The Userite Myth

[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.

 

[Lennart]

Brilliant.

My opinion's on page 2

 

[Great Bights Mum]

"Cognitive dissonance within the collective gestalt?" There must be something you can take for that.

In my view, nations have free will. They decide where to live based upon where their loyalties lie. The act of being spawned somewhere does not automatically impart a sense of belonging there.

 

[Flemingovia]

"Cognitive dissonance within the collective gestalt?"

I once owned a basset hound that suffered from this. every time we took him in the car we had to drive with the windows down.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

"Cognitive dissonance within the collective gestalt?" There must be something you can take for that.

In my view, nations have free will. They decide where to live based upon where their loyalties lie. The act of being spawned somewhere does not automatically impart a sense of belonging there.

While I agree with this in principle, in reality, nations, upon creation, are bombarded with countless invitations to move out of the feeders and into various player created regions. Once in these regions the great majority of those that are not simple population collectors or internal law selectors, are indoctrinated into what ever social structures that region has set up. The more active of these often have an anti-feeder slant to them. Therefore the free-will aspect is compromised from the onset.

 

[Pierconium]

"Cognitive dissonance within the collective gestalt?" There must be something you can take for that.

In my view, nations have free will. They decide where to live based upon where their loyalties lie. The act of being spawned somewhere does not automatically impart a sense of belonging there.

While I agree with this in principle, in reality, nations, upon creation, are bombarded with countless invitations to move out of the feeders and into various player created regions. Once in these regions the great majority of those that are not simple population collectors or internal law selectors, are indoctrinated into what ever social structures that region has set up. The more active of these often have an anti-feeder slant to them. Therefore the free-will aspect is compromised from the onset.

This, while correct, is only part of the problem.

The theory expressed in the 'Myth' is intentionally simplistic, reductio ad absurdum. It does not disprove the tenets of Francoism, or defenderism, imperialism or any other dogma. It simply seeks to place them within a construct that is universally inclusive. There will be follow-up commentaries that expand on this principle with more detail and more direct treatment of the issues raised therein.

The status quo is a systemic process of nations subconsciously lying to themselves (cognitive dissonance) about their place in the overall formative hierarchy (collective gestalt) because the initial premise extracts the fundamental sameness of each nation.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

I used to enjoy philosophical debate, being out of univ and in the real world has kinda turned my brain to mush; but basically, this is saying in lamens terms people want to fit into thier assigned area? (Feeder) though sometimes they may be swayed by a recruitment TG, yet in thier heart they still have that feeder mentality?

What if the desire to fit in conflicts with the desire to just be theirselves as it were. The wishes of the group conflict with the desire of the indivdual even when that indivdual is acting in good faith to participate. Everyone I think wants to be themselves and to just be "accepted" but then much like in the real world there is a realization that not everyone is going to like you, though you hope just enough people do that it makes the existence either real world or in your chosen nation state region be it feeder or user created a little more tolerable.

Also, should one express indivdualism and quarks I.E. not everyone is going to have the same posting style or mechanics, some people like to be short and sweet, some like to make very long thought out opinions as is the one I am reading now, and still others are somewhere in between. Should a person cave to social pressure and make a strained attempt to be the cookie cutter representation of what the majority of the community want them to be? No matter how difficult the person may find in going against their nature as it were. Or should the person stand strong in thier indivduality and through it all be themselves and let the chips fall where they may. If a person who acts themselves and yet the community doesnt like the raw cookie dough amoeba that is them and instead an aspect of the group wants to force the cookie cutter shape upon them, should that person then reasonably have to comform or look for an area more understanding of thier flaws? Personally I feel it abhorrant anyone would force someone to change to meet thier standards rather then in good faith try to accept someone with thier flaws and all.

I hope I have expanded on the topic and contributed something meaningful and not just led us on a bunny trail of a side issue. Thanks.

 

[punk d]

Thanks for the great post Elegarth. If you don’t mind, I’d like to disagree with a few points.

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.

If this is the definition of “feederite” then it is a fairly weak. Weak not in the sense that it is factually incorrect, but weak in that it reduces one to being “feederite” or the mythical “userite” down to where one is born and nothing else. This is weak because it doesn’t involve thought, action, or conscious decisions. Instead, being “born that way” suggests that one cannot change despite any attempts to escape one’s birth station.

I believe this is not the correct conclusion to draw simply because we are all born into feeders. We are born feederite, but need not remain feederite, but more on that later.

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.

To suggest that it is delusional that ones aligns oneself to a user created region is akin to saying that because one is born into a Jewish family one must always remain a Jew. Again, the analysis discounts the possibility and ability for nations to create, nay forge, their own destinies.

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.

A lot of effort here to state that nations facings the banject button are “feederite”. This supports your hypothesis simply because these nations take no action to relocate themselves from a feeder. Thus, we know not their conscious position towards calling themselves a feederite or anything else.

