"Standing up for the Userite" Dispatch

[Bormiar]

Sailiopia recently posted this on they're region, so I thought I'd bring it to all of you.

"Ok, so it looks like my dispatch has possibly simultaneously one of the most popular and most controversial dispatches on NS in recent months. It's led to a lot of interesting discussion, which is good, and has raised a lot of awareness about the problems with GCRs, but it appears that the old guard of GCR exclusivists have come out and have attacked it, which if I'm honest, I'm not surprised about.

Will I join in the discussion on the forums about it? No. It seems like it could become an argument if it gets too heated.

Have I made mistakes in the dispatch? Sure. Every dispatch of this kind and size has that problem to a certain extent.

Do I still stand by it/do I count it as a success? Yes. It's fulfilled some of its purpose, that is raising the profile of UCRs and explaining the issues of elitism within GCRs. There will always be people who prefer GCRs, there will always be people who hate UCRs for no real reason. I knew that it would have a large backlash, I knew that I would see some comments against me and my dispatch, but I'm still really happy of how it's done."

Sail Nation is coming across as having a bit of a Messiah complex here. If UCRites actually believe GCRs are oppressing them, they haven't done anything about it.

[...]It seems to me like arguing that UCR stagnancy is due to defender strength is an uphill battle. I can see how it can be unifying for UCRites, but most UCRs are foundered. The effect seems low to me.

That being said, stronger raiders would certainly freshen things up in general.

Really just a few dedicated players that put the work in can change the game, or any region.

I've see a lot of "the gameplay is bad" threads over the years that do not translate to action, with the article or dispatch writers being backseat drivers, expecting others to just leap up and do their bidding.

I am more like, "So the game is bad? What have you actually done to try and fix it?", and so far mostly it translates to just silence enough to hear a pin drop.

People keep saying this, and I'm not sure where they're getting it from. How are a few dedicated players supposed to change the game? What do you propose we do?

Galiantus gave some rather concrete suggestions, though even those required large-scale collective action.

[Unibot III]

It probably won’t come as a surprise, that although I encouraged the writing of this essay, I don’t agree with its conclusion. I’ve spent much of my time on NS criticizing Francoism. In my first essay, I argued for cosmopolitanism, a rights-based society, in favour of regionalism, a group-based society, and argued that Francoism, no matter how “soft,” was not compatible with democracy. In the sequel to that essay, I argued that GCRs and UCRs were not locked into some sort of exploitive relationship, I argued that they were mutually supportive of one another as a symbiosis because they’re offering different experiences to players.

Someone who feels as strongly against Francoism as me, could never endorse the notion of another “class” war between “userites” and “feederites.” The world isn’t as simple as a one-sided story of exploitation.

I think what’s really going on is that NSGP never really came to terms with the silent transformation of TNP from a liberal democratic power into an exceptionalist superpower that acts unilaterally without regard for interregional norms, law, or opinion. TNP emerged from the Cold War as uniquely influential, powerful, and rationalist. The rules-based order, gone. “The Long Peace” we’re experiencing is a peace held together by cultural and political unipolarity. That peace will fray only once TNP is challenged in a significant way by other powers rather than accommodated. And I think that challenge will be grounded in notions of justice and democracy.

[Tim-Opolis]

I still maintain that a pretty solid solution to this power consolidation in the GCRs is 5 New Feeders.

[Sandaoguo]

I guess I remember back when UCRs were way more powerful and influential than any of the GCRs. It's always been a cycle. And if we're being honest, there are quite a few UCRs that have larger and more active militaries than even the GCRs that are considered powerful today. GCRs might have some kind of cultural agenda-setting influence. But if you take a step back and look at the GP landscape, it's basically a story of comparative advantage. Neither UCRs nor GCRs are dominant across the entire power spectrum. GCRs have dominance in the cultural/political aspect of NSGP because that's where the thought leaders have come from over the last few years. Before that, it was all UCRs and the token non-regional org (United Defenders League) that held all the capital.

