[Discussion] Why is "Userite" a Dirty Word?

[Marilyn Manson Freaks]

Oh no, I know a dirty word!

---

But seriously, I believe that userite is an outdated, overused, and just a plain ignorant term.

Found the Userite sympathiser.

You know it!

[Mallorea and Riva]

A little confused by why there is a tag on this thread since all threads in here are discussion threads geared towards gameplay.

There's an uptick in using the word because the game is currently going through another period where ambitious players are trying to accumulate power across GCRs. These players tend to have extensive UCR affiliations in the past, or are currently part of non-GCR organizations (like R/D orgs). "Userite" is used in the context of the assumption that these players don't care about the GCRs they're in, but rather have loyalties elsewhere or to only themselves. If your main attachment in NS is to a UCR (including R/D orgs), but you're really trying to make moves in GCRs, some people find that pretty suspicious.

It doesn't mean that your UCR accomplishments don't mean anything, or that the region(s) you've made are useless and less than. It's all about the belief that players lacking loyalty to GCRs, yet maneuvering politically within them, are nefarious, usually up to no good more often than not.

As Unibot likes to point out, the better term is "entryist." But Userite is a term unique to NS, so people like to use it.

Seems as good a summary as any. Haven't heard "entryist" before, nifty.

[Aclion]

A little confused by why there is a tag on this thread since all threads in here are discussion threads geared towards gameplay.

It's to make it clear that this thread is for discussing gameplay and not sniping at each other about Lazarus.

[Gibraltarica]

A little confused by why there is a tag on this thread since all threads in here are discussion threads geared towards gameplay.

To make clear that this was meant to be a discussion and not a forum for peddling the agenda of the week. In hindsight, neutral ground would have been better for this topic, but sadly, my foresight is pretty blurry.

[Mallorea and Riva]

A little confused by why there is a tag on this thread since all threads in here are discussion threads geared towards gameplay.

To make clear that this was meant to be a discussion and not a forum for peddling the agenda of the week. In hindsight, neutral ground would have been better for this topic, but sadly, my foresight is pretty blurry.

If you want it merged ask in moderation, it's no trouble. And I'm not sure why the tag would help that but whatever floats your boat.

[Escade]

Glen-Rhodes \o/

People from UCRs are not userites. People who are from UCRs and try to meddle in GCRs to benefit their UCRs are userites and it is a negative or derogatory term much like carpetbaggers. Someone on NSGP Discord pretty much summed it up as "who you are trying to benefit and who benefits from your gameplay." There are players in GCRs who join a region and apply for titles without actually building or growing the community or with a longer term goal of couping (or providing some benefit to their "home" region).

I don't think many players have issues with UCRs other than what was already stated regarding power dynamics. From the perspective of events and social stuff, UCRs are great because they often have people who haven't been in endless GCR wars or politics and therefore can chill.

[The Sygian]

Glen-Rhodes \o/

People from UCRs are not userites. People who are from UCRs and try to meddle in GCRs to benefit their UCRs are userites and it is a negative or derogatory term much like carpetbaggers. Someone on NSGP Discord pretty much summed it up as "who you are trying to benefit and who benefits from your gameplay." There are players in GCRs who join a region and apply for titles without actually building or growing the community or with a longer term goal of couping (or providing some benefit to their "home" region).

I don't think many players have issues with UCRs other than what was already stated regarding power dynamics. From the perspective of events and social stuff, UCRs are great because they often have people who haven't been in endless GCR wars or politics and therefore can chill.

I thought I just read this post...

oh wait, i did

[Helseth]

Glen-Rhodes \o/

People from UCRs are not userites. People who are from UCRs and try to meddle in GCRs to benefit their UCRs are userites and it is a negative or derogatory term much like carpetbaggers. Someone on NSGP Discord pretty much summed it up as "who you are trying to benefit and who benefits from your gameplay." There are players in GCRs who join a region and apply for titles without actually building or growing the community or with a longer term goal of couping (or providing some benefit to their "home" region).

I don't think many players have issues with UCRs other than what was already stated regarding power dynamics. From the perspective of events and social stuff, UCRs are great because they often have people who haven't been in endless GCR wars or politics and therefore can chill.

