NationStates Jolt Archive

I think Nation States could take advantage of mob intelligence when it comes to the issue questions. In addition to the option to select an alternative or to dismiss an issue question, Nation States could offer a "suggest a new policy response..." input field. This would have no effect on the nation's development, but the suggested response would be recorded by the question. Then, moderators could review the most contentious issues (i.e. those with the most suggested responses), under the assumption that the existing options must not be adequate if so many people are seeing the need to suggest their own. In this way, the issues in most need of fixing would rise to the top and slowly improve.

In this way, mob intelligence could be tapped to improve the database of issues, with minimal technical overhead (since it's basically a modified commenting system) and administrative efficiency (since the issues would be naturally sorted with those most in need of review having the most suggested options and, thus, rising to the top of the review pile). Frivolous issue suggestions could be kept to a minimum by clearly disclaiming that suggested issues will have no effect on the nation's development (so people would only suggest issues when they really can't decide on one of the existing ones to go with).

For example: Young children are gambling in seedy casinos, and you're given two options: 1) Ban gambling entirely, or 2) Let eight year olds gamble. If everyone who saw this question had the option of suggesting their own response, I imagine this issue would quickly rise to the top of the 'review' pile with the vast majority of suggested responses being some variation of "crack down on minority gambling." This option could be added, the question cleared of its suggested responses, and re-added to the issue pool with three options instead of two (beginning the process anew).

I doubt the'd do this. Not sure if it was suggested before but it would be a major code change for the game.

Firstly. some issues (such as the gambling one you mention) have response options deliberately designed to force you to choose between two extremes. Remember you can always choose to dismiss the issue. Having an option whereby you can back out of this dilemma sort of ruins the point.

I like the idea in principle, though. However, I'd look at it from a different point of view; there are issues with weak responses (though they might have strong effects on nation stats) that could be improved with a third option (as it's often the issues with only two options). The majority of these are the first 30 that Max Barry initially put in the game, and haven't been altered since.

But...there's already a way of suggesting changes to issues, and it's called the Got Issues? forum...and most suggestions are outright rejected by the mods, due to, as Shazbotdom has said, major coding changes being required to implement them.

Then, moderators could review the most contentious issues (i.e. those with the most suggested responses), under the assumption that the existing options must not be adequate if so many people are seeing the need to suggest their own. In this way, the issues in most need of fixing would rise to the top and slowly improve.Except that only a few Moderators even have access to the editor, and only one is highly experienced in issue editing.

with minimal technical overhead (since it's basically a modified commenting system)A comment frequently said by people that have no idea how hodge-podge the code for the game is.

Frivolous issue suggestions could be kept to a minimum by clearly disclaiming that suggested issues will have no effect on the nation's development (so people would only suggest issues when they really can't decide on one of the existing ones to go with).You'd be surprised...