"Standing up for the Userite" Dispatch

[Bormiar]

The following dispatch, "Standing up for the Userite" currently has 48 upvotes and very little discussion:

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

---

---

The Problem

---

---

NationStates (NS) is a game full of many different, diverse and innovative regions. There are hundreds of different regions to choose from, each with a different community, a different focus and a different culture. There is something for everyone. This means that gameplay can be fun and enjoyable for all, everyone can find their home where they can take part in gameplay (which is the focus of this dispatch, rather than roleplay) and we can be in a fair, diverse, wider community without fun being spoilt by someone else.

However, this is not entirely the case. NS gameplay is dominated by game-created-regions, rather than the more numerous user-created-regions. The larger size and status of GCRs leads to notable figures involved in the gameplay side of NS joining GCRs, instead of focusing on building and promoting UCRs. These 'GCR exclusivists' are prone to complaining about UCRs, who are generally the innocent party in this.

GCRs are able to use their size and power to show diplomatic, political and military influence larger than any UCR could ever do. They have large militaries that they use to invade innocent UCRs, partaking in occasional defences to clear their name. In the WA, their delegates hold a huge voting power, so large that the GCR delegates can easily sway any WA resolution vote to their advantage, outweighing the interests of smaller regions. Some GCRs capitalise on this by creating dispatches asking people to vote a certain way, before upvoting said dispatch to the top spots on the dispatches page. This leads to oblivious nations blindly voting in the WA based on the wishes of GCRs. While this sounds unimportant, it can be the difference between a region being liberated or not liberated, thus deciding the future of a region that several nations call, or have called, home.

Ultimately, GCRs are power-hungry, influence-seeking regions who are concerned about themselves and themselves only, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the NS community.

---

---

The Userite

---

---

GCRs get all the attention, yet this does not mean that it is GCRs that are the ones who deserve all the attention. Moreover, it is the UCRs that are the ones who deserve the attention. Hundreds of different regions, most of which are innovative, diverse and great communities. UCRs cater for anybody's and everybody's needs. For example, there are UCRs who do not have discords, for those who prefer onsite. There are UCRs that have clever gimmicks, such as centrally-planned economies and communities that travel between other UCRs on the site.

UCRs also have stronger communities than GCRs. The activity level of most GCRs is somewhat overwhelming, and the size of the regions mean that it's more difficult for new players to get involved and noticed, not impossible, but daunting. Meanwhile UCRs have somewhat active communities where smaller groups of nations get to know each other, build regions and build close bonds with each other. The more diverse nature of UCRs also means that it is easier for people to find somewhere they feel at home, from where they can be themselves, and enjoy themselves. GCRs are more vanilla, less original than this.

I do give some credit to GCRs for what they do, but the real problem is how GCRs get all the attention, and none is given to the regions that have made NS into the wonder it is today. GCRs just take all the attention and give up none to the userites, who are ever bit as innovative, every bit as creative, or arguably, more so, in ways that GCRs could never imagine. I also admit that not all UCRs are perfect. There are many inactive UCRs with only a couple of nations in them, but the focus should be on the more active, more innovative medium-large UCRs (including most regions between 10-1000 nations, although not all are necessarily active). More worryingly, there are the odd fascist, imperialist and discriminatory UCRs, whose creativity I do not celebrate, whose attention I do not give and whose activities I do not condone. However, they are the few bad eggs in a plentiful batch.

At the end of the day, it is the UCRs that are the underappreciated, understated regions that are just as, if not more vital than GCRs.

---

---

Going Forward

---

---

The in-game power of the GCRs (in regards to the WA and general diplomacy), we cannot overcome, unless if the mods create more GCRs to outweigh the power balance of them, or lessen their power through changing the games code in some other way. But we, as players can do our bit ourselves.

If you are in a GCR, then evaluate why you're there. Perhaps take a look at smaller regions, or even the larger UCRs, and move a puppet into one or two regions to see what their community is like. Try a different type of region. If you like it, then get involved there and make it your main region. If you want to remain in a GCR, remember that power and influence is not everything, and doesn't gain any real benefit in life. So feel free to un-endorse a GCR delegate, attempt to persuade your government to be more considerate of UCRs and less influence-focused.

If you're in a UCR, then pull out or stay out of GCR-focused WA alliances. If you have a regional military, then band together with other UCR militaries to oppose GCRs. Focus on making diplomatic relations with other UCRs, not GCRs. If we're in this together, it is much easier than if we try to protect our own position by building relations with GCRs.

For both, you can always try to ignore GCR voting dispatches, or counter them by downvoting them. The same goes for other not-relevant GCR dispatches.

This is just a few ideas that can get people started in countering the power of GCRs. You can always come up with more of your own and share these with those around you. There are things that the average NS player can do to give UCRs their rightful place as innovators and diversifiers, and the appreciation that they deserve.

The author has posted the dispatch elsewhere, but some of the points made in the dispatch don't seem germane to that thread.

The dispatch's controversial opinions on GCRs, combined with its popularity, are definitely worth discussion. The author seems to believe that for UCRs to succeed, they must destroy GCR success. They write:

If you are in a GCR, then evaluate why you're there. Perhaps take a look at smaller regions, or even the larger UCRs, and move a puppet into one or two regions to see what their community is like. Try a different type of region. If you like it, then get involved there and make it your main region. If you want to remain in a GCR, remember that power and influence is not everything, and doesn't gain any real benefit in life. So feel free to un-endorse a GCR delegate, attempt to persuade your government to be more considerate of UCRs and less influence-focused.

If you're in a UCR, then pull out or stay out of GCR-focused WA alliances. If you have a regional military, then band together with other UCR militaries to oppose GCRs. Focus on making diplomatic relations with other UCRs, not GCRs. If we're in this together, it is much easier than if we try to protect our own position by building relations with GCRs.

For both, you can always try to ignore GCR voting dispatches, or counter them by downvoting them. The same goes for other not-relevant GCR dispatches.

