Re-designation of the "Sinker" regions

[Lenlyvit]

I saw a conversation about this in another thread the other day in GP, and thought about it quite a bit. Although TRR is currently designated as a sinker, there are some (probably a really small number, so this may be a stupid idea) who think that the term "sinker" does not fit it. I thought it would be a neat idea to bring it up and see where it goes.

My/other peoples ideas:

Catcher, termed and coined by Reploid Productions because TRR catches all of the rejected nations in NS.

Tenderer, which means to take care of. TRR takes care of the nations that are cast out of their homes during raids, and they also take care of the rejects of the regions.

Reject, coined basically just for TRR . Its full of rejects after all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, those are just some kick-off examples. Feel free to tell me I'm a loon.

[Flanderlion]

I like Catcher, the mechanics of TRR are completely different from the 3 Sinkers.

[United Massachusetts]

I like Reject.

[Jar Wattinree]

But there's only one TRR, and so a separate unique tag would be meaningless. Now, the Sinker tag has use because there are many Sinkers. The tags are to find a region you like, not as a badge of how unique it is.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I think sinker is wrong for trr, because it well...isn't a sinker. But I don't know what else I'd call it.

[Lenlyvit]

I actually prefer either reject or catcher. Both are catchy and fit TRR well I also agree with some that Sinker does not fit TRR, and even though its just one region tags are there to tell people what a region is like. I'm for a new tag designation to better label TRR other than Sinker, something which it is not on the account that dead nations do not respawn there.

[Fauxia]

I think sinker is wrong, but a tag is kinda meaningless, tbh... I still think there should be a GCR tag...

[Unibot III]

TRR is a sinker. Everybody else just isn't doing it right.

[The Church of Satan]

I prefer Reject but I could settle for Catcher. I do agree though that TRR isn't a sinker. Lazarus, Balder and Osiris, being sinkers, have one thing in common that defines the nature of there purpose. They are where nations resurrect. TRR however is not such a place. So it is by definition not a sinker.

[Mount Seymour]

And if TRR took to sardonically joking about other sinkers' categorization, would it then be the Catcher in the Wry?

[Unibot III]

I prefer Reject but I could settle for Catcher. I do agree though that TRR isn't a sinker. Lazarus, Balder and Osiris, being sinkers, have one thing in common that defines the nature of there purpose. They are where nations resurrect. TRR however is not such a place. So it is by definition not a sinker.

But 'sink' does makes a lot of sense for TRR. We're the place that everything else drains into.

If you want to rename anything it should be Lazarus, Osiris, and Balder. The term, "sinker" doesn't make all that much sense for respawning. You don't sink into them, you rise from them.

The term was created to describe TRR. Osiris and Balder are far newer. And Lazarus wasn't a fully functioning GCR until long after TRR had an established government. Lazarus, Osiris, and Balder just came to use the term, whether it's an accurate description of their regional mechanics or not.

My personal thought is, the terms should stay. We're all sinkers. But changing TRR specifically is stupid when it's the only sinker region that actually acts as a 'sink.' And for whom, the term, 'sinker' was created for. I also suspect the push to remove TRR from sinkerhood has more to do about today's geopolitics than anything else - TRR's presence is as inconvenient for the rise of a 'sinker nationalism' as we were for Francoism. My sense is we're witnessing the slow rise of a new ideological force that's calling for a 'sinker unity' around authoritarianism, invaderism and (arguably) useritism. Renaming TRR would just intervene in Gameplay politics.

[Minoa]

A Fallback region may be a more appropriate term, as in “a region that the nations fall back on if they are ejected”.

As for the regions where revived nations start, I would call them the Respawn regions, as in “a region where newly-revived nations respawn”.

[Bears Armed]

Perhaps, for all four of them, 'Retreats'?

[Lenlyvit]

I prefer Reject but I could settle for Catcher. I do agree though that TRR isn't a sinker. Lazarus, Balder and Osiris, being sinkers, have one thing in common that defines the nature of there purpose. They are where nations resurrect. TRR however is not such a place. So it is by definition not a sinker.

But 'sink' does makes a lot of sense for TRR. We're the place that everything else drains into.

If you want to rename anything it should be Lazarus, Osiris, and Balder. The term, "sinker" doesn't make all that much sense for respawning. You don't sink into them, you rise from them.

The term was created to describe TRR. Osiris and Balder are far newer. And Lazarus wasn't a fully functioning GCR until long after TRR had an established government. Lazarus, Osiris, and Balder just came to use the term, whether it's an accurate description of their regional mechanics or not.

