Wandering Philosopher
07-04-2005, 15:22
AN ESSAY ON INVADING, DEFENDING AND THE REGION-STATE
The below is my personal opinion and does not represent that of any region, organisation or other individuals.
It is a well known fact of life in NationStates that, if you so happen to live in a founderless region, there is a strong possibility that your region will be attacked by so-called "invaders". It is also true that, if this is to happen, it is more than likely that uncounted legions of so-called "defenders" will appear as if by magic to counter-attack and drive said invaders from the region. In this essay, I will discuss the facts of invading, asses its goods and evils, and attempt to make a new, thought-provoking and innovative conclusion which, with any luck, will resonate throughout the invader and defender communities.
Firstly, I will look at the invaders, as they are the catalysts to the whole reaction. The whole invader/defender situation is brought about by invaders - either organised or no - and without them it is an undeniable fact that defender organisations would not exist.
To begin this section, I will examine why invaders raid, and their motivation to continue even in the face of often very hostile and occasionally person verbal attacks made against them by many defender organisations (much, in my opinion, to the detriment of their cause and standing), in particular the defender organisation "TITO".
Invaders undoubtedly enjoy raiding. They gain the opportunity to play NationStates - at its basis a dry game of simply answer issues - into a vaguely action-oriented game of offence, defence and tactics. It is also true that many invaders enjoy the organisation of their groups - particularly in the most famous raider organisation "The DEN" which offers ranks, promotion and the ability, eventually, to actually organise raids and command others to carry them out.
Of course, this is all well and good, but defenders are often quick to cite the damage that they cause - interfering in regions, destroying their schedules, deleting their factbooks and generally getting in their way for no real reason. They are, to an extent, correct - unscrupulous invaders do undoubtedly cause a great deal of damage to regions that they invade regions - but invasions can also be a great way of simulating activity in regions, an occurrence I have seen many times.
Regardless of the goods and ills that benefit or damage a region (and it is undoubtedly so that invaders are not ALL bad), it is a simple fact that having someone else's flag flying above what is to a native YOUR world factbook is humiliating, and doing it provokes anger and occasionally hatred from the natives. It is therefore understandable that they call in defenders to break up what could otherwise become colonisation, and the defenders are always happy to oblige.
The defenders themselves espouse a strong moral argument when questioned about their motivation to continue - but I find this argument silly in the extreme. In a world where leisure time is precious, why does anyone honestly believe that literally hundreds of people will spend hours at a time in order to help the 'poor', generally middle-class Americans and Europeans, by improving their standard of enjoyment of a free-to-play text game.
Many defenders would probably call me cynical, but I don't believe that people honestly spend in some cases hours per day achieving this. It's undoubtable, in my mind, that if the "moral argument" was all that was keeping defenders in the game most would have left, apologising profusely for their lack of time to support such a GOOD cause, long ago.
It is clear in my mind that defenders enjoy the counterattack as much as invaders enjoy the attack - defender organisations are more popular simply because they have the added bonus of knowing that you're doing the "right thing" and "fighting for good", and because the native nations applaud your rather than flame you. At the end of the day, the same kind of person is going to become a defender as is to become an invader, the only difference being that most defenders, having been so for a week or two, become so sucked-in by their own espousement of moral virtue that they honestly believe that by helping others in an online text-game they are a force for good in the world.
Defenders are not, however, perfect by any stretch of the imagination. The region "Hong Kong", recently defended against an invading force, was passworded by their so-called liberators before their delegate lost his status as such. This has left the now tiny region completely inactive with native nations dying off at an alarming rate. Recruitment is impossible, and any new nations wishing to join the region are unable to do so. Either the defenders involved did this deliberately in order to deny the invaders a target (my personal belief) at the expense of both a region and the natives they believe they are out to defend, or it was incompetence. Either way, these people should not be in the business of defending.
We can only be thankful that in this instance the organisation involved was not a major organisation. I am sorry to say, however, that they are not the only ones, and the list of those who do this also, either through incompetence or through an over-bearing desire to "win" against the invaders who, as long as there is a supply of founderless regions, will always exist. The Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organisation (the self-styled TITO) has done this on three separate occasions to my knowledge, and have, indeed, invaded two invader organisations (including "The DEN" and "Empire of Power", the latter of which was actually refounded by the TITO leader and founder, Grub).
The Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organisations is, in my opinion, an example of where defending and its philosophy has been taken too far. Whilst the defenders in ADN and the Rejected Realms Army are merely the flip-side of the invader coin, "TITO" actively seeks out and destroys invader organisations where possible, is responsible for most of the defender misconduct I have witnessed and appears to be carrying out a policy of "target-denial" as I have explained above. This, in my mind, completely destroys the moral high ground which defenders claim and to which there is some truth, although less in my mind than the defenders would claim.