And it's not any kind of structural advantage that led to this. It's simply political history. GCRs for a long time were the unclaimed frontier of R/D. Most were non-aligned or "Independent" and a lot of players had a strong interest in changing this. Because GCRs can't simply be invaded and converted, the work of getting a GCR to go raider or defender was done by joining it, being an active contributor, and putting in the work of convincing the region itself to convert. So the major thought-leaders and cultural agenda-setters gravitated towards GCRs, and because they had dedicated so much time and work and really integrated into these regions, of course they stayed.

That's mostly a finished project, though. So there's a wide open opportunity to UCRs to start innovating in GP politics and culture. UCRs and userites will have to put in the work to do that. It's not going to be handed to them on a platter. And changing the underlying infrastructure of NSGP isn't going to do anything, because it's not a infrastructural issue.

[WayNeacTia]

I still maintain that a pretty solid solution to this power consolidation in the GCRs is 5 New Feeders.

I'd settle for Osiris, Balder and Lazarus all becoming feeders and having revived nations respawn in the Rejected Realms. Balder has always wanted to be relevant. This would give them that chance.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I still maintain that a pretty solid solution to this power consolidation in the GCRs is 5 New Feeders.

I'd settle for Osiris, Balder and Lazarus all becoming feeders and having revived nations respawn in the Rejected Realms. Balder has always wanted to be relevant. This would give them that chance.

When did I trip, fall, and land in Technical? Oh that's right, I didn't.

There are already four threads for this in Technical. This thread is about what players are doing in relation to current UCR circumstances, not admins.

[Bormiar]

I'd settle for Osiris, Balder and Lazarus all becoming feeders and having revived nations respawn in the Rejected Realms. Balder has always wanted to be relevant. This would give them that chance.

When did I trip, fall, and land in Technical? Oh that's right, I didn't.

There are already four threads for this in Technical. This thread is about what players are doing or can do to improve UCR circumstances, not admins.

I agree. If we want to discuss activity, it's not relevant to this thread if it's not a) related to UCRs, and b) player-made.

[Cormactopia Prime]

So there's a wide open opportunity to UCRs to start innovating in GP politics and culture. UCRs and userites will have to put in the work to do that. It's not going to be handed to them on a platter. And changing the underlying infrastructure of NSGP isn't going to do anything, because it's not a infrastructural issue.

I'm not sure I agree this has nothing to do with structural advantage and infrastructure, because certainly the changes to the recruitment system have disadvantaged UCRs pretty much across the board, but I'm not sure that's entirely what you meant anyway and it's a technical thing so I don't want to belabor the point. But it does seem worth noting that Feeders getting an automatic, huge pool of new players does matter when UCRs are struggling so mightily to recruit new players.

But moving on because that's been talked to death at this point...

I'm curious, not so much because I want to argue with you about it (surprise!) but because I genuinely think your opinion could be helpful, what do you think UCRs should be doing more or less of in order to bring change to GP politics and culture? I agree it will take a lot of work, but I think it could be worthwhile to talk about what UCRs ought to be working toward, obviously beyond the basics of region-building because everyone knows that work has to be put in for a UCR to succeed.

[Gorundu]

I feel like the dispatch and to an extent the discussion has been focused on a false equivalency between numbers and influence. Numbers aren't the be all and end all of this game. I think Wabbislayah made a good point in this thread that was most ignored. While WA Delegate endorsements counts are certainly influential in terms of WA voting, it really doesn't matter much outside of that, and a significant part of gameplay doesn't involve WA voting. And for that, I don't agree with Cormac and Comfed's assessments that TNP is the most influential region.

GCRs, especially sinkers, but also feeders, still experience problems with recruitment, retention and integration. A cursory examination of votes cast in GCR elections would prove this - barring TNP, all of them are probably on par with, if not less than medium-large UCRs. And looking at UCRs, there are large regions which haven't made much of a dent in gameplay, like Europe or Conch Kingdom, while smaller ones such as the Union of Democratic States have. What the author seemed to have missed is that many UCRs choose not to be overly involved in GP for a variety of reasons, and so players who do want to be involved tend to gravitate towards GCRs, partly out of necessity. If there is the will, I don't think it's overly difficult for a region to establish itself in GP, so long as its leaders understand the fundamentals (e.g. don't upset other regions for no reason).