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.

Previously you wrote that the enforced were the relocated, but how will the enforced coerce the coerced to join the Rejected Realms? Why would one choose – disillusioned by feeder governments – to move to another game created region simply because they are disillusioned? Even if this were theoretically accurate, practice suggests that nations make different choices when disillusioned with the government.

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.

The one glaring hole in your argument of those living outside feeders are founders. Founders are not “coerced” into creating regions of their own and building cultures and communities beyond the bounds of the feeders. Quite the contrary, where your argument is “weak” theirs is one of strength backed by a proactive proclivity towards creating that which didn’t exist. Allow me to stay on this point for a moment, you argue that the myth is the notion of a “userite” and yet it was those nations who dared to dream beyond the confines of the feeder who made it possible for you to call their existence mythic.

These pioneers left a trail for many to follow showing that being born into a feeder does not determine one’s fate. One’s fate can be turned and directed by a nation’s action, not their birth place. That many of these founders seek to loosen the bonds of others in the NSverse should not suggest that such notions exist only in their minds and are not instead a true divergence from feederism.

Plainly put, the world of a userite is not defined by the feeders but by a nation’s own self-determination. Such things have always been scary for the feederite who seeks to revolve the world around the fulcrum that is the feeders. Userites call said fulcrum foolhardy and rightly so, since they are pulled and pushed by its constant swaying.

Since no differentiation between those nations within the feeders and those without can be made outside of pseudo-philosophic propaganda

If there is propaganda then it lies within the statement that all nations due to their birth have zero ability to move from feeder to user. However, the world over shows the fallacy of this concept and that birthplace does not equal resting place. Moving away from linguistic jumping jacks, feeders are just that they feed the NSverse. They are not black holes from which none dare escape. Many nations make the decision to move elsewhere – some for friends, some for altruism, some for no other reason than receiving a funny message from a recruiter. Whatever the reason the choice is not a psychological construct only but a verifiable action that breaks from the feeder.

That break is real and not pseudo-philosophic propaganda.

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.

If you were to tell this, especially the last sentence to the thousands of user created regions who hold 1-2 nations, I do not believe they will have a consciousness towards developing and cultivating a feeder destabilization plan. This is simply not factual. Granted there may be nations seeking to destabilize the feeders, but they may call themselves feederites. Seeking to destabilize feeders is not an attribute of the coerced/enforced as you have described, but certainly includes the people who according to your theory, call themselves feederites.

The myth, in my opinion, is not that the userite does not exist, but that the feederite is the sole authority to define the NSverse. I find this faulty because the NSverse is fully capable of defining itself.

That ability is something this philosophy cannot see nor recognize. But what it calls myth, I call 10000 islands or Galts Gulch or any number of regions who have developed their own philosophy neither beholden to or birthed from their feederite origins.

 

[Pierconium]

Thank you for taking the time to read it. Allow me to respond in kind to some of your points, many of which seem to be the same just worded in different ways.

If this is the definition of “feederite” then it is a fairly weak. Weak not in the sense that it is factually incorrect, but weak in that it reduces one to being “feederite” or the mythical “userite” down to where one is born and nothing else. This is weak because it doesn’t involve thought, action, or conscious decisions. Instead, being “born that way” suggests that one cannot change despite any attempts to escape one’s birth station.

I believe this is not the correct conclusion to draw simply because we are all born into feeders. We are born feederite, but need not remain feederite, but more on that later.

This demonstrates a lack of comprehension for what has been shared. As noted above, the ‘Myth’ is simply a reduction of terms to their most basic level so that discussion and further commentary can take place. The ‘Myth’ does not claim to solve any such problems or differentiate terminology outside what you have already demonstrated herein. At the most basic level, all nations are feederite.

To suggest that it is delusional that ones aligns oneself to a user created region is akin to saying that because one is born into a Jewish family one must always remain a Jew. Again, the analysis discounts the possibility and ability for nations to create, nay forge, their own destinies.

That is an interesting choice of analogy. Many Jewish people would consider their heritage as indicative of a shared ethnicity, even if their genomes were considerably disparate. At no point does the ‘Myth’ indicate that nations do not have free will and cannot make their own choices. It states that when they do so they withdraw from the feederite community and establish themselves within the diaspora.

A lot of effort here to state that nations facings the banject button are “feederite”. This supports your hypothesis simply because these nations take no action to relocate themselves from a feeder. Thus, we know not their conscious position towards calling themselves a feederite or anything else.

It does not matter what a nation chooses to call itself. The fact remains.

Previously you wrote that the enforced were the relocated, but how will the enforced coerce the coerced to join the Rejected Realms? Why would one choose – disillusioned by feeder governments – to move to another game created region simply because they are disillusioned? Even if this were theoretically accurate, practice suggests that nations make different choices when disillusioned with the government.

