Feederites & Userites

[Solorni]

I'll be honest; I don't know you that well CoS... so I didn't really have an assumption of what your answer would be

[Lord Dominator]

Feeling a bit philosophical are we?
The only thing I might personally disagree with would be that not all delegates end up like that. Personally I'm thinking of TNP here, and how the community there seems to far more represent the region than whoever the delegate is at the time.

Hey I'm a writer of a book that's comin' out this year! Max, respond to my queries!

That being said, I really do believe delegates, all of them, shape a region, especially if they were around a lot. Obviously the more exposure one has, the more impact they will have on the region.

Oh to be sure every delegate affects their region, I just think less shaping occurs the more spread-out the government is & larger the community is

[The Church of Satan]

I'll be honest; I don't know you that well CoS... so I didn't really have an assumption of what your answer would be

And I thought the well-known figures of GP had already formed an opinion of me by now. Go figure.

[Altinsane]

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I totally get the whole Feederite thing - like, GCRs have numbers and that gives us the hope of stability, but really if something goes wrong in a GCR the only thing we have to protect ourselves is ourselves and the friends that we've made. We don't have a Founder to guard our border, and in my own mind the Feederite/Userite thing is more about GCR solidarity and less about GCR superiority. That's not the way a lot of people use it FOR SURE, but that's how I see it. Maybe that's just because I'm from a Sinkee though. I really feel like Sinkers have more of a sisterhood than the Feeders do and maybe that makes us want to protect each other more. I still see myself as Osiran first, though.

I think really it's just all about compromise. We're Osirans, but if Osiris is doing the wrong thing we don't just slobber after whatever we're told. We're Sinkerites/Feederites, but we don't lambast UCRs for existing. There are too many extremists on NS imo. No one knows how to compromise and I honestly could not express to you how frustrating that is to me. In my eyes, an extremist on NS is just as bad and destructive as an extremist irl. That's why people who are reasonable, trustworthy, and open minded are at the top of my list of people who I can rely on and everyone else falls beneath them.

[Vespertania]

Hail Pacifica is the only answer I can give the thread.

Hail Pacifica indeed.

Reading the title of this thread must have put a smile on your face.

[Solorni]

I'll be honest; I don't know you that well CoS... so I didn't really have an assumption of what your answer would be

And I thought the well-known figures of GP had already formed an opinion of me by now. Go figure.

Your opinion does make sense though, I mean you've pretty much always been associated with trr since I've known of you. A lifer but in a good way. The lifeblood of our regions are lifers like us lol.

like, GCRs have numbers and that gives us the hope of stability, but really if something goes wrong in a GCR the only thing we have to protect ourselves is ourselves and the friends that we've made. We don't have a Founder to guard our border

I do think that this security quandary is part of what makes the GCRs unique. There are essentially two broad ways GCRs have dealt with it; a small number of highly trusted people who hold most of the influence and a large number of trusted people who share the influence. In the second system couping is harder because even if you got the delegacy you'd have to get enough of the high influence people on your side. Whereas the first relies on the trustworthiness of those individuals.

In Balder we have chosen the former system while having an democratic government that can't coup. I think it gives us more flexibility because we can have elected heads of government who perhaps were not trustworthy enough to be delegate. I used to think the other system was as robust, but as we saw with Lazarus it's certainly breakable. I would also argue that in the Balder/Osiris model that the delegate plays a similar role to that of a founder and it's our solution to the security problem.

So I think a large part of the problem of solving the fundamental security problem is something we all share. However, founderless ucrs and especially larger ones also share this security dilemma as well.

[The Church of Satan]

Your opinion does make sense though, I mean you've pretty much always been associated with trr since I've known of you. A lifer but in a good way. The lifeblood of our regions are lifers like us lol.

I could never have been anything else. Most players say they're just playing a character and to be honest I feel that's just being used as an excuse for bad behavior. Not just in NS but literally everywhere on the internet. I don't play a character though. I've always just been myself. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't need an excuse. Everything I say and do here is true. No deceptions, no excuses and no betrayal. It's always been what I bring to the table and that's why I have never left TRR.