I thought I just read this post...

oh wait, i did

And? This is her interpretation. How do you know if she even had seen Cormac's post or not? I see people sharing similiar sentiments in multiple threads over time without citing the previous post. I didn't see you show up for them. Just Escade. Sad.

[North Prarie]

I really dislike TSP

[King HEM]

Glen-Rhodes \o/

People from UCRs are not userites. People who are from UCRs and try to meddle in GCRs to benefit their UCRs are userites and it is a negative or derogatory term much like carpetbaggers. Someone on NSGP Discord pretty much summed it up as "who you are trying to benefit and who benefits from your gameplay." There are players in GCRs who join a region and apply for titles without actually building or growing the community or with a longer term goal of couping (or providing some benefit to their "home" region).

I don't think many players have issues with UCRs other than what was already stated regarding power dynamics. From the perspective of events and social stuff, UCRs are great because they often have people who haven't been in endless GCR wars or politics and therefore can chill.

This is totally arbitrary though!!

How are you divining people's intentions? Does TSP or other feeders have some magic script they use to sense the inner workings of new members' souls? Of course not, so it just comes down to ideology.

I'm sure if someone joined from TSP and echoed the same ideology that is already prevalent in the region (or something similar) then they are just a great new member. If I rejoined and tried to fight for what I truly believe was in the region's best interest - which would assuredly mean some serious policy changes - then I would definitely be labeled a userrite. It's totally arbitrary and allows for such revisionist history. I mean, looking back, there are tons of influential citizens in The South Pacific who could be called userrites: me, Southern Bellz, GR, and so on.

[Roavin]

If I rejoined and tried to fight for what I truly believe was in the region's best interest - which would assuredly mean some serious policy changes - then I would definitely be labeled a userrite.

Probably not. Contrary to prevailing GP parroting, we're pretty pluralistic. Plus, in your particular case, you do have a significant record in TSP. There isn't really a magic method, or a magic script, to determine intent. Rather, it's a subjective judgement based on patterns of behavior (not ideology). If such a magic script existed, things would be alot easier!

Also, just consider classic Glen vs. Bel debates in the assembly — By the logic you've proposed we'd have to constantly label one or the other as a userite

[Aynia Moreaux]

This question has been ticking around in my head for a while and for a while it really bothered me. People that I respected were suddenly talking viciously about well, me, without thinking twice. I've recently been getting more into GCR's, but I started in a UCR, and my best memories are in UCR's. I founded a UCR and it's always going to have a special spot in my heart and I don't see anything wrong with that. The conclusion I've come to is: It's people playing the game. It makes people feel special to put themselves in an elitist group, and it just furthers gameplay dynamics by driving a stake in between two significant groups who play the game. People have ambition, and to get your goals in a political sim you need something polarizing to work people up and get them behind you.

It doesn't mean I find Francoism in general any less stupid, or think that people need to just learn to get along, but at least I can see some reason why it's a thing besides just being obnoxious or trolling. But honestly, how fun would most people find this game if everyone was actually able to get along?

[Lethen]

As a filthy userite with an influential position in Europeia, I feel like I've been totally inept at exploiting GCRs using my inherent power and influence. Can someone help?

[Malphe]

As a filthy userite with an influential position in Europeia, I feel like I've been totally inept at exploiting GCRs using my inherent power and influence. Can someone help?

Try starting with subverting Balder, it's userite subversion easy mode. Or so I'm told.

[Cormactopia Prime]

As a filthy userite with an influential position in Europeia, I feel like I've been totally inept at exploiting GCRs using my inherent power and influence. Can someone help?

NES can help.

[Razzle Dazzle]

As a filthy userite with an influential position in Europeia, I feel like I've been totally inept at exploiting GCRs using my inherent power and influence. Can someone help?

Apparently, you just tell the delegate to do something and they do it. It's that easy!

[Wopruthien]

As a filthy userite with an influential position in Europeia, I feel like I've been totally inept at exploiting GCRs using my inherent power and influence. Can someone help?

