on that front.

But my point still stands. It is still entirely possible for Europeia to become led by defenders, to break off all its previous friendships and alliances, and become a defender region. The odds are against it, but then again, that's democracy.

 

[Cormac]

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've been staying out of this thread, primarily because I think it should be killed. No, not just killed, that's not strong enough -- killed with fire. And I don't just mean Rachel's OP. I mean the whole thread.

But I just have to say something:

Europeia doesn't run reeducation or re"education" camps, and raiders aren't mindless lemmings who follow the leader. Those of us who are raiders are raiders because we want to be raiders, having given it due consideration. The idea that so-called raider "dogma" isn't questioned here is preposterous. There are soft or moderate raiders like Abbey who criticize hard raiding tactics and there are also straight up defenders who criticize raiding altogether. So the idea that Europeians are indoctrinated into raiding without ever being exposed to any internal dispute over these principles is a ludicrous argument, which isn't particularly surprising given where the argument is coming from.

I also find it rich that raiders are being lectured on indoctrination by Unibot, or really by any defender. It's not as though defender regions like XKI for example are particularly welcoming of raiders (that's really an understatement) or that a diversity of views can be found in them. Whereas there are many in Europeia who are in favor of moderate raiding and independent foreign policy, and even some who are defenders, every political party in XKI is strongly committed to defending. There is no real dissent to speak of. And having once tried to participate in an FRA region that shall remain nameless and told that I would be subjected to "greater scrutiny until fully integrated into the region" (direct quote) just because I was a raider -- and even though I had fully disclosed this -- I don't think it's at all uncommon for defender regions to silence dissent and discriminate against those who have different views. You won't find that kind of silencing and discrimination here, just spirited and sometimes heated debate.

So I guess what I'm saying is people in glass regions shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Rach]

My issue with this idea of moderatism, is that it's false with regards to painting the current picture. The way we raid, with the exception of playing a style that is based on our strengths, hasn't changed. Our Foreign Policy has been extremely open and signing treaties lately with neutral regions. Our Navy itself has broadened its base to be more independent, working with multiple groups such as the South Pacific Army and works to be more reflective of the Europeian population as a whole.

If your issue is with a few of the raids that we support, then say that, rather than say that the region as a whole is less moderate when in fact it's arguably as inclusive as it's ever been. In reality, Abbey is asking us to be less inclusive in what has been a very diverse Navy.

But it's simple. If you want change, then make change happen. Focus your energies on addressing the raids you don't like and changing the policy to be less inclusive towards that. Bring it up in the Presidential races. That's how you get things done.

 

[North East Somerset]

I agree with Cormac with regards to what Unibot said about the "establishment" "educating" people towards raiderism. Isn't it possible that the Europeian community simply chose to raid, and believe that it is their sovereign right for their military to do so, rather than it being some vast conspiracy theory?

Not only did NES ask me this at around 11pm, while I’d swapped to my phone and he -knew- I was intending on going to bed (so I was less than impressed about his choice of timing), I explained to him at the time my reasoning (as much as I could while half asleep and on my phone). I did not want to be just a “side” for the ERN. I was hardly going to be able to actively recruit, and I was going to find myself incredibly bored, as all the main ERN troops that I could possibly call on were going to be tied up reinforcing other raids a lot of the time. I wanted the ERN in its entirety to return to old values, and I felt that a side group was just going to make things worse.

With regards to this thread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=162585

And Abbey saying she wanted to make a moderate raiding org, I approached her with an offer to have a Regiment within the ERN dedicated to moderate raiding. She said "Europeia has a habit of changing, the sustainability of such an extra regiment would only be conditional on the people within Europeia alone that want to join it, rather than generally."

She said she left the ERN because "I got fed up of objecting to most of the missions I got asked to support".

I said she will have access to ERN soldiers. She replied: "what, all 5 of them?"

I said she can have the best of both worlds with moderate raiding, and remaining a part of Europeia's military, she replied: "and Europeia isn't my number 1 priority"

I said, well what is? She replied: "Enjoying this game. Not being attempted to be stopped from going out and founding another organisation, and being told it's whether I'm interested in doing what is best for Euro."

I said fine, it's her choice, and she must do what she feels is best. I never stopped her or threatened her. I just offered an alternative. I didn't even express my disappointment that she just went and did this without consulting any ERN personnel (afaik). So there you go.

