The Userite Myth (by New Pacific Order)

[Rachel Anumia]

Yes, if a nation does not find the climate in the feeder unsuitable then they can certainly create a region that suits them.  Perhaps you are unaware of what disillusionment means.

But this is not what the article suggests. This is what this poorly written article said:

 

 

Likewise, those nations that have been disillusioned with the government that they encountered upon creation or mislead by the barrage of invitations that they receive upon conception are also feederite in origin.  Disillusionment stems from a lack of understanding while the misleading of nations by those that have already gone into the diaspora before also evolves from this same misperception.  These nations, which have left of their own volition, are part of the coerced diaspora.  

 

 

And this is what I said:

 

 

 

Ugh, somehow I lost my original post on this. But this is pretty bad to be honest. It makes constant assumptions about UCRs and GCRs that are incorrect. It's telling me that people only leave because they are disillusioned because they don't understand or because they are coerced by people who have been banned from GCRs. That is bogus and untrue. The idea that GCRs are like some sort of faith and that when one understands, they wouldn't want to leave is mind blowingly strange. Surely one can not enjoy the culture and government in any one of these and would rather join or create another region which better suits them?

 

 

So I am well aware what disillusioned means, but my point was that the article does not say what you purported it to. 

 

 

 

Further, nothing in the article discusses recruitment practices.  Not exactly sure what you are going on about in this regard.

 

Umm, quite clearly the article discusses in length why people leave the feeders. This is called recruitment. I believe it's in the game faq, you can read it if you'd like.

 

 

Regarding your third point, which is unnumbered, is an incorrect assumption on your part.  You are making generalizations that are not evident in the written piece.  No where does it say that everyone controlling player created regions are not allowed into feeders.  Where did you come up with that idea?

 

It says the following:

 

 

 

Often, those of the coerced have been prompted to action by the enforced.  The enforced prey upon the coerced to the detriment of the whole.  Through this cyclical pattern of denial-delusion-deceit, we find the impetus for all divergence within the Nation States world.  The bulk of nations within this realm dwelling outside of the feeders are part of the coerced, living a lie manufactured and fed to them by the enforced.

 

So like I said, could you should me some proof or some facts that this is the case? That often it is the "enforced" who encourage action and that the bulk of nations outside the feeders are living a lie manufactured and fed to them by the enforced?

 

 

 

Your fourth point ('thirdly') is just absurd and not really worth comment, but since I am here anyway, motivations are discussed in the piece.  Beyond this, you misunderstand what has been presented.  The point of the article is to address the causes of strife between player created regions and the feeders on a basic level.  This separation will be discussed in more detail later as this is an introductory piece meant to present the idea, not espouse overall dogma or replace that which already exists.  At no point is it meant to define what all player created regions are, how the feeders individually should conduct themselves or making some claim about those regions being wholly managed by nations banned from said feeders. It may feel like a slap because you seem to have your eyes closed.

 

 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(221,221,221);"> 

Show me the proof. That is what I'm asking. If I misunderstand anything, I'd blame the poorly written article that was confusing and difficult to understand. I want you to back up your points. So for a second post, I am asking you to show me the proof. It might be easy to say that I have my eyes closed. 

 

But I want you to show me proof. Show me some facts. Show me some examples. Show me something than a barely coherent essay that is not backed up by anything.