Note that "un-endorse a GCR delegate" could be interpreted as a call to destabilize or completely destroy GCR governments, not just weaken them.

Is this really a practical solution to UCR inactivity? Attempting to destroy the programs and regions that others have made? Not everything is about power, and UCRs will not gain substantially from the stagnancy of GCRs.

My opinion is that GCRs and UCRs ought to clash, but — in general — be locked in mutual development of NS, as things are now. Both GCRites and UCRites spawn new ideas which saturate across NS: ideologies, technologies, governments, military tactics, etc. Ultimately, NS, like the real world, is in a forward (though occasionally jagged) march towards progress, and UCRs and GCRs are hand in hand in that effort. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be fighting— fighting breeds activity, including livid and harsh fights. But the game cannot benefit from UCRs attempting to starve GCRs from the success they've had.

But I'd like to hear other's thoughts on Salliopia's manifesto.

[Drew Durrnil]

I don't agree with this user's claims, as GCR's were kinda forced into their current situations, as opposed to UCR's, which have more choice in their future outcome.

[Kavagrad]

Sailiopia is absolutely right, but the proposed solutions don't go far enough

[Bormiar]

as opposed to UCR's, which have more choice in their future outcome.

That's really the great thing about UCRs, right? They get to be the black sheep, while— for the most part— GCRs stick to convention.

Other than 10KI, Europeia, and a few others (just assume that means your UCR ), I strongly dislike current UCRs. But in general I think they've done the coolest stuff in NS: the UIAF (TNI, Albion, GB&I, and LKE I believe), the ADN (Equilism, Nasicournia), Gatesville, etc. I wasn't around for any of those things, but from what I've read, they certainly seem cooler than TNP and TRR being stagnant for the first decade of their life.

[Wabbitslayah]

I don't agree with this user's claims, as GCR's were kinda forced into their current situations, as opposed to UCR's, which have more choice in their future outcome.

I don't agree either, but this is ironic because what brought the GCRs back into mainstream focus was the migration of people that would be classified as "Cosmopolitan" and/or "Userite". While for some over time that assimilated an idea of "GCR First" ideal, it was still their drive and previous ideals that pushed GCRs back into prominence from sleepy existence. Meaning this had been an important factor into how the GCRs are today.

It would be healthy for a reverse migration, but then later remigrating will result in the same thing after some years.

[The American Anarchist Empire]

GCR regions get more attention because they're active but most UCRs aren't. Instead of saying "un-endorse GCR delegates" they should focus on building a region with lots of things to do and build an active community. Also, "Ultimately, GCRs are power-hungry, influence-seeking regions who are concerned about themselves and themselves only, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the NS community." doesn't seem true. I believe the four Pacifics are defender regions who help UCRs against invader regions. "Some GCRs capitalise on this by creating dispatches asking people to vote a certain way, before upvoting said dispatch to the top spots on the dispatches page. This leads to oblivious nations blindly voting in the WA based on the wishes of GCRs." So do UCRS and for example, The South Pacific let's WA nations vote on it's recommendation.

Basically, focus on improving UCR regions instead of blaming GCRs for a situation they can't change.

[Zukchiva]

I mainly disagree with how it villanizes GCRs. But then again, it's an ideology so villanizing it makes it more interesting, IMO XD

That being said, the core idea of GCRs being too influential is something I honestly agree with.

So overall, it's interesting and pretty kewl!

[Comfed]

---

---

The Problem

---

---

NationStates (NS) is a game full of many different, diverse and innovative regions. There are hundreds of different regions to choose from, each with a different community, a different focus and a different culture. There is something for everyone. This means that gameplay can be fun and enjoyable for all, everyone can find their home where they can take part in gameplay (which is the focus of this dispatch, rather than roleplay) and we can be in a fair, diverse, wider community without fun being spoilt by someone else.

However, this is not entirely the case. NS gameplay is dominated by game-created-regions, rather than the more numerous user-created-regions. The larger size and status of GCRs leads to notable figures involved in the gameplay side of NS joining GCRs, instead of focusing on building and promoting UCRs. These 'GCR exclusivists' are prone to complaining about UCRs, who are generally the innocent party in this. What's this about? Francoism? Complaints about adspam? In the second case at least, UCRs are not the "innocent party".

GCRs are able to use their size and power to show diplomatic, political and military influence larger than any UCR could ever do. They have large militaries that they use to invade innocent UCRs, partaking in occasional defences to clear their name. This is complete nonsense. Of the GCRs, here are their military alignments:
TNP - Independent
TSP - Defender
TEP - Independent
TWP - Raider
TP - Independent
Lazarus - Neutral
Osirs - Raider
Balder - Independant
TRR - Defender
So of these regions, only 2/3 ever undertake raids that of regions that aren't fascists or enemies or Warzones. Only 2/9 are actual raiders, and 2/9 are defenders. Lazarus, is special and I don't count it as part of the 2/3 that do raid. Of the regions that raid, 4 also defend. They certainly don't defend to "clear their name" as the author suggests. In the WA, their delegates hold a huge voting power, so large that the GCR delegates can easily sway any WA resolution vote to their advantage, outweighing the interests of smaller regions. Some GCRs capitalise on this by creating dispatches asking people to vote a certain way, before upvoting said dispatch to the top spots on the dispatches page. This leads to oblivious nations blindly voting in the WA based on the wishes of GCRs. While this sounds unimportant, it can be the difference between a region being liberated or not liberated, thus deciding the future of a region that several nations call, or have called, home.Except, GCRs aren't one bloc that vote the same way. They often disagree on votes.

