The following agora took place between the 6th of November, 2020, and the 3rd of December, 2020. It was moderated by Sammy23. It’s participants were Aga, Aivintis, Atlae, Catiania, Heaveria, and Zukchiva.
Sammy
Welcome all to this second agora of UTEP since its coming back. As of 6pm UTC, I open the debate with the following topic:
Which allignment in raiding/defending is the most convenient for a region? Is it better to not be alligned at all?
This agora will last for a week, until Friday 13th at 17:59pm UTC. It will be moderated by the Deans and the Chancellor, and I must remember the Code of Decorum is especially enforced here. Now, you may start with an opening statement when ready @agora participant
Opening Statements
Zukchiva
First of all, thank you for having me here today. It is great to see debates happening in our University again, and it is an honor to be participating in this agora!
The side I will be debating for will be unalignment, or a lack of alignment.
Unalignment is the basic idea that a region does not subscribe to a certain ideology, whether it be Raiding, Defending, Independent, Neutral, or another alignment. The action of remaining unaligned is the most convenient action for any region for a number of pragmatic reasons.
The first is that unalignment allows flexibility. Unalignment allows regions to perform a vast variety of R/D operations without requiring any major shift in regional culture or views. A potent example of this is the East Pacific, which today performs various raiding and defending operations almost daily. This flexibility is only possible because the East Pacific is an unaligned region. Once a region subscribes to an ideology, it is difficult to change out of said ideology. Thus, flexibility in alignment is lost.
The second reason that unalignment is convenient is because it can lead to soldiers receiving a more thorough understanding of R/D. It is common knowledge that you should not enter a situation without knowing all the facts. By being unaligned, a region gives its soldiers the opportunity to understand the tactics behind the actions of raiding and defending. This leads to more knowledgeable and effective soldiers in the battlefield.
The third reason is that unalignment allows a region to be more inclusive. Raiding and defending, while both have their merits, cast strong ideological divides amongst their respective supporters. This means that Raiders will stay away from Defender regions, and vice versa. Now, there are some communities that manage to split their R/D ideology from their every-day community. But these communities are few and far between within the R/D game. Also, given that players from any ideology are allowed in unaligned regions, unaligned regions have more opportunities to attract players from across the R/D spectrum to build up their region’s community and government.
Therefore, I open my argument to this debate by saying that taking on no specific alignment, or unalignment, is the most convenient and best option for a region to undertake.
Aivintis
It is worth noting beforehand that, while I will be arguing on the side of Raiders, I do not do so because I consider it above Defending and Unalignment. I do it so that Raiding is adequately represented in the Agora. I certainly do not mean any offense to any particular group, ideology, or player in NationStates, and I ask that my opinions are not only weighed fairly in the Agora, but also respected outside of the Agora.
That aside, I’d like to start off by saying that raiding is convenient for a region because of ease. In tagging, most raiders simply endorse one person and hit move when they’re told to, and the points simply copy and paste one WFE and one flag to every region they capture, with no need to dig through an external archiving site.
In occupations, the updating force simply works the same as in tagging, except they endorse a few more people, and the occupying force has it much easier - they just move in whenever and endorse the proper officers. In this case, only the trusted and experienced commanders deal with banjections.
Not to mention, experience isn’t hard to attain. Most regions already start with a good number of experienced individuals from other areas of NationStates, and from there it doesn’t take long to train new raiders.
In the Social Technocratic Union, for example, Jo from LWU came over and helped Josh form a military that has bren very active in recent times. The raiding community naturally comes together because of big occupations, and they work together a lot.
“So it’s easy,” you might be saying. “Big deal. So are the others, to a similar extent.” I agree, but my point is that it is worth noting that raiding is easy, and it is worth noting to what extent and why.
Now let’s talk about the affect of raiding on regions and their communities. First of all, let’s start with its affect on the regions/communities that embrace the ideology. In this case, regions have a natural appeal by advertising to potential residents the ability to fight in a raider army and “play the villain”.
