I've got a few strands of stuff going on in my mind, and after the last 2 days that hasn't gotten easier.
Wall Of Post alert!
My take on this is that I don't have a problem with the TSP crash being done by Sedge the player. Why not? A lot of players --- maybe more than will admit it openly --- find they have multiple personalities in NS, or at least would like to have. We all know that there are players who have played as both defender and raider nations, or as defenders and neutrals, or as raiders and neutrals, at different times. It can be fun to play both Jekyll and Hyde. But folks usually have the good sense not to flaunt it publicly and to keep their identities more or less quarrantined in any sense that it might be important.
The first problem I have is that Sedge
the nation has become associated with the crash. To me that's a mistake because it means Sedge the defender and Sedge the TRR officer have been associated with it in other people's minds. That's a nuance to this event I'd have preferred not to be there.
And that brings me to my second problem, as found in parts of Nai's statement (I quote specific bits that encapsulate issues, but intend to keep the context of the whole):
Naivetry wrote:
In that statement, we made a number of assertions subject to criticism:
1) The legitimacy of a forum-based government is dependent on its connection to the nations in the region.
2) The right and privilege of governing a feeder belong only to those communities which actively work to foster growth in NationStates.
...
This challenge to TSP is no more and no less than the challenge that faces TRR, and it would be hypocritical to hold ourselves to any lesser standard than that which we demand from others.
...
I think we were right to criticize inactivity and a lack of engagement in TSP. ...
Call me naive (you won't be the first) but I'm not 100% happy with those principles, or at least with how to interpret and "enforce" those priinciples.
First, I'm not convinced that any region has the right to hold another region to
any standard whether greater or lesser, with regard to the style of government. To the extent that we're connected to a defender army we may feel the need to hold regional governments to some standard that relates to not being invaders. But as for the rest, we ourselves have said more than once that all regions have to face the challenge of apathy and inactivity and that isn't necessarily the fault of the leadership. So why would we view the "inactivity" of TSP as a justification of interference with their Delegacy?
Second, who cares if they're a feeder or not? Is there some kind of "feeder code" that requires them to act a certain way? If there is, do all feeders adhere to it? Do we?
Let's take a sideways look at this point: I'll use The Pacific for my example. We all hate recruiters, especially the ones that just defecate all-caps, special effects, ascii, and pompously meaningless rhetoric all over our RMB and think they're clever, although I have to admit I find a few of them amusing or interesting at times, and some get stuck in and are more like TRRans than PsITA. But the rules of NS last time I looked didn't
ban RMB recruiting outright, they only gave Delegates the right to exercise increased control over it. Last I heard, Krull does an outright banject on anyone who posts an ad of any kind. Personally I prefer our more enlightened approach: make recruiters jump through hoops, suppress the ones that don't jump, mock the ones that do jump unless you like them.
So is someone from another feeder going to crash The Pacific to "shake things up" there? Why not? Because we like Krull and won't mess things up for him? Or because we know he's no push-over? Now I'm reminded of the difference in RL between messing with a country that has no nuclear weapons and with one that has.
There is no "feeder code", or any other kind of code in NS as regards activity and engagement by the government, so why would we as TRR (i.e., why would Nai as TRR's Delegate) assert principles that might be seen by others to legitimize region-crashing? That risks making us look complicit in the matter even though we weren't.
Finally, that little line, "I think we were right to criticize inactivity and a lack of engagement in TSP". I'm sorry, but I really think that isn't valid. Who's to determine concerning another region how much activity and engagement are "enough" to give a region a pass on being crashed? Who has the right to say to another region, "you aren't busy enough, your government isn't engaged enough, so I think I/we should crash you to stir things up?" Sorry, but I'm not buying that, first because the evaluation is a subjective one, and second because the evaluation is based on the opinion(s) of outsiders who shouldn't have a say in the first place.
Last thoughts. If I only look at this as the act of an individual player it gets easier. I say "Clever move, Devonitian, whoever you are", and observe that it has had a certain re-invigourating effect on TSP. I think it's especially laudable that it was announced from the start as being limited to a maximum of 7 days at which point Devonitian would step down voluntarily.
It's when I see that Sedge has announced it as his own work, with no regard for the rep that attaches to the nation "Sedge" or to his connections and offices, and when TRR makes an open statement that can be (and has been) taken to justify the senior officer of another region crashing TSP, that I'm having trouble with this.
And @Sedge: didn't you ever watch the beginning of the old
Mission Impossible shows? You (as player) should have created and maintained plausible deniability (as nations) so that neither the nation Sedge nor TRR would have any traceable connection whatsoever. And you should've taken the secret with you to the grave. As soon as you announced your involvement especially in earshot of Biyah, you may as well just have done the crash as Sedge.
And for the record? No I don't think Sedge should be tossed out of TRR or anything of the kind. Maybe CG should spank him. And make him watch the entire series of
Mission Impossible. In black and white, like I had to.