Just identify as a defender, it's all you need.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm sure if someone joined from TSP and echoed the same ideology that is already prevalent in the region (or something similar) then they are just a great new member. If I rejoined and tried to fight for what I truly believe was in the region's best interest - which would assuredly mean some serious policy changes - then I would definitely be labeled a userrite. It's totally arbitrary and allows for such revisionist history. I mean, looking back, there are tons of influential citizens in The South Pacific who could be called userrites: me, Southern Bellz, GR, and so on.

I think you're trying to make some point about hypocrisy, but what I see here is actually a fairly good description of what a Userite is. In the first case, somebody is joining TSP because they agree with our stances and place in the game. That's not a bad thing-- we're a democracy and decidedly anti-griefing not only because the majority of our community thinks those are good policies, but because they attract like-minded recruits! In the second scenario, you're joining TSP with an explicit goal of taking your personal ideology (one that likely aligns with how Europeia operates) and changing TSP to fit it. Your goal is to enter in order to change TSP. That's entryism. That you'd do it in a way that mimics Europeia would make you a Userite.

[King HEM]

I'm sure if someone joined from TSP and echoed the same ideology that is already prevalent in the region (or something similar) then they are just a great new member. If I rejoined and tried to fight for what I truly believe was in the region's best interest - which would assuredly mean some serious policy changes - then I would definitely be labeled a userrite. It's totally arbitrary and allows for such revisionist history. I mean, looking back, there are tons of influential citizens in The South Pacific who could be called userrites: me, Southern Bellz, GR, and so on.

I think you're trying to make some point about hypocrisy, but what I see here is actually a fairly good description of what a Userite is. In the first case, somebody is joining TSP because they agree with our stances and place in the game. That's not a bad thing-- we're a democracy and decidedly anti-griefing not only because the majority of our community thinks those are good policies, but because they attract like-minded recruits! In the second scenario, you're joining TSP with an explicit goal of taking your personal ideology (one that likely aligns with how Europeia operates) and changing TSP to fit it. Your goal is to enter in order to change TSP. That's entryism. That you'd do it in a way that mimics Europeia would make you a Userite.

Roavin's answer was a lot better.

No, my response was about subjectivity. You say that joining the region to want to change it is entryist. But what if someone just wants to join the community - that's the motivation - and then they get there and believe it needs changes? There's absolutely no way to tell the two apart, which is why this "userite" nonsense is totally bunk.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'm sure if someone joined from TSP and echoed the same ideology that is already prevalent in the region (or something similar) then they are just a great new member. If I rejoined and tried to fight for what I truly believe was in the region's best interest - which would assuredly mean some serious policy changes - then I would definitely be labeled a userrite. It's totally arbitrary and allows for such revisionist history. I mean, looking back, there are tons of influential citizens in The South Pacific who could be called userrites: me, Southern Bellz, GR, and so on.

I think you're trying to make some point about hypocrisy, but what I see here is actually a fairly good description of what a Userite is. In the first case, somebody is joining TSP because they agree with our stances and place in the game. That's not a bad thing-- we're a democracy and decidedly anti-griefing not only because the majority of our community thinks those are good policies, but because they attract like-minded recruits! In the second scenario, you're joining TSP with an explicit goal of taking your personal ideology (one that likely aligns with how Europeia operates) and changing TSP to fit it. Your goal is to enter in order to change TSP. That's entryism. That you'd do it in a way that mimics Europeia would make you a Userite.

But didn't you do this exact same thing when the South Pacific was independent? Didn't Unibot and others?

I think there has to be a distinction made between expressing your views and participating in healthy debate, versus entryism/useritism. It's not a good idea for regions to isolate themselves from contrasting points of view, which is precisely what Europeia does when it bars people like Escade from citizenship because dissenting voices aren't wanted. They don't want any contrasting point of view to upset the status quo in Europeia, so they keep people like Escade out. It's healthy to have diversity of views. The lengths to which one will go in order to advance their point of view is what determines entryism. Just joining a region and sharing your perspective? Not entryism. Joining a region en masse with like-minded people, in order to have your group point of view established as policy, and/or take over governmental institutions? Entryism. We have to be careful not to classify all dissent as entryism.