Playing the villain is an important part of some raider organizations. The Black Hawks advertise themselves as the most feared organizations in NationStates, and condemnations are sought after by Raiders as IC badges of their successfulness the same way commendations are sought after by Defenders. It’s a parallel, yes, but raiding has a distinct advantage in this area because playing the villain is not just fun, it’s exciting and new. People already know what it’s like to follow morals and whatnot, and IC gives them the opportunity to explore being bad without causing any harm.
Now is the point where I discuss griefing. Very very very few raiding organizations perform irreversible damage on regions, and those organizations are usually malicious. 99% of raiders do not perform irreversible damage. Bans and ejections are reversed when the defenders liberate the region, tags are detagged, and at the end of it all there’s hardly a trace of the conflict.
Now let’s consider how most operations are targeting dead or dying regions, a lot of which only exist to serve as R/D battlegrounds, with any true residents either being inactive for a long time and/or unaffected by regional changes, OR being R/D puppets. In these cases, even if the region was refounded, no real damage would be done to any community.
And finally let’s consider the small percentage of operations which take place in active regions. These operations spur the natives into action by trying to fight off the invasion, and connects them more to the international community by involving defenders and by being chosen by raiders. After the Invasion and Liberation of South Pacific, for example, The East Pacific finally established a consulate with it. This is also seen in the coup of The East Pacific (although that was Crashing, not Raiding) as the “villainy” of Fedele and Co. made TEP band together to establish a better government.
So not only does raiding provide a unique and fun perspective to play with, and not only does it mainly avoid causing irreversible damage, but it can arguably benefit the communities of all involved, including defenders, as it gives them an enemy to “fight”.
Catiania
I would like to open by noting that the following arguments will be coming from me with my defender hat on, do not necessarily represent my personal opinions, and certainly do not represent my opinions in any official capacity.
Defending is the act of countering raiding. When regions are defaced, you repair them. When regions are invaded, you free them. My argument for defending being the superior ideology is threefold.
Firstly, defenders hold the moral high ground. I do not mean here to say that raiders are OOC bad, and I never would. I merely mean to note that raiding violates individual and regional sovereignty and is therefore inherently of less moral value than the opposition to these actions. The negative effects of raiding on natives will have been seen by anyone who participates in R/D - angered and indignant they come to denounce those who infringed on their community. This can even extend to players becoming disheartened and leaving the game. I wish to stress that I am not saying that raiders are immoral, only that within the game these two approaches to gameplay can have external views of ethics applied to them. Now, I understand IC morality is not universally viewed as a positive, but for many it is an attraction to defending. This brings me on to my second point.
Recruitment among new nations as well as maintaining morale is easier when taking the position of liberator and deliverance from occupation. This can be seen by the massive surge of support from TEP’s populace during the liberations of South Pacific and Smol Fur Empire. Freeing natives from raiders is a far more convincing call to arms than raider recruitment efforts, which appear to largely consist of attempting to appear fearsome. This means that defender organisations can maintain large forces of those who would not normally participate in gameplay, proof of which can be seen in the citizen militias of TSP and TEP as well as the piling strength of 10KI.
My final argument is that defending requires more skill, and is therefore more interesting. While liberations are relatively simple and can be used to draw recruits into the world of gameplay, chasing involves far more sophisticated techniques and is by definition is more difficult than it’s counterpart, tagging. This means that the skill cap is higher, and it requires more focus and effort and internet speed. This makes it more engaging and interesting than the ideological inverse. By concentrating your organisation on defending, you can gain mastery over this most challenging part of the game.
Aga
I’m not going to make my opening statement long, as Zuk has already said what I would cover in mine.
Unalignment is simply the best alignment any region (especially a GCR) can have. As Zuk said, it gives soldiers a more thorough understanding of Raiding and Defending, as they actively participate in both.
This could arguably lead to a more competent and successful military. Arguably, some of the most ‘active’ non-R/D organization militaries to date have been unaligned ( I’m talking about the EPSA and the NPA, although then again, historically, the RRA has also been very ‘active’). Due to not taking an aligned stance, it is also easier to engage newbies who are set on either raiding and defending, as they have the option to do both.