And I'll go on to say that GCRs aren't the automatic winners in the numbers game either. One important aspect of GP is R/D, and the largest orgs on both sides of the divide are UCR-based. Sure, some of these are devoted exclusively to R/D, but as we've seen with The League, it's possible to turn out a large number of R/Ders from a region that doesn't really have prior R/D experience.

Lastly, I have to say the dispatch demonstrates a woeful misunderstanding of GCR Foreign Affairs policy. Even if we accept the proposition that GCRs are selfish, you have to remember that to advance their own influence, they have to seek out new opportunities. In my experience, these new opportunities are often in the shape of up-and-coming UCRs which GCRs are quite happy to advance relations with. UCRs can take advantage of this dynamic to propel themselves higher up the pecking order. In fact, if one does as the dispatch suggests and devote their focus to opposing GCRs, it would only do the region more harm. To change up the world order, you'd have to be somewhere high up in that order to begin with, and picking unnecessary fights just makes it more difficult to get there.

To conclude, there are ample examples of UCRs "making it" (whatever you want that to mean) in gameplay that it shouldn't discourage anyone from trying. What I feel is happening is that many people are skipping the trying step and going straight on to complain that it's impossible without actually having tried, which then perpetuates the cycle of not trying and then complaining about it.

[King HEM]

I guess I remember back when UCRs were way more powerful and influential than any of the GCRs.

Was coming here to say the same thing. In my "coming of age" years in Nationstates, the game-created regions were all empty husks.

I think there are a few things that have fed into the decline of user-created regions, and not all of them can really be fixed.

The rise of stamps and API scripts, while I approve and would not want to turn back the clock, makes the whole recruitment game a lot less straightforward. There were times in the Old Days when just sitting in front of your computer on a weekend you could recruit enough nations via brute force to start a relatively active user-created region. Now it requires some combination of relatively strong copywriting abilities, API access/literacy, brute force, and cold hard cash. As someone who has dabbled into region-building in modern times, it's a lot more complicated and loses a little bit of the romanticism of it (in my opinion!).

The rise of Discord, increased prominence of social interactions over gameplay, and general "low-calorification" of the game has also decreased the incentives around putting a lot of work into a new region — and keeping it going over a long period of time. The same forces that now have people laughing over long posts in NS Gameplay (vs. reading them) are the same that would probably say "why bother" when it comes to the long, grueling work required to build a region from scratch and keep it going in a meaningful way. It's hard work! It was probably...two years before Europeia was off the "one screw up from death" setting, and I don't think most people who casually play the game and chat with their buddies on Discord really see that as appealing. And I kinda get it!

And finally, I think there's a problem with momentum. People reasonably gravitate to places with the most activity (and having larger size doesn't hurt either). Something needs to shake up the status quo for that equilibrium to be scrambled. One thing I am curious about, and don't fully have an answer for, is that explosions of people used to join green regions when activity was high from setting up a government + being the shiny new thing. Sometimes these region would hit critical mass and then have a base of activity to build on, and sometimes things would fizzle out, but there'd often be a dozen of these a year — some of which would find medium/long term success. Does this still happen? If so, are the regions just not hitting critical mass and breaking into relevancy? And if not, is it because newer regions founded by prominent players (1) aren't being founded; (2) aren't being advertised or marketed; (3) not offering anything compelling?

Definitely a thought-provoking question and I think others have also brought up intriguing points.

[The Atlae Isles]

The author Sail Nation/Sailiopia makes interesting points, certainly. However, I really dislike the approach that they take in order to assuage their concerns. It seems very reductive to paint all GCR communities in a certain way, especially when they are all very different and have pretty different approaches towards UCRs. The way to combat perceived 'GCR exclusivism' is certainly not more exclusivism, which would create a heavy divide no matter which side would win the fight. The author stated elsewhere that "NS has become a battle," and in many ways it has. That however is not an excuse to double down on such rhetoric if your goal is to make it stop being a battle.