[Valerius the Whisperer]

Is it weird that I consider myself a Balderite (well, we're actually called Balderans but it didn't work as well in this context ) and consider myself loyal first and foremost to my region of Balder? I treat threats or subversion from any region or organization whether they are a user created one or game created as equally bad to my home. The same goes for users.

I keep seeing people putting quotes in their signatures such as “Proud Feederite from the South Pacific”, almost as if they need to convince themselves and others of their own status and loyalties. I guess for me it's like saying I'm more loyal to my country than my region. So like I consider myself and feel more strongly aligned with Britain than Europe or more Canada than North America. But is that weird in this day and age? Do you guys consider yourselves more aligned with your region? Or am I just all alone...

I can see the merits of wanting to use the feederite-userite paradigm for some of those in the feeders and the sinkers in order to try to counter some of the impacts of the resource curse that they have. Encouraging someone to be a proud feederite/sinkerite is much more useful, at least on paper, for creating a premise for bonds outside of one's own borders that can then be used to counter real threats (or to try to rally more people against other GCR governments that you don't like) than simply identifying with one's particular region on its own. This is coming from a regionalist and something of an isolationist, mind you, so I don't mean to say that you are wrong for identifying more with Balder than with Sinkers or GCRs more generally, just that there are reasons to use some of these broader identity categories as one of a number of possible means to an end.

In any case, I will say that I do question the centrality and accuracy of the userite-feederite paradigm as an actual tool for understanding the NS world. To wit, it's not that I don't see some merits to it as such a thing, but I see it as a short-hand, generalizing tool that necessarily lacks nuance and is only one of many intersecting and not mutually exclusive paradigms that comprise the intricate relational and identity dynamics of both the Gameplay community in particular and the NS community at large. As useful as it may be for political theatre and as important as it might be to some people, it's just simply neither the only paradigm in play nor, I would argue at least, the most important. Nonetheless, I'd argue that it's still a useful starting point for any attempt to understand some the dynamics going on here as long as its limitations are recognized, that it's definitely capable of being used as a decent (if debased) political tool when harnessed right, and that its own importance as concept influencing historical actors of various stripes is undeniable.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

I've always found Francoism to be mildly baffling. It's a conflict theory whose origins come from a nation named after a Fascist dictator that was continued and developed upon due to a sense of irony that can only be experienced by those that are fairly ignorant of the development of Fascism in Italy; for, the left fascists continued to maintain a Marxian conflict theory on an intranational level, and Mussolini held it to be the case on an international level -- even he went against the bourgeois mentality within Italy.

How does the distinction between Userite and Feederite arise? From what I recall -- correct me if I'm wrong with sources --, it's neither from the material conditions of society at large nor ideological influences from the forces of capital or something akin to that, but the individual character of the soul of the player behind the nation, viz.; by the metamorphosis from their player's innocent status as a nation birthed in a feeder to a person that clicked a few buttons to move to a non-GCR that's slowly corrupted -- what are the origins of this from a Francoist theoretical framework? At its heart, it just comes across as a liberal conflict theory wrapped in a pastiche radical chic clothing that's gestured at as a kind of moral framework, and used for the sake of creating and maintaining a friend/foe distinction from a nationalist sentiment, i.e.; as an idealist collage for us LARPers that's predicated upon the broken down romanticism of nationalist sentiments of the outside world towards a region due to the fact that regions are experienced as nations, and nations as individual persons.

[Lord Dominator]

two random political philosophers have appeared!

[Unibot III]

I reject the terms, "feederite" and "userite" - their etymology is francoist, their purpose was to distinguish defenders as imperialist non-natives and non-defenders as an 'oppressed' class. I don't believe those terms have ever fully outgrown their origin - you're never truly a 'feederite' in the eyes of some until you renounce defender values. Which is bullshit to me: you can be a loving native of a GCR and believe that other regions, including UCRs, shouldn't be invaded - they're only contradictory sentiments if you also believe in all of the additional ideological baggage (i.e., GCR supremacy, Pacifica etc.) from the francoist orthodoxy that many in today's circles conveniently ignore when they label themselves "feederite" proudly.