Incidentally, the Cat Burglars or whatever they are called. What this whole thing is about. I understand they conducted a small raid with two people (Abbey herself, and an defender guy called Jamie) about a month ago. Have they done anything since? Because you've written enough about the subject to publish a PhD on it Abbey.

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*

I can't say any of this surprises me. Abbey has always been very close to Oliver and Earth, and whilst she did not completely leave with them, she has followed them around various regions, such as TRR and more recently Osiris. She thus spends most of her time socialising with various UDLers on the IRCs. So, this whole thing is not very surprising. Europeia as shown above by the quotes from a couple of months ago, has clearly dwindled to a very minor consideration to her. As I've always said, she is welcome to be part of the Europeian community, but not to influence our military and foreign policy when clearly she has demonstrated her interests are not with Europeia. That is exactly what she has attempted to do with the majority of her posts here in recent months, and this is a grave disappointment.

NES.

 

[unibot]

Europeia doesn't run reeducation or re"education" camps, and raiders aren't mindless lemmings who follow the leader. Those of us who are raiders are raiders because we want to be raiders, having given it due consideration. The idea that so-called raider "dogma" isn't questioned here is preposterous. There are soft or moderate raiders like Abbey who criticize hard raiding tactics and there are also straight up defenders who criticize raiding altogether. So the idea that Europeians are indoctrinated into raiding without ever being exposed to any internal dispute over these principles is a ludicrous argument, which isn't particularly surprising given where the argument is coming from.

I think you're perhaps blowing out of proportion was I was suggesting, I think it's inherently natural for a community to form dogmatic principles and for newcomers to borrow those principles without really coming to question those principles. In particular, when you're trying to become a bureaucrat anywhere in the world or on NS, you learn the ropes, how to do the song and dance and eventually your mouth does the talking instead of your head. A response like "It is in Europeia's best interests to raid" is, I think, a learned soundbite or response for many Europeian politicians and it would be arguably political disadvantageous for them to criticize that principle in public. I'm sure there are people who thought up that principle and people who could justify it -- but I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of Europeia's politicians would be purely bullshitting their answer.

It's not some evil Ludovico Technique or anything like that and I certainly wasn't suggesting that. It's hard for me to say how much dispute really goes on in Europeia -- those discussions are closed to me and it's natural for a region to appear unified in its position. I'm merely inferring how, confrontational this thread has been to Abbey for being a "soft" raider and I've seen other defenders in Europeia have their opinions dismissed out of virtue of them being defenders... ah.. and you just did it in the last sentence of this paragraph. Alrighty. :/

I also find it rich that raiders are being lectured on indoctrination by Unibot, or really by any defender. It's not as though defender regions like XKI for example are particularly welcoming of raiders (that's really an understatement) or that a diversity of views can be found in them. Whereas there are many in Europeia who are in favor of moderate raiding and independent foreign policy, and even some who are defenders, every political party in XKI is strongly committed to defending. There is no real dissent to speak of. And having once tried to participate in an FRA region that shall remain nameless and told that I would be subjected to "greater scrutiny until fully integrated into the region" (direct quote) just because I was a raider -- and even though I had fully disclosed this -- I don't think it's at all uncommon for defender regions to silence dissent and discriminate against those who have different views. You won't find that kind of silencing and discrimination here, just spirited and sometimes heated debate.

You should note the rest of this post I wrote after reading this, so when I criticize 10000 Islands, I'm thinking along the same lines as you too. My own region is tagged as defender because it has me as the founder and we defended for some time, but our regional citizenry is mostly WA Authors and the other gameplayers are primarily TBH members actually. I've slipped up and said some stupid things to them in the past, but it's a tortured, bumpy friendship. Occasionally after staying up for a few days straight or when I was abusing opiates, I just wanted to scream at raiders when what I really just needed was a good night's sleep and a reflection upon why the hell it was I defended in the first place. That was back when update was a good three hours and it was bit rougher on the individual.

I never said Abbey didn't have the right to criticize, Unibot. But I also have the right to criticize her views as well.