Ultimately, GCRs are power-hungry, influence-seeking regions who are concerned about themselves and themselves only, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the NS community.Absurd - no GCR has such a Machiavellian foreign policy. Ultimately, most FA actions are undertaken for the benefit of whoever is undertaking the action, and UCRs are not exempt/

---

---

The Userite

---

---

GCRs get all the attention, yet this does not mean that it is GCRs that are the ones who deserve all the attention. Moreover, it is the UCRs that are the ones who deserve the attention. Hundreds of different regions, most of which are innovative, diverse and great communities. UCRs cater for anybody's and everybody's needs. For example, there are UCRs who do not have discords, for those who prefer onsite. There are UCRs that have clever gimmicks, such as centrally-planned economies and communities that travel between other UCRs on the site.

UCRs also have stronger communities than GCRs. [citation needed] The activity level of most GCRs is somewhat overwhelming, and the size of the regions mean that it's more difficult for new players to get involved and noticed, not impossible, but daunting. I did not find it so. Just because most of the nations prefer to stay onsite doesn't mean that getting involved and noticed is hard. Meanwhile UCRs have somewhat active communities where smaller groups of nations get to know each other, build regions and build close bonds with each other. And GCRs dont? The more diverse nature of UCRs also means that it is easier for people to find somewhere they feel at home, from where they can be themselves, and enjoy themselves. GCRs are more vanilla, less original than this.

I do give some credit to GCRs for what they do, but the real problem is how GCRs get all the attention, and none is given to the regions that have made NS into the wonder it is today. GCRs just take all the attention and give up none to the userites, who are ever bit as innovative, every bit as creative, or arguably, more so, in ways that GCRs could never imagine. I also admit that not all UCRs are perfect. There are many inactive UCRs with only a couple of nations in them, but the focus should be on the more active, more innovative medium-large UCRs (including most regions between 10-1000 nations, although not all are necessarily active). More worryingly, there are the odd fascist, imperialist and discriminatory UCRs, whose creativity I do not celebrate, whose attention I do not give and whose activities I do not condone. However, they are the few bad eggs in a plentiful batch.

At the end of the day, it is the UCRs that are the underappreciated, understated regions that are just as, if not more vital than GCRs.

---

---

Going Forward

---

---

The in-game power of the GCRs (in regards to the WA and general diplomacy), we cannot overcome, unless if the mods create more GCRs to outweigh the power balance of them, or lessen their power through changing the games code in some other way. But we, as players can do our bit ourselves.

If you are in a GCR, then evaluate why you're there. I'm here because I like the government and community. Perhaps take a look at smaller regions, or even the larger UCRs, and move a puppet into one or two regions to see what their community is like. Try a different type of region. If you like it, then get involved there and make it your main region. If you want to remain in a GCR, remember that power and influence is not everything, and doesn't gain any real benefit in life.Uh... people stay in GCRs for other reasons than that. If power was all I was after I certainly wouldn't be where I am. So feel free to un-endorse a GCR delegate, Why should I actively attempt to destabilise my region? No thanks. attempt to persuade your government to be more considerate of UCRs and less influence-focused. Why should my region adopt an FA policy not beneficial to it?

If you're in a UCR, then pull out or stay out of GCR-focused WA alliances. Is this about WALL? There are two GCRs in WALL, and three UCRs, with equal voting power. If you;re talking about the PfS, then that's even more incorrect, since the PfS is about defending, not the two GCRs in it. If you have a regional military, then band together with other UCR militaries to oppose GCRs. Focus on making diplomatic relations with other UCRs, not GCRs. If we're in this together, it is much easier than if we try to protect our own position by building relations with GCRs.

For both, you can always try to ignore GCR voting dispatches, or counter them by downvoting them. The same goes for other not-relevant GCR dispatches.

This is just a few ideas that can get people started in countering the power of GCRs. You can always come up with more of your own and share these with those around you. There are things that the average NS player can do to give UCRs their rightful place as innovators and diversifiers, and the appreciation that they deserve.

General remarks:

• This dispatch is pretty transparently about TNP. Especially the parts about R/D and the WA. And it certainly ignores the predicament of the Sinkers, to which almost none of this applies.
• It is also transparently written from a defender perspective.
• There are plenty of unsourced hot takes here, especially about GCR communities, of which almost all of the claims are factually incorrect.
• If you actually read between the lines this is fairly inflammatory. It basically calls for a crusade against GCRs. I could rewrite this to sound like reverse Francoism and it would be saying the same thing.

[Cormactopia Prime]

Like any document and especially one that is written more from an opinion perspective, I think this one has its flaws and many of those have been touched upon already. That said, I think the overall thrust of it -- that GCRs and especially the Feeders have unfair advantage, and undue power and influence -- is accurate.

If I had to pick a flaw to discuss, I think perhaps it paints with too broad a brush. Not all of its arguments are applicable to all of the Feeders or most of the Sinkers, some of which engage much more fairly with UCRs than others, and I think the broad strokes treatment is probably due to a lack of familiarity with specific Feeder and Sinker communities. That's not all on the dispatch's author though. Some Feeders and Sinkers have become very GCR-oriented or focused solely on a handful of larger, influential UCRs, and until recently I think it's a fair criticism to say none of them did an excellent job of outreach to UCRs outside the "gameplay mainstream." If you don't put yourselves out there, don't expect people to know the specific details of your communities and cultures.

More recently, some GCRs have been making strides in interacting with a broader selection of UCRs and treating them more as equal partners. That's commendable. But it's no surprise that there is some ill will toward certain GCR attitudes and that this dispatch expresses it, and I think it would be a mistake to overlook the valid points the dispatch makes just because some may be uncomfortable with a few of its generalizations. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Overall, I think it's a net benefit for generating discussion and reflection, which is why I pinned it in Entropy and encouraged our residents to upvote.

[Bormiar]

• It is also transparently written from a defender perspective.

The author is Sail Nation Travellers, a member of The Embassy.

• If you actually read between the lines this is fairly inflammatory. It basically calls for a crusade against GCRs. I could rewrite this to sound like reverse Francoism and it would be saying the same thing.

You don't need to read between the lines to see that it's inflammatory.

