Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
Perhaps because the player who did it to you has left the game?
Liberty and Security
- Thread starter Haor Chall
- Start date
Fulhead Land
TNPer
He was still playing the game for quite a while after I was banned. And He had claimed to have shown it to others!
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Ya, but Tresville was a nutty, he stripped or denied everyone he didn't like or didn't agree with of RV status if he thought he could get away with it. I chalk that up to more of a Prime Minister abusing his powers while using the NPIA bit to "justify" his reasoning.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
BW, it was more that Tresville was a committed defender; he was distrustful of invaiders being in a regional government, simply because of the seemingly inherent philosophical conflict with democratic societies, since by their very nature invaiders don't believe in a truy democratic system. (After all, the very nature of invaision gameplay usurps the internal decisions of a region's members.)
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Still he did abuse his power, invader "problem" or not and he has no right to do so.
Also, I love the irony in the fact that he corrupted TNP's democratic system in order to stop raiders from supposedly corrupting TNP's democratic system.
Also, I love the irony in the fact that he corrupted TNP's democratic system in order to stop raiders from supposedly corrupting TNP's democratic system.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Tsk, tsk....that was "good" corruption!! Even Grosseschnauzer said so!!Still he did abuse his power, invader "problem" or not and he has no right to do so.
Also, I love the irony in the fact that he corrupted TNP's democratic system in order to stop raiders from supposedly corrupting TNP's democratic system.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
It wasn't a matter of ivaders corrupting the democratic system. It was a matter of invaders being philosophically and diametrically opposed to the principle that a region has the sovereign right to govern itself.Still he did abuse his power, invader "problem" or not and he has no right to do so.
Also, I love the irony in the fact that he corrupted TNP's democratic system in order to stop raiders from supposedly corrupting TNP's democratic system.
Invading a region with the purpose of siezing control from the native government isn't exactly conducive to democracy in any way, shape or form.
As MoD, if I were to send the NPA into a region at the request of the native government to help defend or retake that region for the native government and I were to encounter a citizen of The North Pacific participating in that invasion, I would be absolutely livid. And I think a lot of others would feel the same way.
Personally, I like invaders. It gives the NPA and other defenders fun things to do.
- TNP Nation
- Blue_Wolf_II
Romanoffia:
It’s odd you say that because I still raid and, cutting through the unwritten 'rules' of duality, that situation has occurred in the past and I am willing to bet will occur again in the future.
Romanoffia:
Funny you say that, half the regions I help invade don't have 'democracy in any way, shape or form'. I would say raiders don't really discriminate between different types of governing bodies, we just hit targets.
Romanoffia:
Ok, back on topic; I really don't care what Tresville's 'reasoning' was, what he did was constitutionally illegal and he abused the secretive nature of the NPIA to justify his causes with false reasoning at times.
See that’s what I think many are afraid of, that the Prime Minister or some other high official will abuse the NPIA by saying things like "Oh the NPIA has that information but you can't see it because the NPIA doesn't have to give it to you".
Fulhead Land
TNPer
yeah. quick note, hadnt invaded a single region.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
It's not a personal issue with invaders on my part, if that's what you're driving at. I have also never known you to or know of any known instance where you have, as an invader, gone against this region. That is to your credit.
Albeit, I would will grant that I also have absolutely no pity or any desire to help regions that are dictatorial, I wouldn't condone attacking a region that is minding its own business and not offending anyone just because it was an undemocratic region. In fact, I would be reluctant to defend a region with a history of undemocratic or dictatorial behavior - but that behavior doesn't, in and of itself, warrant aggressiviely putting the kibash on them. If they are an agressive region seeking to oppress other regions, then defending their victims is a good choice. Morally speaking, bashing their home region (i.e.: invading it) to stop their agression is morally permissible in that instance, but ethically frowned upon and I would tend not to want to take that course however attractive and practical that course was. Ironically, I have had some conversations with members of invader groups about this very subject. My personal conclusion (which differs from my 'professional opinion') is that that agressors morally and ethically open themselves up to invasion and other forms of 'hitting them where it hurts', but until the consensus on that changes, I prefer to not take that approach.
On the third point, what Tres did was what Tres did. I agreed with some of it and I disagreed with some of it. Tres is a non issue in this argument but his example does bring up a number of issues addressed here that should be examined. His reasoning from my viewpoint was correct but it is generally well known that I didn't agree with some of his choices. I might have been a little more harsh in dealing with the NPD and its main culprits than he was were I in his position, but then again, I might haave not been as harsh. Either way, the means should never be constured as justifying the end. Every nation and individual should be treated as an end unto themselves and not a means to an end. On the other side, I have some severe problems with allowing certain points of ethics getting in the way with dealing with those who have no ethics at all. Distilling it down to one single point, everyone has a duty and a 'contract' to approach things in an ethical and moral fashion, once one's opponents show that they do not intend to obey that guiding principal, then all bets are off in the ultimate need arises and it is the only solution.
Face it, invaders invade because they simply want to take over a region for whatever the purpose. Defenders seek to throw a monkey wrench into that goal and take a region back or prevent it from being taken by invaders. Most of the time, invaders get stopped from taking a region if defenders or the target region gets wind of it before hand. And there is a given set of rules that gives rise to ethics involved and everyone is expected to obey those rules.
If an invader takes over and liberates an oppressive region that oppresses their citizens, then those invaders might do well to call themselves 'liberators' if they are working with the intent and cooperation of an oppressed group within that region seeking to establish democratic rule. If the rulers of an oppressive regime in a region are foreign to that region and invaders take it over with the intent of freeing the region and returning it to the natives, then they would be technically defenders, for the most part.
But back on topic, If I were to ever seriously hear "Oh the NPIA has that information but you can't see it because the NPIA doesn't have to give it to you" I would be irrate to no end. I, for one, would want that information to be made public and it could be done so without causing any serious security threat if done correctly.