I'll admit, before I came to Europeia, I had no R/D sympathies either way, and if I had joined a Defender Region first, I'd probably be a defender. (though I'd like to think I'd not fall so far as to join the UDL) But Defender regions are just as guilty of the sin you propose Europeia commits on that front.

But my point still stands. It is still entirely possible for Europeia to become led by defenders, to break off all its previous friendships and alliances, and become a defender region. The odds are against it, but then again, that's democracy.

Okay, yeah agreed, most defender regions probably do go without questioning their principles. It's especially difficult to do so when a community is an Eternal September; for example, I have little doubt that at one time Grub in 10ki came to his convictions through rational thought (perhaps when his own region was threatened), but I doubt that a newbie coming in the game in 2012 are totally "free" to explore various positions in debate, when many of the lead members of 10000 Islands have long since convinced themselves of their position since these newbies are going to be getting, for the most part, one side of the story and they're probably not going to be trusted if they don't show demonstrations of conviction with defenderism. That's frankly how most communities operate but I don't think we should just leave it at that -- two or multiple wrongs doesn't make it right; would you admit that the idealized form of a community is one in which we more or less let people be free to develop their own belief systems within reason?

Nonetheless, that's not really even important to what I was arguing, I just like tangents. I was just arguing that newbies are impressionable and they come into the game with few positions about anything NationStates related -- they take in rehashed arguments that are circulated, so these votes to decide how the region will act simply reflect the principles held by people and it very well could be dogma if people like Abbey aren't allowed to criticize those positions even if the voting majority doesn't agree with her. Now you admit that she has a right to do so and I think you have a right to counter-argue her, sure, but I question the content of the counter-argument; I think it potentially leads to a fatalism where we're all just cows getting tagged as "defenders" or "raiders" and the plurality wins with little rhyme or reason behind picking up that tag and putting it on your ear.

So, here's a common reasoning brought up for being a raider in Europeia:

I'd be uncomfortable saying Europeia makes "raiding" a learned trait or anything, though, UB. I'd say Europeia makes "doing what makes Europeia better" is a learned trait, which makes it no different from any other region that has military activity.

I hear this argument a lot, but I have to question whether it is really in Europeia's "self-interest". Europeia is looking for a more complex political simulation in a game that, well, lacks a legitimized warfare mechanism and it wants to promote a more complex political agenda with more complex foreign affairs. But out of these wishes it turns to raiding which is arguably unpolitical and characteristically antagonistic. If Europeia where a real-life nation, the behavior of a raider region would translate into serious war-crimes -- utterly unjustified international aggression that basically is explained by the aggressors as well, "fun". You want to play complexly with real depth, but if I were a real journalist in a good political simulation, I'd be thinking: "what the f*** is wrong with you?"

The reasons for turning to this simplistic model is pretty simple: (1) too few of people actually want to play Europeia's game outside of Europeia to actually facilitate full-fledged interregional political warfare, so instead of being left out, the region is trying to fuse its beliefs with game-behavior that is inconsistent with its regional culture, (2) Europeia can get allies by entertaining these kiddies little "pissing on regions for no real justification" game. There are however potential alternatives, such as hosting "provincial" regions of Europeia outside of Europeia and using them to facilitate the complexities of a political-war engine between the Europeian provinces (this would be quasi-IC) instead of having to rely on non-Europeians to play the same game. I dunno, I'm sure this is only the tip of the ice-burg as to why it is in Europeia's interests to raid, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if I don't know ... some of your newer players who are eating up these responses ("Why do we raid?", "Because it is in our best interests!") don't really have an intelligent defense either to provide.

 

[the Graz]

You're one dedicated propagandist, buddy

 

[Kylia Quilor]

If Europeia where a real-life nation, the behavior of a raider region would translate into serious war-crimes --

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. You treat us like we're criminals, thugs, bullies, etc, good for nothing but prison. You actively demean us, like we're just the scum beneath your feet, which is hardly going to make friends and influence people. My choice to raid does not make me a war criminal. No nations die - no one dies at all, actually - and I have never participated in a raid that has led to the distruction of a region. Not Catholic, not Portugal, not Belgium, not TRR, not Outer Heaven, not Galway, not Tibet, not Italia, not Christmas, not Soviet Union, or any of the rest I've been part of. I'm not guilty of anything approaching War Crimes, and your words diminish the horrors caused by REAL war crimes. The only thing that approximates war crimes in this game is Off-site terrorism. And even that is stretching the term.