My personal thought is, the terms should stay. We're all sinkers. But changing TRR specifically is stupid when it's the only sinker region that actually acts as a 'sink.' And for whom, the term, 'sinker' was created for. I also suspect the push to remove TRR from sinkerhood has more to do about today's geopolitics than anything else - TRR's presence is as inconvenient for the rise of a 'sinker nationalism' as we were for Francoism. My sense is we're witnessing the slow rise of a new ideological force that's calling for a 'sinker unity' around authoritarianism, invaderism and (arguably) useritism. Renaming TRR would just intervene in Gameplay politics.

Perhaps, for all four of them, 'Retreats'?

Alright, so now it seems we are getting into the realm of possibly re-designating all four of the "sinker" regions so ill update the thread name to show that. Unibot's statement rings true on TRR being more like a "sinker" than the other sinkers, yet I still don't believe it accurately describes TRR and I don't think "sinker" is the correct term for the others either. Mayhaps a new designation, or a compromise, on all of them? TRR is full of the rejected nations of NS, so perhaps either the designation Reject or, to have a compromise, the designation Reject Sinker? As for the others, maybe the designation Reviver or Revival Sinker. This would more clearly state what they are, but not get rid of what they have been known as since they were created.

Edit: fixed a typo

[Minoa]

But 'sink' does makes a lot of sense for TRR. We're the place that everything else drains into.

If you want to rename anything it should be Lazarus, Osiris, and Balder. The term, "sinker" doesn't make all that much sense for respawning. You don't sink into them, you rise from them.

The term was created to describe TRR. Osiris and Balder are far newer. And Lazarus wasn't a fully functioning GCR until long after TRR had an established government. Lazarus, Osiris, and Balder just came to use the term, whether it's an accurate description of their regional mechanics or not.

My personal thought is, the terms should stay. We're all sinkers. But changing TRR specifically is stupid when it's the only sinker region that actually acts as a 'sink.' And for whom, the term, 'sinker' was created for. I also suspect the push to remove TRR from sinkerhood has more to do about today's geopolitics than anything else - TRR's presence is as inconvenient for the rise of a 'sinker nationalism' as we were for Francoism. My sense is we're witnessing the slow rise of a new ideological force that's calling for a 'sinker unity' around authoritarianism, invaderism and (arguably) useritism. Renaming TRR would just intervene in Gameplay politics.

Perhaps, for all four of them, 'Retreats'?

Alright, so now it seems we are getting into the realm of possibly re-designating all four of the "sinker" regions so ill update the thread name to show that. Unibot's statement rings true on TRR being more like a "sinker" than the other sinkers, yet I still don't believe it accurately describes TRR and I don't think "sinker" is the correct term for the others either. Mayhaps a new designation, or a compromise, on all of them? TRR is full of the rejected nations of NS, so perhaps either the designation Reject or, to have a compromise, the designation Reject Sinker? As for the others, maybe the designation Reviver or Revival Sinker. This would more clearly state what they are, but not get rid of what they have been known as since they were created.

Edit: fixed a typo

I don't think we need fancy terms to disambiguate between TRR (where ejected nations go) and the other three regions (where reactivated nations respawn).

[Lenlyvit]

Alright, so now it seems we are getting into the realm of possibly re-designating all four of the "sinker" regions so ill update the thread name to show that. Unibot's statement rings true on TRR being more like a "sinker" than the other sinkers, yet I still don't believe it accurately describes TRR and I don't think "sinker" is the correct term for the others either. Mayhaps a new designation, or a compromise, on all of them? TRR is full of the rejected nations of NS, so perhaps either the designation Reject or, to have a compromise, the designation Reject Sinker? As for the others, maybe the designation Reviver or Revival Sinker. This would more clearly state what they are, but not get rid of what they have been known as since they were created.

Edit: fixed a typo

I don't think we need fancy terms to disambiguate between TRR (where ejected nations go) and the other three regions (where reactivated nations respawn).

I actually kind of disagree. TRR is both mechanically and gameplayish different from the other "sinker" regions. At the same time, the term "sinker" does not accurately describe what any of them are other than TRR as Unibot pointed out. Tags are designed to designate what a region is, what a region is about, and what a regions community stands for. Lazarus, Osiris, and Balder are regions where nations respawn whereas TRR is where the rejects go. Only three of the four "sinker" regions are the same, so why would you lop all four together under one tag? I like my compromise suggestion of Revival Sinker and Reject Sinker because it still ties the regions together with the word "sinker" but differentiates what kind of sinker they are.

[Flanderlion]

I don't think I like the names Revival Sinker/Reject Sinker - doesn't have a NS flair. I do think they need differentiation. I personally think of Sinkers as Lazarus, Osiris and Balder, and Catcher (we've started referring to it as that offsite, but any name with a NS kind of flair works too) as TRR.

[Guy]

I am also fairly certain that TRR is the 'original' Sinker. TRR and Lazarus were certainly referred to collectively as 'the sinkers' until 2011, and were the original 'sister sinkers'. Our commonality with Lazarus was that we were both regions established nations 'fall into', which is still true. The other commonality we had was the lack of the ejection button, which was granted following the creation of Osiris and Balder.