Just for context, the author has expressed some rather radical thoughts elsewhere on this forum:

NS has become a battle, like most of politics (including OOC RL politics, to my distaste), the battle of 'good' vs 'evil'. While I am against raiding, I am seeing more and more regions becoming independent, as they don't want to be associated with raiders, who some of the community associate with as the 'evil' side. Raids themselves are being conducted more and more against fascist regions - I believe that is justified, as fascists are generally people with seriously racist, inhumane views. Regions that even hold embassies with regions that hold embassies with fascist regions are being scorned [Borm's note: clearly an opinion resulting from their affiliation with the Embassy]- that I see as a step too far, I wouldn't sift through every embassy of a region that I want to create an embassy with. This is just an example of it.

What region you are in is important. Personally, I value community, small-scale, mostly onsite regions. Therefore, my regional identity is important to me. But this is a subject that is becoming polarised (at least from what I can see, I'm in the centre on this issue). As more interregional events are happening, R/D coalitions etc., some people are becoming more focused on the NS community as a whole. However, some people are taking their patriotism to an extreme and turning it into what is referred to IRL as nationalism (don't know what term to use as 'regionalism' means something slightly different). People value their region above all else, are fundamentally against other regions and care about regional growth rather than community, as having a larger population size makes a region 'better for some reason. This isn't helped by citizenship policies such as WA-only citizenship (I prefer WA + Waivers, more inclusive), that means that people are restricted in how many regions they can be citizens in. This might not end well for some regions, or even for the community as a whole.

And the manifesto was recommended by Unibot here.

And I agree with Comfed. He does seem rather pointedly against TNP.

[Cormactopia Prime]

And I agree with Comfed. He does seem rather pointedly against TNP.

This isn't a surprise. TNP wields the most undue power and influence while simultaneously having the most elitist attitude toward UCRs of late. Focus on yourselves and your handful of friends, disregard everyone else, and combine that indifference to the rest of the game with an increasing penchant for stepping on UCR sovereignty and this is the result. If TNP wants to look for anyone to blame for why some UCR residents may hold it in such contempt, they should look in the mirror.

GCR regions get more attention because they're active but most UCRs aren't. Instead of saying "un-endorse GCR delegates" they should focus on building a region with lots of things to do and build an active community.

Missed this on my first pass through, but it's such a bad take. Many UCR communities are extremely active, and you're not even taking into account the structural difficulties of building sustained communities in UCRs that Feeders absolutely do not ever face, particularly the ongoing recruitment crisis.

Also, "Ultimately, GCRs are power-hungry, influence-seeking regions who are concerned about themselves and themselves only, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the NS community." doesn't seem true. I believe the four Pacifics are defender regions who help UCRs against invader regions.

You're wrong. Only one of the five Feeders (Pacifics), the South Pacific, is defender. The rest are either independent or unaligned and all of them do raid regions, though in recent times the Pacific's raids have been restricted to fascist regions and there are few who would take issue with that. I'm not saying the others engaging in raiding is wrong, mind you, simply that you're wrong in your assessment that most are defender. The South Pacific is the only defender Feeder and the Rejected Realms is the only defender Sinker. The political tide in the GCRs is very much against defender views and most GCR militaries regularly raid.

"Some GCRs capitalise on this by creating dispatches asking people to vote a certain way, before upvoting said dispatch to the top spots on the dispatches page. This leads to oblivious nations blindly voting in the WA based on the wishes of GCRs." So do UCRS and for example, The South Pacific let's WA nations vote on it's recommendation.

Valid points.

Basically, focus on improving UCR regions instead of blaming GCRs for a situation they can't change.

I think the assumption that many UCRs including the author's aren't already focused on improving their regions, and then the self-absolution of any responsibility for the state of imbalance between GCRs and UCRs, are emblematic of why some UCR residents like the author are so frustrated. For a long time, there has been no attempt made by the GCRs to relate to the difficulties UCRs face, to encourage their development, or to treat them as equal partners. At times there has been outright contempt, especially during the days not so very long ago when Francoist attitudes were making a resurgence not only in the Pacific but elsewhere as well. Fortunately, it seems attitudes are changing in some GCRs, but don't be surprised if not every UCR is a big fan of GCRs based on recent past experience.

[Bormiar]

I think the assumption that many UCRs including the author's aren't already focused on improving their regions, and then the self-absolution of any responsibility for the state of imbalance between GCRs and UCRs, is emblematic of why some UCR residents like the author are so frustrated. For a long time, there has been no attempt made by the GCRs to relate to the difficulties UCRs face, to encourage their development, or to treat them as equal partners. At times there has been outright contempt, especially during the days not so very long ago when Francoist attitudes were making a resurgence not only in the Pacific but elsewhere as well. Fortunately, it seems attitudes are changing in some GCRs, but don't be surprised if not every UCR is a big fan of GCRs based on recent past experience.

I believe that in part this thread (as well as many recent popular threads in Technical and your new region) is intended to discuss and ameliorate UCRs' problems. But I don't see how it's the GCR's job to support UCRs. Especially if whatever that entails results in a disadvantage to the GCR. This isn't a "GCR-First" sentiment, rather the idea that international charity isn't a moral obligation in a world without suffering. If what you're saying is that GCRs not reaching out to UCRs (obviously we're assuming that's the case) is illogical and a disadvantage to the GCRs, I strongly disagree. I don't believe most treaties provide substantial benefit to either side, especially if one side doesn't have a large military or pilers or much to provide in terms of culture or residents.

Edit: While I don't see it as an obligation, I would still like to see a GCR set up a UCR then leave it be, though I don't think that's what you were going for.

[The American Anarchist Empire]

GCR regions get more attention because they're active but most UCRs aren't. Instead of saying "un-endorse GCR delegates" they should focus on building a region with lots of things to do and build an active community.

Missed this on my first pass through, but it's such a bad take. Many UCR communities are extremely active, and you're not even taking into account the structural difficulties of building sustained communities in UCRs that Feeders absolutely do not ever face, particularly the ongoing recruitment crisis.