I prefer 'regionalist' and 'cosmopolitian,' and 'entryist' and 'native.' I regard them as more neutral terminology. Defenderism has a long history in the GCRs, in fact, I would say to some extent it was born in the GCRs - the Pacific Army, the Rejected Realms Army, and the NPA. Siggi, Crazygirl, NEM, Twoslit, Ananke etc: NPO would have never have dared to attribute nativehood to them, even if they predated them - questioning their allegiances was central to their ideological programme and their political and imperial ambitions.

TRR is my home and I consider myself a native and a reject.

I also think that the Rejected Realms ought to be an open and welcoming society that doesn't try to divide people into 'insiders' and 'outsiders.' I want to see contribution, not sacrifice. I want to get to know my neighbors, not judge their "purity." We're the terminus of those refugees displaced by the August Revolution and the Lazarus Occupation. We've never internalized the propaganda that once 'justified' their expulsion from their former homelands.

[Tim-Opolis]

I reject the terms, "feederite" and "userite" - their etymology is francoist, their purpose was to distinguish defenders as imperialist non-natives and non-defenders as an 'oppressed' class. I don't believe those terms have ever fully outgrown their origin - you're never truly a 'feederite' in the eyes of some until you renounce defender values. Which is bullshit to me: you can be a loving native of a GCR and believe that other regions, including UCRs, shouldn't be invaded - they're only contradictory sentiments if you also believe in all of the additional ideological baggage (i.e., GCR supremacy, Pacifica etc.) from the francoist orthodoxy that many in today's circles conveniently ignore when they label themselves "feederite" proudly.

I prefer 'regionalist' and 'cosmopolitian,' and 'entryist' and 'native.' I regard them as more neutral terminology. Defenderism has a long history in the GCRs, in fact, I would say to some extent it was born in the GCRs - the Pacific Army, the Rejected Realms Army, and the NPA. Siggi, Crazygirl, NEM, Twoslit, Ananke etc: NPO would have never have dared to attribute nativehood to them, even if they predated them - questioning their allegiances was central to their ideological programme and their political and imperial ambitions.

TRR is my home and I consider myself a native and a reject.

I also think that the Rejected Realms ought to be an open and welcoming society that doesn't try to divide people into 'insiders' and 'outsiders.' I want to see contribution, not sacrifice. I want to get to know my neighbors, not judge their "purity." We're the terminus of those refugees displaced by the August Revolution and the Lazarus Occupation. We've never internalized the propaganda that once 'justified' their expulsion from their former homelands.

Sounds like a lot of Userite talk to me.

Also, I dunno how much one can be a "native and a reject" when they're permanently banned from the community forums.

[Lord Dominator]

I reject the terms, "feederite" and "userite" - their etymology is francoist, their purpose was to distinguish defenders as imperialist non-natives and non-defenders as an 'oppressed' class. I don't believe those terms have ever fully outgrown their origin - you're never truly a 'feederite' in the eyes of some until you renounce defender values. Which is bullshit to me: you can be a loving native of a GCR and believe that other regions, including UCRs, shouldn't be invaded - they're only contradictory sentiments if you also believe in all of the additional ideological baggage (i.e., GCR supremacy, Pacifica etc.) from the francoist orthodoxy that many in today's circles conveniently ignore when they label themselves "feederite" proudly.

I prefer 'regionalist' and 'cosmopolitian,' and 'entryist' and 'native.' I regard them as more neutral terminology. Defenderism has a long history in the GCRs, in fact, I would say to some extent it was born in the GCRs - the Pacific Army, the Rejected Realms Army, and the NPA. Siggi, Crazygirl, NEM, Twoslit, Ananke etc: NPO would have never have dared to attribute nativehood to them, even if they predated them - questioning their allegiances was central to their ideological programme and their political and imperial ambitions.