Regardless of that particular example, I see both invaders and defenders as an unwanted and largely meaningless element of game play. I am a student of history, and greatly enjoy the period before the First World War where the powerful European Empires struggled to maintain the balance of power under increasing threat of war, and often conducting war-by-proxy in their colonies. This is the kind of society I can see emerging in NationStates if defenders and invaders are removed and replaced with the wide-spread idea of the "Region-State" made up of a government of member nations, controlling its own military of UN nations which are used to further its own national interests rather than fight some pointless war of unprovoked aggression or the equally meaningless anti-aggression which is so often touted as being morally correct.
As it stands, the Region-State does cannot exist as it rightly should. If such a region were to attempt to make its presence felt abroad, it would be hastily beaten down by the massed ranks of defenders. On the flip-side, if such a region were to lose its founder, such a region would be quickly invaded for little to know reason by invaders seeking a new prize.
Saying that, there are several noble experiments on-going in regions around the globe, for example in the now dead Venice, a rare few of the (unfortunately and perhaps unavoidably) largely isolationist German regions and one or two of the British regions, notably Great Britain and Ireland.
Defenders and Invaders are the antithesis of the Region-State. Their somewhat childish and rather pointless mode of play - attacking and defending merely for the sake of it and not to further any larger aims or goals - is completely at odds to my view of the Region-State which would use invasion merely as a tool - a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
I am now firmly of the opinion, despite spending time in both the invader and defender camps, that both such organisations are completely and utterly pointless; other than to achieve a quick rush of excitement as you realise that you, along with others, have managed to thwart the plans of others and achieve something that you alone could never have accomplished. The Region-State I believe has the opportunity to provide both, but it a largely constructive way.
Not only will the style of play inside a Region-State be enjoyable - with members providing both military and political input to the region - but the added benefit of having others alongside you, also tied together in the same organisation over which you all have control, allowing you and the organisation as a whole to strike well above its weight in NationState society. The real people who deserve recognition, praise and the ability to become household names in NS are not the leaders of the tit-for-tat attack and counterattack organisations of raiderplay, nor the founders who merely chose a region name and typed it into the keyboard, but those who run the Region-States of NS. Those create, shape and direct the regions that really make a difference, break the mould, and a achieve greater things.
In my mind, there is a lot in NationStates that can be improved, a lot that can be built and a lot that should be discarded. In my mind, defenders and invaders should be the first thrown to the lions, and the Region-State the first to emerge from the whirlpool of ideas that makes up the NationState society in which our virtual nations exist.
The below is my personal opinion and does not represent that of any region, organisation or other individuals.
It is a well known fact of life in NationStates that, if you so happen to live in a founderless region, there is a strong possibility that your region will be attacked by so-called "invaders". It is also true that, if this is to happen, it is more than likely that uncounted legions of so-called "defenders" will appear as if by magic to counter-attack and drive said invaders from the region. In this essay, I will discuss the facts of invading, asses its goods and evils, and attempt to make a new, thought-provoking and innovative conclusion which, with any luck, will resonate throughout the invader and defender communities.
Firstly, I will look at the invaders, as they are the catalysts to the whole reaction. The whole invader/defender situation is brought about by invaders - either organised or no - and without them it is an undeniable fact that defender organisations would not exist.
To begin this section, I will examine why invaders raid, and their motivation to continue even in the face of often very hostile and occasionally person verbal attacks made against them by many defender organisations (much, in my opinion, to the detriment of their cause and standing), in particular the defender organisation "TITO".
Invaders undoubtedly enjoy raiding. They gain the opportunity to play NationStates - at its basis a dry game of simply answer issues - into a vaguely action-oriented game of offence, defence and tactics. It is also true that many invaders enjoy the organisation of their groups - particularly in the most famous raider organisation "The DEN" which offers ranks, promotion and the ability, eventually, to actually organise raids and command others to carry them out.
Of course, this is all well and good, but defenders are often quick to cite the damage that they cause - interfering in regions, destroying their schedules, deleting their factbooks and generally getting in their way for no real reason. They are, to an extent, correct - unscrupulous invaders do undoubtedly cause a great deal of damage to regions that they invade regions - but invasions can also be a great way of simulating activity in regions, an occurrence I have seen many times.
Regardless of the goods and ills that benefit or damage a region (and it is undoubtedly so that invaders are not ALL bad), it is a simple fact that having someone else's flag flying above what is to a native YOUR world factbook is humiliating, and doing it provokes anger and occasionally hatred from the natives. It is therefore understandable that they call in defenders to break up what could otherwise become colonisation, and the defenders are always happy to oblige.
The defenders themselves espouse a strong moral argument when questioned about their motivation to continue - but I find this argument silly in the extreme. In a world where leisure time is precious, why does anyone honestly believe that literally hundreds of people will spend hours at a time in order to help the 'poor', generally middle-class Americans and Europeans, by improving their standard of enjoyment of a free-to-play text game.
