The Userite Myth (by New Pacific Order)

[Elegarth]

The Userite Myth

 
 
Countless theorists, politicians and activists have told us that the ultimate delineation of nations within this realm can be categorized within two broad but distinct frameworks: feederite and userite.  Further demarcation and nomenclature have adjusted these overarching archetypes with terms such as defender or invader, or most recently, independent and imperialist, but the concept remains the same.  Some have sought to provoke these portrayals into coherent political agendas and philosophies, to greater and lesser success.  Proper thought or manifesto aside, these have been nothing more than platitudes created to either uphold or break down the status quo.  Many have been structured around specific groups or regions, giving credit to individuals for feats that, while monumental, were nothing more than the perpetuation of an erroneous mindset.  The reason that such theoretical conflicts between these separate mentalities have occurred historically is that the underlying mythos has created cognitive dissonance within the collective gestalt of our nations.

 
It is time for a paradigm shift.  The myth that has been perpetuated since antiquity within this realm is based upon an incorrect understanding of the individual nation’s position within the overall structure.  All nations are created equivalently and arise within those regions specified as “feeders” upon their initial foundation.  There are no exceptions to this fundamental fact.  If a nation ceases to exist and is resurrected, it then arrives in one of the regions designated as “sinker” but this is not an instance of foundation, it is an instance of rebirth, and therefore provides a separate and secondary dynamic.  Therefore, all nations, at some point, even those created specifically for the purpose of departure from the region of its birth, are feederite.  At the most basic level of classification, all nations, regardless of size, age or location, have been and always will be, to some extent, the product of a feeder mentality.  There is no such thing as a pure userite nation.  It is a matter of self-delusion for any nation to deny its heritage as a child of the feeders.

 
Therefore, it is necessary to define the feederite diaspora.  Since it is a given then that not every nation left the feeders voluntarily, or that every nation, though equivalent in creation, has sought equivalence in action and position, there are some levels of differentiation to be clarified.  First, those nations of the so-called enforced diaspora, who met the lords of the Rejected Realms against their will, have a certain predisposition against the idea of feederite rehabilitation.  While it is certainly correct to state that some instances of forced relocation are without merit, it is equally true to state the converse.  Consequently, the separation of these two dejected parties is insubstantial when measured against the totality of the diaspora as a whole.  All nations that have been removed via ejection from a feeder by a Delegate, regardless of circumstance, are part of the enforced diaspora.  And yet, they are still feederite at their core.

 
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.  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.  They utilize this lie in order to create great personal power, build large temples to themselves, or some self-aggrandizing political hokum, in order to wage war upon that which they left behind.

 
There is a further group of nations belonging to the diaspora, those that are mere puppets of either the coerced or enforced, bereft of autonomy and utilized for a multitude of tasks which enslave them to their more prodigious masters.  For the purpose of this study, such entities hold no value beyond that of placeholder.  In the rare instance that such a nation serves a purpose expressly independent of its diasporic progenitor the nation would invariably find itself within one of the preceding categorical classifications unless it was itself feederite in position.  Such incongruities will be addressed separately, however.  In the present vein, notwithstanding uncommon examples, there is therefore only one overarching classification of nation: feederite.  Those nations that are part of the diaspora in any one of the two main segmentations are simply displaced feederite constituents.

 
Since no differentiation between those nations within the feeders and those without can be made outside of pseudo-philosophic propaganda effected by the enforced diaspora and taken up or misconstrued by the coerced, it stands to all reason and common sense that no political differentiation can logically exist either.  Hence, all supposed userite, invader, imperialist, independent, etc. etc. ad nauseam, justifications for separation from and opposition to feederite institutions are invalid.  If no such delineation can exist then no antagonism to these fabricated separations can exist.  The enforced diaspora has perpetuated a false-mentality of obstruction in the face of their shortcomings or misunderstandings.  They have utilized the coerced as tools while obfuscating the reality of their situation.  In short, the userite myth has been developed and cultivated in order to destabilize the feeders and propagate a war between prodigals and their homelands.

[Sandaoguo]

Not to be too mean, but I feel that this is a text by somebody trying to mimic what they think true political theorists write like.


First, the argument that the partition of people into two broad groups is an intentional deceit to uphold the status quo requires first that you explain the status quo. You can't just say it's being upheld. *What* is being upheld? Then you have to explain how and why.


Second, whoever wrote this doesn't actually understand the feederite/userite dichotomy. Nobody has ever said that there are people who have never been in feeders. The dichotomy exists because of the choice players make, not because of the game mechanics of where their nations are automatically placed. The rest of this pseudo analysis is based upon that misunderstanding, so it's fundamentally flawed.