TRR is my home and I consider myself a native and a reject.

I also think that the Rejected Realms ought to be an open and welcoming society that doesn't try to divide people into 'insiders' and 'outsiders.' I want to see contribution, not sacrifice. I want to get to know my neighbors, not judge their "purity." We're the terminus of those refugees displaced by the August Revolution and the Lazarus Occupation. We've never internalized the propaganda that once 'justified' their expulsion from their former homelands.

Sounds like a lot of Userite talk to me.

Also, I dunno how much one can be a "native and a reject" when they're permanently banned from the community forums.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall the TRR Constitution or some other high-level document laying out the perquisites for being a reject, which Unibot technically fulfils even if the government doesn't want him there.

[Unibot III]

Sounds like a lot of Userite talk to me.

Also, I dunno how much one can be a "native and a reject" when they're permanently banned from the community forums.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall the TRR Constitution or some other high-level document laying out the perquisites for being a reject, which Unibot technically fulfils even if the government doesn't want him there.

The Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.

And I don't 'technically' fulfill it, I fulfill it. It really doesn't matter if I'm chummy with the government, we're a democratic society with a full and inclusive backdrop of civil rights. They don't get to pick and choose who is a native and who is a reject - that's the whole bloody point of the Rejected Realms. There is no ejection button.

As for Tim's jab: it most certainly is characterizable as userite. If not arch-useritism. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a defender and a loyal resident of my home. I don't see it as a contradiction, it's francoists who do. My biggest regret of my administration was assuming that the NPO had changed, they never change. I should have listened to Crazygirl, Zyonn, and Getters - the people who lost their region in the first place for placing their trust in Francos Spain. NPO has the gall to reject and scrutinize their allegiances because NPO never values loyalty in the abstract, they're interested in using sectarian propaganda to isolate residents who oppose the franco- entryism and subjugation of their home regions.

I think TSP should be genuinely worried if their MoFA actually is this naive, that is: while TSP gets in bed with NPO.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Sounds like a lot of Userite talk to me.

Tim, you're in at least two user-created regions and at least three game-created regions. You're neither Feederite nor regionalist. Please stop. Thanks.

[Sea Lion]

Unibot is correct on historical terms. It was the ADN that vehemently opposed NPO expansion from day one. Whether you consider either side to be the one with imperialistic tendencies is up to you and your viewpoints.

[Solorni]

To me the odd thing about TSP using the terms as if they were Francoist and maligning userites for their influence in the GCRs is that Francoism clearly states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to get rid of the userites influence through democracy. I do find aspects of Francoism appealing, but clearly you can't be a gcr democracy or support gcr democracy if you are dedicated to Francoism.

So it's not just that members of TSP are part of ucrs but also that they support democracy. The way Balder obtained an unelected delegacy via the democratic system is impossible according to Francoism. Which is all a large part why Balder likes to adopt the best parts of all systems. As Deng Xiaoping said; it doesn't matter if a cat is white or black as long as it catches mice.

[Unibot III]

Francoism - and really the broader orthodoxies of NPO - are all kind of an ultramontanism. You're not ultimately expected to be loyal to your 'region'; as a 'feederite,' you're expected to be loyal to the ultimate authority, the Emperor, and the dream of Pacific Unification: Pacifica. It's a collectivism that spreads across Game-Created Regions and unites a single 'class.'

If you're against the idea of Pacifica, if you're against the idea of Franco's Banner flying over all the GCRs, then you're going to find yourself labelled a 'userite' by the NPO at some point. It's really just a matter of time, regardless of if you're a neutral, an invader, or a defender. They only entertain the notion of your feederitism temporarily on a strategic basis.

[Kain_The_Dragoon]

To me the odd thing about TSP using the terms as if they were Francoist and maligning userites for their influence in the GCRs is that Francoism clearly states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to get rid of the userites influence through democracy. I do find aspects of Francoism appealing, but clearly you can't be a gcr democracy or support gcr democracy if you are dedicated to Francoism.

