Comments concerning Raider/Defender Poll

[Romanoffia]

Since I accidentally locked myself out of commenting on the poll or editing it...

I'd like to respond to a couple of comments:

Grosseschnauzer:

You are trying to turn a multi-choice into one of two choices, when in fact there are more than two.

I support a neutral, centrist, approach on the matter. There are times when a sound interregional policy would be in a defender mode, and other times when proactive action would be appropruate. Inasmuch as I reject a old-fashioned, not-with-the-time rubric of defender-raider, I cannot accept a question that presents only those two as choices.

Therefore I urge you to amend you poll to some thing more in line with the cirrent century than some as old school as "raider-defender."

The problem is:

Raiders want to raid. That means they want to raid 'Fuzzy Bunny Land' and sack the hutch. They want to throw radioactive sparkle dust all over unicorns and rainbows just for the sake of sacking regions for the fun of it.

Defenders want to defend. That means that they want to defend the hapless victims of raiders, marauders and usurpers/rogues.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a region that promotes Democracy and Self Determination and then go out and stamp on fuzzy little bunnies who are doing nothing more than prancing around their region eating clover and making more bunnies.

There is, however a third solution:

We become neither defender nor raider; we only stick our noses in where it concerns our region's well being and defense, and we do not tolerate any actions by factions residing in our region who wish to upset the applecart by crapping all over other regions for the sake of crapping all over other regions.

This is not 'neutrality', but rather a careful observation of our alliances, treaties and the well being of our region.

Defending for the sake of defending can be just as inane and damaging as raiding for the sake of raiding.

As such, a second poll will be formulated reflecting this reality.


Flemingovia:

This is a silly poll.

Yes, it was intended to be a silly poll. But it garnered some interesting demographic information I wanted to know. The poll may be silly, as intended, but it gained me some important insight into this issue and a number of other issues.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a region that promotes Democracy and Self Determination and then go out and stamp on fuzzy little bunnies who are doing nothing more than prancing around their region eating clover and making more bunnies.

I'm calling bullshit. TWP had both the West Pacific Liberation Force (WPLF), which regularly defended and was even lead by a higher ranking FRA member at one point (never mind the ADN influence well before that) and the Black Sheep Squadron (BSS), a group that raided quite often, in fact helping to coup TEP and ban ADMIN Sal from his region for kicks, in the same region, at the same time.

Both groups were active until Eli's 2009 coup in which he more or less utterly destroyed the government and the military in one swift action. Oh, and that was eventually counter-coup'd almost exclusively by BSS members, who took back the region while Eli was on vacation.

If anything, TWP proved that line of argument to be totally false and they did it four years ago.

 

[Camwood]

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a region that promotes Democracy and Self Determination and then go out and stamp on fuzzy little bunnies who are doing nothing more than prancing around their region eating clover and making more bunnies.

I'm calling bullshit. TWP had both the West Pacific Liberation Force (WPLF), which regularly defended and was even lead by a higher ranking FRA member at one point (never mind the ADN influence well before that) and the Black Sheep Squadron (BSS), a group that raided quite often, in fact helping to coup TEP and ban ADMIN Sal from his region for kicks, in the same region, at the same time.

Both groups were active until Eli's 2009 coup in which he more or less utterly destroyed the government and the military in one swift action. Oh, and that was eventually counter-coup'd almost exclusively by BSS members, who took back the region while Eli was on vacation.

If anything, TWP proved that line of argument to be totally false and they did it four years ago.

I call Bullshit, oh wait, it's already been called. I second the calling o.f BS

 

[Kiwi]

Uhh... you locked the poll to stop people speaking their minds Roman. You should not have created this thread when *you* suddenly felt the need to respond.

The complete and utter irony of this entire situation is that I was a defender-leaning neutral to start with but you and Unibot have forced myself and other members of the RA to "choose" thus losing many possible defenders.

As a result I find myself yet again agreeing with Blue Wolf II.

