NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been wanting to get this out of system for around 3 months, now, so please do not be offended by my bluntness, or language. Those of you who know me, know that I am being very uncharacteristic in this thread. Thank you.

International Incidents and NationStates RP'ing in general have many faults. That is a given with anything like this, a game with so many people and personalities. With every two people, there is a meeting, which can end in symbiosis or conflict. Often the latter occurs, bringing two nations or people a mutual dislike of one another.

With every such conflict, an issue occurs. That is, with a very large estimate of 200 people RP'ing on NationStates, there are 39,800 possible conflicts. Again estimating, approximatly 1/4th of people conflict. So, there will be about 9,950 issues. That is quite a few! However, many of these issues are the same.

At the heart of International Incidents are a few repeated issues, issues that make up most of the 9,950 that happen. These are linked together, inorexably, in a startling way. In reality, all 9,950 issues are the same. At the heart of I.I. is a single problem.

The problem is this; that many people want NationStates to mirror reality, while many do not. Yes, in the center of I.I. is that problem. It is connected to GodModding, as those who accuse believe that others are not mirroring reality. It is related to Puppet-Wanking, for in Real Life one cannot add another nation to their own. People are going to protest this, one of m central points. Why? Because they do not want to admit that they want NS to mirror/or not to mirror, Real Life. Some nations are inventions and people who RP nations that are based on true nations are angered. Nukes, another issue, can only be possessed b certain nations, some say. Other protest that NS is not RL, so they can have nukes. A resonably good RP degenerates into a flame fest.

Why have I gone into that? After all my title was "The First World Issue". However, that is it. My point is meant to solve this issue once and for all.

In RL, nations are classified in catagories, such as "First World" and "Third World". I find these classifications biased, but I must use them so that certain people will understand. In NS, there are no such catagories, no matter what people say! Yes. What decides a "First World" country? Power? Economy? Find me a nation that RP's without them and I will worship you.

The problem is that no one will be willing, nor is willing, to RP a "Third World" country. All nations want to be like the modern US or their own version of it. So, older nations protest that they "are big and powerful" and smaller nations say "but we are the future". I don't give a damn about your stupid excuses.

Without "Third World" countries, I.I. is like a nation with only an Upper Class, a nation without laborurs. It is a machine with only the fancy parts and not the everday, regular, parts that the machine needs to run. It is a failiure.

I don't plan to give you a solution because no idiot will ever listen to me. It is your problem. Solve it yourself.

[/rant]

The problem is that no one will be willing, nor is willing, to RP a "Third World" country. All nations want to be like the modern US or their own version of it. So, older nations protest that they "are big and powerful" and smaller nations say "but we are the future". I don't give a damn about your stupid excuses.

Without "Third World" countries, I.I. is like a nation with only an Upper Class, a nation without laborurs. It is a machine with only the fancy parts and not the everday, regular, parts that the machine needs to run. It is a failiure.

I don't plan to give you a solution because no idiot will ever listen to me. It is your problem. Solve it yourself.

[/rant]

I think I know two reasons why this is so.

First, if someone plays a Third World country, they will be easily conquered or over-run by "First World" warmonger nations. What fun would it be to be suddenly the target of large warmongering nations just because you're a Third World country?

Second, everybody feels and believes that they must be First World nation to give themselves more equal footing in defense aganist invasions than if they were Third World countries.



The only way to solve this would be to implement a new code of ethics or create a new "taboo". If we could implement serious consquences (such as massive invasion of offending nation, or institute a mass IGNORE of the offending nation) aganist any First World nation that invades Third World nation, then we'd be seeing more people willing to play Third World nation.

It is in human nature to always want to win, as humans are a very competitive species.

Sharina, I knew you would be the first to reply to this!

In all truth, you restated my points clearly and truthfully. Though I may not have said that, I meant it. Thank you.

As to the mass "taboo", what is that, but a rule implemented by RP'ers? Is this not Freeform Role-play? What will do will cause strife and discord. Though it would work ver well to solve the "Third World" problem, it would cause others.

Sharina, I knew you would be the first to reply to this!

In all truth, you restated my points clearly and truthfully. Though I may not have said that, I meant it. Thank you.

As to the mass "taboo", what is that, but a rule implemented by RP'ers? Is this not Freeform Role-play? What will do will cause strife and discord. Though it would work ver well to solve the "Third World" problem, it would cause others.