Unalignment can also lead to more opportunities to form inter-regional relations with other regions, as one is not bound to a certain alignment or bound to represent a certain FA stance. Simply put, there are more opportunities for unaligned regions than aligned regions.
It is for those outlined reasons, plus what Zuk outlined that I will be arguing that the lack of an alignment is the healthiest for a region.
Atlae
Although it should be obvious from the trend indicated above, it is worth noting that the following is not a representation or rebuke of the official policy of the EPSA, nor does it represent my own views on R/D.
Let’s get started.
Raiding. Or as it’s called in the FAQ, the “invasion game.” I remember when I was starting out being confused by this. Some don’t even read the FAQ at all, really.
Mechanically, it’s very simple. People move in and endorse each other before a region’s WA update in order to gain the delegacy. That is R/D at its core.
But there are two immediate criticisms of this. One that raiding is the easier and less skillful side of the game and the other that R/D is the only game that people are forced to play in.
To the first I respond that while yes, it is much easier to raid than to defend, generally speaking, it is much more accessible. It is pretty hard to train someone new and working out how the game works to chase raiders with immediate reaction times. Not only that, but the average defender uses many scripts to keep up with the speed that raiders go.
This is not to denigrate scripts in R/D or the admirable efforts of defenders. They do great work. However, all the extra steps and steep learning curve make defending non-accessible.
By contrast, most raiders do things manually. There are tricks here and there to speed up things a bit, but the margin is not as big as it is for the other side.
Raiding is not only easy to pick up, but requires lots of skill to master. At first you may be a lowly grunt struggling to keep up with the targets being posted. After a while you improve, getting better and better with practice. One day you may be trusted enough to lead raids yourself, which presents itself even more challenges. I like to think of it kind of like learning to play the piano.
The other criticism is fair. You don’t have to play in the World Assembly if you’re not in it. You can’t roleplay unless you’re a willing participant. But R/D is different, and some would argue unduly so.
I would compare R/D to Z-Day as it locks down regions and zombies pour in outside of your control, but they decided that you could opt out of it. Alright.
I think the comparison is still apt, though. There are situations in which you may not get a say in. Like war. Sure, some have the convention of declaring war and stuff, but you can’t really deny that a state of war exists and bury your head in the sand.
I do think of R/D like interregional warfare. In a game so barebones it doesn’t have war, the way it was set up presented an opportunity.
When Max created his game to advertise his book, it was originally designed to be single player. No regions, no R/D, no WA. The decision to make things multiplayer came in at the last minute. This decision obviously had larger effects than just R/D, like roleplay, the WA, and talking to region mates. And I’d wager the game is better off for it.
The argument, thus, that raiding disrupts natives’ rights not to be raided, I believe is wrong because war is not a situation that necessitates the agreement of two parties to happen. Especially when one of the parties is inactive or dead.
What fuels the raiders’ lust for conquest? Aside from the observation that no two raiders are the same, there are many reasons that one may find raiding fun. There’s the adrenaline rush that such a thing provides. Perhaps the roleplay element of acting evil. Maybe the sense of community for the friends you meet along the way.
I think the duty of a regional army is not only to strengthen the region’s interests and FA policy, but also as a means to connect and socialize with people. You might even meet people in other regions, or hang out in the NSGP server.
I think for a region just starting out its military from scratch (or trying to revitalize one) raiding isn’t a bad option. It’s easy and accessible, takes lots of practice to master, and it gives a sense of patriotism to conquer regions (shout-out to the imperialists out there not represented by this agora haha) that could be good for the region’s culture and growth.
The problems with a defender army in my opinion make it quite inconvenient. It’s hard. It also necessitates doing things routinely with other militaries (somewhat unofficially in chasing and officially with liberations) which doesn’t let you foster that regional military vibe. I love cosmopolitanism, but it almost doesn’t seem like recruiting for a regional military as it does recruiting for a larger defender cause. And if that’s the one that motivates you and inspires you, then go for it. But know that the sense of regional identity must come from elsewhere.