 

[Gulliver]

Since I accidentally locked myself out of commenting on the poll or editing it...

Oh wow, the irony. This just made my day. At least one good thing came of this.

But seriously, this poll is ridiculous. I was hoping people would just ignore it and it would be forgotten, but that's obviously not happening. First Tyler's spam poll so he could get the whatever-it-was-th post, and now this. I think this forum and its permissions are getting abused.

No more random polls in the Constitutional Committee that have nothing to do with constitutional proposals.

 

[unibot]

I support a neutral, centrist, approach on the matter. There are times when a sound interregional policy would be in a defender mode, and other times when proactive action would be appropruate

That's a defender region, Grosse. -_-

Something I'd support, but first and foremost, I don't think the region should be conducting unjustified aggressor missions because it's unwise diplomacy.

 

[unibot]

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a region that promotes Democracy and Self Determination and then go out and stamp on fuzzy little bunnies who are doing nothing more than prancing around their region eating clover and making more bunnies.

I'm calling bullshit. TWP had both the West Pacific Liberation Force (WPLF), which regularly defended and was even lead by a higher ranking FRA member at one point (never mind the ADN influence well before that) and the Black Sheep Squadron (BSS), a group that raided quite often, in fact helping to coup TEP and ban ADMIN Sal from his region for kicks, in the same region, at the same time.

Both groups were active until Eli's 2009 coup in which he more or less utterly destroyed the government and the military in one swift action. Oh, and that was eventually counter-coup'd almost exclusively by BSS members, who took back the region while Eli was on vacation.

If anything, TWP proved that line of argument to be totally false and they did it four years ago.

Odd you should point out TWP when The West Pacific was much much stronger as a defender-region and had one of the strongest defender armies in the game before it's dissolution-- thanks to a lot of adoption from the dissolving AA group.

Same thing happened with The North Pacific -- our army was one of the stronger and influential armies ever with the NPA's handbooks even inspiring the ADN Reloaded's handbooks (not the other way around!) and some of our region's pedigree, Ananke, Nem etc. are some of the most respected defenders. As soon as The North Pacific went "neutral", the army crumbled, our culture and our region's main strength was absent.

The power of something like a united vision and humanitarianism for activity, culture and promoting talent is often under emphasized.

 

[Eluvatar]

Unibot, the army decayed before TNP went neutral. By the time Lewis and Clark (Westwind) disbanded the old NPA in early 2008, it was already dead.

 

[unibot]

Unibot, the army decayed before TNP went neutral. By the time Lewis and Clark (Westwind) disbanded the old NPA in early 2008, it was already dead.

Okay.. but did going neutral help it?

Point being, when TNP was at it's heyday, it was defender.. and staunchly defender.. more than even I am advocating at this point (out of pragmatism and also, I don't think raiders should be charged with treason for intervening in NPA defender missions) and the NPA was very active and very respected. Same thing for TWP and the success of the WPLF which I know one veteran player heralded to me as "probably the single greatest Feeder liberation army in the game".

NPA decayed because the region decayed, going neutral, as far I can see.. never helped it. I don't see why it should help it now. I do think players should take a second look at the historical success of TNP as a defender region and in fact, any feeder as a defender region -- the model was generally a good fit and lead to unity, activity and the promotion of talent. I guess I'm saying, don't discount the merits of being a defender region.

 

[Gulliver]

Unibot, the army decayed before TNP went neutral. By the time Lewis and Clark (Westwind) disbanded the old NPA in early 2008, it was already dead.

Okay.. but did going neutral help it?

Did it hurt it?

 

[Eluvatar]

Unibot, the army decayed before TNP went neutral. By the time Lewis and Clark (Westwind) disbanded the old NPA in early 2008, it was already dead.

Okay.. but did going neutral help it?

Did it hurt it?

No it didn't hurt it, but it may have helped -- during my administration in 2008 the NPA existed at least as much as it did during the rest of 2008 and much of 2007 XD

 

[unibot]

Unibot, the army decayed before TNP went neutral. By the time Lewis and Clark (Westwind) disbanded the old NPA in early 2008, it was already dead.

