NS World Adjustment 2.0

[Deadeye Jack]

To be honest I think Galiantus is onto something with Warzones. Raiding any other UCR that you don't have a direct grudge with does what for raiders exactly? It's just practice saying they can do it? Sure you can't refound a Warzone to bring it under near permanent control but also a Warzone is a pretty good place to start an actual empire and not a trophy empire.

Let's say a large UCR or GCR wanted to conquer a Warzone and claim it as their own but they actually try to build it up with recruitment and other things. However you could integrate this Warzone and its inhabitants into the home region's platforms and even grant all the same rights and privileges. That could lead to some really interesting new government dynamics and provide more people in large regions an opportunity to get the experience of partially administrating a region and getting to be a Delegate of a region.

Now you may say, "Jack, why would I want to do this in a region that doesn't have any advantage like the other GCRs"? Well why raid/build any region anywhere? Why even play the game? It's a much more impressive feat holding and building up a Warzone than if you did it in a regular UCR. Codger has a commend saying so. The difficulty is the point. The stakes are the point. One of the reasons people say they are bored with the game is because an era of stability has made direct conflict with tangible stakes for both sides not easily accessible.

Holding a Warzone provides us with little to no value - it’s a region we can’t refound, dubious prospects of defender opposition (unless they’re even more bored than we are), doesn’t have nearly the challenge on defense even when they do try and liberate, and simply provides no particular motive to invade them.

Any individual region we use for tagging doesn’t have any particular motive similarly, but those are targeted for either training or en-masse challenges anyways, not animus for particular regions.

Tagging dead regions is entirely a function of practice, or achieve some arbitrary large number of tags in one night. There are a very small number of meaningful targets, and staying in form requires regular operations.

I feel like part of the problem with the current GP meta is illustrated in these 2 quotes here. Namely that raiders (and even defenders really) aren't really risking anything of their own in conflicts. The worst thing that happens for raiders is that particular mission fails or ends a little earlier than you wanted. Any backlash you might face is purely diplomatic, but raiding is such an accepted part of the game by now that there isn't really much to speak of. For defenders the stakes are indirectly a bit higher because your failure could lead to the destruction of a region, but the defender region itself will face no real consequences.

A greater focus from Gameplay on the Warzones could actually lead to back and forth conflict and failure could mean you risk losing something tangible like a piece of your empire. It'd be much easier to attack a big UCR/GCR through its Warzone proxy.

Although maybe military gameplay is completely unsalvageable with current mechanics as the novelty of how the game currently makes it possible has worn off over time for people, obviously, otherwise we wouldn't get the repeated calls for site admin to make changes in really convoluted ways.

If that's the case I suggest people reorient focus to making regions/alliances around General Assembly agendas or new card metas. Regions could come up with an artificial stock index like The Rejected Realms 100 Index, a collection of the region's top value cards. And they could compete to see who can have the most valuable regional card index. Then their regional card programs could get to work attempting to inflate their own card values and deflating the competition's.

Regions have to find new areas to compete and conflict with each other.

[Lord Dominator]

We could start trying to make an empire out of Warzones, yes - I personally however am happy to stick to raiding and not wander over into being an Imperialist (nothing against them, but it isn’t really my jam).

[New Rogernomics]

We could start trying to make an empire out of Warzones, yes - I personally however am happy to stick to raiding and not wander over into being an Imperialist (nothing against them, but it isn’t really my jam).

I also don't see much that can be done that doesn't at least partly fall into technical. Unless we return to the "good old days" of having real villains and adversaries between regions, beyond the tired groups that have since either CTE'd or been banned from the game.
I tried putting on a moustache once and playing the bad guy, in the bad region that thinks they are doing good things many years ago, but Gameplay didn't like it. Evil is extinct sadly now...

[Galiantus III]

If we want 'villains' again, we'll need to be willing to collectively adopt differing and competing ideologies, and fight on their behalf. That doesn't mean we need to totally buy into our in-character ideologies, but it does mean we need to be more eccentric in the ideologies we do adopt. And whatever personal ideology we choose to adopt, the morality of it should have some moral ambiguity to it. If we can somehow manage that, there will be plenty of 'villains' for us to fight.

To use myself as an example: I started out vocally opposed to the WA, but the goal was to justify quorum blocking. My whole Anti-WA ideology was an in-character act, the same way Francoism, or Defenderism, or Raiderism were (albeit a less sophisticated one). And my ideology governed how I played. Importantly, I could convince myself I was the hero easily as someone could convince themselves I was the villain. This isn't to say I was good at what I did; the point is I chose a role and attempted to play it straight, even when it was unpopular.