There’s one last thing that really turns off defending for me. It has a lack of schedule. This is obviously because raiders don’t usually announce when they do things, so they need to be ready for a liberation at short notice, or pull long hours for one. In between those big landmark liberations are updates that often get neglected. Sure, there may be chasing going on sometimes but that is inconsistent when the good, experienced people are busy. And you may not have the numbers to counter the raider teams going out. You can try to fill in those gaps with detagging, which is a vital component to the R/D ecosystem, but it’s dreadfully dull. That lack of control over the schedule makes it difficult for militaries to keep up activity.
Not to mention defending is a Sisyphean task in and of itself.
Some people might find this both appealing. They may want to be part of both communities. These are the Independent folk, and some have called themselves “unaligned” or “neutral” to differentiate themselves from the ideology of independentism. Pedantics.
Playing both sides comes with its own downsides, though. Both sides can’t fully predict what you will do, so they end up not trusting you as full allies. You’ll be left out of cool ops, and you’ll be trashed in the cliques of NSGP. Unless you’re immune to criticism from others and really don’t care what others say about you (this could be a power statement) unalignment may be a risk avoiding.
It’s also harder to recruit for unaligned militaries to a degree because the messaging isn’t consistent, and you may have too broad of a general audience.
Ultimately, one should weigh the merits of each side and what you want your military position to be on a larger FA scale. But it is significantly easier to be a raider military than a defender one (see how many freelance raider and defender militaries there are) and it is also significantly cooler.
Heaveria
Let me give some background info on me here to bring my bias to the forefront, though, I will do my best to present a true perspective with my experience. I have been a purist defender since 2016. Though, since 2020, I would not call myself purist perhaps (just defender) as I am willing to work with independents, but it must be defending. I attempt to exclude regional politics from my R/D ideologies now.
Though, let me be blunt, the R/D affiliation of your region matters. The R/D community is filled with numerous quality players, those that every region seeks. While I feel that the community has developed to work more together and not rely on stubborn purist ideals, we continue to be attracted to regions with similar ideals. It’s also a matter of being human in that regard.
With working together on the way in, I feel it is evermore beneficial to be aligned as independent. Years ago, I would have said “pick one.” There is the clear advantage that being independent brings, but often the morals and ethics of raiding is raised or even a government being “undemocratic” by association (which is obviously a faulty logic).
You will always loose potential community member candidates by picking a side, so I assume the “beneficial” is more or less focused on where the cap on growth is. It is difficult for me to gauge it and give a factual clear answer. Therefore, let me provide my personal recent experience that brought me to TEP and what historically kept me from TEP. As a purist defender, it was clear to me, TSP is the only potential candidate for me and those who I interact with. No matter what, I would have refused to be associated with “something” that raids. As my thinking matured, TEP shed more into the light. But, your worth had to be proven. I was pushed into your community and immersed in your ways. My thinking matured to make me believe the benefit of your community outweighed my ideological differences. Eitherway, my point is that the attraction is towards your R/D affiliation and you have to prove yourself to get a member of the opposite ideology. This goes for independents as well. Raiders, I believe, are much more willing to work with independents where as defenders tend to have some reluctance. Though, I do feel like I am just pointing out the obvious here.
Let’s examine it form a military standpoint. If you exclude the sheer number statistic of raiders/defenders, both ideologies are arguably equally difficult. Taking numbers into account, Atlae is right, raiding is the easier alternative (does not mean it’s better). Defenders often cite moral reasons for becoming a defender. But, it is that, which forces us to use foreign affairs and proper coordination, which can positively impact the region beyond its military. A raider military could be successful as a single entity, but cooperation is commonplace and essentially necessary in the defender world. Liberations often requires days of trial and error and tiring campaigning for the mission. Not just that, but the central existence of Libcord is also a great way to expand borders or horizons. To sum it up from my aforementioned points, you need to find the middle ground between the benefits of foreign affairs and success as an entity (not to say defender militaries aren’t successful). Which should be gauged on your region (it’s size and ability to keep up foreign afffairs). If regions and militaries were not so reluctant to work with independents, it would be the obvious better choice.
Sammy
Now that the opening statements are posted, it’s time to start with the cross examination. The supporters of either raiding or defending will post a statement challenging the opposite position, while the unalignment supporters will challenge both positions as a whole. The way to do this is to ask questions about the matters the other side has argued.