Okay.. but did going neutral help it?

Did it hurt it?

No it didn't hurt it, but it may have helped -- during my administration in 2008 the NPA existed at least as much as it did during the rest of 2008 and much of 2007 XD

Was the NPA actively doing lots of defender missions in 2007? Or was the NPA effectively neutral via inactivity by 2007?

 

[Flemingovia]

The NPA started to decline when people started the sort of debates we are seeing here - which happened long before it "officially" went neutral.

When I joined TNP in 2003 there was no debate and no question - our identity was as a defender feeder with a defender army. And Unibot is right. With a clear identity and purpose came a vibrancy.

However, Uni's diagnonsis for the reasons for the decline are a little simplistic. There were a number of reasons: Arguments with the ADN (largely engineered by those who later went on to form the Lexicon), a certain crisis of confidence in defenderism, adjusting to the decline in the game in the wake of NS2 and Cybernations etc etc.

But he is right in one respect. A single military that tries to be BOTH fenda and raider is doomed to decline. I have seen it many times.

TWP made it work for a while by having BOTH forces. Perhaps that is a route we could think about more seriously? Have the NPA as a defender force and revive the wolves of the North for those who want to raid.

 

[Eluvatar]

TWP made it work for a while by having BOTH forces. Perhaps that is a route we could think about more seriously? Have the NPA as a defender force and revive the wolves of the North for those who want to raid.

That was my first draft of the Directive, but no one else in the first Council of Five wanted that, particularly not the Minister of Defense.

 

[Earth]

Unibot, the army decayed before TNP went neutral. By the time Lewis and Clark (Westwind) disbanded the old NPA in early 2008, it was already dead.

Okay.. but did going neutral help it?

Did it hurt it?

No it didn't hurt it, but it may have helped -- during my administration in 2008 the NPA existed at least as much as it did during the rest of 2008 and much of 2007 XD

Was the NPA actively doing lots of defender missions in 2007? Or was the NPA effectively neutral via inactivity by 2007?

Having an inactive defender military =/= going neutral.

 

[Eluvatar]

 

[Blue Wolf II]

 

[mcmasterdonia]

TWP made it work for a while by having BOTH forces. Perhaps that is a route we could think about more seriously? Have the NPA as a defender force and revive the wolves of the North for those who want to raid.

That was my first draft of the Directive, but no one else in the first Council of Five wanted that, particularly not the Minister of Defense.

TO be perfectly honest I find this a little bit shitty. It is a no-win situation as far as I am concerned.

On the one hand, the Delegate advocated a separate organization for the purposes of raids- which would still represent 'the north pacific'. Which I opposed in the cabinet meeting, as I thought having two separate wings of a military this early on was not wise.

Then the NPA uses one update to attempt two raids, that ultimately failed, and I face an extremely hostile cabinet & delegate - a sudden change to the previous lets 'support a separate raiding army' idea for some of its members. You are ''destroying how our region is perceived abroad'. Even if opportunity is provided to reject a mission- It is all on my head - I alone am responsible for what it does. It is important to note that raiding results in an extremely hostile cabinet and a 'displeased' Delegate.

I've pledged to get approval for raids (from the entire cabinet), so they will be planned in advance, to prevent this hostile and counter-productive atmosphere from occurring on a every-time-we-have-a-meeting basis.

Its fine that this is my responsibility, its part of being Minister for Defence. But the 'flip-flopping' on this issue, drives me a little insane. How can the Delegate advocate a TNP raider army on the one hand, but yet be totally opposed to raiding that is not against 'regions we don't like'? Would the same standard apply to the wolves of the north?

How would a separate army not be representing TNP? Would it not be accountable to the Regional Assembly like the NPA is? Surely it is better to have one army that can do both - that is accountable, then have some undefined/unaccountable army raiding separately to the NPA.

 

[Romanoffia]

Ah! A real conversation about this topic! And I got more than I bargained for!

