NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

I'm rather curious to know which bases determine the governmental corruption of a nationstate.

I'm looking for a more specific response than "the issues, n00b!!!". :wink:

Apologies if this has been asked before, a quick trawl through the fora didn't land an answer.

Antoine

Sorry, but that's a secret. 8)

Sorry, but that's a secret. 8)

Grrrr, we'll have to wait until NS becomes open source.

*waits*

and waits,

and waits

I don't know if this is what you're asking but I noticed that selecting two options on two issues put corrupt into my government's description:

#17, Corporations Demand Political Say, Opt. 1
#60, Supreme Court Nomination, Opt. 6

I don't know if this is what you're asking but I noticed that selecting two options on two issues put corrupt into my government's description:

#17, Corporations Demand Political Say, Opt. 1
#60, Supreme Court Nomination, Opt. 6

Thankyou: that was the kind of answer I was looking for. :)

I'm surprised that allowing The People to appoint their Supreme Court Justice directly is conducive to government corruption. I assumed that corruption would be an index of a government's quid pro quo'ing parties against the public interest: a government's slashing the tax on vodka in exchange for campaign funds from Smirnoff, for example. I was also rather wooed by the "separation of powers" argument for #60 Opt. 60: am I being a dope? :oops:

Antoine

I was also rather wooed by the "separation of powers" argument for #60 Opt. 60: am I being a dope?
In a word, NO.

What you are doing is making the assumption that the author of the issues thinks in RL terms. This game is based on the book, Jennifer Government, and so, like the book, the issues espouse similar twisted political philosophies which result in outcomes meant to be satirical.

What you are doing is making the assumption that the author of the issues thinks in RL terms. This game is based on the book, Jennifer Government, and so, like the book, the issues espouse similar twisted political philosophies which result in outcomes meant to be satirical.

Hmm, I'm not sure that I understand this. I think your diagnosis of my assumption is right (pretty much "Nationstates is a nation-management sim, which, reductionism and exaggeration notwithstanding, bears more than a casual relationship to Real Life"). However, the issue outcomes (both in terms of the visable indices of liberalism and the factbook blurb) generally seem pretty intuitive - the satire deriving from a reductio ad absurdum rather than some freedom-is-slavery-type inversion.

I suppose I'm just suggesting that the outcome of issue 60 opt. 6 seems counter-intuitive, especially given the generally common-sense-but-exaggerated climate of the game. The satirical bite of "if you allow The People to elect their judiciary, your Government will become corrupt" seems rather gummy, doesn't it? :?

(I know you know that, by the way. :wink: )

Antoine

Option 6 on that issue is not guaranteed to give you a corrupt government, it depends on numerous other interacting factors and decisions.