GCR's a bit to stable?

[Lord Dominator]

Poaching presupposes deliberate intent to harm a region by recruiting their members away. I do not believe that UM's recruitment for TEP's relevant ministry counts as such, even if his recruiting for such was indeed unusual.

So to sum it up: The only nonsense existing would be this game, if it wouldn't be this way.

That sentence was indeed largely nonsense to me, which means I'm either missing some big thing on how that makes sense like that or you're missing words in there.

[Jar Wattinree]

You're in Oatland, so care to elaborate?

See my sig.

That's Yuno "doing the poaching", and she wasn't exactly feederite until she started remaking TEP. Anyway, that was TEP's thing and their right as a GCR. As it obviously did nothing to hurt TEP there's nothing to get fired over.

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

See my sig.

That's Yuno "doing the poaching", and she wasn't exactly feederite until she started remaking TEP. Anyway, that was TEP's thing and their right as a GCR. As it obviously did nothing to hurt TEP there's nothing to get fired over.

but when other GCRs exercise their rights, they just get couped. Why does TEP get a pass?

[Lord Dominator]

That's Yuno "doing the poaching", and she wasn't exactly feederite until she started remaking TEP. Anyway, that was TEP's thing and their right as a GCR. As it obviously did nothing to hurt TEP there's nothing to get fired over.

but when other GCRs exercise their rights, they just get couped. Why does TEP get a pass?

Your question makes no sense. What was wrong about what TEP was did?

[Aclion]

Poaching presupposes deliberate intent to harm a region by recruiting their members away. I do not believe that UM's recruitment for TEP's relevant ministry counts as such, even if his recruiting for such was indeed unusual.

Even in business it's really more about getting talented people without having to sift them out of the applicants and train them. It's even less about competition in nationstates since we don't have to choose between regions.

See my sig.

That's Yuno "doing the poaching", and she wasn't exactly feederite until she started remaking TEP. Anyway, that was TEP's thing and their right as a GCR. As it obviously did nothing to hurt TEP there's nothing to get fired over.

I never argued that it hurt TEP. It was the best way to jump start the ministry. That the need was there just doesn't speak well. Healthy regions don't need jumpstarts.

[Syberis]

Poaching presupposes deliberate intent to harm a region by recruiting their members away. I do not believe that UM's recruitment for TEP's relevant ministry counts as such, even if his recruiting for such was indeed unusual.

Even in business it's really more about getting talented people without having to sift them out of the applicants and train them. It's even less about competition in nationstates since we don't have to choose between regions.

I despise this sentiment because it somehow implies that an individual is able to give their full attention to every region they're in. Which is a terrible idea to even attempt and never actually works in practice.

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

but when other GCRs exercise their rights, they just get couped. Why does TEP get a pass?

Your question makes no sense. What was wrong about what TEP was did?

TEP exercises it's rights (including electing non-Feederites) = okay
Lazarus exercises it's right in associating with Defenders = not okay, must coup them.

Do GCRs only get certain rights or something?

[Erithaca]

We don't need unstable GCRs to have an interesting GP experience or to influence them. Hell at this point things have gotten so bad GCRs are reduced to poaching UCRs for talent.

Citation for UCR poaching, please.

I have resided in a GCR for a total of 30 minutes, but work in TEP's WA Ministry and was invited to go there. Aclion is completely right about that.

Poaching presupposes deliberate intent to harm a region by recruiting their members away. I do not believe that UM's recruitment for TEP's relevant ministry counts as such, even if his recruiting for such was indeed unusual.

I still reside in my own UCR and have plenty of time to do stuff there. The "poaching" did no harm.

[Unibot III]

A Userite is a term to describe players which have nations in UCRs and GCRs, but use their GCR nations to influence the GCRs in a way that benefits their UCRs or their UCR based sphere that actually got nothing to do with the GCRs itself. A UCR dweller that got nothing to do with GCRs, neither tries to influence or infiltrate them hence is not a Userite.

It is a clearly defined term and commonly part of Francoist rhetoric, hence it is a part of our propaganda, yes.

There are two significant pitfalls here which may be overlooked in this definition for casual readers: (1) an entryist in a GCR with another GCR's interests in mind is not a userite, so the term, "userite" only gets at one half of the problem of entryism, ie., the half that NPO cares about, (2) 'UCR based sphere' is a vague term and "nothing to do with the GCRs itself" is an even vaguer conditional.

It's important to remember that GCRs are in fact susceptible to invasions. GCRs and UCRs have many things in common - Francoists don't like to talk about this - one of which is they both are regions and founderless UCRs face security situations that are analogous to GCRs. We only tend to use the word, "coup" exclusively in relation to GCRs, but materially you invade a GCR the same way you invade any large UCR: you collect endorsements anonymously with a false identity and top up your endorsements with outsiders if necessary to topple the incumbent delegate.