If you think raiding is wrong, say so. If you happen to thing there is a moral aspect to it, despite the fact that this is a GAME, then even then, you can say so. But your hyperbole is only escalating the rhetoric. UDL language is half the reason I'm so vehement in defense of my position as a raider, and unarguably a contributing factor as to why Abbey's 'light raider' language - or whatever you want to call it - pisses me off so much.

Any region that reaches an ideological conclusion will tend keep it. I mean, you don't see many people here supporting the return of HEM to the throne? To argue that that is wrong is to argue that forming a community is wrong. A democratic region will tend to keep that democratic consensus, while the Pacific has kept to its Francoist 'consensus' since 2003. A region will forge consensus over time, and of course new people are going to be exposed to it.

Just from this thread alone, though, you cannot under any circumsances argue that this thread has been overly against Abbey. The only people vehemently or even particularly annoyed at her here in this thread are myself and Rachel, with everyone else trying to distance themselves from our positions or actively disagreeing with us.

The typical Unibot.

 

[George Cromartie]

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.

 

[Guy]

Unibot holds a greater degree of power over the UDL than I have seen in any other organisation or region in NationStates.

 

[George Cromartie]

And yet his opinions are not the UDL's official stances, unless otherwise stated.

As you should well know.

 

[Rach]

And yet his opinions are not the UDL's official stances, unless otherwise stated.

As you should well know.

This is true, however, I think about the employee who makes inappropriate comments and is disciplined for them by his organization (penalties/warnings for breach of contract to outright firing). There should be standards for what a leader should and shouldn't do.

The UDLs response has always been to distance itself from it's leader, which is odd given the degree of power he holds over the organization. For most, people, it isn't good enough and hence, the UDL is continually regarded as one and the same with Unibot. The org does not show itself to be independent enough of Unibot to be free of association and responsibility for his negative actions.

 

[unibot]

despite the fact that this is a GAME

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."​

If your problem with me is simply my rhetoric, not my defense of my position:

I don't view "forum destruction" as apart of the simulation, why? (1) it's a tactic of RL bullies, (2) I think if Max Barry could stop forum destruction, he would. So by including it in your moral system, you're allowing things like raiding by contrasting it with forum destruction and saying: "yeah, it's comparably good". In game, stuff like Macedon's tactics I view as some of the worst native rights violations possible and every action descends from them gradually in blameworthiness. But that still suggests that the invasions of Catholic, Portugal, Belgium, TRR, Outer Heaven, Galway, Tibet, ITALIA, Christmas, Soviet Union, or any of the rest you've been part of are bad actions in the moral system I've devised. My rhetoric does mirror real life rhetoric because it would hardly be a good simulation if my rhetoric against you was: "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!"

If you find my rhetoric diminishes real-life War Crimes then you yourself need to reconsider the real violence of War Crimes since anyone who understands them can easily distinguish them from NS native rights violations in the same manner that they can distinguish Tom Cruise from real government operatives trying to save the world.

 

[George Cromartie]

What exactly do you want Rach?

Do you want UDL members to criticise Unibot? It happens. Frequently.

Do you want UDL members to tell Unibot when he's out of order? Well, that happens too.

Or are you not paying attention? Were you not paying attention when I called Unibot out on his actions and criticised them on this very forum?

And you say 'most people'? What makes you qualified to comment on behalf of most people? Who made you the voice of the majority? So far your only support in this thread is Cerian, NES and a hypocrite who criticises UDL members who criticise other defenders then calls out those same members 'too lazy' to spot.

 

[Kylia Quilor]

And again, your rhetoric of comparing a raid to the use of a nuclear weapon proves my point.

 

[Rach]

I'm fairly certain the argument I just laid out, is more widely held than what I laid out initially. This highlights your comment on dislike vs opposition. It has been something I have grappled with, why is it that Unibot and the UDL are considered as one more than any other region or organization? That was my opinion on why that is.

What I want? I'm not sure. Justice and for it not to be abandoned?

