|
|
Post by Bradfordsborough on Dec 19, 2013 1:54:34 GMT -5
My first question posed to the residents of this new region is simple: What does our region stand for in this world? How do you feel Dux Milan could best promote its values? Should we align ourselves with defenders? Raiders? Or should we remain neutral?
I've toyed with this question quite a bit and, for the assurances of our members, Dux Milan has not taken an official foreign policy decision. That will be the decision of our three primary elected leaders on the Board of Selectmen, which will be chosen on January 15. However, perhaps it is a discussion we should have before the ballot box...
I'd personally prefer Dux Milan align with defenders but I'm weary of participating in operations as a young region and racking up enemies. If we're going to succeed as a region is isn't going to be by polarizing the world instantly... just a few of my thoughts but I'm eager to hear what others think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Point Breeze on Dec 19, 2013 3:49:58 GMT -5
In my opinion, raiding is immoral and "griefing" is a misnomer - there's always going to be "grief" when an active region is raided. I would oppose Dux Milan getting involved with any known raider groups.
However, raiding is a sanctioned part of the game, so raiders have a right to play it. Regions must take active steps to defend themselves from raiders. Its impossible to "opt out" from raiding, so I think aligning with defenders is a good idea. The idea of a military region isn't too appealing to me, at least not yet, but we need friends in the right places, just in case.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Church of Satan on Dec 19, 2013 4:22:55 GMT -5
Well, I'm not a resident of Dux Milan, but I agree with Point Breeze's opinion on raiding. More than that, I believe in the rights of regions to exist without the constant threat of invasion or tyranny. As a veteran defender, it is why Land Mass, although new, like Dux Milan, has taken a defender stance. Raiders like The Black Riders constantly undermine the rights of regions that pose no threat to them, so I feel only obligated to oppose raiders and their beliefs.
More regions need to take arms against raiders. Neutrality is not a choice, because raiders don't care if a region is neutral or defender.
Every region has a right to safety, security and thrive without the constant threat of invasion or tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Point Breeze on Dec 19, 2013 4:53:54 GMT -5
Neutrality is not a choice, because raiders don't care if a region is neutral or defender. Therein lies the crux of the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by The Church of Satan on Dec 19, 2013 5:01:47 GMT -5
Which leaves Dux Milan with but a few options:
1.) Neutrality. Although the idea is good, the best a neutral region can hope for is that it is picked as the last target.
2.) Defender. Fight back. The only real way to ensure a region's safety, whether it be your own or another.
3.) Raider. The easy way out. Leave morality behind and join the least respected (if at all) populace of NationStates. Make a bad name for the region and your nation.
I find that fighting back is the best option. Raiders are less likely to invade defender regions. Even more so when a region's founder is active.
Every region has a right to safety, security and thrive without the threat of invasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Point Breeze on Dec 19, 2013 5:59:52 GMT -5
Which leaves Dux Milan with but a few options: 1.) Neutrality. Although the idea is good, the best a neutral region can hope for is that it is picked as the last target. 2.) Defender. Fight back. The only real way to ensure a region's safety, whether it be your own or another. 3.) Raider. The easy way out. Leave morality behind and join the least respected (if at all) populace of NationStates. Make a bad name for the region and your nation. I find that fighting back is the best option. Raiders are less likely to invade defender regions. Even more so when a region's founder is active. Every region has a right to safety, security and thrive without the threat of invasion.I agree aligning with defender regions is a good strategy, however I think there is a middle ground. Having an active founder and non-executive delegate can deter all but the most malicious raiders and, while not completely "passive", as it requires vigilance, it is about as close to neutral as you can get in this game. I have nothing wrong with defenders, and I wouldn't oppose seeking alliances and protection, I just wanted to get it on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by The Church of Satan on Dec 19, 2013 6:33:04 GMT -5
That's true. There is, to my knowledge, 1 major example of that. The NationStates region, founded by The MikesHope Essence of Mikeswill. Although they do come under constant attack by The Black Riders. Why he puts up with the constant attacks rather than fight back is beyond me. If they were to become defenders, as opposed to neutrals, they could be a devastating force against raiders.
Every region has a right to safety, security and thrive without the threat of invasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arsenioh on Dec 19, 2013 20:14:42 GMT -5
I feel that we should remain neutral until we reach an agreed amount nations in our region. Afterwards, I believe that we should be defenders. Raiding doesn't seem to be very helpful in the long run-though in some people's opinion I'm sure it could prove to be entertaining-. I'm new so tell me if I'm mistaken. But,if we raid a region, couldn't the nations that were previously in the region just leave?
|
|
Austrur
Ambassador
Dux Councilor
Posts: 54 
|
Post by Austrur on Dec 19, 2013 22:46:10 GMT -5
At the moment, I do think that our region is not quite large enough to support active defending, though we can certainly look into allying ourselves with defenders and defending groups in general as we move forward. The only issue that I have with defenders is the lack of real support: I haven't been following the R/D game that closely in the last year or two, but I can't really name that many defender organizations that we could ally ourselves with, with the exception of the UDL. I personally have some reservations about the UDL, are there perchance any other defending groups that are also active?
|
|
|
|
Post by Point Breeze on Dec 19, 2013 23:36:49 GMT -5
There is one defender region that I stumbled across today that is in the process of formation. There's a healthy number of nations involved and they're ready to directly engage in defense operations, which is great, but I have some reservations. I asked them to chat and I let Brad know about them, but I haven't heard anything back.
|
|
Austrur
Ambassador
Dux Councilor
Posts: 54
|
Post by Austrur on Dec 20, 2013 1:10:24 GMT -5
Might I inquire as to what region that was?
|
|
|
|
Post by Point Breeze on Dec 20, 2013 1:31:46 GMT -5
they call themselves the United Regions Initiative. Apparently, its heavily based off of the RL United Nations, with a general assembly and security council with permanent members and a rotating chair (meaning chairmanship is transferred every few months). I noticed provisions of an interregional court, which I think is a step too far into regional business, but I could be mistaken. |
|
|
|
Post by Bradfordsborough on Dec 20, 2013 1:43:09 GMT -5
they call themselves the United Regions Initiative. Apparently, its heavily based off of the RL United Nations, with a general assembly and security council with permanent members and a rotating chair (meaning chairmanship is transferred every few months). I noticed provisions of an interregional court, which I think is a step too far into regional business, but I could be mistaken. What is the purpose of this inter-regional court? Why would a defending alliance need to be prosecuting nations in their own ranks? |
|
Austrur
Ambassador
Dux Councilor
Posts: 54
|
Post by Austrur on Dec 20, 2013 1:49:40 GMT -5
While I might be wrong (if I am, feel free to call me out on it), but I think that initiative is sadly doomed to failure, as many similar initiatives have done in the past. For whatever reason, to me at least it seems that the inter-regional alliance has declined over the last few years - the FRA is no longer what it once was, etc.
I think we may want to hold off any decision on this matter until we hit a certain population threshold. I have no issues with how we end up deciding to affiliate though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Point Breeze on Dec 20, 2013 1:53:10 GMT -5
they call themselves the United Regions Initiative. Apparently, its heavily based off of the RL United Nations, with a general assembly and security council with permanent members and a rotating chair (meaning chairmanship is transferred every few months). I noticed provisions of an interregional court, which I think is a step too far into regional business, but I could be mistaken. What is the purpose of this inter-regional court? Why would a defending alliance need to be prosecuting nations in their own ranks? That's my concern... a few of the founders seem too preoccupied with the makeup and functioning of their bureaucracy. It's also a huge national (or regional) sovereignty issue, which bugs the crap out of me. I agree with Austrur, it will be some time before these decisions are made. I wouldn't be surprised if it became a bust within a month or even if it was a failure-to-launch. It's hard to commit to such a project. |
|