Cross Examination
Zukchiva
So the first thing I’d like to address is what Atlae said here:
“These are the Independent folk, and some have called themselves “unaligned” or “neutral” to differentiate themselves from the ideology of independentism. Pedantics.”
Unalignment, neutral, and independent are all fundamentally different ways of thinking.
Unalignment is a true lack of ideology, in that a region does not subscribe to any established ideology but rather simply does what it wants.
Independent is a ideology built upon serving a region’s interest. What is important to note is that while Independents are not raiders, they ususally do raiding activities versus defending.
Neutral means that a region simply refuses to participate in the R/D game.
While all three of these ways of thought are quite close, they are differentiated between each other. So I feel that deserves to be clarified, because “Independent” is not the same as “unaligned”. In other words, the divisions hold far more effect than being produced for the purposes of pendantics.
However, I may ask, why do you, @Atlae, and @Heaveria, treaty unaligned and Independent as the same?
Secondly, I also will cross-examine this argument brought up, by Atlae and Heav (although Heav’s argument implies that raiders are more likely to work with Independents than Defenders would be willing too):
“Playing both sides comes with its own downsides, though. Both sides can’t fully predict what you will do, so they end up not trusting you as full allies. You’ll be left out of cool ops…”
While this is true, I firmly believe that the upsides do go against the downsides.
It is true that you will never be able to see the greater depth of both worlds. But at the very least, an unaligned region will have the experiences from both worlds, no matter how shallow. And I believe that outweighs not being fully trusted by either side. Do you think the upsides of unalignment are greater than the downsides, or vice versa, @Atlae @Heaveria?
“and you’ll be trashed in the cliques of NSGP. Unless you’re immune to criticism from others and really don’t care what others say about you (this could be a power statement) unalignment may be a risk avoiding.”
In my experience, I have never seen an unaligned region be trashed simply for being unaligned. Could you provide some examples in this regard? @Atlae
“It’s also harder to recruit for unaligned militaries to a degree because the messaging isn’t consistent, and you may have too broad of a general audience.”
True, but I do believe focusing on the aspects of just joining the military and serving the region can be consistent enough of a messaging (like how it is done in TEP, for example) @Atlae
“Raiders, I believe, are much more willing to work with independents where as defenders tend to have some reluctance.”
While this is true (assuming “independents” mean unaligned and not Independent), this does not mean that raiders or defenders are unwilling to join an unaligned region, and in some cases, contribute to the region itself.
For example, in the East Pacific, Refuge, Vamperiall, and Todd McCloud all hail from the raider or the imperialist spheres, and have done great work in the East Pacific’s government.
On the flip side, defenders like Kuriko and Catalyse have also served in the East Pacific’s government, providing valuable input into the Magisterium’s legislative processes. Not to mention HumanSanity and you, both Defenders who are also involved with the East Pacific in a more social way.
Either way you put it, if done right, an unaligned region can attract both Defenders and Raiders to its borders and to help develop itself into a better entity. While many Defenders may not be interested in serving within TEP’s military, they have been interested in interactign with TEP’s community, which is still beneficial. And I believe this would hold for any truly unaligned region (NOT Independent) @Heaveria
Aivintis
Reply to Derp/Zukchiva, arguing for Unalignment
“The first is that unalignment allows flexibility. Unalignment allows regions to perform a vast variety of R/D operations without requiring any major shift in regional culture or views. A potent example of this is the East Pacific, which today performs various raiding and defending operations almost daily. This flexibility is only possible because the East Pacific is an unaligned region. Once a region subscribes to an ideology, it is difficult to change out of said ideology. Thus, flexibility in alignment is lost.”
I concede this point. The ability to perform a wide range of operations is beneficial to Unalignment.
“The second reason that unalignment is convenient is because it can lead to soldiers receiving a more thorough understanding of R/D. It is common knowledge that you should not enter a situation without knowing all the facts. By being unaligned, a region gives its soldiers the opportunity to understand the tactics behind the actions of raiding and defending. This leads to more knowledgeable and effective soldiers in the battlefield.”