[Elegarth]

As not the author of this article, I can't but laugh inside at your totally unpolite remark regarding the author of it, which is not really relevant.


Why laugh? Because you are so ready to discredit his/her/their/its knowledge of the game without even addressing the point of the speech...


I am NOT trying to be disrespectful either, Sanda, but I am sure you of all people don't need a definition of the current state of affairs NS-wide: feederites and userites, raiders and defenders, imperialist, democrats, etc.


Anyway, I appreciate the time you took to read it out. Thanks.

[Kris Kringle]

Just an observation, perhaps this would be better in the Discussion Center. For future occasions anyway. Thanks for sharing this text with us.

[Pierconium]

Not to be too mean, but I feel that this is a text by somebody trying to mimic what they think true political theorists write like.


First, the argument that the partition of people into two broad groups is an intentional deceit to uphold the status quo requires first that you explain the status quo. You can't just say it's being upheld. *What* is being upheld? Then you have to explain how and why.


Second, whoever wrote this doesn't actually understand the feederite/userite dichotomy. Nobody has ever said that there are people who have never been in feeders. The dichotomy exists because of the choice players make, not because of the game mechanics of where their nations are automatically placed. The rest of this pseudo analysis is based upon that misunderstanding, so it's fundamentally flawed.

Since Senator Elegarth has already addressed this broadly, I will address a couple of your points directly.

 

While I do thank you for your input, you are incorrect on several counts.  First, in a political theory essay, which this undoubtedly is, it is more important, especially in the first such iteration of something that will be linked to several other commentaries, to put forth the theory more than any empirical evidence.  Therefore, defining the status quo, which is readily apparent to most actors within the political spheres of the feeders, is unnecessary.  Some would consider it pedantic.

 
Second, to state that any member of The Pacific would have a lack of understanding in regards to the supposed feederite/userite dichotomy is the height of ignorance.  The fact that we hold such a firm understanding of this false dichotomy is due in no small part to our own creation of it.  The Pacific created the idea of the feederite vs userite mentality, I know, I was there.  The concepts of Francoism have been an effective and useful tool in our arsenal for nearly a decade.  We do not espouse the complete dismantling of the system, but we do wish to place it within its proper context.
 
Not to be too mean, but I feel that your comment is a text by somebody trying to critique a writing style that they looked up on wikipedia or in a undergraduate reading course.   Obviously, I don't know you at all, nor do I particularly care to, but the essential idiocy of such a comment remains valid because your post 'is based upon [a] misunderstanding, so it's fundamentally flawed.'
 
Have a nice day.

[Sandaoguo]

I have my degree in political science, specifically in the field of international relations theory. I know the field's writing style, and while this is reminiscent of dense theoretical articles, it is pretty much meaningless. Yes, you do have to explain the premises of your argument. You don't get to assume that everybody knows what *you* mean by the status quo, and if people don't understand that, then you're engaging in a futile exercise of trying to convince them of your broader argument based upon your opaque premises. That wasn't a critic of the merits. It was some good writing advice.


If you're going to say that just because somebody in the NPO wrote this, it must be correct, then there's no point in me critiquing the merits any further than I have. That's pretty arrogant. I don't know what critique you would accept if you honestly believe that the NPO is infallible on the subject.

[Pierconium]

I have my degree in political science, specifically in the field of international relations theory. I know the field's writing style, and while this is reminiscent of dense theoretical articles, it is pretty much meaningless. Yes, you do have to explain the premises of your argument. You don't get to assume that everybody knows what *you* mean by the status quo, and if people don't understand that, then you're engaging in a futile exercise of trying to convince them of your broader argument based upon your opaque premises. That wasn't a critic of the merits. It was some good writing advice.


If you're going to say that just because somebody in the NPO wrote this, it must be correct, then there's no point in me critiquing the merits any further than I have. That's pretty arrogant. I don't know what critique you would accept if you honestly believe that the NPO is infallible on the subject.

Excellent, so I was correct, an undergraduate reading course.  Good for you.

 

As to the rest, again, you are incorrect.  First, because this is not 'real life' politics and second, because most of those that this is directed towards, or that it has relevance to politically do in fact know what the so-called status quo actually is without it being spoon fed to them like children.  I apologize if you fall into such a category, I am not a nursemaid.