[Suvmia]

I think something to consider is, as was suggested in a different thread, the consolidation of power within UCR's and how that can impact things. With the URA, we have done almost exactly that by creating a UCR-focused WA Voting Bloc, which now has a total voting power greater than all the GCR's (separately) besides TNP. However, we have seen both TNP and TWP reach out in meaningful ways to not only establish good relations with us but provide support to some of our members.

So while I do think that UCR's need to work together and collaborate to get a similar voice in the WA as some GCR's, I don't think that's because of any malicious intent on behalf of the GCR's at all. If anything, most would probably be happy to work with up-and-coming UCR's to help them succeed, at least in my experience.

[Bormiar]

I think something to consider is, as was suggested in a different thread, the consolidation of power within UCR's and how that can impact things. With the URA, we have done almost exactly that by creating a UCR-focused WA Voting Bloc, which now has a total voting power greater than all the GCR's (separately) besides TNP. However, we have seen both TNP and TWP reach out in meaningful ways to not only establish good relations with us but provide support to some of our members.

So while I do think that UCR's need to work together and collaborate to get a similar voice in the WA as some GCR's, I don't think that's because of any malicious intent on behalf of the GCR's at all. If anything, most would probably be happy to work with up-and-coming UCR's to help them succeed, at least in my experience.

Consolidating voting power is a very naive way to try to influence the WA.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Consolidating voting power is a very naive way to try to influence the WA.

Uh, why is that? Maybe someone should tell the WALL and PFS regions how naive they're being.

What would you suggest instead, UCRs just sucking up to their GCR(s) of choice in hopes they might throw them a WA vote every now and then like table scraps? I realize that's the route UCRs that were once influential in their own right like 10000 Islands and Europeia have gone, but some of us prefer to maintain some dignity.

[Bormiar]

Consolidating voting power is a very naive way to try to influence the WA.

Uh, why is that? Maybe someone should tell the WALL and PFS regions how naive they're being.

What would you suggest instead, UCRs just sucking up to their GCR(s) of choice in hopes they might throw them a WA vote every now and then like table scraps? I realize that's the route UCRs that were once influential in their own right like 10000 Islands and Europeia have gone, but some of us prefer to maintain some dignity.

I was strongly against the creation of PfS, and yes, I did tell them they were being naive.

The benefit of WALL is primarily discussion. IDU isn’t there for it’s voting power, and other regions have been considered in the past for factors unrelated to voting power.

True power in the WA comes from authorship— that’s what makes defenders such a driving force there. And this is good for UCRs. They don’t have to worry about fighting GCRs for WAs. They just need to step up and start authoring more.

[Suvmia]

Uh, why is that? Maybe someone should tell the WALL and PFS regions how naive they're being.

What would you suggest instead, UCRs just sucking up to their GCR(s) of choice in hopes they might throw them a WA vote every now and then like table scraps? I realize that's the route UCRs that were once influential in their own right like 10000 Islands and Europeia have gone, but some of us prefer to maintain some dignity.

I was strongly against the creation of PfS, and yes, I did tell them they were being naive.

The benefit of WALL is primarily discussion. IDU isn’t there for it’s voting power, and other regions have been considered in the past for factors unrelated to voting power.

True power in the WA comes from authorship— that’s what makes defenders such a driving force there. And this is good for UCRs. They don’t have to worry about fighting GCRs for WAs. They just need to step up and start authoring more.

I mean, in the realm of long term influence and projecting greater power over time, authorship is a good way to build a reputation as well as a better influence in the WA, but in terms of trying to sway outcomes, I don't think it's naive to hold the belief that more votes=more power.

[Bormiar]

I was strongly against the creation of PfS, and yes, I did tell them they were being naive.

The benefit of WALL is primarily discussion. IDU isn’t there for it’s voting power, and other regions have been considered in the past for factors unrelated to voting power.