[The Church of Satan]

That's just a matter of politics though. We can't have "villains." We need villains. A genuine threat. I hate to suggest it, but some group out there needs to say "to hell with peace!" and take up the much-loathed role of Region Crasher. That or someone that can put in the time to conquer moderately-sized regions and build an imperialist empire with a goal that is indifferent to the plight of its future vassal states. It's not enough to just play the part. You gotta be the part and upset the status quo. Personally, I don't care for that sorta thing anymore. I like this relative era of peace we're fortunate enough to enjoy, but for those that are looking for a cause to fight for (or against) there needs to be an enemy that will inspire their foes to rally the masses against them.

[Kylia Quilor]

Stagnation in the gameplay meta is a real issue, but the Warzones aren't the solution. They've been there for so long that if they actually meant something, people would have done that already. Empire building in the warzones has been tried several times across time and space, to no real result because it is so pointless even granting that technically everything we do is pointless.

[Sailiopia]

The ideology idea is an interesting but difficult proposition.

As I've said before, NS is fast becoming a battle of 'good' vs 'evil' (evil being raiders, fascists, imperialists etc.). While I personally stand against disruption of regions through raiding, we're in a situation where if raiding becomes 'dead', we'll need something to replace it. We're not getting any intentional war mechanic anytime soon. So the R/D game must continue, in a perpetual stalemate.

I advise that people shouldn't start creating fascist regions/organisations, just to create R/D targets. But yes, there is a case to be made for more raider organisations, and that sometimes one has to become a raider, just for IC reasons. However, it might remove some of the motive knowing that people are just pretending.

I also think that tag-raiding is a bit useless. Who cares about numbers of regions tagged/detagged each update - they are just regions with no founder and inactive nations in it. I think that warzones should be used for what they are intended for - as constant wargame arenas. R/D should be focused on them. Maybe regions could also be founded for the sole purpose of organised R/D wargames - with executive WA delegates.

Sorry if I've been talking absolute rubbish - these are my observations from someone who takes an interest in R/D but has never raided or defended a region.

[Unibot III]

One of the things I’ll chime in to say is although it’s unpopular to be evil in NS, it’s also unpopular to try to be heroic in NS today too — it cuts both ways.

Some have proposed the creation of a new defender superorganization, others have questioned the necessity of it. I suspect this is a case where both are right. #LibCord has been very effective in promoting defender cooperation — in a multipolar defenderdom (alphabet soup), credit is easily shared; when you have a superorganization at play, there is going to be friction. Friction is an inevitable fact of a superorganization — you’re trying to be the dominant force in NS. The advantage of a defender superorganization is you have in them a catalyst for political leadership and development — someone that is actively trying to expand the capacity of defending beyond a single regional community (which becomes a source of consternation).

To that end, I see the problem facing today’s NSGP partly of an ideological making, but also a problem of scale — the absence of superpowers (ADN, FRA, UDL, RLA, UIAF etc.) has brought with it historic levels of cooperation but also stagnancy. It’s a double edged sword, and I think both sides should be aware of the trade-offs — a superorganization is going to undermine cooperation between defender groups, but nobody particularly cares about the many successes (nay, supremacy) of a multipolar defenderdom if they’re happening in the midst of a great political decline that has players tuning out and leaving.

EDIT: I’m self-aware I’m an old hermit screaming at the clouds about the good old days. But I don’t think I am alone in recognizing for all of the good and the cooperation between defender groups that’s taken place in the past five years or so, there’s also been a big hole at the heart of it shaped roughly like ADN/UDL etc. where NSGP has been missing international leadership and frankly intrigue.

I think a lot of defenders today are extremely pragmatic people, they’re not idealists — they’ve correctly identified that without superorganizations at play they can get regions like 10KI and TSP and TNP to work with others in #LibCord in a way that wasn’t previously possible in the Great War or the Cold War, but that very same pragmatism has also drained a lot of the romance out of the work that defenders do on a day to day basis and it’s been snuffing the oxygen from the room for a while. The same can be said for an imperialist / raider superorganization — UIAF was a complete and utter fireball that crashed and burned, but it brought interest, energy, and intangible spin-offs for the imperialist movement at large that it hasn’t had since the death of UIAF.