Also, "Ultimately, GCRs are power-hungry, influence-seeking regions who are concerned about themselves and themselves only, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the NS community." doesn't seem true. I believe the four Pacifics are defender regions who help UCRs against invader regions.

You're wrong. Only one of the five Feeders (Pacifics), the South Pacific, is defender. The rest are either independent or unaligned and all of them do raid regions, though in recent times the Pacific's raids have been restricted to fascist regions and there are few who would take issue with that. I'm not saying the others engaging in raiding is wrong, mind you, simply that you're wrong in your assessment that most are defender. The South Pacific is the only defender Feeder and the Rejected Realms is the only defender Sinker. The political tide in the GCRs is very much against defender views and most GCR militaries regularly raid.

"Some GCRs capitalise on this by creating dispatches asking people to vote a certain way, before upvoting said dispatch to the top spots on the dispatches page. This leads to oblivious nations blindly voting in the WA based on the wishes of GCRs." So do UCRS and for example, The South Pacific let's WA nations vote on it's recommendation.

Valid points.

Basically, focus on improving UCR regions instead of blaming GCRs for a situation they can't change.

I think the assumption that many UCRs including the author's aren't already focused on improving their regions, and then the self-absolution of any responsibility for the state of imbalance between GCRs and UCRs, are emblematic of why some UCR residents like the author are so frustrated. For a long time, there has been no attempt made by the GCRs to relate to the difficulties UCRs face, to encourage their development, or to treat them as equal partners. At times there has been outright contempt, especially during the days not so very long ago when Francoist attitudes were making a resurgence not only in the Pacific but elsewhere as well. Fortunately, it seems attitudes are changing in some GCRs, but don't be surprised if not every UCR is a big fan of GCRs based on recent past experience.

1. True but most GCRs have more active rmbs compared to UCRS but I do see that is a valid point on GCRs being to big for smaller regions to compete with.

2. Sorry! Got the defending part wrong but thanks for pointing it out.

3. Fair points, I think UCRS and GCRS should try and help eachother instead of one side completely ignoring/despising each other.

[Comfed]

And I agree with Comfed. He does seem rather pointedly against TNP.

This isn't a surprise. TNP wields the most undue power and influence while simultaneously having the most elitist attitude toward UCRs of late. Focus on yourselves and your handful of friends, disregard everyone else, and combine that indifference to the rest of the game with an increasing penchant for stepping on UCR sovereignty and this is the result. If TNP wants to look for anyone to blame for why some UCR residents may hold it in such contempt, they should look in the mirror.

If anything, TNP of all feeders deserves to be the biggest most powerful feeder for all the work it puts into retention. As for the part about disregarding the rest of the game, having an elitist attitude, and stepping on UCR sovereignty, please provide examples because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Wabbitslayah]

This isn't a surprise. TNP wields the most undue power and influence while simultaneously having the most elitist attitude toward UCRs of late. Focus on yourselves and your handful of friends, disregard everyone else, and combine that indifference to the rest of the game with an increasing penchant for stepping on UCR sovereignty and this is the result. If TNP wants to look for anyone to blame for why some UCR residents may hold it in such contempt, they should look in the mirror.

If anything, TNP of all feeders deserves to be the biggest most powerful feeder for all the work it puts into retention. As for the part about disregarding the rest of the game, having an elitist attitude, and stepping on UCR sovereignty, please provide examples because I have no idea what you're talking about.

You act like none of the other GCRs attempt to retend.

The biggest? Yeah sure, you could say that with retention efforts. Most powerful? Nah. Until TNP can make all the other GCRs submit to it, it's not any more or less powerful than any other.

[Comfed]

If anything, TNP of all feeders deserves to be the biggest most powerful feeder for all the work it puts into retention. As for the part about disregarding the rest of the game, having an elitist attitude, and stepping on UCR sovereignty, please provide examples because I have no idea what you're talking about.

You act like none of the other GCRs attempt to retend.

The biggest? Yeah sure, you could say that with retention efforts. Most powerful? Nah. Until TNP can make all the other GCRs submit to it, it's not any more or less powerful than any other.

I never said they don't attempt. TNP just does it better.

Power does not necessarily mean control. Perhaps a better word would be influential.

[Wabbitslayah]

You act like none of the other GCRs attempt to retend.

The biggest? Yeah sure, you could say that with retention efforts. Most powerful? Nah. Until TNP can make all the other GCRs submit to it, it's not any more or less powerful than any other.

I never said they don't attempt. TNP just does it better.

Power does not necessarily mean control. Perhaps a better word would be influential.

It doesn't, but it's a very observable metric. The real question is, is how much does TNP actually influence the others? Is it more than anyone else? I don't think many regions will agree to that notion. See once you leave something that's directly observable, then it becomes quite vague. So how do you measure that TNP is in this case for the better word the most influential?

Do we strictly mean towards the GCRs or just well everywhere? There are problems with both of those either way. So if I were to give counterarguments to any assertion of such influence, how would that then translate to being the most powerful? At least with forcing submission it's something that can be done via military action or even through words as long as the others state they submit.

So you will have to explain how it's the most influential. Go further in explaining what this influence would be too. Definitely influential in the WA, even without use of force, but many won't always agree with it even if there's a disadvantage with WA matters. But does TNP encompass more than that with their influence?

Anyways, I think this is getting a bit off topic, so I'll stop at here.

[Bormiar]

Anyways, I think this is getting a bit off topic, so I'll stop at here.

I think it's a natural "sub-discussion" in this discussion. If we're discussing UCR-GCR influence, we have to know what we mean.

I think that influence is just the reach of their ideology.

[New Rogernomics]

I’ll go through this point-by-point, as I’ve been in UCRs and GCRs through my NS career.

However, this is not entirely the case. NS gameplay is dominated by game-created-regions, rather than the more numerous user-created-regions. The larger size and status of GCRs leads to notable figures involved in the gameplay side of NS joining GCRs, instead of focusing on building and promoting UCRs. These 'GCR exclusivists' are prone to complaining about UCRs, who are generally the innocent party in this.