True power in the WA comes from authorship— that’s what makes defenders such a driving force there. And this is good for UCRs. They don’t have to worry about fighting GCRs for WAs. They just need to step up and start authoring more.

I mean, in the realm of long term influence and projecting greater power over time, authorship is a good way to build a reputation as well as a better influence in the WA, but in terms of trying to sway outcomes, I don't think it's naive to hold the belief that more votes=more power.

I'm really tired of trying to explain the WA to GPers and region builders who don't participate in it.

If you've ever passed a resolution, you'd realize how easy it is. Frankly, most regions don't really care, and for the most part convincing GCRs to vote for is trivial even when it is necessary. The challenge is getting a presentable resolution on the table.

[Suvmia]

I mean, in the realm of long term influence and projecting greater power over time, authorship is a good way to build a reputation as well as a better influence in the WA, but in terms of trying to sway outcomes, I don't think it's naive to hold the belief that more votes=more power.

I'm really tired of trying to explain the WA to GPers and region builders who don't participate in it.

If you've ever passed a resolution, you'd realize how easy it is. Frankly, most regions don't really care, and for the most part convincing GCRs to vote for is trivial even when it is necessary. The challenge is getting a presentable resolution on the table.

I don't think that my thoughts are incorrect; we just both interact with the World Assembly in different ways and with different purposes in mind. When approaching the WA from my own perspective, I don't see vote consolidation as a naive practice, but we can agree to disagree there.

[New Rogernomics]

People keep saying this, and I'm not sure where they're getting it from. How are a few dedicated players supposed to change the game? What do you propose we do?

That is because it is true of the game.

Though if you are asking my opinion as someone who once was in UCRs, there are three areas to improve, ideology, culture, and the R/D game.

Firstly, as far as ideology, we've had mainstream conservatism, communism, and centralism, and those aren't really inspiring anyone to change the game. They are boring, to be blunt. Many of these are not used or are under-utilized:

• Dirigisme, or an NS version of it would be interesting, as it is a state capitalist indicative planned economy, and opposes laissez faire economics.
• Post-Scarcity Anarchism, which would be interesting to develop if it was a cybernetic society, based under a ecological base for instance. This would create some conflict with other regions, in the sense they would see other regions as immoral and unethical. Would be entertaining to see a region declare war on one another for being a polluting ecological menace. Think failure to combat climate change as a Casus belli.
• Perpetual revolutionary order, which is a system which encourages regions to revolt against their "natural order", and goes into regions to deliberately disrupt and take over communities. These regions then become part of the "revolution". Really any sub ideology could be placed into this as the revolutionary ideology's goal. This could be communist, religion-focused, or anything that forms a new order really. Conquest is not necessarily required, as the goal is a capture a population. If the region cannot be taken, then its revolutionaries are exported. This then repeats.

Secondly, as far as culture, there are so many different types of culture to choose from, either demonstrated or fictional:

• "Enlightened" society, which believes its values and cultural practices are awesome, and clearly the best, but without falling into military-based exceptionalism.
• Guild-based society, which is structured along the lines of a multiple-authority structure, where specific guilds control specific regional duties, even if there might be an overall designated leader.
• Unique cultures built from the ground up, which could be based a novel, a movie, or custom built creations.
• Fictional theocracy, where the regional government is basically considered divine, heresy is punished, and the religion is exported NS wide.
• Criminal underground society, which has a shadow government hidden from the citizens that really rules the region, and the public government is just a front to hide more sinister activities.

Lastly, as far as R/D, the following could be implemented by any UCR/GCR:

• Peacekeeper ideology, which is an ideology that opposes raiding and defending on moral grounds i.e. conflict is not conductive to peace. This would be an interesting stance to take, as it is unpredictable, as raiders and defenders would be an ally or enemy depending on the operation.
• Imperialist Crusader, which unlike the average imperialist group would be to unite regions for common defense, and go after whatever regions threaten it. Obviously under this moral code, admittance by force would only be for enemies, and not simply because a region rejects an alliance.
• Ideological Crusader, which is where the purpose of raids/defenses or military activity is to fulfill some wider ideological purpose, whether that is converting other regions to another religion or another culture. Obviously, this excludes to something illegal or already overdone i.e. communism.