Good. Now that I've knocked the flies off the dung heap, let me voice an opinion that appeals to logic and reason.


One man's raider is another man's defender and vice versa.

You want a real centrist viewpoint? Unfettered raiding is just as bad as unfettered defending. This requires a unified foreign policy concerning the region in which both methodologies can be applied as practicality requires. This means you have to pick your targets for either paradigm with the clear purpose of benefiting the region.

This also means that any actions, defender or raider must be in accordance with what TNP stands for. You can't proclaim Liberty and Democracy and then go out and defend those unwilling to defend themselves or bash those who are simply easy targets. And you can't forget existing alliances and treaties.

Would I support unfettered raiding of the GRR and its dependents just for the fun of smacking around jackasses that need a good smacking around? You ebt.

But targeting someone because we just want to raid or defend for the sake of it is pointless and not even entertaining.

My personal opinion is that raiding and defending are tactical/strategic tools in terms of Real Politik. Essentially, both are a means to an end, but that end should be justified and productive as per regional interests.

Anyone out there getting this?

[addendum]

Personally, if a region does something to screw with us, I'd be the first person to support setting loose the raiders to sack their sorry arses, mostly for strategic reasons and secondly for the entertainment value. Two sides of one coin.

 

[unibot]

Having an inactive defender military =/= going neutral.

That depends on your definition of "neutral"; if your kind of "neutrality" is one that is still actively on the field (e.g., Europeia, The New Inquisition) and supposedly does both raiding and defending or only does warzone missions.. then no, they're not the same thing.

If being "neutral" means keeping out of the R/D game such as IDU's philosophy and The Commonwealth Society's philosophy then .. yeah, being neutral and being inactive is de facto the same dahm thing (i.e., few military accomplishments).

But he is right in one respect. A single military that tries to be BOTH fenda and raider is doomed to decline. I have seen it many times.

TWP made it work for a while by having BOTH forces. Perhaps that is a route we could think about more seriously? Have the NPA as a defender force and revive the wolves of the North for those who want to raid.

But the West Pacific was even more strong when it had one unified army dedicated to liberations.

So once again, I'd argue for one big, badass defender army instead of splintering off the army into two weaker armies and have the NPA create its own defender handbooks, develop its own military and defense capabilities and I'd suggest not allowing anyone in the NPA be involved with another army except for the specifically permitted cross-over via a TNP treaty. That way NPA's troops and talent would stay specifically NPA. Since, I could be wrong, but it looks like a part of the downfall of the NPA and the West Pacific's liberation army was that talent migrated or was assimilated by the ADN. We wouldn't want talent or such to be assimilated by the UDL or FRA as of today and a good example of a region army that has been strong for years (TITO) has very rigid rules on organizational cross-over.

I would suggest however, the creation of a NPA Militia which would allow TNP citizens who are apart of an unauthorized-for-crossover military or who are raiders, to be able to partake in the defense of the South Pacific or its allies, in emergencies.

I expect if there are people in TNP who want to raid regularly, they will be able to find a group that does that sort of thing; god only knows, we don't need our region to be associated with invading random regions. Even the smallest, backwater regions can have influential people sitting in them as puppets -- raiding these regions by accident is just burning down bridges, opportunities and bad diplomacy. I've picked up a lot of influential NSers to join the UDL, just because their regions (sometimes backwater ones) were raided in simple tag-raids. However, I don't think the region should necessarily be regulative of TNP Raiders -- they shouldn't invade the South Pacific or our allies or defend our enemies, but other than that, if TNP Raiders were to fight the NPA in a humanitarian mission, that seems like good sport to me. >_>

 

[Funkadelia]

You want a real centrist viewpoint? Unfettered raiding is just as bad as unfettered defending. This requires a unified foreign policy concerning the region in which both methodologies can be applied as practicality requires. This means you have to pick your targets for either paradigm with the clear purpose of benefiting the region.