Have you ever heard of the Rejected Realms Army? The Rejected Realms have traditionally been associated with an enforced mentality.

The one glaring hole in your argument of those living outside feeders are founders. Founders are not “coerced” into creating regions of their own and building cultures and communities beyond the bounds of the feeders. Quite the contrary, where your argument is “weak” theirs is one of strength backed by a proactive proclivity towards creating that which didn’t exist. Allow me to stay on this point for a moment, you argue that the myth is the notion of a “userite” and yet it was those nations who dared to dream beyond the confines of the feeder who made it possible for you to call their existence mythic.

These pioneers left a trail for many to follow showing that being born into a feeder does not determine one’s fate. One’s fate can be turned and directed by a nation’s action, not their birth place. That many of these founders seek to loosen the bonds of others in the NSverse should not suggest that such notions exist only in their minds and are not instead a true divergence from feederism.

Plainly put, the world of a userite is not defined by the feeders but by a nation’s own self-determination. Such things have always been scary for the feederite who seeks to revolve the world around the fulcrum that is the feeders. Userites call said fulcrum foolhardy and rightly so, since they are pulled and pushed by its constant swaying.

This is where your own argument establishes its primary ‘weakness’ (to use your term). The ‘Myth’ is the notion that a nation can be inherently separate from the feeders on a basic level, not that nations cannot make conscious decisions to leave the feeders. Being created within a feeder does not indicate that a nation must remain in the feeder. To interpret what has been written in such a way indicates a misunderstanding. A Founder nation makes the decision to leave the feeder because it is dissatisfied on some level with that feeder, it therefore is a coerced nation by definition. Recruitment messages and the like are utilized to coerce nations to follow others out of the feeder. At no point does the ‘Myth’ indicate that this is inherently evil or that the Founder (or the coerced for that matter) are in error, just that their motivations are, at the basic level, guided by their position against that of the feeders. Otherwise, there would be no Founders. I believe the failing here stems from a possible misreading of the text in question. To wit: '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.

If there is propaganda then it lies within the statement that all nations due to their birth have zero ability to move from feeder to user. However, the world over shows the fallacy of this concept and that birthplace does not equal resting place. Moving away from linguistic jumping jacks, feeders are just that they feed the NSverse. They are not black holes from which none dare escape. Many nations make the decision to move elsewhere – some for friends, some for altruism, some for no other reason than receiving a funny message from a recruiter. Whatever the reason the choice is not a psychological construct only but a verifiable action that breaks from the feeder.

That break is real and not pseudo-philosophic propaganda.

Again, see the response above. At no point does the ‘Myth’ indicate such nations have ‘zero ability to move’ but that the traditional combativeness of some parties within the enforced and coerced diaspora is based upon a misunderstanding of their reasons.

If you were to tell this, especially the last sentence to the thousands of user created regions who hold 1-2 nations, I do not believe they will have a consciousness towards developing and cultivating a feeder destabilization plan. This is simply not factual. Granted there may be nations seeking to destabilize the feeders, but they may call themselves feederites. Seeking to destabilize feeders is not an attribute of the coerced/enforced as you have described, but certainly includes the people who according to your theory, call themselves feederites.

The myth, in my opinion, is not that the userite does not exist, but that the feederite is the sole authority to define the NSverse. I find this faulty because the NSverse is fully capable of defining itself.

That ability is something this philosophy cannot see nor recognize. But what it calls myth, I call 10000 islands or Galts Gulch or any number of regions who have developed their own philosophy neither beholden to or birthed from their feederite origins.

Have you ever heard of TITO? Just curious. Regardless of this, as has been stated already in response to what seems to be a laboriously repetitive commentary on your part, the ‘Myth’ is not seeking to label all members of the diaspora as oppositional to the feeders. But such do exist and the actions of such groups can be explained in simple terms that do not require the ongoing userite vs feederite debate. If those that seek to oppose the feeders can see that their differences are not insurmountable through of a common origin then at the very least the philosophical platitudes on which those parties stand can be dismantled.

 

[Elegarth]

As Senator Pierconium has extensively covered, the diaspora CAN be reduced to one of two cases:

- Those nations that are FORCED to leave their feeder birthplaces for whatever political/personal/controversial reason, and are not allowed to remain there - the enforced diaspora.

- Those nations that of their own desire move out of the feeders for any reason - found their own place, leave a disliked government, to follow their dreams, convinced by an invitation - are coerced by their own circumstances (their dislike of the given government, their quest for a better place, w/e) to leave, and hence the coerced diaspora.

It is not being said, at any moment, nor implied, that this is per se something bad or undesirable, but a correct (yet simplistic) description of the reality they live, a universal context that can include/encompass all future generalizations or specifications as required.