 

Your only critique that is coherent is in regards to the background definitions.  As I stated earlier, in political writings, such empirical definitions are not necessary in the initial premise of a theory.  If you doubt this then you are welcome to look at any of several university published guides for how to write such essays.  That does not mean that the background is immaterial or should not be addressed if necessary.  Therefore, if you have specific items regarding said background that you would like defined for you since, regardless of your title, you evidently have limited understanding of the general political dynamics of NationStates politics I would be happen to explain them to you.

 

As for arrogance, I know I have been out of circulation for a while...

[Sandaoguo]

I guess I have to be the next Wendt, Keohane, or Waltz to know what I'm talking about when it comes to political theory tradecraft.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

I love that NS has its own little version of Pseud's Corner. More, please!

[Punk D]

I also have a degree in political science and while this was not Kant - I actually liked the wording. I have my disagreements with some of the content from a theoretical standpoint but I wish more NS'ers thought like the author. Would make this game a whole lot more fun (and time consuming) for a lay political theorist like myself. 

 

But beyond that, this is a political simulation game, GR. Let's cut people some slack for not writing exactly like great political writers. Since I've been engaged in a discussion on this topic in TNP, I won't repeat (winks at Pierconium) myself here.

[Rachel Anumia]

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?

 

Secondly, very few people are actually banned from GCRs and then recruit from them. Most people who leave the GCRs leave because they are recruited by other people who have left who have wanted the joy of creating their own region or joining a region which better suits their style of play. The founder of Europeia, is right here in TSP. So... no. That was a really bad assumption that should have actually been investigated (even using examples). 

 

When you take away the fact that most people outside of the GCRs aren't "enforced" then most of this essay doesn't make a whiff of sense. You're trying to tell me that the people who run these UCRs are doing so because they aren't allowed back in and are producing lies to keep people there. Umm... no. While it must sound cool that those people you don't allow within your region are forming different cliques to spite you, it's wrong. Like, where did the author come up with this idea? I'd recommend actually doing research.

 

Thirdly, calling everyone feederites because they started out in a feeder is the equivalent to calling them all bananas in terms of it's usefulness. It says nothing of their motivations. It does nothing to increase my understanding of NS. Most people realized that all nations started out in the feeders the moment they started, it's nothing enlightening. Hate to break it to the author, but the GCRs are not the centre of the universe to all nations nor are UCRs primarily from people who've been banned from GCRs.... 

 

This whole thing irks me because it feels like a slap to my intelligence

[Pierconium]

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?

 

Secondly, very few people are actually banned from GCRs and then recruit from them. Most people who leave the GCRs leave because they are recruited by other people who have left who have wanted the joy of creating their own region or joining a region which better suits their style of play. The founder of Europeia, is right here in TSP. So... no. That was a really bad assumption that should have actually been investigated (even using examples). 

 

When you take away the fact that most people outside of the GCRs aren't "enforced" then most of this essay doesn't make a whiff of sense. You're trying to tell me that the people who run these UCRs are doing so because they aren't allowed back in and are producing lies to keep people there. Umm... no. While it must sound cool that those people you don't allow within your region are forming different cliques to spite you, it's wrong. Like, where did the author come up with this idea? I'd recommend actually doing research.

 

Thirdly, calling everyone feederites because they started out in a feeder is the equivalent to calling them all bananas in terms of it's usefulness. It says nothing of their motivations. It does nothing to increase my understanding of NS. Most people realized that all nations started out in the feeders the moment they started, it's nothing enlightening. Hate to break it to the author, but the GCRs are not the centre of the universe to all nations nor are UCRs primarily from people who've been banned from GCRs.... 

 

This whole thing irks me because it feels like a slap to my intelligence

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

[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. 

[Pierconium]

Ugh, nice tags.

 

I will attempt to sift through the mess of your post.  (Interesting that you would comment on the quality of the writing considering.)

 

1. Indeed, you have yet again ignored what is written and even quoted it before misreading it.  Your commentary on disillusionment does not refute anything quoted but does attempt to sound like a different point of view without success.

 

2. Nations ('people') only leave the feeders because of recruitment?  Interesting since that in itself refutes the supposed argument you wished to make in point 1.

 

3. Thank you for quoting another part of the article.  Again, where does it state that everyone controlling player created regions is banned from a feeder?  Weird.

 

4. Proof of what?  I have no idea what you are asking for here.  Facts of what?  Examples of what? 

 

Have you ever heard of the ADN?  TITO?  RRA?  Crazygirl?  Savage Lands?  Pope Hope?  Probably not.

 

Speaking of barely coherent...thanks for your 'input'.

[Rachel Anumia]

I can't use these forums well, shoot me

 

You don't seem willing to answer any of my questions. 

 

"3. Thank you for quoting another part of the article.  Again, where does it state that everyone controlling player created regions is banned from a feeder?  Weird."

