"Standing up for the Userite" Dispatch

[Old Hope]

it takes no effort to toggle recruitment off, so vast swathes of the game do it instinctively even if it’s not actually in their interest (because they might benefit from being reached out to).

Yes, I know that I quickly turned off it simply because it was spammy and a telegram told me how to do it.
But at the moment I have it at "some" instead(1 per week); which does stop telegram flooding without blocking these telegrams entirely.
But the welcome telegrams by GCR's don't tell someone to use that one to stop the flood. They tell me to block out them entirely...

[Cormactopia Prime]

<snip>

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Some of the ideas you've mentioned would go a long way toward fixing the broken recruitment system, I think.

[Kylia Quilor]

Momentum attracts momentum, which very much can starve attention away from others. But the point of what I said is that lots of newer UCRs like to cozy up to and ally with GCRs because they believe the path to interregional credibility is through alliances with and friendship with GCRs, which comes about because of the sheer size and power of GCRs and the fact that when they look around, they see everyone else focusing on GCRs. It's a perpetuating system.

Well, the issue is that naturally regardless of who is at the top of the supposed gameplay pyramid, it is going to be a group that welcomes as many types of nations, groups, and ideas as possible, though to be that way it has to be largely centralist and open to everyone.

That can be boring to folks that want strongly innovative regions or dedicated RP focused ones, though if you look at the game today, major UCRs built on an largely centralist political philosophy are still here and prospering.

Some don't seem to get that whether it is a large UCR, or a GCR, the situation will still be same, in terms of a larger regions having a lot of influence, and smaller regions congregating around them.

What it takes for an innovative or creative game is players putting in effort to build a region, starting as a small group built around a RP or ideology, and building something interesting and fun.

Those regions will be stymied somewhat by the difficulty of not being a generic region everyone can easily join, as there is some unique aspect to them not everyone will like.

This is something you can't legislate or fix with any technical change, as even if all the GCRs in the game shut up shop, and somehow a way to distribute their nations 'fairly' was achieved, you'd still need to recruit nations to a region and build one.

So it won't get any easier, in fact it will be harder to start a new region, as regions would have to recruit in other UCRs vs open GCRs that are largely permissive of recruitment.

The best solutions seem to be player-driven ones, rather than technical or stop-gap measures, which gloss over the real issue of motivation and effort.

Ultimately, the long term solutions must be player driven, which is rather the point of this thread. We're discussing the realities at work here, and working on discussing ways to cope with them that aren't technical. My comment wasn't even about a technical issue - GCRs could be as large as they wanted, but if people stopped cozying up to them as much as they do (albeit I've explained one reason why they do), they would be less relevant, size or not.

I certainly don't want to destroy the GCRs, and I'm not even sure where that comes from - no one in this thread has advocated it

[New Rogernomics]

Ultimately, the long term solutions must be player driven, which is rather the point of this thread. We're discussing the realities at work here, and working on discussing ways to cope with them that aren't technical.

Who is "we"? I have posted several non-technical suggestions in this thread, unless you are seriously advocating only "userites" can have a voice. The post you just replied to included.

[...]if people stopped cozying up to them as much as they do (albeit I've explained one reason why they do), they would be less relevant, size or not.

Which is a disappointingly simplistic postion to hold, as it has the end result of segregating GCRs from UCRs, and at the end of day fixing none of the supposed problems that exist by just building on pre-existing suspicion and resentment. There needs to be more interaction, not less, so that barriers are broken. That GCRs by design have to be inherently toxic to UCR activity is a myth, which was helped along by GP ideologies like Francoism, which were only ever seriously believed in by a small number of GCR citizens.

[...]I certainly don't want to destroy the GCRs, and I'm not even sure where that comes from - no one in this thread has advocated it

But you want to weaken them, out of some weird sort of resentment or even revenge, against GCR "wrongs", rather than encourage a positive change between UCR and GCR interactions, which unfortunately seems to be the same tone at/comes from this dispatch. Disappointing perspective, that I'd hope will change some day.