This also means that any actions, defender or raider must be in accordance with what TNP stands for. You can't proclaim Liberty and Democracy and then go out and defend those unwilling to defend themselves or bash those who are simply easy targets. And you can't forget existing alliances and treaties.

Would I support unfettered raiding of the GRR and its dependents just for the fun of smacking around jackasses that need a good smacking around? You ebt.

But targeting someone because we just want to raid or defend for the sake of it is pointless and not even entertaining.

My personal opinion is that raiding and defending are tactical/strategic tools in terms of Real Politik. Essentially, both are a means to an end, but that end should be justified and productive as per regional interests.

Anyone out there getting this?

[addendum]

Personally, if a region does something to screw with us, I'd be the first person to support setting loose the raiders to sack their sorry arses, mostly for strategic reasons and secondly for the entertainment value. Two sides of one coin.

That's an interesting point you bring up. I'll have to think about this for a while. I do see the issue of totally, as you said, unfettered action one way or the other, and it is a totally valid argument and point, but at the same time I also see that as a recipe for army inactivity, or an army that is only called upon for warzones and defending the region.

 

[Eluvatar]

TWP made it work for a while by having BOTH forces. Perhaps that is a route we could think about more seriously? Have the NPA as a defender force and revive the wolves of the North for those who want to raid.

That was my first draft of the Directive, but no one else in the first Council of Five wanted that, particularly not the Minister of Defense.

TO be perfectly honest I find this a little bit shitty. It is a no-win situation as far as I am concerned.

On the one hand, the Delegate advocated a separate organization for the purposes of raids- which would still represent 'the north pacific'. Which I opposed in the cabinet meeting, as I thought having two separate wings of a military this early on was not wise.

Then the NPA uses one update to attempt two raids, that ultimately failed, and I face an extremely hostile cabinet & delegate - a sudden change to the previous lets 'support a separate raiding army' idea for some of its members. You are ''destroying how our region is perceived abroad'. Even if opportunity is provided to reject a mission- It is all on my head - I alone am responsible for what it does. It is important to note that raiding results in an extremely hostile cabinet and a 'displeased' Delegate.

I've pledged to get approval for raids (from the entire cabinet), so they will be planned in advance, to prevent this hostile and counter-productive atmosphere from occurring on a every-time-we-have-a-meeting basis.

Its fine that this is my responsibility, its part of being Minister for Defence. But the 'flip-flopping' on this issue, drives me a little insane. How can the Delegate advocate a TNP raider army on the one hand, but yet be totally opposed to raiding that is not against 'regions we don't like'? Would the same standard apply to the wolves of the north?

How would a separate army not be representing TNP? Would it not be accountable to the Regional Assembly like the NPA is? Surely it is better to have one army that can do both - that is accountable, then have some undefined/unaccountable army raiding separately to the NPA.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear; I don't want to change to that arrangement right now if we don't have to.

I would personally much prefer a separate raiding organization to the NPA raiding arbitrary regions, but it seems that the region agrees that the NPA should not raid arbitrary regions.

Also, Unibot's suggestion that the NPA prohibit crossover membership is an interesting one and worth considering.

 

[Haor Chall]

Ah! A real conversation about this topic! And I got more than I bargained for!

Good. Now that I've knocked the flies off the dung heap, let me voice an opinion that appeals to logic and reason.


One man's raider is another man's defender and vice versa.

You want a real centrist viewpoint? Unfettered raiding is just as bad as unfettered defending. This requires a unified foreign policy concerning the region in which both methodologies can be applied as practicality requires. This means you have to pick your targets for either paradigm with the clear purpose of benefiting the region.

This also means that any actions, defender or raider must be in accordance with what TNP stands for. You can't proclaim Liberty and Democracy and then go out and defend those unwilling to defend themselves or bash those who are simply easy targets. And you can't forget existing alliances and treaties.

Would I support unfettered raiding of the GRR and its dependents just for the fun of smacking around jackasses that need a good smacking around? You ebt.