[Deadeye Jack]

Stagnation in the gameplay meta is a real issue, but the Warzones aren't the solution. They've been there for so long that if they actually meant something, people would have done that already. Empire building in the warzones has been tried several times across time and space, to no real result because it is so pointless even granting that technically everything we do is pointless.

Well I think the stagnation stems largely from the fact that military gameplay, R/D at large, has most of the time centered around picking fights at no risk to anyone but the people not interested at all in gameplay with unaligned proxy UCRs. At one point this was novel and exciting, but over the years it has largely just become an exercise in just doing it to do it. There is no wider purpose other than it is possible and it makes us feel good in the moment. If we fail it's not even that big of a deal because eventually we will succeed and can claim "victory" again. That's not really a good foundation for interesting, sustainable conflict in the game. I'm not sure there is anything we can do to R/D in our own hands that would be a fresh, invigorating take on it. So like I said if we're done trying and we're all out of ideas then conflict will have to center on something new other than military gameplay.

That's just a matter of politics though. We can't have "villains." We need villains. A genuine threat. I hate to suggest it, but some group out there needs to say "to hell with peace!" and take up the much-loathed role of Region Crasher. That or someone that can put in the time to conquer moderately-sized regions and build an imperialist empire with a goal that is indifferent to the plight of its future vassal states. It's not enough to just play the part. You gotta be the part and upset the status quo. Personally, I don't care for that sorta thing anymore. I like this relative era of peace we're fortunate enough to enjoy, but for those that are looking for a cause to fight for (or against) there needs to be an enemy that will inspire their foes to rally the masses against them.

I think there is some validity to this in that people don't want to upset the apple cart and are afraid of backlash for playing the evil role. While I welcome the less destructive raiding that we have now, I think the current status shows that there are less people within the faction comfortable with stoking the ire of others. Granted, for some things (like coups) it takes a lot of actual work to be a villain and if there is no to limited chance of success then people won't be inclined to go down that path naturally. But a more complex and threatening Villainy could help to make things more interesting. I think to some degree the decline in power of UCRs comparatively to GCRs has probably been a big driver of "weakening" villains and conflict and overall less dynamic gameplay.

[Lord Dominator]

Absolutely - GCRs holding much of the relative power makes it harder to be a ‘villain’ in any sense that runs counter to them directly, or just to their preferences when you get to a R/D level.

That UCRs aren’t strong isn’t the same side of the coin as GCRs being strong (I see no reason for it being impossible that both aren’t), but them being comparatively weaker (or rather, less numerous in the strong ones) does make a big difference on what politics is precluded to the relatively ‘sane’ (so to speak).

[Unibot III]

Absolutely - GCRs holding much of the relative power makes it harder to be a ‘villain’ in any sense that runs counter to them directly, or just to their preferences when you get to a R/D level.

That UCRs aren’t strong isn’t the same side of the coin as GCRs being strong (I see no reason for it being impossible that both aren’t), but them being comparatively weaker (or rather, less numerous in the strong ones) does make a big difference on what politics is precluded to the relatively ‘sane’ (so to speak).

I wonder if a political movement against GCRs could take hold! Seems like it’s a current spirit in the air. I don’t recall that movement ever taking hold before. Did Glass Gallows try that or ..? I might be misremembering.

Historically, it’s always been nativists in GCRs complaining about UCRs. Rather than UCR players opposing the power balance to GCRs.

Perhaps someone should write a manifesto or something.

[Sailiopia]

Absolutely - GCRs holding much of the relative power makes it harder to be a ‘villain’ in any sense that runs counter to them directly, or just to their preferences when you get to a R/D level.

That UCRs aren’t strong isn’t the same side of the coin as GCRs being strong (I see no reason for it being impossible that both aren’t), but them being comparatively weaker (or rather, less numerous in the strong ones) does make a big difference on what politics is precluded to the relatively ‘sane’ (so to speak).

I wonder if a political movement against GCRs could take hold! Seems like it’s a current spirit in the air. I don’t recall that movement ever taking hold before. Did Glass Gallows try that or ..? I might be misremembering.

Historically, it’s always been nativists in GCRs complaining about UCRs. Rather than UCR players opposing the power balance to GCRs.

Perhaps someone should write a manifesto or something.

I agree that possibly a UCR movement against GCRs might be a good thing. There seems to be a group of 'GCR exclusivists', who are attracted to the size and activity of GCRs and generally resent those who prefer UCRs. Currently, a lot of medium-large UCRs tend to attempt to get closer to GCRs to gain influence and publicity, however if these UCRs started a movement against GCRs (while I am unsure about what this would involve), it could be fun and beneficial in levelling out the balance of power between the different types of regions.