I was under the impression that Francoism tries to pass the democracy clearing house by stating that the Emperor is the siphon of the voice of the nations with the implication that the nations, or persons behind them, are unable to properly articulate their voice due to false consciousness brought about by userites or something akin to that.

[Solorni]

To me the odd thing about TSP using the terms as if they were Francoist and maligning userites for their influence in the GCRs is that Francoism clearly states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to get rid of the userites influence through democracy. I do find aspects of Francoism appealing, but clearly you can't be a gcr democracy or support gcr democracy if you are dedicated to Francoism.

I was under the impression that Francoism tries to pass the democracy clearing house by stating that the Emperor is the siphon of the voice of the nations with the implication that the nations, or persons behind them, are unable to properly articulate their voice due to false consciousness brought about by userites or something akin to that.

This kind of reminds of the anime Fate/Zero where Alexander the Great says the point of a leader is that they are the greatest expression of their people.

[Sarakart]

Well, it's not exactly an uncommon idea. Jean Bodin makes a similar argument, and as the early modern period progressed monarchs based their arguments to legitimacy and power more and more upon a specific unique relationship to the people. It's important to emphasize this was not an unchanging idea- it was very controversial when Macchiaveli, himself a closest Republican, suggested that the Prince ought to garner popular loyalty- but it's a major theme in early modern Monarchist writings. There was a great deal of argument on whether the Monarch's power came from God or from the people. Obviously we're not really using the former argument here.

An example of this argument, and it may interest Solorni, is featured in: A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (1579) by STEPHEN JUNIUS BRUTUS, which was an anonymous pamphlet on the subject of kingship. Under the subject of Kings and their subjects:

Briefly, for so much as none were ever born with crowns on their heads, and scepters in their hands, and that no man can be a king by himself, nor reign without people, whereas on the contrary, the people may subsist of themselves, and were, long before they had any kings, it must of necessity follow that kings were at the first constituted by the people; and although the sons and dependents of such kings, inheriting their fathers’ virtues, may in a sort seem to have rendered their kingdoms hereditary to their offsprings, and that in some kingdoms and countries the right of free election seems in a sort buried; yet, notwithstanding, in all well-ordered kingdoms, this custom is yet remaining. The sons do not succeed the fathers, before the people have first, as it were, anew established them by their new approbation: neither were they acknowledged in quality, as inheriting it from the dead; but approved and accounted kings then only, when they were invested with the kingdom, by receiving the scepter and diadem from the hands of those who represent the majesty of the people. One may see most evident marks of this in Christian kingdoms, which are at this day esteemed hereditary; for the French king, he of Spain and England, and others, are commonly sacred, and, as it were, put into possession of their authority by the peers, lords of the kingdom, and officers of the crown, who represent the body of the people.

The Analogy of the King as Pilot:

In a commonwealth, commonly compared to a ship, the king holds the place of pilot, the people in general are owners of the vessel, obeying the pilot, while he is careful of the public good; as though this pilot neither is nor ought to be esteemed other than servant to the public; as a judge or general in war differs little from other officers, but that he is bound to bear greater burdens, and expose himself to more dangers. By the same reason also which the king gains by acquist of arms, be it that he possesses himself of frontier places in warring on the enemy, or that which he gets by escheats or confiscations, he gets it to the kingdom, and not to himself, to wit, to the people, of whom the kingdom is composed, no more nor less than the servant does for his master; neither may one contract or oblige themselves to him, but by and with reference to the authority derived from the people. Furthermore, there is an infinite sort of people who live without a king, but we cannot imagine a king without people. And those who have been raised to the royal dignity were not advanced because they excelled other men in beauty and comeliness, nor in some excellency of nature to govern them as shepherds do their flocks, but rather being made out of the same mass with the rest of the people, they would acknowledge that for them, they, as it were, borrow their power and authority.

Why were Kings created?