I mostly agree with Roavin. It's a subjective judgment call -- though there can be cases of entryism so blatant that it's a no-brainer.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think you're trying to make some point about hypocrisy, but what I see here is actually a fairly good description of what a Userite is. In the first case, somebody is joining TSP because they agree with our stances and place in the game. That's not a bad thing-- we're a democracy and decidedly anti-griefing not only because the majority of our community thinks those are good policies, but because they attract like-minded recruits! In the second scenario, you're joining TSP with an explicit goal of taking your personal ideology (one that likely aligns with how Europeia operates) and changing TSP to fit it. Your goal is to enter in order to change TSP. That's entryism. That you'd do it in a way that mimics Europeia would make you a Userite.

But didn't you do this exact same thing when the South Pacific was independent? Didn't Unibot and others?

I didn't, but people tend to forget my actual beginnings in TSP, as if I was MoFA pushing for defender treaties a month after I joined. I came to TSP in April 2013, after being basically run out of Osiris for thinking that Empire should've been punished for their coup rather than rewarded. I came to Osiris in the first place after the Eastern Islands of Dharma was destroyed in 2012.

I was a General Assembly hermit while in EID, spending my time writing constitutions and pretending to be a judge. (You can look at the photobucket-riddled forum, if you think EID was a hotbed of defenderist GP strategizing.) My only other non-GCR affiliation was being a non-military member of the United Defenders League. And despite the spooky nefarious things some of y'all thought I was up to, I was a baby in GP back then and spent the majority of my efforts on an unpublished Native Rights Watch assessment of newly-founded Osiris and Balder. I think a copy-edited a treaty once, too.

I was HEM's first scenario. I was attracted to TSP because it was a liberal democracy and I had just gone through a bad experience with Osiris's very illiberal one. At the time I joined, I actually did fit in fairly well with a sizable portion of TSPers. The week I joined, funnily enough, Belschaft was proposing repealing the TNI alliance because he didn't think TSP should be allied with imperialists. I didn't get involved in politics in TSP for several months after joining. I believe the first time I ever got involved in a GP debate was when The Dourian Empire couped Osiris, and I had some choice things to say about TNI and the surrender agreement. That was the beginning of anti-imperialist loudmouth Glen-Rhodes <3 I was already anti-raider because, well, my region got viciously destroyed and that tends to make people feel certain feelings about raiders.

By the time TSP's Cabinet was pushing for a more defender-leaning alliance network, I had been in TSP for well over a year. The Cabinet was composed of mostly pro-defender TSPers (Escade, Kris, Geomania, Arbiter, Farengeto, and me), which would explain why TSP policy started tilting towards that side. Not because I was working as an agent for the UDL, whose leadership mostly didn't take me seriously or really like me all that much.

So that's why, no, that isn't the same thing as my experience with TSP. I mean, just go ask Belschaft if I came into TSP as a foreign agent and masterfully disguised myself as a newbie to GP. My major sin according to you is that I worked with Unibot, who was far more cosmopolitan than I ever was. (I've never held citizenship in multiple regions, unlike literally every person who has called me a defender subversive. ) But Unibot was a one person and hardly influential at all in TSP foreign affairs-- those pro-defenders I mentioned earlier usually were telling him to shut up.

I think there has to be a distinction made between expressing your views and participating in healthy debate, versus entryism/useritism. It's not a good idea for regions to isolate themselves from contrasting points of view, which is precisely what Europeia does when it bars people like Escade from citizenship because dissenting voices aren't wanted. They don't want any contrasting point of view to upset the status quo in Europeia, so they keep people like Escade out. It's healthy to have diversity of views. The lengths to which one will go in order to advance their point of view is what determines entryism. Just joining a region and sharing your perspective? Not entryism. Joining a region en masse with like-minded people, in order to have your group point of view established as policy, and/or take over governmental institutions? Entryism. We have to be careful not to classify all dissent as entryism.

I don't think I was classifying dissent as entryism? I was pretty clear that HEM's second scenario would make him a entryist and a Userite because he'd be going in to TSP with the explicit purpose of changing our policies, and presumably those policies would mimic his own UCR.