I’d disagree with this, though for different reasons than the writer seems to be expecting. UCR quality is in decline in terms of gameplay ideology or culture that is unique, and most of the GCRs are centralist or status quo in their ideology. If you want GCRs to be more integrated into UCR gameplay, then UCRs will have to lead the way, as GCRs are a place for the unaligned or long-term players that used to be active in UCRs but have settled down. I’d argue that if “exclusivism” is the issue, then UCR players need to interact way more with GCRs to offset the un-aligned or old-guard players that more dominate GCRs. Simply ending the GCRs doesn’t resolve this either, as there are major UCRs that dominate gameplay, and those too contain the same types of ideology you would find in GCRs, as established regions with their own old guards supporting a status quo throughout the game.

GCRs are able to use their size and power to show diplomatic, political and military influence larger than any UCR could ever do. They have large militaries that they use to invade innocent UCRs, partaking in occasional defences to clear their name. In the WA, their delegates hold a huge voting power, so large that the GCR delegates can easily sway any WA resolution vote to their advantage, outweighing the interests of smaller regions. Some GCRs capitalise on this by creating dispatches asking people to vote a certain way, before upvoting said dispatch to the top spots on the dispatches page. This leads to oblivious nations blindly voting in the WA based on the wishes of GCRs. While this sounds unimportant, it can be the difference between a region being liberated or not liberated, thus deciding the future of a region that several nations call, or have called, home.

It would be outside of the scope perse of this dispatch to go in-depth, though the right of GCR militaries into get involved in UCRs is more as a result of the dynamics of R/D gameplay. If raiders and defenders hypothetically stayed out of GCRs, and GCRs were neutral in ideology, acting more as hubs for all kinds of groups, then you wouldn’t see what the writer is concerned about. Though, if you force everyone involved in GCRs to stay out, then it cuts out a lot of players, who might be “cosmos”, who are involved in UCRs and GCRs.

I would concede on the point of dispatches, though any substantially large region, including an UCR can have a heavy influence on the game, and as I mentioned before, the largest UCRs often have many of the same ideology and status quo positions as GCRs, so baring GCRs from dispatch setting would at best limit distribution of GCR content, but not actually stop status quo mindsets in WA being put forward, which would exist heedless of GCRs existing or not.

Ultimately, GCRs are power-hungry, influence-seeking regions who are concerned about themselves and themselves only, even if this is at the expense of the rest of the NS community.

As someone who has been in “power-hungry, influence-seeking” UCRs, I’d beg to differ, as that is less a valid criticism about GCRs or UCRs, but more about large regions with major influence in general. It is very easy to make an argument that the current gameplay of Nationstates can be less engaging because of what both UCRs and GCRs have decided the status quo should be. Make a small UCR, and you’ll find it very hard to get set up, especially if you rock the boat gameplay wise, and if the GCRs ceased to exist tomorrow that would still be the case because of big UCRs.

The Userite

Not a good start. Is this a critique of Francoism, which only applied to one GCR or all GCRs? I’d only ever seen the term userite used as a joke, and never seriously equated it beyond the more die-hard players of the NPO.

GCRs get all the attention, yet this does not mean that it is GCRs that are the ones who deserve all the attention. Moreover, it is the UCRs that are the ones who deserve the attention. Hundreds of different regions, most of which are innovative, diverse and great communities. UCRs cater for anybody's and everybody's needs. For example, there are UCRs who do not have discords, for those who prefer onsite. There are UCRs that have clever gimmicks, such as centrally-planned economies and communities that travel between other UCRs on the site.

Why should any large region get all the attention, as it could be easily argued that a few major UCRs get all the attention. I am yet to see many innovative, diverse, or great communities, as what I would remember playing the game in 2000s-2010s, and that was with GCRs comparatively larger than UCRs. The issue of UCRs not being recognized enough is not because of anything as simple as GCRs being a top layer of the pyramid oppressing the UCRs, instead the lack of effort by players to create communities that spur that attention. Harsh criticism some might say, though look at the game for unique ideologies, like the Francoism the writer seemed to allude to earlier, or the anti-WA movement. Again, I’d argue this is a valid criticism of the game in general, that cannot be applied in such a generalized fashion to being solely due to GCRs being in existence, it is way more complex than that.

UCRs also have stronger communities than GCRs. The activity level of most GCRs is somewhat overwhelming, and the size of the regions mean that it's more difficult for new players to get involved and noticed, not impossible, but daunting. Meanwhile UCRs have somewhat active communities where smaller groups of nations get to know each other, build regions and build close bonds with each other. The more diverse nature of UCRs also means that it is easier for people to find somewhere they feel at home, from where they can be themselves, and enjoy themselves. GCRs are more vanilla, less original than this.

UCRs or GCRs for that matter are as good as their members, and most large UCRs that would replace GCRs as the writer hopes, would merely be more solidly established as an old-guard status quo hierarchy, and GCR players would move in huge numbers into those major UCRs, were suddenly one day GCRs to be abolished. Rather than establishing a more even playing field, or a means for UCRs to be established, the new player would get a mass of telegrams from the biggest UCRs, and without GCRs, if a player happens to run foul of any of those UCRs they are forced to quit the game. GCRs I’d argue are more inclusive, either through gameplay technical situations like The Rejected Realms, which cannot ban players, or just their detachment from many wider UCR conflicts.

If I had only major UCRs to get involved in, I’d have left the game years ago, and I doubt I’d be alone. I am blacklisted from XKI, and I wouldn’t feel comfortable in some other major UCRs as well. GCRs can be a friendly home without expectations, whereas in a UCR I’d be looked upon with suspicion or dislike, and cut from all paths to political advancement, depending on my R/D ideology or gameplay worldview. I don’t hold that against UCRs though, as that is just how the game is, as UCRs have the right to build their communities in their image. The terrible part of this dispatch is being forced to defend old-guardism and centralism, and the status quo of GCR politics, because it is going to barely different than that in a giant UCR dominated game, except greater centralization of power and a more authoritarian game as a whole.