Is that history worth throwing away in order to explain to everyone (if it wasn't already very clear from the naming regime) that TRR serves a different purpose from the other 3 Sinkers? I don't really think so. Since the new tag given to TRR isn't likely to be of any utility, the net effect is simply reducing the pool of Sinker regions to 3.

[Fratt]

TRR is a sinker. It's called like that because - as it was the case in Lazarus, before the creation of Balder and Osiris - nations cannot be ejected from it. It's a sink. Nations that end there cannot drop any further.

So it should not be renamed. If you think the tag has been lacking cohesion since Balder and Osiris were added, then it's the resurrection regions that should be renamed, not TRR.

However I'll note that, even if Balder and Osiris were created in 2011, I had never heard anyone call TRR anything but a sinker before late 2016 or so, five years later. This makes me agree with Unibot when he says that the reasons for a change of name are ideological, and not an 'obvious' consequence of different mechanics.

[Lenlyvit]

I am also fairly certain that TRR is the 'original' Sinker. TRR and Lazarus were certainly referred to collectively as 'the sinkers' until 2011, and were the original 'sister sinkers'. Our commonality with Lazarus was that we were both regions established nations 'fall into', which is still true. The other commonality we had was the lack of the ejection button, which was granted following the creation of Osiris and Balder.

Is that history worth throwing away in order to explain to everyone (if it wasn't already very clear from the naming regime) that TRR serves a different purpose from the other 3 Sinkers? I don't really think so. Since the new tag given to TRR isn't likely to be of any utility, the net effect is simply reducing the pool of Sinker regions to 3.

TRR is a sinker. It's called like that because - as it was the case in Lazarus, before the creation of Balder and Osiris - nations cannot be ejected from it. It's a sink. Nations that end there cannot drop any further.

So it should not be renamed. If you think the tag has been lacking cohesion since Balder and Osiris were added, then it's the resurrection regions that should be renamed, not TRR.

However I'll note that, even if Balder and Osiris were created in 2011, I had never heard anyone call TRR anything but a sinker before late 2016 or so, five years later. This makes me agree with Unibot when he says that the reasons for a change of name are ideological, and not an 'obvious' consequence of different mechanics.

That's why I kind of came up with Revival Sinker for Lazarus, Balder, and Osiris while with TRR I put Reject Sinker. That way they're still known as Sinkers, but it adds a little more detail on what kind of sinker they are.

[Minoa]

TRR is a sinker. It's called like that because - as it was the case in Lazarus, before the creation of Balder and Osiris - nations cannot be ejected from it. It's a sink. Nations that end there cannot drop any further.

So it should not be renamed. If you think the tag has been lacking cohesion since Balder and Osiris were added, then it's the resurrection regions that should be renamed, not TRR.

However I'll note that, even if Balder and Osiris were created in 2011, I had never heard anyone call TRR anything but a sinker before late 2016 or so, five years later. This makes me agree with Unibot when he says that the reasons for a change of name are ideological, and not an 'obvious' consequence of different mechanics.

Then I will recommend the terms Sinker and Revival respectively.

[Lenlyvit]

TRR is a sinker. It's called like that because - as it was the case in Lazarus, before the creation of Balder and Osiris - nations cannot be ejected from it. It's a sink. Nations that end there cannot drop any further.

So it should not be renamed. If you think the tag has been lacking cohesion since Balder and Osiris were added, then it's the resurrection regions that should be renamed, not TRR.

However I'll note that, even if Balder and Osiris were created in 2011, I had never heard anyone call TRR anything but a sinker before late 2016 or so, five years later. This makes me agree with Unibot when he says that the reasons for a change of name are ideological, and not an 'obvious' consequence of different mechanics.

Then I will recommend the terms Sinker and Revival respectively.

I think Revival on its own may be the wrong thing. Reviver would be a better version of that if we went in that direction.

[The Atlae Isles]

Instead of having a tag only for TRR, I propose having a tag for all GCRs (Game-Created Regions, perhaps?) and add TRR to that.

Except I do like Catcher and Reject a lot.

[Lenlyvit]

Instead of having a tag only for TRR, I propose having a tag for all GCRs (Game-Created Regions, perhaps?) and add TRR to that.

Except I do like Catcher and Reject a lot.

I think adding a GCR tag wouldn't be a great idea. If they did that, the mods would then need to add a UCR tag.

[Jar Wattinree]

Instead of having a tag only for TRR, I propose having a tag for all GCRs (Game-Created Regions, perhaps?) and add TRR to that.

Except I do like Catcher and Reject a lot.

I think adding a GCR tag wouldn't be a great idea. If they did that, the mods would then need to add a UCR tag.

Which would be redundant as heck, since everything outside of GCR is UCR.