"Lampshade Defenders" is the obvious one.

Well, it is kinda a way of lampshading our alignment...

I don't really care what we call what we do so long as it's clear we're openly defending. I think we've made the case that a certain kinda defending matches our value and what matters to me is that we wear that on our sleeves. It doesn't to have a fancy name and, whilst we an opportunity to lead, let's not start with 'we're defenders, but we're not those defenders.

If we do things differently, it should be evident from our actions, not our propaganda.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

Ok, so this might seem like a minor point, but it's one I'm going to harp on.

Frankly, I don't like the idea that "well, we're pretty much defenders anyhow — might as well declare it and fully follow that ideology." The emphasizes some sort of "turn" or "change" in our region and implies that we're going to be doing something different that we've always have. This is why there's pushback because people think — correctly or incorrectly — that it's going to change the fundamentals of the region.

For the same reasons, I don't want us to follow the same defender language et al. There's an opportunity to give it a new spin and I think we should take it — even if it's just updating the tenants of a defender ideology and giving it some TSP branding. I see this as a chance to make TSP less isolationist and be a bigger force in NS at large. But, we should only do that if we're holding true to our values. Does that mean we're not the same defenders of yore? Yeah, it does because if we were, we'd already be defenders.

I'm not naive enough to think we're going to name something and it's going to become some big time NS ideology; Francoism developed over time. But, like Pen said, I massaging the language to show that this is a natural trajectory of TSP and keeps TSP's flair makes this idea more palatable.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Creating a new language for defending is just cringe-worthy, full stop. It would get TSP made fun of and not taken seriously. It’s also a pretty big symbol that we think, “Ew defenders— we’re not like *that*...” which is just a big middle finger to the defender community we’d be trying to become good friends with.

I don’t get the hang up on using the word “defender.” If we’re defending, we’re defenders. What exactly is bad about that, especially if you don’t disagree with the “we’re defending” part?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019, 02:54 PM by sandaoguo.)

Reply

We also call it "democracy", even though we have our own flavor of it. Why would we not call it "defender"?

Reply

Because y'all are being pushy about it. SOME of us are TRYING to figure out how to adapt and accept this but y'all are straight up "blah blah defender blah blah our way blah do it". Make concessions. Be nice to those who are trying. As stated above deal with the cringe.

This is Penguin!!
Nothing Gold Can Stay
Penguins shall one day rule the pie!
And by "pie", I mean "World"!!
Goddess Empress Queen Princess Lady of TSP 
Lilium Inter Spinas // Non timebo mala
I have done a lot of things in the Region in my History.
There's a list somewhere if you wanna go looking. 

(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019, 03:09 PM by Penguin.)

Reply

Because y'all are being pushy about it. SOME of us are TRYING to figure out how to adapt and accept this but y'all are straight up "blah blah defender blah blah our way blah do it". Make concessions. Be nice to those who are trying. As stated above deal with the cringe.

Penguin is my spirit animal.

Personally, I have zero inclination toward either defending or raiding. I simply do not care about this aspect of the game. What I do value is the region I am in and the people with whom I share it. So while I am not particularly interested in how many regions we go about defending or raiding, I am concerned with how these changes will impact TSP. Is this dramatic push towards defenderdom going to greatly impact our culture, are we going to grow suspect of any nations who do not share this newly adopted policy, will it become politically incorrect to speak out against this? I don't yet know with any great certainty.

However, as Penguin so rightly articulated, there are those of us who are still attempting to come to terms with these proposals. The resolute nature of your positions is disappointing and discouraging.

Reply

Creating a new language for defending is just cringe-worthy, full stop. It would get TSP made fun of and not taken seriously. It’s also a pretty big symbol that we think, “Ew defenders— we’re not like *that*...” which is just a big middle finger to the defender community we’d be trying to become good friends with.

I don’t get the hang up on using the word “defender.” If we’re defending, we’re defenders. What exactly is bad about that, especially if you don’t disagree with the “we’re defending” part?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We also call it "democracy", even though we have our own flavor of it. Why would we not call it "defender"?