I’d argue the game would be greatly devalued if GCRs were switched off, and just a few UCRs more strongly dominate the game. GCRs aren’t protected by a wall of founder powers, that can never be removed except through inactivity. Imagine a game where a few dictators could technically rule the game, as that is what you would get without the GCRs. Most GCRs for all their faults are run either as democracies, inclusive communities, or at least places to sit your nation without distraction, run by old-guards that remember back to the “good old days”. Obviously, such a negative gameplay situation wouldn’t take place right away with the end of GCR’s influence, as I am sure Europeia, XKI and others would try and prevent a march to an autocratic game. Though, it would be inevitable that a few UCR regions would take the place the GCRs hold, and once they have that greater power in the game, they will not give it to smaller UCRs as the writer imagines, but keep it amongst themselves. The creative or interesting communities will not be encouraged any more than now, as players would congregate to the biggest UCRs, becoming the hegemons of the UCR league.

I do give some credit to GCRs for what they do, but the real problem is how GCRs get all the attention, and none is given to the regions that have made NS into the wonder it is today. GCRs just take all the attention and give up none to the userites, who are ever bit as innovative, every bit as creative, or arguably, more so, in ways that GCRs could never imagine.

That they get the attention is more in their function, and the communities established within them. It not surprising that GCRs often stick to the basic government structure you would expect, and do not rock the boat, as they are not often built ideologically. They can be boring, stale, disinteresting, though so can the biggest UCRs, as it is all up to the perspective you follow in the game. Again, this criticism could just as be easily related to the size dynamic than just a GCR vs UCR situation. Nations naturally congregate to larger regions, and those communities often develop an old-guard, and a centralist ideological worldview, not because they plan to necessarily, though because most of those that settle in GCRs want a stable and pleasant existence without a lot of the ideological conflicts. That would be the case of GCRs were abolished, with folks settling in bigger UCRs. Putting a technical limit on region size would be more effective than just banning GCRs, as then regions would have to be more selective, and nations would be more evenly distributed.

[…]the focus should be on the more active, more innovative medium-large UCRs (including most regions between 10-1000 nations, although not all are necessarily active).

Going to have to cringe, and fervently disagree here. It does not matter the size of the region, but the quality of the region, how the community is structured, how engaging it is among its members, and what uniqueness it gives the game. It would be more beneficial to have more regions that are 10-50, 100-200, than place 1000 nation giants in the mix. Plus, it seems to be undermining the whole point that the writer claims to be making that GCRs have unfair influence because of their gameplay status, size, and established influence. The Nationstates pyramid does not spontaneously become more innovative just because the top layer is cut off, and massive UCRs take the power the GCRs had. I’d bet all my years on the game that if you cut off one hierarchy old-guard, a new one gradually develops. This does not fix the game, or make it more innovative, as it just distributes the problem to the new hierarchy of giant UCRs.

More worryingly[…]imperialist[…]UCRs, whose creativity I do not celebrate, whose attention I do not give and whose activities I do not condone. However, they are the few bad eggs in a plentiful batch.

Eh? Being imperialist is not a blight on the game on the offset, as that is up to what the imperialist ideology is, and what they do for the regions they establish themselves in. While it is true that you can have an imperialist region or group of regions that are problematic, it does not follow that it must be a negative influence in the game. If the imperialist dynamic is interesting to the community it develops, keeps people active and inspired, and gives a cause to fight for or against, that can offer a uniqueness in the game. Not to suggest that I’d be into that, though if someone wanted to start an imperialist region under some absurd ideology and try to spread it through the game, that is up to them. Banning imperialism of UCRs does not make the game more interesting, it just cuts off another form of gameplay dynamic, good or bad – depending on your R/D position. Though, if I was to start a UCR career again, I’d probably build an imperialist region out of mockery of this dispatch to prove it wrong. I’d raise the banner of chocolate, ponies for all, and free donuts for starters. Though maybe not the ponies I guess, horses maybe, unicorns.

At the end of the day, it is the UCRs that are the underappreciated, understated regions that are just as, if not more vital than GCRs.

No. It is giant regions that take the game and its influence, not just selectively GCRs. Restricting the number of nations in a region would be the more effective way to go about this than just moving the problem from a giant GCR hierarchy to giant UCR hierarchy.

Going Forward

Going backwards, you mean. This is NOT going to help the game.

[…]So feel free to un-endorse a GCR delegate, attempt to persuade your government to be more considerate of UCRs and less influence-focused.

Yes, let the anger flow through you. Start the people’s revolt against the evil GCRs, by congregating around just as uninspiring giant UCRs with the same sort of old-guardism, elevated further by a massive influx of former GCR players. Sure to really create that innovation, creativity, and what not, by shifting the power from one giant region to another giant region.

If you're in a UCR, then pull out or stay out of GCR-focused WA alliances. If you have a regional military, then band together with other UCR militaries to oppose GCRs. Focus on making diplomatic relations with other UCRs, not GCRs. If we're in this together, it is much easier than if we try to protect our own position by building relations with GCRs.

Because cancelling regions you don’t like purely on the basis of their size and technical status in the game, really improves the game. I am sure when the GCRs are cancelled, regardless of the players in those regions, and their contributions to the game, the future god king of the UCRs can start cancelling the smaller UCRs for not being part of their alliance, which is really going to build that creativity and innovation in the game this dispatch talks of, as the buck doesn’t stop just with GCRs if “influence in the game” is why a region deserves cancelling, and not any legit gameplay offenses towards other regions.

For both, you can always try to ignore GCR voting dispatches, or counter them by downvoting them. The same goes for other not-relevant GCR dispatches.