And again, where did I state that everyone controlling player created regions is banned from a feeder? Weird... I asked for the proof that "often" those creating the culture of lies in UCRs are banned from feeders.

 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(221,221,221);">"4. Proof of what?  I have no idea what you are asking for here.  Facts of what?  Examples of what? "

To back up the article? You see, when people write essays, they usually have to reference material or do their own research. Unless you just want to mangle things like this article did. So I am asking for proof of the occurrences stated by the essay. Elsewise, it is just fantasy. Well it is fantasy, but I'd like to see you TRY to show me how it's not fantasy via proof of what it purports.

 

"Have you ever heard of the ADN?  TITO?  RRA?  Crazygirl?  Savage Lands?  Pope Hope?  Probably not."

 

Allied Defence Network. The army branch of 10KI. The Rejected Realms legislature. A rejected realms admin and in game admin. Idk what Savage Lands is. And Pope Hope was the head of ADN for a while and resided in some region that started with an N. ADN has been dead for a while and none of those things matter much.

 

So once again, I am asking you to provide proof for what the essay purports to say. If that is so difficult, then find me someone of higher calibre who can.

[North East Somerset]

 

Have you ever heard of the ADN?  TITO?  RRA?  Crazygirl?  Savage Lands?  Pope Hope?  Probably not.

 

 

Yeah quieten down Rach, you n00b.

 

Quite frankly it's insulting you are trying to have a conversation with the great Mold, considering your lack of pedigree.

 

Be a good girl and let the big boys sort out these important theories and stuff. 

[Pierconium]

I can't use these forums well, shoot me

 

You don't seem willing to answer any of my questions. 

 

"3. Thank you for quoting another part of the article.  Again, where does it state that everyone controlling player created regions is banned from a feeder?  Weird."

And again, where did I state that everyone controlling player created regions is banned from a feeder? Weird... I asked for the proof that "often" those creating the culture of lies in UCRs are banned from feeders.

 

<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">"4. Proof of what?  I have no idea what you are asking for here.  Facts of what?  Examples of what? "

To back up the article? You see, when people write essays, they usually have to reference material or do their own research. Unless you just want to mangle things like this article did. So I am asking for proof of the occurrences stated by the essay. Elsewise, it is just fantasy. Well it is fantasy, but I'd like to see you TRY to show me how it's not fantasy via proof of what it purports.

 

"Have you ever heard of the ADN?  TITO?  RRA?  Crazygirl?  Savage Lands?  Pope Hope?  Probably not."

 

Allied Defence Network. The army branch of 10KI. The Rejected Realms legislature. A rejected realms admin and in game admin. Idk what Savage Lands is. And Pope Hope was the head of ADN for a while and resided in some region that started with an N. ADN has been dead for a while and none of those things matter much.

 

So once again, I am asking you to provide proof for what the essay purports to say. If that is so difficult, then find me someone of higher calibre who can.

 

'You're trying to tell me that the people who run these UCRs are doing so because they aren't allowed back in and are producing lies to keep people there'
 

 


 

I stated that I never said this at all and asked how you arrived at this conclusion.
<span style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">  I answered this a couple of times since it isn't actually a question.</span>

 

Further, you asked for examples.  I was mildly amused to see that it went over your head.  But, not surprised in the least.


 

Have a good night.

[Rachel Anumia]

Lol, well if you can't even provide any sort of proof to back any of the assertions made in this piece, I guess I'm sorry that my standards are so high. I've forgotten just how darn impressive some of you old players are. I forgot how you don't need things like proof or things based in reality. How can I ever be as good as one of these incredible players.

 

---

NES

 

Can I get a better toy to play with. I think I made this one ragequit. 

[Pierconium]

Sigh.


No, it's called sleep. If you think your ridiculous commentary provided anything more than minor amusement then you really are as thick as your posting style implies.


Also, I provided you with several prominent examples, as you asked. The fact that your ignorance of NS history prevents you from addressing it properly does nothing to diminish that which was provided. Do some research. As I have already told one of your compatriots, I am not a nursemaid, you will not be spoonfed by me.


If you are what qualifies as 'high standard' in this region I truly am wasting my time here.

[Rachel Anumia]

Awww, you poor thing

 

You didn't provide me with one actual example that had anything to do with the essay. You see, when you write an essay, you are supposed to support it with evidence. If you find it too difficult to do so, and call it "spoonfeeding" because you are unable to support your arguments it simply shows how weak your points are. Do I need to spoonfeed you on how to write an essay? Do you want me to spoonfeed you about nationstates? I can if you'd like. 