There is an argument to be made that Defenders and Raiders also learn R/D tactics and other information, not just because the mechanics are generally the same, but also because, according to Sun Tzu in the Art of War, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” This is how we see defender armies learning and appreciating tactics like update bending, and potentially using that knowledge to counter it with update unbending or update straightening or some other terminology referring to the same tactic proposed after the Liberation of South Pacific.
“The third reason is that unalignment allows a region to be more inclusive. Raiding and defending, while both have their merits, cast strong ideological divides amongst their respective supporters. This means that Raiders will stay away from Defender regions, and vice versa. Now, there are some communities that manage to split their R/D ideology from their every-day community. But these communities are few and far between within the R/D game. Also, given that players from any ideology are allowed in unaligned regions, unaligned regions have more opportunities to attract players from across the R/D spectrum to build up their region’s community and government.”
I disagree. Most Raiders and Defenders don’t just stay away from opposing sides, they usually also stay away from members of the opposing side, at least ICily. Big Raiders and Defenders are not likely to join an unaligned region because of it’s R/D gameplay, and small Raiders and Defenders might do so just because they’re still figuring out which alignment they prefer.
“Therefore, I open my argument to this debate by saying that taking on no specific alignment, or unalignment, is the most convenient and best option for a region to undertake.”
Now onto my arguments against unalignment using points from my argument.
Ease: Unalignment is arguably more difficult to get a handle on than Raiding and Defending, because they have to learn the basic mechanics of R/D and then also the tactics and mechanics of actions associated with Raiding and actions associated with Defending, make learning R/D and becoming an experienced soldier much harder. Yes, there’s flexibility, but it sacrifices simplicity.
Affects on Community: In unaligned regions, I have found that their military ideology isn’t a big part of their identity. I can point to XKI whose identity is based around Defending and TBH whose identity is based around Raiding, and I can even point to FNR whose identity is influenced by Defending and STU whose identity is influenced by Raiding, but I couldn’t point to a single region that bases their regional identity on unalignment. The closest I can think of to unalignment influencing regional identity at all is TEP’s neutrality in international affairs, which is a consequence of a lack of ideological support for one side or another, but probably mostly a consequence of their wide range of diplomacy.
Zukchiva
“There is an argument to be made that Defenders and Raiders also learn R/D tactics and other information, not just because the mechanics are generally the same, but also because, according to Sun Tzu in the Art of War”
Do you have examples of this? On my end, I have witnessed EPSA soldiers partake in liberations, occupations, chases, and raids, thus learning on both sides of the isle.
I agree that Defenders do tend to learn about raider tactics like update bending, and tactics are similar, but it does not change the fact that unaligned armies are more likely to have better technical understanding of both sides, whilst defenders know more about defending, raiders know more about raiding, and etc.
“I disagree. Most Raiders and Defenders don’t just stay away from opposing sides, they usually also stay away from members of the opposing side, at least ICily. Big Raiders and Defenders are not likely to join an unaligned region because of it’s R/D gameplay, and small Raiders and Defenders might do so just because they’re still figuring out which alignment they prefer.”
True. But an argument can be made here that even if most would stay away, some don’t and become involved. In this case, it’s a question of more numbers versus diversity. You can have large numbers of people leaning to one side, or small numbers of people from both sides. I guess in this case, it would depend solely on each region’s perogative on this topic.
“Ease:”
Simplicity is not completely lost. The way EPSA solves this issue is that raiding (due to being easier) is taught at first. Triggering is used as an emphasis to help educate on R/D mechanics. When soldiers are experienced or willing to learn, they can then start participating in detags at their leisure.
So is it complex? Yes. Can it be confusing? If done wrong, yes. But if done right? Soldiers can gain experience in both sides of R/D much faster by being in an unaligned military.
“Affects on Community:”
What is wrong if an unaligned region isn’t ideologically influenced by its military ideology?
Aivintis
-
Examples could include raider groups learning how defenders chase and then doing false jumps to confuse them. For example, when we were raiding with Europeia, a defender army was hot on our trail, and we found that out when an officer dared ppl to jump into South Pacific, which I did, bringing a bunch of fendas with me. That wasn’t planned, but it could be, and I’m sure it has been, considering the ingenuity of some raiders.
