NationStates Jolt Archive

As I got that [un-postable], [un-postable], [un-postable] "Diving for @@currency@@" issue for the second day in a row, a thought occurred to me.

What about allowing players to "block" issues that they really hate?

Basically, a player could only "block" so many issues (say perhaps a dozen, the number could be increased as the number of issues is).

If I were to say, with this feature "block" "Diving for drachauqs" then every time that I reciecved this issue, it, would be dismissed, pulled form the bank, and replaced with a new issue.

This would be akin to the bait-and-switch tactics that politicians pull by adressing one issue instead of another one.

Perhaps it could go even further by allowing one to choose to enter the number of the issue that one wishes it to be replaced with, and as long as it is applicable, that would be the issue addressed instead.

'K, I know that this last past is wishul thinking, but what about the first part?

I know that it would take a loy of coding, bu do you think that if it gets enogh support that it might possibly find your way onto you to-do list Sal?

And what do my fellow players think (at least those who answer issues)?

I know that it would take a loy of coding
I expect this would actually depend on the manner in which issues are currently selected - no nation is eligible for all issues at any one time, so there must already be some type of code for excluding certain issues. Of course, it might be heavily optimised for the current setup, where there may be a few (overlapping, of course) sets of possible issues, each set shared by a very large group of nations.

I reckon allowing a player to map one issue number to another is not a good idea (would make it too easy to choose the issues you want, especially the ones your nation does not qualify for). Simply blocking certain issues and leaving the choice of the replacement issue up to the game would be better, but the limit on the number of blocked issues would still need to be a good balance between being high enough to be worthwhile, and low enough to prevent players getting too much of an advantage in the UN rankings.

Simply blocking certain issues and leaving the choice of the replacement issue up to the game would be better, but the limit on the number of blocked issues would still need to be a good balance between being high enough to be worthwhile, and low enough to prevent players getting too much of an advantage in the UN rankings.That's what I suggested. There are over 100 issues now, and I proposed allowing say a dozen.

And, thanks, good point, the UN rankings being affected was not something that I'd have thought of.

I`m sorry, but this is a simulation (ok, it`s a marketing gag, but... errr...), and, just like in reality, we do not always get what we want. And there is this shiny 'dismiss' option.

Of course, if you dismiss many issues, your UN rankings are hurt, but just blocking issues you don`t like just to replace them with issues you do like... IMHO, the whole game would become a bit too... well, less diversified, less flexible.

While I do understand that certain issues are just plain annoying (Why does a nation with imploded economy give humanitarian aid?)... No. I would say having stricter parameters for issue eligibility is the better way.

I`m sorry, but this is a simulation (ok, it`s a marketing gag, but... errr...), and, just like in reality, we do not always get what we want. And there is this shiny 'dismiss' option.
I knew that this was going to be brought up and even that I knew my comment was going to be ignored(people almost never read my entire posts before replying), yet I still explained above how I felt that this would be more realistic.

That way I can say"

"If you had read my entire post you might have noticed the following excerpt
This would be akin to the bait-and-switch tactics that politicians pull by adressing one issue instead of another one.
Try telling me that politicians dont do this all the time. "

At least they do in The USA where I live.

As I got that [un-postable], [un-postable], [un-postable] "Diving for @@currency@@" issue for the second day in a row, a thought occurred to me.

What about allowing players to "block" issues that they really hate?

Basically, a player could only "block" so many issues (say perhaps a dozen, the number could be increased as the number of issues is).

If I were to say, with this feature "block" "Diving for drachauqs" then every time that I reciecved this issue, it, would be dismissed, pulled form the bank, and replaced with a new issue.

This would be akin to the bait-and-switch tactics that politicians pull by adressing one issue instead of another one.

Perhaps it could go even further by allowing one to choose to enter the number of the issue that one wishes it to be replaced with, and as long as it is applicable, that would be the issue addressed instead.

'K, I know that this last past is wishul thinking, but what about the first part?

I know that it would take a loy of coding, bu do you think that if it gets enogh support that it might possibly find your way onto you to-do list Sal?

And what do my fellow players think (at least those who answer issues)?


Very Good Idea :wink:

Again, Qaaol, you have good ideas. There are some issues out there I hate with a PASSION (file-sharing, anyone? :? ) and it just irks me to see them day after day, puppet after puppet.

<---- pulls out the Goobergunchian Seal of Approval, made out of paper-mache remnant of the gay marriage issue, and puts it on the thread

This is an interesting idea that I really, really like.

Having it replace it with another issue would mean that the game update process would be lengthened quite a lot.
I don't know how an auto-dismiss system would work, so Sal will have to give you an answer on that.

Having it replace it with another issue would mean that the game update process would be lengthened quite a lot.
I don't know how an auto-dismiss system would work, so Sal will have to give you an answer on that.
How much longer?
I wouldn't mind longer updates if I never had to see "Diving for @@CURRENCY@@" again, or any clue that it was there.

Not bad Qaaol.

Kickity Kick.

I like it. I wouldn't have to listen to anyone whining about their TV shows anymore :D.

Ok, this has been added to a list of features to be considered in the future. In other words, I'm not even considering it now, but it has not been vetoed and will be dusted off at some point.

Ok, this has been added to a list of features to be considered in the future. In other words, I'm not even considering it now, but it has not been vetoed and will be dusted off at some point.

That's better than no. Yipee!

Ok, this has been added to a list of features to be considered in the future. In other words, I'm not even considering it now, but it has not been vetoed and will be dusted off at some point.

That's better than no. Yipee!
Yes, Thankee Sal. :D

Erm- how many years long is your feature to-do list at this point? :) :P

Ok, this has been added to a list of features to be considered in the future. In other words, I'm not even considering it now, but it has not been vetoed and will be dusted off at some point.

That's better than no. Yipee!
Yes, Thankee Sal. :D

Erm- how many years long is your feature to-do list at this point? :) :P

I got 30 something items on it (some are patches, and some are backend stuff). However, it is rapidly becoming shorter Wait? Am I allowed to say that, or does it give away too much about the move to Jolt?

I got 30 something items on it (some are patches, and some are backend stuff). However, it is rapidly becoming shorter 30 and shrinking? :twisted: Wow, you're efficient Sal. :shock:

Wait? Am I allowed to say that, or does it give away too much about the move to Jolt? You're notallowed to talk about the Jolt move? :o Why? :?

I think he means that the upgrades to NS are being made while they're on Jolt's servers.
Makes sense, Sal can tinker around with them without causing any disruption.