No, my response was about subjectivity. You say that joining the region to want to change it is entryist. But what if someone just wants to join the community - that's the motivation - and then they get there and believe it needs changes? There's absolutely no way to tell the two apart, which is why this "userite" nonsense is totally bunk.

You didn't say, "If I joined TSP, spent time immersing myself in the culture and becoming more than just a tourist, and then getting involved in politics and advocating something different from the status quo." You said, "If I joined TSP and fought for..." I merely responded to the scenario you wrote.

[King HEM]

I think there has to be a distinction made between expressing your views and participating in healthy debate, versus entryism/useritism. It's not a good idea for regions to isolate themselves from contrasting points of view, which is precisely what Europeia does when it bars people like Escade from citizenship because dissenting voices aren't wanted. They don't want any contrasting point of view to upset the status quo in Europeia, so they keep people like Escade out. It's healthy to have diversity of views. The lengths to which one will go in order to advance their point of view is what determines entryism. Just joining a region and sharing your perspective? Not entryism. Joining a region en masse with like-minded people, in order to have your group point of view established as policy, and/or take over governmental institutions? Entryism. We have to be careful not to classify all dissent as entryism.

This is so befuddling I can't help but be dramatic!!!!!!!!

Europeia has an insanely rich history of celebrated citizens who had fundamental views contrary to Europeia's fundamental views. Pope Lexus X is one of Europeia's longest serving, and celebrated Presidents. Numero Captain was an Attorney General, and a Justice in our region. Karputsk, even though he joined our region under a fake name explicitly to spy on us, was loved so much that he wasn't even banned and just barred from government for some time. I don't actually remember what your ideology was when you were in Europeia Cormac, but you were once a Senator if I recall correctly.

Europeia doesn't prohibit citizenship from people who disagree with us on issues. We bar people from our region who defame and attack us relentlessly in public - which is such a totally reasonable position I don't even know what else to say!

EDIT: Actually, I thought of something else to say! There seems to be this weird cognitive dissonance where when GCR are paranoid about "userites" coming in and swaying ideology, that's totally reasonable (also P.S. Balder sux!!) but when UCR regions like Europeia bar people for the exact same reason, it is restricting a beautiful, valuable flow of contrary ideas!

[Vaculatestar64]

I think you're trying to make some point about hypocrisy, but what I see here is actually a fairly good description of what a Userite is. In the first case, somebody is joining TSP because they agree with our stances and place in the game. That's not a bad thing-- we're a democracy and decidedly anti-griefing not only because the majority of our community thinks those are good policies, but because they attract like-minded recruits! In the second scenario, you're joining TSP with an explicit goal of taking your personal ideology (one that likely aligns with how Europeia operates) and changing TSP to fit it. Your goal is to enter in order to change TSP. That's entryism. That you'd do it in a way that mimics Europeia would make you a Userite.

But didn't you do this exact same thing when the South Pacific was independent? Didn't Unibot and others?

I think there has to be a distinction made between expressing your views and participating in healthy debate, versus entryism/useritism. It's not a good idea for regions to isolate themselves from contrasting points of view, which is precisely what Europeia does when it bars people like Escade from citizenship because dissenting voices aren't wanted. They don't want any contrasting point of view to upset the status quo in Europeia, so they keep people like Escade out. It's healthy to have diversity of views. The lengths to which one will go in order to advance their point of view is what determines entryism. Just joining a region and sharing your perspective? Not entryism. Joining a region en masse with like-minded people, in order to have your group point of view established as policy, and/or take over governmental institutions? Entryism. We have to be careful not to classify all dissent as entryism.

I mostly agree with Roavin. It's a subjective judgment call -- though there can be cases of entryism so blatant that it's a no-brainer.

Interesting theory considering Euro recently elected a President (HEM) who had some very different and bold ideas from our status quo. So on the one hand Euro denies citizenship because all we want is an echo chamber, but on the other hand we elect someone with ideas that don't necessarily line up with the status quo. Someone help me get unlost here.

[Isaris]

[RiderSyl]

That's... actually a good point. There's no term for those that push harmful GCR agendas in UCRs.