Not being creative and innovative as an individual, is not something that a technical or physical change to population, influence, or GCRs, could fix. It can't be forced, as it has to happen naturally by choice.

[Yasuke]

Let me ask a few questions that may help people contextualize.

What does the title President of Europeia mean to you? What does it invoke?

What does the title Delegate of the East Pacific mean to you? What does it invoke?

What does the title Delegate of Lazarus mean to you? What does it invoke?

What does the title Delegate of the Rejected Realms mean to you? What does it invoke?


I think that the consensus answers to these questions will give us insight on how we perceive the balance of the game,

[Qvait]

Uh, why is that? Maybe someone should tell the WALL and PFS regions how naive they're being.

What would you suggest instead, UCRs just sucking up to their GCR(s) of choice in hopes they might throw them a WA vote every now and then like table scraps? I realize that's the route UCRs that were once influential in their own right like 10000 Islands and Europeia have gone, but some of us prefer to maintain some dignity.

I was strongly against the creation of PfS, and yes, I did tell them they were being naive.

The benefit of WALL is primarily discussion. IDU isn’t there for it’s voting power, and other regions have been considered in the past for factors unrelated to voting power.

True power in the WA comes from authorship— that’s what makes defenders such a driving force there. And this is good for UCRs. They don’t have to worry about fighting GCRs for WAs. They just need to step up and start authoring more.

I have to stop you right here because there is a false predication in your argument that the PfS is either solely or mostly based on voting power and suggesting that discussion is a feature limited to the WALL. Yes, voting power plays a role in the PfS, but that is just one aspect of the bloc's nuanced approach to the Security Council. Every region that is part of the PfS has a voice to add to discourse within the bloc, approach issues with different perspectives, and share those perspectives with the other member regions. Discussions on membership shouldn't solely focus on voting power and should consider what prospective members could add to the bloc's discourse.

[Gorundu]

People keep saying this, and I'm not sure where they're getting it from. How are a few dedicated players supposed to change the game? What do you propose we do?

That is because it is true of the game.

Though if you are asking my opinion as someone who once was in UCRs, there are three areas to improve, ideology, culture, and the R/D game.

Firstly, as far as ideology, we've had mainstream conservatism, communism, and centralism, and those aren't really inspiring anyone to change the game. They are boring, to be blunt. Many of these are not used or are under-utilized:

• Dirigisme, or an NS version of it would be interesting, as it is a state capitalist indicative planned economy, and opposes laissez faire economics.
• Post-Scarcity Anarchism, which would be interesting to develop if it was a cybernetic society, based under a ecological base for instance. This would create some conflict with other regions, in the sense they would see other regions as immoral and unethical. Would be entertaining to see a region declare war on one another for being a polluting ecological menace. Think failure to combat climate change as a Casus belli.
• Perpetual revolutionary order, which is a system which encourages regions to revolt against their "natural order", and goes into regions to deliberately disrupt and take over communities. These regions then become part of the "revolution". Really any sub ideology could be placed into this as the revolutionary ideology's goal. This could be communist, religion-focused, or anything that forms a new order really. Conquest is not necessarily required, as the goal is a capture a population. If the region cannot be taken, then its revolutionaries are exported. This then repeats.

Secondly, as far as culture, there are so many different types of culture to choose from, either demonstrated or fictional:

• "Enlightened" society, which believes its values and cultural practices are awesome, and clearly the best, but without falling into military-based exceptionalism.
• Guild-based society, which is structured along the lines of a multiple-authority structure, where specific guilds control specific regional duties, even if there might be an overall designated leader.
• Unique cultures built from the ground up, which could be based a novel, a movie, or custom built creations.
• Fictional theocracy, where the regional government is basically considered divine, heresy is punished, and the religion is exported NS wide.
• Criminal underground society, which has a shadow government hidden from the citizens that really rules the region, and the public government is just a front to hide more sinister activities.