A Farker-associated invader once anonymously conducted such a mission to topple a Game-Created Region, his anonymous puppet of choice was named "Francos Spain." Many imitators have since followed. Since 2003, Game-Created Regions have gotten much better at tracking endorsements and 'coups' have had to become more sophisticated but the latent vulnerability of all founderless regions continues to exist even in GCRs.

Many players in UCRs argue they should not assist in defensive operations of other UCRs because they should look out "for themselves" - this is an attitude that defenders reject because being pro-active about assisting others strengthens interregional cooperation. The argument that francoists use in these cases is just a rebranding of that same tired argument that defenders face in UCRs with players who are reluctant to assist regions other than themselves; the difference is francoists also falsely compartmentalize between "UCRs/GCRs" to make a distinction on security that is wrongheaded and myopic. Invaders know no borders. Both UCRs and GCRs are founderless. Invaders are a security problem for all founderless regions. Many Francoists *and* many UCR players bury their head in the sand and say "not my region, not my problem," it's defenders who choose to contribute to the defense of other regions and in effect, raise global standards of defensive cooperation for all of us.

It is on this basis that I would argue defining defending as an 'UCR matter' (as NPO does) is irrationally exclusive.

Defenders include players from both UCRs and GCRs because founderless regions include both UCRs and GCRs! The interest in a strong interregional cooperative security effort does not stop at the borders of the Pacific Ocean. Two of the most important early defender groups (some are so old they operated before we called ourselves "defenders") are the Rejected Realms Army and the Pacific Army: both acted abroad on the behalf of regions that were previously occupied by Atlantic Alliance; the occupation and imperialisation of GCRs profoundly influenced defending as a philosophy in its history as a reaction to tyranny and a call for liberation.

[The Church of Satan]

Defenders include players from both UCRs and GCRs because founderless regions include both UCRs and GCRs! The interest in a strong interregional cooperative security effort does not stop at the borders of the Pacific Ocean. Two of the most important early defender groups (some are so old they operated before we called ourselves "defenders") are the Rejected Realms Army and the Pacific Army: both acted abroad on the behalf of regions that were previously occupied by Atlantic Alliance; the occupation and imperialisation of GCRs profoundly influenced defending as a philosophy in its history as a reaction to tyranny and a call for liberation.

Well...damn. O captain my captain! >_<

[Galiantus III]

@Unibot I agree with everything you said, but there is a point I would like to add.

One of the mistakes the NPO makes is in lumping raiders and defenders into two opposing, homogeneous groups. While raiders and defenders frequently work alongside organizations within their own camps, different organizations often have different interests. In some cases - as with Lily - there are organizations who play on both sides. Military gameplay has far more nuance than simply being about raiders and defenders.

Indeed, raiderism and defenderism exist on a scale, with the purest forms of each ideology at the extreme ends. A player is a pure defender if they believe the sovereignty of every region must be protected liberally. A player is a pure raider if they see every region as territory to be conquered or destroyed. But in practice, players are not pure raider or defender; they have individual preferences towards certain regions. Thus some defenders may choose to join in raiding regions built around real world political ideologies they disagree with, and some raiders might choose to defend a GCR delegate they have a long-time friendship with.

As Unibot said, UCRs and GCRs are both fundamentally the same - they are regions. And in the case of founderless UCRs, both are at risk of a violation of sovereignty from outside forces, whether they call themselves raiders or some other name. While Francosits are correct to recognize that at least some defenders might see GCRs as a nice place to take and set up shop, the common thread of defender ideology demands that dedicated defenders respect GCR sovereignty and only intervene to prevent hostile takeovers. In this sense, it is a smart move for most GCRs to maintain good relations with defenders, perhaps to the point of choosing to actively support them, as then they have more allies in the event of a coup.

The reason the NPO doesn't like defenders is not out of defenders being a threat to GCRs. The NPO doesn't like defenders because in the past, defenders are the ones who have prevented their attempts to conquer their sister GCRs. The NPO founder, Francos Spain, took power in the Pacific by violating the sovereignty of the natives in the Pacific at the time of his rise to power. He and raiders have a common ancestor, and the NPO repeatedly refuses to get away from its culture rooted in conquest and repeated violations of regional sovereignty. Despite the NPO ruling the Pacific for longer than any other GCR government has ruled over its respective region, the NPO is the only government called by a name other than the region it is in. All the others are known by their direct region name. This suggests that even the NPO recognizes itself as a conqueror of The Pacific, an occupying force with no interest in its own natives. For all intents and purposes, Francos Spain still rules the region from beyond the grave, forever and always a raider and propagandist.

[Aclion]

I despise this sentiment because it somehow implies that an individual is able to give their full attention to every region they're in. Which is a terrible idea to even attempt and never actually works in practice.

Its worked so far for me. It's a sort of case of The Portrait Artist. Whether its making maps or running events or memorizing all the mandates and blockers in the GA. It's the investment eats up your time. Actually implementing it takes comparably little. If i'd never branched out I'd be idle a lot and never have had reason to pick up half the thing I have.