I think what I do want for sure, is for it to stop (the extremely annoying side things) and this is something I was talking to CoE about. We have no issues with an active defender org and the absence of one, would be detrimental. For example; we talked about we'd really only want the UDL gone if it were to be replaced. It's just that the criticisms and telling Unibot when he's out of order don't seem to work and it feels like he concedes only because the majority find it unreasonable rather than an honest admission of fault (this is a view held by others as well).

 

[Cormac]

My impression of the UDL is in fact that it stands for the Unibot Defense League. Whether I agree with Rachel's initial argument or not -- some of it I do, some of it I don't -- I do agree with that, and I think there are many others who do as well. Your organization would be better served if his virtually absolute power was diminished. My impression is that he seems to think he is the UDL, or at least that he alone speaks for it if not for all defenders everywhere. Just look at this:

I'm merely inferring how, confrontational this thread has been to Abbey for being a "soft" raider and I've seen other defenders in Europeia have their opinions dismissed out of virtue of them being defenders... ah.. and you just did it in the last sentence of this paragraph. Alrighty. :/

I didn't dismiss his comments because he was a defender. I dismissed them because he's Unibot. Why does he think he speaks for defenders, or for the UDL? Because he's on a massive power trip. The UDL and defenders in general would be better off taking him down a peg and forcing some humility where none currently exists. It's that simple.

You want to know why newbies become raiders? I can't speak for all newbies, but when I first started NS I started out on the NS forums before I ever got deeply involved in a region. I saw Unibot's behavior on the forums and the UDL in his signature and thought, whatever that guy's doing I'd like to do the opposite. So we can add that into the mix for the raider psychoanalysis that's been going on in this thread. The great white knight of defending, by his behavior, drives newbies to raiding.

 

[George Cromartie]

What I want? I'm not sure. Justice and for it not to be abandoned?

Where was justice in North Atlantic?

My impression of the UDL is in fact that it stands for the Unibot Defense League.

Then you're either an idiot or ignorant.

Your organization would be better served if his virtually absolute power was diminished.

He doesn't have 'virtually absolute power'... at all.

I didn't dismiss his comments because he was a defender. I dismissed them because he's Unibot. Why does he think he speaks for defenders, or for the UDL?

Where did he say he speaks for defenders again? Feel free to point it out.

Because he's on a massive power trip. The UDL and defenders in general would be better off taking him down a peg and forcing some humility where none currently exists. It's that simple.

I can't speak for all newbies

And yet you go on to do just that.

You're a hypocrite.

 

[Henry]

My impression of the UDL is in fact that it stands for the Unibot Defense League. Whether I agree with Rachel's initial argument or not -- some of it I do, some of it I don't -- I do agree with that, and I think there are many others who do as well. Your organization would be better served if his virtually absolute power was diminished. My impression is that he seems to think he is the UDL, or at least that he alone speaks for it if not for all defenders everywhere. Just look at this:

I'm merely inferring how, confrontational this thread has been to Abbey for being a "soft" raider and I've seen other defenders in Europeia have their opinions dismissed out of virtue of them being defenders... ah.. and you just did it in the last sentence of this paragraph. Alrighty. :/

I didn't dismiss his comments because he was a defender. I dismissed them because he's Unibot. Why does he think he speaks for defenders, or for the UDL? Because he's on a massive power trip. The UDL and defenders in general would be better off taking him down a peg and forcing some humility where none currently exists. It's that simple.

You want to know why newbies become raiders? I can't speak for all newbies, but when I first started NS I started out on the NS forums before I ever got deeply involved in a region. I saw Unibot's behavior on the forums and the UDL in his signature and thought, whatever that guy's doing I'd like to do the opposite. So we can add that into the mix for the raider psychoanalysis that's been going on in this thread. The great white knight of defending, by his behavior, drives newbies to raiding.

You're an idiot. UDL stands for United Defenders League.

My impression is that he's defending himself and his brainchild; since I'm assuming that he came up with the idea for the UDL. It is human nature at that point to do exactly what he's doing now. He's actually holding up really well against everyone piling on top of him right now.

I find it dissatisfactory that you would become a raider and do all of things raiders do just to spite one person on the opposing factions side.

What I see of Unibot here is a thoughtful, intelligent, well-spoken human being. You want to take him down a peg because of what? What exactly?

And again, your rhetoric of comparing a raid to the use of a nuclear weapon proves my point.

You completely missed what he said.