But targeting someone because we just want to raid or defend for the sake of it is pointless and not even entertaining.

My personal opinion is that raiding and defending are tactical/strategic tools in terms of Real Politik. Essentially, both are a means to an end, but that end should be justified and productive as per regional interests.

Anyone out there getting this?

[addendum]

Personally, if a region does something to screw with us, I'd be the first person to support setting loose the raiders to sack their sorry arses, mostly for strategic reasons and secondly for the entertainment value. Two sides of one coin.

That's exactly what I've been advocating. We should have a North Pacific military, which acts in the regional interests of The North Pacific. Purposeless defending is just as bad as purposeless raiding. We need to move beyond that paradigm and have a military which acts, using whichever tactical techniques are suited to the occassion, in the best interests of The North Pacific.

We wouldn't want talent or such to be assimilated by the UDL or FRA as of today and a good example of a region army that has been strong for years (TITO) has very rigid rules on organizational cross-over.

Your brazenness cracks me up, it really does.

Also, not sure if it's a copy/paste error from the last time you had this argument in your "home" region, but you mentioned The South Pacific alot - I think you might have meant North this time...?

 

[Blue Wolf II]

I'm not surprised. Unibot essentially used the same arguments in TSP when he attempted to turn their military defender.

 

[Abbey]

I'd suggest not allowing anyone in the NPA be involved with another army except for the specifically permitted cross-over via a TNP treaty.

Basically, you want the NPA defender or dead? The only way you'll pick experience up (which is required to train new people - remember) is through people who have largely retired, and will probably still have allegiences to their old regions, and are likely to be dragging in their own agenda anyway... in a sense, it's natural that it is done to a point. But a lot of people do actually have the ability to put aside other commitments and links to do what is in the best interests of TNP when acting as a TNP citizen or NPA member. For example, I've put WA on my TNP nation on a couple of occasions, despite this stopping me from raiding.

 

[Earth]

That depends on your definition of "neutral"; if your kind of "neutrality" is one that is still actively on the field (e.g., Europeia, The New Inquisition) and supposedly does both raiding and defending or only does warzone missions.. then no, they're not the same thing.

If being "neutral" means keeping out of the R/D game such as IDU's philosophy and The Commonwealth Society's philosophy then .. yeah, being neutral and being inactive is de facto the same dahm thing (i.e., few military accomplishments).

Except that's absolute bullshit and you know it. First off, TNI is Imperialistic. Not neutral, so your attempt there fails. Europeia is also not neutral, but independent. As in, they do what they want, screw where they land on the spectrum in other people's eyes. I know, I was a proponent of it.

Being neutral is not the same as being an inactive defender military. Sorry. One can hold tight to their neutrality by doing what is in the region's best interest without picking a side. I know you don't like this concept very much, but that's because you find one side morally wrong. Please don't hate me for this comparison, but arguing with you that raiding is acceptable is sometimes like arguing with a military pro-lifer. That's why, in this post, I will not be addressing you.

Okay, from skim-reading through this thread it seems pretty clear that the majority of the region is not for random raiding, but also not for random defending either. It seems that everyone wants to do what is in The North Pacific's best interest, but doesn't seem to really be defining this at all. What is in TNP's best interest?

Personally, I think that the NPA should stick with having only one military at this time just due to numbers. When you branch into two militaries, you'll end up with two forces with less strength, with less experience, and less training. Same thing goes if you start excluding members from other organizations. You lose that experience and that huge member base, as well as take on a connotation close to what TITO has. Gameplay only has that many people, and we don't all have the time to recruit people from every damn corner of the game--not to mention, those people already have other alliances.

Stick as one, and do what is best for The North Pacific. Personally I'd suggest doing Abbey/Bel-like raids, and then helping for liberations against big griefs. That way, you really are holding neutral, and you're not harming anyone. Also, you can do stronger raids against targets that NPA finds morally distasteful (Nazi regions, hate, etc.), and work with other allies there. That way you're really getting an active military, but without actually harming anyone, and helping against unfair harm. And truthfully, I'd suggest letting the membership influence how the military swings a bit moreso--they're the ones participating in the actions, afterall.

