Valerius the Whisperer wrote:Notwithstanding the intent of the question nor the nuances of the career of individual player to which the question was posed, this actually strikes at the heart, I think, of a lot of discussions related to the validity of "conversions" between sides of the userite-feederite paradigm (as well as other, for that matter) and some of the tensions between regionalist and cosmopolitan camps. In the former case, it might be asked whether someone can really become a true feederite after years working in UCRs even if they divest themselves from all such places, let alone if they continue to actively participate in them. Similarly, one might also ask whether someone who occupies leading positions in two separate communities can really be counted on to be loyal to both communities and be able to act in the best interest of both even if said interests are completely contradictory. Obviously, the answer will depend on what perspective a given observer has, like with many other things.
"Of course, like all over-simple classifications of this type, the dichotomy becomes, if pressed, artificial, scholastic and ultimately absurd." ~ Isaiah Berlin
This is the quote I would use to describe this whole dichotomy. Ultimately nearly all players have spent time in both. Krulltopia himself spent time in the UCRs for a while. But I think the most telling are the examples of people who had spent most of their time in UCRs and then transforming their new homes in the GCRs in fundamental and positive ways. R3n for example; whose main career was in Great Britain and Ireland & Europeia transformed The North Pacific and was most responsible for making it what it is today. Much of the mechanics of good government are the same between GCRs and UCRs.
The main fundamental difference GCRs and UCRs is the combination of prestige aspect of the GCRs, the security factor and the fact that the GCRs will always exist. Our two greatest threats are chaos and inactivity. When a UCR is inactive, it will die and no longer exist. But when a GCR is inactive, it won't have this out. So GCRs are constantly fighting against chaos and inactivity. Honestly the inactivity battle is difficult because it feels like the default state of things. It feels like trying to bail out water of a sinking ship sometimes.
To me, these are the main battlegrounds for the GCRs: fighting inactivity & fighting instability. They are the twin heads of the monster lurking beneath our beds. Ultimately our regions succeed best when they are battled back and leaders can push their GCR up. TEP for example was in a losing battle with these two forces until Yuno came along. It's all about being able to attract people to our regions and have them treat it as their main home. What I think is great about Balder's system is that we have a strong culture and are impervious to attempts to make us unstable.
In many ways, this is similar to how China has throughout its history been able to convert foreigners to their culture and system. Whether it was the Mongols & the Yuan dynasty or the Manchu's & the Qing Dynasty; China was able to get them to adopt their culture and systems. This is like how many GCRs have adopted people on an interpersonal from abroad from all regions and enlisted their aid in fighting inactivity while eventually getting them to adopt the regions culture and making that region their #1 home. So I'm not certain if players moving from GCR to GCR is that different from players moving from UCR to GCR or UCR to UCR. Ultimately all regions are trying to increase their player base and strengthen their region.
The other aspect that I find perplexing, although I think it's more inferred is that GCRs cannot influence UCRs. I believe they totally can, if they build a strong enough state and culture. I mean, when you look at WALL for example... both Balder & TNP (but especially TNP) have a lot of influence over it. Despite WALL being two UCRs & two GCRs, the headquarters are in the GCR TNP and their strength is very clear on WA matters.