 

[Almonaster]

I would categorize this as the Hospitalite argument. Since you were born in a hospital, your primary allegiance must forever be to hospitals. If you show loyalty to your school or community, this is an enforced mentality, which you have been coerced into adopting.

Pfft!

 

[Alunya]

Go, Stanford University Hospital! Rah! Rah! Rah!

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Go Cardinal!?

 

[Elegarth]

I would categorize this as the Hospitalite argument. Since you were born in a hospital, your primary allegiance must forever be to hospitals. If you show loyalty to your school or community, this is an enforced mentality, which you have been coerced into adopting.

Pfft!

The problem with your argument is that you are implying judgement over the reasons of changing your allegiance or the change itself, while the Myth only exposes and contextualizes them. At no point, as Senator Pierconium established, we are calling those motivations to leave the feeder or to change people's allegiances evil or mistaken.

This is, born in a hospital, you are enforced to leave it (to extend your metaphor, which is basically flawed as a new born doesn't has the capacity to reason that a nation creator does) and hence become enforced diaspora... Yet the correlation ends there, for the flaw already mentioned in the metaphor used. Hence further comment on the growing up kid developing an allegiance to other institutions follows the wrong path and hence would not be correct to evaluate it through this idea.

Thanks for your comment!

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

As a n00b feederite, I have only been on NS this month. I joined got bombarded with advertisements. But the factors why I decided to stay I got a message right off the bat from someone welcoming me and it wasnt a form feed letter, The people sounded nice enough, I liked the layout of the WFE, TNP is the largest region figured that would maximize my chance to get to know people and learn how to operate within NS. You do have free will to change regions but why do it willy nilly without cause to do so. Stay in your feeder region get to know people if they dont seem receptive then move on.

(Bringing some practical reasoning into this philosophical debate)

 

[Gracius Maximus]

As a n00b feederite, I have only been on NS this month. I joined got bombarded with advertisements. But the factors why I decided to stay I got a message right off the bat from someone welcoming me and it wasnt a form feed letter, The people sounded nice enough, I liked the layout of the WFE, TNP is the largest region figured that would maximize my chance to get to know people and learn how to operate within NS. You do have free will to change regions but why do it willy nilly without cause to do so. Stay in your feeder region get to know people if they dont seem receptive then move on.

(Bringing some practical reasoning into this philosophical debate)

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Pierconium]

I would categorize this as the Hospitalite argument. Since you were born in a hospital, your primary allegiance must forever be to hospitals. If you show loyalty to your school or community, this is an enforced mentality, which you have been coerced into adopting.

Pfft!

Wow.

No..just, no.

 

[Elegarth]

Are there any more comments?

 

[Chasmanthe]

Would the NPO be prepared to release any more details about the contributors and drafting process of this statement, and what discussions and events prompted its formulation?

I'm skeptical of this departure from viewing the Userite as the enemy of the Pacifics. I've recently read Unlimited's essay but I lack much background to this change in stance.

 

[Elegarth]

I am sorry, been sort of away.

The piece was penned by Senator Pierconium, as part of NPO's Senate Discussions about the current state of affairs in our World as a whole.

This doesn't contradicts the existence or reality of the Userite as seen or exposed on old Unlimited's papers, but contextualizes in a broader sense.

 

[Lennart]

My real opinion on this matter:

There's two main layers in NS: the original, intended in-game world of Nationstates and the expanded, user created "universe".

In the former, "userism" is almost a myth; in the second it is the rule. Let me explain:

NS has five regions where every nation is born. They cannot deny it even if they migrate afterwards. Sinkers can also give that feeling of origin, and TRR is the limit of that Game world. From that point of view, every other region, all of them created by users, are either splinter colonies or mercenary alliances, and as such, they are part of the same feeder game mechanics, cosmopolitan centres of runaways and travellers. If anything, part of a feeder population can secede (and that's the exception, the only true userites in my opinion), but they are doomed, since new members will likely take it into the second layer.

An that second layer is what I call the "user created universe" where some cultures are supposed to be born, with themed regions and self conscious communities (mostly devoted to concrete RP settings, politically aligned or revolving around some RW culture affinity). But that's only a fantasy over in-game mechanics. They are the NS equivalent of bohemian poets drinking coffee in Paris, talking about the ownership of the means of production or nerds dressed like characters from Saint Seiya at a Comic convention. They sure have fun together, and they get along with each other better than they do with people from their own country, but their hobbies or ideas don't change their nationality. They may refuse it. And that, at most, makes them "stateless", in this case it would be "regionless".

 

[Elegarth]

That's an interesting opinion, L. Thanks.

 

[Lennart]

That's an interesting opinion, L. Thanks.

You're welcome

 

[Lennart]

.