Many defenders would probably call me cynical, but I don't believe that people honestly spend in some cases hours per day achieving this. It's undoubtable, in my mind, that if the "moral argument" was all that was keeping defenders in the game most would have left, apologising profusely for their lack of time to support such a GOOD cause, long ago.
It is clear in my mind that defenders enjoy the counterattack as much as invaders enjoy the attack - defender organisations are more popular simply because they have the added bonus of knowing that you're doing the "right thing" and "fighting for good", and because the native nations applaud your rather than flame you. At the end of the day, the same kind of person is going to become a defender as is to become an invader, the only difference being that most defenders, having been so for a week or two, become so sucked-in by their own espousement of moral virtue that they honestly believe that by helping others in an online text-game they are a force for good in the world.
Defenders are not, however, perfect by any stretch of the imagination. The region "Hong Kong", recently defended against an invading force, was passworded by their so-called liberators before their delegate lost his status as such. This has left the now tiny region completely inactive with native nations dying off at an alarming rate. Recruitment is impossible, and any new nations wishing to join the region are unable to do so. Either the defenders involved did this deliberately in order to deny the invaders a target (my personal belief) at the expense of both a region and the natives they believe they are out to defend, or it was incompetence. Either way, these people should not be in the business of defending.
We can only be thankful that in this instance the organisation involved was not a major organisation. I am sorry to say, however, that they are not the only ones, and the list of those who do this also, either through incompetence or through an over-bearing desire to "win" against the invaders who, as long as there is a supply of founderless regions, will always exist. The Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organisation (the self-styled TITO) has done this on three separate occasions to my knowledge, and have, indeed, invaded two invader organisations (including "The DEN" and "Empire of Power", the latter of which was actually refounded by the TITO leader and founder, Grub).
The Ten Thousand Islands Treaty Organisations is, in my opinion, an example of where defending and its philosophy has been taken too far. Whilst the defenders in ADN and the Rejected Realms Army are merely the flip-side of the invader coin, "TITO" actively seeks out and destroys invader organisations where possible, is responsible for most of the defender misconduct I have witnessed and appears to be carrying out a policy of "target-denial" as I have explained above. This, in my mind, completely destroys the moral high ground which defenders claim and to which there is some truth, although less in my mind than the defenders would claim.
Regardless of that particular example, I see both invaders and defenders as an unwanted and largely meaningless element of game play. I am a student of history, and greatly enjoy the period before the First World War where the powerful European Empires struggled to maintain the balance of power under increasing threat of war, and often conducting war-by-proxy in their colonies. This is the kind of society I can see emerging in NationStates if defenders and invaders are removed and replaced with the wide-spread idea of the "Region-State" made up of a government of member nations, controlling its own military of UN nations which are used to further its own national interests rather than fight some pointless war of unprovoked aggression or the equally meaningless anti-aggression which is so often touted as being morally correct.
As it stands, the Region-State does cannot exist as it rightly should. If such a region were to attempt to make its presence felt abroad, it would be hastily beaten down by the massed ranks of defenders. On the flip-side, if such a region were to lose its founder, such a region would be quickly invaded for little to know reason by invaders seeking a new prize.
Saying that, there are several noble experiments on-going in regions around the globe, for example in the now dead Venice, a rare few of the (unfortunately and perhaps unavoidably) largely isolationist German regions and one or two of the British regions, notably Great Britain and Ireland.
Defenders and Invaders are the antithesis of the Region-State. Their somewhat childish and rather pointless mode of play - attacking and defending merely for the sake of it and not to further any larger aims or goals - is completely at odds to my view of the Region-State which would use invasion merely as a tool - a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
I am now firmly of the opinion, despite spending time in both the invader and defender camps, that both such organisations are completely and utterly pointless; other than to achieve a quick rush of excitement as you realise that you, along with others, have managed to thwart the plans of others and achieve something that you alone could never have accomplished. The Region-State I believe has the opportunity to provide both, but it a largely constructive way.
Not only will the style of play inside a Region-State be enjoyable - with members providing both military and political input to the region - but the added benefit of having others alongside you, also tied together in the same organisation over which you all have control, allowing you and the organisation as a whole to strike well above its weight in NationState society. The real people who deserve recognition, praise and the ability to become household names in NS are not the leaders of the tit-for-tat attack and counterattack organisations of raiderplay, nor the founders who merely chose a region name and typed it into the keyboard, but those who run the Region-States of NS. Those create, shape and direct the regions that really make a difference, break the mould, and a achieve greater things.
In my mind, there is a lot in NationStates that can be improved, a lot that can be built and a lot that should be discarded. In my mind, defenders and invaders should be the first thrown to the lions, and the Region-State the first to emerge from the whirlpool of ideas that makes up the NationState society in which our virtual nations exist.