I'm not trying to replace the language of it as much as I'm suggesting we build on it. As has been stated elsewhere, there is no "defender ideology" were particularly subscribing to, so I'm suggesting we set out what exactly we're defending. Our goal shouldn't be just to choose a side in the great R/D war, but to outline what we're doing/promoting/declaring ... yes, defending ... and why we're doing that.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I agree that the pushiness is not coming across well.

However, I think there is a lot of truth to the point that trying to defend but call it something else is a massive symbol that we don't actually want to associate with other defenders, leaving us in the same exact place where we started. And it does sound ridiculous to boot.

My takeaway from Tsu's opinion piece was this: We're at a critical juncture where we have the chance to take up an ideology/policy which has for a long time been led by others, and now lead and mould it in our own image. That doesn't work if we refuse to take on the mantle and call ourselves defenders. 

We can say: "We are defenders. This is how defending goes, and it involves spreading democracy." And then defending, the ideology known across the NS world, starts to look more and more like TSP's values. 

Or we can say: "We are Lampshadist Democratizers, not defenders. This is how we democratize. Yes, it looks like defending, but it's special." And then defending totters on, separately, and we're puttering around in our little corner making less lasting impact and leading no one.

As Tsu pointed out above, though, it is important that we seriously outline what that "it involves spreading democracy" line is going to be -- that is, what is going to make TSP's defending different from what it's been like so far. Otherwise, we risk ending up saying "We are defenders. This is how defending goes, because it's how the R/D war has always worked." That creates less lasting impact and less leadership too.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019, 04:12 PM by Somyrion.)

Reply

I agree that the pushiness is not coming across well.

However, I think there is a lot of truth to the point that trying to defend but call it something else is a massive symbol that we don't actually want to associate with other defenders, leaving us in the same exact place where we started. And it does sound ridiculous to boot.

My takeaway from Tsu's opinion piece was this: We're at a critical juncture where we have the chance to take up an ideology/policy which has for a long time been led by others, and now lead and mould it in our own image. That doesn't work if we refuse to take on the mantle and call ourselves defenders. 

We can say: "We are defenders. This is how defending goes, and it involves spreading democracy." And then defending, the ideology known across the NS world, starts to look more and more like TSP's values. 

Or we can say: "We are Lampshadist Democratizers, not defenders. This is how we democratize. Yes, it looks like defending, but it's special." And then defending totters on, separately, and we're puttering around in our little corner making less lasting impact and leading no one.

As Tsu pointed out above, though, it is important that we seriously outline what that "it involves spreading democracy" line is going to be -- that is, what is going to make TSP's defending different from what it's been like so far. Otherwise, we risk ending up saying "We are defenders. This is how defending goes, because it's how the R/D war has always worked." That creates less lasting impact and less leadership too.

This sooo much...

What I think we need/want is a US Declaration of Independence style document that lays out TSP’s fundamental values and principles, and that on the basis of these we resolve to take a set course of action which is (in NSGP terms) to Defend regions that share those values and principles regardless of their relationship to us and without expectation of reward or benefit.

“We’re Defenders” is not something I am interested in.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all nations are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Regions are instituted among Nations, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of those Nations residing whitin.... etc etc....”

Do something like that I and I am (theoretically and depending on the small print) willing to get on board.

It’s also going to need to spell out not just what we are but what we are not - all the bits of organisations like FRA and UDL that were awful, those are off the table. The first time people are going into another region and telling them that they should all be becoming Defenders and are bad people for not doing so - no, not something I’m interested in. That was 90% of why people ended up hating UDL.

If people really want to do this we can bloody well do it better than R/D used to be.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

---

PREVIOUS ROLES

Former Delegate (x2.5)
Former Member of the Committee for State Security
Former Chief Justice of The High Court (x3)
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs (x2)
Former Chair of the Assembly (x3)
Former Minister of Security (x2)
Former Local Councillor (x2.5)
Former Forum Administrator
Former Minister of Media

(This post was last modified: 06-13-2019, 06:08 PM by Belschaft.)

Reply

Basically “do whatever, but don’t call it defender”.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply