Osiris Fraternal Order

I'm against griefing as a matter of principle on my end, comes with the defenderism :p

Can't help but smile a bit about this policy though. If this policy is accepted, then we're one step closer to complete defender domination of the universe.. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA- Sorry about that.

Well, thank you for helping to ensure the policy is not adopted.

The policy is obviously unpopular, and won't be adopted. Grief away.

Muahahahahahahahaha.

A strange transformation from a blusteringly aggressive "we aren't doing this - and if you don't like it then recall me" to "the policy is unpopular and won't be adopted". I don't know what to believe sometimes.

I actually generally agree with you about colonialism in practise. The constructive part of colonialism where we put effort in to build regions up is something I've never really seen pay off for anywhere. Building a region takes a tonne of effort - why would we invest our time in somewhere else? It would need a very robust framework to make that make any logical sense.

But - that said, imperialism is all about the ability to project power. In the words of Governor Tarkin, "Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station." Imperialism is all about dominance, superiority, authority and control. It's difficult to have those things whilst living in the fear of "foreign opinion" as you once again appear to be doing. Griefing? Pft. We make the Rules.

North East Somerset wrote:Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:33 pmA strange transformation from a blusteringly aggressive "we aren't doing this - and if you don't like it then recall me" to "the policy is unpopular and won't be adopted". I don't know what to believe sometimes.

At the time, you and Venico appeared to be the only opposition. Given that you both oppose virtually anything I propose -- I could propose that the sky is blue, and it likely would not be, according to you -- I was not inclined to pay any attention to your opposition. Once reasonable people started speaking up in opposition, I paid more attention.

North East Somerset wrote:Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:33 pmI actually generally agree with you about colonialism in practise. The constructive part of colonialism where we put effort in to build regions up is something I've never really seen pay off for anywhere. Building a region takes a tonne of effort - why would we invest our time in somewhere else? It would need a very robust framework to make that make any logical sense.

I'm glad you agree, and I'll be sure to mark my calendar.

North East Somerset wrote:Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:33 pmBut - that said, imperialism is all about the ability to project power. In the words of Governor Tarkin, "Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station." Imperialism is all about dominance, superiority, authority and control. It's difficult to have those things whilst living in the fear of "foreign opinion" as you once again appear to be doing. Griefing? Pft. We make the Rules.

Yes, I suppose instilling fear in others is the only way to project power. It was silly for me to consider any alternative approaches to the projection of power, which don't rely on being an asshole to others. Won't happen again.

At the time, you and Venico appeared to be the only opposition. Given that you both oppose virtually anything I propose -- I could propose that the sky is blue, and it likely would not be, according to you -- I was not inclined to pay any attention to your opposition. Once reasonable people started speaking up in opposition, I paid more attention.

I'm glad you agree, and I'll be sure to mark my calendar.

I don't recall myself opposing anything you've done other than the way you went about the TRR treaty. I seem to have missed all these occurences where I've been constantly undermining you. Paranoia?

Yes, I suppose instilling fear in others is the only way to project power. It was silly for me to consider any alternative approaches to the projection of power, which don't rely on being an asshole to others. Won't happen again.

The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. If you have developed some sort of moral dilemna with an aggressive foreign policy as of late, I guess Imperialism is no longer the right philosophy for you. You certainly made a very good act of being imperialist in the first half of this year? What's changed. This is the first I've even heard of the mention of "griefing" from you. Since you were a defender anyway.

North East Somerset wrote:Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:54 pmThe term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. If you have developed some sort of moral dilemna with an aggressive foreign policy as of late, I guess Imperialism is no longer the right philosophy for you. You certainly made a very good act of being imperialist in the first half of this year? What's changed. This is the first I've even heard of the mention of "griefing" from you. Since you were a defender anyway.

No moral dilemma here. I don't believe it's in Osiris' interests to eject and ban natives of founderless regions for no particular reason. It damages our reputation beyond the imperialist and raider spheres of influence, which hinders our ability to expand our own influence. It also needlessly makes enemies of people with whom we have no quarrel, which is not an advisable course of action for a region that doesn't have the protection of a Founder and is therefore vulnerable to counterattack.

I still consider myself imperialist, and I don't consider it an "act." I believe that power can be projected by invading and holding regions against liberation attempts, without ejecting and banning natives, which puts us into conflict with defenders rather than natives who have never done anything but sit there and exist. I also believe that power can be projected by liberating regions from non-allies who would do them irreparable damage, such as the recent liberations of Liberal Haven. Wouldn't you agree?

Cormac wrote:Mon Aug 04, 2014 11:07 pmI don't believe it's in Osiris' interests to eject and ban natives of founderless regions for no particular reason. It damages our reputation beyond the imperialist and raider spheres of influence, which hinders our ability to expand our own influence. It also needlessly makes enemies of people with whom we have no quarrel, which is not an advisable course of action for a region that doesn't have the protection of a Founder and is therefore vulnerable to counterattack.

Ah, but these are different statements. You said no ejections. Now we can if we have a reason. Which is it because you'll find people will be a lot more flexible on this point. If we can eject natives for operational security but are barred from purging, that's a different story. If we can empty a region to refound it should we find that to be in our interests but not arbitrarily, again, there's a distinction to be made.

I still consider myself imperialist, and I don't consider it an "act." I believe that power can be projected by invading and holding regions against liberation attempts, without ejecting and banning natives, which puts us into conflict with defenders rather than natives who have never done anything but sit there and exist. I also believe that power can be projected by liberating regions from non-allies who would do them irreparable damage, such as the recent liberations of Liberal Haven. Wouldn't you agree?

I would.

Put well by CSP. On my phone atm.

I rather like Colonialism personally, but I think that we can probably get along without it or pursue it in other ways besides griefing.