The way that this could gain traction is if UCRs start to be seen by the community (within UCRs) as 'underdogs' and GCRs as 'power-hungry' (the latter of which especially, is becoming more and more relevant with the voting power, military power and prevalence of GCRs at the moment).

[Aynia Moreaux]

Your NS Olympics idea is really intriguing, I just feel like that'd be a pretty big to do. If I had more time I might be interested in trying it out

[Old Hope]

I agree that possibly a UCR movement against GCRs might be a good thing. There seems to be a group of 'GCR exclusivists', who are attracted to the size and activity of GCRs and generally resent those who prefer UCRs. Currently, a lot of medium-large UCRs tend to attempt to get closer to GCRs to gain influence and publicity, however if these UCRs started a movement against GCRs (while I am unsure about what this would involve), it could be fun and beneficial in levelling out the balance of power between the different types of regions.

The way that this could gain traction is if UCRs start to be seen by the community (within UCRs) as 'underdogs' and GCRs as 'power-hungry' (the latter of which especially, is becoming more and more relevant with the voting power, military power and prevalence of GCRs at the moment).

Er, what could these UCR's do to stop the GCR's? GCR's cannot be passworded or refounded.

[Unibot III]

I wonder if a political movement against GCRs could take hold! Seems like it’s a current spirit in the air. I don’t recall that movement ever taking hold before. Did Glass Gallows try that or ..? I might be misremembering.

Historically, it’s always been nativists in GCRs complaining about UCRs. Rather than UCR players opposing the power balance to GCRs.

Perhaps someone should write a manifesto or something.

I agree that possibly a UCR movement against GCRs might be a good thing. There seems to be a group of 'GCR exclusivists', who are attracted to the size and activity of GCRs and generally resent those who prefer UCRs. Currently, a lot of medium-large UCRs tend to attempt to get closer to GCRs to gain influence and publicity, however if these UCRs started a movement against GCRs (while I am unsure about what this would involve), it could be fun and beneficial in levelling out the balance of power between the different types of regions.

The way that this could gain traction is if UCRs start to be seen by the community (within UCRs) as 'underdogs' and GCRs as 'power-hungry' (the latter of which especially, is becoming more and more relevant with the voting power, military power and prevalence of GCRs at the moment).

So are you going to write the manifesto? I’ve written enough of them for a lifetime! It’s someone else’s responsibility at this point! I’m old. Half-deceased. It’s someone else’s turn.

The User’s Revolution? A Call for Equity?

You could bring together the frustration in the WA and NSGP with GCR Dominance and weave it together as a holistic ideology that positions UCR as the understated hero in NS: innovators, entrepreneurs etc., denied proper status and exploited in diplomatic and political affairs, hampered by recruitment woes.

The action that can be taken against GCRs is to bargain for better diplomatic standing through multilateral organizations, pull out of GCR centric WA alliances or aim to control them, you can also take actions to disrupt GCR affairs by encouraging residents to unendorse delegates and reduce their impact on the WA overall. In general, small actors get respect from bigger actors by coordinating what ever cooperation they have with big actors — banding together.

[Unibot III]

Your NS Olympics idea is really intriguing, I just feel like that'd be a pretty big to do. If I had more time I might be interested in trying it out

Do it! Find time! Or don’t find time and do it anyways! That’s how I always handled things!!

If folks are interested in co organizing a Summer Olympics, feel free to indicate so in this thread, you guys could take it from here and then loop it into a Discord chat.

[Sailiopia]

I agree that possibly a UCR movement against GCRs might be a good thing. There seems to be a group of 'GCR exclusivists', who are attracted to the size and activity of GCRs and generally resent those who prefer UCRs. Currently, a lot of medium-large UCRs tend to attempt to get closer to GCRs to gain influence and publicity, however if these UCRs started a movement against GCRs (while I am unsure about what this would involve), it could be fun and beneficial in levelling out the balance of power between the different types of regions.

The way that this could gain traction is if UCRs start to be seen by the community (within UCRs) as 'underdogs' and GCRs as 'power-hungry' (the latter of which especially, is becoming more and more relevant with the voting power, military power and prevalence of GCRs at the moment).

So are you going to write the manifesto? I’ve written enough of them for a lifetime! It’s someone else’s responsibility at this point! I’m old. Half-deceased. It’s someone else’s turn.

The User’s Revolution? A Call for Equity?