[Suvmia]

[...]if people stopped cozying up to them as much as they do (albeit I've explained one reason why they do), they would be less relevant, size or not.

Which is a disappointingly simplistic postion to hold, as it has the end result of segregating GCRs from UCRs, and at the end of day fixing none of the supposed problems that exist by just building on pre-existing suspicion and resentment. There needs to be more interaction, not less, so that barriers are broken. That GCRs by design have to be inherently toxic to UCR activity is a myth, which was helped along by GP ideologies like Francoism, which were only ever seriously believed in by a small number of GCR citizens.

I think the point of their sentiment wasn't that UCR's should stop interacting with GCR's entirely, they should just stop placing relationships with GCR's as the be all end all to importance in NS.

[Kylia Quilor]

I think the point of their sentiment wasn't that UCR's should stop interacting with GCR's entirely, they should just stop placing relationships with GCR's as the be all end all to importance in NS.

I don't think UCRs should ignore GCRs entirely. But I do think people in UCRs should stop prioritizing relationships with GCR as much as they do, and should stop seeing having and maintaining those relationships as the only path to interregional relevance.

But you want to weaken them, out of some weird sort of resentment or even revenge, against GCR "wrongs", rather than encourage a positive change between UCR and GCR interactions, which unfortunately seems to be the same tone at/comes from this dispatch. Disappointing perspective, that I'd hope will change some day.

...I think the game would be more dynamic of the GCRs weren't so large because then they'd be less secure (which could make for some more interesting dynamics) and there GCRs wouldn't be as chokingly powerful as they are. That's not to say that there aren't other things that couldn't help correct the problem at hand, but it would be one solution to help clear up some breathing space. Including by making more GCRs - new Sinkers were made when Lazarus got very large, and now, no sinker is the size Laz was way back when, distributing the power and opening some new avenues for interregional interaction.

But
1. 'Weakening' isn't the same thing as destroying
2. My desire to see GCRs get 'weaker' - if that's even the right way to put it, which I would argue it isn't - isn't rooted in any sort of nominal 'wrongs' GCRs have committed, since they haven't committed any wrongs against me or any regional I've called home that would merit that sort of reaction anyway. It's rooted in the belief the current size of the GCRs and the amount of power they wield is bad for health and dynamism of the gameplay world at large. While size can't really be corrected without technical changes, power can at least be corrected somewhat by player action, as power is much more nebulous than raw numbers (though raw numbers do help)

I mean, I've known from long experience, Athanasius Ilius, that you are nearly incapable of arguing in good faith, but even for you, the accusations you're trying to toss around here are a really, really, really big reach.

[New Rogernomics]

I don't think your Insults are worthy of any response. That you hold a decades old grudge really holds a bad light to yourself. That you purposely mislabeled me here, and didn't use my nation name proves that.

This is the last time I respond to anything you write, and I'll be blocking you from here on. You might have not changed but I have, and it is sad for your sake that you keep at it.

Sincerely,
New Rogernomics

[Sedgistan]

I mean, I've known from long experience, Athanasius Ilius, that you are nearly incapable of arguing in good faith, but even for you, the accusations you're trying to toss around here are a really, really, really big reach.

Knock it off. For someone keen to remind other to use their current name, you really shouldn't be referring to someone by an old identity that's definitely not what they go by these days.

[Kylia Quilor]

I wasn't under the impression that New Rogernomics had an issue with being referred to by the old name, that it was merely a change of primary name the way some players change their primary name/nation without any real issue with the previous one. There are many players that go by multiple names, after all.

I certainly wasn't intending to cause upset or offense, I merely use the name in reference to my long experience with NR's style of Debate, and the name they used at the time of my first exposure.

I sincerely apologize for any offense or upset my use of the older name caused.