Lastly, as far as R/D, the following could be implemented by any UCR/GCR:

• Peacekeeper ideology, which is an ideology that opposes raiding and defending on moral grounds i.e. conflict is not conductive to peace. This would be an interesting stance to take, as it is unpredictable, as raiders and defenders would be an ally or enemy depending on the operation.
• Imperialist Crusader, which unlike the average imperialist group would be to unite regions for common defense, and go after whatever regions threaten it. Obviously under this moral code, admittance by force would only be for enemies, and not simply because a region rejects an alliance.
• Ideological Crusader, which is where the purpose of raids/defenses or military activity is to fulfill some wider ideological purpose, whether that is converting other regions to another religion or another culture. Obviously, this excludes to something illegal or already overdone i.e. communism.

Not being creative and innovative as an individual, is not something that a technical or physical change to population, influence, or GCRs, could fix. It can't be forced, as it has to happen naturally by choice.

While these ideas all sound fascinating on paper, I just can't really see how they would work in practice. Like you said, the mainstream ideologies that have existed on NS aren't inspiring anyone to change the game. But then, why would more niche ideologies or cultures inspire that? While a few people can lead the charge for a movement that can eventually grow to become a force to be reckoned with, I'm not sure any of these can gather enough followers to achieve that. I think the current gameplay environment exists partially because most people are comfortable with it and aren't really interested in doing something radical.

A few of these proposals also seem to require forcing people to follow some arbitrary rules imposed by a dictatorial authority, which I feel most people aren't really down for. Some of these also rely on internal or external conflict to really work, and I think people are generally averse to conflict without very good reason.

[New Rogernomics]

While these ideas all sound fascinating on paper, I just can't really see how they would work in practice. Like you said, the mainstream ideologies that have existed on NS aren't inspiring anyone to change the game. But then, why would more niche ideologies or cultures inspire that? While a few people can lead the charge for a movement that can eventually grow to become a force to be reckoned with, I'm not sure any of these can gather enough followers to achieve that. I think the current gameplay environment exists partially because most people are comfortable with it and aren't really interested in doing something radical.

Plenty of regions already have in the past, and all these aren't exactly "radical". You'd have to be specific to a listed idea though, as regions don't have to go to war with other regions to role-play, and war has to be justified according to the particular idea that region might hold. Ultimately, not all of these are "niche", as that implies that haven't already been used in the past on some level. Nations being "comfortable" doesn't mean a region is good or is going to survive either, plenty of "comfortable" regions CTE because people get bored of them, and move on. Even if a specific idea here fails, the whole point is to try. If the goal is creativity and innovation, it actually doesn't matter if it lasts months or years, as at least for a time it brings nations together, and makes the game far more interesting for them.

A few of these proposals also seem to require forcing people to follow some arbitrary rules imposed by a dictatorial authority, which I feel most people aren't really down for.

I don't think anyone can be "forced" to role-play in this game, nor do any of the ideas have to be arbitrary or authoritarian. Regions can decide how they want to be set up, and in the case of UCRs it is not like nations can't leave of their own free will if a region gets boring. Though, if we are going to go down the dictatorial authority can't be fun route, I'd direct you to "The Empire" coup, where the whole thing was one great RP, even if it didn't last.

Some of these also rely on internal or external conflict to really work, and I think people are generally averse to conflict without very good reason.

You'd have to be specific to a particular idea, because for the R/D ones, a conflict already exists, so nothing has to be made up, just the parties a region might target for an operation. We've already had examples of how external conflict worked in the past, from the anti-WA movement, and even the Francoism the dispatch poster seems to be complaining about in the dispatch. Conflict is a lot easier to create, when it is a role-played identity, and no one is heavily serious behind the scenes. The mistakes I have seen is when an IC ideology is mixed in with OOC, then you get a real conflict that no one wants.

[Francois Isidore]

Hmm… This is quite an interesting topic.