You could bring together the frustration in the WA and NSGP with GCR Dominance and weave it together as a holistic ideology that positions UCR as the understated hero in NS: innovators, entrepreneurs etc., denied proper status and exploited in diplomatic and political affairs, hampered by recruitment woes.

The action that can be taken against GCRs is to bargain for better diplomatic standing through multilateral organizations, pull out of GCR centric WA alliances or aim to control them, you can also take actions to disrupt GCR affairs by encouraging residents to unendorse delegates and reduce their impact on the WA overall. In general, small actors get respect from bigger actors by coordinating what ever cooperation they have with big actors — banding together.

I'll look into it and will try and give it a go at some point. It's worth a shot anyway

I think that people have just forgotten the vital role of UCRs in recent times on NS. All the attention is given to GCRs, yet it is UCRs that keep this site alive, and UCRs that make all the innovations, communities etc.

[Comfed]

yet it is UCRs that keep this site alive, and UCRs that make all the innovations, communities etc.

While I absolutely agree that too much attention is given to GCRs and people underestimate stuff like the URA (which is a brilliant org by the way) this part is not true. GCRs have communities, and make waves, and are awesome too. TNP, for instance, pioneered the WADP, and was the first GCR to abandon a hard endorsement cap. It also innovated a cards program. The problem isn’t that GCRs are useless, as you seem to suggest, but that they often receive attention without merit.

[Unibot III]

So are you going to write the manifesto? I’ve written enough of them for a lifetime! It’s someone else’s responsibility at this point! I’m old. Half-deceased. It’s someone else’s turn.

The User’s Revolution? A Call for Equity?

You could bring together the frustration in the WA and NSGP with GCR Dominance and weave it together as a holistic ideology that positions UCR as the understated hero in NS: innovators, entrepreneurs etc., denied proper status and exploited in diplomatic and political affairs, hampered by recruitment woes.

The action that can be taken against GCRs is to bargain for better diplomatic standing through multilateral organizations, pull out of GCR centric WA alliances or aim to control them, you can also take actions to disrupt GCR affairs by encouraging residents to unendorse delegates and reduce their impact on the WA overall. In general, small actors get respect from bigger actors by coordinating what ever cooperation they have with big actors — banding together.

I'll look into it and will try and give it a go at some point. It's worth a shot anyway

I think that people have just forgotten the vital role of UCRs in recent times on NS. All the attention is given to GCRs, yet it is UCRs that keep this site alive, and UCRs that make all the innovations, communities etc.

That's the spirit! Just make sure it has a snappy name.

Equitism or Equalism? Perhaps... ?

[United Cats Divided]

I'll look into it and will try and give it a go at some point. It's worth a shot anyway

I think that people have just forgotten the vital role of UCRs in recent times on NS. All the attention is given to GCRs, yet it is UCRs that keep this site alive, and UCRs that make all the innovations, communities etc.

That's the spirit! Just make sure it has a snappy name.

Equitism or Equalism? Perhaps... ?

"Useritism"

[Unibot III]

That's the spirit! Just make sure it has a snappy name.

Equitism or Equalism? Perhaps... ?

"Useritism"

Anti-Francoism!

[Sailiopia]

Just created the manifesto, it probably isn't great but it's something.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1558464

I wonder what else we can do? I was wondering what we can do about the issues with the WA - such as quorum raiding, voting blocks, 'lemmings effect' (everyone voting with the crowd on WA resolution) etc.

[Unibot III]

Just created the manifesto, it probably isn't great but it's something.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1558464

I wonder what else we can do? I was wondering what we can do about the issues with the WA - such as quorum raiding, voting blocks, 'lemmings effect' (everyone voting with the crowd on WA resolution) etc.

It’s very cool! I think if I were in your shoes, I might consider organizing a cross-regional, cross-player movement — add a few specific recommendations to the essay, jot notes, and have players and regions sign on to the recommendations (like a petition) to express their support.

If I were you I’d also read the old threads in Technical complaining about WA voting inequality & recruitment problems, and follow up with each player from the thread by tg about being involved in the movement/group because they’re likely players to be interested in being involved. That’s how this is done. Fish in the right pond!

Some ideas for next steps...