Therefore then, to govern is nothing else but to provide for. These proper ends of commanding, being for the people’s commodity, the only duty of kings and emperors is to provide for the people’s good. The kingly dignity to speak properly, is not a title of honor, but a weighty and burdensome office. lt is not a discharge or vacation from affairs to run a licentious course of liberty, but a charge and vocation to all industrious employments, for the service of the commonwealth; the which has some glimpse of honor with it, because in those first and golden ages, no man would have tasted of such continual troubles, if they had not been sweetened with some relish of honor; insomuch as there was nothing more true than that which was commonly said in those times, “If every man knew with what turmoils and troubles the royal wreath was wrapped with, no man would take it up, although it lay at his feet.”

The King as constrained by law:

For, if the welfare of the kingdom depends on the observation of the laws, and the laws are enthralled to the pleasure of one man, is it not most certain, that there can be no permanent stability in that government? Must it not then necessarily come to pass, that if the king (as some have been) be infected with lunacy, either continually, or by intervals, that the whole state fall inevitably to ruin? But if the laws be superior to the king, as we have already proved, and that the king be tied in the same respect of obedience to the laws as the servant is to his master, who will be so senseless, who will not rather obey the law than the king or will not readily yield his best assistance against those who seek to violate or infringe them?

The Social contract of a just monarchy:

It is certain, then, that the people by way or stipulation require a performance of covenants. The king promises it. Now the condition of a stipulator is in terms of law more worthy than of a promisor. The people ask the king, whether he will govern justly and according to the laws? He promises he will. Then the people answer, and not before, that while he governs uprightly, they will obey faithfully The king therefore promises simply and absolutely, the people upon condition: the which failing to be accomplished, the people rest according to equity and reason quit from their promise.

What makes a Tyrant, as opposed to a lawful king?

Hitherto we have treated of a king. It now rests we do somewhat more fully describe a tyrant. We have shown that he is a king, who lawfully governs a kingdom, either derived to him by succession, or committed to him by election. It follows, therefore, that he is reputed a tyrant, which, as opposite to a king, either gains a kingdom by violence or indirect means, or being invested therewith by lawful election, or succession, governs it not according to law and equity, or neglects those contracts and agreements, to the observation whereof he was strictly obliged at his reception. All which may very well occur in one and the same person. The first is commonly called a tyrant without title: the second a tyrant by practice. Now, it may well so come to pass, that he who possesses himself of a kingdom by force, to govern justly, and he on whom it descends by a lawful title, to rule unjustly. But for so much as a kingdom is rather a right than an inheritance, and an office than a possession, he seems rather worthy of the name of a tyrant, who unworthily acquits himself of his charge, than he who entered into his place by a wrong door. In the same sense is the pope called an intruder who entered by indirect means into the papacy: and he an abuser who governs ill in it.

Some food for thought for any monarchical government.

[Pierconium]

It's perfectly fine to be loyal to your one region, but the likelihood a GCR is couped by a userite is far more likely than by a feederite, which is why it is the userites that must be closely watched

But Feederites are the best at it.

[Lord Dominator]

It's perfectly fine to be loyal to your one region, but the likelihood a GCR is couped by a userite is far more likely than by a feederite, which is why it is the userites that must be closely watched

But Feederites are the best at it.

The best at couping?
That's certainly the impression I've been given in the apparent number of coups perpetrated by feeder/sinkerites compared to out-and-out userites

[Malphe]

But Feederites are the best at it.

The best at couping?
That's certainly the impression I've been given in the apparent number of coups perpetrated by feeder/sinkerites compared to out-and-out userites

Hey, look at the NPO. Couped TP and they've been around for over a decade. Maybe Feederites are the best at couping.

[Lord Dominator]

The best at couping?
That's certainly the impression I've been given in the apparent number of coups perpetrated by feeder/sinkerites compared to out-and-out userites

Hey, look at the NPO. Couped TP and they've been around for over a decade. Maybe Feederites are the best at couping.

I thought it was more like 14-15 years ago now?