The Lordship of Sauron
10-03-2005, 16:37
I just kinda jumped into this game about 2 weeks back.
I love the premise, and it's interesting to see how, theoretically (at least to the author) certain choices would influence a nation's standing, statistically and otherwise! I look forward to each of the "choices" that get thrown at me, and generally just try to mix it up - see what comes out.
I've noticed, however, that in the vast majority of cases, what could be taken as the "conservative" choice has a negative cast to it, while the others are more even-keeled.
For example, the "language" premise-
_______________________________________________
"Fluency in foreign languages is imperative to education," says Professor Konrad Trax of The Lordship of Sauron University. "Learning a new tongue not only gives a child a practical, marketable skill, but also encourages compassion and understanding of foreign cultures. With so many nations in the world, I do insist that we increase government funding in these areas and make it a compulsory part of the curriculum. As we say in Ancient Maxtopian: Froggug sederty bungo-bungo!"
-or-
"To be frank, the need for outsiders' speak doesn't appeal to me in the slightest!" claims Pete Longfellow, a fierce patriot. "Making our children learn these languages is an affront to the basic civil rights of The Lordship of Sauron! What's more, this will encourage those damn foreigners to come here and take our jobs! I for one, will not stand for it! We can drop that area of education; it'll give us tax payers a bit of a breather for once. I've always said that we don't need any others but our own!"
_______________________________________________
Without even breaking a sweat, I can re-write the second option so that it doesn't make you into a huge ass for choosing it:
_______________________________________________
"To be frank, the so-called need to learn other languages doesn't seem to be that critical!" claims Pete Longfellow, a fierce patriot. "Making our children learn these languages seems like a meaningless requirement! Why can't we spend the money in question training our own citizens to be productive at their chosen vocation? I for one, will not stand for this movement! We can drop that area of education; it'll give us tax payers a bit of a breather for once. I don't see why people should be forced to learn a language that's not even ours."
_______________________________________________
It's basically the same idea, but without the rediculous "damn foreigners" comment, which I found to be in completely bad taste, and the "don't need any others but our own", which attaches a rather elitist mindset to the mere idea of not requiring other languages. We're not talking about a BAN, in this choice, just a non-requirement - it seems rather overkill to marry that simple option to such a load of baggage as you find in the original choice.
I suppose I feel that there are plenty of rational reasons, often enough, for picking the "conservative" choice - but they're often worded in the most laughably rediculous way!
In much the same vein, I can also turn the first option into just as much concentrated ridiculousness as the second one originally was:
_______________________________________________
"Fluency in foreign languages is a must-have for education," says Professor Konrad Trax of The Lordship of Sauron University. "If you have no desire to learn other tongues, then you have no place in my University! With so many nations in the world, I require that we increase government funding in these areas and make it a compulsory part of the curriculum. And if we make it a requirement for hiring into the workforce, we'll have a success on our hands! Let's see anyone refuse to diversify when faced with a jobless existance! As we say in Ancient Maxtopian: Froggug sederty bungo-bungo!"
_______________________________________________
I suppose I wouldn't mind so much if ALL the choices were written tongue-in-cheek, or if ALL the options were given a very neutral stance - but that's just not the case, in the majority of the "issues" that come up for my NationState.
Is there a reason (besides the most obvious hypothesis - that the author has a political bent that influences the way he words the issues) this is so?
No big deal why or how, it just makes me wonder.
I love the premise, and it's interesting to see how, theoretically (at least to the author) certain choices would influence a nation's standing, statistically and otherwise! I look forward to each of the "choices" that get thrown at me, and generally just try to mix it up - see what comes out.
I've noticed, however, that in the vast majority of cases, what could be taken as the "conservative" choice has a negative cast to it, while the others are more even-keeled.
For example, the "language" premise-
_______________________________________________
"Fluency in foreign languages is imperative to education," says Professor Konrad Trax of The Lordship of Sauron University. "Learning a new tongue not only gives a child a practical, marketable skill, but also encourages compassion and understanding of foreign cultures. With so many nations in the world, I do insist that we increase government funding in these areas and make it a compulsory part of the curriculum. As we say in Ancient Maxtopian: Froggug sederty bungo-bungo!"
-or-
"To be frank, the need for outsiders' speak doesn't appeal to me in the slightest!" claims Pete Longfellow, a fierce patriot. "Making our children learn these languages is an affront to the basic civil rights of The Lordship of Sauron! What's more, this will encourage those damn foreigners to come here and take our jobs! I for one, will not stand for it! We can drop that area of education; it'll give us tax payers a bit of a breather for once. I've always said that we don't need any others but our own!"
_______________________________________________
Without even breaking a sweat, I can re-write the second option so that it doesn't make you into a huge ass for choosing it:
_______________________________________________
"To be frank, the so-called need to learn other languages doesn't seem to be that critical!" claims Pete Longfellow, a fierce patriot. "Making our children learn these languages seems like a meaningless requirement! Why can't we spend the money in question training our own citizens to be productive at their chosen vocation? I for one, will not stand for this movement! We can drop that area of education; it'll give us tax payers a bit of a breather for once. I don't see why people should be forced to learn a language that's not even ours."
_______________________________________________
It's basically the same idea, but without the rediculous "damn foreigners" comment, which I found to be in completely bad taste, and the "don't need any others but our own", which attaches a rather elitist mindset to the mere idea of not requiring other languages. We're not talking about a BAN, in this choice, just a non-requirement - it seems rather overkill to marry that simple option to such a load of baggage as you find in the original choice.
I suppose I feel that there are plenty of rational reasons, often enough, for picking the "conservative" choice - but they're often worded in the most laughably rediculous way!
In much the same vein, I can also turn the first option into just as much concentrated ridiculousness as the second one originally was:
_______________________________________________
"Fluency in foreign languages is a must-have for education," says Professor Konrad Trax of The Lordship of Sauron University. "If you have no desire to learn other tongues, then you have no place in my University! With so many nations in the world, I require that we increase government funding in these areas and make it a compulsory part of the curriculum. And if we make it a requirement for hiring into the workforce, we'll have a success on our hands! Let's see anyone refuse to diversify when faced with a jobless existance! As we say in Ancient Maxtopian: Froggug sederty bungo-bungo!"
_______________________________________________
I suppose I wouldn't mind so much if ALL the choices were written tongue-in-cheek, or if ALL the options were given a very neutral stance - but that's just not the case, in the majority of the "issues" that come up for my NationState.
Is there a reason (besides the most obvious hypothesis - that the author has a political bent that influences the way he words the issues) this is so?
No big deal why or how, it just makes me wonder.