Advertisement
by Lord Dominator » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:18 pm
Todd McCloud wrote:Lord Dominator wrote:Feeling a bit philosophical are we?
The only thing I might personally disagree with would be that not all delegates end up like that. Personally I'm thinking of TNP here, and how the community there seems to far more represent the region than whoever the delegate is at the time.
Hey I'm a writer of a book that's comin' out this year! Max, respond to my queries!
That being said, I really do believe delegates, all of them, shape a region, especially if they were around a lot. Obviously the more exposure one has, the more impact they will have on the region.
by The Church of Satan » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:25 pm
Solorni wrote:I'll be honest; I don't know you that well CoS... so I didn't really have an assumption of what your answer would be
by Altinsane » Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:48 pm
by Vespertania » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:04 pm
by Solorni » Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:21 pm
I do think that this security quandary is part of what makes the GCRs unique. There are essentially two broad ways GCRs have dealt with it; a small number of highly trusted people who hold most of the influence and a large number of trusted people who share the influence. In the second system couping is harder because even if you got the delegacy you'd have to get enough of the high influence people on your side. Whereas the first relies on the trustworthiness of those individuals.Altinsane wrote: like, GCRs have numbers and that gives us the hope of stability, but really if something goes wrong in a GCR the only thing we have to protect ourselves is ourselves and the friends that we've made. We don't have a Founder to guard our border
by The Church of Satan » Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:04 pm
Solorni wrote:Your opinion does make sense though, I mean you've pretty much always been associated with trr since I've known of you. A lifer but in a good way. The lifeblood of our regions are lifers like us lol.
by Valerius the Whisperer » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:49 am
Solorni wrote:Is it weird that I consider myself a Balderite (well, we're actually called Balderans but it didn't work as well in this context ) and consider myself loyal first and foremost to my region of Balder? I treat threats or subversion from any region or organization whether they are a user created one or game created as equally bad to my home. The same goes for users.
I keep seeing people putting quotes in their signatures such as “Proud Feederite from the South Pacific”, almost as if they need to convince themselves and others of their own status and loyalties. I guess for me it's like saying I'm more loyal to my country than my region. So like I consider myself and feel more strongly aligned with Britain than Europe or more Canada than North America. But is that weird in this day and age? Do you guys consider yourselves more aligned with your region? Or am I just all alone...
by Kain_The_Dragoon » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:21 am
Zarvarza wrote:I would recommend, that if you want a world where everyone is friendly and informational, then you should invent the game 'hippistates' where everyone gets along,and raiding isn't a mechanic of the game.
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:32 am
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Tim-Opolis » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:35 am
Unibot III wrote:I reject the terms, "feederite" and "userite" - their etymology is francoist, their purpose was to distinguish defenders as imperialist non-natives and non-defenders as an 'oppressed' class. I don't believe those terms have ever fully outgrown their origin - you're never truly a 'feederite' in the eyes of some until you renounce defender values. Which is bullshit to me: you can be a loving native of a GCR and believe that other regions, including UCRs, shouldn't be invaded - they're only contradictory sentiments if you also believe in all of the additional ideological baggage (i.e., GCR supremacy, Pacifica etc.) from the francoist orthodoxy that many in today's circles conveniently ignore when they label themselves "feederite" proudly.
I prefer 'regionalist' and 'cosmopolitian,' and 'entryist' and 'native.' I regard them as more neutral terminology. Defenderism has a long history in the GCRs, in fact, I would say to some extent it was born in the GCRs - the Pacific Army, the Rejected Realms Army, and the NPA. Siggi, Crazygirl, NEM, Twoslit, Ananke etc: NPO would have never have dared to attribute nativehood to them, even if they predated them - questioning their allegiances was central to their ideological programme and their political and imperial ambitions.
TRR is my home and I consider myself a native and a reject.
I also think that the Rejected Realms ought to be an open and welcoming society that doesn't try to divide people into 'insiders' and 'outsiders.' I want to see contribution, not sacrifice. I want to get to know my neighbors, not judge their "purity." We're the terminus of those refugees displaced by the August Revolution and the Lazarus Occupation. We've never internalized the propaganda that once 'justified' their expulsion from their former homelands.