- Calling for a new GCR-UCR conference with interested parties to address inequalities in WA voting power, recruitment, diplomatic status
- The creation of a UCR-led, UCR-focused WA voting bloc. I think in addition to a UCR voting bloc, it would be helpful to create a UCR multilateral organization, UCR30 or something, with the UCRs that have more than 30 delegate endorsements. Perhaps the organization could be both a voting bloc and a treatied organization with an assembly.
- Opening direct discussions with UCRs in WA voting blocs to convince them to join a UCR voting bloc
- I think the movement should call into question WASC resolutions that commend GCR players for work that is not extraordinary — as a way of demonstrating how the GCRs have influenced the WASC. Lots of players get commended for accomplishments and track records that would be considered average if they had made these accomplishments in a UCR. This reinforces the view to players that to establish themselves in the game, they have to move to a GCR.
- The movement could try to pass activist commendations for UCR players and regions that have been neglected or overlooked for recognition.
- I think some kind of recruitment collaboration could be helpful —I wonder (and this is a crazy idea) if UCRs could cooperate and recruit in GCRs for a single spawning region, a port of call, where the partnering UCRs have mass TG powers so they can share about their region and install a Welcome TG that advertises them, and recruiters can freely interact with new arrivals on the RMB. To prevent a local community forming in the port of call that might resist or interfere with recruitment, the regional admins could maintain a policy of ejecting & banning arrivals who have resided for more than 14 days in the region or something.

[Cereskia]

Hello, for all reading this thread!

I am a survivor of The North Pacific's degeneracy, i will tell you once I get back on PC.

[Sailiopia]

Just created the manifesto, it probably isn't great but it's something.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1558464

I wonder what else we can do? I was wondering what we can do about the issues with the WA - such as quorum raiding, voting blocks, 'lemmings effect' (everyone voting with the crowd on WA resolution) etc.

It’s very cool! I think if I were in your shoes, I might consider organizing a cross-regional, cross-player movement — add a few specific recommendations to the essay, jot notes, and have players and regions sign on to the recommendations (like a petition) to express their support.

If I were you I’d also read the old threads in Technical complaining about WA voting inequality & recruitment problems, and follow up with each player from the thread by tg about being involved in the movement/group because they’re likely players to be interested in being involved. That’s how this is done. Fish in the right pond!

Some ideas for next steps...


- Calling for a new GCR-UCR conference with interested parties to address inequalities in WA voting power, recruitment, diplomatic status
- The creation of a UCR-led, UCR-focused WA voting bloc. I think in addition to a UCR voting bloc, it would be helpful to create a UCR multilateral organization, UCR30 or something, with the UCRs that have more than 30 delegate endorsements. Perhaps the organization could be both a voting bloc and a treatied organization with an assembly.
- Opening direct discussions with UCRs in WA voting blocs to convince them to join a UCR voting bloc
- I think the movement should call into question WASC resolutions that commend GCR players for work that is not extraordinary — as a way of demonstrating how the GCRs have influenced the WASC. Lots of players get commended for accomplishments and track records that would be considered average if they had made these accomplishments in a UCR. This reinforces the view to players that to establish themselves in the game, they have to move to a GCR.
- The movement could try to pass activist commendations for UCR players and regions that have been neglected or overlooked for recognition.
- I think some kind of recruitment collaboration could be helpful —I wonder (and this is a crazy idea) if UCRs could cooperate and recruit in GCRs for a single spawning region, a port of call, where the partnering UCRs have mass TG powers so they can share about their region and install a Welcome TG that advertises them, and recruiters can freely interact with new arrivals on the RMB. To prevent a local community forming in the port of call that might resist or interfere with recruitment, the regional admins could maintain a policy of ejecting & banning arrivals who have resided for more than 14 days in the region or something.

I know that I'm a bit late to reply to this, but I wanted to say that I probably won't be personally involved in implementing these, but I fully support all of this and recommend that other leaders of UCRs work on this and good luck for those who do so.

I'd say that I'm happy with this for a first attempt at a dispatch of this kind. Yes it's had a lot of backlash, but the core message is out there.

Also, for any of the opponents of my dispatch are reading this, I'd like to say one thing to you: I don't want to wipe out GCRs completely. I stand by my dispatch, I still consider them too elitist, exclusive and attention-seeking, but they do some good things for this site. But it's the balance between UCRs and GCRs which is the main problem. GCRs get all the attention and all the credit and hold all the power, while it'd be better for UCRs to have a stronger position on this site, with more attention and credit. I should have made that more clear in my dispatch. I also think that part of the problem is the lack of an in-game solution to this (such as replacing GCRs with nations being 'regionless' when they join, or doubling the amount of feeders and sinkers), but that's a discussion for technical, not gameplay.