Griefing

[Vaculatestar]

Like how Wombat? Founding our colonies on our own without the use of the military? Pfft.

[shetef]

I'm late to the party. Shame.

One of the reasons I lean Raider Purist more than Imperialist is precisely the reasoning against colonialism previously suggested - it's impractical and takes too much time. I'd rather project power by destroying regions than wasting time trying to build them up. That energy should be used to build up the homeland. I have no moral or ethical qualms with griefing. I was one of those who privately disagreed with the suggested policy, although I didn't have the energy to voice it quite as strongly as Venico or Zaolat.

[Sector ZYX]

I'm late to the party. Shame.

One of the reasons I lean Raider Purist more than Imperialist is precisely the reasoning against colonialism previously suggested - it's impractical and takes too much time. I'd rather project power by destroying regions than wasting time trying to build them up. That energy should be used to build up the homeland. I have no moral or ethical qualms with griefing. I was one of those who privately disagreed with the suggested policy, although I didn't have the energy to voice it quite as strongly as Venico or Zaolat.

I can agree with the building up of the home region, but not the destroying regions part. I like the community raiding or defending builds. Working together with your friends to take the WAD spot, and just have a good time with them. I can agree on 'destroying' a region when theres only one or two natives who log in every 3 weeks, because those guys are probably just someone elses puppets; but not on destroying regions where a community has been built or is being attempted to be built

[shetef]

I'm late to the party. Shame.

One of the reasons I lean Raider Purist more than Imperialist is precisely the reasoning against colonialism previously suggested - it's impractical and takes too much time. I'd rather project power by destroying regions than wasting time trying to build them up. That energy should be used to build up the homeland. I have no moral or ethical qualms with griefing. I was one of those who privately disagreed with the suggested policy, although I didn't have the energy to voice it quite as strongly as Venico or Zaolat.

I can agree with the building up of the home region, but not the destroying regions part. I like the community raiding or defending builds. Working together with your friends to take the WAD spot, and just have a good time with them. I can agree on 'destroying' a region when theres only one or two natives who log in every 3 weeks, because those guys are probably just someone elses puppets; but not on destroying regions where a community has been built or is being attempted to be built

If they leave their region vulnerable to attack, I am not responsible for ensuring that their community survives. Furthermore, the option to take advantage of such a hole in their security is entirely my prerogative. Unless I have entered into an agreement or alliance with them to do otherwise, I see no fault in griefing a vulnerable region, community or no. If their community is truly valuable to them they will protect it from attack.

[Ridersyl]

I second Zeorus's notion, as what he said is likely what I would have added to the discussion myself.

[wetwork]

Seeing as I just found 2 cents on the ground I'll donate it here.
My personal model of NatSov is very much along those lines. If a region is not prepared to take the most basic steps to protect itself, then it is going to reap the consequences of that decision one way or another, from internal or external agencies.

[Zaolat]

So, Osiris should be a force of evil for... good?

[Jakuzure]

I think griefing and region crashing should be the only things the legion should legally be allowed to do.

[Vaculatestar]

NEIN! Because of one situation where I WILL defend. DESTROYING NAZI'S!

[Cormac]

Seeing as I just found 2 cents on the ground I'll donate it here.
My personal model of NatSov is very much along those lines. If a region is not prepared to take the most basic steps to protect itself, then it is going to reap the consequences of that decision one way or another, from internal or external agencies.

Define "basic steps."

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a minute, as I've been an enthusiastic supporter of the operation in Canada. Would "basic steps" include maintaining an active WA community and high endorsement count? An active Delegate? An enforced endo cap? Canada had all of those things. Or are "basic steps" passwording, clearing, and refounding your region, which is actually quite difficult and leads to the destruction of regional history contained on the RMB? In other words, are you basically arguing that all founderless regions are fair game? If so, guess what? We are one.

"Grief it because it's founderless and there" is a position that isn't tenable for any political region that wants its influence to reach beyond the sphere of regions that already agree with that position. There isn't an imperialist region in existence that adheres to that philosophy.

What I want Osiris to do is look beyond the traditional raid, grief, repeat method of demonstrating and projecting power, the latter being what imperialism is all about. In the absence of defenders, raiding weak and vulnerable founderless regions that are wholly incapable of repelling us is a pretty piss poor way to demonstrate power.

How much power does it take to raid, hold, and grief a region these days, in the absence of enemy resistance? TITO, FRA, and UDL are dead, a shadow of what they once were. Nothing has arisen to replace them. The war against defenders is over, raiders and imperialists have won. Raiders will go on raiding because that's what they do, and that's fine for them. But for imperialists, liberating Anarchy would sure as hell be a better demonstration of power and influence these days than raiding yet another founderless region and challenging the ghosts of our enemies to come and get it. That doesn't look powerful anymore. It looks laughable.