That's my personal opinion on the matter. If you pick one side or the other, people are going to get pissy. If you pick both, you'll have two weak armies, and probably end up the feeding ground for the R/D-focused regions/organizations. I know several people that recruit clear off IRC channels. The North Pacific needs to do what is best for TNP--if that pisses outsiders off..they're outsiders for a reason.

-E

 

[Eluvatar]

Earth, it may be instructive to examine this poll. It shows that 45.1% want us hitting arbitrary regions and 58.1% want us defending arbitrary regions.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Some people must not view them as mutually exclusive, since those two percentages add up to over 100%, and some of us did not vote for or against either "arbitrary" extreme.
There may be ways to poll to get a better reading on what RA members actually support, but that type of multi-option poll is flawed, especially when the definitions make certain assumptions that may not reflect the actual range of options.

And Unibot, one difference between my position and yours is that I do not rule out proactive deployment in line with what the region accepts as policy. My reading of the range of opinions expressed in the different thread since the NPA doctrine proposal was first introduced for consideration in the R.A. is that there is quite a wide range of views on the matter, and "push" techniques (a common tactic used in public opinion surveys but which may not be necessarily valid statistically) in Roman's poll is likewise flawed.

 

[Earth]

Earth, it may be instructive to examine this poll. It shows that 45.1% want us hitting arbitrary regions and 58.1% want us defending arbitrary regions.

I find that poll incredibly flawed, personally, due to the dual-voting allowed.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Earth, it may be instructive to examine this poll. It shows that 45.1% want us hitting arbitrary regions and 58.1% want us defending arbitrary regions.

I find it more interesting that despite that poll, Roman's has people voting 9-6 in favor of raiding. I think not only are both polls flawed but that the community would rather not pick specific sides at all and a majority of TNPers have no problem with NPA preforming both defender and invader/crasher/raider actions.

 

[Funkadelia]

I find it more interesting that despite that poll, Roman's has people voting 9-6 in favor of raiding. I think not only are both polls flawed but that the community would rather not pick specific sides at all and a majority of TNPers have no problem with NPA preforming both defender and invader/crasher/raider actions.

I think you've hit the nail on the head with that one. We can't have this sort of Raider or Defender bickering where it's obvious the community as a whole wants us to be neutral in some form. Perhaps we should just act in the interests of the region itself? Why get involved with random regions on either side? I know I was originally a proponent of doing both raiding and defending on arbitrary regions, but after thinking about it a bit deeper today, why should the NPA get involved where it doesn't need its hands?

 

[Earth]

That's..what I just said. But I expanded on above. It's not a TL;DR, I promise.

If you're just saying 'let's do what's in TNP's best interest'..you're not making a coherent argument, but a nice soundbite. Flesh that out a bit, is what we probably should do from this point on.

My suggestions on such are above. :p

 

[Funkadelia]

That's..what I just said. But I expanded on above. It's not a TL;DR, I promise.

If you're just saying 'let's do what's in TNP's best interest'..you're not making a coherent argument, but a nice soundbite. Flesh that out a bit, is what we probably should do from this point on.

My suggestions on such are above. :p

Sorry, Earth. I thought I had already read that post before hand when I really didn't :S

Yes, I agree with the points you've made. I would totally agree with raiding, as you said, Nazi regions and the like, as well as defending. It's not too extreme 1 side or the other.

 

[Flemingovia]

Arbitrary invading would be a bad thing.

But if it is in order to spread the light of Flemingovianism, to convert regions to the light by the power of our sword and to save them from the everlasting damnation of blind slavery to the constitution .... then that would be justification enough.

See how much fun Flemingovianism would be?~

 

[Romanoffia]

Hmmm. Fleminovian Jihadism. What a concept!

But seriously...