-
Shifting gears, for a moment, is learning more mechanics than the majority of armies really better? If you’re not gonna use them, it’s useless, and if you are it’s more complicated, aka harder for new players to understand.
-
So your argument on diversity is that a small number of people from both sides could mingle? If so, then sure that could be good, but does a higher level of diversity in your soldiers make your army better than a higher level of cohesion or similarity could?
-
Sure, experienced people could do it right if they know how, but a large number of people don’t know how or aren’t experienced enough. Complexity could be handled, but it could be handled less effectively than Raiding or Defending could be handled.
-
The problem is this: If the military isn’t prominent enough to be an important part of the regional ideology, it’s less likely to receive applicants. For example, TEP has an unaligned military, and that doesn’t influence government decisions or identity at all, so it’s not prominent in the region, compared to for example XKI whose defenderism defines their identity, which puts their army in a prominent/important position, or TBH whose raiderism defines their identity, which puts their army in a prominent/important position.
Zukchiva
-
Fair, I concede on this point. However, I will still argue that it is probably more easier and comfortable for soldiers to learn about both sides of R/D in an unaligned/neutral territory versus in a raider or defender army.
-
I agree that if you don’t use them, then it is useless. But if an army actively does participate in both sides, then the overall experience gained can counterbalance the complexity for new players. Honestly, at this point it is more opinionated so this matter would depend on each military and their choices.
-
Not necessarily. It is another equally valid way of a military. The benefits and downsides of having a diverse military counterbalance those of having a military with strict cohesion. However, I will argue that cohesion can be made even in an unaligned military, based on values of patriotism and comrade that naturally come from being in a military.
-
Sure. But it is effective nonetheless, and you still get exposed to both sides in a very comfortable environment. You do learn faster and easier in a military leaning to one side, but you loose that deep understanding of the other side that unalignment can provide.
-
It is true that EPSA does not have that many applicants, nor does it influence TEP that much. Nonetheless, EPSA was (until rumors of S3 hit and Command got busy with irl) one of the most active militaries in the field. So just because EPSA, and other unaligned militaries, gain less applicants does not limit them from being potent forces in the R/D battlefield.
Closing Statements
Zukchiva
Ultimately, unalignment has its own ups and downs. The debate here has shown that running an unaligned military is slightly more complex and harder to run than an ideologically-based military, both from a recruitment standpoint and training standpoint.
However, the points I made in my opening statement still hold true. Unalignment, with the flexibility and diversity it allows, is an ideology that opens a region up to more players from all areas, as well as helps regions form better players with a better understanding of R/D.
Thus, unalignment is the convenient way/thinking since it does not carry with it the limitations of an ideological military that is raider or defender. It maintains flexibility and diversity. And while some complexity might be thrown in, it isn’t enough to render unalignment as inconvenient for any regional military which truly wants to become unaligned.
Catiania
I may have not been the most involved in this Agora, sorry about that!
To summarise the points made for defending in this Agora, it’s an ideology centred around cooperation and the furthering of freedom in the game. This allows new players to be attracted by the thematic ideas and kept through the excellent defender community, which works and socialises together by necessity, opening up new areas of the site to players. It has a higher skill cap to retain interest, and lacks the unclear message of independents and the destructive one of raiding. Overall I argue defending to be the most beneficial alignment for a region to choose.
Aivintis
In the end, while unalignment and defending do have their perks, raiding provides a wide array of its own perks, some of which are similar to those of unalignment and defending, and ultimately it boils down to what fits the region best.
Aga
Hello there! I may not have been as active in this Agora as I would have desired to, however, all three alignemnts have its own perks, but unalignment provides a region and soldiers with a full set of experiences and political abilities that regions who are restricted to one alignment don’t necessarily have.
That being said, unalignment may not be the best decision for a region or its members to make, and any alignment will enable a region politically in a way that unaligned regions will not be enabled
Sammy
Thank you all for participating!!! This agora will remain archived and will soon be posted in the forums to be more accessible