Trying to cancel dispatches, based not on the value or worth of the dispatch, but purely on the region it comes from is sure to go down well with dispatch writers, and encourage useful dispatch creation. Though, should this be achieved, I am sure dispatch writers can just visit a giant UCR region with a puppet, and have their dispatch placed there, which will be upvoted and dominate the dispatch listings anyway. But GCR dispatches…bad, clearly the better argument. Doesn’t matter that many UCRs boost some GCR dispatches, because they are of real worth to every region, like a user guide to Nationstates. Have to cancel those pesky GCRs for dominating the dispatches, right.

This is just a few ideas that can get people started in countering the power of GCRs. You can always come up with more of your own and share these with those around you. There are things that the average NS player can do to give UCRs their rightful place as innovators and diversifiers, and the appreciation that they deserve.

Yes, lets start the revolution. I can see all that innovation and diversity, as the rabble congregate around giant UCRs in rage against their "evil GCR oppressors", and those giant UCRs dominate the game just as effectively as the GCRs did. Plus, with all those pesky GCRs gone, at last the true believers can build a UCR dynasty that lasts forever, with their glorious high king, who can never be removed from power, as the founder powers prohibit their removal. At least GCRs you can topple, good luck toppling established UCR hierarchies that dominate in recruitment, aostracize any region remotely different to their ideology, and quash any semblance of democracy and creativity in the game. I guess on the upside, players will just have to read Game of Thrones or the Hunger Games to understand every aspect of gameplay. May the odds be ever in your favor, as winter is coming.

[Galiantus III]

I'm going to say what I've said many times before: Due to game mechanics, UCRs are in a tragedy of the commons situation which makes artificial competitors of regions that ought to be the same region. Thus, while it is true GCRs have a huge advantage, I disagree with the assertion that GCR governments are to blame or hold any solution to UCR ills. I could get into all the technical reasons for this, but this isn't the right place so I won't.

So let's examine us, the players:

Our main problem is how gameplay culture has destroyed the natural UCR ecosystem. Why do we have an abundance of lackluster UCRs? Well, partly because the UCR environment has been sanitized. R/D is all about tagging, and catch-and-release operations. As the threat of gameplay has decreased, the quality and diversity of UCRs has decreased. And the epitome of this has been realized in the last month, during which time defenders have declared victory over raiders. It is not inconceivable that raiders will soon die out and become a relic of the past as the thrill is lost and players leave the game.

The reason I compare this to an ecosystem is that, so far as UCRs are concerned, raiders are the carnivores and decomposers. When raiders are strong, there is a high degree of natural selection among UCRs, and trash is easily removed. This creates an exciting, innovative, ambitious player-base within UCRs, capable of attracting new players.

So what does this make defenders? Big game hunters. They hunted all the wolves to extinction, and now weak wildlife is beginning to run around the forest, devouring anything green that happens to pop into existence.

If we want to improve the state of UCRs via collective player action, we must do several things:

1. Reduce defending, and strengthen raiding. Gameplay culture needs to have the general expectation that defense and liberation are the result of native communities seeking help - not an automatic response by defenders for the sake of winning. Let raiders tag freely, and instead focus on creating sleeper networks to squash invasions of key regions.
2. Recruit from small, new, isolated and/or dying UCRs. This will place more selective pressure on regions that aren't doing a good job at engaging players, and challenge the strength and legitimacy of newly created regions.
3. Form more cooperative blocs of UCRs. Whether this be for the sake of WA power, mutual protection, or something else entirely, there needs to be an expectation that UCRs which attain a certain threshold of power are expected to engage with other UCRs.

[Bormiar]

I'm going to say what I've said many times before: Due to game mechanics, UCRs are in a tragedy of the commons situation which makes artificial competitors of regions that ought to be the same region. Thus, while it is true GCRs have a huge advantage, I disagree with the assertion that GCR governments are to blame or hold any solution to UCR ills. I could get into all the technical reasons for this, but this isn't the right place so I won't.

So let's examine us, the players:

Our main problem is how gameplay culture has destroyed the natural UCR ecosystem. Why do we have an abundance of lackluster UCRs? Well, partly because the UCR environment has been sanitized. R/D is all about tagging, and catch-and-release operations. As the threat of gameplay has decreased, the quality and diversity of UCRs has decreased. And the epitome of this has been realized in the last month, during which time defenders have declared victory over raiders. It is not inconceivable that raiders will soon die out and become a relic of the past as the thrill is lost and players leave the game.

The reason I compare this to an ecosystem is that, so far as UCRs are concerned, raiders are the carnivores and decomposers. When raiders are strong, there is a high degree of natural selection among UCRs, and trash is easily removed. This creates an exciting, innovative, ambitious player-base within UCRs, capable of attracting new players.

So what does this make defenders? Big game hunters. They hunted all the wolves to extinction, and now weak wildlife is beginning to run around the forest, devouring anything green that happens to pop into existence.

If we want to improve the state of UCRs via collective player action, we must do several things:

1. Reduce defending, and strengthen raiding. Gameplay culture needs to have the general expectation that defense and liberation are the result of native communities seeking help - not an automatic response by defenders for the sake of winning. Let raiders tag freely, and instead focus on creating sleeper networks to squash invasions of key regions.
2. Recruit from small, new, isolated and/or dying UCRs. This will place more selective pressure on regions that aren't doing a good job at engaging players, and challenge the strength and legitimacy of newly created regions.
3. Form more cooperative blocs of UCRs. Whether this be for the sake of WA power, mutual protection, or something else entirely, there needs to be an expectation that UCRs which attain a certain threshold of power are expected to engage with other UCRs.

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.

[Dreadton]

Only one response is required for this dispatch.

"Git gud"

[New Rogernomics]

[...]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.

[Varanius]

TWP - Raider

This is incorrect, but I don’t plan to derail the thread with arguments about TWP’s independence. Instead, since most of the points I’d have raised have already been brought up by others, I’ll just quickly chime in to reaffirm that this dispatch is at best self-servingly inaccurate. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be slinking back into my hidey hole.

[The American Anarchist Empire]

Sailiopia recently posted this on their 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."