For me personally, the GCR/UCR question has always been about three things: security, stability, and predictability. In recent years, I’ve found GCRs to be a lot more stable in the sense that they’re not subject to the whims of a Founder, as well as much more predictable when you consider that the region will inevitably be there the next morning regardless of whatever happens, and that they also tend to have less drama than the majority of the UCRs I’d been around in personas past.

That could just be my streak of bad luck when it comes to choosing UCRs with communities that feature less than desirable members, in hindsight, but I’m generally of the opinion that GCRs provide players with peace of mind as they dedicate their time, energy, and effort into something.

I know what it’s like to work within a community for years and have it be taken away from you and rendered null as a result of some controversy that had nothing to do with you. I sympathize with those who have seen their communities destroyed with one wave of a Founder’s hand. These are the things that I considered when I decided to be a GCR-exclusive player.

When participating in The North Pacific’s government and engaging with its community, for example, I know that no matter what happens there’s not a single nation that can banject everyone and annihilate all semblances of progress and accomplishment. If the region were to be a UCR with an executive Founder nation, an internal disagreement amongst leadership or some other situation could potentially create a scenario in which the status of affairs that I described is no longer the case.

In my mind, GCRs are — inherently — bigger than one nation or even a group of nations. Then again, GCRs also have influence decay whereas UCRs don’t. For the sake of transparency, do note that I spent five or so years in various UCRs across NationStates and I’ve spent the last two years of my time here in GCRs. I have more service time, if you will, in UCRs. But nowadays I’m quite satisfied with strictly staying in GCRs because that’s where I feel at ease contributing and knowing that my contributions won’t be lost without reason.

I enjoy the game more when I feel like I’m still in control of what I’m signing myself up for. That’s just my take though and everyone is of course free to have their own experiences and opinions. Take my words as you will.

[Bears Armed]

Hmm… This is quite an interesting topic.

For me personally, the GCR/UCR question has always been about three things: security, stability, and predictability. In recent years, I’ve found GCRs to be a lot more stable in the sense that they’re not subject to the whims of a Founder, as well as much more predictable when you consider that the region will inevitably be there the next morning regardless of whatever happens, and that they also tend to have less drama than the majority of the UCRs I’d been around in personas past.

That could just be my streak of bad luck when it comes to choosing UCRs with communities that feature less than desirable members, in hindsight, but I’m generally of the opinion that GCRs provide players with peace of mind as they dedicate their time, energy, and effort into something.
I know what it’s like to work within a community for years and have it be taken away from you and rendered null as a result of some controversy that had nothing to do with you. I sympathize with those who have seen their communities destroyed with one wave of a Founder’s hand. These are the things that I considered when I decided to be a GCR-exclusive player.

When participating in The North Pacific’s government and engaging with its community, for example, I know that no matter what happens there’s not a single nation that can banject everyone and annihilate all semblances of progress and accomplishment. If the region were to be a UCR with an executive Founder nation, an internal disagreement amongst leadership or some other situation could potentially create a scenario in which the status of affairs that I described is no longer the case.

In my mind, GCRs are — inherently — bigger than one nation or even a group of nations. Then again, GCRs also have influence decay whereas UCRs don’t. For the sake of transparency, do note that I spent five or so years in various UCRs across NationStates and I’ve spent the last two years of my time here in GCRs. I have more service time, if you will, in UCRs. But nowadays I’m quite satisfied with strictly staying in GCRs because that’s where I feel at ease contributing and knowing that my contributions won’t be lost without reason.

I enjoy the game more when I feel like I’m still in control of what I’m signing myself up for. That’s just my take though and everyone is of course free to have their own experiences and opinions. Take my words as you will.

I take it that you never tried International Democratic Union? (I don't recognise the name of the nation you're using in this thread as that of a former resident, but thought it best to ask just in case...) Our Founder isn't a single player's personal nation, it's a puppet jointly controlled by [a gradually shifting cast of ] several reliable players, and we have maintained stability ever since its creation in 2005 without the sort of unpleasant events to which you refer (and, for that matter, without any Invader groups ever managing to cause significant trouble here, neither)....