Hi Capitalist Paradise! I just wanted to inform you about a new Political Compass test for NationStates, called "The Gameplay Alignment Test", created by Solm and Unibot. You can find out more about the Compass and take the test here: http://s4.zetaboards.com/UDL/pages/compass_main/ (no sign-ups required!) Essentially, the Compass determines where people sit on two axes: (1) military alignment (whether players should invade or defend regions?), (2) political alignment (whether regions should be tight-knit communities or very open communities). To get a good sense of how NationStates stands on the test, I'm trying to encourage everyone to take the test. Yours, Unibot. P.S., if you have any questions or comments about the quiz, feel free to forward them to me via Unibot II. P.P.S., if there’s a celebrity not on the celebrity compass that you’d like to see, tell me who! HERE’S HOW NATIONSTATES HAS SCORED:
I guess I'm a nationstates celebrity? Anyway, I'm on the list: For those of you have as poor of eyesight as me, I'm at -3, -4. So I lean defender, and lean cosmopolitanism. I have some pretty controversial views on defenderism though. I argued with a lot of the defenders in IRC that defenders should be actively infiltrating raider groups, using sleeper cells to destroy the effectiveness of raiders.
Although I see the arguments against it, I tend to lean your way on the defender infiltration idea. It seems to me that the architecture of the system is geared so that raiders can always dictate the initial terms (even if subsequently defenders can respond). If it's genuine, the ultimate goal of defenderism should presumably be to prevent interference from raiders, not simple chess games with them, and hence nipping them in the bud pre-launch is a legitimate action to be taking. What was the response?
(Oh, and I've rarely been more surprised than having been addressed as a celebrity in the telegram asking me to take the initial survey)