You're welcome. :)

As for the "taboo" thing, it would be the same as us treating god-modders, cheaters, flamers, etc. It'd be the similiar principle.

I can see a compromise, though. Any "agreed" invasions of Third World players by a First World player can and should be accepted, but any "spur of the moment" invasions of Third World players by super-powers or First World players should be taboo'ed aganist or IGNORED or whatever.

You're welcome.

As to your idea, I think I can understand it now. Looks good to me! Good job!

However, 2 new problems:

1)To get "First World" RP'ers to agree to this "taboo".
2)To get new players to even be "Third World" at all. As you said, humans are competetive, and "Third World" countries are not very high on the scale.

The thing is NS is entirely freeform RP. People are going to RP what ever they want to. I have seen several nations that RP as a "third world" terrorist nations, not many, but a few. The thing is, I do not believe that you could get enough people together to empliment such mass IGNOREs or anything else like that. You have a hand full of Alliances that might support something like that but there are many more that would opoose it. I dont think im making my point very well. I suppose I am saying that people just do not get along. Its the one constant thing in the real world and the NS world or Universe in cases like my nation. These conflicts are going to happen no matter what rules we might try to put into effect. As with all games there are problems. I guess i have somewhat of a negative outlook on things though.

From my point of view, we've always held that the oldest nations are typically the most powerful, and this is usually the case- the older the nation, the more likely it has the infrastructure needed to maximize the resources it has and thus its economic potential. Personally, whenever I examine nations the only thing I look at is population, because the bigger it is the older it is and because NS' stats are way too whimsical to believe.

However, Yarfor, while your idea is interesting, I doubt it could ever become reality because nobody here ever wants to play poor, nor should we force anyone to. This is freeform- if everyone wants to play strong, I say we should let them. Besides, the only thing I really care about is if the other person is a decent RPer- if they can play along well, I don't care what they RP their status as.

My personal view is that NationStates is not a "world" but an elite subset of nations removed from a greater whole. It'd be kind of like joining the UN, only that membership in the NS world doesn't mean that one is going to get resolutions enforced on them that they don't like.

From my point of view, we've always held that the oldest nations are typically the most powerful, and this is usually the case- the older the nation, the more likely it has the infrastructure needed to maximize the resources it has and thus its economic potential. Personally, whenever I examine nations the only thing I look at is population, because the bigger it is the older it is and because NS' stats are way too whimsical to believe.

However, Yarfor, while your idea is interesting, I doubt it could ever become reality because nobody here ever wants to play poor, nor should we force anyone to. This is freeform- if everyone wants to play strong, I say we should let them. Besides, the only thing I really care about is if the other person is a decent RPer- if they can play along well, I don't care what they RP their status as.

My personal view is that NationStates is not a "world" but an elite subset of nations removed from a greater whole. It'd be kind of like joining the UN, only that membership in the NS world doesn't mean that one is going to get resolutions enforced on them that they don't like.

I agree. He said basicly what i wanted too, but I didnt say it as well. The way they RP is what matters the most. I have found that there are many groups and alliances that RP together because they can agree on the way they want to RP. Other nations that do not agree with just get ignored, but thats fine, why RP with someone if you don not enjoy it.

From my point of view, we've always held that the oldest nations are typically the most powerful, and this is usually the case- the older the nation, the more likely it has the infrastructure needed to maximize the resources it has and thus its economic potential. Personally, whenever I examine nations the only thing I look at is population, because the bigger it is the older it is and because NS' stats are way too whimsical to believe.

Not true.

A 2004 nation can topple a 2003 or even a 2002 nation.

Its all about strategy, tactics, and planning. Take Feline Catfish for example. He is a 2005 nation, but he made early-2004 and mid-2004 nations to back down like Ankhmet.

Not true.

A 2004 nation can topple a 2003 or even a 2002 nation.

Its all about strategy, tactics, and planning. Take Feline Catfish for example. He is a 2005 nation, but he made early-2004 and mid-2004 nations to back down like Ankhmet.

I think that that has to do with his RP skills. He knew what he was doing and the effect was favorable.

Not true.

A 2004 nation can topple a 2003 or even a 2002 nation.

Its all about strategy, tactics, and planning. Take Feline Catfish for example. He is a 2005 nation, but he made early-2004 and mid-2004 nations to back down like Ankhmet.

I agree, but what I said is that older nations are typically more powerful- that doesn't mean that they're smart. We've always known here that strategy wins the wars, but having a little extra manpower does help if you know how to use it.