<Koth - 06/30/2020> I mean as far as GPers go, Tim is one of the most iconic
by Lord Dominator » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:37 am
Tim-Opolis wrote:Unibot III wrote:I reject the terms, "feederite" and "userite" - their etymology is francoist, their purpose was to distinguish defenders as imperialist non-natives and non-defenders as an 'oppressed' class. I don't believe those terms have ever fully outgrown their origin - you're never truly a 'feederite' in the eyes of some until you renounce defender values. Which is bullshit to me: you can be a loving native of a GCR and believe that other regions, including UCRs, shouldn't be invaded - they're only contradictory sentiments if you also believe in all of the additional ideological baggage (i.e., GCR supremacy, Pacifica etc.) from the francoist orthodoxy that many in today's circles conveniently ignore when they label themselves "feederite" proudly.
I prefer 'regionalist' and 'cosmopolitian,' and 'entryist' and 'native.' I regard them as more neutral terminology. Defenderism has a long history in the GCRs, in fact, I would say to some extent it was born in the GCRs - the Pacific Army, the Rejected Realms Army, and the NPA. Siggi, Crazygirl, NEM, Twoslit, Ananke etc: NPO would have never have dared to attribute nativehood to them, even if they predated them - questioning their allegiances was central to their ideological programme and their political and imperial ambitions.
TRR is my home and I consider myself a native and a reject.
I also think that the Rejected Realms ought to be an open and welcoming society that doesn't try to divide people into 'insiders' and 'outsiders.' I want to see contribution, not sacrifice. I want to get to know my neighbors, not judge their "purity." We're the terminus of those refugees displaced by the August Revolution and the Lazarus Occupation. We've never internalized the propaganda that once 'justified' their expulsion from their former homelands.
Sounds like a lot of Userite talk to me.
Also, I dunno how much one can be a "native and a reject" when they're permanently banned from the community forums.
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:52 am
Lord Dominator wrote:Tim-Opolis wrote:
Sounds like a lot of Userite talk to me.
Also, I dunno how much one can be a "native and a reject" when they're permanently banned from the community forums.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall the TRR Constitution or some other high-level document laying out the perquisites for being a reject, which Unibot technically fulfils even if the government doesn't want him there.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Cormactopia Prime » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:52 am
Tim-Opolis wrote:Sounds like a lot of Userite talk to me.
by Sea Lion » Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:21 am
by Solorni » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:13 pm
by Unibot III » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:39 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Kain_The_Dragoon » Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:46 pm
Solorni wrote:To me the odd thing about TSP using the terms as if they were Francoist and maligning userites for their influence in the GCRs is that Francoism clearly states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to get rid of the userites influence through democracy. I do find aspects of Francoism appealing, but clearly you can't be a gcr democracy or support gcr democracy if you are dedicated to Francoism.
Zarvarza wrote:I would recommend, that if you want a world where everyone is friendly and informational, then you should invent the game 'hippistates' where everyone gets along,and raiding isn't a mechanic of the game.
by Solorni » Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:24 pm
Kain_The_Dragoon wrote:Solorni wrote:To me the odd thing about TSP using the terms as if they were Francoist and maligning userites for their influence in the GCRs is that Francoism clearly states in no uncertain terms that it is impossible to get rid of the userites influence through democracy. I do find aspects of Francoism appealing, but clearly you can't be a gcr democracy or support gcr democracy if you are dedicated to Francoism.
I was under the impression that Francoism tries to pass the democracy clearing house by stating that the Emperor is the siphon of the voice of the nations with the implication that the nations, or persons behind them, are unable to properly articulate their voice due to false consciousness brought about by userites or something akin to that.
by Sarakart » Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:35 pm
Briefly, for so much as none were ever born with crowns on their heads, and scepters in their hands, and that no man can be a king by himself, nor reign without people, whereas on the contrary, the people may subsist of themselves, and were, long before they had any kings, it must of necessity follow that kings were at the first constituted by the people; and although the sons and dependents of such kings, inheriting their fathers’ virtues, may in a sort seem to have rendered their kingdoms hereditary to their offsprings, and that in some kingdoms and countries the right of free election seems in a sort buried; yet, notwithstanding, in all well-ordered kingdoms, this custom is yet remaining. The sons do not succeed the fathers, before the people have first, as it were, anew established them by their new approbation: neither were they acknowledged in quality, as inheriting it from the dead; but approved and accounted kings then only, when they were invested with the kingdom, by receiving the scepter and diadem from the hands of those who represent the majesty of the people. One may see most evident marks of this in Christian kingdoms, which are at this day esteemed hereditary; for the French king, he of Spain and England, and others, are commonly sacred, and, as it were, put into possession of their authority by the peers, lords of the kingdom, and officers of the crown, who represent the body of the people.