 

[Abbey]

I'm missing some comments in this post from the last page - I've been distracted by some stuff irl.

If you’re trying to bully me into leaving, then I have to say that you’re doing a pretty damned good job. I’m dreading logging on, because I don’t want to know what you’ve said about me while I was asleep. Then you’re surprised when Euro becomes a smaller priority for me.

THUS, the person supporting the raid as a part of the Naval force "IS FORCED" to support a raid that winds up doing things you disagree with (or be instantly discharged from the Navy and get booted from the region).

Was Fortana discharged from the Navy and booted from the region when he wouldn't support the raid on Catholic due to the religious connotation? I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion.

A one off refusal wouldn’t get you booted. But I’m fairly sure that once you’ve refused every raid for a couple of months you’re getting fairly close.

You absolutely cannot accuse me of painting a different picture to reality when you’re consistently misrepresenting my views (see: numerous corrections in this thread).
Oh, great, you’ve made it so that more people can help various raiding organisations pile. That hardly helps us who do want to update raid but not have to support all the time. At all.

My issue with this idea of moderatism, is that it's false with regards to painting the current picture. The way we raid, with the exception of playing a style that is based on our strengths, hasn't changed. Our Foreign Policy has been extremely open and signing treaties lately with neutral regions. Our Navy itself has broadened its base to be more independent, working with multiple groups such as the South Pacific Army and works to be more reflective of the Europeian population as a whole.

If your issue is with a few of the raids that we support, then say that, rather than say that the region as a whole is less moderate when in fact it's arguably as inclusive as it's ever been. In reality, Abbey is asking us to be less inclusive in what has been a very diverse Navy.

But it's simple. If you want change, then make change happen. Focus your energies on addressing the raids you don't like and changing the policy to be less inclusive towards that. Bring it up in the Presidential races. That's how you get things done.

You can’t have it both ways. I have said that my issue is with the raids that the ERN is supporting. Multiple times. The reason I then infer that it’s less moderate is because if you’d stick by the moderate values then you wouldn’t always support those raids.

I’m trying to make change happen. But look at this thread. All that I get for trying is being dogpiled, my name dragged through the mud, and my time in Euro generally becoming no fun whatsoever. It was brought up in a presidential race, and because of their choice of me, their actual platform is being largely ignored.

Now, NES:

I’ll repeat what I said about that being 11pm at night, and I was mightily pissed off that you decided to pursue the conversation anyway. Actually, you decided to pursue it just as I said that I was going to bed on IRC. I thought that it was really really bad form to release MSN conversations? I also happened to not be able to keep logs at that particular moment in time, so I would appreciate it if you would send me a copy of the logs which you plainly have because I have a feeling that one or two of those comments may have been taken out of context (or further explanation ignored). But it was 11pm, and I was freaking tired, so who knows?

I’ll address what you’ve quoted one at a time:

1. At that point. no, Europeia wasn’t my priority. And look at what my attempts to move it into a higher priority have ended up with.

2. I can tell from that sentence that you’ve taken that out of context. You’re cherry picking the bits that make me look bad and removing the parts of the sentences which make those comments more reasonable. Please bloody don’t.

3. Hmmm, we’ve not been that busy, no. But Jamie is now a raider, by the by. We’ve not done loads of raids because I have this mysterious thing called a life, which has been stopping me being online at minors all the freaking time, because to be on then I can’t do anything afterschool. So, between concerts, and maths tutoring and job interviews, no, I’ve not been able to raid much. And when we did try, that happened to be the minor that went horribly wrong and managed to run into major.

4. I didn’t ask for backup from anyone. Anyone who’s supporting me is doing entirely of their own accord.

5. Who I am friends with has no relevance to this conversation. I have been friends with both of them long before any of this, and I’ll hopefully continue for a long time afterwards. But right now, I’m feeling for myself why they both left. When I hang out on IRC, I don’t give two flying fucks whether the person that I’m talking to is a raider or defender or something else inbetween and the topics of conversation rarely come into those topics - they only tend to when there’s banter between the sides after a raid. That’s something that I really enjoy and would entirely miss if I couldn’t do it.

My interests are split - but so are yours, and so are a lot of other people’s. But like I said above, as soon as I try to drag my interest back here a bit more, I get this. It’s hardly going to motivate me, is it?