 

[mcmasterdonia]

That depends on your definition of "neutral"; if your kind of "neutrality" is one that is still actively on the field (e.g., Europeia, The New Inquisition) and supposedly does both raiding and defending or only does warzone missions.. then no, they're not the same thing.

If being "neutral" means keeping out of the R/D game such as IDU's philosophy and The Commonwealth Society's philosophy then .. yeah, being neutral and being inactive is de facto the same dahm thing (i.e., few military accomplishments).

Except that's absolute bullshit and you know it. First off, TNI is Imperialistic. Not neutral, so your attempt there fails. Europeia is also not neutral, but independent. As in, they do what they want, screw where they land on the spectrum in other people's eyes. I know, I was a proponent of it.

Being neutral is not the same as being an inactive defender military. Sorry. One can hold tight to their neutrality by doing what is in the region's best interest without picking a side. I know you don't like this concept very much, but that's because you find one side morally wrong. Please don't hate me for this comparison, but arguing with you that raiding is acceptable is sometimes like arguing with a military pro-lifer. That's why, in this post, I will not be addressing you.

Okay, from skim-reading through this thread it seems pretty clear that the majority of the region is not for random raiding, but also not for random defending either. It seems that everyone wants to do what is in The North Pacific's best interest, but doesn't seem to really be defining this at all. What is in TNP's best interest?

Personally, I think that the NPA should stick with having only one military at this time just due to numbers. When you branch into two militaries, you'll end up with two forces with less strength, with less experience, and less training. Same thing goes if you start excluding members from other organizations. You lose that experience and that huge member base, as well as take on a connotation close to what TITO has. Gameplay only has that many people, and we don't all have the time to recruit people from every damn corner of the game--not to mention, those people already have other alliances.

Stick as one, and do what is best for The North Pacific. Personally I'd suggest doing Abbey/Bel-like raids, and then helping for liberations against big griefs. That way, you really are holding neutral, and you're not harming anyone. Also, you can do stronger raids against targets that NPA finds morally distasteful (Nazi regions, hate, etc.), and work with other allies there. That way you're really getting an active military, but without actually harming anyone, and helping against unfair harm. And truthfully, I'd suggest letting the membership influence how the military swings a bit moreso--they're the ones participating in the actions, afterall.

That's my personal opinion on the matter. If you pick one side or the other, people are going to get pissy. If you pick both, you'll have two weak armies, and probably end up the feeding ground for the R/D-focused regions/organizations. I know several people that recruit clear off IRC channels. The North Pacific needs to do what is best for TNP--if that pisses outsiders off..they're outsiders for a reason.

-E

 

[Eluvatar]

Earth, it may be instructive to examine this poll. It shows that 45.1% want us hitting arbitrary regions and 58.1% want us defending arbitrary regions.

I find it more interesting that despite that poll, Roman's has people voting 9-6 in favor of raiding. I think not only are both polls flawed but that the community would rather not pick specific sides at all and a majority of TNPers have no problem with NPA preforming both defender and invader/crasher/raider actions.

Romanoffia's poll was obviously silly, and only 15 people voted in it. The poll I am speaking of had 31 voters.

The poll I composed was not about sides, it was about what specifically we want the NPA doing. The response seemed reasonably clear to me, and not "defender" or "raider" in nature. (But not perfectly "neutral" either).

 

[Blue Wolf II]

If the poll wasn't about sides, how come you're using it to advocate for a side?

 

[Eluvatar]

The response seemed reasonably clear to me, and not "defender" or "raider" in nature. (But not perfectly "neutral" either).

 

[Blue Wolf II]

The "neutral" plan you were advocating involved banning the NPA from raiding outside of a declare war and allowed free reign for random acts of defending that had nothing to do with TNP what-so-ever.

Yes, very "neutral", well, if you consider a Defender-only military to be Neutral that is. Say, has Defending become the new Neutral? Did I miss a memo? If that's so, is Black the new White? Is Up the new Down? Is Cool the new Hot? Are "Blatant Lies" the new "Truth"?