 

Trust me, your bluster on how you can spoonfeed people is laughable at best. Perhaps people like you were considered high quality back in your day, but today, you're simply giving your age and region a bad name. 

 

So enough nonsense and misdirection. I want you to provide modern examples that support your theories. Can you do that or can you not? I seriously doubt it because you think I represent this region. You seem to know little about nationstates beyond coming up with awfully written theories based on hocus pocus. 

[Pierconium]

Awww, you poor thing

 

You didn't provide me with one actual example that had anything to do with the essay. You see, when you write an essay, you are supposed to support it with evidence. If you find it too difficult to do so, and call it "spoonfeeding" because you are unable to support your arguments it simply shows how weak your points are. Do I need to spoonfeed you on how to write an essay? Do you want me to spoonfeed you about nationstates? I can if you'd like. 

 

Trust me, your bluster on how you can spoonfeed people is laughable at best. Perhaps people like you were considered high quality back in your day, but today, you're simply giving your age and region a bad name. 

 

So enough nonsense and misdirection. I want you to provide modern examples that support your theories. Can you do that or can you not? I seriously doubt it because you think I represent this region. You seem to know little about nationstates beyond coming up with awfully written theories based on hocus pocus. 

No.

 

Just...no.

 

For example, since you are obviously unable to function without someone spelling it out for you - CrazyGirl was forcibly removed from The Pacific by Francos Spain.  She then campaigned (and recruited since that seems to be important to you) against the feeder government of the NPO.  She formed the Pacific Army and worked with the Rejected Realms Army and others in order to destabilize, infiltrate, invade and otherwise oppose The Pacific.  She was also very influential in the Alliance Defense Network and assisted in formulating an internal culture within that organization that was specifically opposed to the NPO.  She was a member of the enforced diaspora coercing nations in order to create strife within the feeder.  This was repeated by multiple nations, multiple times.  It was a pattern that was developed then and carried forward to the present by many generational separations built upon the same ideal.  She was reincorporated and ended her private war (which blossomed into multiple military campaigns) against The Pacific when she was removed from the banned list after several years by myself.

 

If you are attempting to dispute historic fact then there is little more to say to you on the matter.

 

As for representing the region, I never said such a thing, but you are being vocal here espousing such ignorant positions instead of any of the other feeder conversations.  When I want the opinion of Balder or Europeia I will join those forums to give it to you.

 

To forestall your next very poor attempt at baiting me (e.g. 'rage quit', 'you poor thing', etc.) I believe we are at an impasse since you continue to refuse to read what I post and continue to spout the same things over and over, therefore, might I suggest you carry on elsewhere?

[Rachel Anumia]

I just love the hypocrisy when you say that I'm baiting you, when you have called me thick, saying things have gone above my head and unable to function. I'd like to thank you for finally mustering up an example. This is how you write essays, using examples rather than unfounded beliefs based on whatever pops in your head. I'd reccomend you use more of them in the future.

 

Your example though, is badly outdated. In the previous post, I asked for modern examples that supported your theories. Sadly, you only gave me one badly outdated and irrelevant example. It was to be expected given the rather shockingly poor essay and subsequent weakness in your replies. If this theory is to be relevant in current times, it requires current examples. Yes, there was a lot of fighting between UCRs and GCRs early on in history. It's not revolutionary or even remotely interesting. Can you give me multiple influential enforced diaspora in the past 2 years who have engaged in similar behavior?

 

I dispute their relevance and their relevance to this essay. I don't think we're at an impasse, if we are at one it's because of your lack of understanding of modern NS. I really don't think you'd want the opinions of such high quality regions, it'd be rather embarassing for you. It's likely best if you stick to your forums and talk about how great the old days were and how great you are. Don't attempt anything relevant, trust me... it's best for your legacy. I mean, it's basically what you're doing here, you talk about how great you are and how everyone else doesn't understand because they are beneath you. Such gimmicks might work in other regions, but in most places they're going to see past such a shallow facade.

 

Can you show me some of knowledge and understanding that I might expect from such a supposedly great player? No more gimmicks. Show me that you have the ability to play in the big leagues and not simply say you can.

[Pierconium]

blah blah blah

Your (unsupported and unfounded) dispute is noted.  Goodbye.

 

Also, I do not believe I have spoken of myself at all.  Nice try.

[Rachel Anumia]

Lol? 

 

It's your job to support your arguments. When you learn how to write essays this is one of the first things they will teach you. If you're defeated so easily (which is no surprise), goodbye! xD

[Pierconium]

blah blah blah

No.