In a commonwealth, commonly compared to a ship, the king holds the place of pilot, the people in general are owners of the vessel, obeying the pilot, while he is careful of the public good; as though this pilot neither is nor ought to be esteemed other than servant to the public; as a judge or general in war differs little from other officers, but that he is bound to bear greater burdens, and expose himself to more dangers. By the same reason also which the king gains by acquist of arms, be it that he possesses himself of frontier places in warring on the enemy, or that which he gets by escheats or confiscations, he gets it to the kingdom, and not to himself, to wit, to the people, of whom the kingdom is composed, no more nor less than the servant does for his master; neither may one contract or oblige themselves to him, but by and with reference to the authority derived from the people. Furthermore, there is an infinite sort of people who live without a king, but we cannot imagine a king without people. And those who have been raised to the royal dignity were not advanced because they excelled other men in beauty and comeliness, nor in some excellency of nature to govern them as shepherds do their flocks, but rather being made out of the same mass with the rest of the people, they would acknowledge that for them, they, as it were, borrow their power and authority.
Therefore then, to govern is nothing else but to provide for. These proper ends of commanding, being for the people’s commodity, the only duty of kings and emperors is to provide for the people’s good. The kingly dignity to speak properly, is not a title of honor, but a weighty and burdensome office. lt is not a discharge or vacation from affairs to run a licentious course of liberty, but a charge and vocation to all industrious employments, for the service of the commonwealth; the which has some glimpse of honor with it, because in those first and golden ages, no man would have tasted of such continual troubles, if they had not been sweetened with some relish of honor; insomuch as there was nothing more true than that which was commonly said in those times, “If every man knew with what turmoils and troubles the royal wreath was wrapped with, no man would take it up, although it lay at his feet.”
For, if the welfare of the kingdom depends on the observation of the laws, and the laws are enthralled to the pleasure of one man, is it not most certain, that there can be no permanent stability in that government? Must it not then necessarily come to pass, that if the king (as some have been) be infected with lunacy, either continually, or by intervals, that the whole state fall inevitably to ruin? But if the laws be superior to the king, as we have already proved, and that the king be tied in the same respect of obedience to the laws as the servant is to his master, who will be so senseless, who will not rather obey the law than the king or will not readily yield his best assistance against those who seek to violate or infringe them?
It is certain, then, that the people by way or stipulation require a performance of covenants. The king promises it. Now the condition of a stipulator is in terms of law more worthy than of a promisor. The people ask the king, whether he will govern justly and according to the laws? He promises he will. Then the people answer, and not before, that while he governs uprightly, they will obey faithfully The king therefore promises simply and absolutely, the people upon condition: the which failing to be accomplished, the people rest according to equity and reason quit from their promise.
Hitherto we have treated of a king. It now rests we do somewhat more fully describe a tyrant. We have shown that he is a king, who lawfully governs a kingdom, either derived to him by succession, or committed to him by election. It follows, therefore, that he is reputed a tyrant, which, as opposite to a king, either gains a kingdom by violence or indirect means, or being invested therewith by lawful election, or succession, governs it not according to law and equity, or neglects those contracts and agreements, to the observation whereof he was strictly obliged at his reception. All which may very well occur in one and the same person. The first is commonly called a tyrant without title: the second a tyrant by practice. Now, it may well so come to pass, that he who possesses himself of a kingdom by force, to govern justly, and he on whom it descends by a lawful title, to rule unjustly. But for so much as a kingdom is rather a right than an inheritance, and an office than a possession, he seems rather worthy of the name of a tyrant, who unworthily acquits himself of his charge, than he who entered into his place by a wrong door. In the same sense is the pope called an intruder who entered by indirect means into the papacy: and he an abuser who governs ill in it.
by Pierconium » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:00 pm
Fauxia wrote:It's perfectly fine to be loyal to your one region, but the likelihood a GCR is couped by a userite is far more likely than by a feederite, which is why it is the userites that must be closely watched
by Lord Dominator » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:08 pm
by Lord Dominator » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:10 pm
Malphe wrote:Lord Dominator wrote:The best at couping?
That's certainly the impression I've been given in the apparent number of coups perpetrated by feeder/sinkerites compared to out-and-out userites
Hey, look at the NPO. Couped TP and they've been around for over a decade. Maybe Feederites are the best at couping.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement